Jump to content

Catholic

2021 5 classification realignment

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

A natural drop of 100 would include some athletes but and EC drop of 100 doesnt include any athletes except maybe in a very rare situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, raider1 said:

Mr C , if its fair maybe yall should make the jump to 4aa...

We won the 4A state title with 3A numbers. Not 3AA, 3A numbers. Been there, done that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected on my numbers...Instead of 1400 difference , its closer to 1600...Unreal...Difference between Richmond enrollment and MPark enrollment....No way that is fair......On a 50/50  male /female breakdown thats 800 more possibilities  ............. something wrong somewhere......   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, raider1 said:

I stand corrected on my numbers...Instead of 1400 difference , its closer to 1600...Unreal...Difference between Richmond enrollment and MPark enrollment....No way that is fair......On a 50/50  male /female breakdown thats 800 more possibilities  ............. something wrong somewhere......   

That isn't a fair comparison to 1a, you still have a sizeable student body to choose from, try picking your team from 180 males.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, raider1 said:

Maybe yall need to go to 8 man football then....

Were still doing ok for a traditional 1a school google Robbinsville Black Knights sometime.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btango. Glenn, with the 32 teams qualifying there would not have been a bye.  With 32 teams making the playoffs that is 42% of the teams qualifying.  I would think nearly half the schools making the playoffs would be sufficient.  

My point is there were no byes before this 2o-30-30-20 split came about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btango, if you agree that the schools like Charlotte Catholic do nothing wrong then why do you agree that they should be required to move up a class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glenn said:

btango, if you agree that the schools like Charlotte Catholic do nothing wrong then why do you agree that they should be required to move up a class?

I do not think charters, urban magnets, open enrollment LEAs with 1A and 2A schools, or traditional schools that legally load up with non district athletes are doing anything “wrong” but I still think there needs to be some restructuring with them.

Note, I write on the Catholic schools if they could implement a Catholics only protocol then I would think that would be sufficient.  Charlotte Catholic has very few non Cathokic students. Bishop built a girls basketball machine with non Catholic school players.  I think Gibbons has more than twice as high a percentage of non Catholic students as CC.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Knights said:

Paul I really don't understand what your saying. I'm not saying anyone is cheating.

I'm saying dropping 100 non athletes is an advantage. Overlapping districts is an advantage. Are you saying it's not?

I'm not saying anyone is cheating, and I agree with you about the advantage of losing numbers from your ADM. I just do not think it's happening that way. If those kids are not going to play sports anyway then there is no advantage gained. If they were playing sports and had to quit then it hurts the program. 

If a coach or school i doing this purposefully then they are playing with fire.

Under the state charter covering Community Colleges each county must be covered by a community college. So either SCC or Tri-County must offer services to Graham County. Those services do not have to be traditional, classroom based, but they have to be offered. Also, Robbinsville plays a part in the EC program as well. If they have students that want to do it, they have to agree and work with the community college in question to make it happen. 

As for overlapping districts, that is more of an advantage than EC. Charters and Magnets are also more of a problem than EC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, raider1 said:

Hey...Im on your side.....

He is on our side.....We finally have a voice of reason in 4A (you know the schools the NCHSAA actually pays attention to) so please lets not run him off. Besides, proportionately its the same thing. Richomond is at the same disadvantage as Robbinsville, the only difference is numbers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richmond’s opponent Friday is Vance.  In 2027 Vance had just over 1,900 students.  CMS added a magnet program to the school adding three hundred students.  They would be small 4A without that program.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised, no I am not, to see a Richmond supporter complain about the unfairness of the ADMs.  If it is unfair how would it be split up further?  

There are three extremely large schools in Meck County and they will remain that way until the new school is completed in that area.  Myers Park has a huge magnet program which increases their numbers and I feel confident those are not footballers.  MP is a very diverse school (socioeconomically and culturally) with some great academic departments.  A lot of elite teachers with masters degrees.  Those students count.  I do not like the super sized schools.  Prefer it to be around 2,000.  Think that allows for a lot of offerings in athletics, academics, the arts, and extracurriculars.  

