3A/4A Soccer Proposal to UIL on Sunday, October 21

[Bon_Mot]

Below is the proposal submitted to the UIL on October 12th.  Brenham Head Coach (and lurker of this forum) Erik Lane will be presenting this information on the 21st to the UIL.  I have no idea when this will be voted on, but we will definitely know something by next May.  This will have an obvious impact on the area since it seems as if 6 area 3A schools will have a soccer program by the spring of 2008.  Here's the proposal:

PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS OVERCROWDED DISTRICTS IN 4A/3A SOCCER

Erik Lane, Brenham HS

President, Texas Association of Soccer Coaches (TASCO)

Currently, the number of 4A/3A schools competing in varsity soccer stands at 272 and is growing. This is causing exceptionally large soccer districts that are restricting schools from participating in any pre-district tournaments or contests. In addition, a questionnaire distributed by TASCO has discovered that there are at least an additional 14 4A or 3A schools that are playing a JV schedule in 2007-2008 that will be applying to play varsity in 2008-2009. There are also at least 7 schools opening up at either the 5A or 4A level in either 2008-2009 or 2009-2010. Each of those schools represents an additional 4A school or another 5A school being pushed down to 4A to maintain the 256 team maximum in 5A. This means the 4A/3A soccer alignment will be approaching 300 schools for the 2008-2009 realignment.

While TASCO is obviously pleased with the growth of high school soccer in Texas, that growth is causing a tremendous alignment problem for the UIL athletic staff and a scheduling problem for the schools participating in 4A/3A soccer.

Discussions between TASCO and the UIL athletic staff have led us to agree that it is not yet feasible to separate the 3A schools into their own classification and state championship. There are not quite enough teams that have adopted the UIL soccer plan. However, we anticipate this being realistic, if not absolutely necessary, within the next four years. In the meantime, to address district overcrowding, we wish to expand the soccer districts in 4A/3A from 32 to 64 districts.

This situation is not without precedent. We faced the same issue with the growth of 4A soccer in the mid 1990’s. At that time, the UIL dealt with the issue of not having enough 4A teams for their own classification but having too many 5A/4A teams for 32 districts by expanding soccer into 64 districts. We find ourselves in a similar place today.

TASCO proposes that while the Legislative Council discusses the UIL alignment changes currently being proposed that they please consider this proposal:

Expanding 4A/3A soccer into 64 districts along the following lines:

- 4A schools align in their current 32 football districts

- 3A schools are aligned into 16 geographical districts of 4-5 teams each with the remaining 16 districts left vacant. As additional 3A schools add soccer, they can be placed into the most geographically sensible 3A district. (see attached example)

This plan replicates the UIL plan for soccer when faced with 5A/4A soccer crisis in the 1990’s.

If we do not expand we will face the following issues in 4A/3A soccer team districts, many of which we already face this year.

- 12 team districts. These districts could not play home and away as the 22 games exceed the UIL game count of 21, they could not finish the season within the time frame allowed by the UIL (from first play date to district certification) and they could not participate in any non-district games or tournaments.

- 11 team districts. These districts could not play home and away as the time allowed by the UIL (from first play date to district certification) does not allow enough play dates to complete a schedule under the 2 game per week guidelines and they could not participate in any tournaments and could have 1 non-district game.

- 10 team districts will only be able to play one tournament of the three allowed tournaments under UIL rules due to having 18 district games and the 21 game limit (18 games + 1 tournament = 20 games)

- 9 team districts will only be able to participate in two of the allowed three tournaments due to the UIL 21 game limit (16 district games + 2 tournaments = 20 games).

- 8 team districts and smaller can participate in the full three tournaments or have several non-district games, but with so many of the other districts having 9,10,11 or 12 teams, there is no one else to play against.

In the 1990’s, this required the UIL to add an additional play-off round. The sectional round was played in between the area round and the regional quarterfinal round. With adoption by the UIL of 4A regional tournaments beginning in 2008-2009, this will not lengthen the calendar for soccer. Currently the 4A soccer play-offs begin one play date earlier than the 5A soccer play-offs and this extra play-off round will be accounted for in the current calendar.

