I agree with you, although it's hardly irrelevant. The procedure is important to clarify for anyone who isn't as familiar with how realignment went as others.

 

True.

So are you going to foot the bill for transportation? Will the KHSAA? How to do propose to nullify transportation costs, because that is the obvious obstacle before the logistical argument can be dismissed.

 

No solution is perfect but we need to avoid any circumstances where grown men and women make decisions at the expense of the children they are supposed to be looking out for.

 

To answer your question, you tell everyone in your school/the program that we have additional transportation costs (that WE all have to overcome) but we also have a better chance to win the state championship.

No solution is perfect but we need to avoid any circumstances where grown men and women make decisions at the expense of the children they are supposed to be looking out for.

 

To answer your question, you tell everyone in your school/the program that we have additional transportation costs (that WE all have to overcome) but we also have a better chance to win the state championship.

 

But are those transportation costs necessary, when there are teams closer to you requiring less transportation money, and that extra transportation money could therefore be utilized elsewhere. I think that many in the program/ school district would say no.

My point is, you cant just dismiss transportation costs when dividing up the divisions and classes. It would be ideal if money wasn't an issue, but it is. If you are in a division where 3 of the 4 teams are an hour away, that is going to cost significantly more money than if a school was 10 or 15 minutes away. Especially in school districts where money is tight, that money has to come from somewhere. if you are fortunate enough to have a strong booster program, its a null issue. However, that isn't always the case and transportation costs have to come from school funds. This means that you are taking money away from students who don't play sports, to pay for students who do play sports. Maybe I am wrong, but I have a hard time seeing this going over well.

Would the system, of playing down during the regular season (using power points to qualify) however when the playoffs comes, you play schools close to your attendance?

 

I know VA does this, not saying it right or wrong, but something that schools with transportation hardships do, its mainly seen for large schools west of Roanoke

No solution is perfect but we need to avoid any circumstances where grown men and women make decisions at the expense of the children they are supposed to be looking out for.

To answer your question, you tell everyone in your school/the program that we have additional transportation costs (that WE all have to overcome) but we also have a better chance to win the state championship.

 

Also, if the goal is to look out for the children, as a student body and not just an athletic program, then wouldn't it be more practical to minimize athletic expenses so that the school district can put more money into the school district as a whole?

Also, if the goal is to look out for the children, as a student body and not just an athletic program, then wouldn't it be more practical to minimize athletic expenses so that the school district can put more money into the school district as a whole?

 

I think to some extent we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If you are in a 6 team district that means you have 5 district games. One year you will have 3 away and the other 2 away. Lets say the distance is 171 miles for a district game vs 35 (just pulling this out of my tail) there is a considerable difference...I agree. However, this is not a budget buster. You're not playing 10 district games on the road. If the extra 1000 breaks the district then the issue ISN'T sports and travel it's a much bigger problem. Travel isn't really the issue IMO in several cases, but it makes for good smoke screen not to play in a tough district when the move up in class could make for an easier district overall. Just saying...

I think to some extent we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. If you are in a 6 team district that means you have 5 district games. One year you will have 3 away and the other 2 away. Lets say the distance is 171 miles for a district game vs 35 (just pulling this out of my tail) there is a considerable difference...I agree. However, this is not a budget buster. You're not playing 10 district games on the road. If the extra 1000 breaks the district then the issue ISN'T sports and travel it's a much bigger problem. Travel isn't really the issue IMO in several cases, but it makes for good smoke screen not to play in a tough district when the move up in class could make for an easier district overall. Just saying...

 

Well stated.

Interesting conversations...........and in reality they all point to dumping this 6 class cluster............Going back to 4 classes (creating more schools per class, larger districts with natural rivals, much less class jumping)...........seems like an easy fix......................................................but will not happen!

What solves the transportation problem for schools not having many their size near them is to go to CONFERENCES which are based on geography rather than DISTRICTS.

 

This, however, does involve having to use a computer system that assigns points for wins (maybe even close defeats?). You would get points for every win and points for every win of every opponent you beat. Teams you beat and their wins would be assigned a coefficient based on their size -- so if you beat a 6A team you could get 1.6 points whereas beating a 1A team would only give you 1.1 points. Sorry--I'm sure there's a better algorithm out there to use than that, but it's just an example.

 

I could even see giving a lower class team points for even coming CLOSE (within 7 points?) to beating a higher class team. That would be to encourage teams not to just schedule lower class teams thinking easier wins is the only way to go.

 

Your 'Conference' would consist of maybe 25 schools in close proximity regardless of size. The KHSAA would assign each school to play the 5 (or 6 or 7) schools closest to them in size possible within that geographic radius. If a smaller school with a very strong program (like Belfry, Central, etc.) would rather play larger schools in their conference than those assigned by the KHSAA they could do that as well per an agreement with said school.

 

This is probably the way they do it in Ohio. I know there are times with this system a team will go 9-1 or 8-2 and not make the playoffs, but I'm sure that just means they tried too hard to get wins by scheduling teams that end up with few wins rather than playing stronger teams to which they might lose.

Interesting conversations...........and in reality they all point to dumping this 6 class cluster............Going back to 4 classes (creating more schools per class, larger districts with natural rivals, much less class jumping)...........seems like an easy fix......................................................but will not happen!

 

Right, we either need to go back to four classes (and then maybe four teams per district is okay) or if we want to stay with 6 classes we DEFINITELY should make it top two teams per district only advancing to the playoffs.

 

Essentially we have the inmates running the asylum today in KY high school football. I don't mean the KHSAA, I mean all the Supers, School Districts, and weak sister head football coaches that all like padding their resumes with playoff appearances.

What solves the transportation problem for schools not having many their size near them is to go to CONFERENCES which are based on geography rather than DISTRICTS.

 

This, however, does involve having to use a computer system that assigns points for wins (maybe even close defeats?). You would get points for every win and points for every win of every opponent you beat. Teams you beat and their wins would be assigned a coefficient based on their size -- so if you beat a 6A team you could get 1.6 points whereas beating a 1A team would only give you 1.1 points. Sorry--I'm sure there's a better algorithm out there to use than that, but it's just an example.

 

I could even see giving a lower class team points for even coming CLOSE (within 7 points?) to beating a higher class team. That would be to encourage teams not to just schedule lower class teams thinking easier wins is the only way to go.

 

Your 'Conference' would consist of maybe 25 schools in close proximity regardless of size. The KHSAA would assign each school to play the 5 (or 6 or 7) schools closest to them in size possible within that geographic radius. If a smaller school with a very strong program (like Belfry, Central, etc.) would rather play larger schools in their conference than those assigned by the KHSAA they could do that as well per an agreement with said school.

 

This is probably the way they do it in Ohio. I know there are times with this system a team will go 9-1 or 8-2 and not make the playoffs, but I'm sure that just means they tried too hard to get wins by scheduling teams that end up with few wins rather than playing stronger teams to which they might lose.

This is the exact model that VHSL uses. It has its qwerks but it helps geographically challenged schools.

 

In 2017 the new alignment, each school will have a geographic region and that region will have 8 playoff schools, the winner is in the final 4 and plays for a title.