On 5/10/2025 at 7:17 AM, Honey Badger said:

Why get rid of spring football???

A couple reasons.  1.  Some teams don't have enough players to do spring football because of spring sports.  2.  Some teams can't access their fields due to lacrosse and other activities.  3.  Puts a lot of pressure on kids that play multiple sports.  They feel compelled to participate or they may lose their playing time or seem uncommitted.  4.   There is no acclamation to contact.  Teams can go full contact day 1 of spring.  Seems pretty silly considering the acclamation rules of summer.

The dominance at the top. It seems like Kentucky high school football is dominated by 20 or so teams and no one else has a chance at a state championship. I would like to see more parody.

2 hours ago, Tkinslow said:

The dominance at the top. It seems like Kentucky high school football is dominated by 20 or so teams and no one else has a chance at a state championship. I would like to see more parody.

The thing is this is probably true in most sports, in most states and even on the college or pro level. 80% of the championship are probably won by 20% of the teams. 
 

Ever year you can go through and pick the 6 or so teams in each class that have a legit shot of winning a title. 

7 hours ago, Footballfan5 said:

A couple reasons.  1.  Some teams don't have enough players to do spring football because of spring sports.  2.  Some teams can't access their fields due to lacrosse and other activities.  3.  Puts a lot of pressure on kids that play multiple sports.  They feel compelled to participate or they may lose their playing time or seem uncommitted.  4.   There is no acclamation to contact.  Teams can go full contact day 1 of spring.  Seems pretty silly considering the acclamation rules of summer.

Point 4 is false. 
 

Directly from the KHSAA website:

a. Two days Non-Contact (0-“Air”, 1-“Bags”, 2-“Control”);
b. Two days Contact (3-“Thud”, 4-“Live-Action”);
c. One day Non-Contact (0-“Air”, 1-“Bags”, 2-“Control”);
d. Two days Contact (3-“Thud”, 4-“Live-Action”);
e. One day Non-Contact (0-“Air”, 1-Bags, 2-“Control”); and
f. Two days Contact (3-“Thud”, 4-“Live-Action”);

What is true is there is no “heat acclimation” period for spring ball or whatever the acclimation period is called for in season. In season it could be October and if the player hasn’t done his 10 days or whatever he has to do all of that before he can play. 

15 hours ago, barrel said:

The thing is this is probably true in most sports, in most states and even on the college or pro level. 80% of the championship are probably won by 20% of the teams. 
 

Ever year you can go through and pick the 6 or so teams in each class that have a legit shot of winning a title. 

It’s worse in college football you might as well have 10 teams play in one division and everyone else play together.

Bump.

The system is broken and it's only going to get worse. Have's and have nots. Most want to look at the 1st, and even 2nd round of the playoffs as the issue, but you can start seeing it much earlier. 

There are 35-45 games that END in running clock scores every Friday, and that's not counting the other handful or so that are running clocks at some point during the game...yet end "closer". That's also not counting another 15-25 that end in the 27-34 point range.

I'm not an "everybody deserves a trophy" mind set either- as far from it as any, but this ideology of having and thinking that everybody can and needs to is a false reality. Think Ohio U, Utah State, Temple, etc are worried about winning a National Title? Nope.  Winning their conference? Yep. Making a bowl game? Yep. Then once every generation maybe having the stars align to where they can make it to the college playoff (even knowing then winning a Natty is slim)? Icing on the cake. But, that's not something they foundationally build their program on. They try to be successful within their realm.

Districts need to be done with. Move to conferences. Keep classes. Use RPI/HSRatings (formerly known as CalPreps) & take the top 8 in each class to the playoffs each year starting the week that is now the Region Championship week. Better yet, allow there to be a statewide conference for those (any classes) to compete in something similar to like what Florida has now implemented (Sunshine Conference).

16 minutes ago, Calico Jack said:

The system is broken and it's only going to get worse. Have's and have nots. Most want to look at the 1st, and even 2nd round of the playoffs as the issue, but you can start seeing it much earlier. 

There are 35-45 games that END in running clock scores every Friday, and that's not counting the other handful or so that are running clocks at some point during the game...yet end "closer". That's not counting another 15-25 that end in the 27-34 point range.

I'm not an "everybody deserves a trophy" mind set either- as far from it as any, but this ideology of having and thinking that everybody can and needs to is a false reality. Think Ohio U, Utah State, Temple, etc are worried about winning a National Title? Nope.  Winning their conference? Yep. Making a bowl game? Yep. Then once every generation maybe having the stars align to where they can make it to the college playoff (even knowing then winning a Natty is slim)? Icing on the cake. But, that's not something they foundationally build their program on. They try to be successful within their realm.

Districts need to be done with. Move to conferences. Keep classes. Use RPI/HSRatings (formerly known as CalPreps) & take the top 8 in each class to the playoffs each year starting the week that is now the Region Championship week. Better yet, allow there to be a statewide conference for those (any classes) to compete in something similar to like what Florida has now implemented (Sunshine Conference) for schools to compete in/for.

