classification Reclassification

[ReitzFan]

In my opinion if any private school wishes to stay D1 they should be made to play at the highest classification regardless of their enrollment.

Make the open enrollment and open transfer PUBLICS do the same thing.

[ReitzFan]

Just wondering since the breakdown appears to be between the current system and going back to 5 classes, which are you for and what area of the state are you in.

I just happen to believe the problem is in the seeding for playoffs.

We have a winner here. If the TSSAA could come up with a better method of seeding the teams, I believe that would eliminate alot of the problems. Simply seeding the teams by who has the best record is not the answer. Seeding all the first and second place region winners first and seeding all the wild cards last is not the answer either. Using some sort of universal power ranking system would be the best option in my opinion. Keep the playoff qualifying as it currently is. Just change the seeding to something that rewards record and strength of schedule would be my choice.

[Indian]

We have a winner here. If the TSSAA could come up with a better method of seeding the teams, I believe that would eliminate alot of the problems. Simply seeding the teams by who has the best record is not the answer. Seeding all the first and second place region winners first and seeding all the wild cards last is not the answer either. Using some sort of universal power ranking system would be the best option in my opinion. Keep the playoff qualifying as it currently is. Just change the seeding to something that rewards record and strength of schedule would be my choice.

 

 

I don't know if there is a good way of seeding them, under this current three class, then six class system. The fairest way might be going district champs, then runner-ups, etc but there are drawbacks to even that as has been mentioned numerous times.

[Verb58]

We have a winner here. If the TSSAA could come up with a better method of seeding the teams, I believe that would eliminate alot of the problems. Simply seeding the teams by who has the best record is not the answer. Seeding all the first and second place region winners first and seeding all the wild cards last is not the answer either. Using some sort of universal power ranking system would be the best option in my opinion. Keep the playoff qualifying as it currently is. Just change the seeding to something that rewards record and strength of schedule would be my choice.

I am all for it. If you play up or against tougher opponents win or lose it has to carry more weight than beating up on 3 non district cupcakes then winning 2 district games to qualify at 5-5. If this is what needs to be addressed then do it. I still say seed the teams 1-16 on each side.

Edited June 15, 2012 by wave88

[Indian]

I am all for it. If you play up or against tougher opponents win or lose it has to carry more weight than beating up on 3 non district cupcakes then winning 2 district games to qualify at 5-5. If this is what needs to be addressed then do it. I still say seed the teams 1-16 on each side.

 

That would be a good start, but some teams might not be able to schedule "up" due to location, playing rivalry games in those non-region spots, and even if they do, the powerhouse they schedule might have an unexpected losing season. 1s vs 4s, 2s vs 3s, somehow, someway, is the best method. And again, there would be still complaints since one Class AAA district might have mostly 6A (playoff) teams, another mostly 5A.

[ReitzFan]

I don't know if there is a good way of seeding them, under this current three class, then six class system. The fairest way might be going district champs, then runner-ups, etc but there are drawbacks to even that as has been mentioned numerous times.

There are too many drawbacks to simply seed all champs first then all second place teams, then the wild cards. I have seen too many cases where a lower seeded wild card team simply dominated a higher seeded opponant who came from a weak region. I would be much more in favor of a system that rewards success, AND strength of schedule.

 

Take the top 32 from each class and divide them into two halfs with each half seeded 1-16 based on success plus strength of schedule. If that means a 3rd or 4th place team out of one region gets seeded higher than a champ out of another region, then so be it. I want the best possible field.

[GWAVE1]

If those regions that were drawn up stay the same, then I just prefer to keep it like it is. 5 classifications would be better competition wise but my school, Gallatin, would suffer in the gate. Having been grouped in with the metros for years, I know what having multiple schools who have very small fan followings can do to the gate. I hear some of the Clarksville schools are no better. With only one out of region game for the season, I cannot see the funds continuing to come into the program. I really like our current district. We have schools close with good fan followings and heated rivalries. If the proposed region would change from the 10 teams to a smaller version so we could add some of our traditional games, then I would probably support the idea. Currently however, I cannot. Gallatin doesn't need to swap Hendersonville, Station Camp, Mt Juliet and Lebanon for Maplewood, Whites Creek, Creekwood, and Clarksville NW.

