Wednesday, November 4, 1998

Football format for state champs could change

By Bill Hart

So you don't like the present format that is used to name Texas high school football state champions? It could change in the next couple of years.

Schools will be surveyed by the University Interscholastic League in January to see if they are happy with the present setup that crowns two winners in each classification.

The choices are:

1. stay with the current plan.

2. allow district champions to have a bi-district bye, resulting in only one champion in each classification, which is the current playoff format in basketball, baseball and other sports.

3. Creating an even/odd plan. Division I would consist of district champions in the odd-numbered districts playing the largest enrolled school which is not the district champion in the corresponding even-numbered district. Division II would be composed of district champions in the even-numbered districts playing the smallest enrolled school which is not the district champion in the corresponding odd-numberd district. The remaining schools from corresponding districts would be matched in the other Division II games.

The last proposal must have come from a rocket scientist from either NASA or MIT. It tends to make something difficult that should be simple, but logic is often thrown out the window on high school athletic decisions.

No. 1 doesn't really solve the problem because several times the Division II champion, from smaller enrollment schools, has had more students than the Division I or large-school (enrollment) champ.

I personally like No. 2 because it keeps the crowns from being watered down, and you have a true champion in each classification. Some coaches don't like the open date after district play, but others do because it gives the injured players a chance to heal. A week off should never take away any momentum from a playoff game.

But look for play No. 1 to win.

Two other surveys will be held at the same time. Six-Man schools will be asked their ideas on creating a separate classification in basketball and track. The other survey seeks imput from Class 4A schools to see if they would like to have football spring training and then start a week later in the fall.

Most of the Six-Man coaches I've talked to have wanted their own classification in basketball and track for a long time. They already have it in football. It shouldn't be a problem to fit another classification into the state basketball tournament because free time is available, especially on Friday.

Track would be a different story. There isn't any spare time on Friday for field events, but the running finals could be held Friday night in conjunction with the Class 4A meet.

The sensible thing, though, if this survey passes, would be to make the state track meet a three-day affair and move most of the field events to that Thursday. The UIL has been against adding a day to the meet because that's another day of school missed. But that doesn't seem to bother it when district realignment time rolls around and some schools have to drive 300 miles to compete.

The spring training survey has been taken numerous times in the past and failed, and it probably will again. Some feel this would cut into the spring sports, but it wouldn't if spring training was scheduled late in the year.

At a recent meeting, the UIL created separate Class 5A and 4A state swimming and diving meets, created a mixed doubles format in team tennis to break ties, voted to allow the first game in a best of three series in baseball to start prior to a Friday if no school time is lost, raised the Six-Man enrollment cutoff from 84.4 to 94.5 and rejected bowling and gymnastics as UIL activities. These items must be passed by the State Board of Education before they become a reality.

Bill Hart can be reached at 676-6773 or at sports@abinews.com.