UIL drawing criticism 50/50 On The New Plan

[KFDM COOP]

UIL drawing criticism

Story last updated at 2:16 a.m. Tuesday, October 9, 2007

UIL's realignment drawing criticism

GEORGE WATSON

AVALANCHE-JOURNAL

One thing is certain about the realignment proposal the University Interscholastic League displayed at the most recent Texas High School Coaches Association coaching school, and that is the feedback has been of high volume.

But that feedback, according to UIL athletic director Charles Breithaupt, has been "half and half" in terms of schools and districts being in favor of it or against it. And that equal split could result in the plan being struck down by the UIL's Legislative Council, which is scheduled for its 67th annual meeting Oct. 21-22 in Austin.

"We're getting negative feedback, but we're not abandoning (the plan)," Breithaupt said Monday. "We'll present it to the council on the 21st and it's up to them. I admit that anytime you have a proposal with only a 50 percent approval it's not always wise to move forward. I'm not sure how the council will line up. We'll just throw it out there and try to present the study item to the council and let the dice roll."

Normally, Breithaupt said, the UIL doesn't make public the proposals for realignment, the next of which comes up in February. But because of the interest in the next realignment and the multiple issues involved with school size, travel and budgets, the UIL put forth its current plan in front of coaches and administrators to get their feelings about it.

The proposed plan would divide schools - for football only - in all classifications into large (Division I) and small (Division II) schools to determine playoff representatives. That in itself is nothing new, but this plan would make those divisions at the beginning of the year instead of at the end of the regular season.

Frenship athletic director Brad Davis, who is on the THSCA board of directors, was able to review the plan and said there is still a lot of confusion as to how teams in the West Texas region would be classified.

"They showed us the map but they didn't have any schools on the map," Davis said. "They just had areas of the map in colors, and teams with possible 5A Division I teams were in red all over the state. There might be red in Amarillo or Lubbock but you didn't know which school it was. So nobody knows the direction they're going or who they're going with. They weren't specific about it on the model."

That, however, isn't Davis' biggest concern with the plan. He said that while, for competition's sake, the proposal levels the playing field, it is about the only positive in the entire plan. His main concern comes with travel, not so much for varsity games but with possible road trips to Wichita Falls and Abilene that sub-varsity teams would be forced to take and then try to make it to school the next day.

"I studied it a little bit and really don't like it," Davis said. "I think there are several factors involved that I don't think are good. Our position at Frenship is for our junior varsity and freshmen teams to play the same schedule as the varsity, so then you're talking about Thursday night sub-varsity teams getting in at three or four in the morning and getting up and going to school on Friday. There are things there on the sub-varsity level that are just not feasible. The negatives just outweigh the positives in the overall picture."

While travel has been one of the concerns expressed, Breithaupt said others have expressed discontent with further division of the schools. School districts in Dallas and Houston would have multiple teams in two different divisions, which could cause further problems with districts that share stadiums.

"It started out with a lot of people heavily in favor it until they looked at where they fell," Breithaupt said. "That's the way it always goes and that's the problem with realignment proposals. Ninety percent of the people look at it and some like what happens to them, and for a period they are all for it. Then they see where they fall and they are against it. The council will talk about it when it goes on the ballot."

Lubbock ISD athletic director Gary Gaines said he hasn't studied the proposal very closely but is concerned about being lumped into a super district, as has been rumored, with the Midland and Odessa schools.

"We're still not clear whether they're talking about having one district with big schools and small schools or a district with small schools and a district with big schools," Gaines said. "It's hard to do out here so that's why we'd heard it was iffy with the legislative council. I wouldn't be surprised if it failed."

More from the UIL

Breithaupt also said Monday that the UIL feels confident the new steroid testing program will be in place by the end of this month.

"We're moving ahead step by step, but we're moving in small increments so we can cover all our bases," Breithaupt said. "We have 14 bids and we're looking at getting down to picking the vendor to carry out the testing. We've got our procedures in place and we could start as quickly as a vendor is selected. We've said all along that it would be toward the end of October and that still looks realistic."

