1 State, 1 State Champion

 

If this is your reasoning then the State Championships all the small schools have won over the years in football ect. are meaningless? I for one as a past small school player can tell you the experiences of playing for a state championship all be it a class "A" state championship will stay with me for the rest of my life.

Same for football too? If not, why?

 

Football takes many more players to field a team. More enrollment = more players to field both sides of the ball. You don't necessarily need about 30 to field a team with Off/Def/Spe. Teams but most school do this if they have enough players. Baseball you need 9 on the field with some backup pitchers and you field your squad. Therefore, teams are more fatigued in A football because they have to go both sides of the ball whereas 6A you can have a single player for each position. It's an unfair advantage whereas baseball it is not.

Football takes many more players to field a team. More enrollment = more players to field both sides of the ball. You don't necessarily need about 30 to field a team with Off/Def/Spe. Teams but most school do this if they have enough players. Baseball you need 9 on the field with some backup pitchers and you field your squad. Therefore, teams are more fatigued in A football because they have to go both sides of the ball whereas 6A you can have a single player for each position. It's an unfair advantage whereas baseball it is not.

 

But, the fact of the matter is, these smaller schools DO field teams in football, most of them quite easily. So as long as they're able to field a team, why not throw them all into the same football pile as you want to do with baseball? It comes down to the quality of talent from which you have to draw. Smaller schools field their football, baseball, soccer teams, etc, by generally drawing from a lesser talent pool than the big schools - simply due to numbers. That lesser talent pool applies to football, baseball, whatever, and it makes sense to have those schools play against similarly-sized schools drawing from similarly-sized talent pools.

Edited January 13, 200917 yr by cooperstown

But, the fact of the matter is, these smaller schools DO field teams, most of them quite easily. So as long as they're able to field a team, why not throw them all into the same football pile as you want to do with baseball? It comes down to the quality of talent from which you have to draw. Smaller schools field their football, baseball, soccer teams, etc, by generally drawing from a lesser talent pool than the big schools - simply due to numbers. That lesser talent pool applies to football, baseball, whatever, and it makes sense to have those schools play against similarly-sized schools drawing from similarly-sized talent pools.

 

Well obviously. I'm trying to explain why it would be a bad idea to do this to football rather than baseball. The smaller drawing pool for talent is the obvious reason.

Currently 44/46 states have classification in baseball, 4 states have no high school baseball. I think it is for the betterment of the sport to class baseball into 3 classes in KY. Someone tell one of the football champions there title is watered down because of classification and I bet they would disagree whole-heartedly. They would also show you that beautiful ring on their finger that says State Champions!!!

 

To me, that quote pretty much says it all. It makes no sense to have only 1 class for baseball.

Football takes many more players to field a team. More enrollment = more players to field both sides of the ball. You don't necessarily need about 30 to field a team with Off/Def/Spe. Teams but most school do this if they have enough players. Baseball you need 9 on the field with some backup pitchers and you field your squad. Therefore, teams are more fatigued in A football because they have to go both sides of the ball whereas 6A you can have a single player for each position. It's an unfair advantage whereas baseball it is not.

 

What it comes down to is in baseball you have 9 on the field and football you have 11. To be good in either of those your players on the field have to be good. The more players you have to choose from the better those on the field are going to be. Thats why the bigger schools have the advantage.

What it comes down to is in baseball you have 9 on the field and football you have 11. To be good in either of those your players on the field have to be good. The more players you have to choose from the better those on the field are going to be. Thats why the bigger schools have the advantage.

 

 

Absolutely right, That is why once in a while you see a Beechwood or a Heath in the championship for a year but overall the bigger schools come back much more often.

But, the fact of the matter is, these smaller schools DO field teams in football, most of them quite easily. So as long as they're able to field a team, why not throw them all into the same football pile as you want to do with baseball? It comes down to the quality of talent from which you have to draw. Smaller schools field their football, baseball, soccer teams, etc, by generally drawing from a lesser talent pool than the big schools - simply due to numbers. That lesser talent pool applies to football, baseball, whatever, and it makes sense to have those schools play against similarly-sized schools drawing from similarly-sized talent pools.

