The p/p hegemony continues unabated

[1st_and_10]

1 hour ago, LuersMom5 said:

Luers did play up for quite a while. They were 3A for years.  Luers also plays up all season long; they do not even see another 2A team until playoff time. 

But... the thing about a small school is that one year you may have a whole stable of NFL players and the team could beat some college teams.  But...then for several (or eleven) years after that, you will get the normal, average, everyday-type-of-talented athletes.  I don't think anyone can look at the last eleven years and argue that Luers has been "too good" to be allowed to play in 2A.  

The kids on that team this year worked hard and that is why they one.  They weren't clearly out-classing all of the other 2A teams... for crying outloud, most people I saw posting were picking N. Posey.  Even the sports journalists were pretty split on their predictions, with the N. Posey probably being given the edge... at least in the ones I saw/read. 

So, even the "success factor" bump is potentially a little problematic.  So... you move up a team based on success-factor, and for the next couple of years, the young team that has to take over after that State Champ team graduates is outclassed and getting pummeled (and often injured because they still only actually have 2A enrollment and all the kids play both ways while their opponents from larger schools are not necessarily undergoing that stress and strain.)    I watched it happen, last time Luers got success-factored up.  The injuries jumped those seasons. Kids were getting hurt. And for what?  It isn't like we didn't understand the concept of graduation. We didn't think those seniors would be back for a fifth bite at the apple.  If they had, then "success factor" definitely should apply.  But everyone knew (or could have known) that the whole starting line-up was graduating.  We couldn't anticipate the young kids taking over those roles were not likely to be as successful? Or that they might get hurt playing two-ways if moved up a class? 

Now -- I don't know that it would be the same problem this time.  Luers only graduates 12 seniors this year. So, a lot of this team will be back.  And there were a lot of juniors and a lot of sophomores already playing a lot of minutes this year. Maybe success factor would be a fair application in this year's case. 

I don't know what next year looks like, but I'd expect that Luers should make a pretty deep run again when this year's sophomores are seniors. 

 

 

Most small schools don't have a stable of NFL players... Most small schools have never had a player make it to the NFL... And no HS team (outside of IMG and those type of schools) is beating a college team.  

[BTF]

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

The best solution is for the IHSAA to go to a true system of promotion/relegation, and take enrollment entirely out of it's classification system.  

Not sure what you mean by "entirely." We can't pretend that Ben Davis and Adams Central somehow belong in the same division. 

[FastpacedO]

1 hour ago, BTF said:

Good post. I agree that the success factor doesn't make any sense in it's current form. I've been saying that since it's inception. The talented kids get the trophy at the lower level, and the less talented kids get the bump up. The best solution I've seen so far is to bump up a team based on how many of it's players come from outside their normal pipeline. I've always been an advocate for having a multiplier for private schools. I also don't think a team should get bumped if they didn't win a state championship...........Adams Central. They didn't get their win at the 1A level, now they don't get to get their win at the 2A level. Makes no sense at all. 

The only part of your post that is inaccurate, and it's the second time you've mentioned it, is the ability of a high school team to beat some college teams. Maybe you don't really believe that and you're just using it as context to prove your point.  Outside of magnet schools like the IMG, it would never happen. A D3 program with 19-22 year old kids would beat Indiana's best high school team by multiple scores. 

Success factor makes perfect sense if applied the way it was proposed, but the IHSAA went with the proposed success factor and used their own modifications to it (hence the 2 year cycle which was not proposed). 

A multiplier is a horrendous idea and always has been. There is a good article about it analyzing what each state does, you can skip to page 18 of the 24 page document to get to the analysis definitely a great read.

  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005884.pdf

A great quote from the article "An important first step in finding a resolution to any problem is problem identification. With regard to the multiplier one must ask, for what problem is this the solution? It is not clear what problem the multiplier seeks to redress apart from the malum in se of private school success. Consequently, it represents a blunt tool that harms all private schools in an effort to punish the few private schools experiencing great success in a few sports. What is this alleged unfair advantage, and if it really exists, what ought to be done to level this unfair advantage in an equitable fashion? This question is missing from most of the multiplier debates which usually point to statistical overrepresentation of private schools winning state championships in a few select sports as sufficient justification for a universal private school multiplier."

What some don't think of is a multiplier will be placed on your Cathedral's, Chatard's, Luers, LCC's etc. It will also be placed on Bishop Noll who is 10-78 over the last 10 years. If you think bumping Adams Central up to 2A due to success factor is unjust how do you not feel a multiplier is unjust to Bishop Noll? For those that want to have PP in their own tournament with a Bishop Noll or Providence playing Cathedral or Chatard. Come on that's fine if you are okay with North Posey or Adams Central playing Center Grove or Ben Davis. There are Public schools that dominate certain sports that make up 1% of IHSAA membership (Carmel swimming) and not a peep, but bring up football and that 12% is bad news. There are other examples city vs rural etc etc go on down the list. Quite frankly a multiplier and separate tournaments are terrible ideas.

I agree a high school team beating a collegiate team is just asnine for anyone to state. Even a magnet school like IMG wouldn't be able to beat a collegiate team, it's just not going to happen.

[FastpacedO]

45 minutes ago, BTF said:

Not sure what you mean by "entirely." We can't pretend that Ben Davis and Adams Central somehow belong in the same division. 

Agreed just like we can't pretend Providence and Cathedral belong in the same division (for proponents of separate public and P/P tournaments) or Bishop Noll and Gibson Southern belong in the same division (for multiplier proponents).

