As a coach at a local high school who has coached at both my current school and a different one I think that the author's comments are typical of many in today's state of athletics. Either the UHSAA uses enrollment numbers to determine placement in classifications or we do it on a geographic basis, or some type of combination. But to do it based on competitiveness of current programs in current classifications? That tells those schools "we understand you suck and that you probably always will so let's keep you (in the Thanksgiving dinner comparison) at the little kids' table". How insulting is THAT? So Granger...yes, you aren't competitive....oh well. Kearns, Ogden, and the rest of you....we feel bad that you suck....
so we will keep you with the "smaller" schools so that you can be "competitive". The coaches that are hired at those schools should take that as an insult and say "No more".

wait till the fire ya cause you don't win enough games, then your song will be different.

You are absolutely wrong. The ONLY fair and just way is to have it by the numbers. All other factors are just a political push by those that think they can push and shove their weight around.

i agree with EdM. finally someone saying what needs to be said about a "larger numbered" program. you said it very simple EdM, if a bigger school cannot compete at their classification (based on numbers, not competitiveness) then it might be time for new coaches. it amazes me how many schools climb down a classification and dominate (i.e., logan, duchesne) and then use scapegoats like delta and tabiona to justify there relevance in that classification. bottom line: until numbers, not competitiveness or a geography excuse are being used, it will continue to be unfair. bad coaches are in that mix as well. numbers are numbers and that is the roll of the dice. either step up your feeder programs and coaching expectations or deal with the consequences. don't easy out by diving a classification. i have seen the most recent proposition and to 5A-4A-3A look pretty balanced. thank goodness the b.o.t/uhsaa spent that time on the what they considered important. when are the 2A and 1A going to get that same balance? 2A-17 schools and 1A-35 schools (with more on the way). open up your eyes uhsaa/b.o.t. don't forget the numbers.

I think there is a bigger issue that affects the competitiveness in high school sports (mostly along the wasatch front), that being open enrollment. I may be a little biased being an alumni of Granite High, but those who have payed any attention have seen how bad it became (no more sports). In reality it is very similar to the private schools comment in that athletes are basically recruited. So open enrollment is directly related to both the number of students enrolled and the competitiveness.

I agree with main idea of this article. While enrollment certainly is a factor, other factors such as competiveness, travel, and time out of school should weigh more heavily than enrollment.

I to am a current high school coach and I agree completely with Ed. It is my responsibility as a coach to get the most out of my team and make them competitive regardless of where we play. The decision for classification has to be off of size and geography. In no way can the board predict how competitive these, or any other school will be in 5 years. Competitiveness can change dramatically in an entire school or individual sports. The players and coaches need to take responsibility for becoming better within the environment they must compete. And as a coach I understand that sometime down the road a change can always be made if my team is not competitive enough. That falls on me, not the realignment committee.

Is there really a good way to divide the schools? Whatever you do someone isn't going to like it, but to divide the schools by their ability to win games would mean that the smaller schools would need to be realigned every year.
Take Parowan for example in 2-A. Every three or four years they make a run for the basketball championship, but then they drop back into the middle of the pack for a couple of years.
What about the ability to compete in different sports? Gunnison struggles in basketball and football, but dominates baseball. Beavers girl hoops team is a perennial championship contender, but the boys struggle.
Oh well, another good idea bites the dust.

When the original proposal came out with Lone Peak, Brighton, Alta, Jordan, American Fork, and Pleasant Grove... there was no balance. That proposed league would have been absolutely brutal! Then you flip things around and look at a league with Cyprus, West, Hunter, Granger... where none of the four would finish anywhere but last in the above mentioned league. There has to be a "balance" of some sort when taking in to account how competetive teams are every year. The new proposal at least tries to address that issue.

Moving Bonneville to 5A is ridiculous!

correction- paid not payed.

Can you imagine the silliness of this debate at a national level? Stanford shouldn't be in the PAC10 because it's enrollment is too small. Louisiana Tech has a huge enrollment and should therefore be in the SEC.

Basing this on one factor, when there are dozens to consider, it simplistic and stupid. Why not consider everything that there is to consider? Enrollment, Geography, Tradition, Competitiveness, Money, Education, Time, Popular Opinion...

Enrollments numbers, as proven, doesn't mean equality in athletic programs, especially in today's situation where the schools with a higher socio-economic studentbody have students who invest more in athletics. The UHSAA should look at all factors. For example, Timpview should be 5A in football because they have athletes from all over the place, so what does it matter how many students they have?

Andrew,

You are exactly right. Putting kids from Ogden, West, Hillcrest, or anywhere for that matter, in a position where they can fail is unthinkable.

