div I, div II why? [Archive] - 5A Texas Football Forum

owlbandad

11-03-2005, 11:22 AM

Favpack

11-03-2005, 11:26 AM

M-O-N-E-Y
Greenbacks
Jack
Oil
Mooolah
Denaro

It's all about more teams getting in, so the UIL can make more money - right?

pack0808

11-03-2005, 11:30 AM

I sort of have an idea of the "what" of the div I / div II distinction, though I'm not really clear on it. But my question is "Why?" Why do we have division I and division II? What is it supposed to accomplish? It doesn't seem to make sense to me, so I'm assuming that I am missing some information.

thanks,

owlbandad

Why?? Because the UIL is greedy and they are garbage!! But here is how they determine it. The top 3 teams (soon to be 4) go to the playoffs in each district. The one with the biggest enrollment goes div1. It does not matter if it is the 3rd place team in the district if they have the biggest enrollment they go div1. Some used to assume the div1 was stronger but that is far from the truth. It varies from year to year on which division is tougher and sometimes they are very even. 2 champs= joke Next year 4 teams will go per district and the 2 biggest enrollment will go to div1 so their will be 64 teams in each bracket. Nonsense is all that is!!

I have not decided who is more dumb?? the UIL or the BCS??

DragonFan

11-03-2005, 11:36 AM

This subject has been discussed in length in serverl threads on this board. You can search on the subject and will find a lot of information on this.

However, the cliff notes version is this:

Div 1 and Div 2 were set up because it was thought that the larger population schools in the class had a distict advantage over the lower population schools due to the number of athelets that could come out for the sport teams. This might have been true at one time but history has shown that it is not population of a school that makes good teams. SLC is on the smaller side of 5A and has only been a 5A school since 2002 but has been in the state championship game every year it has been in 5A.

The way it is set up now is, 3 three schools win playoff spots from each district. Out of the 3 schools, the one with the largest student population plays in the Div 1 Playoffs while the other two play in Div 2.

There is a general feeling that despite being the "small school" division that Div 2 is harder to win because of the 1 more game and the fact that it has twice as many teams in it, therefore has twice as many of the best teams in the state.

PlanoNative

11-03-2005, 11:37 AM

SLCDad

11-03-2005, 11:40 AM

I sort of have an idea of the "what" of the div I / div II distinction, though I'm not really clear on it. But my question is "Why?" Why do we have division I and division II? What is it supposed to accomplish? It doesn't seem to make sense to me, so I'm assuming that I am missing some information.

thanks,

owlbandadAs I see it, the UIL has the kid's interests at heart. They want to allow as many teams as possible to participate in the playoffs and yet balance that with time and travel constraints.

One alternative would be creating more size classifications, like a new 6A, but that would be tough in some areas due to travel distances. Another option would be to combine Div I and Div II. The problem here is that the playoffs would be extended one more week if that happens. The winners are almost playing on Christmas already.

California, which has similar challenges, has gone to a regional playoff format with no state champ.

Favpack

11-03-2005, 11:42 AM

KT will post his blended bracket soon most likely - that's always interesting. I actually think 6A will happen - and maybe sooner than later. Metro areas are growing like weeds, while west Texas and east Texas are stable to stagnant -- the obvious is the mega metro high schools get bigger and bigger while schools in Abilene, Midland, Odessa, Lufkin, Longview, Texarkana, B'mont, etc. just kind of hang on.

CCBoy

11-03-2005, 11:43 AM

As I see it, the UIL has the kid's interests at heart. They want to allow as many teams as possible to participate in the playoffs and yet balance that with time and travel constraints.

One alternative would be creating more size classifications, like a new 6A, but that would be tough in some areas due to travel distances. Another option would be to combine Div I and Div II. The problem here is that the playoffs would be extended one more week if that happens. The winners are almost playing on Christmas already.

California, which has similar challenges, has gone to a regional playoff format with no state champ.
That is horrible for California

KT2000

11-03-2005, 11:43 AM

The original purpose of the Division I and II (or Big School/Small School originally) was to have the bigger schools like Permian, Judson and Plano in Division 1 and the smaller ones in Division 2.

However, since that time we've obviously seen schools in Division II bigger than just about every school in Division one (Alief/Plano schools among others).

