— By Greg Webb
The biennial exercise of trying to read the minds of the powers-that-be in Austin, i.e., the University Interscholastic League (UIL) decision makers, is about to end — tomorrow morning, in fact.
The UIL purports a logical approach toward establishment of the district groupings, and while few would envy the task, there are invariably a good number of detractors every couple of years who firmly believe the UIL crystal ball is on the fritz.
But that is usually the exception rather than the rule. More often than not, the basic clustering of teams to establish a district makes sense, with the UIL’s intention of making districts geographically friendly being accomplished in varying degrees. Though sometimes there are the “sore-thumb” stick-outs who may be left wondering what just what the heck the UIL was thinking.
The UIL provided a “teaser” back in December when its released the classification enrollment boundaries, further enhanced by the new class monikers (1A to 2A, 2A to 3A, etc.), which was really little enhancement at all, other than the normal high-low enrollment adjustments to provide equality to the school count in each class.
Still, yet another classification (4A) was “divisioned” up front (bearing in mind this is mostly for football district purposes, though basketball is also effected) and districts will be established within each division. That also provides another geographical challenge to the district pickers, potentially providing fewer candidates in remote areas.
Redistricting for sports other than football and basketball will be subsequently released in the order of the season’s start.
Local curiosities abound for local schools.
Aledo, thirsting for district competition last year so its starters could play more than a half season’s worth of football, would love to see a more competitive 5A district without having to front-load competition through its non-district schedule.