The Classification, League Organization and Appeals Committee will meet later this week to help solidify league and classification alignment for the 2022-24 two-year cycle.

Among topics on the agenda are:

• The approval of new schools
• Consideration of the esports pilot program
• The addition of 6A in basketball and football
• New leagues and schools changing leagues
• School-specific appeals of their classification placement

The meeting, which will be held virtually, is Thursday and Friday. It will be streamed live on YouTube.

The full agenda is below.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://old.chsaanow.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/cloc-agenda-2021.pdf”]

(Kai Casey/CHSAANow.com)

School enrollment figures and the enrollment number cutoffs were used to help place teams into different classifications for the 2020-22 two-year cycle.

Note that this information is only part of the criteria for classifying programs. Full criteria is available in bylaw 1500.21. Find the CHSAA bylaws here.

Find each database here:

• School enrollment numbers
• Enrollment number cutoffs for sports & activities

These databases are always available on our Enrollment page, which also includes historical information.

(Dustin Price/DustinPricePhotography.com)

The CHSAA Board of Directors has approved football alignment for the next two-year cycle.

This alignment has been worked on by members of the football committee for more than a year now, and the representatives on that committee have sought and incorporated feedback from member schools throughout it. The final step in the process was the Board meeting this week, which included the potential for schools to appeal their proposed alignment.

The following criteria was used to create the alignment in all classifications:

• Enrollment numbers
• Competitive balance within each conference
• Geography
• Risk minimization
• Success/non-success
• School participation percentage
• Regular season/postseason implications

[divider]

(Daniel Deschane/CHSAANow.com)

AURORA — Fair play and equitable opportunities for all programs was the focus of a number of bylaws passed by the Legislative Council during their meetings in 2018.

At the center of those changes was an overhaul of the way classifications will be created and structured. This will allow CHSAA staff, committees and the membership to consider other factors outside of enrollment when creating classes.

Under the new classification structure, teams will be placed into classifications based upon a variety of factors, including things like competitive history, socioeconomic disadvantages, enrollments trends, demographics, geography, and safety and risk minimization. (See bylaw 1500 for a complete breakdown.)

In moving forward with the reorganization of classification structure, the programs that were approved to play down a classification, and those that were placed down by the Classification and League Organizing Committee, will have full opportunities to participate in postseason play.

“Multiple interpretations and past precedent allowed placed-down programs to advance to postseason play,” said CHSAA commissioner Rhonda Blanford-Green. “It makes common sense based on the revisions and similar criteria that programs that are playing down would be given the same opportunities.”

For the past three seasons, teams playing down a classification after meeting certain criteria — including a winning percentage below .250 for the previous four seasons — were ineligible to play in the postseason. That bylaw was passed in January 2015.

However, other schools which went through CLOC to apply for a reclassification of their programs — in other words, to be placed down a classification — had been able to maintain postseason eligibility.

Among the changes at April’s Legislative Council meeting was the deletion of the language in bylaw 1500.27 which made teams playing down a classification ineligible for the postseason.

(Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

AURORA — CHSAA’s Legislative Council took a stab at addressing a growing concern in high school sports in this state — competitive equity — when it changed the philosophy and approach to the way classifications will be created in the future.

Enrollment will continue to be a major factor in the process, but other factors may now be considered when splitting schools into classes for all sports. Included: socio-economics, demographics, safety concerns, competitive success or non-success, geography, enrollment trend, participation rate, and an entry or selection process to school.

The proposal was the brainchild of a 21-person handbook committee with representatives from across the state, which set out to examine and modernize CHSAA’s bylaws.

“The changes around CLOC speak to safety, competitive equity, more clarification and parity, as well,” said CHSAA commissioner Rhonda Blanford-Green. “It’s just an elimination of non-relevant procedures that would hamstring the committee’s ability to do what’s right for kids.”

The bylaw, 1500.21, was already partially in place, but the Classification and League Organizing Committee (CLOC) was handcuffed by a line which only allowed them to considered some of the above factors for schools in the upper or lower 10 percent of a given classification. Now, that specific criteria is gone, opening up that bylaw to apply to all programs.