 

Good, big school football teams play 35 to 40 kids a game assuming the game is close. 11 on offense, 11 on defense, special teams, 2nd team lineman and linebackers, running backs, etc...In high school baseball you can be very good playing the same 9 or 10 kids the whole season. Doesn't work in football. Big, big difference in the two sports.

However i do not believe Beechwood would dominate the 1A system.. jmo

Football takes many more players to field a team. More enrollment = more players to field both sides of the ball. You don't necessarily need about 30 to field a team with Off/Def/Spe. Teams but most school do this if they have enough players. Baseball you need 9 on the field with some backup pitchers and you field your squad. Therefore, teams are more fatigued in A football because they have to go both sides of the ball whereas 6A you can have a single player for each position. It's an unfair advantage whereas baseball it is not.

 

Not true. If you pick 9 kids out of a school with 1000 boys and 9 kids out of a school with 200 boys which school do you think should win. That would be like saying. Let's take 5 different little league all star teams add them together and pick the best player and compete against on leagues all star team.

Edited January 20, 200917 yr by STRIKE3
edited content

Not true. If you pick 9 kids out of a school with 1000 boys and 9 kids out of a school with 200 boys which school do you think should win. That would be like saying. Let's take 5 different little league all star teams add them together and pick the best player and compete against on leagues all star team.

 

Of course I said that's also a factor I was not denying it. The fact of the matter is that baseball is a much different type of sport than football. Like I said both sides of the ball are played by either 9 or 10 players where in football you need more. It makes more sense to have the smaller schools play smaller schools because it IS a disadvantage to have less players on the team whereas baseball there's no disadvantage to having less people on the team. You could technically have 11 players and be fine. Football doesn't work like that. Sure the drawing pool is smaller which is also a huge disadvantage but classes are not necessarily needed.

Edited January 20, 200917 yr by STRIKE3
edited quote content

Of course I said that's also a factor I was not denying it. The fact of the matter is that baseball is a much different type of sport than football. Like I said both sides of the ball are played by either 9 or 10 players where in football you need more. It makes more sense to have the smaller schools play smaller schools because it IS a disadvantage to have less players on the team whereas baseball there's no disadvantage to having less people on the team. You could technically have 11 players and be fine. Football doesn't work like that. Sure the drawing pool is smaller which is also a huge disadvantage but classes are not necessarily needed.

 

You just don't get it.

You just don't get it.

 

Please explain if you get it all. And if you get it explain why there isn't class system in baseball if I'm wrong. I'd love to know the real reason please. :notworthy:

Please explain if you get it all. And if you get it explain why there isn't class system in baseball if I'm wrong. I'd love to know the real reason please. :notworthy:

 

I'll tell you plain and simple. The BOC and the KHSAA are mortally fearful that if all other team sports are classified there could eventually be pressure to classify their sacred cow, basketball. They now and will in the future hide behind the notion that classification will increase travel costs when across the board that notion is patently not true. One true champion? Come on, that argument is as archaic as it is self serving for the minority of schools that currently prey upon the rest. This is a dollars and sense problem, period and that problem is based in fear. I've heard it straight from the mouths of those in power and second hand from those who heard it as well. This is no longer about the kids, it's about money and control and basketball. Not classifying these sports is wrong and detrimental to the sports and primarily to the athletes themselves and the reasoning is as wrong as the notion itself. For once I defy these people to put the athletes first, not money, not control, not caveman thinking and do the right thing and do it as quickly as possible.

Please explain if you get it all. And if you get it explain why there isn't class system in baseball if I'm wrong. I'd love to know the real reason please. :notworthy:

 

You seem to feel that no class system is needed in baseball solely because it is easier to come up with 9 players rather than 40 (or whatever) for football. What you don't seem to be taking into consideration is that - be it 9 player or 40 players - a school drawing from a base of 1000 will almost always be drawing from a better talent pool. In most instances, who do you think will find the best 9 players - a school will 200 boys or a school with 1000 boys? Yes, the school with 200 boys will have an easier time finding 9 bodies to field a baseball team as opposed to the 40-50 bodies needed for a football team, but those 9 players generally won't be as competitive as the 9 players the 1000-boy school can put together.