Very much against this "watered down" six class system for all the reasons cited above.

 

I personally think that a state like Kentucky with just over 200 high schools playing football should have two classes. That would be proportional to other states in that the champion from each class is the best of approximately 100 eligible schools.

 

Having twelve teams playing in the middle of December in this state is ridiculous.

Well it is kind of confusing because......................

 

1. The district teams were playing each other in rounds 1 and 2 before the six classes were established so I don't want to hold that against the six classes.

 

2. The various regions being drawn out of a hat or whatever .....I can't remember if that is part of the six classes movement or if that was going to be done even if there were only four classes.

 

3. The district games being dispersed throughout the season instead of at the end is definately a six class thing and I have mixed thoughts on that. I didn't like that some districts only had 3 weeks to play non-district games at the begining of the year and then there were teams that had 5 or 6 weeks and had to find somebody to play. Now I can live with it the way it is although the end of the season is kind of strange.

 

4. If there are 6 blowouts in the state finals then maybe things need to be re-examined. If there are 6 nail-biters then maybe people will like it more.

1. The district teams were playing each other in rounds 1 and 2 before the six classes were established so I don't want to hold that against the six classes.

Only last year ... many of us didn't like the change then, either.

2. The various regions being drawn out of a hat or whatever .....I can't remember if that is part of the six classes movement or if that was going to be done even if there were only four classes.

Another change made last year.

3. The district games being dispersed throughout the season instead of at the end is definately a six class thing and I have mixed thoughts on that. I didn't like that some districts only had 3 weeks to play non-district games at the begining of the year and then there were teams that had 5 or 6 weeks and had to find somebody to play. Now I can live with it the way it is although the end of the season is kind of strange.

Actually, this change is more tied to having the playoffs start within your district. It's to keep teams from meeting each other in the last week of the regular season, then facing one another in the first round of the playoffs.

4. If there are 6 blowouts in the state finals then maybe things need to be re-examined. If there are 6 nail-biters then maybe people will like it more.

Probably true ... I would argue that as watered down as it is, we'll have more blowouts in later rounds. We'll see ...

What % of teams will not participate in the playoffs? 15%? 20%?

 

We might as well let everyone in like Indiana.

It's not really a playoff when everyone makes it, or a 1-9 team can get there.

What % of teams will not participate in the playoffs? 15%? 20%?

 

We might as well let everyone in like Indiana.

It's in that neighborhood ... not sure of the exact figure.

I think district teams should be seperated in the playoffs, its crazy for two of the top teams in the district to play again in second round of playoffs. I think many others feel the same way, need new blood. Schools just dont want to spend the money to play too far from home, but that is what post season football should be about, playing teams from other districts!

 

I agree with that, also the six even classes fixed nothing. A real solution would be to come up with a smaller 6 and 1 A. After all those were the classes that started this whole thing. I will wait untill after the champions are determined though to lock in my vote. You never know what will happen once the teams start playing.

I think it made the smaller school games mean more to them.

I like having six classes. Less travel for a lot of teams. I would like to it be the top two teams in each district go the playoffs instead of four.

BE had a 9 team district .. that meant 8 of our 10 games were tied up to district games ... we had rivalries with Nelson and Bullit Central .. which meant every year we played the exact same 10 schools. I loved this year with the different schedule.

 

I say we keep the 6 classes and realign every two years .. but at the end of the day, my interest ends this year as I move onto to college with my interest.

What % of teams will not participate in the playoffs? 15%? 20%?

 

We might as well let everyone in like Indiana.

 

I think it is something like 192 out of 216 make it which would be 88%.

 

There are 32 teams in the playoffs in each class. I think Class AA for example only has 33 teams. So 97% make it.

Back to the old days w/the top two teams going to the playoffs, period..... Too many bad teams making the playoffs only to add a bad game for a good team and for what, so everyone gets a taste of the playoff atmosphere. Financially, hurts both teams in the long run.

 

Agreed.

What % of teams will not participate in the playoffs? 15%? 20%?

 

We might as well let everyone in like Indiana.

It is a lot less than 15-20% which is ridiculous.

Simply ridiculous that virtually everybody makes the playoffs!! States like Texas, Florida, etc. have 1000+ high schools and have six classes. Ohio has around 700 I believe and doesn't have six classes. To have 216 or whatever and crown six champions is absurd--Not far from "Give everyone a trophy days"!! And people complain about the All "A" titles (1 out of appx. 125) not being legit championships......................??????

Ilike the six class system but I don't like the way the playoffs are set up . I wish we could go back to the old system , where One would play four from another district and two would play three from the other district.