1 hour ago, OLinePride said:

I appreciate what @ChiefSmoke mentioned about our county.  There is no doubt that we are struggling right now.  We tell our players that  NO ONE cares about your excuses, so I am not going to make any here.  We're not the only team that has low numbers, low industry, low resources, low whatever you want to say, so we can't use that as an excuse.  Has adversity hit our program hard since Coach Dalton Stamm took over?  1000% yes.  Every program in this state has dealt with adversity, some more than others, but at the end of the day, it's on us to get us out of the hole we're currently in.  As to @theguru mentioning dropping out of district, that is an option that has been discussed.  The benefits aren't as great as one would think.  We would likely play most teams that are on our schedule anyway.  We have gone 0-10 the last two seasons, scoring 90 and 91 respectively, while giving up 454 and 411 respectively.  We have had 3 seniors each of the past two seasons.  To say we are down right now would be an understatement.  Our solution...our kids are busting their butts to get better.  Like coach Mike Leach said, we are "embracing the hard, we aren't looking for the easy." Lewis County used to have a reputation of playing tough, physical football.  You might beat us, but you will feel it Saturday morning.  We are working to get back to that.  As long as I've been a part of the Lewis County program, we've always been in a district with more than 4 teams.  When we make the playoffs it means something to us.  We have never won a playoff game, and we want to change that.  Winning football games is tough for us, but creating tough, accountable young men is the byproduct of that...and we're ok with that.  If the KHSAA moved us to 6A, we might not win a game in 10 years, but I can guarantee that we would do everything we could...Just like every other program in the state.  At this time, we have no intention of dropping out of district.  We played 2 games this season with 15 available players, and if it comes to it, we'll play all 10 games that way this upcoming season. I know going winless the last two seasons gives me the smallest soapbox ever to stand on, but we are embracing the hard...We are fighting the good fight versus adversity.  Success will find us again someday, in terms of wins vs. losses...but with the quality of young men that are fighting through these hard times, and learning the hard lessons along the way, maybe it already has.

Speaking at your banquet this November was a huge honor for me. Corky and I go back 30 years. Wonderful man and coach.  I know you guys will hang tough. Appreciate you and what you do for the kids in Lewis County. 

I always get a kick out of all the "innovation" fuss over Dan Campbell, Ben Johnson, etc... going for it on 4th down. Corky Prater was doing that against me on his own 10 yard line over 20 years ago! And, often, they would get it!

He would tell me, "Dave, you guys are gonna score from your 10 or ours when you get the ball. We had nothing to lose." 

I tell you what, that strategy could keep them in the games against teams with much more talent. He was trying to squeeze more bodies in the phone booth and was dang good at it. 

I hope you are not angry with me for mentioning Lewis Co. Football. Being next door to you for 19 years,  I was always impressed with how you fought and navigated the obstacles you faced. Nothing but respect from me. ?

3 hours ago, Tigerpride94 said:

I think divisions should be separated by schools with open enrollment and schools that don't have open enrollment. Schools that get students from anywhere have advantage over schools that have resides areas. Private schools would be in the open enrollment division. Once determine how many schools are in each division then separate into classes by enrollment. 

The schools decide whether they are open enrollment or not. That is each school's choice to make. 

2 hours ago, CAT DIESEL POWER said:

This may have already been covered—and if so, I apologize—but after reading through several pages, I think this needs to be said. If the proposed model holds true (similar to the one originally shown by @theguru), it really doesn’t change much outside of 1A.

Most champions or dominant teams are already capable of competing—and winning—in the class above them. But if you move those teams up while also removing the other top-tier programs from that class, the result is the same: someone new just becomes the dominant team. That doesn’t create competitive balance; it just reshuffles who’s on top.

For example, if CAL moves to 4A but Boyle, Corbin, Franklin, PT, and others are also moved or removed, then CAL likely walks through 4A the same way they do 3A. The label changes, but the outcome doesn’t.

If the intent is to make things more competitive, removing the other competitive teams defeats the purpose. In reality, most champions from this season would likely remain the same across classes, with 1A being the possible exception and 5A being Boyle. That doesn’t feel like meaningful reform—just reclassification without real impact.

That is why going back to 4 classes is the best way to do this!

15 minutes ago, Falcon Pride said:

That is why going back to 4 classes is the best way to do this!

I agree and additionally I think we should squeeze 4A and 1A to the really big and really small schools and then let everyone else figure it out in 2A and 3A. 

I found this from the NFHS as it relates to Indiana.  I am not going to crunch any numbers but I know some of you will.  If we are wondering what teams the KHSAA would end up targeting, this is probably a pretty good way to access it.

