10/17/2026
EDITOR'S NOTE:
ECB Sports doesn't normally get involved in issues surrounding high school athletics, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the ins and outs of SCHSL classifications, school choice, attendance boundaries, or the rules that govern them.
However, the recent discussion about Landrum High School's football classification caught my attention because these issues can affect decisions Spartanburg District One parents make about their children's athletic futures, even at the youth football level, long before they reach middle school.
Rather than pretend to be an expert on the subject, I decided to do a little digging. I asked ChatGPT to review the original Facebook discussion and its comments, research the applicable SCHSL rules and regulations, and help me put together the following analysis. This is an AI-assisted article, not something I personally researched or wrote from scratch; its findings should be considered in that context.
I'm sharing it because I think the subject deserves an informed discussion complete with references and links to the rules and regulations cited. If you would rather read or share this in PDF format, I can provide that upon request.
As a parent of a District One athlete getting ready to enter middle school, I welcome corrections or additional information from those who know the system better than I do.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. WHAT STARTED THE DISCUSSION?
I've read the Facebook discussion on Ryan Howard's post about Landrum High School competing against schools like Woodruff, Clinton, Chesnee, Southside Christian and Mountain View Prep. There is a legitimate concern here. But after looking at the SCHSL rules, I don't think the answer is as simple as saying those other schools don't belong in Landrum's region.
The more important question is whether Landrum's enrollment is being counted in a way that accurately reflects the size of its student body - and whether District One has pursued the options that already exist to challenge that calculation.
The original post argues that Landrum is being consistently overmatched and that repeated blowouts are discouraging kids from playing football. The concern isn't just wins and losses. It's also player safety and whether the program can attract enough players to remain competitive.
That's a fair issue to raise. A blowout doesn't automatically mean a game was unsafe, but a pattern of lopsided games deserves a closer look.
2. WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING?
The comments generally fall into four camps:
• Landrum's classification is inflated by the SCHSL attendance-area multiplier.
• Charter and private schools may have advantages that traditional public schools do not.
• Landrum's football program has its own participation and competitiveness problems, regardless of classification.
• Parents are worried about player safety and about the sportsmanship shown during blowouts.
There are also accusations of improper recruiting and different academic or practice rules at Mountain View Prep. Those are disputed in the thread and should not be presented as established facts without evidence.
3. WHAT DO THE CLASSIFICATION NUMBERS ACTUALLY SAY?
Under the SCHSL's published 2026-2028 alignment, Landrum is in Class 2A, Region 2. The adjusted enrollment figures cited for the schools in question are:
Woodruff - 723
Mountain View Prep - 703
Clinton - 686
Landrum - 672
Chesnee - 666
Southside Christian - 660
Read that again. Based on these OFFICIAL ADJUSTED numbers, Landrum is actually counted as larger than Chesnee and Southside Christian.
But adjusted enrollment isn't necessarily actual enrollment. That's where this gets interesting.
4. HOW DOES A SCHOOL WITH 382 STUDENTS GET COUNTED AS 672?
A commenter reports that Landrum has 382 students in grades 9-11, the grades used for classification. The published adjusted figure is 672.
Reported actual enrollment: 382
SCHSL adjusted enrollment: 672
Difference: 290
Percentage increase: about 75.9%
The SCHSL's 3.0 multiplier counts certain out-of-attendance-area students as three students for classification purposes rather than one.
IF the reported 382 figure is correct, and IF the entire difference comes from that multiplier, the math suggests approximately 145 students were counted at triple weight:
382 + (145 x 2) = 672
That is an illustration, NOT proof of the exact student breakdown. We'd need the district's actual data to confirm it.
Consider a student living close to Landrum High School but technically inside Chapman's assigned attendance area. If that student attends Landrum through school choice, the student may receive multiplier treatment even though Landrum is the geographically closer school.
If that's what's happening on a significant scale, the problem may begin with attendance-zone boundaries, not with football.
5. DOES LANDRUM BELONG IN 1A?
A commenter states that the 1A cutoff is 490 for grades 9-11. If Landrum's actual enrollment is 382, it would be below that figure without the multiplier.
But the SCHSL doesn't classify schools using raw enrollment alone. The published rules use adjusted figures and the approved realignment process.
So the fact that Landrum may be small enough for 1A by actual headcount does NOT automatically mean the League violated its rules by putting Landrum in 2A.
My concern is different: It is entirely possible for a school to be classified correctly under a rule that produces an unfair result in a particular situation.
6. WHO CAN FIX IT?
There are specific procedures - this is not something that requires the governor to step in.
FIRST: THE MULTIPLIER APPEAL.