There are 17 schools with between two and right at 200 more students than Richmond.  There are 19 schools ranging from nine to nearly 200 students less than Richmond.  Richmond was the 21st largest school to qualify for the playoffs.  If four more schools larger than RC qualified the Raiders would have been small 4A.  Richmond is the 35th largest school in the state.  There are 79 school in 4A.  They are right in the middle.

Take a look at this breakdown and tell us how to split it up.  As 1A administrator suggested at a meeting five or more years ago, 1A should go to three subclasses as it was not fair to the smallest schools to compete against the much larger ones.  Then a few 4A administrators joined in for their classification.  This is where the offset classification sizes (20, 30,30, 30, 20) come from.  Imagine ten state champions.  Where do you draw the line?!?  

Quick breakdown.

3 schools 3,000 plus

2 schools over 2,700

2 schools over 2,600

4 schools over 2,500

9 schools over 2,300

7 schools over 2,200

7 schools over 2,100

3 schools over 2,000

8 schools over 1,900

7 schools over 1,800

6 schools over 1,700

8 schools over 1,600

8 schools over 1,500

3 schools under 1,500

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At association meetings I have heard school administrators cite schools that have magnet programs with students from outside the district and those numbers push them over the classification or subclass line.  They do not want to count those students if a certain percentage does not play sports.  One administrator brought up ESL students.  Said 40% of his school was Hispanic and that he could only think of a "handful" that played sports.  Did not think it was fair to count them all.  This brought the same responses from a few others with one 1A adminstrator stating his school was right at 40% Hispanic / Asian.  

There is no simple solution.  Nothing is always totally even playing field.  Just the way it is.  I want it to be as fair as possible for all schools.  I also want the competition level to remain high and to keep things logistically sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 11:27 AM, btango said:

At association meetings I have heard school administrators cite schools that have magnet programs with students from outside the district and those numbers push them over the classification or subclass line.  They do not want to count those students if a certain percentage does not play sports.  One administrator brought up ESL students.  Said 40% of his school was Hispanic and that he could only think of a "handful" that played sports.  Did not think it was fair to count them all.  This brought the same responses from a few others with one 1A adminstrator stating his school was right at 40% Hispanic / Asian.  

There is no simple solution.  Nothing is always totally even playing field.  Just the way it is.  I want it to be as fair as possible for all schools.  I also want the competition level to remain high and to keep things logistically sensible.

 

Agree.  I wonder if you could do 25-25-25-25 for the purposes of conferences and then for playoff time, make 6 classes in all sports but football, keep football at 8 and do 32 team brackets and just play. This would allow for yearly fluctuations in enrollment. Some years, a team might be in 2A playoffs, some years 3A.  This would allow for a 4 year realignment period also and perhaps less appeals to move between realignments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LarryRandolph said:

 

Agree.  I wonder if you could do 25-25-25-25 for the purposes of conferences and then for playoff time, make 6 classes in all sports but football, keep football at 8 and do 32 team brackets and just play. This would allow for yearly fluctuations in enrollment. Some years, a team might be in 2A playoffs, some years 3A.  This would allow for a 4 year realignment period also and perhaps less appeals to move between realignments. 

That is what I have pushed for football.  Six divisions.  D1 the largest 32 teams that qualify for the playoffs, D6 the smallest 32 teams that qualify.  The same percentage of teams would qualify from each classifcation.  My opinion is they would need to move all seeding to MaxPreps rankings and away from the conference champion guaranteed seeds.  No issue with a conference champ being guaranteed a qualifying slot but not a guaranteed one seed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio has about 1M more people in it and it has 7 divisions.

Michigan basically has the same population as NC and it has 8 divisions plus 2 divisions of 8 man football.

Georgia has the same population and it has 6 Divisions plus a private 1A division.

Our neighbors to the south, South Carolina with half the population of NC and has 5 divisions.

Our neighbors to the north, Virginia has 8M and 6 Divisions.

NJ has 5 divisions plus a private division.

I am very surprised on how difficult this all sounds and how resistant so many are.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fumblerooski said:

Ohio has about 1M more people in it and it has 7 divisions.

Michigan basically has the same population as NC and it has 8 divisions plus 2 divisions of 8 man football.

