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.

 

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but just for further edification - where does KHSAA lose money/spend extra money by classifying basketball (or other sports)? The cost of running multiple state tournaments?

Not disagreeing with anything you've said, but just for further edification - where does KHSAA lose money/spend extra money by classifying basketball (or other sports)? The cost of running multiple state tournaments?

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your question. I don't think they'd lose a dime, quite frankly I see it as a potential money infusion. However, the BOC does not see it that way. They fear losing both money and prestige if the basketball "Sweet 16" is changed. Regardless however, their fears should never be the reason for maintaining the status quo in baseball, softball and soccer.

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.

 

I've stated 2 times now that I agree and thats the obvious reason. I'm stating a SECONDARY reason why they maybe do not change it. Please read my previous comments carefully before jumping on me.

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.

 

:thumb:

I've stated 2 times now that I agree and thats the obvious reason. I'm stating a SECONDARY reason why they maybe do not change it. Please read my previous comments carefully before jumping on me.

 

Certainly wasn't intending to "jump on you", but apparently I did misunderstand your posts. My impression - apparently wrong - was you that you felt baseball should remain at one class because much fewer numbers are needed to field a baseball team as opposed to a football team and therefore smaller schools can come up with 9 bodies as easily as larger schools. If I misconstrued your post, my apologies.

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.

 

Great points. That is exactly what is happening.

Numbers do play a role, but one cannot reason that more numbers alone will field a better baseball team. Quality of the players and the program is not being considered at all. It does take fewer quality players to win in basketball and baseball than football. I do not believe that Valley Sports Little League is the largest Little League Program in the state (or the world), but the area has the mentality that “baseball is life” and won a Little League World Series. Joe B. Hall says that his favorite basketball team is Elliot County High School—with an enrollment of 325. See this link to The Courier-Journal: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090116/SPORTS05/901160505/1031/SPORTS05

 

I know that if you want to win, that you “have to have the horses;” but we seem to live in a society though where a trophy is given to every child just for participation alone, not for excelling or doing something well. I see parents be on the board of directors of Little Leagues to get their kids on all-star teams rather than help them learn how to play baseball. We seem to live in a society where personal responsibility has gone out the door and it is always “somebody else’s fault.”

 

There has just been a tradition to the Sweet Sixteen in basketball and the baseball tournament. If there needs to be change, do it—but the above factors are not being considered much.

Numbers do play a role, but one cannot reason that more numbers alone will field a better baseball team. Quality of the players and the program is not being considered at all. It does take fewer quality players to win in basketball and baseball than football. I do not believe that Valley Sports Little League is the largest Little League Program in the state (or the world), but the area has the mentality that “baseball is life” and won a Little League World Series. Joe B. Hall says that his favorite basketball team is Elliot County High School—with an enrollment of 325. See this link to The Courier-Journal: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090116/SPORTS05/901160505/1031/SPORTS05

 

I know that if you want to win, that you “have to have the horses;” but we seem to live in a society though where a trophy is given to every child just for participation alone, not for excelling or doing something well. I see parents be on the board of directors of Little Leagues to get their kids on all-star teams rather than help them learn how to play baseball. We seem to live in a society where personal responsibility has gone out the door and it is always “somebody else’s fault.”

 

There has just been a tradition to the Sweet Sixteen in basketball and the baseball tournament. If there needs to be change, do it—but the above factors are not being considered much.

 

 

I understood what you are trying to say, however:

 

1) creating 2 or 3 classes in baseball is hardly equivalent to giving a participation trophy to every child.

 

2) simply because something has been done a certain way for a number of years does not mean is cannot be improved upon and should stay that way forever.

 

3) yes, there are certainly examples of smaller schools excelling in certain sports and out-competing the larger schools. But they are exceptions to the rule that larger schools draw from a larger talent base and generally (not always) will be able to put together a better program year in and year out.

I understood what you are trying to say, however:

 

1) creating 2 or 3 classes in baseball is hardly equivalent to giving a participation trophy to every child.

 

2) simply because something has been done a certain way for a number of years does not mean is cannot be improved upon and should stay that way forever.

 

3) yes, there are certainly examples of smaller schools excelling in certain sports and out-competing the larger schools. But they are exceptions to the rule that larger schools draw from a larger talent base and generally (not always) will be able to put together a better program year in and year out.

 

Your points are well made, yet I am not for sure that you in fact do know what I am trying to say. You say you understand what I am trying to say, yet do not see any value of the points I really made.

 

I was not trying to say that giving 2 or 3 trophies is the same as a trophy for everyone just for participation, yet I was saying that you have to look at a society where things like that go on. When you try to refute my points in this way, I wonder if you do understand what I am trying to say.

 

Your second point, that just because something has been done a certain way does not mean that they cannot be improved, makes me believe that you do not understand what I was trying to say. I said that if a change needs to be made, do it—just look closely at why it is being done. I think some of the discussions about sports have not been objectively discussed.

 

I also think that easily throwing out my examples because they are “exceptions” may cause people to miss important points. Why not try to look at Elliot County and Valley Sports Little League and see if what they are doing can be repeated more often?

I understood what you are trying to say, however:

 

1) creating 2 or 3 classes in baseball is hardly equivalent to giving a participation trophy to every child.

 

2) simply because something has been done a certain way for a number of years does not mean is cannot be improved upon and should stay that way forever.

 

3) yes, there are certainly examples of smaller schools excelling in certain sports and out-competing the larger schools. But they are exceptions to the rule that larger schools draw from a larger talent base and generally (not always) will be able to put together a better program year in and year out.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Coop..This is what park and I bantered about on a separate thread. We were discussing a 3 class system.

