I'm suggesting that a sport specific conference shake up could be interesting ... along with adding 1 or 2 additional Ohio games taking place of the 10-0, 7-0, etc. blowouts that District and Conference scheduling forces you to schedule. Not thinking of making it the bulk of the schedule. Currently teams play a couple Ohio teams ... would like to give them the flexibility to make that three to five.

The problem with that is that it really only considers the upper teams. The lower skills may want to play better teams for experience. They deserve that right. High school sports is about participating, not winning.

 

Under the current system they can choose to take a loss in the conference if they don’t want to play. If they want to though, the “better” team shouldn’t be allowed to refuse.

The problem with that is that it really only considers the upper teams. The lower skills may want to play better teams for experience. They deserve that right. High school sports is about participating, not winning.

 

Under the current system they can choose to take a loss in the conference if they don’t want to play. If they want to though, the “better” team shouldn’t be allowed to refuse.

 

I respectfully disagree with the bolded. Adjusting the conferences and using a promotion/relegation model to readjust in the future helps all three levels. Organize conferences so that the level you play is earned and at the same time you offer better match ups that promote development and improvement. I fail to see how the 10-0 blowouts help either team and I've been on the losing end of the 10-0 games...no thanks.

I respectfully disagree with the bolded. Adjusting the conferences and using a promotion/relegation model to readjust in the future helps all three levels. Organize conferences so that the level you play is earned and at the same time you offer better match ups that promote development and improvement. I fail to see how the 10-0 blowouts help either team and I've been on the losing end of the 10-0 games...no thanks.

 

I don’t remember seeing a suggestion of promotion/relegation. Which doesn’t really make sense when you wouldn’t have to play every team in the conference? Is the promotion/relegation determined by the one or two games within your bracket of the conference?

 

And again, high school soccer isn’t about winning and losing or even that only the “best” team advance (see state tournament) it’s about participation. If a weaker team wants to play a stronger one it shouldn’t be the stronger team that gets to make the determination. It should be the weaker.

I don’t remember seeing a suggestion of promotion/relegation. Which doesn’t really make sense when you wouldn’t have to play every team in the conference? Is the promotion/relegation determined by the one or two games within your bracket of the conference?

 

And again, high school soccer isn’t about winning and losing or even that only the “best” team advance (see state tournament) it’s about participation. If a weaker team wants to play a stronger one it shouldn’t be the stronger team that gets to make the determination. It should be the weaker.

 

Admittedly the "proposal/idea" morphed as more was learned about the existing District and Conference alignments ... but here's the gist:

 

1. Having District & Conference scheduling requirements can handcuff schools from putting together a more challenging schedule. Non competitive matches is the result.

2. Since the District games have seeding implications, leave those to be worked out among the member schools.

3. Assuming there's good logic and reason behind the Conference affiliations (I'd guess they were instituted to solve some problems), let's look to improve how conferences are aligned. If the Conferences had better competitive alignment, I think schools would take them more seriously and we'd get the added benefit of reducing the number of non-competitive matches. It appears that the Conferences were aligned using the size of the school to set the Conference. I tend think other considerations could be evaluated. And I think they should be considered on a sport by sport basis. They did it for football ... so precedence has been set. Here are some ideas: (i.) realign the Conferences using competitive measures, (ii.) institute a promotion/relegation mechanism for future realignment (you win your conference you get to move up or you finish last you move down), (iii.) reduce the number of teams in the "top" conference so they are offered more schedule flexibility to add out of region competitive matches (OH, IN, or other KY schools).

 

Each of the top two conferences currently have eight teams ... so that's 7 conference games. I'd propose the top conference has six teams (could be convinced it needs to be seven). So that's 5 conference games instead of 7. So we've improved the competitiveness of the conference and we've added two flex game to schedule competitive games outside the region.

 

IMO, these ideas don't negatively impact the "participation", "winning/losing", or state tournament concerns. And I don't see the logic in the idea that the "weaker" team should get to determine whether they get to play a "stronger" team ... I think that's a mutual decision based on the best interest of the kids.

1. Having District & Conference scheduling requirements can handcuff schools from putting together a more challenging schedule. Non competitive matches is the result.

 

You bristled at the suggestion that your plan was aimed solely at the higher level teams yet you make this statement that clearly does not consider the middle to lower level teams in terms of talent. Is a more competitive environment ONLY for what you consider to be the "upper level" teams? I coach at one of the perceived "have nots" and we absolutely relish the opportunity to play against the local powers. We get better EVERY TIME we play a game like that. Yes, we've taken some absolute beatings, and we're better for it. EVERY TIME.

 

Small schools were basically shamed into voting FOR district seeding (I voted in favor by the way) and now the resulting match-ups are being questioned by some (specifically you) as to the value for those teams that are stronger. It cannot be both ways. Don't like the Conference set-up? Easy answer, drop out. But when you do, remember that the school drops out in ALL sports, not just soccer. An occasional blow-out is hardly worth being concerned about. Play the back-ups, work on skill development, work on defense, bring up freshmen. there are plenty of alternatives when you have a program that is that strong.

1. Having District & Conference scheduling requirements can handcuff schools from putting together a more challenging schedule. Non competitive matches is the result.

 

You bristled at the suggestion that your plan was aimed solely at the higher level teams yet you make this statement that clearly does not consider the middle to lower level teams in terms of talent. Is a more competitive environment ONLY for what you consider to be the "upper level" teams? I coach at one of the perceived "have nots" and we absolutely relish the opportunity to play against the local powers. We get better EVERY TIME we play a game like that. Yes, we've taken some absolute beatings, and we're better for it. EVERY TIME.

 

Small schools were basically shamed into voting FOR district seeding (I voted in favor by the way) and now the resulting match-ups are being questioned by some (specifically you) as to the value for those teams that are stronger. It cannot be both ways. Don't like the Conference set-up? Easy answer, drop out. But when you do, remember that the school drops out in ALL sports, not just soccer. An occasional blow-out is hardly worth being concerned about. Play the back-ups, work on skill development, work on defense, bring up freshmen. there are plenty of alternatives when you have a program that is that strong.

 

Regarding first question ... No, I don't think so. Realigning the conferences, on a sport specific basis, adds competitive balance across all three levels. As mentioned, they did if for football ... why not other sports.

 

Regarding use of term "have nots" in quotes. Those are your words not mine. I played at a school that took more than its fair share of mercy rule games. I wouldn't refer to my team or teammates as "have nots". With hindsight and putting bravado aside, I wish my HS coach had more freedom to schedule games against competition that more closely aligned with our level of play. It would have been better for everyone. Promotion/Relegation systems work and they are used in almost all soccer environments ... Pro (except for MLS...another thread maybe), club, etc. Why not use them in HS?

 

To be clear ... after asking the question and getting a better understanding of the District alignments, I've backed off making an adjustment to Districts. Leave it to whatever you guys decide is the best for your district. I do think there's an opportunity to make an adjustment at the Conference level.

 

Regarding dropping out of conferences ... I'm not looking for "easy answers" ... like dropping out. I'm offering alternative ideas to consider. Maybe I'm way off base, but given your Bulldog alias, I'd be willing to bet your AD is a huge supporter of conferences.

 

I'd be sincerely interested in hearing what your AD thinks about conferences, why they were implemented, what problems they solved back at the time they were implemented, and if he thinks there is opportunity for improvement and/or tweaking on a sport by sport basis.