To prevent schools from dominating any one class for a given sport, the Indiana High School Athletic Association (IHSAA) has designated a “success” factor as part of its procedure.

Adopted in 2012, the success factor is built on a point system that evaluates schools’ sport-by-sport postseason finishes over the two years of a standard reclassification period. Any program that wins a sectional championship is assigned one point, with two points credited for a regional championship, three for a semi-state championship and four for a state title.

If a school team accrues six or more points during those two seasons, that team will compete in the next-highest classification for the following two-year period. Should the program continue its same level of success in its new classification, it will be moved up once again, with no limit on how high it can climb.

Once elevated, teams must register two points during the next reclassification period to remain in the higher class. A team that has ascended multiple levels but fails to garner the two points necessary to stay in its current grouping will move back down the classification ladder one rung at a time.

Also pertaining to Ohio:

In contrast to the OHSAA’s true reclassification process, which is conducted every two years, the competitive balance factor induces school movement on an annual basis. Essentially, the system categorizes each student on each school team roster into Tier 0, Tier 1 or Tier 2 depending on the location of the student’s family residence, as well as the student’s history – or lack thereof – within their current school’s district, attendance zone or “feeder” middle school program.

According to Bob Goldring, OHSAA director of communications and special projects, the 2022-23 academic year will see 25 of the association’s 706 football-playing schools compete in a higher division as a result of competitive balance. Seven (of 567) schools will be moved up for boys soccer; seven of 520 for girls soccer; 11 of 780 for volleyball; 17 of 800 for boys basketball and 15 of 771 for girls basketball. Due to season cancellations brought on by COVID-19, the factor has not been used for baseball or softball since 2019-20.

2 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

The schools decide whether they are open enrollment or not. That is each school's choice to make. 

Yes. That's my solution for the people that think privates should have own class. Some of them have no idea some public schools get students outside of resides area.

On 1/16/2026 at 3:22 PM, 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.

I’m not sure how well Trinity would do in 3A.  Better they stay in 6A where the competition is easier. ?‍♂️ 

I see all the comments on this thread & other topics from the Trinity faithful about CAL needing to prove themselves,  needing to earn the right to play T, etc.  For a little ol’ 3A school like CAL, you all sure do spend a lot of time talking about them.  I’m starting to think the Trinity fans have a CAL complex. In fact, I’m going to say a member of the Trinity faithful will find the need to respond to this post, further proving my point. ?

4 classes makes the most sense. 

Just a simple reason, there was zero reason Newport and Newport Catholic weren’t playing each other for the regional title this past year or last season. Same for Highlands and CovCath. Corbin should’ve been playing Boyle for the regional title and so on. It’s foolish. Go to 4 classes, seed by district record and rotate the regional final and semi final depending on odd and even years.

I strongly disagree with this idea, and I think any version of a multiplier or success factor like this ends up punishing programs for being good at footballa

The biggest issue is that it treats success like a problem that needs fixed. Teams like Raceland, Pikeville, Beechwood, Boyle County, CAL, and Bowling Green did not just get hot for a year or two. They built strong programs through coaching stability, player development, and COMMUNITY support (community support is the biggest factor). Moving them up a class because they won games is not competitive balance, it is a penalty for doing things right.

Using only two years of data makes this even worse. High school football changes fast. A team can be senior heavy, make a deep run, then graduate a ton of players and take a step back. Under this system, that team would be forced to play up a class right when their roster is resetting. That is not fair, especially for smaller schools that already deal with limited numbers.

The ideaaof moving CAL up two classes is a good example of why this does not work. CAL dominates 3A because they are well coached and well run, not because they have 5A size or depth. The same goes for Raceland or Owensboro Catholic. They win because they execute, not because they are bigger than everyone else.

This also creates a ceiling for small school programs. If sustained success just means you get bumped up and face bigger schools, what is the incentive to build something long term. At that point, struggling programs are rewarded for staying average, while good programs are punished for winning.

If the goal is balance, the focus should be on enrollment, participation numbers, and longer time frames, not banners and trophies. Football is about depth, and depth comes from numbers, not success over a short stretch. This kind of system sounds good on paper, but in reality it takes away from what makes high school football work.

10 hours ago, Unrivaled97 said:

I’m not sure how well Trinity would do in 3A.  Better they stay in 6A where the competition is easier. ?‍♂️ 

I see all the comments on this thread & other topics from the Trinity faithful about CAL needing to prove themselves,  needing to earn the right to play T, etc.  For a little ol’ 3A school like CAL, you all sure do spend a lot of time talking about them.  I’m starting to think the Trinity fans have a CAL complex. In fact, I’m going to say a member of the Trinity faithful will find the need to respond to this post, further proving my point. ?

You read that wrong I have no affinity for Trinity whatsoever.