This previously utilized plan to relieve overcrowding in the 4A/3A soccer alignment allows schools, student-athletes and coaches to enjoy preseason tournaments and prepare for their district schedule properly while giving the UIL athletic staff a solution that will allow them to easily add additional 3A soccer schools that accept the UIL soccer plan in the future, until such time that the UIL warrants the addition of a separate 3A soccer conference.

[RonBurgundy68]

Thats why I didn't like my last year of high school soccer this past season. SO many teams in our district, we only had time for one tournament, and that sucked. Didn't give us enough time to prepare for district, especially with Lumberton as our first district game, even though we only lost 3-2 in a game we had won (freakin refs!). But anyways that was the past, the main thing is we need to get the 3A teams out (sorry silsbee, west orange, hj) so its just 4A.

[dualdellortos]

If this does not pass, then both as TASCO President and a fellow 4A coach, I recommend that you either zone your district or play everyone once so that you can get back to tournaments and non-district games to figure things out....IMHO

[Bon_Mot]

If this does not pass, then both as TASCO President and a fellow 4A coach, I recommend that you either zone your district or play everyone once so that you can get back to tournaments and non-district games to figure things out....IMHO

The men's coaches pushed hard for Zoning, but the girls were all against it.  It would have been a scheduling nightmare if the men and women weren't on the same schedule.

And I'd like to get a little feedback from some of y'all.  Totally hypothetical, but in a "zonal" schedule with each team playing other teams inside your zone twice and outside your zone once:

#1.  How would you split the zone if our district adds Hamshire Fannett and Bridge City?  Is there a East/West or North/South landmark that could serve as a divide?  Do you use enrollment figures somehow?  Names drawn out of a hat?

#2.  Do you think the winners of each zone should be guaranteed the top two seeds for the play-offs?  Do you put more emphasis on the regular season, or the knock-out format that will be around the corner the following week of the play-offs?

#3.  How many teams do you think should qualify for the district tournament?  Top 3 from each zone?  So a team that finished sixth in the regular season has a shot at the play-offs if it get's hot?  Top 2 from each zone?  What if one zone obviously has the best three teams?

If the UIL bricks this one, it's gonna be a mess down here.  There is absolutely no "Zone Schedule" that will make everyone happy.

[bullets13]

The men's coaches pushed hard for Zoning, but the girls were all against it.  It would have been a scheduling nightmare if the men and women weren't on the same schedule.

And I'd like to get a little feedback from some of y'all.  Totally hypothetical, but in a "zonal" schedule with each team playing other teams inside your zone twice and outside your zone once:

#1.  How would you split the zone if our district adds Hamshire Fannett and Bridge City?  Is there a East/West or North/South landmark that could serve as a divide?  Do you use enrollment figures somehow?  Names drawn out of a hat?

#2.  Do you think the winners of each zone should be guaranteed the top two seeds for the play-offs?  Do you put more emphasis on the regular season, or the knock-out format that will be around the corner the following week of the play-offs?

#3.  How many teams do you think should qualify for the district tournament?  Top 3 from each zone?  So a team that finished sixth in the regular season has a shot at the play-offs if it get's hot?   Top 2 from each zone?  What if one zone obviously has the best three teams?

If the UIL bricks this one, it's gonna be a mess down here.  There is absolutely no "Zone Schedule" that will make everyone happy.

I played D-3 college soccer, and the top 6 teams from my conference made the conference tourney.  it was a little different format than what you are saying, but when it came down to it, the tourney final was ALWAYS between two of the top 3-4 teams.  In the same sense, the gap between 1st place and 6th place is huge in this district.  I don't think you'd have to worry about any major upsets.

[Bon_Mot]

I played D-3 college soccer, and the top 6 teams from my conference made the conference tourney.  it was a little different format than what you are saying, but when it came down to it, the tourney final was ALWAYS between two of the top 3-4 teams.  In the same sense, the gap between 1st place and 6th place is huge in this district.  I don't think you'd have to worry about any major upsets.

