21 minutes ago, theguru said:

Would you agree if you are only looking at a two year data set and you are not going to automatically move up a state championship winner, it would be nearly impossible to justify moving anyone up?

I personally think the best way about it, as we've talked before, is to just completely do away with districts altogether + going back to the purely, hypothetical scenarios/changes I posted in November?

1- Two Classes, 6 Divisions

• Class A= Class A, AA, AAA
• Class AA= Class 4A, 5A, 6A
• Within those classes? Three divisions. Class A Div I, Class A Div II, Class A Div III + Class AA D1, Class AA D2, Class 2A D3
• Take the Top 16 (HSRatings, Updated RPI, @Tigerpride94, etc) in each of "Class A, Class AA, Class AAA", so 48 Total. Top 16? Class A D1. Middle 16? Class A D2. Bottom 16? Class A D3
• Same for Class AA D1, D2, D3

 

2- Full on Open Division. D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6

• Top 96 per rankings above.
• Top 16= D1, 17-32= D2, so on and so forth.

I don't know what it could hurt. Either. But Option 1, I think, would be the easier sell.   It'd be a shot in the arm I think, in many ways, because as soon as these new realignments come out? It sure as heck isn't rocket science to figure out which 1-6 per class are going to have a say in things.

3 minutes ago, Hydration-coach83 said:

 

At this point, KHSAA either needs to completely move away from the RPI system or take the time to seriously fix it. Using RPI for only part of the postseason like second-round matchups that I saw be mentioned in another post doesn’t make much sense and only creates more confusion. If RPI is going to matter, then it should be used to seed the entire postseason bracket, similar to an NCAA-style format, and let teams play it out from there. Otherwise, it shouldn’t be used at all.

The current system is flawed, especially when teams are essentially penalized for scheduling and competing against strong out-of-state opponents. Programs should not be discouraged from challenging themselves simply because it might hurt their RPI. A ranking system should reward competitive scheduling and quality wins, not punish them. Right now, the approach lacks consistency, and that’s why so many people are frustrated.

We agree on RPI.  It is trash.  If the KHSAA wants to use a computer, partner with HSRATINGS.com (formerly CalPreps), the Massey Ratings, the TP94 Power Ratings, or a combination of those.   

6 minutes ago, theguru said:

We agree on RPI.  It is trash.  If the KHSAA wants to use a computer, partner with HSRATINGS.com (formerly CalPreps), the Massey Ratings, the TP94 Power Ratings, or a combination of those.   

I may be reaching here, but I do think it’s worth having a serious discussion about whether KHSAA should consider creating a separate governing body or at least a dedicated division specifically for football, or even for individual sports within the association. Football has unique scheduling, postseason, and competitive challenges that don’t always align with other sports, and those differences deserve focused attention. This would Ensuring that each sport is evaluated and managed with its specific needs in mind could help prevent many of the issues we continue to see. Not taking a shot a Tackett but sometimes you can have too much on your plate to make sure everything is running as well as it possibly can be. 

I personally think the multiplier talk is a smoke screen in attempts to handle a much larger situation.

….and, I’ll just leave it at that.

43 minutes ago, Calico Jack said:

I personally think the best way about it, as we've talked before, is to just completely do away with districts altogether + going back to the purely, hypothetical scenarios/changes I posted in November?

1- Two Classes, 6 Divisions

• Class A= Class A, AA, AAA
• Class AA= Class 4A, 5A, 6A
• Within those classes? Three divisions. Class A Div I, Class A Div II, Class A Div III + Class AA D1, Class AA D2, Class 2A D3
• Take the Top 16 (HSRatings, Updated RPI, @Tigerpride94, etc) in each of "Class A, Class AA, Class AAA", so 48 Total. Top 16? Class A D1. Middle 16? Class A D2. Bottom 16? Class A D3
• Same for Class AA D1, D2, D3

 

2- Full on Open Division. D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6

• Top 96 per rankings above.
• Top 16= D1, 17-32= D2, so on and so forth.

I don't know what it could hurt. Either. But Option 1, I think, would be the easier sell.   It'd be a shot in the arm I think, in many ways, because as soon as these new realignments come out? It sure as heck isn't rocket science to figure out which 1-6 per class are going to have a say in things.

 

Coming back to the thread topic:

Do you agree or disagree with the teams/movements I have listed?  Why?  What are thoughts on which teams would move up in this hypothetical exercise?

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

I'm okay with having multipliers or whatever it is called that move teams up in class when they have consistent high-level success over time. Moving a team up a class because they won a title last year is ridiculous. 

You have to look at least two years and probably four years deep for factors that would cause you to move a team up in class. e.g. a team is in the semifinals 4 staight years, or a team wins back to back championships. The key for me is one great season should have zero impact a team's class the next year.

