A question of alignment

Policy Committee investigates the possibility of splitting district conferences for football

BY CHARLES BREITHAUPT

UIL Athletic Director

From the May 2007

UIL Leaguer

The standing committees of the UIL Legislative Council will convene in Austin in early June. One of the possible proposals they could consider involves a major change in the biennial reclassification and realignment process.

Following the release of the 2006-2008 alignment in February of 2006, the UIL staff discussed the possibility of this potential change with the Policy committee. One of the major issues that faced the Policy Committee was how to deal with situations when the smallest schools in a conference are grouped with some of the largest schools in a conference.

Current policy dictates that schools within a conference are grouped geographically rather than by size.

The proposed change could conceivably be called a split conference alignment for football. This plan would align football teams in districts that are different than for other team activities.

This plan has already been established for six-man football schools. In discussing

this proposal last year the UIL staff was cautious in saying that more research and study needed to be done before the plan could be considered for other conferences. Issues regarding travel and equity are key components of any realignment proposal and must be carefully reviewed.

The purpose of the proposed plan is to create better equity in numbers in a sport where numbers have proven to be instrumental to success. How does this create equity? Dividing each conference into two divisions for district play gives smaller football schools within each conference a better chance to compete for district honors.

Since the UIL crowns 12 divisional champions in football in six conferences (six-man football plus 1A through 5A), the major premise of the plan is to divide each of the conferences into two divisions. The larger half of each conference would be grouped into 16 districts - thus comprising Division I. The smaller half of the conference would comprise 16 districts making up Division II.

The proposal would retain the present the five-conference alignment, plus the sixman football alignment. Twelve division champions would again be crowned. The major difference is that schools would be competing in district play with only those schools in their division.

Strong argument can be made that the size of a school has a strong correlation to success in football.

Football is a game that necessitates depth in numbers. Schools at the lower end of enrollment in each conference fare quite well in all team activities except football. Schools with lower enrollments have long argued they are at a disadvantage in football.

The basic components of the plan:

€ Each conference would be divided into two divisions by size. Example: If conference 5A had 240 schools, the largest 120 schools would be grouped into division I and the smallest 120 would be grouped into Division II.

€ Each division would then be grouped into 16 districts with approximately six to eight schools in each district.

€ The same number of teams would advance to the playoffs as currently advance. Example: Conference 5A advances four teams, while all other conferences (with the exception of six-man) advance three teams.

€ All state championship games would culminate after a six-week playoff schedule. Conferences with three teams advancing would have the district champion with a bye for the first round.

€ All schools would be in the same conference for all activities.

Advantages:

€ Provides more clarity and less confusion regarding who is Division I and who is Division II.

€ Clearly defines divisions prior to the season rather than at the end of district play.

€ Creates more equity in regards to school enrollment.

€ Eliminates the opportunity of having two schools with the largest enrollments in the state advancing to the playoffs in opposite brackets.

€ Eliminates having some of the smallest schools in a conference grouped with the largest schools in a conference.

Disadvantages:

€ Additional travel could be created.

€ Other team sport activities could feel slighted.

€ Creates another group of schools that would be the smallest within a division.

Some would agree that this plan could create additional travel problems. At first glance, one would think this would be a correct assumption. Anytime a conference is reduced in number or is subdivided, more distance is created between the schools.

In other words, the fewer the number of schools, the farther the travel. However, after plotting the proposal on computer maps, we found this argument not as compelling. As our research has shown, there do not appear to be enormous travel issues expected.

Keep in mind that most varsity football games are played on Friday night, thus having limited impact on the school week.

In an eight-team district with a seven-game district schedule, the most road games a school should have each year would only be four. Critics could certainly ask, "But, what about Thursday night sub-varsity games and what about all the bands, drill teams and cheerleaders who travel to varsity games? Won't those additional miles be at great cost to the schools if gas prices inch higher?"

The answer to each of these questions, of course, is, yes. But, keep in mind, in this format non-district games could be much closer, thereby negating the costs borne for the district contests.

Others could ask, "Why not do this for other team sports"? The easy answer was previously stated. Football already plays to Division State Championships. Districting them separately could simplify the process. Also, football does not play multiple games per week.

Multiple games per week and double round robin schedules equate to additional travel. Schools would find more loss of school time for other team sports during the school week if this plan were implemented for their activities.

Additional questions:

If I am a school at the lower end of enrollment in a conference, won't I still be unhappy?

That is almost always the case. However, under this proposal the smallest schools would have the largest half of the conference playing in a separate division. Of course, there would remain a group of schools that could be unhappy because they are at the lower end of Division I.

Won't this create more meetings for administrations?

Yes!

Couldn't this be considered a consolation bracket?

No, several teams competing for state championships in Division I over the last two years could be in Division II under this plan.

Why not go with a 6A alignment instead?

This plan is essentially a type of super conference plan. The larger schools are grouped together. The idea of a 6-A plan does not work well because we do not have enough schools that participate in every activity.

Could this plan be approved on a conference-by-conference basis?

The Legislative Council can always adopt a plan on a conference-by-conference basis. The plan currently is utilized by Six-Man Schools. Many believe it has obvious advantages for Conference A 11-Man football. This could especially be true for those schools whose enrollment is small enough to qualify them for six-man but want to remain in 11-man.

When could this plan go into effect?

The plan could possibly be put into play in time for the 2008-2010-alignment period. Ultimately the Legislative Council will want a comprehensive study to be completed prior to adopting any major change to the reclassification/ realignment process.

The most important factor to remember is that the UIL staff will only recommend what it believes is best for all of the schools. The Legislative Council in its wisdom will provide good counsel and guidance through this process.

Remembering that aligning schools in an equitable fashion is only one component of the realignment process. The UIL staff must also make certain that as much travel

as possible is eliminated for its membership.

The UIL staff will continue to study the issues surrounding this proposal and will work on behalf of the Council to provide accurate information. The final determination on the merits of this plan, as well as other proposals, will be made in October. This gives ample time to digest the information in order for the Legislative Council to make a quality decision.