My point exactly. Six-man schools do not wish to be considered elite but rather have the same opportunity for competitive districts in all activities like larger schools in higher classifications. Here's an example. Our high school has 56 students. We compete, at the district level, in basketball, one-act play, baseball, academics, and track with schools that have high school enrollments ranging between 150-160 students. If those activities were held within our six-man district, that amount of difference would not, and with our current cut-off numbers, could not exist.
Enrollment is also not the only factor. Often, the larger schools as mentioned above, have more resources, personnel, money, facilities, than many of the very small districts. We have schools in our baseball and softball districts that employ 11 coaches. Our district has three, which is very comparable with our district six-man opponents. I understand there are exceptions to every rule. I've seen the state track meet won by one child. There are stories of that occasional season where a very tiny school will ride the arm of an ace pitcher all the way to the state tournament. But, for the most part, larger schools are able to afford resources that can lead to a competitive edge over very small schools. I do not blame the larger schools. I applaud them. If I were able to afford an 11 member coaching staff for my kids I would do it.
I am also not advocating a major overhaul because my school is not successful. Quite the opposite is true. We are a play-off contender in just about every category. It's not about what is good for me. It's about doing what is right. I content that a Six-Man (or call it whatever you like) Conference is the most fair approach for the ultra small school.