I agree with you somewhat, but if you look at last year, Nederland lost 7 district games by a total of 8 goals and finished in 5th place.  Not a huge disparity between 1st and 5th.

Am I saying that Nederland was better than Lumberton, Central, and PN-G?  Absolutely not.  But if there had been a 6 team tournament with these teams along with Vidor and Silsbee last year, would you bet the house that Nederland wouldn't make it, or that Silsbee with Judalet in goal didn't have a chance, or that Vidor wouldn't scare the bejeebees out of any opposing coach?

I'm I huge proponent of zoning and even presented a schedule along with different tournament scenarios in the spring of '06, but I could play Devil's Advocat for each and every zonal plan.  It's just a situation that will only appease some but not all, and I'm gonna hate it if we are stuck with planning this thing out next May.

[bullets13]

i definitely see your point... I played at HJ back in 98-01, and we actually had some reasonably competitive teams back then.  we were in a weaker district, but we competed fairly well.  I would have loved to gotten to play against other 3a teams, we could've gone far in playoffs IMO.

[RonBurgundy68]

I agree with you somewhat, but if you look at last year, Nederland lost 7 district games by a total of 8 goals and finished in 5th place.  Not a huge disparity between 1st and 5th.

Am I saying that Nederland was better than Lumberton, Central, and PN-G?  Absolutely not.  But if there had been a 6 team tournament with these teams along with Vidor and Silsbee last year, would you bet the house that Nederland wouldn't make it, or that Silsbee with Judalet in goal didn't have a chance, or that Vidor wouldn't scare the bejeebees out of any opposing coach?

I'm I huge proponent of zoning and even presented a schedule along with different tournament scenarios in the spring of '06, but I could play Devil's Advocat for each and every zonal plan.  It's just a situation that will only appease some but not all, and I'm gonna hate it if we are stuck with planning this thing out next May.

I completely agree. If there was a tournament with Lumberton/Central/PNG/Nederland/Vidor/Silsbee, ANYBODY can beat anybody on that certain day. Take us (Vidor) vs Nederland last year. The first game Nederland won 3-1, absolutely dominated us. The second game it was fairly even, with us winning 1-0 (thanks to the luckiest goal of my life that will never happen again). It just shows that it's all about who shows up on game days and who doesn't. And had that tournament taken place, who knows what would have happened, someone could have been upset and another team would have gone to the playoffs.

[SHSsccr12]

1. i really like this proposal it will give teams more time to prepare and even things out alot.

2.  3a needs a district to themselves. silsbee would have made it to state, probably to play palistine. and hj and wos would have a more competitive schedule.

3. i play in college now at lon morrs we lost to san jacinto 2-0 (both goals were bogus p.k.s) then turned around to beat t.j.c. three days later 2-1. both were ranked #3 in the nation when we played them.  now our region tournament is coming up in a week and we play both of them again. upsets are always possible... thats what makes tournaments so fun. sure one of the top three teams are going to take it, but you never really know

[Bon_Mot]

The UIL Legislative Council voted to expand 3A/4A Soccer into 64 districts from 32 this past weekend.  This should allow 3A's to compete with each other for district.  A "Sectional Round"  was added to the play-offs to accomodate the expansion but the calendar should be the same since there will be a Regional Tournament for 3A/4A in 2009.  I don't know exactly what the play-off brackets would look like, but imagine there could be a "bye" round or two in there like there was in the early '90's.

Our area districts could look like this:

3A - WO-S, Bridge City, Hamshire Fannett, Hardin Jefferson, Silsbee, and maybe Jasper

4A - LC-M, PN-G, Nederland, Vidor, Ozen, Central, and Lumberton

[Bon_Mot]

2.  3a needs a district to themselves. silsbee would have made it to state, probably to play palistine.

This couldn't have happened since Palestine is in our Region.  Also, Region 3 has very tough Athens team in it right now. 

The '07 state tournament had two 3A's there.  Hildalgo won their district on the way to winning Region 4.  Although, neither Hidalgo nor Palestine did very well at the state tournament, just getting there shows that 3A soccer can field some very competetive teams.