Wasn’t the idea behind expansion, to get schools that didn’t have a football program, to entice them to start one? It wouldn’t be as hard to succeed right away, especially for the smaller enrollment schools. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Just here in NKY Brossart, Bracken Co and Holy Cross. Holy Cross has actually reached the mountain top in 2013 but Brossart and Bracken Co have had small success but not big success.

10 hours ago, theguru said:

As most of you know, I am a Beechwood grad/guy.  Additionally, I think we all recognize how amazing the football program at CAL has been the last few years.  So if we are trying to do something like this in the name of fairness or equity or whatever you want to call it, we would have to start by kicking Trinity and St. Xavier out.  Otherwise, nothing about this is fair. 

I hate the idea of promotion/relegation. For so many schools and outside of the few blue bloods in each class, football is cyclical. Promotion and relegation only take place after the fact. A team that goes through a few years of growing pains then has a big year or two with a couple really good classes, get promoted, and then spend the next few years getting pounded at the next level. Or a team has a few years of struggling, gets relegated, and then grows up and pounds the smaller schools below them. It's like punishing teams for being good at their level, and rewarding teams for struggling. And the moving up and down will mess with alignment and schedules even more than the bi-annual reclassing. Let the pro soccer leagues overseas own the relegation/promotion idea.

7 hours ago, Tigerpride94 said:

Ohio has 713 teams in 6 classes. KY has 222 teams in 6 classes. Shows how ridiculous it is that KY has 6 classes. If Ohio had roughly same teams per class as KY, they would have 19 classes. I would be fine with 5 classes since would probably have a good Top 10 in each class. Often after the Top 5 in 6 classes it's big drop off.

Here's the thing. Classes aren't just about the number of schools a state has playing. Classing came about because of the vast difference in sizes/school enrollments. Pretty much everyone agrees that bigger schools have an advantage in a sport like football. Shrinking classes only puts smaller schools in the same class with bigger schools and makes the advantage bigger. I don't care how many schools a state has, schools with 1500 boys are going to generally (not always) going to have an advantage over a school with 900, 600, or less boys, and if you shrink classes you'll have more smaller schools playing with bigger schools. Delaware recently went to 3 classes, and the largest class only has 10 or 11 schools because those larger schools were killing the medium sized schools they were playing with when they were classed together. 

10 hours ago, rjs4470 said:

It's like punishing teams for being good at their level, and rewarding teams for struggling.

So, it's punishment to move up?  I thought if you were a dominant team, you would want a challenge..... not to keep beating up on "Little Sisters of the Poor" type schools 70-0 in the playoffs.  If you are really that good, you should want to move up.  Beechwood is a great example.  They can definitely hang with 3-A, and they'd honestly be fine with most 4-A teams.  

And getting rewarded for being bad?  How do you get rewarded?  Some schools, regardless of enrollment, just aren't and probably won't ever be good at football.  So, because of their school's enrollment, they should keep getting obliterated each week..... and then possibly make the playoffs at 0-10 depending on their district?  Right now, the system rewards bad football by having so many losing teams make the playoffs each year.  It makes zero sense  to be against relegation unless you support a team that dominates a lower division and are scared of moving up and playing real competition. 

This should be about competition.  As a team, a coach, and program, you should want to compete.  Relegation gives you optimum competition.  Nobody wants to watch a 60+ point drumming in the playoffs.  Nobody wants to see losing teams make the playoffs. Quit rewarding mediocrity.

1 minute ago, New Colonel said:

So, it's punishment to move up?  I thought if you were a dominant team, you would want a challenge..... not to keep beating up on "Little Sisters of the Poor" type schools 70-0 in the playoffs.  If you are really that good, you should want to move up.  Beechwood is a great example.  They can definitely hang with 3-A, and they'd honestly be fine with most 4-A teams.  

And getting rewarded for being bad?  How do you get rewarded?  Some schools, regardless of enrollment, just aren't and probably won't ever be good at football.  So, because of their school's enrollment, they should keep getting obliterated each week..... and then possibly make the playoffs at 0-10 depending on their district?  Right now, the system rewards bad football by having so many losing teams make the playoffs each year.  It makes zero sense  to be against relegation unless you support a team that dominates a lower division and are scared of moving up and playing real competition. 

This should be about competition.  As a team, a coach, and program, you should want to compete.  Relegation gives you optimum competition.  Nobody wants to watch a 60+ point drumming in the playoffs.  Nobody wants to see losing teams make the playoffs. Quit rewarding mediocrity.