Take Franklin County for example, would they get moved up for playing in the semi finals and the state championship pretty regularly since 2020, even though they've not won the big one yet? 

1 hour ago, Calico Jack said:

Nick Saban, Cig, and any other coaches that come to mind could come into many of these places (with what they have, who they are competing against, etc) and .500, on average, would be nothing short of miraculous.

It's so much deeper than "getting better", and that's a two way street. To those that oppose a multiplier, many in favor could say the same thing. "Just get better...step it up a bit."

I'm not a fan of a multiplier/success factor because it wouldn't apply to 6A.   Just like things are now with how the class system is...many things I'm not a fan of, but Class A and 6A always only having 32 teams, while the others 38-40? Makes no sense.

 

I know it's deeper than just get better, but it doesn't make sense to me to punish teams that are successful. Even though getting pushed from 4 to 5 would be a good thing right now. 

On the surface this sounds like a reasonable idea, after all soccer has done a version of this for decades in Europe. What I have no faith in is the ability of the KHSAA to administer this.

The biggest questions that I have right off are these...Team A has great two year run and meets the criteria to move up. How long do they stay up at the higher class? If a team moves up, then it only makes sense that one goes down...how will that be decided?

For example: Beechwood wins a title and runner-up in 2A and gets bumped to 3A. What process or mechanism is there to put them back in 2A if they are good but not great in 3A. Beechwood will never be considered the worst 3A team and be relegated back to 2A on that basis...so are in 3A from now on?

2 hours ago, theguru said:

Ultimately is says the KHSAA will "punish" the teams that get better. 

I don’t see it as a punishment if you want to make the claim about how good you are than play teams that are equally talented.

2 minutes ago, Tkinslow said:

I don’t see it as a punishment if you want to make the claim about how good you are than play teams that are equally talented.

Who said anything about making a claim?

The more you build your program up, the more likely it is you will be moved up in class, sounds like "punishment" to me. 

4 minutes ago, theguru said:

Who said anything about making a claim?

The more you build your program up, the more likely it is you will be moved up in class, sounds like "punishment" to me. 

You take a team like CAL for example all we heard last year is how good they are probably the second best team in Kentucky and might even compete with Trinity. Prove it play in the same class with those guys.

1 minute ago, Tkinslow said:

You take a team like CAL for example all we heard last year is how good they are probably the second best team in Kentucky and might even compete with Trinity. Prove it play in the same class with those guys.

Granted, CAL, along with Trinity, are the two most glaring examples of football programs in Kentucky that are worlds beyond almost all of the teams they compete against.  However, no change will do anything to address Trinity (or St. Xavier for that matter) because they are both in 6A.  On CAL, sure we can single them out, I certainly did in the opening post of this thread, but once the dust settles the end result will be several other teams being moved up in class to appease a minority of complainers.   And yeah, CAL is gone from 3A but all of a sudden Beechwood, LCA, Owensboro Catholic, Belfry, Mayfield, and Somerset are in 3A.  Honestly, that would probably hurt most other 3A schools more because very few of them are going to be able to beat any of those teams coming up from 2A. 

Let's all remember Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Photo Credit to National Geographic.

I really appreciate that they acknowledge things are out of wack right now and can use some adjusting. 

Not a huge fan of the multiplier for winning, but will admit that does ultimately take into account some of the areas of imbalance. 

Mac Yocum and Elden May did a really good study on the correlation of resources & size of the county to football success. 

I would be interested to see the following... Schools classified for football based on...

-Resources

-Where they draw their students (in and/or outside of district lines)

-Free & Reduced lunch

-Enrollment of boys

With the advent of AI these days, that would absolutely be doable. 

Regardless, I know there are some awful good people on the Board of Control. And, despite the many issues we have disagreed on over the years, Julian Tackett has done an awful lot for KY HS Football, and no one can dispute that. 

Bottom line... appreciate their efforts and wish them the best as they do the very best they can for KIDS. 

 

 

Edited January 16Jan 16 by ChiefSmoke

54 minutes ago, ChiefSmoke said:

I would be interested to see the following... Schools classified for football based on...

-Resources

-Where they draw their students (in and/or outside of district lines)

-Free & Reduced lunch

-Enrollment of boys

I don't like that at all:

Resources - Punish anyone successful.

Where they draw their students (in and/or outside of district lines) - The KHSAA rules are the same for all schools meaning all schools can draw students from wherever they please, some schools/school systems choose not to, but they could if they wanted to.  This would punish schools not breaking any rules in favor of schools wanting additional, restrictive rules. 

Free & Reduced lunch - Punish anyone successful x 2.

Enrollment of boys - This is how we do it, right?