Georgia has the same population and it has 6 Divisions plus a private 1A division.

Our neighbors to the south, South Carolina with half the population of NC and has 5 divisions.

Our neighbors to the north, Virginia has 8M and 6 Divisions.

NJ has 5 divisions plus a private division.

I am very surprised on how difficult this all sounds and how resistant so many are.

NJ may be the most screwed up state of all for high school sports and playoff champions.  California is in the mix, too but such a large state geographically and number of schools.

Ohis is loaded with Parochial schools in their association.  When it was five classifications it was the most intense playoffs in America probably.

Michigan has a lot of Parochial schools, also.

I think GA has a lot more smaller schools.  They were five for years and they nearly went back to it for the upcomng realignment.  Six has caused some issues with the regions and travel.  GA has private schools playing AA and up but 1A is split.  They have some logistical issues there!  Atlanta metro is a different world than the rest of the state.

SC schools wanted five and then they complained even a few schools suing the SCHSL.

VA used to be three classifications and subdivide for team sport playoffs.  This was a suggestion in NC for the 2013 realignment but the schools did not like the disparity between classifications members.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 2:19 PM, btango said:

NJ may be the most screwed up state of all for high school sports and playoff champions.  California is in the mix, too but such a large state geographically and number of schools.

Ohis is loaded with Parochial schools in their association.  When it was five classifications it was the most intense playoffs in America probably.

Michigan has a lot of Parochial schools, also.

I think GA has a lot more smaller schools.  They were five for years and they nearly went back to it for the upcomng realignment.  Six has caused some issues with the regions and travel.  GA has private schools playing AA and up but 1A is split.  They have some logistical issues there!  Atlanta metro is a different world than the rest of the state.

SC schools wanted five and then they complained even a few schools suing the SCHSL.

VA used to be three classifications and subdivide for team sport playoffs.  This was a suggestion in NC for the 2013 realignment but the schools did not like the disparity between classifications members.

 

 

I'd be fine with 25-25-25-25 to reduce travel and issues with conference logistics and then subdivide 12.5%X8 just for playoffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LarryRandolph said:

 

I'd be fine with 25-25-25-25 to reduce travel and issues with conference logistics and then subdivide 12.5%X8 just for playoffs. 

That does not alleviate the biggest issue which is the drastic differential numbers in enrollment in 1A and 4A.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of just throwing around percentages and splits, how about somebody putting together some conferences using these splits and percentages???  Brian Simmons, where are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RD28327 said:

Instead of just throwing around percentages and splits, how about somebody putting together some conferences using these splits and percentages???  Brian Simmons, where are you?

The first post has a link to Simmons five classification.  Chris did several different ones as did another poster.  Not sure if it is in this thread or another one on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have seen the Simmons five classification model.  It just needs to use the 2019 ADM numbers.  Brian Simmons is the only one who has done a model with schools being placed in conferences.  I do like Cowboys87's spreadsheet.  No conferences are setup, but it does bring about two questions:

 

1.  How large should 1A be?  500 kids?  550? 600?

2.  How many schools should be in the smaller sized classifications?  There has got to be at least 50.  Might as well give everyone a playoff spot if you do less than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree.  I wonder if you could do 25-25-25-25 for the purposes of conferences and then for playoff time, make 6 classes in all sports but football, keep football at 8 and do 32 team brackets and just play. This would allow for yearly fluctuations in enrollment. Some years, a team might be in 2A playoffs, some years 3A.  This would allow for a 4 year realignment period also and perhaps less appeals to move between realignments. 

I agree. Going to a 2 year realignment would solve a lot of the issues as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always said play in whatever conference you are in but when the playoffs come around make a list of all teams who qualify and rank them according to ADM numbers and then split them up into 6 or 8 equal parts (whatever the coaches decide) and regardless of what classification you played in during the season, you play in the classification you are placed in for playoff purposes. A 2A school might end up being in a 2AA or 3A playoff bracket. This would take care of the complaint that there are teams in 2A who have more students than teams in 3A so why are they in 2A to begin with. This ADM numbers problem occurs at every level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why does it have to be evenly split. Let the number shake out where they might. One year there could be 24 qualifying teams in 1A and the next 32. It would be a year to year deal i assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Paul Graham said:

why does it have to be evenly split. Let the number shake out where they might. One year there could be 24 qualifying teams in 1A and the next 32. It would be a year to year deal i assume.