 

I guess I should have been more specific , but what I mean by larger schools, looking at the way the class systems were broken up here on this thread, is 4A and up. Although in this thread 4A is considered upper-mid. I am sure there are cases, and no I didnt research the last 10-20 years, that some schools smaller than 3A or below faired very well. You have to consider that in the schools you listed as smaller than 6A you are looking at some solid baseball programs over the years and private schools who have always placed a big emphasis on sports so they attract top athletes (Lec Cath, Cov Cath, LCA). I do agree with your Class A point.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Park1221

GG, I beg to differ on your account of the facts:"a majority of the time the larger schools are going to win the title just by the number of atheletes they pull from." In the last 10 years that statement has not held true as only 3 titles have been won by 6A classified schools(Dunbar and PRP). If you back it up over the last 20 years, it is split dead even--10 titles for non-6A schools and 10 for large 6A. I'll give the non-6A title schools(Cov Cath, Boyd, Franklin-Simpson, Paintsville, Lex Christian, Lex Cath(2) and Harrison County(3). If you look at this issue with some fact based objectivity you cannot conclude that a class system is needed. There are some really small private schools that probably have no chance of ever winning a title, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater because of that! There is already an All A classic tournament which allows those small schools to comepte against one another during the regular season. I'm sure a trophy is awarded, and those schools still get a shot at the bigger schools in the post season.

Your points are well made, yet I am not for sure that you in fact do know what I am trying to say. You say you understand what I am trying to say, yet do not see any value of the points I really made.

 

I was not trying to say that giving 2 or 3 trophies is the same as a trophy for everyone just for participation, yet I was saying that you have to look at a society where things like that go on. When you try to refute my points in this way, I wonder if you do understand what I am trying to say.

 

Your second point, that just because something has been done a certain way does not mean that they cannot be improved, makes me believe that you do not understand what I was trying to say. I said that if a change needs to be made, do it—just look closely at why it is being done. I think some of the discussions about sports have not been objectively discussed.

 

I also think that easily throwing out my examples because they are “exceptions” may cause people to miss important points. Why not try to look at Elliot County and Valley Sports Little League and see if what they are doing can be repeated more often?

 

So then maybe I didn't follow your point. In a thread that is discussing the feasibility/value of going to multiple classes in baseball, what was your purpose in saying, "but we seem to live in a society where a trophy is given to every child just for participation alone, not for excelling or doing something well."? I don't think it was an unfounded reach for me to assume your were implying the giving out multiple trophies in a multi-class sytem is somehow akin to the "every player gets a trophy" mentality becoming so prevalent today or that, at a minimum, these multi-class trophies would be watered-down and hold less value. If not, then I will admit I fail to see what the point of your statement was.

While I am generally opposed to a multi-class system, I am aware that are a segment of schools who routinely get pounded by traditional baseball powerhouses (ie PRP v. Portland Christian in Region 6 tourney) and I would therefore not be opposed to making the All A Classic the "All A state tournament". However, I think schools should be given the option to play up in class (4 year commitment). I would not favor a 3 or 4 class system because history proves that in the last 20 years non 6A schools win the title as often as 6A schools. The purpose behind a class system is presumably to give schools a level playing field upon which to compete. But, if the playing field is already level why should a smaller school be forced down into the "minors"? The problem also is that you have some larger schools( a few in Jefferson County) who can barely field a team and if you force them to play in the largest class you would still have the problem of 30-0 blowouts in the opening round of region.

While I am generally opposed to a multi-class system, I am aware that are a segment of schools who routinely get pounded by traditional baseball powerhouses (ie PRP v. Portland Christian in Region 6 tourney) and I would therefore not be opposed to making the All A Classic the "All A state tournament". However, I think schools should be given the option to play up in class (4 year commitment). I would not favor a 3 or 4 class system because history proves that in the last 20 years non 6A schools win the title as often as 6A schools. The purpose behind a class system is presumably to give schools a level playing field upon which to compete. But, if the playing field is already level why should a smaller school be forced down into the "minors"? The problem also is that you have some larger schools( a few in Jefferson County) who can barely field a team and if you force them to play in the largest class you would still have the problem of 30-0 blowouts in the opening round of region.

 

Some good points... and you are correct it probably wouldn't work for all schools, up or down, but if studied and laid out properly I believe it would work for the majority.

Class them.

 

3 classes would be sufficient for Baseball, Basketball, soccer, Volleyball, Softball, all of them.

While I am generally opposed to a multi-class system, I am aware that are a segment of schools who routinely get pounded by traditional baseball powerhouses (ie PRP v. Portland Christian in Region 6 tourney) and I would therefore not be opposed to making the All A Classic the "All A state tournament". However, I think schools should be given the option to play up in class (4 year commitment). I would not favor a 3 or 4 class system because history proves that in the last 20 years non 6A schools win the title as often as 6A schools. The purpose behind a class system is presumably to give schools a level playing field upon which to compete. But, if the playing field is already level why should a smaller school be forced down into the "minors"? The problem also is that you have some larger schools( a few in Jefferson County) who can barely field a team and if you force them to play in the largest class you would still have the problem of 30-0 blowouts in the opening round of region.

 

Not many 6A schools may have won State Championship over the years, but not many 1A or 2A have won them either. They all come from 3A,4A, and 5A. Go to the KHSAA wbsite and see how many 1A and 2A schools have won in the last 30 years. I come up with two Paintsville and LCA.