Randy Holmen. (Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

“This started in November when we went through our committee and our bylaws, and they just weren’t right,” said Randy Holmen, the chair of the CLOC committee, who advocated for the passage of the proposal. “I mentioned at our January meeting that we had to do some things for the good of the organization. I think we’ve accomplished that in a sense. Nothing’s perfect, and this is going to be a document, I think, that’s going to be ever-changing.

“I encourage you to look at this with an open mind, and let it evolve, let it go where it takes you,” Holmen added. “That’s what we need to do, and not become stagnant.”

The new philosophy doesn’t necessarily mean classifications will see wholesale changes across the board.

“The revisions aren’t drastic,” said Blanford-Green. “What was voted on today helped clarify the roles of each section that’s involved in the classification reorganizing.”

This was a process utilized by the football committee in creating classifications in January for the 2018 and 2019 seasons — the sport had been singled out and allowed to utilize the factors in 1500.21.

Even still, Mike Krueger, the chair of the football committee, said his group felt “handcuffed” in what they could do under the existing bylaws. He, too, advocated for the passage of the proposal.

“I’d like to suggest that for over a decade, especially for the past five or six years, we’ve been talking about the need to address the classification system, especially in terms of competitive,” Krueger said.

“We may not have the perfect bylaw in place that will fix it, but I challenge you to say, please don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” Krueger said. “This is a step in the right direction for kids and for programs. It is a chance for us to balance and do not only what’s right, but what’s safe for our kids and our programs.”

The creation of classifications will now be officially overseen by the assistant commissioner in charge of that sport. It was a practice that had largely already been in place, with assistant commissioners creating recommendations for CLOC to consider.

“The commissioners, they set a lot of this stuff up prior to us even getting the numbers of the CLOC committee,” Holmen said. “I think that’s something a lot of people didn’t even know. It wasn’t something that we dreamed up.”

With these changes made, the Legislative Council later voted to pass a proposal which morphs CLOC into an appeals committee, where they will hear cases from schools wishing to change their initial classification placement.

This entire process will now begin in December of even numbered years at the beginning of a two-year cycle, with final enrollment numbers due in January of odd numbered years. The CLOC will meet a month later, and classifications will be approved by the Legislative Council in April.

(Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

AURORA — The Classification and League Organizing Committee met Tuesday, and chief among their decisions was setting enrollment splits for the 2018-20 two-year cycle.

Those enrollment cutoffs are listed below, save for football, which has its classifications set by the football committee. Those splits will be posted within the next 10 days. This information is also available on this page.

A breakdown of each school’s reported Oct. 2017 enrollment, which is used to place programs into classifications, is available here.

[divider]

Enrollment cutoffs

[divider]

Re-classification of schools

Three schools asked to reclassify according to bylaw 1500.21, which allows schools to move down a class if they meet a number of factors, such as socio-economics, geography, competitive history and enrollment trend.

• Greeley Central was approved to reclassify. This means their team sports will compete in 4A, and representatives of the school said it was their intention to play up to 4A in sports, such as wrestling, where the reclassification would put them in 3A.
• Montezuma-Cortez’s reclassification from 4A to 3A was also approved. Likewise, school reps said they would commit to playing up to 3A in any sports where the reclassification would put them in 2A.
• Skyline’s reclassification from 5A to 4A was approved.

[divider]

Program playdowns

The following schools had their program playdown requests approved. These programs will not be eligible to compete in the postseason, per bylaw 1500.27.

• Arvada football from 3A to 2A.
• Boulder softball from 5A to 4A.
• Calhan football from 1A to 8-man.
• Cripple-Creek Victor from 8-man to 6-man.
• Dolores Huerta from 1A to 8-man.
• Jefferson from 2A to 1A.
• Loveland boys and girls soccer from 5A to 4A.
• Mead boys soccer from 4A to 3A.
• Pinnacle football from 2A to 1A.
• Rangeview boys lacrosse from 5A to 4A.