UIL legislative budget planners have set aside $6 million over the next two years to cover the cost of all the planned testing, taking the expense out of the hands of the schools. Initial plans are to test 400 schools during the 2007-08 school year, which is expected to involve more than 23,000 students.

The new mandatory testing program comes as a result of the passage of Senate Bill 8 requiring a testing program for Texas high schools. All extracurricular activity participants must sign a form at the beginning of the season allowing themselves to be tested, and anyone who refuses will be barred from that activity. A positive test, or refusing a test, carries a 30-day suspension for the first offense and requires a negative test before the student is allowed to participate again.

[Guest ECBucFan]

UIL drawing criticism

"We're getting negative feedback, but we're not abandoning (the plan)," Breithaupt said Monday. "

Now who would have thunk it?!?! LOL!!  :

[tvc184]

They are getting a lot of negative feedback but they are going to push ahead to get what the people don't want. Go figure.

[KFDM COOP]

50/50 on opinions on it.

[stangchain]

I've always thought they had it set up wrong to start with.  They should take the top TWO schools in each district to the Div. 1 bracket and let the school with the smallest enrollement in each district be in the small school bracket.  It would make it more even all the way around.

[Tiger90]

I've always thought they had it set up wrong to start with.  They should take the top TWO schools in each district to the Div. 1 bracket and let the school with the smallest enrollement in each district be in the small school bracket.  It would make it more even all the way around.

That definitely would be different.

In regards to the plan, you'd think they would want a 2/3rds majority support for something this radical.  Many around here view it as a "savior" of sorts, but we probably really need to view this from beyond our backyard.  In reality we just need our mega 3A district split.  If we were still using the districts from 4 years ago you'd have WOS,HF, and HJ leading the way with OF and BC a year or so away.  In the other, Silsbee and K'ville, the biggest and littlest, with everyone else going for the other spot.  I don't know if the current scheme is so far outdated as much as the district just being too deep.

[AggiesAreWe]

That definitely would be different.

In regards to the plan, you'd think they would want a 2/3rds majority support for something this radical.  Many around here view it as a "savior" of sorts, but we probably really need to view this from beyond our backyard.  In reality we just need our mega 3A district split.  If we were still using the districts from 4 years ago you'd have WOS,HF, and HJ leading the way with OF and BC a year or so away.  In the other, Silsbee and K'ville, the biggest and littlest, with everyone else going for the other spot.  I don't know if the current scheme is so far outdated as much as the district just being too deep.

Couldn't have said that any better. I have been talking about going back to the districts from a couple of years ago all this time.

[stangchain]

The problem with what they are proposing is that we would travel completely through one district that we play now to play another school.  Granted, we do that anyway in pre-season but O'field is 10 miles from us and they would be in a completely different district.

[Guest ECBucFan]

50/50 on opinions on it.

That is a perfect reason to NOT do it. If only 50% approve, and just as many don't, nothing is gained. I believe surely some of the 50% approving will regret it when it they actually have to live with it.

[CraigS]

I think a compromise would along these lines!

Determine how many teams from each district make the playoffs, 2-3-4, doesn't really matter (I support 2 teams)

After that, devide them (by enrollment) right don the middle.......now there may still be some travel involved, but not until the playoffs. I know this wouldn't necessarily help some of the smaller schools MAKE the playoffs, but it would better match schools once they did. This would also give a modified plan to see how it works out only during the playoffs, and not all year long.

Just a thought, if they MUST do anything at all!

[tvc184]

I've always thought they had it set up wrong to start with.  They should take the top TWO schools in each district to the Div. 1 bracket and let the school with the smallest enrollement in each district be in the small school bracket.  It would make it more even all the way around.

I can't make any sense of that plan. So once you get your top two teams, how do you pick the third? Do you theoretically split the district in half by enrollment and whichever of the smaller teams has the best record (no matter what it is) makes the playoffs?

What if two of the smaller schools make the playoffs as happened many years with WO-S. Then you could have a six team district split 3/3, big school/small school. So two of the smaller schools get #1 and #2 in district, putting them in Div 1. Does the third small school then get the other spot as the small school rep since the two other small schools went as the big school/Div 1 as you suggested? Otherwise, you would have to pick the better of the big schools and put them down in Div 2/small school.

