I've always been one to look at motives when judging a policy. When talking about the 6class system I have to believe there were 3 major motives, and they were all connected.

 

1) Public/Private and the creation of an all public class - 3A

2) The domination of St. X and Trinity in 6A (IMO very connected to public/private)

3) Small schools given a chance to make the playoffs.

 

If you think my motives are accurate or if you think they're crazy, just listen.

 

I will not get into public/private right now, but you can't tell me the creation of the all public 3A was not influenced by separatist believers. You also can't tell me that that whole argument wasn't just a way by some coaches to circumvent the titans of Trinity and St. X. Thats my simple view on the public/private debate and its influence on the class system.

 

Also I believe 1A should be altered to fully serve its purpose - be a developmental class. Some teams like Brossart need 1A but they don't need Beechwood in their district. Teams like Pendleton that are new or teams that historically have had problems fielding a team need a developmental class that isnt geared towards size but rather the teams that need to grow. Its an interesting concept but I understand it has many abstracts.

I look at a little differently then some, and am not that upset about it any more. But, my thoughts go something like: why did we go to six classes? And is it better for Kentucky football as a whole?

 

Now, six classes has benefited my team, so I have no motive for being critical of six classes.

 

Six classes was started because of the Public/Private debate. This was a way to make some people happy and so they would quit fighting for a separate Private playoff system. It worked, for the most part. You don't hear as much of a push for a separate private school playoff system.

 

The six class system was also done to make some of the old 4A class schools happy. They wanted away from Trinity and St. Xavier. This didn't fix that problem to much, they are still dominating their class, and will continue to do so no matter if we have six classes, four classes, or 12 classes.

 

I don't see how 6 classes helps Kentucky football, that can be argued, but I don't see it making it better. At best, it doesn't make it worse.

But shouldn't the playoffs be a reward and a privilage? Not a gift?

 

Teams from each class at .500 or worse last year

1A - 19 teams

2A - 19 teams

3A - 13 teams

4A - 17 teams

5A - 14 teams

6A - 13 teams

 

If where talking about the classes being water down, it starts with these teams. Why should a team make the playoffs....if you can't win more than half of you games?

 

Exactly. :thumb: NEVER should a sub-.500 team make the playoffs... As it stands now, an 0-10 club goes to the playoffs out of certain districts, and that's an absolute joke.

Also I believe 1A should be altered to fully serve its purpose - be a developmental class. Some teams like Brossart need 1A but they don't need Beechwood in their district. Teams like Pendleton that are new or teams that historically have had problems fielding a team need a developmental class that isnt geared towards size but rather the teams that need to grow. Its an interesting concept but I understand it has many abstracts.

This is just off the top of my head, so I'm sure it wouldn't work. But what about having like four classes (the lowest being a developmental class and the top, a "champions" class), and letting people play more or less where they feel comfortable competing?

 

 

 

Okay, I know....that's insane, but it sounded good.

I wouldn't have classes at all, but IF numbers are going to matter they should matter, and the classes should be on a scale of 0 to 400 then 400 to 800 and so on. Just lumping them into groups based on where they are sequentially is not right.

 

A. How would your no class system work?

 

B. If you broke them down 0-400, 400-800, etc., do you know how many classes would there be and how many teams would be in each class?

 

 

 

The problem is our teams in KY are not evenly distributed, enrollmentwise, from low to high. There is not many very small schools and not many very large schools that play football. There is always going to be a large disparity in the top class and short of putting Trinity and St X in there own class, there isn't an easy fix, IMO.

But shouldn't the playoffs be a reward and a privilage? Not a gift?

 

Teams from each class at .500 or worse last year

1A - 19 teams

2A - 19 teams

3A - 13 teams

4A - 17 teams

5A - 14 teams

6A - 13 teams

 

If where talking about the classes being water down, it starts with these teams. Why should a team make the playoffs....if you can't win more than half of you games?

 

Exactly. :thumb: NEVER should a sub-.500 team make the playoffs... As it stands now, an 0-10 club goes to the playoffs out of certain districts, and that's an absolute joke.

 

Now, I'm going to have to disagree here, because of my aforementioned example. If you've got a traditionally powerful 2A school such as Bardstown who comes off a great year into the next schedule cycle, why is it fair to them to keep them out of the playoffs just because the only schools they could get to agree to play them were 5A and 6A teams? In 2007, Bardstown finished the regular season 4-6, yet got to the region final and gave eventual 2A champ Ft. Campbell their toughest test of the playoffs.

 

I would be more inclined to agree with your premise if there were some guarantee of required games against other schools in their class, such as the district they're matched up with in the playoffs. But as it stands now, if we had your scenario, all that would do is reward a team for loading up their schedule with cupcakes, and the playoffs would be even more watered down than they already are.

This is just off the top of my head, so I'm sure it wouldn't work. But what about having like four classes (the lowest being a developmental class and the top, a "champions" class), and letting people play more or less where they feel comfortable competing?

 

 

 

Okay, I know....that's insane, but it sounded good.

 

I think there would have to be some type of enrollment parameter to keep a Henderson County (big 6A) from playing in 1A. Do you understand what I mean?