The quotes I've seen from UIL people state that they don't make much more money by allowing more teams into the playoffs, or not enough to be a motivating force behind their moves anyway. Most of it goes to the school districts.

This is obviously a very tricky state to balance out classification wise due to the enormous size. You can format a 6A just fine until you get past San Antonio and then it becomes impossible to align teams like Eagle Pass, La Joya and CC Carroll that'd all qualify for a 6A.

Also, the amount of new schools is only increasing making alignment that much tougher. I'll be very interested to see what they do during the next realignment in January.

I think the whole four teams to the playoffs idea is just meant to try and balance the two brackets, but that'll obviously water down the early rounds. Third place teams have a tough enough time competing. No 4th place team would really stand a chance of going very far. Even those from tough districts.

I still don't see why we can't play that 17th game (16 if you win district) to have a playoff system that makes a lot more sense from a structural/competition point of view.

SLCDad

11-03-2005, 11:57 AM

I still don't see why we can't play that 17th game (16 if you win district) to have a playoff system that makes a lot more sense from a structural/competition point of view.This year the 17th game would have to be played on Christmas Eve. They could start the season 1 week earlier but that would mean eliminating week 0 and starting all games in August (which is before school starts in some cases).

Big Daddy Cool

11-03-2005, 12:05 PM

As I see it, the UIL has the kid's interests at heart. They want to allow as many teams as possible to participate in the playoffs and yet balance that with time and travel constraints.

But do they really have the kid's best interest at heart? I mean now you are teaching kids that it is ok to be mediocre. I'm not saying we should go back to the old system of only the district winner makign the playoffs, but the focus needs to be kept on being the best you can be. And that is not the case what so ever now. Not to mention I feel it si goign to amke for some really bad games instead of adding somethign to things to make them better.

pack0808

11-03-2005, 12:07 PM

This year the 17th game would have to be played on Christmas Eve. They could start the season 1 week earlier but that would mean eliminating week 0 and starting all games in August (which is before school starts in some cases).

Most play in week 0 so why not make everybody do it and have the 2 champs play at the same date the div2 champ would normally be crowned.

KT2000

11-03-2005, 12:13 PM

The playoffs shouldn't be for everyone. Why bother with the regular season if over half of your district is going (in 6 and 7 team districts)?

I don't intend to sound completely insensitive, but I don't think any team who can't finish in their district's top three should be in the playoffs.

As for the 17th week, it can be worked out if everyone starts their season in the current zero week. It would conclude on the current Division II state championship date. It's not a time issue that prevents that particular solution. The coaches just don't want to add a game and that's understandable. However, a maximum of two teams in the state each year would even have a possibility of playing all 17 games (assuming they both didn't win district, but made it to state finals...district champs would play 16).

SLCDad

11-03-2005, 12:17 PM

But do they really have the kid's best interest at heart? I mean now you are teaching kids that it is ok to be mediocre. I'm not saying we should go back to the old system of only the district winner makign the playoffs, but the focus needs to be kept on being the best you can be. And that is not the case what so ever now. Not to mention I feel it si goign to amke for some really bad games instead of adding somethign to things to make them better.First, the fight against mediocrity begins by understanding that this is just football. It's a game. Most any player worth anything will achieve much more off the field than he will ever achieve on it. The fight against mediocrity begins by not making this game more important than it is.

Please explain to me how the Div1/Div2 system promotes mediocrity? I see it at an honest attempt to balance time, travel and having the right number of teams in the play-offs and still be able to have a state champ. I don't think any of those teams who are currently battling for a play-off spot are being influenced to be mediocre.

lonny23

11-03-2005, 12:23 PM

The Northside ISD schools in San Antonio petitioned for a D1 and a D2 and they got it in 1990. They felt Judson's increasing enrollment was too much of an advantage when it was really a case of the Rockets starting to dominate the Region.

The first 3rd place team in the district with the Northside schools was SA Southwest, who was coached by Jim Rackley. He's now the head coach at Judson.

Judson won 1 title and was awarded 1 title in 2 title games in 10 years of unified 5A. In the last 15 years, Judson has 7 D1 title games and 4 more titles. Fittingly, Judson played in the first D1 title game, but lost to Marshall and former Judson assistant Dennis Parker.

DragonFan

11-03-2005, 12:25 PM

Starting in Week 0 will be harder next year because the State is going to suggest that all school district start the day after Labor Day starting next year. How much will that affect the games that are played before school has actually started?

