I realize it is an inconvenience early in the bball season if you have players still playing football. But even so, IMO the heat concerns and potential health risks should outweigh that when making season limit decisions.

Ive never agreed with 4 teamsfrom each district in the playoffs. Thats the only problem Ive seen with this 6 class system is that the districts will be smaller and still 4 teams will be coming from each district that means its a good posibility that a 1-9 team will meet a district champ in the first round as long as there 1 win is a district win and IMO you will see that alot if this goes into effect. Heres an honest ? has a 4 seed ever beat a 1 seed?

Heres an honest ? has a 4 seed ever beat a 1 seed?

 

Yes, fairly often. Some NKY districts have swept the 1A opening rounds in the past and just two years ago Boyd Co beat Bell Co in the first round.

Yes, fairly often. Some NKY districts have swept the 1A opening rounds in the past and just two years ago Boyd Co beat Bell Co in the first round.

 

 

It has also occurred a few times with Trinity's district with the NKY 4A teams. Shelby Co/Conner being the most glaring example.

Ive never agreed with 4 teamsfrom each district in the playoffs. Thats the only problem Ive seen with this 6 class system is that the districts will be smaller and still 4 teams will be coming from each district that means its a good posibility that a 1-9 team will meet a district champ in the first round as long as there 1 win is a district win and IMO you will see that alot if this goes into effect. Heres an honest ? has a 4 seed ever beat a 1 seed?

 

The #4 seed in 4A R4D7 beat the #1 seed from R4D8 just this past season.

2C,

 

I am with lneck, ain't going to happen (but should).

 

However, a couple of more years down the road I think there will be a strong push to eliminate one round of the postseason because too many teams are getting in the playoffs and because of heat related issues.

Isn't the idea behind the movement to give more teams opportunity??? If they cut the playoffs down from four to two doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Isn't the idea behind the movement to give more teams opportunity??? If they cut the playoffs down from four to two doesn't that defeat the purpose?

 

I'm thinking the same thing. I'd like for more teams to play MORE games.

I have noted several times that 6 classes is way too diluted IMO.

We should have no more than 5 classes and if they want to make the top one a super class with less teams than the others thats fine.

 

Looking at the rough draft Sandman constucted I believe it went to roughly about 25? teams if you go down far enough to include Male. Or they could designate the first 16 largest and let anyone else who wants to join in the super class to do so

 

Split the rest into 4 even classes and don't let them move up - keep the classes firm. As far as # of teams in the playoffs, most discussions on going to additional classes seemed to favor or assume? only 4 teams in each district. This would keep open plenty of other games for traditional rivals, money games, etc that might be lost to teams in this realignment and potential longer travel to district games, less gates, etc.

 

So if a new alignment IS set up with 4 team (maybe a few oddball 5 team) districts, then right away that gives a clear picture of playoff participation. If 4 district teams go - that means practically everyone is in. If only the top 2 district teams go - then that basically cuts out one playoff round.

 

That would be sort of a tradeoff really - you have fewer teams in your class now and therefore "statistically" a better chance to get to the finals, BUT you must be good enough to qualify as one of the two best teams in your district. That sounds like a pretty fair equation - what do you guys think?

Basically everyone in? OR only about half the schools in each class?

 

[i guess thats 16 teams per class X 4 = 64 playoff teams plus however many qualify in the superclass. As compared with our current 4 class total of 128 teams which started the playoffs last year]

 

Woody Jr

 

 

...let me know if I messed up any numbers

I can't imagine going from 4 classes to 5 or 6 and then eliminating one bit of revenue. This is being done so more teams will be included in the playoffs. More opportunitiy does not equal less games. The system will stay the same as far as games are concerned I am afraid, like it or not. After looking at all the models, 5 or 6 classes evenly divided is the best solution if we are not going to stick with our current system, and we all know we're not. A super class will not happen because of one word IMO, Male. So get the idea out of your heads fellas.

Like I said, this is just my opinion. I'm putting money on 6 evenly divided classes myself.

I can't imagine going from 4 classes to 5 or 6 and then eliminating one bit of revenue. This is being done so more teams will be included in the playoffs. More opportunitiy does not equal less games. The system will stay the same as far as games are concerned I am afraid, like it or not. After looking at all the models, 5 or 6 classes evenly divided is the best solution if we are not going to stick with our current system, and we all know we're not. A super class will not happen because of one word IMO, Male. So get the idea out of your heads fellas.

Like I said, this is just my opinion. I'm putting money on 6 evenly divided classes myself.

 

 

I have no problem with everyone in the playoffs. But do you think the 4 team districts are what will occur?

