Pax

Gunter 75 Trinity 0 Final

Nope. They didnt.

The percentage of participation is not currently, nor has it ever been a consideration in determining what classification a school is placed in. It's based on pure enrollment. The difference in numbers is not larger at smaller classifications. It's smaller. The percentages are about the same. The upper end of a classification is about 30-40% larger than the lower end. In the list below it is CLASS : Enrollment range - Percentage increase from lower end to higher end - number of extra football players that try out for the football team at 25% participation : 2AD2 : 105-164 - 36% - 15 2AD1 : 165-249 - 34% - 21 3AD2 : 250-359 - 30% - 27 3AD1 : 360-544 - 34% - 46 4AD2 : 545-879 - 38% - 84 4AD1 : 880-1299 - 32% - 105 5AD2 : 1300-1924 - 32% - 156 5AD1 : 1925-2224 - 13% - 75 6A : 2225- no upper limit The trend is the exact opposite of what you are saying. A 2AD2 team at the lower end of the cutoff has 15 fewer kids on a team at the upper end of 2AD2 if 25% of the enrollment participate, and so on. The trend is most certainly upward; not downward as you suggest (except for 5AD1 and 6A which has no upper limit). What I am suggesting would not alter this very much at all.

Tornillo is in a 4-team district. It's just the result of having a large state that has areas of very few schools. I don't know what the UIL can FAIRLY do about that. If you disqualify them, the #4 team, from the playoffs, then you disqualify the #4 team in a 9-team district that would be far more competitive in the playoffs. There isn't an easy solution, and I use the term "solution" extremely loosely because I don't see a problem. If a team forfeits before the first round and only the first round of the playoffs, I could see allowing the #5 team in that district to take that spot as sort of a round 1 play-in game, but I don't think you can tell every 4 seed in the playoffs that they don't deserve to qualify because one of them is 0-9.

There are about 1,100 11-man teams in Texas split among 5 classifications. 128 teams from each classification make the playoffs (64 each in D1 and D2 within those 5 classifications). That's 640 teams out of 1,100 making the playoffs (59%). That's the current system. Adding a 7A - and assuming 7A gets its own D1 and D2, that's another 128 playoff teams, but still the same 1,100 schools, so then 70% of schools are making the playoffs. I don't really have anything against the exclusivity or non-exclusivity of this; I'm just throwing numbers out there for informational purposes. All the schools are growing for the most part. It's not just 4A ranges going up; it's going up across the board for the most part - by about the same PERCENTAGE. It makes sense. If you have 2 people making babies, the population increases from 2 to 3. If you have 20 people making babies, the population increases from 20 to 30. So, the raw increase in numbers in larger populations is bigger, so it makes sense that the upper end of the cutoff figures increases by a larger amount than the lower end of the cutoff. More people make more babies. The number of schools in each classification ranges from 192 (4A) to 251 (5A). I don't think the solution to this "problem" is adding another classification. In either case, you're going to have to re-define the cutoffs across the board, so just do that without adding another classification. Instead of having classifications ranging from 192 teams to 251 teams, just re-define the cutoffs so that each classification has about 220 teams. That seams like a more logical solution to me - - - - assuming this whole thing even needs a solution, and I'm not sure it does, but if it does - I don't think adding a classification solves the whole "problem". You'd be redrawing the cutoffs anyway, so just redraw the cutoffs without adding a classification. In either case, there is a very good chance that you are going to be disrupting a lot of traditional district rivalries by doing something this drastic. That's just me. And in those 4A numbers, the upper cutoff is increasing by an average of 5.2% per year while the bottom end increases by an average of 4.1% per year. Understandable I think given the whole 'people making babies' example

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm fairly certain the larger schools do this simply because they are able to accommodate the large crowds. The smaller schools cannot, so they choose a large stadium that can handle the crowds at a neutral site. There is a home team and an away team as far as the coin toss is concerned, and generally the home team's fans sit on the designated home side of whatever stadium they are playing in, but that's about where the home field "advantage" stops. The smaller schools "borrow" larger stadiums. The larger schools have no reason to find a venue that can support the crowds; their home field was designed to accommodate those crowds already (most of the time), so the home team plays in their home stadium.