[divider]

New schools approved as members

The committee approved seven new schools for initial probationary membership into CHSAA. They are:

• Denver School of Science & Tech – Byers, which is in Denver’s Wash Park neighborhood.
• KIPP Northeast, located in northeast Denver.
• Loveland Classical School, in Loveland.
• Riverdale Ridge, in Brighton.
• Strive Prep Rise, in northeast Denver.
• Strive Prep Smart, in southwest Denver.
• Thomas MacLaren, in Colorado Springs.

KIPP Northeast and Strive Prep Rise are housed in the same building and are planning to co-op, so they will play 4A. DSST-Byers, Riverdale Ridge and Strive Prep Smart will likely be 3A. Loveland Classical and Thomas MacLaren will likely be 2A,

Riverdale Ridge will most likely play 2A football, as well.

Another school, Windsor Charter, was not accepted because the CLOC members felt the school was not yet ready to become a member for a variety of reasons.

With these new schools, CHSAA will have 361 member schools in 2018-19.

[divider]

Stargate School granted full membership

One new school has joined CHSAA as a full member, moving off probationary status: Stargate School, which is located in Thornton.

Three others up for review for full membership were left on probationary status:

• DSST-College View was left on because it has had multiple CHSAA violations dealing with eligibility.
• Golden View Classical Academy and Victory Prep Academy were both left on probationary status because no one from the school attended the CLOC meeting.

Mike Schmidt. (Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

LONE TREE — A broad effort to examine CHSAA’s current classification system is underway.

A subcommittee of the Classification and League Organizing Committee (CLOC) has met twice so far after being tasked last November to look at how schools and teams are divided into divisions of competition.

On Tuesday, Mike Schmidt, the principal at Platte Canyon who is in charge of the classification subcommittee, updated their progress at the All-School Summit. CHSAA’s current classification system has remain unchanged since 1933 — schools have been classified solely by enrollment for more than 80 years.

“We’re just trying to figure out: is there a better way to classify teams and sports, and are there changes we could recommend for your consideration in the future?” Schmidt said.

He opened by stressing that the classification committee was merely making recommendations to CLOC, that that any potential changes made wouldn’t be implemented until the 2020-22 cycle at the earliest, and that they could even recommend not changing anything.

“We’re not making any decisions,” Schmidt said. “We’re just looking at the information, we’re trying to do some of the leg work for you, and make some recommendations. Then it’s up to you to decide whether or not that’s going to be in the best interest of our student-athletes, because that’s why we’re here.”

The classification committee met for the first time in January, then again during the state wrestling tournament in February.

At the January meeting, they talked about their goal — and landed “on the idea of at least exploring other options,” Schmidt said. So they created a survey of all member schools to figure out what factors were most important in creating classifications.

They also talked about potential additions or alternatives to the current enrollment-based classification system, such as a competitive balance component, and just the basic concept of increasing participation through this process.

In February, the classification committee examined the results of their survey.

“Enrollment, by far and away, was the most important factor you identified,” Schmidt said. “We know, if nothing else, that is going to be part of some system down the line, most likely. But there were certainly other factors that were significant.”

Factors such as students from outside a school’s district participating in their programs; percentage of students participation in activities; admissions processes; or on-field success.

That last factor, on-field success, Schmidt said, “raises a lot of interesting questions.”

But some of these concepts are already in place in varying stages around the nation, and so the classification committee will continue to research what other state associations are doing.

“Do we want to reinvent the wheel?” Schmidt asked. “We’ve got 50 other associations out there who are doing the same thing and looking at the same issues. There are most likely systems out there that would interest us and apply to our geographically-varied and diverse state.”

“Once we’ve got some of that information,” he added, “we’ll see if that’s something we would want to adopt, or look at doing our own thing.

The classification committee is due to meet again this fall.

(Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

AURORA — The structure that determines CHSAA classification is getting an in-depth look.

During an initial meeting of the reclassification subcommittee on Tuesday at the CHSAA office, a decision was reached to explore new ways of classifying schools.

Since classifications were first implemented in 1933, the main determining factor for splitting schools has been enrollment. But the subcommittee, a 13-member offshoot of the Classification and League Organizing Committee which is tasked with looked at the current alignment system, reached a consensus that enrollment alone isn’t enough to determine classifications.