[QBClubPrez]

If those regions that were drawn up stay the same, then I just prefer to keep it like it is. 5 classifications would be better competition wise but my school, Gallatin, would suffer in the gate. Having been grouped in with the metros for years, I know what having multiple schools who have very small fan followings can do to the gate. I hear some of the Clarksville schools are no better. With only one out of region game for the season, I cannot see the funds continuing to come into the program. I really like our current district. We have schools close with good fan followings and heated rivalries. If the proposed region would change from the 10 teams to a smaller version so we could add some of our traditional games, then I would probably support the idea. Currently however, I cannot. Gallatin doesn't need to swap Hendersonville, Station Camp, Mt Juliet and Lebanon for Maplewood, Whites Creek, Creekwood, and Clarksville NW.

 

Thank you GWAVE1 for this observation!....just...Thank You!! However, IF this new proposal passes...we will be the beneficiary of Gallatin's misfortune concerning the gates!

Edited June 15, 2012 by QBClubPrez

[big D]

If those regions that were drawn up stay the same, then I just prefer to keep it like it is. 5 classifications would be better competition wise but my school, Gallatin, would suffer in the gate. Having been grouped in with the metros for years, I know what having multiple schools who have very small fan followings can do to the gate. I hear some of the Clarksville schools are no better. With only one out of region game for the season, I cannot see the funds continuing to come into the program. I really like our current district. We have schools close with good fan followings and heated rivalries. If the proposed region would change from the 10 teams to a smaller version so we could add some of our traditional games, then I would probably support the idea. Currently however, I cannot. Gallatin doesn't need to swap Hendersonville, Station Camp, Mt Juliet and Lebanon for Maplewood, Whites Creek, Creekwood, and Clarksville NW.

simple solution is to decide to play up to 5A. you would be placed in the MTJ, HHS, SC, and Lebanon district. problem solved.

[TDCman]

There are too many drawbacks to simply seed all champs first then all second place teams, then the wild cards. I have seen too many cases where a lower seeded wild card team simply dominated a higher seeded opponant who came from a weak region. I would be much more in favor of a system that rewards success, AND strength of schedule.

 

Take the top 32 from each class and divide them into two halfs with each half seeded 1-16 based on success plus strength of schedule. If that means a 3rd or 4th place team out of one region gets seeded higher than a champ out of another region, then so be it. I want the best possible field.

 

I like this approach.

[alt1958]

One thing that I keep coming back to. Do we really need 5 or 6 classifications?

 

6 dilutes the playoffs with teams with losing records getting in to make for enough teams. 5 make for travel issues, with regions that are much too large makeing for LONG travel trips.

 

Seems to me the answer is simply go back to 4. After all Georgia, as large as it is only uses 5. Tennessee has probably moved beyond the 3 we had for years, and 4 could probably work for all sports. After all they also say that 3 will work for all other sports still. Back when they first went to 5 I thought it was too many then.

[AcesWild]

One thing that I keep coming back to. Do we really need 5 or 6 classifications?

 

6 dilutes the playoffs with teams with losing records getting in to make for enough teams. 5 make for travel issues, with regions that are much too large makeing for LONG travel trips.

 

Seems to me the answer is simply go back to 4. After all Georgia, as large as it is only uses 5. Tennessee has probably moved beyond the 3 we had for years, and 4 could probably work for all sports. After all they also say that 3 will work for all other sports still. Back when they first went to 5 I thought it was too many then.

 

That's wrong about Georgia. They have six classifications as well. I believe this will be there first year using it.