This is one of those things where the people who chime in (myself included) probably don't have a good idea of the whole picture. I can see both sides of it, but I think one thing is certain - - and really undeniable. The current system works. I don't mean from a fairness standpoint (though I'm also not saying it's not fair). I'm saying that the logistics of adding more teams to the playoffs could be a nightmare. As it stands, 4 teams from each district make the playoffs. 16 districts in the state - a nice, neat, power of 2 number. No need for byes or something the equivalent of wildcards. 16 districts. 4 teams from each. Total of 64. Then 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, and then 1. If you want to add more teams and avoid byes and/or wildcards, you'd have to double it to 128, and I don't think anyone wants that really. That would be 8 teams from each district, and there are more than a few that have less than 8 teams. Which brings me to kind of a crucial point I think - As it stands RIGHT NOW, there are districts with only 4 teams. And the REASON they only have 4 teams is because they are in the middle of nowhere and there aren't enough teams to fill up a 6, 7, or 8-team district without requiring those teams to drive a thousand miles to meet their district obligations. Everyone is in, so if you wanted to add more teams to the playoffs, it would have to be some kind of wild-card system - - simply because you can't draw more teams from districts that only have 4 teams. In a league like the NFL, wild cards are easy because there aren't enough teams left to choose from, so tie-breakers only have to be one or two levels deep (head-to-head, division record, etc.) Well, in 16-districts across a state the size of Texas, there aren't many head-to-head matchups. And with 16 districts, you're going to likely have a LOT of teams that have the same record, so you're going to have yet another level of tie-breakers to dwindle it down to a reasonable number. What do you use? And what if that doesn't narrow it down enough? Another level? You might as well just double the number of teams and have 8 teams from each district make the playoffs, but you can't - - because many districts don't have 8 teams. It's just a mess. This is what I mean by "the current system works". This is just what you have to do when you have over 100 teams in your league. The NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL - - and those other meaningless professional sports seem more inclusive with their playoff structure simply because they don't have 100+ teams to dwindle down to a single champion. It's not easy, and I think the way the UIL does it probably the best way it can be done. That's my personal opinion.

The confusion is understandable. This might make it worse - - or it might clear things up : To summarize by season : 2022 Season - Week 2 - Gunter played Trinity Leadership (Cedar Hill) and won 67-6 Week 3 - Gunter played Trinity Christian (Addison) and won 41-0 PLAYOFFS - Trinity Leadership (team from week 2) forfeited the playoff game 2023 Season - Week 3 - Gunter played Trinity Christian (Addison - same team as 2022 Week 3) and won 38-0 PLAYOFFS - Gunter is scheduled to play Trinity Leadership (Cedar Hill) - the team from Week 2 of 2022 and the team that forfeited in the 2022 playoffs To summarize by team : TRINITY LEADERSHIP (CEDAR HILL) : 2022 - Gunter beat them 67-6 in week 2 of the regular season, and was supposed to play them in the playoffs, but they forfeited 2023 - Gunter did not schedule them in the regular season (speculation only - possibly because they forfeited in 2022 playoffs), but are Gunter's round 1 playoff opponent this week. TRINITY CHRISTIAN (ADDISON) : 2022 - Gunter beat them 41-0 in week 3 of the regular season 2023 - Gunter beat them 38-0 in week 3 of the regular season. This team did not forfeit last year and is not the team Gunter is set to play this week.

Cooper comes in averaging 44.4 per game against defenses that allow 23.5 on average (+20.9) and they are holding teams that score 35.1 per game to 15.0 per game (+20.1) giving Cooper an overall swing of +41.0. Frankston is averaging 41.8 per game against defenses that allow 35.3 per game (+6.5) and they are holding teams that score 27.6 per game to 26.0 per game (+1.6) giving Frankston an overall swing of +8.2. Interesting fact : Cooper handed Honey Grove their only loss of the season. Honey Grove has allowed a COMBINED total of 37 points in 10 games. 34 of those points came in their 34-21 loss to Cooper, so Honey Grove has allowed a grand total of 3 points in the other 9 games combined (0.3 ppg). If not for Cooper, Honey Grove would have the best defense in all of Texas high school football from a "points allowed" statistical perspective. HG is still top 5 in the state across all classifications (includes 1,500+ teams). Cooper put up 34 on them. Pretty impressive. I have Cooper in a 47-20 win in this one.

