UIL 6A Area B 2023

[BandMom2026]

12 minutes ago, pancake said:

what about Allen, they have the the largest band program in the nation but does not usually face competitive success. sure, having more kids would be very helpful, but it’s hard to make the assumption that bowie and gp would automatically place higher with more kids. i love bands like rouse and argyle as they are so amazing and manage to be amazing with a small number of kids, especially when competing with giant bands like round rock, vandegrift, and vista.

I don't understand how you don't see that it's harder for smaller bands to compete against larger bands.  That's why we have schools categorized with 1A, 2A, 3A etc in the first place.  In theory a 6A school should have a large band while a 1A school should have a smaller band, so they wouldn't compete against each other.  

[Asaiah]

I don't think anyone is going to argue that even the best 1A band has any chance of competing against even the worst 6A band, just that size isn't the only factor when it comes to why any band is successful. Skill, ability, technique -- whatever you wanna call it, these are things that separate the good from the great.

With that being said, it would be interesting to see how things would change if classifications were decided by band program enrollment instead of school enrollment, like you were saying. But I think implementing a Division 1/Division 2 system would be lame, because then no one will know who the best band in Texas is. I don't know why the football world tolerates that system, unless they have the two division champions play each other to decide who the best is? (In case it isn't obvious, I don't follow high school football at all)

Edit: I just looked it up and Division 1 is for larger schools, so football essentially has 12 classifications instead of 6.

[Zil]

I think competing by program sizes can have unintended consequences. Wouldn't that open the door to "gaming the system"? Say a director doesn't want to compete in 6A so he limits the program size to 5A or 3A. And that would limit the number of students that can participate in the program which I'm sure is not something that any of us would want. 

I think it takes time and effort, from one class to the next and to the next and so on, to build a strong and successful band program. I remember someone here posting something similar (can't remember who it was or when it was posted). Someone posted a story about how they didn't compete well in the past but they have seen the growth in their school's program since then (and they're still trying to grow up). And it's not just the students and directors, it's everyone, including the parents and the community.

[BandMom2026]

48 minutes ago, Zil said:

I think competing by program sizes can have unintended consequences. Wouldn't that open the door to "gaming the system"? Say a director doesn't want to compete in 6A so he limits the program size to 5A or 3A. And that would limit the number of students that can participate in the program which I'm sure is not something that any of us would want. 

I think it takes time and effort, from one class to the next and to the next and so on, to build a strong and successful band program. I remember someone here posting something similar (can't remember who it was or when it was posted). Someone posted a story about how they didn't compete well in the past but they have seen the growth in their school's program since then (and they're still trying to grow up). And it's not just the students and directors, it's everyone, including the parents and the community.

It could, but bands like Bowie and GP used to have very large programs, but due to the way the districts have set up the schools it is almost impossible for students to be in the band program at Bowie now.  They've got some sort of collegiate thing going on over there which doesn't give them time in their schedules to be in fine arts.  I think any director that would purposely limit the number of students in a band program shouldn't be a high school band director though.  

[BandMom2026]

51 minutes ago, Zil said:

I think competing by program sizes can have unintended consequences. Wouldn't that open the door to "gaming the system"? Say a director doesn't want to compete in 6A so he limits the program size to 5A or 3A. And that would limit the number of students that can participate in the program which I'm sure is not something that any of us would want. 

I think it takes time and effort, from one class to the next and to the next and so on, to build a strong and successful band program. I remember someone here posting something similar (can't remember who it was or when it was posted). Someone posted a story about how they didn't compete well in the past but they have seen the growth in their school's program since then (and they're still trying to grow up). And it's not just the students and directors, it's everyone, including the parents and the community.

It does, but when you don't have the kids then you don't have the kids.  

[BandGuy88]

4 hours ago, Asaiah said:

If size dictates success, then how do bands like Rouse manage to be competitive with the larger bands?

I feel success in UIL (or BOA) marching is determined by mostly by these factors, in priority order:

1) Quality of show design (memorable show that highlights strengths and hides weaknesses of the group)

2) Size of band, especially brass section

3) Quality of students (musical training)

4) Quality and quantity of full time band directors on staff

 

I know there are many other factors like community support, funding, etc that affect those 4 but that's how I see it in my head. 

