7 Classes?

[r14veer]

"Strawman" argument would include me attempting to refute points that you weren't actually making. I wasn't attempting to do that. I wasn't refuting your argument at all. I was giving other alternatives.
I was also using exaggeration to prove my point, which is that 1) more games, 2) more "champions," and 3) more revenue, are the ONLY things that have been driving most decisions regarding football classifications and playoff system in Missouri for years now. The adding of a 15th week (while taking safety measures to reduce injuries, especially concussions) was not made in the interest of players. Moving the beginning of the season up toward the middle of the summer (while implementing a strict heat acclimatization policy) was not, either. Adding more classes isn't necessarily, either- unless the goal is to make sure more people are considered "champions." Where is the limit? Exactly how many state "champions" is enough? And what exactly is the goal? Improving the experience of the student-athletes, or making more money for our "not-for-profit?"

You tell me where the limit is. It's an arbitrary distinction. Is it 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? And then explain why 4 is somehow better than 5 is somehow better than 6 is somehow better than 7. There is no inherent quality in any of these numbers that makes one a better alternative. I'm neither for nor against adding another class; I just find it interesting that those in your camp think we're watering down the competition by adding another class and those in the other camp feel like adding another class would be making the competition a bit more fair, whatever that means. Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

You tell me where the limit is. It's an arbitrary distinction. Is it 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? And then explain why 4 is somehow better than 5 is somehow better than 6 is somehow better than 7. There is no inherent quality in any of these numbers that makes one a better alternative. I'm neither for nor against adding another class; I just find it interesting that those in your camp think we're watering down the competition by adding another class and those in the other camp feel like adding another class would be making the competition a bit more fair, whatever that means. Thanks for the dialogue.

I don't think winning a state title is cheap BUT I do think winning a state title when there are only 7 handed out (including 8-man) is a little cheaper when there are 8 handed out and so on.

64 teams which is most classes is an arbitrary number but it seems like the right one. I do not see a benefit of having 48 teams and having a bunch of teams with a bye week.

Before programs starting dropping football it looked like the framework of 6 classes was working great. Class 5 would expand until there were 64 schools and then Class 6 would take on teams until they had 64. That probably wouldn't have needed to be tweaked for maybe decades.

Now I think we are 4-6 years away from being able to go back to 5 classes of 64 teams.

 

[SadButTrue]

Missouri having seven classes is a joke. Missouri doesn't even have a need for six classes. This state could easily get by with five really competitive classes with really entertaining games week in and week out, and a highly entertaining postseason. Of course, you'd need to get rid of this ridiculous seeding system that's in place, and then, you may have to play after Thanksgiving, which I understand is an unforgivable sin. You'd also need to get rid of conferences, which would be a brilliant step in the right direction, in my opinion. But again, I understand how this is blasphemy for most Missourians, so pull the wool and carry on.

Texass use to command a certain amount of respect and maybe worth listening to, but with the crap UT and the Cowboys are putting on the field lately you need to go stand in the corner and shut up.

 

[Rufus R. Jones]

You tell me where the limit is. It's an arbitrary distinction. Is it 3? 4? 5? 6? 7? 8? And then explain why 4 is somehow better than 5 is somehow better than 6 is somehow better than 7. There is no inherent quality in any of these numbers that makes one a better alternative. I'm neither for nor against adding another class; I just find it interesting that those in your camp think we're watering down the competition by adding another class and those in the other camp feel like adding another class would be making the competition a bit more fair, whatever that means. Thanks for the dialogue.

I don't know what the arbitrary number of classes should be. I am, however, of the opinion, that adding the number of classes without a significant increase in the number of teams participating, is, in fact and in mathematics, "watering down the competition."

r14veer, in your opinion, how much of a factor does revenue play in the decision making? My opinion is that that is the real driving force. If it is, and I would emphasize "if," because that is merely my opinion, wouldn't a prudent financial alternative be to decrease expenditures instead of increasing revenue?

I don't know...I'm asking. Does MSHSAA need to look at ways to decrease expenditures in order to make our "not-for-profit" more solvent? In the interest of sound economics, how much have revenues decreased in the last several years, and how much have expenditures increased? These are the type of questions I believe the MSHSAA Board of Directors should examine. Just an opinion.
I appreciate the dialogue, as well.

Maybe the best alternative isn't more, but less. That would be unusual for bureaucrats to take that stance, as their interest usually lies in protecting and prolonging the bureaucracy. Said that the nicest I could say it.

 

[SadButTrue]

Basketball is the money maker for MSHSAA.

 

[Rufus R. Jones]

Basketball is the money maker for MSHSAA.

Yes, Because there are more games, including boring, meaningless consolation games. Probably only a matter of time before people are pushing for consolation games in football.

 

[HoopsTournament]

In my opinion, 6 team districts are the ideal size of districts. It gives the 1 and 2 byes for good seasons. It gives the last seed a more winnable game. It keeps the 1 seed from playing a terrible 8 seed where the only concern is injuries. So the ideal number of classes is Number of teams divided by 48.

 

[r14veer]

I don't think winning a state title is cheap BUT I do think winning a state title when there are only 7 handed out (including 8-man) is a little cheaper when there are 8 handed out and so on.

64 teams which is most classes is an arbitrary number but it seems like the right one. I do not see a benefit of having 48 teams and having a bunch of teams with a bye week.

Before programs starting dropping football it looked like the framework of 6 classes was working great. Class 5 would expand until there were 64 schools and then Class 6 would take on teams until they had 64. That probably wouldn't have needed to be tweaked for maybe decades.

Now I think we are 4-6 years away from being able to go back to 5 classes of 64 teams.

Why does 64 seem like the right number? Because it breaks nicely into a bracket? Because of the perfection of powers of 2? Because it causes me to ask rhetorical questions?