“I’m hearing from everybody (on the subcommittee) is that the straight enrollment number may not work,” said subcommittee chair Mike Schmidt, the principal and football coach at Platte Canyon. “Can we build a better system that has fewer anomalies, and is fairer?”

Said subcommittee member Larry Bull, the district athletic director at Cherry Creek Schools: “I don’t believe it’s a true reflection — that number — of schools.”

So the group will explore models used by other states which classify based upon criteria that either builds upon the enrollment numbers, or use another system entirely. Other systems, such as one where schools apply for a classification, could also be explored.

“This is just the first step,” said Schmidt, adding that the classification system may not even have to change after looking at other options. “I just want to see, ‘What would it look like?'”

Additionally, a survey of member schools will be conducted to explore factors that should be considered when classifying schools.

A big topic of conversation within the subcommittee on Tuesday was whether or not any change should apply to all classes, big and small, and all regions, metro and rural.

“We’re at the point where one size doesn’t fit all anymore,” said Randy Holmen, the superintendent at Geno-Hugo School District.

Ultimately, the group has a big eye on competitive balance, and ensuring that high school athletics continue to grow.

“I see the charge of this group as saving programs for kids,” said Doherty athletic director Chris Noll.

A little while later, CHSAA commissioner Paul Angelico added, “What we’re trying to do is to encourage as many kids as possible to participate in high school athletics. … What can we do to help schools provide programs that will entice as many kids as possible to be involved?”

But, the tone of the meeting was ultimately careful, measured and tempered. It was clear that the subcommittee wants to take its time exploring what next step would be best, rather than jump into a change just to change. Any potential change wouldn’t take effect until the 2020-21 school year.

“One thing we need to keep in mind as we’re looking at restructuring is we don’t water down what it means to be a state champion,” said Rick Macias, the district athletic director at Pueblo City Schools.

“We have to be careful, because we’re not going to fix it all. It’s impossible to fix it all,” added Jim Thyfault, the district athletic director of Jeffco Public Schools. “Schools differ gender to gender, and sport to sport. So how are you going to fix that? You’re not going to fix it entirely.”

The subcommittee will next meet in February, and then again in June.

(Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

AURORA — A new subcommittee will look at the way Colorado high school sports are broken into classifications.

During its meeting at the CHSAA office on Tuesday, the Classification and League Organization Committee unanimously voted to create a subcommittee that will explore how the current classification system is working, and if any changes should be made to it.

The group also met on Monday evening, when the topic was first discussed.

“I think it’s an important decision, because it could change basically the face of what high school athletics are in Colorado,” CLOC chair Randy Holmen, the superintendent of Genoa-Hugo School District, said during the meeting.

Any changes the subcommittee were to implement would come with the 2020-22 two-year cycle.

Currently, CHSAA’s entire classification structure is based off of enrollment, and has been since they were first implemented in 1933. (The Association, founded in 1921, didn’t have separate classifications for any sports until football split into Class A and Class B at that time. No other sport used classifications until boys basketball did so in 1938.) So any shift away from an enrollment-only system would be a major event.

Starting with the 2016-18 cycle, CLOC tried to balance an equal number of teams into each classification. That was the first change to the structure, though enrollment remains the determining factor of where teams land.

Among possible changes to classification could be a move to a system that considers success (or lack thereof) in addition to enrollment. CLOC was briefed on a similar system used by California on Monday.

“Are there other things we can look at to do what’s best for kids in a way that’s competitively equitable?” asked CLOC member Larry Bull, the district athletic director of Cherry Creek Schools.

This could include highly successful teams moving up in classification, and teams that have struggled moving down. Historical data could be used in making that decision.

“We’ve classified by numbers alone for so long that it’s hard to think of a different paradigm,” said CLOC member Chris Cline, the athletic director at Northridge. “I think it’s time for a committee to take a look at something beyond just enrollment.”

The subcommittee could also explore adding another classification.

“The conversation needs to be sport-specific,” Bull said.

Holmen agreed, saying, “Individual sport committees need to start talking about this.”

Many of those committees will start meeting as soon as next week.

Ultimately, “This is about starting a conversation about growth, about what it looks like competitively,” Bull added.

The subcommittee will likely be put together in the near future, and then have an initial meeting in January 2017, according to CHSAA commissioner Paul Angelico.