[KFDM COOP]

When the Legislative Council meets on the 22nd it will either get approved or not. If it doesn't not much is going to change. The smaller Schools in their districts will still be matched up with some schools with alot higher enrollments. If it happens then the small and smaller schools will benefit greatly, except for some travel issues. If it passes then the smaller schools will then be with other schools closer to their enrollment. Go ask some smaller school coaches if they want it to pass! I know their answer because i've talked to many of them.

[Guest ECBucFan]

Go ask some smaller school coaches if they want it to pass! I know their answer because i've talked to many of them.

I don't doubt that at all. I know some would benefit, no doubt about it. I do, however, believe the following:

1) If a smaller school can't deal with the larger schools in it's own district, then they won't be in the playoffs very long, anyhow (EC is 5th of 7 in our 2A...no problem!)

2) Travel times and EXPENSES will be increased with distance. What if gas goes to $4 or $5? Schools will feel that for sure. Less fans attending, too. Some people work til 6 or later...

3) The UIL micromanages. Bigtime. Can't leave anything alone for any length of time.     

This "plan" is not the end of the world. It will still "work", but will cause headaches. Also, this adds to the watering down philosophy of the UIL. Soon all teams will "make" the playoff$$$. Guarantee it!

[southern-thunder]

The article says they will be testing all extracurricular participants. Does that include band, cheerleaders and one cat play people too? because if it doesnt and only test athletics wouldnt that be discriminatory?

[Guest ECBucFan]

I just want all to know that I totally respect differing opinions on this. I just voice mine to add to the discussion.  

[stangchain]

I can't make any sense of that plan. So once you get your top two teams, how do you pick the third? Do you theoretically split the district in half by enrollment and whichever of the smaller teams has the best record (no matter what it is) makes the playoffs?

What if two of the smaller schools make the playoffs as happened many years with WO-S. Then you could have a six team district split 3/3, big school/small school. So two of the smaller schools get #1 and #2 in district, putting them in Div 1. Does the third small school then get the other spot as the small school rep since the two other small schools went as the big school/Div 1 as you suggested? Otherwise, you would have to pick the better of the big schools and put them down in Div 2/small school.

Ok, herei it goes.  For years, while WOS was in 4A, we had the smallest enrollment of any school in the playoffs.  We also had the hardest and longest route.  We week in, week out played schools twice our size.  (I am mainlytalkng about 2000, but the same idea applies now)The larger school playoff game finished ONE week before the smaller school championship game, which meant they had less opponents to play.  If they had put the largest TWO of the top three teams in each district in the D-1 category, the field might/would have been a little more even.  There were schools closer to our size getting beaten week in, week out by the large Austin/Dallas teams.  We were fortunate enough to have talent and an outstanding group of young men that year.  This year, in 21 3A, suppose WOS, Silsbee and Kirbyville make the playoffs.  No matter who finishes where, they are the top 3 teams in the district.  K'ville goes in the small school bracket and WOS and Silsbee go in the large school bracket.  Since there is such a difference in the top and the bottom of the district enrollments, it makes more sense to let the two with the largest enrollments go to the large school division and the smaller school goes to the D-2 route.  Like someone else said in an earlier post, putting the smallest schools in a district all by themselves, with more travel time, more $$$, etc., they may make one round of the playoffs anyway, because they earned it in their district.  However, they are eventually going to play larger schools anyway, unless they are going to create a super small enrollment championship game, which would be totally outrageous.  Either make the D-1 a two school bracket and the smallest of the top three in each district the one bracket playoff or go back to one state champion in each classification.  There are idiotic 3-7 teams making the playoffs when we have four and five good teams in our district that get left out of the playoffs every year (and our fourth and fifth place teams could beat most of those 3-7 team districts any day of the week).  I just don't think more travel is the answer.

[southern-thunder]

Stangchain I like your idea it makes alot of sense which is why the uil would never go for it!!  ;D

[stangchain]

Stangchain I like your idea it makes alot of sense which is why the uil would never go for it!!  ;D

I've always heard that UIL is about making money.  Since you would have the two school LARGE bracket, that would give you (usually) the largest attendance, ergo the largest amount of money.