 

[Gehrig4]

2 hours ago, Asaiah said:

I don't think anyone is going to argue that even the best 1A band has any chance of competing against even the worst 6A band, just that size isn't the only factor when it comes to why any band is successful. Skill, ability, technique -- whatever you wanna call it, these are things that separate the good from the great.

With that being said, it would be interesting to see how things would change if classifications were decided by band program enrollment instead of school enrollment, like you were saying. But I think implementing a Division 1/Division 2 system would be lame, because then no one will know who the best band in Texas is. I don't know why the football world tolerates that system, unless they have the two division champions play each other to decide who the best is? (In case it isn't obvious, I don't follow high school football at all)

Edit: I just looked it up and Division 1 is for larger schools, so football essentially has 12 classifications instead of 6.

exactly.    if the 6a designation is 1500- google number of students , splitting that as they do in football might achieve what was being stated.  That said, I think I like it just how it is.   Band is just much more difficult to build.

You couldnt do it by enrollment in the band - a school of 3000 has access to far more musicians than does one of 500.  hat school of 500 had half th student body in band (250) and a school of 2500 had the same number. it would be (10%) of the student body.   Why would that be fair to the school of 500?   isnt it remarkable for a school to get people involved as a percentage of their enrollment?

So that same school that has a 250 person band in a school of 500 - imagine that 1A competition.   They would blow the roof off the dump.   

IMO

[BandNerd07]

Continuing the argument, I do agree with what BandMom is saying. I feel like lower end bands definitely have an unfair disadvantage due to size. I think if the bands were grouped based on program size rather than school size I think it would look something like this:

6A - basically all area finalists plus Lake Ridge, Richardson, Boswell, Martin, Weatherford, and Cedar Hill

5A - Trinity, Legacy, HP, SGP, North Crowley, FR, Nimitz, Crowley, Arlington, CT, Irving, and Paschal

4A - Desoto and MacArthur

3A - Bowie 

2A - GP

[PercMom2104]

I feel that more students increases funding/booster/parent support, which leads to improved quality due to ability to pay for choreographers, show designers, etc. It is hard to compete against the larger bands.
 

I like how NTCA categorizes percussion ensembles based on score history and similar-ability groups compete against each other. Groups can move up in categories as their scores improve. I think it levels the playing field better and makes for great competition. 

[Gehrig4]

23 minutes ago, PercMom2104 said:

I feel that more students increases funding/booster/parent support, which leads to improved quality due to ability to pay for choreographers, show designers, etc. It is hard to compete against the larger bands.
 

I like how NTCA categorizes percussion ensembles based on score history and similar-ability groups compete against each other. Groups can move up in categories as their scores improve. I think it levels the playing field better and makes for great competition. 

all this says is there is a "open class" competition and a "world class" (or state class) competition.   in the end, all were doing is focusing on the competition and not the experience.    There's only one winner.   But there's dozens of bands. if winning is the only outcome - (and not improvement, teamwork, and the experience of performing) there's hundreds of losers.    I'm not sure that's the case! 

[BandMom2026]

2 hours ago, Gehrig4 said:

all this says is there is a "open class" competition and a "world class" (or state class) competition.   in the end, all were doing is focusing on the competition and not the experience.    There's only one winner.   But there's dozens of bands. if winning is the only outcome - (and not improvement, teamwork, and the experience of performing) there's hundreds of losers.    I'm not sure that's the case! 

No one means that winning is the only outcome.  But, it is disheartening to students who work their tails off to not even be considered for a finalist position because of their band size.  If you never make it to finals, and always end up on the lower scoring side because your program is so small then kids aren't going to want to be in that program because it's not showing that it's excelling even if the only reason that they aren't qualifying is because of their size.  

[BandNerd07]

34 minutes ago, BandMom2026 said:

No one means that winning is the only outcome.  But, it is disheartening to students who work their tails off to not even be considered for a finalist position because of their band size.  If you never make it to finals, and always end up on the lower scoring side because your program is so small then kids aren't going to want to be in that program because it's not showing that it's excelling even if the only reason that they aren't qualifying is because of their size.  