Failure in athletic events can rob these youth of precious self esteem and scar them for the rest of their lives. That's not what high school athletics should be about.

The following reforms should be made immediately for all high school athletic events:
1) don't keep score, 2) give everyone a treat after the game, 3) give everyone a trophy at the end of the season.

These kids are all winners, not losers. Let's start treating them like it.

I think that sometimes we get caught up in the glamour sports and forget about the other competitive activities that are out there. You might find that a school like Ogden does very well in the music or drama areas or some other activity that seems to go unnoticed. In fact, I believe they might be one of the leaders in the 3A when it comes to winning championships, those championships just aren't always in the high profile areas. I think our journalist might want to dig a little deeper when expressing his opinions about a subject. I do think he has some responsibility to his readers when stirring up the people. It's easy for a school to cry poor me when there not winning a championship in football every year but if look a little closer they might be very well accomplished in several of the so called minor sports or in the arts. I wish the UHSAA the best of luck in the process and when it's all over I hope all the schools will take on the challenge to compete wherever they might be.

I don't think you can consider competitiveness very heavily in the realignment process. If you were looking at two bubble schools to try to decide which should go by the numbers, maybe. Just because one school struggles does not warrant the imposition of unfair competition on other schools. If that were the case, Uintah and Ogden would be playing 2A. And, when those schools hypothetically take state (which would happen in soccer this year for Ogden, and wrestling for Uintah, and who knows what else) everyone and their dogs would argue that it is a diluted or illegitimate state title because they are so much bigger than their competition in 2A. Logan is a prime example; they play in a classification below their numbers, and they do very well. They don't dominate every sport, but when they succeed, everyone says it is unfair and that they should go back to 4A (where they competed just fine before they went down to 3A).
Go by the numbers and let the invisible hand even things out over time. In my opinion, that is the only fair way to do things.

Coach G not sure what school you coach at, but it is easy to make the comment it your job to make your team competitive. It is easy to make that comment when you are at highly successful schools like Alta, Bringham, Davis, and other. Have you ever tried to coach a sport at Granger, HIllcrest, West, by your comments I can tell the answer is already NO. GO coach at one of those schools and I bet you would change your opinion after just one practice at those schools. Put those same coaches at the successful schools and they would have success also.

to base the alignment on schools ability to compete is a joke and nothing more than taking the easy way out. if a larger school does happen to win a championship in a smaller division all it does is cheapen the accomplishment. as soon as they win they get hammered for having to go down to win. coaches, student, community, principals all have to step up to have a successful program, and it just so happens that some do a better job than others. deal with it or change it. i also think a lot of the problem is that there's to much focus on football. thats what it really all comes down to in the end. a school could be bad in football and win compete and do well in other sports, both girls and boys and still want to go down because of one sport. its time to look and the whole picture. end the open enrollment and base the alignment on enrollment and problem solved.

How when things involve some schools from up north everyone feels sorry for them- What's the matter Cyprus-West, and all? You want to be one of the big schools beating up the little schools? You don't want to play where your population puts you? If these comments were about some of the Southern schools saying they wanted to stay in 3A you guys would be going crazy tellin them to stop whinning- So take your own advice-It is what it is- Just shut up and play.

It's interesting how long the UHSAA held off moving up the St. George schools to 4A. They finally made the move, but waited until the three could go together and now possibly might put Deseret Hills there as well. I think the UHSAA held off on Uintah for so long because they'll have to drive more than 100 miles for all of their games--though the most complaining will come from the schools they play who have to drive it once per sport per year.

It's great to make schools who have stayed within a 30 mile radius experience the day long trip of 2-3 hours each way just to play a 2-3 hour event.

what do you mean hunter would not place. we are not in the same position as granger, cyprus.we can hold our own and want non of your sympathy

If sports programs are not successfull at certain schools kids will opt to go to other schools , where thier programs are all ready successfull this will create even a bigger gap in compition .I dont think there is a simple solution to the problem that the UHSAA is facing . True Coaches should be held accountable for the success of thier teams , is that not there job , and we all know what happens if a coach is not winning angry parents band together to get the coach fired .

Andrew's argument just doesn't compute. Should we also start giving students who aren't performing in the classroom increasingly easier examinations until we find one they can pass? Life doesn't work that way, so why send that message? If Andrew is truly concerned about competitive fairness and wants to make the case that student body size is not the most important factor to be considered, then why not address the open enrollment issue, as someone else has suggested? In one football final last year, we saw a team with at least twenty (and reportedly as many as thirty) documented out of boundary players competing against (and soundly beating) a team with zero out of boundary players, yet not a word from Mr. Aragon about that.

