Alabama Reclassification

[Rebel Bert]

Alabama has reclassified starting 22-23 school year. 390 schools with 7 classes. 7A =32, 6A-1A divided evenly as possible. 7A has 4 Regions, 6A-1A has 8 Regions. Unlike Mississippi schools are not evenly divided for Region play. Should a South Panola, Tupelo really need to be put in Region 2? 

[MSSportsGuy]

I will use this as an opportunity to point out that in that 7A class, Auburn is the largest high school at an enrollment of 2131.70 while the smallest 7A is Florence with a listed enrollment of 1,085.25. 

 

I honestly don't know how the state counts or gives weight to have decimals but it appears there is about a 1,000 student difference even within that 7th class. But let's create another class in Mississippi because of the gap between Tupelo and Grenada, which is about the same as the one present in Alabama right now.

 

The MHSAA could reduce the gap problem without having a 7th class but from all indications this is inevitable. 

[s1nglewing]

Alabama counts average daily attendance for a month - I think October. That's how the decimals come about.

[CrimsonUnit1988]

On 2/11/2022 at 11:54 AM, MSSportsGuy said:

I will use this as an opportunity to point out that in that 7A class, Auburn is the largest high school at an enrollment of 2131.70 while the smallest 7A is Florence with a listed enrollment of 1,085.25. 

 

I honestly don't know how the state counts or gives weight to have decimals but it appears there is about a 1,000 student difference even within that 7th class. But let's create another class in Mississippi because of the gap between Tupelo and Grenada, which is about the same as the one present in Alabama right now.

 

The MHSAA could reduce the gap problem without having a 7th class but from all indications this is inevitable. 

And how would they solve the gap problem? I’m genuinely curious as to what your solution would be.

[Rebel Bert]

3 hours ago, CrimsonUnit1988 said:

And how would they solve the gap problem? I’m genuinely curious as to what your solution would be.

Shrinking the number of schools in each class by 24, 32, 40 will work. You end up with more than 7 classes. It's not a gap issue. It's a I shouldn't have to travel from South Panola, Tupelo, Natchez, etc to play a Region game in the metro Jackson area, or a school along I-59. Natchez created their problem by combining North and South Natchez years ago. You try to please 2 or 3 to end up with an extra namely Harrison Central moving to Region 3 7A. You then create roughly a Columbus to Cleveland trip in Region 1 6A or Greenville  to West Point. You can't please them all. Once you put 24, 24, 24, into the equation you end up with a 3A Region 4 in the Jackson area and possibly 2A Region 4 in the same metro area. They should be screaming  at traveling  to Walnut or Tupelo for a playoff game. Your not pleasing everyone. 

[CrimsonUnit1988]

On 2/12/2022 at 9:57 PM, Rebel Bert said:

Shrinking the number of schools in each class by 24, 32, 40 will work. You end up with more than 7 classes. It's not a gap issue. It's a I shouldn't have to travel from South Panola, Tupelo, Natchez, etc to play a Region game in the metro Jackson area, or a school along I-59. Natchez created their problem by combining North and South Natchez years ago. You try to please 2 or 3 to end up with an extra namely Harrison Central moving to Region 3 7A. You then create roughly a Columbus to Cleveland trip in Region 1 6A or Greenville  to West Point. You can't please them all. Once you put 24, 24, 24, into the equation you end up with a 3A Region 4 in the Jackson area and possibly 2A Region 4 in the same metro area. They should be screaming  at traveling  to Walnut or Tupelo for a playoff game. Your not pleasing everyone. 

Yeah but what I was asking was how to solve the problem without adding more classes which is what  MSSportsguy proposed. 

[MSSportsGuy]

On 2/12/2022 at 6:31 PM, CrimsonUnit1988 said:

And how would they solve the gap problem? I’m genuinely curious as to what your solution would be.

My thought is reduce 6A to 24 teams. The gap won't disappear but is reduced by the same amount as the 7A proposal. 5A could also have 24 teams or keep it at 32. If kept at 32, it just pushes 8 teams down through the remaining 4 classes, so 2 more teams per class. When the cut off points are examined the difference between the bottom and top of classes is small once you are beyond the current 6A proposal. The addition of 2 more schools per class from 4A to 1A won't substantially increase their competition. 

 

I am honestly curious why this is an issue now and not years ago. I remember when 5A was first put at 32 teams. I assume there was a comparable gap back then. When 6A was added it was to reduce the spread between the top and bottom of 4A which had some merits, but the problem could have been solved in the same way I am proposing now. 

