|
|
Loading...
Odds and ends of Wyoming high school sports.
The (possible) new look of football
Posted by:
Patrick Schmiedt on
August 9, 2008 at
8:05PM EST
By September 30, we'll know a lot more about the future make-up of Wyoming's high school football landscape.
On that date, the Wyoming High School Activities Association's board of directors will vote whether to overhaul the classification system, including the addition of six-man football.
If the proposal passes, the conference make-up will shift -- only slightly for most of the state's larger schools, but quite dramatically for most of the smaller schools.
And here is the meat of the proposal, all spelled out:
The proposal still has the 22 largest schools making up the two largest classes -- the only change would come in the numbers. Right now, those 22 are split evenly -- 11 in Class 5A, 11 in Class 4A. The proposal calls for only the top 10 to form a new Class 4A and the next 12 to form a new Class 3A. (Right now, Riverton is the No. 11 school that would drop a classification.)
From there is where the changes truly take shape.
The new proposed Class 2A would have 16 teams -- much larger than any current classification. And the remaining 21 schools would be placed into two divisions of Class 1A -- one for 11-man and one for six-man.
The projected Class 2A would include all current Class 3A schools plus Greybull, Big Horn, Tongue River and Wyoming Indian. The remaining schools would make up Class 1A, with the schools themselves choosing whether to play six-man or 11-man for a period of no less than two years.
(So far, eight schools have "verbally committed" to the WHSAA for six-man: existing programs Guernsey, Midwest, Hanna, Meeteetse and Ten Sleep and new programs Fort Washakie, Rock River and Kaycee. Farson and Snake River could also have six-man programs in time for '09.)
First: Does all that make sense? Hopefully it does. Ask me questions if you've got 'em.
Second: Do you think this overhaul will help the state's football teams? Would these changes be positive changes? Do you think six-man football would be viable in Wyoming? Do you think it's a wise move to give smaller schools their own choice on which version of the game they'd like to play?
Let's hear it.
Posted by patrick.schmiedt@trib.com
(18) Comments
|
Posted by: tmillerwyo on August 11, 2008 10:59AM EST
I'm all for 6-man FB, but do we need 6 divisions (5 11-man classifications & a 6-man division) in WYO HS FB? Keep the current FB classication system, but make 1A 6-man FB and any 1A HS that wants to play 11-man FB moves upto 2A. Then the only HSs being effected are the ones moving to 6-man and the 1A schools who are moving to 2A
for 11-man FB (and most of those teams move every couple of years between 1A & 2A anyway).
|
|
|
Posted by: Anonymous on August 11, 2008 12:42PM EST
There wouldn't be six classifications. 4A, 3A, 2A, 1A, 1A six man.
|
|
|
Posted by: SportsLlama on August 11, 2008 3:57PM EST
I like this proposal Patrick -
It makes more sense for Riverton to be playing with Star Valley, Jackson and Cody than it does for them to be playing Natrona and KW.
As for the smaller schools, I like the idea of 1A schools getting to choose. Cokeville for example has a strong tradition of 11-man football, but it sounds like a lot of other schools would opt for a little more breathing room in their enrollment numbers.
|
|
|
Posted by: tmillerwyo on August 11, 2008 6:03PM EST
Sorry for the mis-read.
|
|
I, too, like the idea of 1As getting to choose. Once all the posturing is done, it'll be interesting to see which schools actually choose 11-man and which ones choose six-man. We'll know by November.
One of the scary thoughts about six-man is its dependence on start-up programs. Right now only five existing programs have committed to six-man, so the three (more or less) new programs will have a heavy burden to get their programs up and running in time for '09, and then keep them going for the long haul.
--patrick
|
|
|
Posted by: Cory on August 12, 2008 10:55PM EST
wow, must be half the state in Douglas for the fair since so few have posted lately. You would think with less than a week until 2 a days begin, folks would be salivating for football talk.
Here in Lusk we probably won't be dropping to 6 man but it's a good thing for the state to offer. If a core of 6-8 schools can make it work, then it shoud spur other small schools to try.
