Official Numbers for Realignment

@scratch10, I hope you don't work for the UIofL. Cherokee & Richland in different districts? They're in the same county and only 31 miles apart. Why would you want them in separate districts. The UIofL did that a few years ago, still makes no sense whatsoever.
 
No I don't work for UIL and I don't want to. But I used a similar method to what they'll use. As far as Cherokee and Richland Springs being put in different districts goes, just hope UIL finds someplace more reasonable for Calvert to go. They'll even out the districts and use closest proximity to the border schools. Same goes for Grady being with Marfa and Fort Davis. If you want to make it more reasonable then let the schools build their own districts (like a college conference) so then you can blame the school administrators for your inconvenient travel situations, but then that would also call for a remodeled playoff format, awkward scheduling, and then some schools are gonna get left out only to be picked up by the sun belt conference creating even worse driving situations, other schools will kill their playoff chances by deciding to join a loaded district in which they can't compete. The list goes on, but at least the schools could control their fate come realignment.
 
Sorry Don. I got Roscoe and Roby messed up concerning your story of towns blowing up. It is nice to see some of these towns come around.
 
I would like to see the uil go back to 6 or more teams in a district. There could still be 30 teams make the playoffs, just have 10 districts and take the top 3 in each district. They could even hold a lottery to see which two teams gets a bye in the first round. I think that would make winning district mean more and would get better quality teams in the playoffs.
 
I think a lot of people care, but unless the uil cares, its pretty much a moot point. Until they decide to do what is best for the game, as opposed to what's best for the uil anyway. It would be nice if they were to actually find out what the people want before making all of these decisions. Personally, I'm not a fan of two different divisions either. We are all small schools, that's why we play six-man. Only having an enrollment of 38 doesn't seem to be bothering Richland Springs none. They are still one of, if not the best team in the state. But their state championship will be marred, in my opinion because they will be labeled the "small" school state champion, if and when they win. They say its more fair. But how is a team with 51 having to play a school with 95 any different than a team with 48? No matter where the split is, there will be teams almost half the size of their district opponents, so why have a split at all?
 
I think a true split should be 79, and allow ANY 1A school that wants to play 6 man have the option. Just my opinion, but I think it would work.

And while I'm on opinions, and on the off chance any uil people read this. Non football schools should be put in their own category for other sports. Period. Six man schools shouldn't have to play non football schools to get out of district in basketball. The non football schools have a clear cut advantage in other sports. Why not pit six man schools against other six man schools in basketball, baseball, track, etc.? That makes more sense than the baseball team from the school with 58 who scraped together 11 to have a team playing the baseball team from the school with 194 who has a varsity, JV, and freshman team, in DISTRICT!

Ok, off my soap box now.
 
hornkeeper

The UIL listens to 6-man coaches. If they coaches said we want more teams in the districts they would do it. It is not all on the UIL. Coaches love this system. Only 4 teams and 2 go to the playoffs. This make it easier to make the playoffs.

I think if we are going to keep the 2-divisions then have 8 districts in each division. Take top 2 to playoffs. This would be about 7-8 teams per district. The playoff teams would truely be strong quality teams.
 
Yes, that would be ideal, 8 districts, top 2 out of each district. But if the coaches want it easier, wouldn't the top 3 out of 6 or 7 team districts (with 10 districts) be about the same as top 2 in 4 and 5 team districts (with 15 districts)? Either way, it is still 30 playoff teams. And the quality of teams making the playoffs would be better. There would be less of a chance of a top 20 school being left out, and a bottom 20 school making it. I know the uil asks the opinions of the coaches, but it seems that a lot of what they do does not make sense.
 
the schools who turned in their numbers are all going to have a football program? is this correct? we rarely have games for our jv very late in the season due to injury or grades from the other schools. why dont we have the same districts for basketball, track, and all other sports not only districts but divisions especially with in the 6- man divisions?
 
The main reasons for different districts is the fact many schools in Texas who have under 99 students do not play football, but do participate in basketball, track, etc... and others choose to participate in 11 man football. It would be impossible, in certain areas of the state, to create a district that kept every sport together without creating some districts that have only 1 or 2 six man schools. And then what is done with a school who has under 99 students but chooses to play 11 man? inserting them into an 11 man district changes everything for that district as well.

There is going to be a Division II state track meet in the near future.
 

Similar threads

S
My realignment proposal to the UIL
Replies
17
Views
8K
sinfonian
S
freeagent
UIL Realignment Show
Replies
1
Views
2K
Old Bearkat
Old Bearkat
Back
Top