I'm not sure we'll be able to make a definitive true positive/negative statement about the KHSAA's decision for 20 years.

Very true. Cross country and track are much different from baseball and basketball, although all are "team" sports. In baseball and basketball, a few players who are fair players work together on the field / court and make each other better directly through their play. A great team need not have individual studs. The "total is greater than the sum of its parts" is very true for the great teams, because each player directly impacts the next guy's game and the team's performance. In basketball, a well-coached team with five above-average (not great) players and three average backups can win the state championship.

 

In X-C and track, each player directly impacts the team's performance, but a strong run by "Johnny" doesn't directly impact "Billy." And to win in these sports, everyone has to excel individually. There are strategies that a team can utilize to improve its chances, but at the end of the race, little Billy simply has to run his race without any help from his teammates. In X-C, for example, your top 5 runners "count" towards your team total. The Law of Large Numbers works solidly against the little schools; having one - or even two - great runners is a possibility, but their odds of ever competing with the larger schools is almost statistically impossible.

 

I know that this is a football forum, but let me say that I know some XC runners that would disagree with your statement. Even though each runner runs individually, the team atmosphere can be huge. This is one reason why my school's little 1A XC team does so well. Leadership in pushing each other harder is very valuable. Our girls team was the state runners up. Our boys team suffered a few setbacks this year. One players worsening asthma caused him to have to quit and the top leader of the team suffered two different stress fractures during the season. Without those top two (both seniors) being able to push the team in practices and drills, the team did not perform as well. They (very disappointedly) placed 5th at state this year.

colonel-fan, allow me to rephrase my last post (it's too late for me to edit it) as it comes across harsher than I intended. Yes in theory 10 classes would allow even more teams to advance. But there comes a point when the number of classes gets silly. Perhaps that point is 6 classes for you. I'd have preferred 5 classes myself. But the KHSAA (and I believe the football coaches advisory committee) preferred 6 as I recall the discussion. Let's just wait some years before we pass final judgment on the decision.

 

No worries here, I've never been described as becoming anyway.

 

And, yes, I believe 6 classes is too many. Not sure why they jumped from 4 to 6, but I'm sure the football coaches advisory committee did prefer 6 classes over 4 and 5 as it makes most of their jobs easier.

 

My solution: shorten the regular season to 9 games, go with 5 classes, and have everybody make the playoffs. This plan has points some won't like, but the counter argument would be to wait 20 years and evaulate the plan at that time.

I talked to a principal that told me expects this:

 

6A ... 16 teams

A ... a certain number, somewhere around 30

 

The other four classes would be broken down into equal numbers.

I talked to a principal that told me expects this:

 

6A ... 16 teams

A ... a certain number, somewhere around 30

 

The other four classes would be broken down into equal numbers.

 

Not sure why they would knock 1A down to that number. All that is going to do is make it less competitive with a couple of teams dominating even more than currently.

Not sure why they would knock 1A down to that number. All that is going to do is make it less competitive with a couple of teams dominating even more than currently.

If I remember correctly, the number of football schools was 221 when the decision was made to go to six classes. I'm sure it's close to that now, with Harlan County consolidating and the opening of Cooper.

 

Let's say it remains at 221. If there are 16 schools in 6A, that leaves 205 for the remaining five classes ... 41 apiece.

 

Sounds reasonable. I think Class A currently is around 40.

 

Of course, pending consolidations (McCracken County) and splits (Greenwood, Shelby County, perhaps Nelson County) and other such moves could adjust the numbers a bit.

All sports should be classfied period. We hang on to an old out dated system because many of us are afraid of change.

or don't want to give up the advantage we have over lesser privileged schools.

All sports should be classfied period. We hang on to an old out dated system because many of us are afraid of change.

 

But it defeats the purpose of classing if some schools get to pick which one they play in regardless of the reason.

I agree with the last couple of posts.

 

Classify schools and they play in that classification for all sports. Classification covers all of those in grades 10-12, unless every school district in the state uses 9-12 grades in high school. Not sure if some use 10-12 any where in the state.

 

The only reason I can see playing up is if the classification used a penalty system for private/non-public schools.

I talked to a principal that told me expects this:

 

6A ... 16 teams

A ... a certain number, somewhere around 30

 

The other four classes would be broken down into equal numbers.

 

 

This makes alot of sense to me. These are the two classes with the greatest disparity in the number of boys in the schools. Reducing the number of schools in these two classes is the best way to have schools playing against other schools of similar size.

What's next for the KHSAA?

 

The status quo until the private vs. public, large vs. small, rural vs. urban, open enrollment vs. closed enrollment, or any other perceived disadvantage bubbles to the top again.

 

The rise and fall of these elements seems to come and go with the different leadership within the KHSAA itself from year to year.

This makes alot of sense to me. These are the two classes with the greatest disparity in the number of boys in the schools. Reducing the number of schools in these two classes is the best way to have schools playing against other schools of similar size.

 

I totally disagree on the 1A side of this. If you take the bottom 15 schools by record this year in 1A, 7 of them are in the top 10 in the current 1A enrollment numbers. So 7 of the biggest schools in 1A had records of 4-7 or worse.

 

On the flip side, Bellevue and Lou Holy Cross are in the bottom 10 in enrollment but they finished in the final top 10.

 

If you went to 30 schools in 1A, you would still have in 1A from this year's final top 10 Beechwood, Hazard, Frankfort, Raceland, Bellevue, Lou. Holy Cross and Fairview. Dropping to 30 does nothing to help 1A except make it even less competitive. If anything, they need to increase the number in 1A to try and make it more competitive.

I know that this is a football forum, but let me say that I know some XC runners that would disagree with your statement. Even though each runner runs individually, the team atmosphere can be huge. This is one reason why my school's little 1A XC team does so well. Leadership in pushing each other harder is very valuable. Our girls team was the state runners up. Our boys team suffered a few setbacks this year. One players worsening asthma caused him to have to quit and the top leader of the team suffered two different stress fractures during the season. Without those top two (both seniors) being able to push the team in practices and drills, the team did not perform as well. They (very disappointedly) placed 5th at state this year.

 

Actually, I think the thread has meandered into the question of whether football should be re-classified.... or classified at all. (it should be)

 

I can see how you may have misunderstood my post. As a father with two X-C runners who have run since their elementary school years (one is now in HS and one is in MS), I'm very familiar with how a X-C team works. The team atmosphere IS huge, and you'll note in my post that I also acknowledged that there is a team strategy involved.

 

However, my point was simply that in sports such as baseball and basketball, one player's play has a very direct impact on another's. If the shortstop throws the ball over the first baseman's head, he can't catch it. A bad lob from a basketball guard blows an alley-oop play. And a great pass from a quarterback means nothing if the wide receiver drops it.

 

But if Johnny runs a 16 minute 5K, it doesn't make any of his teammates faster. Their run is their own.

 

And you folks in Trimble do have a pretty nice team, BTW! :thumb: I see your tent at all the meets we go to!

I talked to a principal that told me expects this:

 

6A ... 16 teams

A ... a certain number, somewhere around 30

 

The other four classes would be broken down into equal numbers.

 

If this change happens I wonder what the 14 schools who remain in 6A with X & T will think of the change. Would this new 6A be more of a Louisville and Lexington large school class or based on overall enrollment?