Deliberations of a Desert Rat

So the proposed list of schools placed in their divisions was released from AIA. This list did not have any sectional alignments, just divisional placements.

The below is my projected sectional alignments. I took into account the previous bloc’s alignments and team histories to account for the movements.

Any team with a ** means that they will have to appeal their divisional placement. Currently, these are the following:

Kofa D2
Yuma D3
Mesquite D2
Salpointe Catholic D4
Notre Dame Prep D4
St. Mary’s Catholic D4
Palo Verde D4
Sabino D4
Santa Rita D4
Sedona Red Rock D4
Tanque Verde D4
Rock Point D5
North Pointe Prep D4
Shonto Prep D5

Mesquite will be appealing to D1. It’s simply a matter of convenience for them – they are a decent team in D1, and the remainder of Gilbert and Mesa schools are already D1, so this is a no-brainer.

Salpointe will again appeal up to D2 where that D2 S2 section will contain 9 Tucson-area teams and Nogales.

Notre Dame will again appeal up to D2. No brainer there.

Last bloc, St. Mary’s was the only school to appeal up to D1 from D4. While they may do so again, it actually makes sense for them to just go to D2. I am guessing here that they will go D2 and become one of the top 15-20 teams in that Division. BUT if Yuma and Kofa move down, it might make sense for St. Mary’s to move back up again.

Palo Verde and Sabino both appealed up from D4 to D3 due to travel times. Now with CDO, Catalina Foothills and Cholla being bumped down to D3 and Empire moving up from D4, having PV and Sabino again play in D3 makes perfect sense.

Santa Rita appealed up to D2 last bloc, but this year will probably only ask to move up to D3 due to travel. D3 S1 will become another Tucson-area dominated section with 10 teams, and that’s before adding Douglas into the mix.

Sedona Red Rock played D5 this past bloc, and I get the feeling that they were happy about being out of D4. This time they will be appealing down to D5 because they fit better competitively with the other D5 Rez schools like Hopi and Rough Rock and Sanders Valley.

Tanque Verde has absoltely no business in D4. They will appeal down based on travel times, where they will continue to play teams close by like Thatcher and Willcox.

Someone please clue me in how Rock Point, with 115 students, is being classified as D5, while Chandler Prep, with almost three times that number, is still D6? Yeah, I don’t see Rock Point moving up.

North Pointe Prep has not announced they are reinstating their program, and they probably will not unless they are allowed to move to D5.

Shonto Prep is a Freelance program, so they are a non-issue.

However, the Yuma schools are holding the key to massive appeals and realignment changes. Yuma will again appeal up to make travel times easiest for themselves. HOWEVER… will they go up to D1 or D2? That depends on what Gila Ridge does – they are competitive in D2, so do they stay or go up to D1? Cibola has been competitive in D1 recently, so they won’t be able to move down. San Luis has the option of claiming “competitiveness” to move down to D2, and Kofa is already aligned into D2, but do they want to stay or move up to D1? If Kofa decides to not appeal its divisional placing, then we’re looking at D2 Section 1 containing Gila Ridge, Kofa, Yuma, and San Luis (who will appeal DOWN based on competitiveness factor and travel times). If this is the case, look for Camelback to be moved to D2 S3, South Mountain to move to D2 S3, and general mayhem in D2.

Speaking of competitiveness, I went through the last three years of data to see which teams SHOULD move down – outside of the Yuma schools – based on that key idea. Here’s my list. This list is based on the proposed divisional alignment for 2013-2015:

Carl Hayden (D1 -> D2)
Dobson (D1 -> D2)
Westwood (D1 -> D2)
La Joya (D2 -> D3)
South Mountain (D2 -> D3)
McClintock (D2 -> D3)
Desert View (D2 -> D3)
Cortez (D3 -> D4)
Apache Junction (D3 -> D4)
Sedona Red Rock (D4 -> D5) (see above)
Tanque Verde (D4 -> D5) (ditto)
Rock Point (D5 -> D6) (ditto again)

Look, despite what Texas A&M officials want to do (to Texas, which is stick it where the sun don’t shine), the reality is that Aggie Nation is not changing addresses to the SEC.