 

I've posted in a couple of threads that yes, I have a strong opinion about it but my thoughts are no more valid than anyone else's, plus my kids are out of high school. I just think it's beyond silly to keep spreading out classifications, shrink regions to 5 teams with 4 playoff teams when I recall the days of 7 or 8 teams (at least in 3A when I was in school) with only the top 2 making the playoffs. That's what decreases the excitement the director was quoted as saying was lacking and was trying to regain with 7 classes. No one can get excited when a 2-8 or 3-7 #4 seed goes on the road to the #1 seed that could be 8-2 or 9-1 for a playoff game that is highly likely to be one sided. In an era of high gas and diesel prices, tickets, concessions, and just getting people to the game, crowds won't be the same unless there is genuine interest from the community. More teams in a class increases competition, more spread out waters it down. 

 

 

[MSSportsGuy]

5 minutes ago, CrimsonUnit1988 said:

Yeah but what I was asking was how to solve the problem without adding more classes which is what  MSSportsguy proposed. 

lol. Looks like we were typing at the same time. I was out of pocket all weekend and watched the SB last night so just now responding. 

Edited February 14 by MSSportsGuy

[CrimsonUnit1988]

3 minutes ago, MSSportsGuy said:

My thought is reduce 6A to 24 teams. The gap won't disappear but is reduced by the same amount as the 7A proposal. 5A could also have 24 teams or keep it at 32. If kept at 32, it just pushes 8 teams down through the remaining 4 classes, so 2 more teams per class. When the cut off points are examined the difference between the bottom and top of classes is small once you are beyond the current 6A proposal. The addition of 2 more schools per class from 4A to 1A won't substantially increase their competition. 

 

I am honestly curious why this is an issue now and not years ago. I remember when 5A was first put at 32 teams. I assume there was a comparable gap back then. When 6A was added it was to reduce the spread between the top and bottom of 4A which had some merits, but the problem could have been solved in the same way I am proposing now. 

 

I've posted in a couple of threads that yes, I have a strong opinion about it but my thoughts are no more valid than anyone else's, plus my kids are out of high school. I just think it's beyond silly to keep spreading out classifications, shrink regions to 5 teams with 4 playoff teams when I recall the days of 7 or 8 teams (at least in 3A when I was in school) with only the top 2 making the playoffs. That's what decreases the excitement the director was quoted as saying was lacking and was trying to regain with 7 classes. No one can get excited when a 2-8 or 3-7 #4 seed goes on the road to the #1 seed that could be 8-2 or 9-1 for a playoff game that is highly likely to be one sided. In an era of high gas and diesel prices, tickets, concessions, and just getting people to the game, crowds won't be the same unless there is genuine interest from the community. More teams in a class increases competition, more spread out waters it down. 

 

 

That makes sense. Seems like it's similar to new proposal but without 7A. I think it's easier to fit the numbers in 7 classifications which is one reason why they're doing it that way. Let's all be real for second too, we all know it's a money maker having an extra state championship game. It is what it is. I like the 7A idea. I'd be good with your proposal as well because it evens it out too. I do think there is a massive gap in 6A currently and either way it's "fixed" in both scenarios. 

[MSSportsGuy]

4 minutes ago, CrimsonUnit1988 said:

That makes sense. Seems like it's similar to new proposal but without 7A. I think it's easier to fit the numbers in 7 classifications which is one reason why they're doing it that way. Let's all be real for second too, we all know it's a money maker having an extra state championship game. It is what it is. I like the 7A idea. I'd be good with your proposal as well because it evens it out too. I do think there is a massive gap in 6A currently and either way it's "fixed" in both scenarios. 

You are correct it's a money issue and that's what is driving this. I don't see the gap as a problem that is new or even one that is really causing an issue, all I've said is the association could do things to reduce this if the gap what is driving this. 

 

We are both entitled to our opinions and I truly don't have a dog in the race. My thoughts are just mine and I'm not a coach or school administrator who has a vote. It's going to happen after I read the director said it would "increase excitement". That really made me laugh. 

[coastfootballfanman]

That is sort of how my sentiments are. This IS happening. Whether in the 2022 season or 2023. This is a done deal no matter what. 

