klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Nov 8, 2018 10:15:10 GMT -6
This isn't rocket science. 1st off life isn't fair, so stop trying to make it fair. Its very simple, you break the state into equal regions and then equal conferences based on school size. Winning records get in, losers dont. But because we want things fair and to give everyone a chance...blah...blah..blah, we get this crazy crap. Also where is your integrity as a MAN, if you are the HC of an 0-9 or 1-8 team, then be a man and tell the powers to be "we dont deserve to be in the playoffs we didnt EARN it" and bow out. Isnt part of this whole football coaching thing supposed to be about teaching these kids to be MEN.
|
|
ccox16
Junior Member
Posts: 343
|
Post by ccox16 on Nov 8, 2018 11:55:53 GMT -6
This isn't rocket science. 1st off life isn't fair, so stop trying to make it fair. Its very simple, you break the state into equal regions and then equal conferences based on school size. Winning records get in, losers dont. But because we want things fair and to give everyone a chance...blah...blah..blah, we get this crazy crap. Also where is your integrity as a MAN, if you are the HC of an 0-9 or 1-8 team, then be a man and tell the powers to be "we dont deserve to be in the playoffs we didnt EARN it" and bow out. Isnt part of this whole football coaching thing supposed to be about teaching these kids to be MEN. Interesting that you say this. A 0-9 team in 4A football just made it in over a 4-6 team because of a coin flip.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Nov 8, 2018 12:04:53 GMT -6
This isn't rocket science. 1st off life isn't fair, so stop trying to make it fair. Its very simple, you break the state into equal regions and then equal conferences based on school size. Winning records get in, losers dont. But because we want things fair and to give everyone a chance...blah...blah..blah, we get this crazy crap. Also where is your integrity as a MAN, if you are the HC of an 0-9 or 1-8 team, then be a man and tell the powers to be "we dont deserve to be in the playoffs we didnt EARN it" and bow out. Isnt part of this whole football coaching thing supposed to be about teaching these kids to be MEN. It's not that simple. I know for sure multiple teams in Indiana have won state with losing records and at least two that I can think of won state with regular season finishes of just 3 wins. Because of geographic and financial issues putting schools into conferences/regions of all the same size is extremely difficult. Just as nothing in fair in life, nothing is simple. If there were an easy answer to all of this stuff, someone would have found it by now.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 15, 2018 13:08:34 GMT -6
The Illinois system is pretty sound. 256 teams (about half of the schools in Illinois) qualify for the playoffs divided into 32-team brackets across 8 classes. Conference champs and all 6,7,8, and 9-win teams are automatic qualifiers. The remaining spots are filled by 5-win teams that can get an at-large bid if they have enough "playoff points" (opponent wins). I think the cut-off this year was 38 or so. 5-4 teams whose opponents won 38 games got in the playoffs. 5-4 teams whose opponents won less than 38 games did not get in the playoffs. There is a tiebreaker in there, too. Wins of defeated oppoents, I think. There were 18 5-4 that did not make the playoffs this year. After the 256 playoff teams are determined, they are divided into the 8 classes. Smallest 32 schools are 1a, next biggest are 2a...all the way up to 8a. Then teams are seeded in the bracket based on regular season record and playoff points. Most classes have a north-south split (16 teams on the north side of the bracket, 16 teams in the south side of the bracket) except for 7a and 8a which go 1-32 (I think) and that's because most of those schools are located in the suburbs around Chicago. It is a pretty good system but there have been criticisms: 1) About 15 years ago, the state high school association determined that the state champion would be a true representative of the entire state. What this meant is that the playoffs were set up so that the state title game would feature a team from the southern part of the state and a team from the northern part of the state, at least in classes 1a-6a. So, the two "best" teams in a class don't necessarily meet in the state title game. Often, the biggest games featuring the most talented teams occur in the quarterfinals or semifinals or even on occasion in the 2nd round. As a result, there have been some boring blowout state title games over the years (but some really great ones, too). 2) Seeding. It is all done by the numbers. Your seed comes down to your record and your playoff points. The result is that sometimes, teams with higher seeds have much tougher paths than teams with lower seeds. Case in point. Our team was the #3 seed in the bracket. We easily won our 1st-round playoff game (we were up 56-6 at halftime). However, the #2 seed in the bracket was in a dogfight and needed a touchdown within the last minute of the game to advance. The #1 seed in the bracket, the defending state 2a champion, has a very tough path. They are playing a team this week that has a couple FBS commits and if they win that game, they will be probably be playing a perennial Catholic football factory in the quarterfinals. 