I do kind of like the idea of "Conferences" instead of districts for football. Football is already so different than other sports who have definitive districts that rarely change. I do not know how things were done in the past, but is there a way to maybe have a tournament style postseason with the rankings you are talking about? What would the criteria be? Would they potentially take the top 8 or 16 from the east and west and do a seeding for the first 2-3 rounds and then merge the east and west (thinking of the current 3-5th round)  or straight up seeding based on RPI 1-8/12/16 or whatever the amount for the postseason. If that is the case, RPI, CALpreps, Massey rating, or whatever they would use would be so much more cutthroat. The out of state games would have to be fixed or some of the great teams may miss out completely on the playoffs. I am thinking Belfry and PT in 2021 as they were both 4-6 and ranked 14 and 15th in the class and ended up in the state championship game. Would you have to play so many conference games to qualify? how would all of that work? 

I know we have real no say, but I think that is a great idea @Calico Jack.

2 minutes ago, AppalachianTactician said:

I do kind of like the idea of "Conferences" instead of districts for football. Football is already so different than other sports who have definitive districts that rarely change. I do not know how things were done in the past, but is there a way to maybe have a tournament style postseason with the rankings you are talking about? What would the criteria be? Would they potentially take the top 8 or 16 from the east and west and do a seeding for the first 2-3 rounds and then merge the east and west (thinking of the current 3-5th round)  or straight up seeding based on RPI 1-8/12/16 or whatever the amount for the postseason. If that is the case, RPI, CALpreps, Massey rating, or whatever they would use would be so much more cutthroat. The out of state games would have to be fixed or some of the great teams may miss out completely on the playoffs. I am thinking Belfry and PT in 2021 as they were both 4-6 and ranked 14 and 15th in the class and ended up in the state championship game. Would you have to play so many conference games to qualify? how would all of that work? 

I know we have real no say, but I think that is a great idea @Calico Jack.

Go ahead and use HSRatings.com- they are all over it every year. In '21, Belfry was at #3 and PT was at #4, so under their formula (which heavily relies on S.O.S. Real S.O.S, not 'if you're a 3A school- play sister of the poor 5A school and win- that counts more than playing and losing to 2A powerhouse) both of those would have been in the playoffs.

As far as the number of games to play? That I'm not sure on, but I'd 100% copy whatever Ohio does (adjust as needed due to their obviously being 3+X's the football playing schools there than there are in KY). I also LOVE the new idea that Florida has moved to with their Sunshine Conference(s).

Here, you could almost have 6 "classes", but different.

Gridiron Bowl (Compete for State Title)

1A-2A= 1A

3A-4A= 2A

5A-6A= 3A

Bluegrass Conference

1) WKC

2) CKC

3) EKC

 

Better yet, I'm not so sure you couldn't do just TWO classes that compete for state titles (but, take more than 8 teams to the playoffs for each. Make it 16, 24, 32)

1) A (Class A, AA and AAA)

-Imagine having Pikeville, Raceland, Mayfield, Beechwood, LCA, Belfry, O'Cath, CAL, Central, Somerset, etc all in the same playoff set up?!?! Talk about must see match ups in November. 

2) AA (4A, 5A & 6A)

- Boyle, Tilghman, CovCath, Johnson Central, Highlands, Bowling Green, Cooper, Ashland, South Warren, Douglass, Trinity, X, etc

Three "Championship" classes would work better, but dang...imagine November's with those teams throwing punches?

43 minutes ago, Calico Jack said:

The system is broken and it's only going to get worse. Have's and have nots. Most want to look at the 1st, and even 2nd round of the playoffs as the issue, but you can start seeing it much earlier. 

There are 35-45 games that END in running clock scores every Friday, and that's not counting the other handful or so that are running clocks at some point during the game...yet end "closer". That's also not counting another 15-25 that end in the 27-34 point range.

I'm not an "everybody deserves a trophy" mind set either- as far from it as any, but this ideology of having and thinking that everybody can and needs to is a false reality. Think Ohio U, Utah State, Temple, etc are worried about winning a National Title? Nope.  Winning their conference? Yep. Making a bowl game? Yep. Then once every generation maybe having the stars align to where they can make it to the college playoff (even knowing then winning a Natty is slim)? Icing on the cake. But, that's not something they foundationally build their program on. They try to be successful within their realm.

Districts need to be done with. Move to conferences. Keep classes. Use RPI/HSRatings (formerly known as CalPreps) & take the top 8 in each class to the playoffs each year starting the week that is now the Region Championship week. Better yet, allow there to be a statewide conference for those (any classes) to compete in something similar to like what Florida has now implemented (Sunshine Conference).

To what end, eliminating running clock games in the playoffs? Even cutting down to 8 teams will still produce blowouts in all three rounds most every year. Go back and look at finals, semi-finals and regional games the last 20 years...blowouts yearly.