I hadn't heard that. If they did, Gunter got another game because they've played a full schedule. Gunter did play a team called "Trinity Christian", but that game was played - Gunter won 38-0. Perhaps this is causing the confusion....Addison Trinity Christian (the team Gunter played this year) is a different school than Trinity Leadership Christian (the team that forfeited a game last year - and is Gunter's round 1 playoff opponent this week). I would suspect that "trinity" could be common among Christian schools!

Gunter is averaging 58.7 per game against teams that give up 31.9 per game (+26.8) and they are holding teams that score 35.3 per game to 5.6 per game (-29.7). Overall swing for Gunter is a +56.5. Trinity Leadership is averaging 21.4 per game against teams that give up 29.5 per game (-8.0) and are allowing 36.0 per game to teams that score 27.3 on average (-8.7). Overall swing for TL is a -16.7. The numbers come up with a 70-0 win for Gunter in this one. Normally, I'd say Gunter would shut it down before it got to this point, but their average score in the last 4 games (all district games) is 69-0. The only district opponent that has scored on Gunter is Bells - who was ranked #9 in the state at the time (#13 now) That game ended 64-6, and is the only district game in which Gunter allowed points. Overall (including Bells), Gunter outscored their district opponents 69-1. Trinity Leadership was slated to be Gunter's round 1 playoff opponent last year as well, but they forfeited the game. Assuming this one gets played, I'll go with Gunter, 70-0.

I had a run of 27 yards. Ended up with -14.

I'm suiting up for Gunter tonight. I'll be number 5C. I expect to get a few carries in the 4th. It's been a couple weeks since I juiced, so im not worried.

Texas Rangers 2023 Champions! 11-0 on the road during the playoffs (with a run differential of +42 in those road games), beating - in order : Rays (2-0) Orioles (3-0) Astros (4-3) Diamondbacks (4-1)

And the hole gets deeper. Not only are parents of kids WHO DONT PLAY FOOTBALL willing to allow their children to be removed from enrollment, but now they are going to home school their kids as well? So, now you have parents who are not only willing to allow their child to be removed from their school's enrollment, but they are going to take up home schooling as well? All in the name of keeping the football team from moving up one classification?!! Do these parents have jobs? Or are they quitting their jobs too in order to have the time to educate their children who are enrolled in a school they don't go to so that the football team their kids don't play on can stay down in classification? These are some incredibly generous parents!!!!!!! WOW! And all of this ignores the fact that if a parent chose to remove their child from the school system and home school them instead, and that school un-enrolled that student as a result - - - - - - - NO RULES WERE BROKEN. That's.......you know.....that's how home schooling works.......

Students that are taught remotely are not removed from enrollment. They are still students. Otherwise, you're paying teachers to teach and grade students' assignments that aren't even enrolled in your school. This is - to say the VERY least - a stretch. I get the attractiveness of the story - - it's scandalous and it fits the narrative you so badly want to push, but it just doesn't make any real sense. The deeper you go down this rabbit hole, the more preposterous the proposition becomes. The parents of these kids could get into a lot of trouble for not having their children enrolled in school. Obviously, if your goal is to keep your football team at a certain level in UIL football, and you're going to cheat and un-enroll students, you aren't going to un-enroll football players, so you've created a scenario where parents are willing to just go along with the school un-enrolling your child - who doesn't play football - so that the football team can stay down in classification - when that parent would get into a LOT of trouble with the state for not having their children enrolled in school. The whole idea sounds so SCANDALOUS - - you're attracted to the scandal; not reality. All the while, all the parents involved, and all the teachers spending time educating students not enrolled in their school all remain silent. Not a peep. They all just go along with it.......because football. ZERO. SENSE.

I think I had 36 in my graduating class from Gunter. Of course, in elementary school, the whole class would fit on a single page of the yearbook. It was always weird for me to imagine going to a big school and not recognizing people in the yearbook.

Same here for sure! This might be the last chance for a long while. Looks like it's possible Gunter moves up and Canadian moves down and we'll be separated by two classes. I haven't looked into Canadian's enrollment that much though. Am I right in thinking Canadian could move down?