“It’s wide open,” Angelico said of the new subcommittee. “They could do anything from simply adding a class, to using California as a model, to having to apply for your classification, to changing nothing.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Opinions in this Mailbag do not reflect an official viewpoint of CHSAA.

In this installment of the CHSAANow.com Mailbag, we tackle the questions about the classification system, moving softball to the spring, recruiting officials, and (of course) RPI.

To ask a question for the next Mailbag, use this form, or ask on Twitter: Tweet to @jryancasey

[divider]

The CLOC committee is involved in creating the classification system. (Dan Mohrmann/CHSAANow.com)

I am interested in understanding how the classification process works. It does not seem to me to be strictly an enrollment issue. How can a school participate in one class for one sport and another class for a different sport?

— Tom

The classification system, to me, is one of the biggest issues CHSAA is facing right now.

First, here’s a direct answer to your question: Right now, the classes are set by-and-large by enrollment, with a very small amount of teams playing up (by choice) or down (due to lack of success) a class.

Schools can have different teams in different classes because of that reason, but also because sports have a differing number of classes. For example, football has seven classes, but boys soccer has three. The enrollment cutoffs are different for those sports. (Note that this isn’t always true, as basketball, which has five classes, has the same cutoffs as soccer.)

With the move to equally balancing teams in classes, individual sports vary even more.

I hold a firm belief that enrollment alone does not give enough of a picture to determine classes. I think there should be some weight given to success, or lack thereof, which would probably do a better job at placing programs in a classification.

For example, a program that has won six-straight tennis championships in 4A probably ought to move up to 5A. A football team that has gone 0-10 for three straight years in 3A is probably better suited playing 2A.

Those are, obviously, extreme examples. I think this type of success-based addition to the classification system should be more nuanced, taking into account things like regular season wins, playoff appearances, and the levels of postseason reached.

Of course, this may have the side effect of placing more programs of the same school into different classifications. However, I really think that’s OK.

Recently, a small step was taken in this direction: The CHSAA staff visited with members of the California Interscholastic Federation, and received a briefing on their classification system. That system does take success (or lack of it) into account, tackling competitive equity.

Here’s an example from what the CIF released this past June.

So, stay tuned.

[divider]

(Renee Bourcier/CHSAANow.com)

Any discussion of moving softball to spring season like many other states and college? Does CHSAA realize the number of female athletes that compete in both softball and volleyball and are forced to choose one sport in high school?

Volleyball is clearly a fall sport and softball is clearly a spring sport in college which makes since for alignment.

— Dustin, Aurora

Yes, actually. I was surprised to learn this.

A survey was created about this topic by Kit Carson School District superintendent Robert Framel, and it went out to all schools. His survey indicated the following:

• Most of the 5A, 4A and 3A schools were not in favor of a move to the spring. In 5A and 4A, just 15 percent of schools were in favor of the move, while 39.4 percent of 3A schools were in favor of a move.
• Results were slightly more mixed from 1A and 2A (though there is no softball at that level; any schools parcipating here play 3A). In 2A, nine of the 23 surveyed responded that they did want a move, while nine of the 17 surveyed in 1A indicated the same.

Because of these survey results, it is my understanding that the softball committee will hear a proposal to create a 2A softball season in the spring when that committee meets on Nov. 17. That would leave 5A, 4A and 3A playing in the fall.

This is just my opinion, but I believe that would be a bad move. We should not be splitting the same sport into different seasons.

Additionally, a move to a spring season would create other concerns, such as a lack of umpires, the pool of which crosses over from both high school baseball and from college softball (both played in the spring). Also, indications are that it would be very difficult to secure Aurora Sports Park in the spring. So the state tournaments would have to find a similar facility elsewhere.

As far as athletes having to choose one sport over another, that would happen even in the spring with girls sports like track, lacrosse, and soccer.

[divider]

(Michael Hankins/TGWstudios.com)

With Paul Angelico and Tom Robinson retiring at the end of the school year, will there be an emphasis on the new regime to recruit newer and better officials for all sports?

