A mock classification per what Mr. Mathews could be undertaken, though the following are some of the questions that would need to be answered:

1. Should the dividing line between larger and smaller schools be the average (median or mean) of school sizes in each league or the average statewide? A statewide ranking would have almost all of the OIA “traditional” schools in DI–there would be some exceptions but not many. Does having almost all the OIA in division I make sense? I’d create a hybrid that is largely, but not purely, population based.

2. Can Kauai have one D1 team and two D2 teams (which would give KIF two spots, one in each division, in state tournaments)? This is sort of the other side of the coin to the OIA question. My thought is that the league be all D2.

3. How many years of enrollment should be used? Should we average the last two years, three years, four years? Or just use the most recent year? If re-classification happens every three years (as an example), then I would average the last three years.

4. There are many small ILH schools that play independently in some sports and as part of Pac-Five in other sports. In what classification does a Pac-Five team (Pac-Three still exists on Maui, too, I believe) play and how is it determined? How many sports does a school have to participate in, independently, before it is listed in the statewide enrollment rankings? There ought to be a minimum, or really small schools at the “tail end” of the size distribution will dominate Division II while not fielding teams in many sports. Meanwhile, the disparity in size between Division I schools will likely get larger and larger, I don’t know what that number would be, but there ought to be some number. Any school with fewer than the required number of teams would not be listed in the state enrollment rankings for computing Division I and Division II; these schools would automatically be Division II.

Where would one get the basic data–does anyone know?

Yes, both play like D-I programs — because both are.

At least if you accept the flawed basis for determining D-I and D-II teams (and not SCHOOLS) in our not so fair Islands. Your assumption that D-II teams are children of a lesser god is flat wrong — from the common sense end of the spectrum to the morality end of the spectrum.

In fact, why can’t a D-II team be better than any other team in the state? As long as the HHSAA pushes losing teams towards D-II and elevates winning teams to D-I, Hawaii’s high school athletic reputation will soon become a joke nationwide. (I was trying to explain it to a high school coach in Texas this past weekend, and all he could say was, “That’s stupid!”

And if anyone can tell me which teams at which schools are D-I or D-II in which sports, and which teams have been D-I or D-II at which schools in which sports the past, say, three years, then I’ll stop my “whining.” And I’ll give you until Friday morning to do it. Good luck.

Seeing Campbell, with its enrollment, as a D-II boys volleyyball school makes no sense.

Under this system, though, Kauai and St Anthony’s would have options for next season (again, for a two year commitment): would they prefer to go the giant-killer route or compete against schools with similar resources?