Jump to content

***UIL Considering Radical Football Realignment Plan***


Recommended Posts

UIL considering radical football realignment plan

The complicated system used to provide competitive balance in Texas high school football could get a radical overhaul under a plan being considered by the University Interscholastic League.

The UIL redraws competitive districts every two years. The plan to be formally presented in June would carve all UIL football classifications into two divisions for football.

The split-division system would need approval from superintendents and coaches. It could be in place in time for the 2008-09 school year.

Charles Breithaupt, UIL athletic director, said the proposal would increase competitive balance by grouping more schools of similar size together.

"I think this plan has a lot of merit," Breithaupt told the San Antonio Express-News in a story published Friday. "There might be problems we haven't seen or thought of. But it looks pretty solid at this point. It just makes more sense to put teams into the same division at the beginning of the year instead of the end."

The UIL split the Class 5A postseason teams into two divisions in 1991 and that system grew to cover playoff teams in all classes. Of the three teams in each district that qualify for the playoffs, the largest school is placed in one division, while the other two are placed in a second.

The 5A playoff field was expanded last year to include four teams per district, with the largest two schools entering Division I and the smaller two in Division II.

The format was designed to prevent smaller schools from competing in the playoffs against opponents with significantly larger enrollments.

Results have been mixed. Last season, for example, the "small-school" 5A champion, Cedar Hill, had a larger enrollment than "big-school" winner Southlake Carroll.

Under the new proposal, each class will be split into two, 16-district divisions before the start of the season.

"No matter how you divide the schools, you're always going to have teams in the bottom range who are not going to be happy," Breithaupt said. "But if you look at it globally, we think it's pretty good."

The model was taken from a system used last year at the six-player level. Teams initially bombarded the UIL with complaints, but they eventually embraced the change.

"I thought it worked out great, and so does everyone I've talked to," said Calvert coach Coylin Grimes. "Any time you have something new, people are going to reject it. But they told us it was going to be great for the smaller schools, and they were right."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://www.texashsfootball.com/playoffs/news06/commentary1115.htm

I posted this back in November and nobody paid too much attention. And now look at what is being talked about.

You have to look at the bigger picture.. the big thing this will do is give the smaller schools a chance to compete. 21-3A had WOS, Silsbee, Kirbyville made the playoffs. Hardin-Jefferson, Hamshire-Fannett, Orangefield, and Kirbyville are smallest schools in the their district. Biggest schools are WOS, Silsbee, Jasper and Bridge City. Traditionally out of the district, look at the playoff contenders. That is the root of the problem in about 90% of the districts in the state. The new format would actually make things more competitive.

I would guarantee the 90% of the coaches would worry about being more competitive and making the playoffs than worry about the travel issue. Sure, some parts of the state have long travel like in East and West Texas. Thats part of the reason realignment is held in February instead of June or July. Scheduling and Travel budgets are done in spring months.

This plan design to make the disparity between the schools less evident and more competitive. You are not losing championships but you gaining the opportunity for smaller schools to be more competitive and have a better chance to make the playoffs and go deeper as well.

Instead of splitting the teams by enrollment in the playoffs, it would be split up enrollment by district. The top two in each of the 16 districts would advance to playoffs. You are gaining a playoff team in each classification but losing a playoff spot in district. Bascically resulting in better competition for big and small schools as a whole. You will probably see more smaller districts of no more than 5 or 6 teams.

West Brook in 5A, Kirbyville in 3A, Nederland in 4A would actually have decent shot to go deeper under the format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ECBucFan

I don't think it's really "under consideration" at all. It's a done deal. CB & Co. loves to micro-manage things.... Just get ready to drive and drive and drive and drive....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like last year Cedar Hill who won the small was actually larger than SLC who won the large school. I hear at the start of the year they will set the districts based on numbers. I think what they are trying to do is to create a six-a and will not have much impact on smaller schools. Thats my take but as we all know when the UIL starts talking nothing makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is going to be interesting is how these new schools  are going to be funded. The supid. in Humble tried to warn everyone over here and now they are ten million dollars in the red for this year. On top of that they want to build a new high school over in Falls Creek but where are the kids going to come from in ten years. Unless we get a huge influx of new kids we are coming down after next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do we get a 1A, 2A,3A,4A single champion?  If so these supposed  "smaller therefore deemed weaker ::)" schools will still get beat come playoff time.  So the "better/more talented" team in a bigger district won't make the playoffs and a smaller school will basically take the spot?  Am I missing something here?  WOS was a small 4A football and still made it, as was Newton when 3A, and Kirbyville in 3A.  The supposed small HJ just won state in bball.  If your community has the athletes, it has the athletes.  We are in an unfortunate area.  If many of the schools in this area were out west or up in the panhandle they would be a dominant force.  We have a bloodbath in the greater Houston area due to the talent levels.  

Face value unless I'm not understanding this all here I do not like it.  I would wager we would have 2 seperate 3A districts next year under the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how about 1a

would schools like hull-daisetta, west hardin, colmesneil,and others over 150 be in one district and smaller schools like evadale, high island, and sabine pass be in another. i mean chester has 60 kids and play against schools with 180. thats not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...