Get over yourself! Not all of us have that mentality. Do we think that it will make things easier for those schools that have been close in 4A recently but just not up to beating the Big 3, yes. However if this is going to help more kids overall without specifically discriminating against a particular group then I am fine with it. Will I miss some of the teams that were in 4A like Dixie Heights, yes; however this has the potential to be extremely beneficial to football in this state so I am not about to talk down about it.

 

I would appreciate it if you would avoid labelling everyone in this great city in the same way. :irked:

 

Terrible, TERRIBLE idea....what ever happened to earning something?

 

All I know is...it doesn't matter how you divide these teams and to whatever many classes...the complaining will still continue.

 

What better way for one or the other to get weakend than to play each other. Let the big schools batter each other senseless so everyone else has a chance.

 

They seem to be among the most vocal against.

They seem to be among the most vocal against.

 

 

Has it ever occurred to you that I have changed my mind? Do I need to send you a memo so you can add it to your action-item list of things to update? If so I will be sure to do so as it comes up.

 

And the quote you have right there of MINE actually is taken out of context. Mine has more to do with the setup of putting Trinity in the same district as St.x and Male so as to keep clip the wings of the traditional powers by making them play each other in the playoffs sooner. There is no geographic reason in the city of Louisville with the number of schools of "similar" size near Trinity for us to be in the other district. Would I like our district to be tougher? Yes I would, however what you quoted of ME right there was NOT pertaining to whether we should have 6 classes or not.

 

 

If you are going to quote me at least do the background on it.

Great post. What people do not understand that this is about helping CHILDREN!!! :banana:

Oh, come on now with this pull-the-heartstrings kind of stuff. This is just as much about adults wanting an easier route to a state title.

Just one man's humble opinion, but here it is :

 

More classes means more teams competing for a championship, which means more exposure for those schools who are not fortunite to be a traditional power. More exposure means more student/athletes having an oppurtunity to open college recruiters eyes. Thus, having an oppurtunity to get to the next level and obtain a college degree. After-all, isn't that the MOST important goal of high school athletics, to open doors for student/athletes to go to college. Just one man's thoughts.

I have a hard time believing that more classes will give more kids "exposure" to college recruiters. If a player is good enough, he will be seen, whether there is one class or six.

Get over yourself! Not all of us have that mentality. Do we think that it will make things easier for those schools that have been close in 4A recently but just not up to beating the Big 3, yes.

I agree that not everyone shares that mentality, but I read it often here.

Personally, and possibly selfishly, I don't like it.

 

If you want to be a true Champion you have to beat great teams. Watering down the playing field so more teams can win lessens the meaning of the victory.

 

Games like Beechwood and New Cath were the best entertainment of the year. Not to mention money makers. Great competetors, and always close games. I will hate to see that rivalry go.

Watering down the playing field so more teams can win lessens the meaning of the victory.

That's not why it was done. Plain and simple. I'm not a huge fan of the change, but know it was a way around disaster IMO...

That's not why it was done. Plain and simple. I'm not a huge fan of the change, but know it was a way around disaster IMO...

 

 

I know that is not why it was done. That is why I said "selfishly" I didnt like it. It is just one of the bad results of change.

I know that is not why it was done. That is why I said "selfishly" I didnt like it. It is just one of the bad results of change.

"possibly selfishly"...

I agree that not everyone shares that mentality, but I read it often here.

 

 

It is the more voiced mentality yes.

I have a hard time believing that more classes will give more kids "exposure" to college recruiters. If a player is good enough, he will be seen, whether there is one class or six.

I agree. Coaches have a huge impact on getting their kids on the college radar.

Just one man's humble opinion, but here it is :

 

More classes means more teams competing for a championship, which means more exposure for those schools who are not fortunite to be a traditional power. More exposure means more student/athletes having an oppurtunity to open college recruiters eyes. Thus, having an oppurtunity to get to the next level and obtain a college degree. After-all, isn't that the MOST important goal of high school athletics, to open doors for student/athletes to go to college. Just one man's thoughts.

 

While I respect your opinion and agree with the 6 classes, I disgree with your logic supporting the 6 classes. You mention that some schools are not fortunate to be a traditional power. Fortune, if you are implying luck or some advantage, has nothing to do with the success enjoyed by the traditional powers. And that difference in thinking goes a long way to explaining the different levels of success. I am not one to believe that all programs place the same committment to winning or that all kids at the different schools work just as hard as one another. I know that to be a fact. As some supporters of other schools have been willing to admit, some administrations just don't place the emphasis on football that they do for other sports, be it basketball, soccer or baseball. Yet when the football teams do not win championships, they cry "unfair". Some supporters of other schools admit that their kids do not put the time into the off season conditioning that other schools do. Yet some cry "unfair". Fortune has very little to do with the success. Hard work and committment do however.