3) Interesting map reading. Ever year, it seems that there are a handful of teams that should clearly go either north or south but they end up going the opposite direction. Like I said...it is a pretty good system but it has issues, too. larrymoe ...did I miss anything? Michigan is almost identical. 6 wins & you are in! 5-4 it is based on playoff points. After 256 teams are are determined, they are then grouped by size into 8 Divisions of 32, then into Regions of 8, then into Districts of 4 & finally seeded based on playoff points. The only big complaint is that everyone who isn’t a state title contender is always trying to schedule 6 wins & try hard to dodge any quality opponents outside of their league/conference. One thing that Ohio does really well is that you only get to count the WINS of the teams you BEAT. This keeps teams from simply scheduling as weak as they can to get to 6 wins.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Nov 15, 2018 13:45:09 GMT -6
Michigan is almost identical. 6 wins & you are in! 5-4 it is based on playoff points. After 256 teams are are determined, they are then grouped by size into 8 Divisions of 32, then into Regions of 8, then into Districts of 4 & finally seeded based on playoff points. The only big complaint is that everyone who isn’t a state title contender is always trying to schedule 6 wins & try hard to dodge any quality opponents outside of their league/conference. One thing that Ohio does really well is that you only get to count the WINS of the teams you BEAT. This keeps teams from simply scheduling as weak as they can to get to 6 wins. yea strength of schedule is a good metric to go by. if you are 10-0 and your opps have a combined record of 10-90... you are not a good team.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Nov 15, 2018 13:52:37 GMT -6
One thing that Ohio does really well is that you only get to count the WINS of the teams you BEAT. This keeps teams from simply scheduling as weak as they can to get to 6 wins. yea strength of schedule is a good metric to go by. if you are 10-0 and your opps have a combined record of 10-90... you are not a good team. I don't think it's fair to say you are not a good team. You may be a really good team with a bad schedule. But it's also possible you are just an average team with a bad schedule as well.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 15, 2018 13:57:50 GMT -6
I didn't speak it clearly because I was referencing Illinois and Michigan counting the wins of your entire schedule. I shouldn't have used the word ONLY. Ohio has whats called level 1 points for YOUR wins based on the size of the school you beat. Then level 2 points based on the wins of the teams you beat. The point was they don't get any points for scheduling a 10-0 team and then losing the game. And you get very little reward for beating a 1-9 team in the level 2 points but you do get some in the level 1.
|
|
|
Post by gccwolverine on Nov 15, 2018 14:08:38 GMT -6
I didn't speak it clearly because I was referencing Illinois and Michigan counting the wins of your entire schedule. I shouldn't have used the word ONLY. Ohio has whats called level 1 points for YOUR wins based on the size of the school you beat. Then level 2 points based on the wins of the teams you beat. The point was they don't get any points for scheduling a 10-0 team and then losing the game. And you get very little reward for beating a 1-9 team in the level 2 points but you do get some in the level 1. In Ohio you want to beat teams of equal or greater classifications who beat teams of equal or greater classifications. It prevents scheduling down and playing just the little sister of the poor. Generally as you look through the Ohio playoff teams in each classification you find that they 1. have at least 1 or 2 quality wins on their schedule and 2. very rarely do you find a team without a winning record every once in a while you might see a smaller school team who played a ridiculous schedule get in at 3-7 or 4-6 I believe Youngstown Ursuline did this one year and maybe went on to win it all becuase what they saw in the regular season was 15x better than anyone they played in the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 15, 2018 14:46:42 GMT -6
They also use these points for seeding, not just as a tie breaker for seeding. I don't live there but I really like it. Its not a computer per se, just simple calculator math that is transparent and is done on what amounts to an excel sheet. Everyone knows whats up going in and that you have to schedule competitive games and win them.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 15, 2018 14:51:01 GMT -6
I know as a larger state California has advantages that others dont, but the way Southern California used to do things was great (and yes I cite Southern California specifically as California itself is divided into 10 different regions that act basically as their own state entities for sports).
