Blake: Which way, NCHSAA? The two routes for realignment coming up
Realignment is a fascinating high school sports topic in North Carolina because it's tied to so many other things.
What classification you're in determines who is likely to be in a conference with you. Who's in a conference with you determines your schedule, your gate money, your playoff chances, the rivalries your students experience, how much class time they'll have to miss, and it locks you into that for four years (except in rare cases).
If my instincts are right, the general consensus among coaches and athletic directors across the state is that they want the following items from the next N.C. High School Athletic Association realignment:
- More classifications (already taken care of for 2025 and beyond!)
- Keep travel down for conferences
- Have fewer split conferences
The problem with this list is it's impossible to check all three boxes.
The second we went to more classes (and credit where it's due, it passed with more than 90 percent, well above the 75 percent threshold), we were going to see either an uptick in travel or an increase in split conferences.
This presents two routes that the NCHSAA can take and, like all forks in the road, you can only choose one path.
Here are the two options I see emerging based on conversations I've had with administrators and coaches from across the state.
Path 1
- Split conferences: These are kept to a minimum, affecting only the conferences with counties that border another state or the ocean.
- Conference travel: Anything more than a 90-minute, one-way drive is avoided if possible.
- Conference size: Potential of more five-team conferences, capped at eight or nine.
- Playoff berths: Conference champs in, everyone else by RPI and conference finish (no leapfrogging rule).
- Playoff bracketing: With 32-team brackets likely, conference champs are no longer automatically seeded higher than runner-ups from other leagues. RPI is the guide for seeding thanks to the lower number of split conferences.
This is the one more akin to what we've seen in the past. It's also the "you voted for more classes, of course there's more travel — what did you expect?" proposal. There would be some gnashing of teeth about small conferences or conference travel, but the playoffs would run smoothly and, aside from a legislator or two poking his or her head in, all controversy would likely subside.
Old example: When I was a freshman in high school, my alma mater was in a 3A conference that stretched from Oxford to Four Oaks. Almost every school had about a 90-minute drive to multiple others. I don't think this model would be that extreme, but it would require some schools having to get a bus earlier in the school day than they do now.
Path 2
- Split conferences: These are more available and are open for willing schools and counties to use if they feel it's in their best interest.
- Conference travel: Anything more than a 75-minute, one-way drive is avoided if possible. After all, we have more splits.
- Conference size: No fewer than six teams in a conference, no set maximum (so long as all schools agree).
- Playoff berths: With so many splits, you move to an "everybody makes the postseason" model in most sports, seeded solely by RPI or RPI against the same classification, or some average of the two.
- Playoff bracketing: If everyone's in, you won't need any conference champion priority. Some teams will get byes or maybe even double-byes into a 32- or 48-team bracket, with the bottom seeds playing an opening round game to gain entry into the playoffs. Would it count as a true "playoff appearance" if you lose the qualifying game? I wouldn't think so, but someone might hang a banner (every year) anyway.
This model would be revolutionary to the NCHSAA, a total upheaval of tradition, but it would also be the one less likely to get legislators' attention (I don't know how much that plays into the NCHSAA's pros and cons or if it should). Schools would like the local travel, and the RPI tweak would help some of the smaller schools who might not be thrilled to play larger schools more often. The suspense of getting a playoff spot would disappear, but figuring out where you'd land would get trickier. We'd almost assuredly get yearly dose of "everyone gets a trophy" bellyaching.
Old example: In the last round of realignment, there were two schools who volunteered to "play up" a classification in order to keep old rivalries intact and not lose out on gate money: Kinston stayed in 2A rather than dropping to 1A and Hunter Huss stayed at 3A rather than dropping to 2A. This model would ideally create a "best of both worlds" for those schools, where they could continue as a conference member but get split out come playoff time and not need to change classification.
Both methods have their pros and cons, though one is far more within the norm.
I'm reminded of when the first draft of this last realignment came out and three sets of small schools wanted nothing to do with the split conferences. East Carteret got out of a 3A/2A league; Union, Hobbton, and others got out of a 2A/1A to reform the Carolina 1A; and Starmount, Elkin etc. also got out of a split to form a larger 1A-only.
They all decided it wasn't much fun to lose a lot to bigger schools, despite whatever they were getting back in travel.
To me, it comes down to projecting what those schools would do in Path 2.
Would they accept a trade-off if it didn't damage their playoff hopes? If not, perhaps Path 1 is the safer option for the next four years.
Which way NCHSAA? So much rides on this one question.