 

And I am amongst the folks that think that college recruiters will find the talented athletes regardless of teams' successes. If you want me to take the time to research the non state championship winning teams that have placed athletes in D1 programs of the last 10 years, I will do so when I have the time. Likewise, if you want me to research the state winning championship teams that failed to send anyone or very few to D1 colleges, I will do so when I have time. But I do know that my senior year when we won state, we sent no one to a D1 school, yet there were several D1 scholarships awarded to athletes on non championship teams. Thus the recruiters were able to find them nonetheless. X and T have regularly failed to have anyone or more than 1 athlete get a D1 scholarship on state championship teams by the way, further solidifying my argument.

 

6 classes is justified by one simple reason: the disparity of school size in 1A and 4A was just to extreme and way chosen to resolve it was adding two more classes and evenly divide the number of schools amongst those 6 classes. Were there other options available? Sure like creating a super class for the largest 20 schools and a small class for the smallest 20 schools and dividing the rest in the remaining 4 classes (which would have weakened the "watered down" argument). But the KHSAA decided not to consider that route for now. They could have left it at 4 classes and divided the schools not evenly, but used a size disparity by percentage method to divide the schools. They also decided not to consider it.

Observations:

1. The current system provides 4 classes with 32 playoff teams in each. Of those approximately 1/3 have .500 or less winning percentage. So the current playoff system allows too many poor team into the playoffs.

2. If the future 6 class system allows 32 per class into the playoffs, then 192 of 214 statewide schools will make the playoffs. About 90% in, and 10% out. This make no sense to me. Playoffs are not only a venue to showcase your team while playing for a title, but it is supposed to be a reward for a successful season.

3. Ohio has 6 divisions, but there are 719 football playing schools in Ohio, 120 schools per division.

I continue to be amazed with those that are against the recent realignment.

 

I see no negatives. None. Sports is an extra curicular activity. One that helps build character, commitment, and introduces one to compeitition. All of those things can still be accomplished if the student/team plays in a class with fewer teams. So now two more teams will end the year with wins. I don't see how that prevents kids from learning the hard lessons of life that you're not always a winner. My experience has been that most kids handle losing better than winning anyway, so maybe those extra two teams that end the year on victories will somehow help those kids to learn to deal with success.

 

Also, while I don't think it is necessary to justify Kentucky's actions by looking at what other states do (what is that teaching our children? that we should only do things if other states do them?), only 4 other states have 4 or fewer classes of football. Kentucky is ranked 25th out of 50 states in population, so I don't see a problem with 6 classes as compared to the other 46 states that have more than 4 classes.

 

Finally, why does everyone think it's all about T and X. For some it may be. But what about teams like Williamsburg, Paintsville, Hazard, Harlan, Fairview etc.... Those schools with smaller A populations have such small boy populations that it's almost impossible for them to compete with the larger A schools. It allows the smallest schools in Kentucky to compete on a more even footing. It also narrows the disparity between top and bottom in all classes, which theoretically should make for more competitive post seasons.

 

I think it's a good idea. And with all due respect, I think those that are so against it, are being narrow minded and have only their own selfish interests at heart.

Observations:

1. The current system provides 4 classes with 32 playoff teams in each. Of those approximately 1/3 have .500 or less winning percentage. So the current playoff system allows too many poor team into the playoffs.

2. If the future 6 class system allows 32 per class into the playoffs, then 192 of 214 statewide schools will make the playoffs. About 90% in, and 10% out. This make no sense to me. Playoffs are not only a venue to showcase your team while playing for a title, but it is supposed to be a reward for a successful season.

3. Ohio has 6 divisions, but there are 719 football playing schools in Ohio, 120 schools per division.

and a computer decides if you are a good enough team to make the playoffs.... Indiana, which is right next to Ohio, lets everyone in... My point, quoting the way another state handles division and playoffs, when they use totally different systems for playoff purposes is a mute point. For everyone that supports your argument, their is one that dismisses it.

 

I understand that they have 719 schools, and 6 classes in Ohio. Tell me about the size disparity in these classes. Then maybe I'll support that argument. As it is, all you guys who are opposed to this idea do is quote class sizes. If you want to win those of us over who think there is a problem, quote size disparity and show that it is similar to the situation in our state. That is, if you can find a similar size percentage disparity.