Haha, like I just said in another thread,

 

"Oh, gee, we're state champs! ...and so are...five other teams." :ohbrother:

 

And before 2007 I guess they had to say "Oh, gee, we're state champs! ...and so are...three other teams." :confused:

 

What state doesn’t have multiple state champions?

And before 2007 I guess they had to say "Oh, gee, we're state champs! ...and so are...three other teams." :confused:

 

What state doesn’t have multiple state champions?

 

Well said. Its about the players. Not the fans or parents. Everybody will always have something to complain about no matter how many classes they are.

 

Also, there are only 2 teams with boys enrollment around 1400, T and X. The closest is probably around 1000 or so.

The same teams are still in the hunt every December. The change to six classes hasn't done much else than spread the wealth.

I have a problem with any district that only has four teams that will automatically qualify for the playoffs. Make the regular season count for something. You look at 6A in NKY (District 6) and two teams won't make the playoffs, including one of either Boone, Conner, Ryle, Simon Kenton, and Campbell Cty. A pretty darn good team has to stay at home (along with Cooper, and they'll be in the mix in years to come) while winless teams in other districts get to advance.

Well said. Its about the players. Not the fans or parents. Everybody will always have something to complain about no matter how many classes they are.

 

Also, there are only 2 teams with boys enrollment around 1400, T and X. The closest is probably around 1000 or so.

 

Don't get me wrong, I recognize the necessity for a multiple-class organization for the state championship. I just REALLY hate that they're adding more classes. Texas is cramming something like 32 districts into each of their (six) classes, versus our 8 districts in each class...and some of their districts have upwards of 15 teams in them. I just think that looking at figures like that, it makes winning one of the Texas state titles is a little more sweet than one of Kentucky's. I would have even told you that while I was holding our Cov Cath AAA state trophy over my head in Louisville in '97.

We need to either return to four classes or go to five ...

Texas is cramming something like 32 districts into each of their (six) classes, versus our 8 districts in each class...and some of their districts have upwards of 15 teams in them. I just think that looking at figures like that, it makes winning one of the Texas state titles is a little more sweet than one of Kentucky's.

 

As I posted on another thread, Texas has five classes. 5A, 4A, 3A, and 2A are divided into two divisions; that makes 8 state champions. 1A is divided into three divisions - 11-man, 6-man I, 6-man II. So Texas crowns 11 state champions. Using it as an example of fewer champions and more "sweet" doesn't really fly.

IMO the schools in 6A, 5A, & 1A benefited the least and the current 2A, 3A, & 4A gained the most with the additional two classes. The primary exceptions might be some of the 1A programs who moved up to 2A (Danville, NCC, Bardstown, etc...).

 

However, I ask the same question every year that this subject comes up. Who is being hurt by 6 classes instead of 4? I can think of a couple of schools who might have done better under the old system, but certainly not enough to say the system is broke.

 

As far as claiming that the championships under the six class systems are less meaningful to the teams under the new system then they were under the four class system, I say ask any of the players who have won a championship in the last couple of years and I would bet that it has absolutely no affect on how they feel.

 

IMO I don't think the loss in a champioship would hurt any less.

I have no problem with 6 classes. If they went to 5 to try and make the districts work out better, I would be ok with that. I am against 4 classes. I like most teams getting into the playoffs. It offers opportunity to teams that have improved during the year or had key players return from injury.

As I posted on another thread, Texas has five classes. 5A, 4A, 3A, and 2A are divided into two divisions; that makes 8 state champions. 1A is divided into three divisions - 11-man, 6-man I, 6-man II. So Texas crowns 11 state champions. Using it as an example of fewer champions and more "sweet" doesn't really fly.

 

Sorry, as I understood it, the 6-man football was its own class, so I stand corrected. But anyway, for the sake of argument, let me leave out the 6-man divisions.

 

Texas' 11-man football teams are split into 5 classes, and EACH of those classes has well over 200 teams in it (5A is closer to 300 teams). So that means if you use the 200 figure, they have 1000+ teams competing for 9 state titles.

 

In Kentucky, we have 6 classes, and each one averages about 38 teams competing in it from year to year. That means Kentucky has approximately 228 teams competing for 6 championships. First off, Texas has single classes that have more teams competing than the entire state of Kentucky as a whole. But don't let me get off track...after all, Texas is much larger than Kentucky. So let's let math do the talking.

 

In 11-man football:

 

Kentucky

• 6 state titles, 228 teams: 6 / 228 = 0.026
  
• 2.6 percent of the competing football teams in Kentucky walk away with a state title in football.
  

 

Texas

• 9 state titles, 1000+ teams: 9 / 1000 = 0.009
  
• 0.09 percent of the competing football teams in Texas walk away with a state title in football.
  

 

I think "sweet" flies pretty high.

Definately watered down..There is no way there should be so many classes with the amount of people we have in this state..Joke!!!

 

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

Sorry, as I understood it, the 6-man football was its own class, so I stand corrected. But anyway, for the sake of argument, let me leave out the 6-man divisions.

 

But you can't leave out the 6-man divisions. They are no different than many of the smallest 1A schools in Kentucky. And that doesn't affect your percentages too much, but they are part of the UIL (Texas's KHSAA).

I really do not believe that the change has cause a significant negative impact on anyone. True, the titles are watered down a bit more (although I think it could be argued that they were watered down when there were four titles up for grabs). But I don't see any clear evidence that the overall quality of football being played in KY has gone down in the past two years on account of this change.

I have no problem with 6 classes. If they went to 5 to try and make the districts work out better, I would be ok with that. I am against 4 classes. I like most teams getting into the playoffs. It offers opportunity to teams that have improved during the year or had key players return from injury.

 

:thumb:

 

What damage does it do to have 6 state champs instead of 4? Who is harmed? This isn't about 'everyone gets a trophy'. We only have 6 state champion squads out of a couple hundred schools playing football. I have no problem with the current system. If they went to 5, I would be okay with that as well.

 

I am not sure I like most team's getting in the playoffs. Either about 1/2 of the teams should get in OR do like every other sport in the state where everyone gets in. Those in 4 team districts get in no matter if they lose very game 70-0, but those in 5-7 team districts may have some decent teams who don't get in.

But you can't leave out the 6-man divisions. They are no different than many of the smallest 1A schools in Kentucky. And that doesn't affect your percentages too much, but they are part of the UIL (Texas's KHSAA).

 

Okay, I see that point.