I 100% agree with you on this. If bands like Mansfield, South Grand Prairie, and North Crowley were in 5A Area F, they would probably have a real chance of making finals because I know all 3 of these bands are better that finalists such as Grapevine, Saginaw, and Summit. Again, it just comes down to the size of the bands. And it's not just 6A either, there are some 5A bands with a size of a 6A band, such as Aledo, Richland, and Azle. This "issue" applies to every are IMO.

[Gehrig4]

18 hours ago, BandMom2026 said:

No one means that winning is the only outcome.  But, it is disheartening to students who work their tails off to not even be considered for a finalist position because of their band size.  If you never make it to finals, and always end up on the lower scoring side because your program is so small then kids aren't going to want to be in that program because it's not showing that it's excelling even if the only reason that they aren't qualifying is because of their size.  

We’re going to agree to disagree.   You’re essentially saying bands that build great tradition should then only compete against similar bands that haven’t.   A school scheduling against band as you say they have has made a choice.   It isn’t for the arts.  
 

schools that prioritize the arts - hire the teachers.   Allow lessons during the day.  Build the facilities.   All of it. 
just like athletics.     They hire the coaches.   Build the facilities.    Prioritize the activity.   Which then leads to interest and success. 

If you don’t want to compete against those bands - don’t.    There are lower level showcases and non judged expos that kids can march in.  
you can’t say you want to compete and then say you don’t like the game.     
enjoy the ride.   I’m sure the kids do.  

[Vidal28]

4 hours ago, Gehrig4 said:

We’re going to agree to disagree.   You’re essentially saying bands that build great tradition should then only compete against similar bands that haven’t.   A school scheduling against band as you say they have has made a choice.   It isn’t for the arts.  
 

schools that prioritize the arts - hire the teachers.   Allow lessons during the day.  Build the facilities.   All of it. 
just like athletics.     They hire the coaches.   Build the facilities.    Prioritize the activity.   Which then leads to interest and success. 

If you don’t want to compete against those bands - don’t.    There are lower level showcases and non judged expos that kids can march in.  
you can’t say you want to compete and then say you don’t like the game.     
enjoy the ride.   I’m sure the kids do.  

At the same time, building up the culture a program would want takes time, support of course matters in being able to fulfill potential and all that, but it all takes time to develop. Size can only fix so much, but if the students aren’t developed enough to succeed, it doesn’t really matter. Positive growth in any form requires the cultivation and planning to make happen

[BandNerd07]

So I know we sent 7 bands to state year, but I'm afraid that might be a one time thing, mainly because a lot of bands here are being dropped down to 5A like Paschal, Chisholm Trail, DeSoto, and Highland Park, with not really a lot of replacements. I know we have Lancaster and Bryan Adams, but I doubt that they would qualify. Me might possibly also get Aledo and Granbury but it honestly just depends on the conference cutoffs (likely will be released in the first week of December). I don't know what the future holds for Area B but we might be back to only sending 5-6 bands to state. It just seems like the only way to certify 7 bands is to rezone another region to Area B.

[crunchycookie3]

18 minutes ago, BandNerd07 said:

So I know we sent 7 bands to state year, but I'm afraid that might be a one time thing, mainly because a lot of bands here are being dropped down to 5A like Paschal, Chisholm Trail, DeSoto, and Highland Park, with not really a lot of replacements. I know we have Lancaster and Bryan Adams, but I doubt that they would qualify. Me might possibly also get Aledo and Granbury but it honestly just depends on the conference cutoffs (likely will be released in the first week of December). I don't know what the future holds for Area B but we might be back to only sending 5-6 bands to state. It just seems like the only way to certify 7 bands is to rezone another region to Area B.

It seems like we’re due for a big UIL/TMEA region-area realignment this year. Maybe DFW will get split into 3 areas like Houston already is. I suppose we’ll see come February 1st!

[LostChoirGuy]

Fossil Ridge will likely be dropping to 5A also.  I think in two years we may see several new 6A groups though.