Specifically, at the football level, there is a major shortage of officials and a big reason for that is Colorado ranks third-to-last in the country in terms of what officials are paid — and it’s likely like that across all sports.

Isn’t it time for CHSAA — and its member schools and districts — to get serious about getting better officials, and that would require a financial commitment that has been lagging for decades?

— C.J. T., Denver

There have been strides made in this area, as recently as this season, and it is now being looked at every two-year cycle. I believe many schools are starting to take action on this.

I asked Tom Robinson, our officials liaison, about this:

“We might be third in pay, but I’m certain we’re also near the bottom in terms of educational funds, as well,” he said. “So there’s a correlation.”

Still, Robinson acknowledged that this was an issue, and that he was working on it.

“I think that’s a problem,” he said, “but I also think there are other factors. Things like fan abuse and career changes are equally in the mix.

“There’s been a change in the paradigm recently, where we’re no longer strictly getting our officials from the educational world,” Robinson continued. “We’re now getting people from all walks of life.”

As you mention, he is retiring, and we are going to miss him in that office. But I think he wants to have a structure in place to recruit officials before he leaves.

For example, he mentioned an “Each One, Teach One” program where every current official becomes a mentor and helps recruit another official.

Here’s another idea: We’ve got thousands of great “refs” in the stands at games. Why not recruit them?

[divider]

I enjoyed reading your proposed changes to the RPI article. I myself have struggled with your own winning percentage holding as much weight as your OOWP and both far behind OWP.

Will basketball consider switching the formula in time for this season?

— Zach, Swink

Thank you, I appreciate that, and thank you for reading.

I honestly do not know if basketball can switch before the winter season, but I will say this: it’s probably best to not get your hopes up.

But also remember that basketball has 19-23 games, so that will help. Again, the problem in football is by-and-large being caused by the relatively small amount of games.

The spring season may be more realistic.

[divider]

(Morgan Dzak/CHSAANow.com)

When Silver Creek and Longmont played last week in football, Silver Creek won and stayed fourth in RPI yet Longmont lost and moved up to fifth in RPI.

How is this possible, and why does it seem that RPI rewards teams for losing to great teams? Doesn’t that seem a bit counter-intuitive?

— Jamal, Longmont

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about RPI: It is not a game-to-game rating system, like a coaches poll. It rates teams based on their entire season.

So what likely happened in this instance is that Silver Creek already had a solid strength-of-schedule rating, and it was relatively unchanged by the fact that the Raptors played Longmont. In Longmont’s case, it appears to have helped the Trojans’ SOS, and they moved up as a result.

Now to your second point, we’ve gotten some feedback from our schools (and I agree) that the OWP column is weighted too much, especially for a sport like football, with only 10 games. I believe that will be addressed prior to next season.

[divider]

(Kevin Keyser/KeyserImages.com)

Will the RPI be used in women’s hoops and will it be used to seed the teams for the state playoffs? If not, is only being used to select the overall field of playoff teams?

— Kevin, Greenwood Village

Hot off the digital press! It’s our basketball bulletin. See pages 24-30 for qualifying formats.

This answer applies to both girls and boys basketball: Each class has a slightly different way of approaching this, but the RPI will be the primary factor in seeding in all classes, adjusting to accommodate geography and avoid first-round matchups where possible.

There are exceptions, like 3A, where seeds 1-7 will be district champions.

[divider]

(Ryan Casey/CHSAANow.com)

Is there a reason why CHSAA does not announce where the girls golf regional and state tournaments will be played at the beginning of the school year?

— Hank P., Golden

They typically are announced at that time, but not always.

I think, more than any other sport, golf’s state tournament sites are unique because it is so difficult to find a host course, as well as a school willing to serve as a host.

There are other factors to consider, like how the sites rotate on a geographic basis most of the time, so that can make it even more difficult to secure a course.

As a result, the announcement of sites can at times take longer than other sports.

[divider]

So rugby is getting bigger and better in Colorado, has there been any mention to add boys and girls rugby league and rugby union to high school programs?

The game is becoming much popular and athletes from other sports are participating making the game much more competitive.

— Elie T., Aurora

This is something we tackled in a previous Mailbag, but, no there has not been much movement. See this link for more on where it stands.