I like being in the same area talent wise and understand the idea of relegation and promotion and won't immediately dismiss the idea because of the soccer connotation. Would this actually work in KY with so many teams spread so far away? I think of these county schools who may have to travel vast distances to have similar opponents, or would it be about the same as the current structure? I think of Fulton City/ County. Surely they wouldn't have to travel to Berea/ Harlan to play games.

54 minutes ago, AppalachianTactician said:

I like being in the same area talent wise and understand the idea of relegation and promotion and won't immediately dismiss the idea because of the soccer connotation. Would this actually work in KY with so many teams spread so far away? I think of these county schools who may have to travel vast distances to have similar opponents, or would it be about the same as the current structure? I think of Fulton City/ County. Surely they wouldn't have to travel to Berea/ Harlan to play games.

That's a fair point, but with fewer divisions, you get more teams in closer geographic regions.  

Everything is too watered down right now.  There's a reason why Ohio in particular is better overall in football.  While Ohio is more watered down than it used to be with regards to playoffs, the system encourages them to play competitive teams.  It also rewards winning with trips to the playoffs.  The more you raise the level of competition across the board, the better the overall product will be.  

47 minutes ago, New Colonel said:

Everything is too watered down right now.  There's a reason why Ohio in particular is better overall in football.

I'd say Ohio having a population of 12 million compared to Kentucky's population of 4.5 million is the primary reason it has better football overall.

1 minute ago, gchs_uk9 said:

I'd say Ohio having a population of 12 million compared to Kentucky's population of 4.5 million is the primary reason it has better football overall.

And a culture of football-crazed people.

1 hour ago, gchs_uk9 said:

I'd say Ohio having a population of 12 million compared to Kentucky's population of 4.5 million is the primary reason it has better football overall.

Yep, population is all that makes for good football.  Everyone just quivers at the thought of how mighty New York high school football is.

In Ohio, 336 out of the 713 schools will make the post season playoffs.  48 teams per division make it.  So, 47% make it.  This was expanded around the time of COVID, from only 32 teams per division making it, which was less than 1/3 of the teams making the post season.  Since the expansion and the watering down of the playoffs in Ohio, the level of play has decreased across the board.  

In Kentucky, almost everyone makes it.  Out of the 222 total teams, 190 or so make the post season.  At that point, why not just allow everyone in?  I mean we already get numerous 0 win teams in the playoffs each year.  

The point I'm making is, when the regular season matters and wins matter, the level of play increases, and increases dramatically.  

KHSAA should go 1 of 2 directions.  1. Let everyone in the playoffs, because heck we are just about there.  OR  2. Get rid of at least 2 divisions and make the regular season actually matter and increase the level of play across the state.  Qualifying for the playoffs should mean something special.  Allowing almost 90% of your teams into the playoffs makes the playoffs meaningless.

Or something simple like do away with one round of the playoffs, move the finals back to Thanksgiving weekend, only put 16 teams in 1A and 6A (they all make the playoffs), then divide the other four classes equally, and play ball. 

36 minutes ago, theguru said:

Or something simple like do away with one round of the playoffs, move the finals back to Thanksgiving weekend, only put 16 teams in 1A and 6A (they all make the playoffs), then divide the other four classes equally, and play ball. 

This right here!!!!!!

1 hour ago, theguru said:

Or something simple like do away with one round of the playoffs, move the finals back to Thanksgiving weekend, only put 16 teams in 1A and 6A (they all make the playoffs), then divide the other four classes equally, and play ball. 

Great idea! Way too simple.

1 hour ago, theguru said:

Or something simple like do away with one round of the playoffs, move the finals back to Thanksgiving weekend, only put 16 teams in 1A and 6A (they all make the playoffs), then divide the other four classes equally, and play ball. 

Love this idea.  Wouldn't removing 1 round of the playoffs put every division at 16 teams for playoffs?

2 hours ago, New Colonel said:

Yep, population is all that makes for good football.  Everyone just quivers at the thought of how mighty New York high school football is.

Not sure why you got snippy here. Nobody said population is the only thing. My initial post said primary reason. A state with three times as many people, as is Ohio compared to Kentucky, is likely to be better at a sport if only because there are more possible participants (especially if that state is essentially the historic home of the sport).

You mention New York, but conveniently left out the other nine largest states in the United States:

1. California
2. Texas
3. Florida
4. New York
5. Pennsylvania
6. Illinois
7. Ohio
8. Georgia
9. North Carolina
10. Michigan

Every single one of them (except New York) are big time high school football states that produce great teams and great players.