Gunter is indeed growing. I remember when the population was in the 600s and Gunter had a popular nursing home at the time, so we always said half the population was in the nursing home (probably not true). That home has shut down since then, and Gunter is in the mid 2,000s now - and the boom is coming. Going up highway 289 North of Gunter, the growth is insane. Celina, Prosper, Frisco - - all of them have seen the boom. Gunter's boom has just started, so there is no doubt they are next in line. It WILL cause Gunter to move up to 3AD1. The question is when. I don't think it will be this upcoming realignment, but it's a virtual certainty they will move up on the following realignment if not on this one. UIL Enrollment (snapshot) and population numbers for Gunter : 2012-2014 - 292 - - - - Population ~1,600 2014-2016 - 264 (down 9.5%) - - - - Population ~1,700 (up 6.2%) 2016-2018 - 256 (down 3%) - - - - Population ~1,800 (up 5.9%) 2018-2020 - 296 (up 15.6%) - - - - Population ~1,900 (up 5.6%) 2020-2022 - 323 (up 9.1%) - - - - Population ~2,100 (up 10.5%) 2022-2024 - 354 (up 9.6%) - - - - Population ~2,400 (up 14.2%) Also worth mentioning is that there is a small town near Gunter called Tioga that up until recently did not have a high school, so those kids were spread among local schools in the area. The majority came to Gunter. Tioga recently opened their own high school, and when they did, all the Tioga kids had to transfer from Gunter to Tioga - so that would certainly impact enrollment. 2014 was their first year playing a district schedule, so I think this explains Gunter's dip in enrollment in 2014. Other than that, enrollment has consistently increased as the population has increased - - and reasonably close to the same rate. There are obviously probably some timing differences, but for the most part - enrollment increases as population increases, and with the unavoidable boom coming, I wouldn't be shocked if Gunter moved up to 3AD1 and only spent 2 or 3 enrollment cycles there before jumping up again to 4AD2 - - just enough time to grab 6 state championships

Yeah. Asking, "did you hear about Gunter fudging their enrollment numbers" is about the extent of the questioning going on.

I'm not asking why the subject is being brought up. I know very well why.

Ive heard this rumor. Why hasn't the UIL? Or did they hear it? What was their conclusion? I grew up 10 miles from Celina (in Gunter). We used to say the same things about them. They cheat, they fudge their enrollment numbers. I had a good friend that moved to Celina and the rumor was that they hired his mom as a teacher there so he could play for them while living in Gunter. I've heard them all. I repeated them all. I've heard the rumors about Gunter fudging their numbers. I'm not oblivious to it; I've just been on the other side of it, and you know what motivates people to propagate such rumors : jealousy. There's no way Celina could have been that good, so when you heard these rumors, you're like, "ah well that explains it". They're cheaters. I've been there. I know how it works. Did they cheat? I have no idea. I do know that the only evidence I had that they did were the rumors. Nothing more. Same thing here. Celina did eventually move up - and probably the year they were supposed to. And you know what? They competed just fine. Still do. They were winning state championships before, and they won state championships after they moved up. It didn't matter.

I don't agree that things don't look right. Population increases. High school-aged population increases IN PROPORTION - and the numbers Gunter has turned in are consistent with the increase in population. I don't find any discrepancy. Population increases by 500. High school aged population increase proportionally. For the last time, Gunter has ALREADY turned in an enrollment which exceeds the current cutoff. Whether or not the cutoff is increased enough to keep them down won't be known for certain until the UIL announces the new cutoff numbers in February. The cutoff numbers are based on new enrollment numbers, so even if you wanted to cheat - you don't know what the cutoff is until everyone turns in their numbers - which the new cutoff is based on. It's precisely why enrollment figures are turned in a couple months before the new cutoff figures are calculated. You couldn't cheat if you wanted to because the cutoff numbers are BASED ON ENROLLMENTS..... And again, the enrollment Gunter turned in EXCEEDS the current cutoff. If it's unchanged or goes down, Gunter is moving up. Kind of a risky move if you're trying to cheat the system, don't you think? And to reiterate this one more time - Gunter has no reason to risk getting caught cheating when they will be just as competitive in 3AD1 as they currently are in 3AD2. The whole notion boggles my mind.

I've made no proclamations. I'm not guessing. I'm not making guesses. You're not either. You're making assertive accusations without an iota of basis. And if you want condescending, it's "you're"; not "your". Not my style, but if I'm gonna be accused of it, might as well play the part - because I hadn't up until then.