Jump to content

Realignment time again: Will Jasper come back? Will Livingston be gone?


Recommended Posts

Realignment time again: Will Jasper come back? Will Livingston be gone?
Van Wade
The Orange Leader

It’s that time of the year again, and as usual, it will bring about the normal sweat.

Athletic directors and coaches from across Southeast Texas will scramble to the Region V Center Monday morning, anticipating the University Interscholastic League’s reclassification and realignment for districts across the state of Texas.

And once again, there will probably be changes as coaches scurry around, setting up non-district schedules for the upcoming football season.

Last time, District 21-3A as we knew it, had the most shakeup.

Kirbyville moved to Class 2A, and of course, has fallen in the last two Class 2A Division I state championship games in football, while Jasper stayed in Class 3A and moved further north, leaving Bridge City, Orangefield, West Orange-Stark, Hardin-Jefferson, Hamshire-Fannett and Silsbee in 21-3A.

Word is that Kirbyville will remain in Class 2A. If Kirbyville goes back up, it is likely that both Kirbyville and Jasper could creep back into the 21-3A fray.

That would make the district once again much more competitive across the board and would help football coaches as far as scheduling two less non-district games but you could probably take a poll of the six head football coaches in 21-3A right now and five of them would probably like to see things remain just as they are.

In our local 20-4A district the last go-around, Dayton moved out while far-away Livingston joined Little Cypress-Mauriceville, Vidor, Port Neches-Groves, Nederland, Beaumont Central, Beaumont Ozen and Lumberton.

Many coaches don’t feel like there will be many changes at realignment this year but as we’ve figured out in the past, the years where you don’t think anything will happen big, something always does.

That could happen in 4A.

Just west of us, both Galveston Ball and Baytown Lee are expected to drop to the 4A ranks according to LC-M coach Randy Crouch, the “guru” of crunching numbers and maps. Then you look towards Humble, where there is likely to be two more 4A schools. So the UIL has a decision whether or not to make districts larger.

Right now the perfect scenario would be to keep the seven teams, minus Livingston, and just have a seven-team district, much like the current District 23-2A in which each team gets a bye during district play, which, in football terms, includes a six-game district schedule and a four-game non-district.

However, it makes just as much sense to keep it an eight-team loop to keep things on a level playing ground, which means Dayton could return or possibly Barbers Hill. Heck, let Barbers Hill join the fray once. We can rotate Dayton, Livingston and Barbers Hill in every two years, Why not?

One other thought! Let’s make all the 5A and 4A district have at least 16 teams in them, much like the Big East Conference in basketball. What’s wrong with that? That still means 25 percent of the teams make the playoffs. Folks, fourth-place teams out of six-team leagues do not deserve to make the playoffs, nor do third-place teams but heck, that’s an argument for another day.

In District 23-2A, I’m sure the Deweyville Pirates will remain in Class 2A, once again being the smallest school in the league and competing against the likes of Anahuac, Kountze, East Chambers, Warren, Hardin and Buna. Last time Deweyville (246) had 110 less students then the next smallest school in Warren (356).

The cutoffs from each classification in 2008 was Class 5A (2,085 and up); Class 4A (980 to 2,084); Class 3A (430 to 979); and Class 2A (200 to 429).

What’s just as fun is to see the school enrollments at the high school level that are announced as well. With the down economy in Southeast Texas, I think Lumberton was the only school to have a major growth spurt in 2008 while everybody else watched their numbers decline.

I’m having flashbacks from the 1980s again when my Class 4A league included LC-M, Bridge City, Port Arthur Lincoln, Jasper, Silsbee, Lumberton and yes, those South Park Greenies.

Well, Lincoln and South Park are no more while Bridge City, Silsbee and Jasper are in 3A.

Remember that old 5A league that consisted of WO-S, Port Arthur Thomas Jefferson, PN-G, Nederland, Vidor, Beaumont French, Beaumont Forest Park and Beaumont Charlton-Pollard. Those were the DAYS.

Four of those schools don’t exist while Nederland, Vidor and PN-G are in 4A and the Mustangs have dropped all the way down to a medium 3A. Heck, let’s throw in Stephen F. Austin and Bishop Byrne as well, two other smaller schools that simply don’t exist any more.

On Monday, let’s see how the numbers change. Best bet that just about everyone goes down with the exception of Lumberton.

Enrollment for local schools in the 2008 realignment looked like this: DISTRICT 20-4A: Beaumont Central 1,537; Nederland 1,512; Vidor 1,430; Port Neches-Groves 1,413; Beaumont Ozen 1,264; Livingston 1,207; Little Cypress-Mauriceville 1,200; and Lumberton 1,065.

DISTRICT 21-3A: Silsbee 844; Bridge City 707; West Orange-Stark 691; Hardin-Jefferson 662; Hamshire-Fannett 568; and Orangefield 521.

DISTRICT 18-3A: Jasper 813; Carthage 794; Center 649; Rusk 570; Huntington 523; and Diboll 485.

DISTRICT 23-2A: Anahuac 412; Kountze 403; Buna 387; East Chambers 368; Hardin 360; Warren 356; and Deweyville 246.

It should be very interesting come Monday morning, watching our local coaches sweat just a tad.

I don’t expect many changes and neither do they. That just means get ready for plenty.
print this story   
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...