Also from the NFHS article they covered Arizona and guess what they found after examining the teams that moved up and down?  The good teams were still good and the bad teams were still bad.  So I would ask, exactly what is happening here and why?  From the article:

An article on unique reclassification factors would be remiss if it didn’t mention the arrangement technique used for football programs in the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA).

AIA Executive Director David Hines described his association’s cataloging process for all other sports as “pretty traditional,” but admitted that the football model for its 2A-6A “conferences” – yet another term used interchangeably for class, division, etc. – is “outside of the box.”

After two years of consideration, the AIA adopted a system predicated on standard deviation – a mathematical measure of dispersion within a set of values – that compares teams’ records over a three-year period to the mean win total for their classifications. Falling within one standard deviation of the mean generally signals that a school is right where it should be in terms of classification, while schools outside that range are considered outliers and are moved up or down based on where they are plotted. Movement is limited to two conferences, up or down, from a school’s original classification.

“The first year we did it, we probably moved about eight schools up and eight schools down,” Hines recalled. “What we found with all the schools we moved up was that every one of them was extremely competitive and made the playoffs in the larger conference the next year. And the teams that we moved down, we have found that they were not any better moving down. They’re still in the very bottom of that lower conference.”

https://nfhs.org/stories/exploring-the-reclassification-process-in-state-associations

The NFHS summed up the article by stating high school athletics matters to people and they are right:

“It’s important to acknowledge that the debates around these types of discussions are good because they show that it matters (to people),” said Neidig. “If it didn’t matter, there’d be no debate. The education-based system is just different; it’s different from the AAU or any other system, and if we’re debating what’s best for student- athletes in an environment that they can still learn and that supports the educational mission of schools, then let’s have that debate.”

=============

At least in the Arizona example all this practice does is punish successful schools/teams and the bad schools/teams are bad no matter what "class" they play in. 

I disagree with the premise that multipliers or success factors “punish teams for being good.” What they actually do is acknowledge that not all success is created equal, and not all programs operate under the same structural conditions.

This argument treats success as if it exists in isolation—purely the result of coaching, buy-in, and culture—while dismissing context, which has always mattered in high school football. Community support absolutely matters, but community support is not evenly distributed. Some schools draw from talent-dense population bases, some are independent schools with condensed enrollment zones and zero transportation barriers, and some exist in football-centric towns tied to industry or college programs. Those realities are not insults—they are advantages, and they compound over time.

The fact that some of these programs win regardless of who the coach is should not be used as evidence against reform—it should be evidence for it. When success transcends individual coaching staffs, that tells us the foundation is structural, not cyclical. Meanwhile, several of these same programs were not dominant under the old four-class system. They were competitive, yes—but not perennial title forces in the way they have been since six classes were introduced. That was a systemic adjustment, and it benefited certain schools significantly. Nobody argued then that reclassification was “punishing success.”

So this raises a consistency problem.

It was acceptable to restructure the system when it opened doors for some programs, but now that reform might be used to address modern competitive imbalances, it’s suddenly framed as an attack on football culture? That logic doesn’t hold. High school football has always evolved—classification changes, playoff expansions, enrollment formulas, district realignments. Reform is not new. Selective resistance is.

The “two-year window” concern is fair—but it cuts both ways. Programs that reload annually due to enrollment pipelines, feeder systems, and geographic density are far less vulnerable to roster swings than small rural schools with limited numbers and long bus routes. Treating those two situations as equal in the name of “fairness” is actually what creates imbalance.

As for the claim that this creates a ceiling for small schools—that ceiling already exists. It just isn’t acknowledged. Sustained dominance over similarly sized opponents while never facing programs with comparable structural advantages isn’t competitive purity; it’s insulation. Reform doesn’t punish excellence—it asks whether excellence should be measured only by wins, or by the conditions under which those wins occur.

If competitive balance were truly just about enrollment, we wouldn’t have decades of evidence showing that enrollment alone doesn’t explain dominance. Participation rates, geographic access, population density, feeder continuity, and institutional structure all matter—and ignoring them doesn’t preserve the game. It freezes it.

The real issue isn’t whether these programs are good—they absolutely are. The issue is whether we’re willing to admit that the system has already been adjusted before, that those adjustments helped certain programs flourish, and that continuing to evolve the structure now isn’t “bad for football.”

It’s simply acknowledging reality.

Because what was acceptable reform when it benefited some cannot suddenly become “harmful to the sport” when it’s applied more broadly.

What’s good for some of the geese can still  be good for the gander.

@Calico Jack let's assume The Commish put you in charge of what teams to move up.  What would your "equitable proposal" be?  I am looking for teams only here based on any criteria you see fit.