Buying equipment will be the biggest cost. but what if some of these big corporations making piles of $$ contribute to a couple small schools instead of another "gift" to NC and the other big school that already have KILLER facilities. This might encourage a few kids in Midwest or Hanna or Farson to play football. Farson, now that's a long trip from almost anywhere! But we all travel a lot - no matter the classification.
|
|
Posted by: OSP on August 12, 2008 11:23PM EST
Some of us who donated to the facilites in Casper are not big corporations, just intested fans. A lot of parents and other boosters went around raising money. With our population we do have more individuals to hit up for facilities. I can't deny that this is a big advantage but don't read huge donations into all of it. The school district also made a big financial commitment to facilities-both athletics and other.
|
|
|
Posted by: OSP on August 12, 2008 11:28PM EST
Another thought about Cory's post concerning long trips for activities. With rising energy costs, will the legislature continue to fund busing as well as they have in the past?
I don't envy the WHSAA in making schedules and redoing classifications if travel costs become prohibitive.
|
|
|
Posted by: Cory on August 12, 2008 11:53PM EST
Lusk is pretty fortunate in that we also have good facilities, boosters and administration, but get under 75 students, those schools have a hard time with more than just athletics.
An earlier post briefly talked about football games at neutral sites. this would spread the burden of funding a little more and think of the kids excitement to play a regular season game on one of those big school fields.
some new rivalries could be built this way as the state moves into a new era
|
|
|
Posted by: tmillerwyo on August 13, 2008 12:51PM EST
How does playing at nuetral sites spread the burden of funding? Instead of travelling half your games, you travel half as far for all the games. Where would these nuetral sites be? 6-man FB fields are smaller than regulation (or maybe NC or KW will move the goal posts closer together so a 6-man FB game can be played). Now I've heard Farson has been promised some corporate donations to help with equipment costs if they start a 6-man FB team. The motivaton for starting 6-man FB shouldn't be financial (6-man is cheaper than 11-man), or 6-man is less competitive, it should be enrollment driven. I don't want to see schools who have at least 20 kids out for FB playing 6-man FB. Patrick is correct the success of the 6-man FB is all dependent on the start-up programs (and not more 11-man teams switching to 6-man).
|
|
|
Posted by: Cory on August 13, 2008 10:26PM EST
whoa, slow down tmillerwyo. either i wasn't very clear or you're reading too much into this.
IF SAY, Farson were to be scheduled against Guernsey or Ten Sleep, why coudn't an arrangment be made to play at NC or Riverton- 2 different districts using less on their fuel budget for a road game (not every game!!). in the long run, it would spread the burden of long travel in wyoming.
If you were going from Farson to Guernsey, which way would you go and how far is it? (this is a hypothetical situation).
and yes there has to be a proven NEED to play 6 man instead of 11 man. Cokeville and Southeast don't need to drop to 6 man.Hanna, Guernsey, Midwest, (maybe Dubios) have enrollments dropping fast and need to survive somehow.
i'm just saying we need to think outside of the box a little bit(as patrick has mentioned in the past).
|
|
|
I know there will be at least two neutral-site games in Casper this year: Dubois-Upton (third year in a row) and Hanna-Hulett (first time). There were actually more of these in the past when schools did their own scheduling -- Big Piney-Moorcroft comes to mind, among others. Right now, with the WHSAA doing the football scheduling, I don't think there would be too many opportunities for such games, but as we've seen, schools are actually traveling a bit more with the WHSAA doing the scheduling than otherwise.
With Riverton's new field, you might see some of those traditional "Southwest vs. Northwest" games (i.e. Lyman-Worland, Big Piney-Rocky Mountain, etc.) move there. That'd be cool.
One note to bring up about neutral site games is that it really doesn't ease your fuel budget, because every other year you're giving up a home game for a neutral-site game. For example, instead of Upton making one trip to Dubois, it's making two trips to Casper. Pick your poison, I guess.
The problem with doing six-man neutral-site games is the field. Six-man fields are 80 yards long (plus end zones) by 40 yards wide. Marking those fields properly and putting goal posts in the right place isn't something that happens overnight.