In an October 24, 2025 memorandum, the SCHSL outlined a process for appealing attendance-area designations affecting the multiplier. It called for a written appeal supported by enrollment, residency and attendance-zone documentation. The deadline for that cycle was November 3, 2025.
That deadline has passed. I have not established whether Landrum filed an appeal or what the result was if it did.
SECOND: A CLASSIFICATION OR REGION CHANGE.
Article II, Section 2 of the SCHSL bylaws provides a process for schools to request a move to another region or classification, subject to the required approvals.
Moving to another region within the same classification: requires majority approval by the affected regions.
Moving from 2A to 1A: requires approvals involving the relevant classification executive committees and regions.
These aren't automatic remedies, but they are actual options written into the rules. The request needs to come through school leadership, including the principal or superintendent.
THIRD: DISTRICT ONE'S ATTENDANCE BOUNDARIES.
District One, not the SCHSL, is responsible for its attendance-zone decisions. If those lines are outdated or geographically unreasonable, the district should review them. But changing school boundaries affects families, transportation and educational planning, so it should not be done simply to improve a football schedule.
7. WHAT ABOUT MOUNTAIN VIEW PREP AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS?
Mountain View Prep is a PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL. Southside Christian is a PRIVATE SCHOOL. They are not the same type of institution.
I understand why people question whether a school that can draw from a broad area has an athletic advantage over a school with traditional attendance boundaries. In fact, that is one of the issues a multiplier is intended to address.
But saying a school recruits illegally, doesn't require classes, or ignores practice rules is a separate accusation requiring evidence. The Facebook thread contains allegations and denials, not a verified finding of misconduct.
I also don't agree that every charter or private school should automatically be placed in 5A. That could create just as much unfairness in the opposite direction.
The better approach is to examine actual enrollment, attendance areas, transfer patterns, and any documented competitive advantages.
8. WHAT ABOUT LANDRUM'S OWN FOOTBALL PROGRAM?
This cannot be ignored, either.
Commenters point out that Chesnee has been competitive against some of the same teams Landrum has struggled to face. And Chesnee's adjusted enrollment is actually slightly lower than Landrum's.
That doesn't disprove Landrum's classification concerns. It does show that enrollment alone doesn't explain everything.
Roster size, participation, coaching, player development and the overall strength of a program matter, too. Fixing the classification could help without fixing every problem.
9. WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NEXT?
Here's what I would like to see:
1) District One releases or explains Landrum's underlying grades 9-11 enrollment and exactly how the adjusted total of 672 was calculated.
2) School officials explain whether Landrum appealed its attendance-area multiplier or 2026-2028 classification, and what happened.
3) The district reviews whether the Landrum-Chapman attendance boundaries still make sense for the communities they serve.
4) Landrum documents the problem using actual enrollment, roster sizes, participation trends, results across multiple sports and any confirmed safety incidents - rather than relying on final scores alone.
5) If the evidence supports it, Landrum's principal and superintendent pursue the available SCHSL process for reclassification or region relief.
I would NOT encourage a boycott of scheduled region games as the first response. The SCHSL bylaws require schools fielding a team to meet their region scheduling obligations. The right route is a formal, well-supported request.
10. WHERE I COME DOWN ON THIS
I agree with the original post that Landrum's situation deserves serious attention. I also believe a multiplier based on attendance-zone boundaries can create questionable results when those boundaries don't reflect the community around a school.
But I don't agree that losing badly proves the other schools are incorrectly classified. I don't agree that every charter or private school is cheating. And I don't think we should assume the SCHSL broke its rules simply because we dislike the outcome.
The real question is whether the rules are producing the right outcome for Landrum.
Here's the question I'd put directly to the District One school board:
"Landrum High School reportedly has 382 students in grades 9-11, yet the SCHSL classifies it using an adjusted enrollment of 672. Has District One formally challenged that calculation or sought relief through the SCHSL's existing appeal and classification procedures? If so, what happened? If not, why not?"
That question can be answered with records, not rumors.
And if the answer is that Landrum is properly classified under the current formula, but the formula is creating a demonstrable disadvantage, then the next fight should be to change the policy - with documentation to support it.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS:
SCHSL 2026-2027 Bylaws:
https://schsl.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026-27-By-laws.docx.pdf
SCHSL Attendance-Area Appeal Memo (October 24, 2025):
https://schsl.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Memo-Attendance-Area-Appeals-10.24.25.pdf
SCHSL 2026-2028 Region Assignments:
https://schsl.org/archives/17912
SCHSL Athletic Director Resources:
https://schsl.org/ad-notebook
NOTE: The 382-student actual enrollment figure comes from the Facebook discussion and has not been independently verified here. The exact multiplier breakdown and Landrum's appeal history also remain unconfirmed.