No I don't coach at a school where my sport is top dog in fact we are still in question weather we will make the playoffs this year. But regardless of the situation it STILL is the coaches responsibility to get everything out of their players so they can COMPETE at the level they are at. If they can do that the coach shouldn't need to worry whether they are at Alta or Granger or some middle of the road school. If I were to accept a job at one of these lower schools I would know exactly what I was getting into and what can happen. My point still remains the same, it is a coaches responsibility to choose players, facilitate the team, and get the performance needed to compete with other schools not the UHSAA.
Coach G

ALTA'S DEFENSEIVE FRONT

V V V V

C C

V V V V
.......................................

^ ^ ^ V ^ ^ ^ ^

^

^ ^

GRANGER'S OFFENSIVE SET

HERES ALTA'S SIDELINE
VVVVVVVVvvVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVvVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVVVvVVVVVVVVVV^^VVVVVVVvvVVVVVVVVVVVvv
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVvvVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV^^^VVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVvvVVVVVV^^^VVVV^VVVVVVvVVVVVVVVVVVVvv
G 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20

.....and now heres a Look at Grangers sideline

^

^^^ V ^^ v ^^ v^

^ ^^ V ^ ^
G 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20

Now which school COMPETES each year, dont say its the same for all. .... It is not the coaches responsibility to to choose players. Yep all the BIG SCHOOLS LIKE THE CHANCE TO PLAY TEAMS LIKE GRANGER BECAUSE IT WILL SHOW HOW MUCH BETTER THEY PREPARE AND OUT EXECUTE TEAMS.

This is a no-win situation for those schools whose enrollment represent that they should be in a higher classification. If they stay down and have success, their opponents will just point out the #'s and how they should be a higher class. If they go up then maybe they don't compete. I AGREE whoever made those comments, I hope that was all sarcasm. There is 2 edged sword no matter how you look at re-alignment. There are plenty of examples of low enrollment schools having success without recruiting (Morgan) and several with high enrollment not having success (Uintah). There is no one-size fits all solution. Good luck to all schools wherever you end up!!!

My hats off to teams like Kearns. Not winning much in the major sports but they show up and play hard, these kids can graduate holding their heads up high. I gained much respect watching their baseball team play hard but win little. I would not respect them more if they were playing down. I don't know of any athlete who looks back on high school and regrets playing because their team had a losing record. Classification based on competitiveness is placing winning above everything else. Just being part of team effort is rewarding and will build self esteem. Better to eliminate region and state tournaments and quit keeping records, than to water down schedules. Form two divisions in each classification, competition and recreation and let the schools choose which they want to be in. I agree has the right idea, Uncle John still brags about his tee ball trophies.

What the heck was that diagram? Put your V's away.

It's not about Granger and Ogden staying in their current classifications to be competitive, it's that they are not competitive (for the most part) in their current classification.

Ogden's football and baseball teams are going to be hammered in the 4A league. The games will be laughers. Ogden, plays those schools in summer leagues baseball and get beat by embarrassing scores. 25-0, 22-3, etc.

I currently coach a team at the 4A level. In regards to the Cyrpus and Granger situation, the board would be completely ignorant to move these school up into a much more difficult area. I completely agree with a previous comment that mentioned that school pride can be raised or lowered from the sports programs success. I believe that the board should look at the past five years and the average success rate IN ALL SPORTS AND ACTIVITES for the schools before considering realignment. In my own opinion, the population cutoff for schools is completely useless. Lastly, there should not be as many realignment meetings. As mentioned, if the board met only every five years to review the overall success of each school's programs, and then made changes, that would be much better than this almost year-to-year turmoil that seems to have existed over the past six or seven years.

the problem with most sports at some schools isn't partisipation, it's money. the coaches around the state make it impossible to play sports for some famlies because of the rising costs. I know at Bingham for instance it costs over $1,000 dollars to play baseball and the same or more for basketball. The fee to the district is less than 100.00. where does all the money go. Kids that go to schools with similar numbers as bingham but without the cash to play sports are left out. It really is all about money when it comes to high school sports. I wish the IRS would start an audit program to crack down on some of these money grubbing coaches. Audit a few of these high prices programs such as Bingham and Alta and I think that you will soon find the price to pay more affordable for all. all schools need to play on a level playing field and with the money that is avaliable to some and not to others, that playing feild will never be fair. UHSAA Needs to set spending limits. Number of student in a certain school will never solve 5a 4a ect problem.