How it used to be is teams would get into leagues of about 5-8, these would be nearby schools all approximately the same size. Leagues would be grouped together in groups of 5 into a division (roughly similar ability groups); at the end of the season the top 3 teams from each league would get a playoff spot as well as 1 wildcard. The 1-seeds and top few 2 seeds would get home games and it would be divided as evenly as possible.
But then open enrollment poaching became a thing. And a lot of the bigger schools that were just mediocre started to complain about never winning and the playoffs (and since they bring in a lot of money CIF listened); and they went to an equity (everybody gets a trophy) model which punishes success and rewards failure.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 15, 2018 14:59:51 GMT -6
I know as a larger state California has advantages that others dont, but the way Southern California used to do things was great (and yes I cite Southern California specifically as California itself is divided into 10 different regions that act basically as their own state entities for sports). How it used to be is teams would get into leagues of about 5-8, these would be nearby schools all approximately the same size. Leagues would be grouped together in groups of 5 into a division (roughly similar ability groups); at the end of the season the top 3 teams from each league would get a playoff spot as well as 1 wildcard. The 1-seeds and top few 2 seeds would get home games and it would be divided as evenly as possible. But then open enrollment poaching became a thing. And a lot of the bigger schools that were just mediocre started to complain about never winning and the playoffs (and since they bring in a lot of money CIF listened); and they went to an equity (everybody gets a trophy) model which punishes success and rewards failure. California could apply Illinois/Michigan system of playoffs with 32 teams in each class. But it would require 16 classes of 32 team tournaments. That would put 512 teams in the playoffs which is slightly less than half. If you want slightly more than half you'd have 17 state champions. It would be pretty weird but it would be equitable with Illinois/Michigan. It might stop some of the player poaching because parents could win a title without going to the select schools.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 15, 2018 15:05:53 GMT -6
I know as a larger state California has advantages that others dont, but the way Southern California used to do things was great (and yes I cite Southern California specifically as California itself is divided into 10 different regions that act basically as their own state entities for sports). How it used to be is teams would get into leagues of about 5-8, these would be nearby schools all approximately the same size. Leagues would be grouped together in groups of 5 into a division (roughly similar ability groups); at the end of the season the top 3 teams from each league would get a playoff spot as well as 1 wildcard. The 1-seeds and top few 2 seeds would get home games and it would be divided as evenly as possible. But then open enrollment poaching became a thing. And a lot of the bigger schools that were just mediocre started to complain about never winning and the playoffs (and since they bring in a lot of money CIF listened); and they went to an equity (everybody gets a trophy) model which punishes success and rewards failure. California could apply Illinois/Michigan system of playoffs with 32 teams in each class. But it would require 16 classes of 32 team tournaments. That would put 512 teams in the playoffs which is slightly less than half. If you want slightly more than half you'd have 17 state champions. It would be pretty weird but it would be equitable with Illinois/Michigan. It might stop some of the player poaching because parents could win a title without going to the select schools. In Southern California we have 13 CIF champions, which up until a few years ago was what a state champion was. And once again that is just in southern california EXCLUDING San Diego County and Los Angeles city (which would add 6 more champions). Then they started doing California bowl games, and then taking CIF winners to state. But like I wrote there are dozens of CIF champions in California as is.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Nov 15, 2018 15:20:40 GMT -6
California could apply Illinois/Michigan system of playoffs with 32 teams in each class. But it would require 16 classes of 32 team tournaments. That would put 512 teams in the playoffs which is slightly less than half. If you want slightly more than half you'd have 17 state champions. It would be pretty weird but it would be equitable with Illinois/Michigan. It might stop some of the player poaching because parents could win a title without going to the select schools. In Southern California we have 13 CIF champions, which up until a few years ago was what a state champion was. And once again that is just in southern california EXCLUDING San Diego County and Los Angeles city (which would add 6 more champions). Then they started doing California bowl games, and then taking CIF winners to state. But like I wrote there are dozens of CIF champions in California as is. im pissed that 8-man didnt get a bowl game this year (central section voted No)... i wanted a shot at state.
|
|
|
Post by gamecock303 on Nov 15, 2018 15:21:26 GMT -6
South Carolina has had some ridiculous setups over the years. If I remember correctly when I was a kid the 16 biggest schools in the state got into the playoffs regardless of record, I think at least once this included a win less team.