1 minute ago, MSSportsGuy said:

You are correct it's a money issue and that's what is driving this. I don't see the gap as a problem that is new or even one that is really causing an issue, all I've said is the association could do things to reduce this if the gap what is driving this. 

 

We are both entitled to our opinions and I truly don't have a dog in the race. My thoughts are just mine and I'm not a coach or school administrator who has a vote. It's going to happen after I read the director said it would "increase excitement". That really made me laugh. 

 

[JagsFan77]

2 hours ago, MSSportsGuy said:

No one can get excited when a 2-8 or 3-7 #4 seed goes on the road to the #1 seed that could be 8-2 or 9-1 for a playoff game that is highly likely to be one sided. 

I've seen MANY #1 seeds beaten by #4 seeds. Just one example this year was Oxford beating South Panola. Some regions just have more talent year in and year out. You see some years where entire regions get swept by another. You can argue that it's diluting the playoffs by having so many make the playoffs, but you could also argue it would be diluting it by taking out some of the better teams in tougher regions. 

[Rebel Bert]

6A 24

5A 32

4A 40

3A 48

2A 48

1A 53

[MSSportsGuy]

1 hour ago, JagsFan77 said:

I've seen MANY #1 seeds beaten by #4 seeds. Just one example this year was Oxford beating South Panola. Some regions just have more talent year in and year out. You see some years where entire regions get swept by another. You can argue that it's diluting the playoffs by having so many make the playoffs, but you could also argue it would be diluting it by taking out some of the better teams in tougher regions. 

I will bite since I put it out there, but Oxford had a winning record and was in a region with 8 teams. I am thinking of regions with 5/6 teams in lower classes where the top 4 make the playoffs and there are teams with records as I mentioned like 2-8, 3-7 who are in the "playoffs" for what is seemingly just a way to make money. 

 

My junior year of high school (way back when) we finished 8-2 but were out of the playoffs because both loses were to district teams and only the top two made the postseason, one of them won the state title that year. They were by far better than us and would we have won a game or two in the playoffs? Probably. I just think if a playoff system takes the top 4 in a region then that region should have 7 or 8 teams, which the lower classes don't have. The new upcoming system will have 5 team regions with 4 making the playoffs in 4A, 3A, and 2A.  That just seems wrong. 
 

I agree with you in principle that some regions are stronger than others but I also feel strongly that there isn't much depth in a given region in the smaller classifications. 

[Rebel Bert]

15 minutes ago, MSSportsGuy said:

I will bite since I put it out there, but Oxford had a winning record and was in a region with 8 teams. I am thinking of regions with 5/6 teams in lower classes where the top 4 make the playoffs and there are teams with records as I mentioned like 2-8, 3-7 who are in the "playoffs" for what is seemingly just a way to make money. 

 

My junior year of high school (way back when) we finished 8-2 but were out of the playoffs because both loses were to district teams and only the top two made the postseason, one of them won the state title that year. They were by far better than us and would we have won a game or two in the playoffs? Probably. I just think if a playoff system takes the top 4 in a region then that region should have 7 or 8 teams, which the lower classes don't have. The new upcoming system will have 5 team regions with 4 making the playoffs in 4A, 3A, and 2A.  That just seems wrong. 
 

I agree with you in principle that some regions are stronger than others but I also feel strongly that there isn't much depth in a given region in the smaller classifications. 

2A: New Site, MSMS

3A: OLA(girls), St Andrew's(Independent),now

St Patrick (Independent) 3 Regions will have all 4 teams in playoffs, 3A-8 may only have 3.

[JagsFan77]

11 minutes ago, MSSportsGuy said:

I will bite since I put it out there, but Oxford had a winning record and was in a region with 8 teams. I am thinking of regions with 5/6 teams in lower classes where the top 4 make the playoffs and there are teams with records as I mentioned like 2-8, 3-7 who are in the "playoffs" for what is seemingly just a way to make money. 

 

My junior year of high school (way back when) we finished 8-2 but were out of the playoffs because both loses were to district teams and only the top two made the postseason, one of them won the state title that year. They were by far better than us and would we have won a game or two in the playoffs? Probably. I just think if a playoff system takes the top 4 in a region then that region should have 7 or 8 teams, which the lower classes don't have. The new upcoming system will have 5 team regions with 4 making the playoffs in 4A, 3A, and 2A.  That just seems wrong. 
 

I agree with you in principle that some regions are stronger than others but I also feel strongly that there isn't much depth in a given region in the smaller classifications. 

