| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
bs091880
AHSFHS Forum Superstar
275 Posts |
 Posted - 12/06/2025 : 16:39:17
|
Should dominant teams move up as far as athletics regardless of student enrollment in public schools?
For example like my team Clay Chalkville.
Should they be made to move up to 7A?
Let's say there was some type of rule in place that if you play dmfor the state title 3 years in a a row as a public school you should move up one classification until the next realignment.
Examples clearly Clay Chalkville could play in 7A and Maplesville and Jackson could play one class up.
Should they be held to the same rules as a private school as for as athletics? |
|
|
Patriots70
Forum Member<
38 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2025 : 19:26:52
|
I don't think it's true, but I've heard some rumblings about this being a thing. I think if you did competitive balance for all schools, you'd have to tweak the private school formula.
However, I did the numbers on all schools for the last couple of years using the current formula for 4A-6A and here is who would move up:
6A - Saraland, Clay, Parker
5A - Moody, Vigor, Montgomery Catholic (Catholic is moving up regardless since they are private)
4A - Jackson, Anniston (St. Michael/Cherokee Co missed by one round)
Some states have public school competitive balance, but they do it all different kinds of ways.
You could always do it California's way where they basically seed the playoffs based on how good you were in the regular season, you'd have an 8-team playoff of the best teams with like: Clay, Thompson, Central, Saraland - maybe even like Jackson or Williamson (just based on regular season). Then the next level down would bring in top lower classification teams with good but not great upper classification teams, and so on.
I've tried to figure a perfect formula in my head, and I don't think there is one. Truth is, you can't have a classification of 32 "even-ish" top teams. I have a way I think would be awesome, but it's too long to explain. But yes, it involves Clay moving up. 
--
ALPreps.com |
 |
|
|
mcslate
AHSFHS Forum Superstar
370 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2025 : 20:02:26
|
| I'd vote no because dominance can quickly go away. Example being a top tier coach taking a different job or retiring (especially after they evaluate their underclassmen and don't particularly see them developing into a dominant team themselves). Unlike the private schools, public schools are stuck with who they have player wise (insert recruiting jokes). Private schools have extra ways to replace what they lose be it player, coach, or staff. |
|
|
|
spartan91
AHSFHS Forum Superstar
239 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2025 : 23:24:01
|
I don't think that any type of competitive balance should be applied to any school. If you want to keep the multiplier for private schools that is fine, but thee should also be on for public school systems that have an open enrollment policy.
Or one solution might be to add a multiplier to any transfer. This would be a compromise to the choose act, but would also apply to public schools. |
|
|
|
bs091880
AHSFHS Forum Superstar
275 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2025 : 08:18:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by mcslate
I'd vote no because dominance can quickly go away. Example being a top tier coach taking a different job or retiring (especially after they evaluate their underclassmen and don't particularly see them developing into a dominant team themselves). Unlike the private schools, public schools are stuck with who they have player wise (insert recruiting jokes). Private schools have extra ways to replace what they lose be it player, coach, or staff.
That is why I said to the next realignment.Which is only two years now.
Maplesville could play with any 2A school regardless public or private.
Mars Hill has the students for a small 2A but will be playing in 4A next year based on success.
I know private schools are different but some of the public schools athletics need to be balanced as well. |
|
|
|
BrianYoung
AHSFHS Forum Master
100 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2025 : 09:17:35
|
Does Alabama go the route of some neighboring states and separate public and private during the playoffs?
Hard to develop a "fair" plan when you have two totally different models. One government ran and the other private ran, one sets their own policies and the others are dictated to them by a legislative body. AHSAA has the old between a rock and a hard place issue. |
|
|
|
kodyaufan2
AHSFHS Moderator
305 Posts |
Posted - 12/07/2025 : 20:11:56
|
I have wanted a competitive balance rule for ALL schools for a while now.
In my opinion, if a school can dominate for years in one class, then move up to the next class and still make deep playoff runs, then they belong in the higher class.
Let's face it, recruiting isn't just happening at private schools. Most of the top public school programs are recruiting too, they just have to go about it differently. Making them move up a class after a sustained period of success would help to offset the funny business that goes on when it comes to players transferring, being recruited, etc. |
|
|
|
JEREF
AHSFHS Forum Member
74 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2025 : 01:08:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patriots70
I don't think it's true, but I've heard some rumblings about this being a thing. I think if you did competitive balance for all schools, you'd have to tweak the private school formula.
However, I did the numbers on all schools for the last couple of years using the current formula for 4A-6A and here is who would move up:
6A - Saraland, Clay, Parker
5A - Moody, Vigor, Montgomery Catholic (Catholic is moving up regardless since they are private)
4A - Jackson, Anniston (St. Michael/Cherokee Co missed by one round)
Some states have public school competitive balance, but they do it all different kinds of ways.
You could always do it California's way where they basically seed the playoffs based on how good you were in the regular season, you'd have an 8-team playoff of the best teams with like: Clay, Thompson, Central, Saraland - maybe even like Jackson or Williamson (just based on regular season). Then the next level down would bring in top lower classification teams with good but not great upper classification teams, and so on.
I've tried to figure a perfect formula in my head, and I don't think there is one. Truth is, you can't have a classification of 32 "even-ish" top teams. I have a way I think would be awesome, but it's too long to explain. But yes, it involves Clay moving up.
--
ALPreps.com
Please avoid the California method. Nobody knows what the hell is going on, where their teams will be slotted, or who they'll be playing. The AHSAA method, regardless of current kinks, is far superior to that madness. |
|
|
|
JEREF
AHSFHS Forum Member
74 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2025 : 01:09:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by BrianYoung
Does Alabama go the route of some neighboring states and separate public and private during the playoffs?
Hard to develop a "fair" plan when you have two totally different models. One government ran and the other private ran, one sets their own policies and the others are dictated to them by a legislative body. AHSAA has the old between a rock and a hard place issue.
Separation seems like the obvious solution to me. The preponderance of private schools making it deep into the playoffs and finals can't be ignored. It's just not the same as what public schools experience. |
|
|
|
Patriots70
Forum Member<
38 Posts |
Posted - 12/08/2025 : 10:35:14
|
I got a look at some 6A/7A numbers and seems Clay is not moving up (at least enrollment wise), in fact - it seems their enrollment went down significantly. What will be interesting in 6A is there are 32 southern teams and only 26 northern teams (based on last year's north/south), so it'll be interesting to see how the regions shift (if at all).
--
ALPreps.com |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
A serious question was asked earlier to me