Everyone is just going crazy over a simple solution. 3A-4A-5A Regions should be based solely on geography and postseason should be based solely on enrollment. It would probably take a couple good minds about 1 or 2 days to figure out a successful post season format THAT WORKS FOR ALL! Save gas, time, and make the postseason playing field level. It's simple folks. This will work unless you are consumed with trying to win a REGION championship, and in that case you should be removed from the UHSAA because your goals are set at the recreational level. For you 1A and 2A schools I love you but you just have to keep your current format with a little fine tuning, because you guys are rural and spread out all over the place.

No one has talked about the numbers of athletes that come out for football , the gentlemen that went to Granger and showed his example with Alta is on to something , only in football numbers mean alot ask any coach that has 90 players to choose from and a coach that has 50 , there is a drop off of talent when you go to your subs on a fifty man roster.. This applies at the 5A and 4A level.

A school that is struggling to be competitive that's on the bubble should be placed in the lower classification. Also, in the specific case of Murray, they are using alternative ed students as part of their enrollment numbers and these students don't or can't participate in students and in Hillcrest's case much of their enrollment numbers are based on the IB program.

When they had Brighton, Hillcrest, Jordan and Alta with Lone Peak, PG and AF, did they consider that it would be very unlikely that any of Hillcrest's team sports would qualify for state, or even win a region game? Life lessons can come from hard knocks but that's a bit over the top!

Yes, competitiveness should be considered especially when the school is on the bubble of moving up which would generally be the case for Murray, Hillcrest, West, Granger and Cyprus. These schools have fair to poor athletic programs right now but put them in a classification where they are among the smallest schools this will only exacerbate the problem...Uintah though needs to step up (they are way over the bubble) but keeping them 3-A is more justifiable on travel issues, which should always be considered.

I don't think it's insulting to those schools to keep them in 4A. That is afterall, what they want. Several of them came out at previous hearings and asked to not be moved to 5A. They were worried about competing in 5A. They are concerned about going against these schools. It makes sense to leave schools in their geographic areas right now and respect their concerns.

Coach G,

You obviously have never coached in challenging situation where numbers are not the issue but rather the quality of numbers is. I completely agree that schools should be aligned with those can compete with, for the kids sake.

I have coached at 2 different school over the past few years. I can tell you that the lasted school I have coached at would beat the first school I coached at 100 out of 100, and none of the games would even be close. The problem is not coaching,some school just don't have the athletes to compete on the 5A level that are current there. How many teams from Granger and Hillcrest made it to state this year? ONE MAJOR WAY TO HELP SOLVE THIS PROBLEM IS THE "PLAY WHERE YOU LIVE" THAT WAY PLAYERS FROM WEAKER SCHOOLS CAN'T JUST GO TO OTHER SCHOOLS AND MAKE IT EVEN MORE OF A PROBLEM.

It has been interesting to read all the comments on today's issue. Let me just phrase that I have been at schools that are not as well known as Alta-Bingham, etc...in terms of the #'s of kids coming out for sports and my teams have ALWAYS been known for their competitive attitude and spirit. And, we have been moderately successful going up against those schools.....and have won a few, lost a few. However, it is up to the coach to instill in his or her athletes that competitive spirit and teach them, from the ground up, the HOW TO of their sport and yes, it takes time to develop a program. Most coaches come in and do NOT do this, sad to say. Successful coaches come in and lay a foundation that builds and breeds success. Each school has their population numbers so it is up to the coach to find "ways" to be successful and to teach life lessons. I did, I do, and always will. So Coach....if I get fired, I will just get in front of everyone and turn it into a parade!

Lol, ya, those Meridian vs. Timpview and ALA vs. Spanish Fork contests will be a blast to watch.

Here Here the spending that some of these coaches do is out of control for expample getting new uniforms every year is a joke , stay with a look for more then 3 years. who absorbs the cost the kids and thier parents do and then they have to fund raise , shouldnt the spending go through the principle first and then a parents meeting with the coach to vote on proper spening . Fund raising is out of control . Espeically football it is very exspensive ,I understand having to update helmets and shoulder pads are important but changing your jersey and pants look every chance you get is a joke isnt spending money on books important to .

Here's the simplest solution to the entire problem.... GET RID OF 5A!!!!

There are many states in the US that have triple - or more - the number of schools as Utah does, yet have four classes and it seems to work just fine.

Four classes, eight regions per class, top two teams in each region goes to state.

The competitive balance of the tournaments goes up making them more meaningful, and we stop having 1-8 or 4-16 teams involved in postseason play.

I've stated my case... let the attacks begin.