Field markings, courtesy of the Montana High School Association:
11-man: http://www.mhsa.org/Football/2007NFHSFootballFieldMarkings.pdf
Six-man: http://www.mhsa.org/Football/2007NFHSFootballFieldMarkings-6and8.pdf
I think one solution for six-man is to do like Montana and play games on Saturday afternoons. That way, all the travel can be daylight travel (or at least most of it), making it a little bit easier to travel long distances, and there's less time out of school for the players involved.
Of course, none of this six-man stuff has even been approved officially yet.... :)
--patrick
|
|
|
Posted by: GoOrange on August 14, 2008 10:36AM EST
Neutral site games can maximize time in the classroom... something that has been lost on the masterminds that created 4-A conferences.
|
|
|
Actually, GoOrange... most neutral-site games are played on Friday afternoons. I know the recent Upton-Dubois games have been played in the early afternoon in Casper -- on Fridays. That means both teams miss the entire day of school, rather than just one.
If more neutral-site games were on Saturday, though....
--patrick
|
|
|
Posted by: football fan on August 14, 2008 5:52PM EST
I think the zero week games need to be altered. It doesn't make much since for a team like Gillette to go to Green River to play a Utah school in a game that doesn't count. Sheridan is stuck playing a JV team because SD plays real games the night before. IF your going to do a zero week play jamborees and do halves against schools rather than waste a day and $$$$ for a game that doesn't count.
|
|
|
Posted by: Hillsdale on August 15, 2008 7:07PM EST
I would prefer that the WHSAA look at 8-man, rather than 6-man, football. I am assuming that the 8-man field that the neighboring states use is the same size as the standard 11-man field. That would maybe keep costs down and give the smaller schools more flexibility as their enrollments fluctuate with our energy economy.
I also think that more emphasis should be paid to getting schools close to state lines to play schools from neighboring states rather than traveling across Wyoming for regular-season games. I think that would help address some of the fairness and equity concerns expressed during reclassification discussions. It might also add a little more mystery to the state playoffs.
Finally, it saddens me to see Guernsey considering a move to 6-man football. When I was in school, their enrollment was larger than Burns High School and they were a great, if often overwhelming, match-up in the SEWAC.
Personally, I do not care how similarly sized Riverton and the Cheyenne schools are. If the WHSAA would think about regional quadrants and encourage schools to play across state lines, a good Riverton or Star Valley team should not be playing Gillette or Cheyenne until the state quarterfinals at the earliest. At that point, anything can happen in a magical season.
|
|
|
Posted by: Roy on August 16, 2008 11:13AM EST
Hillsdale your ideas on playing border teams from other states sound great, but there are flaws in that thinking. Some border schools face out of state teams that have a school population 2-3 times larger. Other teams in the same conference, in order to fill their schedule, play smaller in-state schools in the non-conference part of their schedule. (Or you might be able to switch that whole scenario around) Yet when playoff time comes around, those games count the same. I believe that gives the team playing down a classification for non-conference an advantage. The team that plays the bigger schools may end up 3-5 and out of the playoffs. While the team that played the smaller schools is 5-3 and in the playoffs, even if they lost to said 3-5 team. Seems a bit unfair. So it does not even come close to addressing the "fairness and equity concerns expressed during reclassification discussions". And why would you want to "add a little more mystery to the state playoffs"? I would think we would want to make the picture a bit more clear cut. Then if a team is out of the playoffs they wouldn't feel slighted because they lost 2 games to schools with 3 times the student body, while the other guys upped their record with 2 wins against teams with one half their population. So your thoughts sound good in theory, but realistically, there are problems. Overall there is no good solution that will make everyone happy. I think the districts and WHSAA are doing the best that they can.
|
|
|
Posted by: tmillerwyo on August 19, 2008 12:22PM EST
Hillsdale, 8-man FB fields in CO are 100x40 yds. (not 100x53.3 yds), but 8-man FB fields in NE are 80x40 yds. (which is the norm), but all neighboring states that play 6-man FB play on fields 80x40 yds except SD. I say play teams of similar size (not necessary same classification) and create a power-rating system that is based on a weighted winning percentage (similar to a slugging percentage in baseball). That means an 8-0 record against 1A teams would not have as high a power rating as an 8-0 record against 2A teams and so on. |
|
|
