[Hoot Gibson]

Let me make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. You are saying the bottom of each class could not compete with the bottom of classes above it, correct? I tell you what I will give you a chance to do some actual research and see if your opinion changes. If you choose to stick to those comments I will post historical statistics showing otherwise. Sometimes it's better to have some data to back up statements if you're using words like never and always.

I will tell you what, I will wait on you to make your case, based on "historical statistics." Cherry-picking a few results, as others have done in this thread proves nothing about the overall strength of a class. Does that mean that the #25 team in one class will never beat the #25 team in the class above it? Of course not. But, provided a sample size of games is sufficiently large to be statistically valid, a strong correlation exists between the pool of available talent in schools and the quality of their football teams.

There is a good reason that football teams are broken into classes and that reason is enrollment. A great coach of a 1A team will always be at a competitive disadvantage when pitted against an equally great coach drawing from a larger pool of boys. It is just common sense and statistics supports my position. If enrollment didn't matter, then teams could just be placed into any class at random.

Mayfield is a great example of team that has a great coaching staff combined with a large enrollment when it was in 1A. Split the school into two schools and keep the same staff, and Mayfield would find it extremely difficult to compete for state titles, but the school would still be larger than four other 1A schools.

Mayfield will be a leading contender for the 2A state title because of quality coaching and the fact the participation rate in football is high. However, Mayfield could not consistently compete for state titles in 6A no matter how well coached the team was.

Now, prove me wrong with your historical statistics.