A few years ago the state was split into 4 classes but had 7 state championship (public school, the private schools have their own system). A, AA, and AAAA were all split into divisions for the playoffs. One year in AA every team made the playoffs, my alma mater got a first round matchup against a team in their region that they played the week before and had scored on the first 5 plays they ran on offense that night. I don't remember what the final score for either game was but it wasn't pretty either time and that was with the backups/JV playing most of both night. Of course they were rewarded by having to travel to another 9-1 team the next week and then in the 3rd round having to travel to face a team that they had beaten badly earlier in the season as well. The team they had to play back to back weeks was in the middle of a stretch of about 2 years of not winning a game.
|
|
|
Post by bobdoc78 on Nov 15, 2018 16:55:53 GMT -6
2017 Central Jersey Group 1 State Champs and proud. 3 games to win the championship, the first in 32 years.This year champions play 1 more extra game which will leave 2 group champs. Its all leading to 1 champ in the 5 groups and 4 parochial groups eventually. We had a power point system, which some people did not like. So we use the power point formula and something called the Born Index, which no one knows the exact formula. It did have something where you have to beat point spread or you drop.Biggest issue in NJ is multiple long time thanksgiving games which people dont want to give up
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 15, 2018 18:32:01 GMT -6
I'm a big nerd for these things. I love to see how every state does it.
|
|
|
Post by joelee on Nov 15, 2018 18:36:36 GMT -6
Applying the Illinois/Michigan system in my state KY would put us back at 4 classes (great) instead of 6 like we have now. I'd do it in a heartbeat if we could use the Ohio Harbin points with it.
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Nov 15, 2018 19:58:31 GMT -6
I've been blessed to be a part of the terrible systems in both CA and NJ. FL and WV were good.
CA - "Competetive advantage" or something like that. Teams move up and down in classification based on success. Absolutely screws the small schools. 2 anecdotes - 1. The first place I coached we got fired from a terrible admin. Bigger school. Kept getting moved down over the years. Just recently played in a "state" championship game against a school of 700 kids... 2. Won a state championship at a smaller school (1,000 in California). Got rewarded by moving up to the division with schools literally twice our size, next smallest school had like 1600 or something like that. Naturally, our state team had a ton of seniors and was significantly better than the team that followed it but played in the "better" division.
Point: Leave schools in classifications divided by size. It is the most appropriate comparison. Some schools are just going to suck. Stop rewarding them by putting them against unequal schools until they achieve success.
NJ - The power point system isn't that bad - award teams for the teams that they beat in an unbiased and measurable way. Encourages scheduling like opponents, and it all pretty much worked out for the winning teams anyways. Its this new aspect that is awful. 1. No one but the creator (a retired math teacher) knows the exact formula. Not even the state governing body. 2. It is calculated on "spreads" and measures how much you are SUPPOSED to beat a team by. Yes spreads. We had a team leave in their starters against us in a running clock game and tried to score as much as they could because they needed it for seeding. We legitimately understood. Why in the world would this criteria be a thing in HS sports? such a bad incentive. We legitimately got bumped down a seed in the playoffs because we didn't blow the doors off a team as bad as we should have.
|
|
|
Post by bobdoc78 on Nov 16, 2018 7:32:36 GMT -6
NJ has some of this within conferences.If your school doesn't do well go down to play smaller schools and have a better season. The issue is there is no place for the smaller schools to go. We really messed up in NJ when we gave incredible amount of power points for losing to a super parochial power. This allowed 2 win teams who lost to a parochial and make the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by bobdoc78 on Nov 16, 2018 7:34:33 GMT -6
We lost two division championships in consecutive years when 2 larger teams came down to our division because they were not winning.
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 16, 2018 9:23:12 GMT -6
We lost two division championships in consecutive years when 2 larger teams came down to our division because they were not winning. This is what gets to me every time; I am at a small private school of less than 200 (with about 1/5 of that being international students). We don't recruit, we don't bus in kids to come play football, we don't do all that nonsense that most people think of when they hear "Private School Football". Ironically a lot of the nearby local public schools do many of those things- but I digress. The teams that are projecting to be in the championship game for our division both have over 70 players (we had less than 20). Thats right, their roster exceeds our total number of American born boys in our school. But hey, theyve been struggling for the past few years so they deserve it is the logic. They don't have the power points or whatever system you want to run, so who cares about small schools they can out number- plus, they bring in more money.