What is it "about" Male that will stop a super group IYO ? - they do want in or not, or something else?

 

thanx Woody jr

I have no problem with everyone in the playoffs. But do you think the 4 team districts are what will occur?

What is it "about" Male that will stop a super group IYO ? - they do want in or not, or something else?

 

thanx Woody jr

I think they want in, and if you let them play up, it opens pandoras box. Teams will be lobbying to play up or down and other teams will be lobbying to disallow it. It'll be a mess. I say if you do a super class, and I am not opposed to it, it will be very tricky. The best idea I've heard would be to make it the ONLY class that teams can play up in, and once go up, you can't go back down for an extended period. Say two cycles of the normal reclassification for size or more. I hate four teams per district, but there again, the reclassification is about "opportunity". If almost all schools get to the playoffs then there is more "opportunity" for schools to be proud of something. I have no problem with the two per district

idea, matter of fact, it made alot of teams seasons just to be able to say "we made the playoffs". But those days are gone my friends, there is no way that 3/4th's of the schools are going to say we don't care about making the playoffs. There are 217 football teams. Presently, we have 8 districts, and 4 reps per district, thats 36 teams per class. 32 X 4 = 128 teams. I think it's safe to say that most people voting want more than 128 teams in.

With 5 even districts, we have 160 teams in the playoffs.

With 6 even districts, we have 192 teams in the playoffs.

5 and a super class, 176 out of 217.

4 and a super class, 144 out of 217.

 

I don't see them going to all this trouble for 4 normal and one super. It does not make sense with the philosophy being used to get us there. So here are your choices, you tell me.

 

Presently we have 128 teams making the playoffs.

With 4 and a super class, 144

With 5 even districts, 160 out of 217.

With 5 and a super class, 176 out of 217.

With 6 even districts, 192 out of 217.

We currently have about 60 percent of the teams making the playoffs. I think that is more than enough, although I'm sure that a majority of the state's coaches (who seem to be the ones that are pushing five or six classes) would disagree.

Since one of the big issues with football coaches and the current system is that it is unfair in A and AAAA because of the wide disparity in the size of school range and the belief that "size matters" in football, its hard for any coach to argue against allowing a team to play up. If a smaller school wants to take on the size disparity issue and play up, how can anyone reasonably argue against it? Logistically its not near the issue that some people want to make of it. Furthermore, regardless if we go to any of the bantered about reclassification models, there will be several schools placed in districts with almost bizarre travel requirements, which costs big money and results in greater time for kids to be on busses. No one likes their kids getting home from games at 1 in the morning. Thus, allowing schools to play up if it helps eliminate widely spread out districts only makes sense.

 

The schools wanting to move up do so by a certain date by sealed notice and their election is "good" for the entire term of the district sizing. About the only complaint would be from the larger schools that can't beat the smaller school moving up and if they can't do that, then they probably weren't going to win the state championship anyway.

 

Moving down is a non-starter. Since size of school is considered a factor in the level playing field argument, they will never allow a school to play down and that makes simple sense.

Since one of the big issues with football coaches and the current system is that it is unfair in A and AAAA because of the wide disparity in the size of school range and the belief that "size matters" in football, its hard for any coach to argue against allowing a team to play up. If a smaller school wants to take on the size disparity issue and play up, how can anyone reasonably argue against it? Logistically its not near the issue that some people want to make of it. Furthermore, regardless if we go to any of the bantered about reclassification models, there will be several schools placed in districts with almost bizarre travel requirements, which costs big money and results in greater time for kids to be on busses. No one likes their kids getting home from games at 1 in the morning. Thus, allowing schools to play up if it helps eliminate widely spread out districts only makes sense.

 

The schools wanting to move up do so by a certain date by sealed notice and their election is "good" for the entire term of the district sizing. About the only complaint would be from the larger schools that can't beat the smaller school moving up and if they can't do that, then they probably weren't going to win the state championship anyway.

 

Moving down is a non-starter. Since size of school is considered a factor in the level playing field argument, they will never allow a school to play down and that makes simple sense.

 

 

ln,

 

Yes, as lots of us have noted on here concerning a possible reclassification - some or many teams outside of the triangle could be faced with long travel, etc. so the idea of playing up is rightly weighed as we had it before.

A possible problem though is if a school choosing to play up then puts other school(s) into that same predicament travel wise. The more we cut the numbers in each class, the more each single change will have an impact on everyone else.

Thats one reason I disagree with a 16 team 1A class - I'm afraid they are too susceptable to consolidations, dropping football, low numbers, money problems, etc.

 

Woody Jr