Why? Simple, really. 1) No financial incentive for the SEC. The SEC is getting megabucks and megapress from its current status. Adding Texas A&M, while gaining viewers from Texas, really doesn’t increase the standing of the SEC as a whole, and the SEC’s TV deal with ESPN and CBS currently in place doesn’t expire until 2024. When it comes to revenue sharing, adding A&M will end up being akin to too many hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. The increased scheduling nightmare for the members of the SEC West Division would have to be overcome as well. 2) No 14th team. The SEC is really adamant about keeping the divisions equal, and that means there would have to be a 14th team added. And it can’t just be ANY 14th team, the SEC would want a major player or a major market. Florida State? Nope – Florida won’t stand for it. Georgia Tech? Ditto. North Carolina? No way are they leaving the ACC and their Tobacco Road rivalry. No, the real answers would have to be either Virginia Tech or… Florida International (which is in Miami). And yet, neither of those schools are leaving their respective conferences anyway, so it’s a moot point.

No, Texas A&M is not jumping ship this season. But the Big 12 has reason to worry. Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have to be seriously thinking about that Pac-12 offer they rejected now.

From time to time I will make public statements in opposition to the use of Power Points by the AIA as a method of determining playoff teams and seeding.

I have, in years past, posted several summaries of previous seasons’ rankings, complete with analysis and suggestions for improvement. However, it occurred to me last season to take a different approach.

A very intelligent reader to the 24-7Football.com message boards (“sprinkler”) posted the following:

You must have Human intervention with brains that are capable of understanding that regardless of what powerpoints say–team a is better than team b by a longshot. I can give you example after example since the inception
of powerpoints where teams have gotten the shaft and undeserving teams have received a much higher seed and sometimes even a playoff spot when on the field or court it was completely undeserved.

Last season I did an analysis of all 50 states’ high school athletic associations to see how they determine football playoffs. Only three states were inconclusive in their stated methods (Florida, Texas, and Hawaii) for playoff determination. Of the remaining 47, only 16 use powerpoints, and of those 16, only THREE reside West of the Mississippi River (Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota). All the others rely on qualification (top 2/3/4 finishers in a division or conference) or selection (committee selection) methods, or some combination of both.

This analysis suggests that the idea of powerpoints is both A) an East Coast idea, and B) behind the times. The Deep South is known for its football, and only Louisiana uses powerpoints – Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, etc. all use qualification or selection. California, a mecca of high school football, uses a committee selection method.

It would behoove the AIA to at least consider creating a committee with the sole task to determine playoff qualifiers outside of automatic sectional winners and seeding for playoff brackets.

I just realized I never posted the final alignment for the AIA on football.

Pretty much my previous post had most everything but a few changes:

Yuma appealed up to D1 Section 1
Sabino and Palo Verde both appealed up to D3 S1
North Pointe Prep (D4 S3) canceled their football program.
PDSD and Rancho Solano Prep were placed in D6 S3.

Pima and Veritas Prep are not listed and are possibly freelance programs this bloc.

I don’t USUALLY do political stuff here, but I read a comment on a thread at azcentral.com that was just so blatently stupid that I had to say something.

The thread started from this article: Feds remind districts that all kids entitled to public education.

One smartass (charlespride) commented:

The U.S. Department of Education is reminding school districts that all students — legal or not — are entitled to a public education. …………….Oh really? Please show me in the U.S. Constitution where it says that. I’m waiting………………………………………..I’m waiting…………………………………….I’m waiting……

To which prompted the following:

(SilverKnight):

To charlespride: check out the 14th amendment. Read the first paragraph VERY carefully. Especially the last 14 words.

(azlefty):

Charlespride: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S.202 (1982)

(johnstone39):

The 14th amend of the Constitution has no education law within it. Also, it specifically states that those under US jurisdiction are covered, but illegal immigrants are not under US jurisdiction, they are under the jurisdiction of their own country. The federal government is clearly violating it’s own laws seeing that first and foremost, it is illegal to be in the US by not being properly admitted to this country.

Now, my issue is that johnstone39 must not have read the 14th amendment closely, like SilverKnight suggested. The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The first paragraph SilverKnight referred to is Section 1, and the last 14 words are: “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Why is this important?

Citizenship is currently a hot-button issue in this country. Most of the Republican or conservation-leaning people I know tend to view Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to say mean “jurisdiction” is “subject to governance”. In other words, illegal immigrants are not covered under the 14th Amendment because they are not subject to US governance but rather the governance of their home country. Obviously the US Supreme Court has taken a different view again and again – “jurisdiction” being defined in this case by the US Supremes as the physical location/boundary. But in any case, johnstone39 missed the key words in the last part of Section 1… “any” and “within”. It does not say that “[no State can] deny to only US citizens subject to its governance the equal protection of the laws,” it says that no state can do that to ANY person WITHIN its jurisdiction. In other words, if you are standing on US soil, this applies to you.

(I guess that interpretation might make me seem liberal, but I tend to be more independent than either conservation or liberal anyway, so labels don’t fit me.)