[PercMom2104]

1 hour ago, BandNerd07 said:

So I know we sent 7 bands to state year, but I'm afraid that might be a one time thing, mainly because a lot of bands here are being dropped down to 5A like Paschal, Chisholm Trail, DeSoto, and Highland Park, with not really a lot of replacements. I know we have Lancaster and Bryan Adams, but I doubt that they would qualify. Me might possibly also get Aledo and Granbury but it honestly just depends on the conference cutoffs (likely will be released in the first week of December). I don't know what the future holds for Area B but we might be back to only sending 5-6 bands to state. It just seems like the only way to certify 7 bands is to rezone another region to Area B.

Where did you see these schools are dropping to 5A?

[crunchycookie3]

Hear me out: One area contest centered around each metro: Houston (call it East TX), DFW (North TX), SA/Austin (Central TX), and combine South & West TX. These 4 areas could then implement the 7-judge state system so that criteria at the area and state levels are identical (honestly my biggest qualm with UIL right now). This would also allow for areas to properly send more bands to state based on the allotment from regions. For example, Houston area could have sent 15 bands to state this year (instead, they sent 14.) In this case, there may not even be a need nor time for a prelims-finals format. Just one big go at it.

Thoughts?

[BandNerd07]

1 hour ago, PercMom2104 said:

Where did you see these schools are dropping to 5A?

https://www.texasfootball.com/article/2023/10/25/2023-uil-snapshot-day-enrollment-figures?ref=article_preview_img

The list of schools and their enrollment numbers can be found here. Although nothing is confirmed yet (until the UIL releases the conference cutoffs likely in early December), we do have a basic understanding on which schools will rise to 6A or drop to 5A.

[BandNerd07]

2 hours ago, crunchycookie3 said:

Hear me out: One area contest centered around each metro: Houston (call it East TX), DFW (North TX), SA/Austin (Central TX), and combine South & West TX. These 4 areas could then implement the 7-judge state system so that criteria at the area and state levels are identical (honestly my biggest qualm with UIL right now). This would also allow for areas to properly send more bands to state based on the allotment from regions. For example, Houston area could have sent 15 bands to state this year (instead, they sent 14.) In this case, there may not even be a need nor time for a prelims-finals format. Just one big go at it.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I do like your idea. Actually, the 2A-4A Area contests are like that. You have Area A (West TX), Area B (North TX), Area C (East TX), Area D (Central TX), and Area E (South TX). I think there's a real possibility that the UIL will go with this model for 5A/6A but we'll just have to wait and see. Anyways, focusing on the DFW area, if they decide to not go with this and continue to do the 9 Area system, this is how it could work:

Regions 5/30 become Area A East and the existing Area A becomes Area A West. There would be 17 bands at most so 7 bands would advance to finals and 3 advance to state.

Regions 2, 24, and 25 become Area B. There would be 21 bands at most so 10 bands would advance to finals and 4 advance to state.

Regions 3, 20, 21, and 31 become Area C. There would be 29 bands at most so 10 bands would advance to finals and 5 advance to state.

So in result, you would have 12 bands in the DFW area advance to state. This is pretty much the same number of bands that currently advance, but we would more likely actually see 12 bands this way, with more areas. What do y'all think of this?

[tw2]

On 10/21/2023 at 8:03 AM, Dallas Hobbs said:

Ok I made up my mind (sort of lol) and I’m doing Area B prelims and area C finals. I’m here now for the beginning of the area b contest! So freaking excited!!! Good luck to ALL bands at area!

Legacy High school band? They beat Mansfield and are a pretty small band.

[littlejaw]

On 11/7/2023 at 3:57 PM, crunchycookie3 said:

Hear me out: One area contest centered around each metro: Houston (call it East TX), DFW (North TX), SA/Austin (Central TX), and combine South & West TX. These 4 areas could then implement the 7-judge state system so that criteria at the area and state levels are identical (honestly my biggest qualm with UIL right now). This would also allow for areas to properly send more bands to state based on the allotment from regions. For example, Houston area could have sent 15 bands to state this year (instead, they sent 14.) In this case, there may not even be a need nor time for a prelims-finals format. Just one big go at it.

Thoughts?

I suggest a new topic discussion, people wont be looking at these area threads now that they passed. It is an interesting idea, but how many bands end up performing at each UIL Area prelims? Does it make it a multi-day contest?