[southern-thunder]

I've always heard that UIL is about making money.  Since you would have the two school LARGE bracket, that would give you (usually) the largest attendance, ergo the largest amount of money.

Well you are right about that and if you put in dollars and cents that might go for it!!

[stangchain]

Well you are right about that and if you put in dollars and cents that might go for it!!

Well, here goes nuthin'....I sent the following email to the UIL athletic department.

I have read recently that there seems to be controversy over the proposed realignment scheduled to take place in Feb, 2008.  I hope you will take time to read my suggestion.

You currently have three teams in the playoff appearances in each district.  The largest school, regardless of finish, goes to the large school bracket and the other two schools go into the small school bracket.  My proposal is to allow a two team large school bracket and a one team small school bracket.  Since there is such a difference in the top and bottom of each bracket, it only makes sense to have a two school large bracket and one school D-2 bracket.  Furthermore, the smaller school would have one less game to play, as the large schools currently have, and the D-1 schools would play the one extra week.  This would alleviate the discrepancies now felt by the smaller schools, plus provide the UIL with more of the larger school attendance at the playoff games.  More attendance means more money for everybody.

Your proposal is to create new districts with like-sized attendance.  If those schools cannot compete in the districts they are currently in, they certainly will not be able to compete in playoff appearances.  And you will create districts where there are four, five, or even six really good teams that are playoff potential teams yet three of those teams stay home while extremely weak teams enter the playoffs. 

There are always larger teams in each district, yet the largest team does not always win the district crown.  Thre are instances where the school with the third largest enrollment wins the district crown outright, but the large school has an easier route.  Fairness is in who wins the spot for the playoffs in each district, not creating districts so weaker teams can claim district crowns when they are not worthy and cannot meet the challenges of the playoffs anyway.

[patitan]

in this new society,which is crap,we want everyone to win.that's what's going on here.my 5 year plays t-ball and no score is kept. there is no winner and loser. that's where we just messed up. it seems they want the small schools to win something. i say line'em up and go for it. either you're good or not good. that's the playoffs.

now,what's dumb and stupid is how they have 21-5a!!!  brook and PAM are the only 5a schools in the triangle. it makes better since to have them with schools closer to them. it should go:

PAM

Brook

Sterling

North Shore

Deer Park

LaPorte

Lee isn't in thier because of possibly going to 4a.

[stangchain]

in this new society,which is crap,we want everyone to win.that's what's going on here.my 5 year plays t-ball and no score is kept. there is no winner and loser. that's where we just messed up. it seems they want the small schools to win something. i say line'em up and go for it. either you're good or not good. that's the playoffs.

now,what's dumb and stupid is how they have 21-5a!!!  brook and PAM are the only 5a schools in the triangle. it makes better since to have them with schools closer to them. it should go:

PAM

Brook

Sterling

North Shore

Deer Park

LaPorte

Lee isn't in thier because of possibly going to 4a.

Hey PAT:  you're right.  Why should they create new districts for smaller schools.  I didn't want to mention in my letter to UIL that I was from WOS for fear of bias....but we have beaten schools twice our size for years.  We have lost to them, too. Maybe I am speaking with a forked tongue, I don't know.  I'm sorry that I am ignorant about your district...I don't know who all is in your district now, but if it's not those schools that you named, it is dumb.  They are closer, unless you go play Sulphur or Barbe in LA.  LOL!  Who is in your district now?  Do you know what they are proposing for your district?

[Guest ECBucFan]

in this new society,which is crap,we want everyone to win....

i say line'em up and go for it. either you're good or not good. that's the playoffs.

WORD!  ;D

[tvc184]

WORD!  ;D

Hey, titan finally said something that I agree with.

[tvc184]

stangchain,

  So that long explanation just means that you would keep the same format as we have today but Div 1/large school would have two schools represented and Div 2/small school would have one school. Is that correct? That way you would give a break to the small school by reducing the number of games to the championship by one game. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It is a 50/50 chance which division you end up in anyway, according to which other teams end up in the top three. Nederland has been Div 1 for some years and Div 2 for others.