What would you change?

[OldBison75]

Since we all know that the most knowledgeable football minds are on this forum, ponder this and give me some opinions:

There are many discussions about the 3A enrollment numbers, the playoff formation (Div 1 and Div 2), travel concerns, and every other excuse to change the current UIL system.

Assuming that the powers that be came to you for your opinion on how to make the playoffs better, how would you make the classification divisions more fair and what would you do to the playoff system to make a real championship come about?

[Old LB]

I may not be a great football mind but I think 3a needs to be split like 1a/2a are now. If you win a DI or DII state championship you are a true champion, state championships are hard to achieve in any division. Granted the travel may increase with the split but I think it is just a matter of time.

[trojandad]

I may not be a great football mind but I think 3a needs to be split like 1a/2a are now. If you win a DI or DII state championship you are a true champion, state championships are hard to achieve in any division. Granted the travel may increase with the split but I think it is just a matter of time.

:iagree:

[bobcat4life]

I say add a 6a and go back to one champion in each class

[LionFan72]

I say add a 6a and go back to one champion in each class

:iagree:

[buff4ever]

To me, this is the only change that would be better than what we have. Make a 6a, and redo the numbers to have one champion in each of the 6 divisions. May still have too many teams in some divisions, I don't know haven't looked at it that close, but I liked it better when 2 teams made the playoffs, it seemed like a bigger deal.

[Trashman]

I would have 10 divisions from 6 man on up and eliminate the "A" nonsense. For example; 6 man division 2 would be Division 1....6 man division 1 would be division 2 and so on...... Every division gets an undisputed champion; 2 teams from each district make the playoffs.

[LionFan72]

I would have 10 divisions from 6 man on up and eliminate the "A" nonsense. For example; 6 man division 2 would be Division 1....6 man division 1 would be division 2 and so on...... Every division gets an undisputed champion; 2 teams from each district make the playoffs.

Sounds good to me, get your idea to Austin and make some noise!

[OldNavy]

I would have 10 divisions from 6 man on up and eliminate the "A" nonsense. For example; 6 man division 2 would be Division 1....6 man division 1 would be division 2 and so on...... Every division gets an undisputed champion; 2 teams from each district make the playoffs.

I think this sounds good, but the devil is in the details. There would be about 120 schools per devision and I can see that in all classes it could require a lot of travel. That may be what is keeping about half the supers from voting for the split in 3A now.

What would make a difference right now would be send the two largest teams from a district to D1 and the smallest to D2. I think the enrollment numbers from the previous playoffs would indicate that to be pretty fair. Of course the UIL would need to ensure they did not create districts with nothing but small school like district 10, or districts with nothing but large schools.

The average size of a school in 3A is 680. Size matters when it comes to making the playoffs. Last year the average size of a school making the playoffs was 715. Schools remaining in the playoffs through round 4 averaged 738 enrollment indicating more large schools won than small schools.

The median enrollment for which half the schools are larger and half are smaller, is 645. There are 92 schools larger and 92 schools smaller than 645. Of the 92 schools that are larger, 56 made the playoffs, or 60.8% of the upper half schools. Of the lower half or smaller schools, only 40 made the playoffs or 43.7% of those schools made the playoffs. If size did not matter, you would expect 48 of the lower 92 teams to make the playoffs and 48 of the upper half teams.

It could be that larger schools have more talent to put on the filed, and perhaps more depth. It could be that they have more coaches and can afford better salaries and can hire better coaches than the smaller schools. It could be larger schools have better facilities and equipment with which to train or some combination of the above. But statistically, the numbers are significant.

In round four, the largest division 1 school was Alvarado with 974, and the smallest was Chapel Hill with 870, a difference of 104. In division 2 the largest school was Brownwood with 877 and the smallest was Navarro with 461, a difference of 416.

From these numbers it looks like the UIL might be on to something by organizing large and small school districts, then the distribution of small schools making the playoffs to large school making them would be equal. Under the current system, the larger schools have a significant statistical advantage.

[OldNavy]

Carthage, D2 State Champion with an enrollment of 731 and Henderson, D1 State Champion with 879 enrolled, combine to make the average size of a 3A State Champion 805. I think that underscores why the UIL is looking for an equitable way to solve the problem.

[LionFan72]

I think that underscores why the UIL is looking for an equitable way to solve the problem.

I was not aware there was a movement to "solve the problem." The UIL is only making another effort to RAISE more money for the benefit of the UIL, not the schools involved.

[OldNavy]

I was not aware there was a movement to "solve the problem." The UIL is only making another effort to RAISE more money for the benefit of the UIL, not the schools involved.
I don't always agree with the UIL, but I also think they do most of what they do for the benefit of the schoosl and the kids. I would like to know what evidence you have that they are a self serving profit center.

They seem to be very considerate of travel issues, allowing large city school systems to have their own sports districts, trying to enforce recruiting rules and still being fair to the individual kids, organizing academic events statewide for which they receive very little. Adding more teams to the playoffs may make more money for the UIL, but it also makes more money for the schools involved. While it used to be only one team from a district went to the palyoffs, was that fair to districts that had 2 or 3 of the states best teams, but one or two had to stay home because of an arbitrary decision by the UIL that only one team could advance? The Playoffs are fair, best teams usually make it to the big dance and I have yet to see a school turn down a trip to the playoff because it was too costly, and the UIL would make too much money. I could be wrong, and often am, but considering all the issues, they seem to do a pretty good job.

I even think the additional games give the youngsters more experience and more opportunity to learn and grow in the game. I think it has been good for Texas High School Football.

What are your thoughts?

[regaleagle]

I think the older you get, the better you STILL play, is what I think. In other words, I tend to agree with all the points you brought to light. I am also in favor of seeing the 3A classification being evenly distributed between large and small enrollments in football. We run into a similar situation in the other sports as well, but not much can be done to equalize those games, considering all the scheduling and cost barriers to overcome. One sport at a time for now, which should be football in Texas.

[LionFan72]

I don't always agree with the UIL, but I also think they do most of what they do for the benefit of the schoosl and the kids. I would like to know what evidence you have that they are a self serving profit center.

They seem to be very considerate of travel issues, allowing large city school systems to have their own sports districts, trying to enforce recruiting rules and still being fair to the individual kids, organizing academic events statewide for which they receive very little. Adding more teams to the playoffs may make more money for the UIL, but it also makes more money for the schools involved. While it used to be only one team from a district went to the palyoffs, was that fair to districts that had 2 or 3 of the states best teams, but one or two had to stay home because of an arbitrary decision by the UIL that only one team could advance? The Playoffs are fair, best teams usually make it to the big dance and I have yet to see a school turn down a trip to the playoff because it was too costly, and the UIL would make too much money. I could be wrong, and often am, but considering all the issues, they seem to do a pretty good job.

I even think the additional games give the youngsters more experience and more opportunity to learn and grow in the game. I think it has been good for Texas High School Football.

What are your thoughts?

You bring to the table valued points, and I really see a generational gap between our thinking. I feel that the state championship has been devalued by 50%. The UIL as governing body sets a goal of state champions, then immediately says, oh wait, let's make two in each class, (twice the income). That is fine, but it cheapens the value of a state championship, by allowing a 2nd or 3rd place team, another opportunity to step up and make a showing. I would be a lot more accepting of the concept if the 2nd and 3rd place teams would play for a consolation championship. As far as the income aspect at the UIL, what exactly is being done with the money earned? I really don't know.

I only got one chance in life to be the best I can, now we can cheapen the efforts of all my hard work by allowing repeated efforts until you get it right. It is all a question of VALUES, no winners and no losers.