The strength of the regions will change year to year. I have no problem with more teams in the playoffs. If a team is weak, they will get beaten. Problem solved. Will the MHSAA make more money? Of course. Will more kids actually get the experience of playing in a playoff? Of course. I'd rather see undeserving teams make the playoffs every year than seeing good teams sitting at home simply because people are opposed to the MHSAA making money. I don't want kids to have to suffer because of what we did "back in our day". Let them play.

[Olcoach77]

18 hours ago, JagsFan77 said:

The strength of the regions will change year to year. I have no problem with more teams in the playoffs. If a team is weak, they will get beaten. Problem solved. Will the MHSAA make more money? Of course. Will more kids actually get the experience of playing in a playoff? Of course. I'd rather see undeserving teams make the playoffs every year than seeing good teams sitting at home simply because people are opposed to the MHSAA making money. I don't want kids to have to suffer because of what we did "back in our day". Let them play.

No dog in this fight but while they are reclassifying I think they should look at doing a playoff based on power rankings.  They could still do a north and south power ranking that way teams are rewarded for playing tough schedules and some of those teams in real strong regions aren't left out over a 2-8 team. If you did the North/South power rankings the travel argument wouldn't matter. Depending on the number of schools in each classification top 4 seeds could be rewarded with a bye in the first round.

[Rebel Bert]

9 minutes ago, Olcoach77 said:

No dog in this fight but while they are reclassifying I think they should look at doing a playoff based on power rankings.  They could still do a north and south power ranking that way teams are rewarded for playing tough schedules and some of those teams in real strong regions aren't left out over a 2-8 team. If you did the North/South power rankings the travel argument wouldn't matter. Depending on the number of schools in each classification top 4 seeds could be rewarded with a bye in the first round.

We don't have byes with 16 or 32 in the playoffs. 

[Olcoach77]

Just now, Rebel Bert said:

We don't have byes with 16 or 32 in the playoffs. 

I was just basing that off 2A-4A having to play an extra playoff game at this time. 

[JagsFan77]

6 hours ago, Olcoach77 said:

No dog in this fight but while they are reclassifying I think they should look at doing a playoff based on power rankings.  They could still do a north and south power ranking that way teams are rewarded for playing tough schedules and some of those teams in real strong regions aren't left out over a 2-8 team. If you did the North/South power rankings the travel argument wouldn't matter. Depending on the number of schools in each classification top 4 seeds could be rewarded with a bye in the first round.

Who would make those power rankings? MaxPreps? CalPreps? Clarion Ledger? AP? Coaches? You'd get a different ranking from everyone. 

[Rebel Bert]

30 minutes ago, JagsFan77 said:

Who would make those power rankings? MaxPreps? CalPreps? Clarion Ledger? AP? Coaches? You'd get a different ranking from everyone. 

No only MHSAA, everyone else can post online.

[Vott]

8 minutes ago, Rebel Bert said:

No only MHSAA, everyone else can post online.

Absolutely not. You would have some nonbiased people voting for their "favorite team" based on how well they bring in crowds for their home games or how well they travel. I will put it this way. Who do you think someone would vote for if say Terry was very deserving to make it but Oak Grove had a subpar season by their standards and was on the bubble to get in. Who do you think is going to get that nod to make the playoffs? Oak Grove will just based on their past performances in the playoffs, both on the field and by how well they bring in revenue to the MHSAA.  

[TK_on_the_Coast]

16 hours ago, Vott said:

Absolutely not. You would have some nonbiased people voting for their "favorite team" based on how well they bring in crowds for their home games or how well they travel. I will put it this way. Who do you think someone would vote for if say Terry was very deserving to make it but Oak Grove had a subpar season by their standards and was on the bubble to get in. Who do you think is going to get that nod to make the playoffs? Oak Grove will just based on their past performances in the playoffs, both on the field and by how well they bring in revenue to the MHSAA.  

If you open up your postseason playoff field to power rankings compiled by humans, you basically should call it an Invitational, IMO 

[Olcoach77]

42 minutes ago, TK_on_the_Coast said:

If you open up your postseason playoff field to power rankings compiled by humans, you basically should call it an Invitational, IMO 

The state of Louisiana has been doing it for years, MAIS does it too.   

[TK_on_the_Coast]

4 minutes ago, Olcoach77 said:

The state of Louisiana has been doing it for years, MAIS does it too.   

I know that and it doesn't change my statement