Just to correct one thing - the alignment committee didn't make those changes. Schools and regions were allowed to develop their own plans and submit them. Many regions, because of economics chose to be in larger groups for travel purposes and understood they would be at a disadvantage for state playoff births. In 1A the plan was almost unanimously approved by their regions before being approved by the alignment committee. If you want to argue against the plan take your arguments to the proper place - the schools and regions. In football, every region will get one representative to the state playoffs.
Thanks dringtuoti for your valued input, I always respect your posts.
If what you are saying is true, what a shame that the East region teams have been placed at such a competitive disadvantage ( to be clear, I'm talking about the odds making the region and state playoffs). Do people not comprehend how hard teams work to achieve their goals? (and yes, I understand the economic argument. However, teams in the East already routinely make 3 to 8 hour round trips like Arcadia etc.)
Let me illustrate my concern- Take a look at the Eastern half breakdown:
The East Region has 17 schools (10 to 12 programs are consistently strong in many sports).
The Mid East Region has 10 schools (3 to 5 programs are consistently strong in most sports).
Only TWO teams from each region will make the state tournament!
The Far East will be a major challenge to be in the top 4 schools in almost all sports all school year.
As for the Mid-East, Hmmm....I am going to go ahead and easily predict that from the Mid-East region Altavista and Riverheads will go to States in almost every sport every year with little competition in most events.
You don't need a crystal ball for that one....