I like the conference idea, in theory. Assuming conferences are formed geographically, there would be some conferences that would be super competitive (Louisville, NKY ect.) and some with very weak competition. Additionally a small school playing primarily larger schools in a conference would be at a big distinct disadvantage. They could be one of the best 1A schools in the state, but have a losing record due to their conference of bigger schools. They'd be left out of the 8 team playoff in all likelihood. 

The system we have isn't perfect, but each team has the same opportunity to prove it on the field.

19 hours ago, Jumper_Dad said:

To what end, eliminating running clock games in the playoffs? Even cutting down to 8 teams will still produce blowouts in all three rounds most every year. Go back and look at finals, semi-finals and regional games the last 20 years...blowouts yearly.

I like the conference idea, in theory. Assuming conferences are formed geographically, there would be some conferences that would be super competitive (Louisville, NKY ect.) and some with very weak competition. Additionally a small school playing primarily larger schools in a conference would be at a big distinct disadvantage. They could be one of the best 1A schools in the state, but have a losing record due to their conference of bigger schools. They'd be left out of the 8 team playoff in all likelihood. 

The system we have isn't perfect, but each team has the same opportunity to prove it on the field.

1- Agreed. I'd even be fine with four team playoff per class. The fact of the matter is, if being really honest with ourselves? Do a four team per class. Or to split the difference? Go 6 teams. 1 and 2 seeds get a 1st round bye. 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5.   Four to six teams, each class, are as many each year that realistically have a chance to claim they are the best as is.

2- Group how you see fit. Coaches can do this, they know better than anybody who/what their program is and what it isn't. They do as is now with these Frosh-More Conferences. Using Ohio as an example? Conferences range from 4 team-10 team.

MOST of them also have conferences that include programs from various classes, some with as many as three different classes within a conference & then there are some who are all represented by 1 class (ie: Greater Miami is a 10 team conference composed of all Division 1 schools, Ohio's largest division).

On the flip side of that? There are conferences like "Lake Erie" that is a six team conference, represented by schools across 4 classes.

 

3- In terms of the 1A power having a losing record due to their conference of bigger schools? I think we put wayyyyy too much stock into something that clearly is not, aka, "the more boys you have, the better football you have or SHOULD have" because it just simply isn't the case....not in our state. Some? Yes. As a rule? Not even close.

Take EKY for example- Pikeville and Raceland- arguably the two best Class A programs over the last 10 years. They'd be fine and then some having to play bigger schools. Heck, out of district, it's who they are having to play as is and not just bigger schools, but almost always "in the mix" of their respected class(es) bigger schools.

1. Eliminate district requirements so that teams can schedule whoever they want. 

2. Require a .500 record to be eligible for the playoffs.

10 hours ago, TheDeuce said:

1. Eliminate district requirements so that teams can schedule whoever they want. 

2. Require a .500 record to be eligible for the playoffs.

Could just take the top 16 teams per class based on RPI or whichever rating system want to use and seed it like NCAA tournament where #1 plays #16 and so forth. 

19 hours ago, Calico Jack said:

1- Agreed. I'd even be fine with four team playoff per class. The fact of the matter is, if being really honest with ourselves? Do a four team per class. Or to split the difference? Go 6 teams. 1 and 2 seeds get a 1st round bye. 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5.   Four to six teams, each class, are as many each year that realistically have a chance to claim they are the best as is.

2- Group how you see fit. Coaches can do this, they know better than anybody who/what their program is and what it isn't. They do as is now with these Frosh-More Conferences. Using Ohio as an example? Conferences range from 4 team-10 team.

MOST of them also have conferences that include programs from various classes, some with as many as three different classes within a conference & then there are some who are all represented by 1 class (ie: Greater Miami is a 10 team conference composed of all Division 1 schools, Ohio's largest division).

On the flip side of that? There are conferences like "Lake Erie" that is a six team conference, represented by schools across 4 classes.

 

3- In terms of the 1A power having a losing record due to their conference of bigger schools? I think we put wayyyyy too much stock into something that clearly is not, aka, "the more boys you have, the better football you have or SHOULD have" because it just simply isn't the case....not in our state. Some? Yes. As a rule? Not even close.

Take EKY for example- Pikeville and Raceland- arguably the two best Class A programs over the last 10 years. They'd be fine and then some having to play bigger schools. Heck, out of district, it's who they are having to play as is and not just bigger schools, but almost always "in the mix" of their respected class(es) bigger schools.

1 What is the purpose of cutting it to just four to six teams per class? Would you like college football to go back to just 4 teams in the playoffs too? 

2 Everyone's fascination with how Ohio does things, does not mean their way is right for Kentucky. Ohio has over 700 high school football teams according to OHSAA. That is three times as many as Kentucky. What's good for them doesn't necessarily mean it's good for us.

3 I know "some" small schools can compete up, but there is a reason teams are divided by enrollment size. The small teams that can be competitive week in and week out against much larger schools are the exception not the rule.

So back to my original question, if Kentucky completely enacted what you'd like to see, what are you hoping would come out of it?