SLCDad

11-03-2005, 12:32 PM

As for the 17th week, it can be worked out if everyone starts their season in the current zero week. It would conclude on the current Division II state championship date. It's not a time issue that prevents that particular solution. The coaches just don't want to add a game and that's understandable. However, a maximum of two teams in the state each year would even have a possibility of playing all 17 games (assuming they both didn't win district, but made it to state finals...district champs would play 16).There are many who would argue that 16 weeks is to many. Most other states have 13, 14 or 15 games. I believe only 2 states have 16. No state has 17.

KT2000

11-03-2005, 12:45 PM

We're Texas. :D

Seriously, I understand the "too many games" position. It is a real grind for those that consistently advance to Thanksgiving and beyond every year. That's what they use January-April for...to condition mentally and physically for the long haul.

DC2145

11-03-2005, 12:49 PM

This year the 17th game would have to be played on Christmas Eve. They could start the season 1 week earlier but that would mean eliminating week 0 and starting all games in August (which is before school starts in some cases).

You do not have to start the season a week earlier, you just have to start district games a week earlier, then you do not have a problem running into Christmas. :)

SLCDad

11-03-2005, 12:53 PM

We're Texas. :DNo doubt! ;) and none of us would have it any other way.

SLCDad

11-03-2005, 12:59 PM

The real tragedy would have been if Archie "Moonlight" Graham had gotten a hit.

The work ethic and discipline that most players learn along the way is of far greater value than actually getting the ring.

Big Daddy Cool

11-03-2005, 04:50 PM

SLCDad my comments were not talkign about the D or D2 thing. I was talking about them adding a fourth team next year. And yes i do understand this is but a game, however the goal should be to teach kids to be the best they can be in order to get where they want ot go. I also realize many will indeed achieve more off the field than they will ever achieve on it. As KT and many others have said here by adding a fourth team to the mix you have essentially given no mean or reward to the team that wins a district title. Hence forth you are saying its not tha tbad to come in third or fourth.

GoRangers

11-03-2005, 05:09 PM

What was even more stupid that the Div I/II split was that Div I has to win 1 fewer game to win state (5 victories vs 6 for Div II). Really penalizes the smaller schools, since the chance for injuries increase, which can have a dramatic effect.

pack0808

11-03-2005, 05:17 PM

SLCDad

11-03-2005, 05:29 PM

SLC dad sounds like he wants politically correct football. Join the UIL i am sure you will be welcomed with your type of views. The VAST majority of the fans just want it to mean something or feel like your team earned something when making the playoffs. Having 4 freaking teams make the playoffs per district a joke and making the playoffs will not be much of a accomplishment anymore. Yes it is a game but they should look after the purity of this wonderful game and not make the regular season a joke. It was 1 then later on they added 2 which was fine, 3 was pushing it but still doable, and 4 is a complete joke!! No 4th place team deserves to be in the playoffs in football no way no how!! Has there ever even been a 3rd place district team to make it to the finals. I am seriously doubting that!! The playoffs will be a watered down mess in the 1st few rounds with a bunch of teams with losing records. That my friend is a joke!! Well it is to me!!Back off a bit Pack. Don't over react. I said nothing about the 4th play-off team. If it were up to me, I'd leave it at two.

Tut

11-03-2005, 05:33 PM

I have not decided who is more dumb?? the UIL or the BCS??

BCS - They have computes and pollsters decide it and often still have two champs!

NCAA needs playoffs and UIL needs "a" playoff.

pack0808

11-03-2005, 05:34 PM

Back off a bit Pack. Don't over react. I said nothing about the 4th play-off team. If it were up to me, I'd leave it at two.

OK OK you had me worried there by a few of your comments. ;)

DragonFan

11-03-2005, 05:45 PM

If you put the top two enrollment teams into Div 1 this year you would have Lufkin, SLC, Kay, Westfield, North Shore, Longview, Carter, Trinity, all in Div 1. Who would be left to play in Div 2? Grapevine, Denton Ryan, and a lot of sub .500 teams that should not be in the playoffs in the first place. I am afraid it will really destroy the luster of a Div 2 champion who will not have a very tough time getting to the Championship.

Plano Wildcat Fan

11-03-2005, 08:42 PM

They need to have a + 1 game. DII champ vs. DI champ. But I guess that's really the old system in disguise. I have no problem letting more kids experience the playoffs. Having 2 champs? STUPID.