|
|
|
Post by veerwego on Nov 16, 2018 10:01:20 GMT -6
One of the issues we have in small state like SC is that we only have 217 schools in the public school league, including a handful of private schools. We are grouped in classes and regions for all sports, even though some of the small schools do not play football. We do not need to have more than probably 3 champions, maybe 4. But the disparity of enrollment is an issue. We have 3 schools over 3,000, one at 4,300. So when schools with 1600-1700 have to compete, especially in football, against teams that have 2400+ it can be pretty tough. The other problem we run into in trying to more accurately account for enrollment disparity is having schools that are so far away from one another having to play each other. Football can make it work, but 2 hour trips one way on a Tue for b-ball or baseball is rough. How far do you guys have to travel for region/conference games?
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Nov 16, 2018 12:10:53 GMT -6
One of the issues we have in small state like SC is that we only have 217 schools in the public school league, including a handful of private schools. We are grouped in classes and regions for all sports, even though some of the small schools do not play football. We do not need to have more than probably 3 champions, maybe 4. But the disparity of enrollment is an issue. We have 3 schools over 3,000, one at 4,300. So when schools with 1600-1700 have to compete, especially in football, against teams that have 2400+ it can be pretty tough. The other problem we run into in trying to more accurately account for enrollment disparity is having schools that are so far away from one another having to play each other. Football can make it work, but 2 hour trips one way on a Tue for b-ball or baseball is rough. How far do you guys have to travel for region/conference games? League games, no more than an hour with traffic. Playoff games; I've done 6+ hours and stayed overnight.
|
|
|
Post by 33coach on Nov 16, 2018 12:39:16 GMT -6
One of the issues we have in small state like SC is that we only have 217 schools in the public school league, including a handful of private schools. We are grouped in classes and regions for all sports, even though some of the small schools do not play football. We do not need to have more than probably 3 champions, maybe 4. But the disparity of enrollment is an issue. We have 3 schools over 3,000, one at 4,300. So when schools with 1600-1700 have to compete, especially in football, against teams that have 2400+ it can be pretty tough. The other problem we run into in trying to more accurately account for enrollment disparity is having schools that are so far away from one another having to play each other. Football can make it work, but 2 hour trips one way on a Tue for b-ball or baseball is rough. How far do you guys have to travel for region/conference games? furthest ive traveled for a league game was 7 hours (had to stay over night....welcome to being a southern section school in the northern part of central CA) closest is like...30 minutes. here in CA its pretty common to have a few 2-3 hour roadtrips a year
|
|
|
Post by coachdavis11 on Nov 16, 2018 12:39:36 GMT -6
One of the issues we have in small state like SC is that we only have 217 schools in the public school league, including a handful of private schools. We are grouped in classes and regions for all sports, even though some of the small schools do not play football. We do not need to have more than probably 3 champions, maybe 4. But the disparity of enrollment is an issue. We have 3 schools over 3,000, one at 4,300. So when schools with 1600-1700 have to compete, especially in football, against teams that have 2400+ it can be pretty tough. The other problem we run into in trying to more accurately account for enrollment disparity is having schools that are so far away from one another having to play each other. Football can make it work, but 2 hour trips one way on a Tue for b-ball or baseball is rough. How far do you guys have to travel for region/conference games? here in Alabama the football regions are 7-8 teams but when it comes to volleyball, baseball, and basketball they are broken into 4 teams areas... helps with travel for that tuesday game....
|
|
mikeyg
Sophomore Member
Posts: 154
|
Post by mikeyg on Nov 16, 2018 12:42:00 GMT -6
OK has a decent system. Schools are classidied into one of 9 categories. C, B, A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A-I, 6A-II. Classes are determined by school enrollment. The biggest schools are in class 6A-II and the smallest schools are in class C. Class B and C play 8 man football. And then each class is separated into districts. Each district is a group of schools who all have similar enrollment located close to one aother. Classes are separated into 4 or 8 districts. Now whether your district has 6, 8, or 10 teams in it is up to the OSSAA. Every 2 years the districts are redrawn to accommodate enrollment fluctuations. All that matters at the end of the regular season is district record. The top 4 teams from each district make the playoffs. 1 seeds are district camps and 2 seeds are runner up. 1 and 2 draw first round home games. 1 draws 2 home games if they win first round. 3 and 4 travel to different districts to play the 1 and 2 seeds. Semis and finals are neutral site games located in between the 2 teams. And at the end of the season there will be a total of 9 state champions. One year we were in a district with 10 teams and had to win at least 7 district games to qualify. We went 9-1 overall and 8-1 in district and were district runner up. The next year we had 6 teams in our district and had to win at least 3 district games to qualify. We went 5-5 overall and 3-2 in district and qualified as a 4 seed.