What happens if you do everything you talk about doing at a school that is not successful. And you still don't win. Your up in the night thinking its all coaching, kids affect 95% of the equation, untill you get that through your head you'll be the one telling everyone how great a coach you are when its really your kids you coach making you look good. And i speak from 17 years expierence at the high school level, from state championship teams to ones that haven't won a game. Try both sides before you comment on these things, tell you the truth i did a better coaching job on the teams that didn't win a game than i did on the state championship teams i coached. but all i was told that your a bad coach cause you can't win there.

Simple, that is the best suggestion that I have heard yet. Why does Utah think they need 5 classifications. Cut it back to 4 and a lot of these problems would go away. Yes, not as many schools would make the tournaments but they could add one more round to each sport's tournament and then things would be fine.

Re: Simple solution Could not agree with you more. I have never seen a state that has so many classes for so few schools. The state championship system is extremely watered down here. Florida, Texas and Penna are widely considered hotbeds of high school sports and here are the breakdowns for those states. Florida, over 500 high schools with 6 classes. Texas, over 1500 high schools with 5 classes. And Penna, over 740 high schools with 4 classes.
In Utah: 5 classes for 180 schools.

If the players were required to live in a school boundary to play for that school, some of these problems would go away. When you have open enrollment, or a private/charter school in your region (usually in 1A or 2A because of lower enrollment #'s) you invite lop-sided competition through recruiting.

I realize that open enrollment was likely allowed to raise numbers in some schools to keep them open, and so that others were not overcrowded, but it causes a lot of issues when it comes to competitive events.

Start over---

Institute a "play where you live rule" with real teeth. If you don't like it-don't play, simple.

Set up clear criteria one time about how to divide classifications be it enrollment, geography, competitiveness or even economic state of the student population and STICK TO IT! (No Uintah, Dixie, Snow Canyon, Pine View exceptions---if you fit the 4A criteria you are 4A-just shut up and play)

Realize the playing field will never be truly level, people are different and they will respond differently to every situation, especially in athletics. Stop trying to fix everything. You are empowering players, parents, and coaches to think if they aren't winning they need your help. Real life is hard-they need skills they can only gain from an honest struggle---don't take that struggle away, work to make it more honest and more struggle.

People love the movie Hoosiers for the insurmountable odds the team overcame. It wasn't "fair", it was so unbearably lopsided no one thought they had a chance. Kids today need to learn to overcome, not wait for someone else to make it happen.

Why bring up PV Dixie and SC-It's not them on here whinning about it..It's West Cyprus and others that are clearly over the liimit and want to stay in the lower division for competitiveness. Read the comments and then make your statements directed to the right schools..

Most of the B.O.T. members come from higher socio-economic backgrounds and have traditionally taken care of the so called powerhouse programs. When was the last time you heard an argument from the B.O.T on the major problem of students leaving their west side home school boundries for the East side money schools.

It's obvious that no matter what any writer says, any suggestions that are made and whatever the UHSAA says, nobody is going to be happy. So let's keep arguing with each other about it. That will solve everything.

So getting beat 50-0 in the 4a state football game was ok think about your comments . Really all this is about football size does matter . other sports teams would be ok .

I appreciate the fact that Mrs. Theurer in the article was able to have her kids play and be successful. However, my son matured late and did not get that opportunity. Is she going to allow him two more years of eligibility so that he can have that experience? It isn't about what is "fair" for everyone. What about all the kids that get cut? What is she going to do for them?

Now, the solution.....open enrollment for classifications. Allow the schools to all form their own regions, just like colleges (based on geograph, enrollment, poor coaching, whatever they want). Those teams that relish competition and challenge can band together and form a strong conference. If a larger school wants to compete against smaller schools so they can dominate, let them (provided that the schools allow them in their conference). As new charter and private schools come online, they need to petition the conferences to be admitted.

Then, the UHSSA only has to run the post season tournaments. They could take the #1 school from each conference and invite the best of the rest. They could even have two divisions if that would make people more happy.

The open alignment option would also allow for "full" open enrollment. Anyone could attend any school. A parent would have the ability to decide if they wanted their child to sit the bench at Alta, or be a star at Judge. They could chose who they wanted to coach their son or daughter. Reality is, most will stay and play in their boundaries, either due to ease or economic ability to commute.

This would leave it open to the schools to decide whether it is more important to align with a tough football conference and risk winning no games, but have the ability to dominate in tennis, or wrestling. Afterall, when the colleges come recruiting, they look for talent, not strength of schedule.

Then, you hold parents accountable for their choices. You change schools, you lose 1 year of eligiblity. Non-negotiable.

See, the solution is not that difficult. You just have to think outside the box.