Sherman

[TXHSGOD]

ALEMAN

[Gobstopper77]

31 minutes ago, TXHSGOD said:

ALEMAN

For real?

[TXHSGOD]

YESSIR!

[MrBuddyGarrity]

56 minutes ago, TXHSGOD said:

ALEMAN

Who's that?? 

[TXHSGOD]

From there, use to coach there, was the OC at Denton Braswell recently 

[TXHSGOD]

was the head coach at S&S for two years

[GraysonFan]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:34 PM, JasonDellaRosa said:

No on Denison, they will be dropping to 4A if the cutoff moves up like it did this last time

Denison built that humongous high school and can’t even stay in their same classification??? Terrible.

[GraysonFan]

2 hours ago, TXHSGOD said:

was the head coach at S&S for two years

Man Sherman seemed like they just got desperate to find an alum to hire.  Hope it works out but he doesn’t have a track record of success, and his HC experience is a few years at S&S?

[MrBuddyGarrity]

8 minutes ago, GraysonFan said:

Denison built that humongous high school and can’t even stay in their same classification??? Terrible.

Did they build it big enough to house a large 5A enrollment?

 

Also did Sherman build their new one to house 6A enrollment? 

[Ballboy23]

5 hours ago, TXHSGOD said:

was the head coach at S&S for two years

9-22 at S&S. But I can count on one hand the number of coaches that have had success there.

[neveragain]

I think there are only two or three head coaches who have won even 1 playoff game at S&S, so 9-22 might not be all that bad.

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by neveragain

[JasonDellaRosa]

8 hours ago, GraysonFan said:

Denison built that humongous high school and can’t even stay in their same classification??? Terrible.

Denison had to get out of the old building -- it was time. They are dropping in classification because they have had a consistent enrollment since it opened and the cutoff number keeps going up because of growth in other pockets around the state, ie when it opened there were 7 Friscos, now there's 12. Melissa had 1,000 fewer kids, Argyle was half the size it was now.

[JasonDellaRosa]

8 hours ago, MrBuddyGarrity said:

Did they build it big enough to house a large 5A enrollment?

 

Also did Sherman build their new one to house 6A enrollment? 

Sherman did not build their new one big enough, they are already going to add on as well as add a freshman center

[MrBuddyGarrity]

2 minutes ago, JasonDellaRosa said:

Sherman did not build their new one big enough, they are already going to add on as well as add a freshman center

Wow! 

[GraysonFan]

6 hours ago, JasonDellaRosa said:

Denison had to get out of the old building -- it was time. They are dropping in classification because they have had a consistent enrollment since it opened and the cutoff number keeps going up because of growth in other pockets around the state, ie when it opened there were 7 Friscos, now there's 12. Melissa had 1,000 fewer kids, Argyle was half the size it was now.

I can’t believe Denison hasn’t had an increase recently, all those homes in Gateway Village, then you look at all the homes being built in their district but outside the city limits.   I’m not disputing you, it’s just crazy to think their numbers haven’t gone up since every other district in the county seems to be having numbers increase.

[JasonDellaRosa]

16 hours ago, GraysonFan said:

I can’t believe Denison hasn’t had an increase recently, all those homes in Gateway Village, then you look at all the homes being built in their district but outside the city limits.   I’m not disputing you, it’s just crazy to think their numbers haven’t gone up since every other district in the county seems to be having numbers increase.

If there is growth, it's at the lower levels which takes time to show up 9-12.

 

Denison went from 1,312 in 2017 to 1,348 in 2019 to 1,327 in 2021 for this last realignment.

[JasonDellaRosa]

22 hours ago, MrBuddyGarrity said:

Wow! 

To be fair, it was supposed to open years earlier than it did so it would have "lasted longer" as it would have had more space to fill but by the time it opened it was ahead of enrollment projections.

 

i take back the freshman center I thought that was on there  but it was part of the recommendations for a 10-year long rage facilities plan but didn't make it as part of the bond package. But they are adding on to the High School, which is supposed to be finished for the start of the 2025-26 school year

Edited May 21, 2023 by JasonDellaRosa

[MattStepp]

Della Rosa is 100% correct Denison isn't shrinking the 5A/4A cutoff just keeps going up at an incredibly rapid rate

[MattStepp]

And here's the evidence

 

 

[Jackets02]

What needs to be understood is that while the uil #s are increasing rapidly is the numbers that in the next 2 years will not even be related to current #s. Especially when you talk about these southern grayson northern Collin County towns. So maybe not on next realignment but the next will will pose big changes with towns like Gunter and van Alysyne going up in classification and Denison will be staying at about that size or larger. Sherman no doubt headed to 6A. Lots of population coming! Has anyone seen all the houses going up around here lol

[Pax]

On 5/21/2023 at 8:06 AM, MattStepp said:

And here's the evidence

 

 

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

Edited November 8, 2023 by Pax

[trueblue82]

38 minutes ago, Pax said:

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

What you’re not taking into account is the huge difference the numbers make in the smaller classifications as opposed to the larger ones. If you have 1,500 boys in your high school and you get 13% participation, you have 200 kids to work with. By contrast, if you have 100 boys in your school and you get 60% participation, you have 60 kids to work with. Look around at the 2A/ 3A programs and see how many are getting 60% or better. It’s not a lot. The ratios have to come into play when deciding how things are divided up. If you put 220 in every class, you’re going to have some schools competing against ones with more than double their enrollment. It’s a much bigger deal for a school with 175 kids playing someone with 275 than one with 1500 playing one with 3,000. 

[Pax]

3 minutes ago, trueblue82 said:

What you’re not taking into account is the huge difference the numbers make in the smaller classifications as opposed to the larger ones. If you have 1,500 boys in your high school and you get 13% participation, you have 200 kids to work with. By contrast, if you have 100 boys in your school and you get 60% participation, you have 60 kids to work with. Look around at the 2A/ 3A programs and see how many are getting 60% or better. It’s not a lot. The ratios have to come into play when deciding how things are divided up. If you put 220 in every class, you’re going to have some schools competing against ones with more than double their enrollment. It’s a much bigger deal for a school with 175 kids playing someone with 275 than one with 1500 playing one with 3,000. 

 

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.