|
|
|
Post by veerwego on Nov 16, 2018 12:50:12 GMT -6
One of the issues we have in small state like SC is that we only have 217 schools in the public school league, including a handful of private schools. We are grouped in classes and regions for all sports, even though some of the small schools do not play football. We do not need to have more than probably 3 champions, maybe 4. But the disparity of enrollment is an issue. We have 3 schools over 3,000, one at 4,300. So when schools with 1600-1700 have to compete, especially in football, against teams that have 2400+ it can be pretty tough. The other problem we run into in trying to more accurately account for enrollment disparity is having schools that are so far away from one another having to play each other. Football can make it work, but 2 hour trips one way on a Tue for b-ball or baseball is rough. How far do you guys have to travel for region/conference games? here in Alabama the football regions are 7-8 teams but when it comes to volleyball, baseball, and basketball they are broken into 4 teams areas... helps with travel for that tuesday game.... Yep. I really think the only way for us to do it right is to have a separate system for football. We kinda have in the past as the one guy eluded to with the 16 largest school all making the playoffs. The disparity in enrollments #s is one of the main reasons for the 7 divisions. The divisions only came into play during the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Nov 19, 2018 12:18:22 GMT -6
Just saw that the rival of the HS I went to in CA is in a sectional championship game. They have been awful for a long time. They have 2000 students and just beat a rural CA team from a 500 student public HS.... unreal. I cringe when I see this. Feel bad for the small schools.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 19, 2018 14:47:58 GMT -6
Just saw that the rival of the HS I went to in CA is in a sectional championship game. They have been awful for a long time. They have 2000 students and just beat a rural CA team from a 500 student public HS.... unreal. I cringe when I see this. Feel bad for the small schools. At first thought, I thought the same. However, I guess depending on the circumstances, it may not be so cringeworthy??? For example, if that 2000 student school only has say 30 kids who care about football, and 250 kids who care about band, 100 who care about robotics, 100 who care about drama club etc. I mean there are a few 5A (top class) schools in Louisiana that as a football program are on par with schools in the 2 lowest classes. They routinely get beat soundly by the top schools in those lower classes. Any players that are better than "decent" never seem to attend these schools, somehow finding their way to private schools or other public schools that have better teams. It kind of becomes cyclical : good players who are interested in football don't go there, the team doesn't win, therefore good players who are interested in football don't go there. Sucks for those kids that for whatever reason can't seem to find a way to another school, and are forced to be there with a bunch of students, admin, etc. that don't really want to try and succeed.
|
|
|
Post by pvogel on Nov 19, 2018 19:46:12 GMT -6
Just saw that the rival of the HS I went to in CA is in a sectional championship game. They have been awful for a long time. They have 2000 students and just beat a rural CA team from a 500 student public HS.... unreal. I cringe when I see this. Feel bad for the small schools. At first thought, I thought the same. However, I guess depending on the circumstances, it may not be so cringeworthy??? For example, if that 2000 student school only has say 30 kids who care about football, and 250 kids who care about band, 100 who care about robotics, 100 who care about drama club etc. I mean there are a few 5A (top class) schools in Louisiana that as a football program are on par with schools in the 2 lowest classes. They routinely get beat soundly by the top schools in those lower classes. Any players that are better than "decent" never seem to attend these schools, somehow finding their way to private schools or other public schools that have better teams. It kind of becomes cyclical : good players who are interested in football don't go there, the team doesn't win, therefore good players who are interested in football don't go there. Sucks for those kids that for whatever reason can't seem to find a way to another school, and are forced to be there with a bunch of students, admin, etc. that don't really want to try and succeed. I get it. And thats fair. It may legitimately be my ego that gets pissed when there are places with poor admin and/or coaching and then they get moved down until they have success. It usually happens after one of those factors changes, but still. Also how often do you see boundaries change and then all of a sudden (albeit 3 years or so after the boundary change) a team becomes much better? I dont know. I just feel it is best to do it by size. If you suck, get better. If its not important (as a school), then you won't.
|
|