 

Perhaps a better idea would be a school can play up into any class they want without any questions asked.

Jim I see your view.....as to getting teams out of your district to play you. If you was to take a look at last year and only let the District Champion and Runner-up, go to the post season. I think you would only find a few teams with a sub 500 record and not half the class. Make the playoffs something special and not taken for granted.

Edited September 3, 200917 yr by Birdsfan

Please, stop this idea that two teams would be better for a playoff system and lets go backwards to 1987 - 1990 and then we can talk about how many great teams miss the playoffs again. I can give a lot of example's of teams that miss the playoffs going 9-2 during that time which made it tough for most programs. It is also not a reach for a team in a two playoff team system to go 9-1 and miss the playoffs that is far worse then a 0-10 making it imo. The two team playoffs system would be a huge bust and it would hurt football in this state most part.

 

I know first hand about someone going 9-1 and not making the playoffs. I've been on such a team. We didn't cry about it either. We knew what we had to do and didn't get it done. The problem now days everyone thinks they are owed something. If you want to go to post season win your district, or atleast be a runner-up. Teams that make the playoffs without winning a game, IMO makes Kentucky look much worse than 6 classes.

Jim I see your view.....as to getting teams out of your district to play you. If you was to take a look at last year and only let the District Champion and Runner-up, go to the post season. I think you would only find a few teams with a sub 500 record and not half the class. Make the playoffs something special and not taken for granite.

 

The following schools don't make the playoffs last season under your plan:

 

Class 1A

Allen Central (7-3), Fairview (7-3), Ballard Memorial (5-5), Gallatin County (5-5)

 

Class 2A

Caldwell County (7-3), Carroll County (5-5), Lloyd Memorial (5-5), Shelby Valley (5-5)

 

Class 3A

Harlan County (7-3), Edmonson County (6-4), Western Hills (6-4), Henry County (6-4), Powell County (6-4), Shawnee (5-4), Muhlenberg South (5-5), Somerset (5-5), Magoffin County (5-5)

 

Class 4A

Marion County (8-2), Hopkins County Central (7-3), Rockcastle County (7-3)

 

Class 5A

Grant County (7-3), Hopkinsville (6-4), Bryan Station (6-4), Clay County (6-4), Perry County Central (5-5), Woodford County (5-5), Southwestern (5-5)

 

Class 6A

Bullitt Central (8-2), Madisonville-North Hopkins (7-3), Simon Kenton (6-4), George Rogers Clark (6-4), Ballard (5-5), Seneca (5-5), Graves County (5-5), Ryle (5-5)

 

Looks like several good teams would have been on the outside looking in. Heck, under your plan of "two per district" the 6A state runner-up wouldn't have even made the playoffs!

 

I agree that there are some problems with six classes in Kentucky, but cutting back the number of teams that make the playoffs doesn't do anything to fix it.

I know first hand about someone going 9-1 and not making the playoffs. I've been on such a team. We didn't cry about it either. We knew what we had to do and didn't get it done. The problem now days everyone thinks they are owed something. If you want to go to post season win your district, or atleast be a runner-up. Teams that make the playoffs without winning a game, IMO makes Kentucky look much worse than 6 classes.

 

Ah, the good ole days. When men were men and women liked it that way.

 

Kentucky has had four teams per district make the playoffs for nearly 40% of the time they've had playoffs. As I said before, there are ways to fix the six class problem in Kentucky but reducing the number of teams in the playoffs isn't the way.

A. How would your no class system work?

 

B. If you broke them down 0-400, 400-800, etc., do you know how many classes would there be and how many teams would be in each class?

 

The problem is our teams in KY are not evenly distributed, enrollmentwise, from low to high. There is not many very small schools and not many very large schools that play football. There is always going to be a large disparity in the top class and short of putting Trinity and St X in there own class, there isn't an easy fix, IMO.

I understand that the issue isn't easy I just think the current solution makes 5/6ths happy at the detriment to the 1/6th, which I see as wrong.

 

A no class system would work regionally like most of the other sports. Probably in this case you would have 32 districts of 6 or 7 teams, the top two of each district go to the playoffs.

 

If they had a hard number structure you would most likely have three classes with a small number little class and a small number big class with a huge middle class but I don't see why that would have to be a problem.

Kentucky has had four teams per district make the playoffs for nearly 40% of the time they've had playoffs. As I said before, there are ways to fix the six class problem in Kentucky but reducing the number of teams in the playoffs isn't the way.

 

 

I guess we will just have to agree on disagreeing :thumb:

I guess we will just have to agree on disagreeing :thumb:

 

Hey, Garrard County's been in that #3 spot many times over the years. I understand exactly what you're saying. I just think taking teams out of the playoffs doesn't really help. Back in the four-class days, 58% of the teams made the playoffs. Now in six-class, 87% of the teams make the playoffs. If we dropped back to two teams, only 44% of the teams would make the playoffs. That would be a step back from the four-class days, which most considered to be very good for Kentucky football.

Here's an idea, lets just just leave things the way they are until the KHSAA changes it and then argue about it when they do.