I agree with what your saying but what are you basing the categories on?

Really it's just the way I see it. Some programs are going to be good year in and year out - the top. Some programs are virtually never going to win a State Championship, and maybe never win a district championship - the bottom. There are some programs that will likely never win a State Championship but do have some success every once in a while - the lower middle. Then you have some programs that may occasionally win a Regional Championship, and may occasionally be in the State Championship hunt, teams that that generally have winning seasons and are just out of the top group - the upper middle.

 

It's not scientific, just the way I see it.

 

I think the top group is the same, and I think the bottom group is basically the same, but the two middle groups, I think have improved and are now more competive with each other and the top group.

I agree. But what the switch in classification did was plug the bottom programs in the playoffs. If they kept it to the upper and the middle groups you mentioned in the playoffs it would be more competitive.

I agree. But what the switch in classification did was plug the bottom programs in the playoffs. If they kept it to the upper and the middle groups you mentioned in the playoffs it would be more competitive.

I can agree with that. I kinda go back and forth on the number of teams making the playoffs. But, I think the basis for my argument has not changed by the playoffs. Sure more of the bottom teams are making the playoffs, but 99% of them lose in the first round, so they are still in the bottom group. I am not saying that a bottom team can not have an outstanding season and be better, or that even a bottom team can not correct some of their problems and move up in one of the middle groups. I am just saying that in any given year there are differences in the teams in any given class.

I agree. But what the switch in classification did was plug the bottom programs in the playoffs. If they kept it to the upper and the middle groups you mentioned in the playoffs it would be more competitive.

 

It sounds to me like you guys are talking about two different things. Gravedigger is talking about the average level of play in the playoffs. Obviously, if you could assign a number to each team in the playoffs, that average number has gone down with the introduction into the playoffs of teams finishing the regular season 0-10, etc.

 

But I thought Ram's question had to do with the overall quality of football in the state, playoffs notwithstanding. I think that's a different question entirely. I'm not real sure how I would answer it... obviously, some "old guard" teams were down this year (Tilghman, Mayfield) and some "new kids" arrived on the block over the past two years to make noise (North Oldham, Bullitt Central, Whitley County). But - in general - I think the overall level of play was up. I watched 5A and 3A football this year, and was impressed with the overall quality of play. There were great teams, and awful teams, but I thought the "middle class" was moving up overall...

I agree with several others in that I thought the state was down this year as a whole, the top dogs just keep getting better while everyone else is losing ground. 2007 was down compared to the previous seasons as well IMO.

 

Lack of talent may be a reason in some areas, but I blame some of this on coaches trying to run spread offenses when they have no business doing it. Colleges can do it when they have the athletes, and especially the QB to do it, but a lot of schools in KY would be better suited working on fundamentals to death and lining up and playing in simpler schemes.

I don't think there's been an improvement in competition between the "underdog" teams and the traditional powers. However, I think the regular-season district games between the "also-rans" has improved recently.

 

Initially, I thought the six-class expansion would water-down the competition and simply allow a couple more mediocre teams to buy championship rings. Surprisingly, however, I've noticed that there is an improvement in regular-season district play between some of the 2-3, 2-4, and 3-4 district match-ups. (Maybe that doesn't translate into a win versus a one-seed in the playoffs, but it's a start.) Now, more teams have something to play for, and those "bowels of the district" games are much more meaningful and intense.

 

Competition has improved at the bottom of the standings; it will take time for that to "trickle up".