According to this pdf file from the KHSAA, there are 217 football-playing schools in the 4 classes (54 in each class). 6 classes would be 36 or so in each class if they are broken down the same way.

 

I don't know any of the details of this 6-class proposal, this is the first I've heard of it. But we already have 32 out of 54 teams in each class making the playoffs (16 per semi-state, 2 semi-states per class...right?). If we spread the classes thinner & keep the same semi-state setups, it will be like the NHL where everyone makes the playoffs & marginalizes the regular season.

 

Personally, I think 5 classes would be pushing it. I'm with westsider's opinion that 6 would be ridiculous.

Adding two more classes does not have to mean getting everyone in the play-offs. Why not keep the number of teams going to the play-offs the same? Right now there are 32 from each class. If there were 6 classes only have 21 or 22 from each class.

 

It really does not matter what changes are proposed, there will always be pros and cons, but eventually you hit a plateau and have to make changes in order to grow.

 

Iam not for or against the ideas that are being presented, Its just a suggestion. Everyone automatically assumes the idea it to get more teams in the play-offs and give everyone a trophy. It does not have to be that way to make changes to help Kentucky football grow.

I would like to hear WHY we need 5 or 6 classes first. Who is it we are trying to help? We went over this idea on here in depth last year. What has changed since then to make it a better idea or is this whole argument based off the same ideas posted then. I tend to think 5 has a better shot than 6, but I'm not sure anything would make everyone happy short of giving out trophy's to everyone. It should be hard to get one, not easy.

4 is too many.

 

32 teams of 54 make the playoffs in each class; that is absurd.

 

IN is worse letting everybody in; OH has 32 of 100+; that teaches kids the value of hard work that really means something.

 

Don't forget also, that sometimes after very hard work, we still don't get what we desire; that is a life lesson that seems to get lost or forgotten.

I disagree, the kids can go 10-0 and if there competition does poorly they are out. 10-0 should make the playoffs. They don't choose their schools, coaches, or schedule, yet that is what ultimately decides if they go on to the post season.

I could see MAYBE splitting up 4A and 1A, but I generally

don't believe it's a good idea. Reducing the number of schools per

class would dilute a state championship too much, even though it

may benefit some small schools, and even may help schools like

Russell, who claim their district is too big (which it is). I just don't

like the idea that you only have to prove to be the number 1 team

of 36 or so teams - it makes the championship trivial.

 

As for more teams in the playoffs, that is just rediculous. I think

that the only class that should have 4 teams from each district is

4A. Thus, I agree with others that 4 teams per district dilutes the

regular season's importance.

I could see MAYBE splitting up 4A and 1A, but I generally

don't believe it's a good idea. Reducing the number of schools per

class would dilute a state championship too much, even though it

may benefit some small schools, and even may help schools like

Russell, who claim their district is too big (which it is). I just don't

like the idea that you only have to prove to be the number 1 team

of 36 or so teams - it makes the championship trivial.

 

As for more teams in the playoffs, that is just rediculous. I think

that the only class that should have 4 teams from each district is

4A. Thus, I agree with others that 4 teams per district dilutes the

regular season's importance.

I know the 1A people feel strongly about their class size, and the 4A people as well. I have not heard 2A or 3A people complain about the disparity in their classes. Maybe we ought to address why it is percieved that 1A and 4A needs to split and work from there on what effect it would have.

The way I understood it there would be an A1 and an A2, then a AA1 and AA2 then a 3A1 and a 3A2. Three classes with two divisions.

 

I am sure there will be some tweaking done to this idea.

If you go to this new 6 class configuration bad things happen. For

example, if you divided each class evenly, you will find about half

of the districts will send all their teams to the playoffs, meaning

you can be 0-10 and make it. If you divide 4A and 1A, you will find

that all the teams will make the playoffs, regardless of their records.

 

Furthermore, as long as you are sending 4 teams per district, that

only leaves 25 teams that don't make the playoffs, and there would

be no fair way to determine which teams make it and which teams

don't make it.

If you go to this new 6 class configuration bad things happen. For

example, if you divided each class evenly, you will find about half

of the districts will send all their teams to the playoffs, meaning

you can be 0-10 and make it. If you divide 4A and 1A, you will find

that all the teams will make the playoffs, regardless of their records.

 

Furthermore, as long as you are sending 4 teams per district, that

only leaves 25 teams that don't make the playoffs, and there would

be no fair way to determine which teams make it and which teams

don't make it.

 

What if they reduce it to two teams that go to the playoffs?

Some of the arguments against 6 classes are: We will allow to many teams in or it will dilute the championships. If we say this then we should just say there will be only one champion and play it like basketball. What if we did that? Only one champion and only 16 regions represented etc..I bet our thinking will change then. :flame:

What if they reduce it to two teams that go to the playoffs?

 

Then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it except that it

would still mean you would only have to prove to be #1 of 36 or

so. But if the proposal goes through, I would be shocked to see it

reduced to 2 teams per district, I could almost assure it.

Then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it except that it

would still mean you would only have to prove to be #1 of 36 or

so. But if the proposal goes through, I would be shocked to see it

reduced to 2 teams per district, I could almost assure it.

 

True, but you have 6 teams proving it instead of 4. Isn't that their true goal?

Can somebody give us a layout of the teams so we will have a real idea of what we are talking about.

What if every county put there players together (Ex: Frankfort, franklin co, western hills) as one team and only had big state tournament.

Some of the arguments against 6 classes are: We will allow too many teams in or it will dilute the championships. If we say this then we should just say there will be only one champion and play it like basketball. What if we did that? Only one champion and only 16 regions represented etc..I bet our thinking will change then. :flame:

 

One reason is that you can only play a football game once a week,

and this would expand the tournament to about eight weeks, and nine

if both the district champion and runner up went to regionals.

 

There are probably other, much better reasons, but I won't be able

to come up with all of them.

I like the current 4 class system and would prefer to keep it. But if they did go to 6 classes, I think it would work out fine as well...I'm just not sure Kentucky is big enough to warrant 6 classes???