Another solution is the creation of a 6A. Fat chance.

Not a bad idea. However They should have the District Champ have Round 1 bye and have seeds 2 and 3 match. It only ads one extra week of playoffs. Big Deal. Schools are out on Winter Break anyway.

KTHoC

11-03-2005, 08:53 PM

One game from the pre-district games could be eliminated to keep the playoffs from dragging on too long and the kids playing too many games. I am sure they don't complain about how long the season is when they go to the finals. I know we need to be concerned about their health. There is certainly a solution to this dilema. Those running the UIL certainly have enough education to devise a plan that is fair and accomodating to the schools. They just have to be willing to make a plan that will work for the good of all involved. That includes the fans! I don't ever want to see Texas take the California route. We should always get a state champ, even if it is two for each class!

Plano Wildcat Fan

11-03-2005, 08:59 PM

SLC dad sounds like he wants politically correct football. Join the UIL i am sure you will be welcomed with your type of views. The VAST majority of the fans just want it to mean something or feel like your team earned something when making the playoffs. Having 4 freaking teams make the playoffs per district a joke and making the playoffs will not be much of a accomplishment anymore. Yes it is a game but they should look after the purity of this wonderful game and not make the regular season a joke. It was 1 then later on they added 2 which was fine, 3 was pushing it but still doable, and 4 is a complete joke!! No 4th place team deserves to be in the playoffs in football no way no how!! Has there ever even been a 3rd place district team to make it to the finals. I am seriously doubting that!! The playoffs will be a watered down mess in the 1st few rounds with a bunch of teams with losing records. That my friend is a joke!! Well it is to me!!

The year Plano won state in 94. They were 7-3 and 5-2 in district and was the 3rd representative behind Plano East and Lake Highlands. They won state beating Katy but were joked about by being undeserving and how John Tyler would of killed them had they matched up. THat was the year of the miracle John Tyler vs Plano East 48-44 game

It does happen but rare. Plano caught fire in the playoffs had had a very strong defense.

owlbandad

11-03-2005, 09:07 PM

Not a bad idea. However They should have the District Champ have Round 1 bye and have seeds 2 and 3 match. It only ads one extra week of playoffs. Big Deal. Schools are out on Winter Break anyway.

That's what I thought would make more sense. As it is now, Garland will have to win six games, but Rowlett, whom we beat convincingly last week, and Plano East, whom we totally anihilated in week 0, will only have to win five.

Go figure.

owlbandad

pack0808

11-04-2005, 08:47 AM

The year Plano won state in 94. They were 7-3 and 5-2 in district and was the 3rd representative behind Plano East and Lake Highlands. They won state beating Katy but were joked about by being undeserving and how John Tyler would of killed them had they matched up. THat was the year of the miracle John Tyler vs Plano East 48-44 game

It does happen but rare. Plano caught fire in the playoffs had had a very strong defense.

Well i stand corrected but it is the only time in history that has happened i am sure?? Either way they were 5-2 in district and most 3rd place teams are not 5-2. When you get 4th place teams in there you will see plenty of 4-6 3-7, and 2-8 team's and that is just wrong.

GoRangers

11-04-2005, 11:03 AM

Well i stand corrected but it is the only time in history that has happened i am sure?? Either way they were 5-2 in district and most 3rd place teams are not 5-2. When you get 4th place teams in there you will see plenty of 4-6 3-7, and 2-8 team's and that is just wrong.

Somewhere back around 2001, wasn't SA Taft 3-7, or something like that? They made it all the way to state, losing in a very close game to North Mesquite.

pack0808

11-04-2005, 11:20 AM

Somewhere back around 2001, wasn't SA Taft 3-7, or something like that? They made it all the way to state, losing in a very close game to North Mesquite.

If that is true it still does not make sense!! One exception in all of these year's does not make me want to say Hey!! everybody go to the playoffs even if you lost 70 percent of your games!! :rolleyes:

ruffshod

11-04-2005, 01:10 PM

I have not decided who is more dumb?? the UIL or the BCS??

Well at leats the UIL actually play the games. Nevertheless, there should only be one champion as it is in all the other sports. Besides, Every week of the playoffs the field is cut in half so not everyone is playing 15 or 16 games.