 

7 hours ago, Knights said:

Can't be split even

Knights, is referencing that the classifications cannot be an even split if teams, such 25% in each class.  I agree.  
Is this what you mean?

Paul, are you talking about teams qualifying fir the playoffs if they put them in ADM based playoff divisions after the regular season?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Paul. Why is it unfair for 1A and 4A. Why does it have to be fair? Was it fair that we were the only legit 3AA team in the Eastern playoff division with 3 4A teams 2 and  3 years ago with an ADM of 1300 playing teams with ADM's of 1800-1900?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, btango said:

Paul, are you talking about teams qualifying fir the playoffs if they put them in ADM based playoff divisions after the regular season?

yes, sorry should have more clear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said for years that the ADM should actually be the number of eligible males in a school. That would have a slight amount of variation year to year but would be roughly 50 percent. This would allow us to see the proportional difference in schools a little clearer. 

As for the playoffs, I say we go to a sectional /divisional/ regional type set up and do away with conferences altogether. set a qualifying number of "sectional/divisional" wins and base playoff appearances off that. No split conferences, no four and five team conferences and teams can changes the qualifying teams each year without prior notice. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Glenn said:

I agree with Paul. Why is it unfair for 1A and 4A. Why does it have to be fair? Was it fair that we were the only legit 3AA team in the Eastern playoff division with 3 4A teams 2 and  3 years ago with an ADM of 1300 playing teams with ADM's of 1800-1900?

250 vs 500 is much worse than 1300 vs 1800.

 

If we went 25% x 4 without sub dividing  it could be a gap like 250-700.

 

It's never going be 100% fair but 3x bigger is terrible. 2x bigger is bad enough. Nobody in 2a,3a, or 4a has to play with teams twice as large. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

250 vs 500 is much worse than 1300 vs 1800

Not really. What is the ADM difference from top to bottom in 1A and 4A during the season? No difference for the playoffs. These 1A and 4A teams are in conferences with those ADM differences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

125 -v- 250 is worse than 650 -v- 900. Double the available kids and a smaller pool to choose from. It is a case of increasing numbers with a declining rate of choice. There has be a fix and it will only happen one of two ways. The NCHSAA sits down and figures out a plan, puts it in place then tells everyone, "like it or lump it." or the coaches elect a panel and they get together and do the same thing, present it to the NCHSAA and say this is the way or we won't play, then quit bitching about it.

We could even go to a "A", "B" style with the smallest 50 football playing schools and the largest 50 schools. Take the 24 that qualify for the playoffs and seed them and they play no matter the length of travel. keep every one else in an evenly split 5 classification (ex: 450-950, 951-1400, 1401-1900, 1901-2400, 2401-2900)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the six classifications with a 10/20x4/10 split the 6A would have schools basically with 2,000 students and above. 

I do not actually like the way this splits out.  Below are estimated breaking points within one or two schools of the number that matches the percentage for schools in the classification.

6A over 2,000.  5A  1,350-1,999 (649).  4A  1,000-1,349 (349).  3A  730-999 (269).  2A  450-730 (280).  1A below 450.

I think it may be better to base the classification on ADM instead of number of schools in the classification.

I would look at tweaking this with a format resembling the following:                                                                                                                                                                               

Classificaton  / Lowest ADM (differential in ADM)                                                                                                                                                                               

6A over 1,900 (1,788).  5A  1,500-1,899 (399).  4A  1,150-1,499 (349).  3A  850-1,149 (349).  2A 550-849 (299).  1A below 549.  

There are three 1A schools below 200 ADM.  Seven between 200-299.  Eight 300-349.  Seven 350-399.  Eleven 400-449.  Seven 450-499.  Ten 500-519.  Four 520-549.  

1A would have 56 schools.  4A 47 schools.  Need to figure out the numbers 2A through 5A on this format.

6A 47 schools.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×