Edited November 29, 2023 by FastpacedO

[gonzoron]

18 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

Agreed just like we can't pretend Providence and Cathedral belong in the same division (for proponents of separate public and P/P tournaments)

Why not? If they seed the tournament everything would be fair. That's what we've been hearing here for years.

Edited November 29, 2023 by gonzoron

[BTF]

8 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

1.  Success factor makes perfect sense if applied the way it was proposed, but the IHSAA went with the proposed success factor and used their own modifications to it (hence the 2 year cycle which was not proposed). 

2.  A multiplier is a horrendous idea and always has been.

3.  it represents a blunt tool that harms all private schools in an effort to punish the few private schools experiencing great success in a few sports. 

4.  If you think bumping Adams Central up to 2A due to success factor is unjust how do you not feel a multiplier is unjust to Bishop Noll? 

5.  separate tournaments are terrible ideas.

 

1.   How was it proposed? Four year is what I've been saying it should be since it's inception. Programs typically go on 2-year talent runs. 

2.  Depends on how you tweak it. It really just comes down to this: How important is football at your school? All private schools could take advantage if they wanted to. But they all don't, so I would agree that a multiplier for all isn't the best solution. How about a multiplier for just the private football schools? I like it, but no way would the IHSAA go down that road, and quite frankly, I don't blame them. In the meantime, I guess we just settle for the 2-year cycle even though the majority would agree that 4 years is the way to go. 

3.  Agree, see #2. I can assure you, I think about that every time I reluctantly hit the 'submit reply' button when bringing up the multiplier. 

4.  Go to a 4-year cycle. If a team doesn't win a state title, they don't bump up. Period. 

5.  Agree. I was never on board with that. Cathedral would take home 80% of the titles. Probably because they are a football school and the largest private in the largest metro area. 

 

[First_Backer_Inside]

7 minutes ago, BTF said:

1.   How was it proposed? Four year is what I've been saying it should be since it's inception. Programs typically go on 2-year talent runs. 

2.  Depends on how you tweak it. It really just comes down to this: How important is football at your school? All private schools could take advantage if they wanted to. But they all don't, so I would agree that a multiplier for all isn't the best solution. How about a multiplier for just the private football schools? I like it, but no way would the IHSAA go down that road, and quite frankly, I don't blame them. In the meantime, I guess we just settle for the 2-year cycle even though the majority would agree that 4 years is the way to go. 

3.  Agree, see #2. I can assure you, I think about that every time I reluctantly hit the 'submit reply' button when bringing up the multiplier. 

4.  Go to a 4-year cycle. If a team doesn't win a state title, they don't bump up. Period. 

5.  Agree. I was never on board with that. Cathedral would take home 80% of the titles. Probably because they are a football school and the largest private in the largest metro area. 

 

As far as football goes, Chatard beat them this year. I think they would take home all the titles. They are just too good. Their youth program is the best in the state. Weight rooms great. They have some of the best school lunches in the state or something like that...unstoppable football program.

Edited November 29, 2023 by First_Backer_Inside

[Impartial_Observer]

12 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

As far as football goes, Chatard beat them this year. I think they would take home all the titles. They are just too good. Their youth program is the best in the state. Weight rooms great. They have some of the best school lunches in the state or something like that...unstoppable football program.

Westfield has a Sushi Bar…..just sayin.  

[BTF]

6 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Westfield has a Sushi Bar…..just sayin.  

Lol, that's funny. Certainly your joking though. 

[BTF]

21 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

As far as football goes, Chatard beat them this year. I think they would take home all the titles. They are just too good. Their youth program is the best in the state. Weight rooms great. They have some of the best school lunches in the state or something like that...unstoppable football program.

Hence 80%. 

I think I misinterpreted your post. Certainly you're not implying that Chatard would win all them. 

Cathedral is 8-2 vs Chatard over the last 10 years. Again, 80%. 

 

[First_Backer_Inside]

Just now, BTF said:

Hence 80%. 

I think I misinterpreted your post. Certainly you're not implying that Chatard would win all them. 

Cathedral is 8-2 vs Chatard over the last 10 years. Again, 80%. 

 

No it was all complete sarcasm. Just repeating what I always hear about why Chatard is so good. 50 years of foundation laid for them to be where they are...or they are just pulling from 4 different feeder schools in Indianapolis. Take your pick.

[foxbat]

 

14 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Westfield has a Sushi Bar…..just sayin.  

He said BEST school lunches.

 

[FastpacedO]

3 hours ago, BTF said:

1.   How was it proposed? Four year is what I've been saying it should be since it's inception. Programs typically go on 2-year talent runs. 

2.  Depends on how you tweak it. It really just comes down to this: How important is football at your school? All private schools could take advantage if they wanted to. But they all don't, so I would agree that a multiplier for all isn't the best solution. How about a multiplier for just the private football schools? I like it, but no way would the IHSAA go down that road, and quite frankly, I don't blame them. In the meantime, I guess we just settle for the 2-year cycle even though the majority would agree that 4 years is the way to go. 

3.  Agree, see #2. I can assure you, I think about that every time I reluctantly hit the 'submit reply' button when bringing up the multiplier. 

4.  Go to a 4-year cycle. If a team doesn't win a state title, they don't bump up. Period. 

5.  Agree. I was never on board with that. Cathedral would take home 80% of the titles. Probably because they are a football school and the largest private in the largest metro area. 

 

The original proposal was a 4 year cycle. Also I was not trying to make an attack on you. Just pointing out the flaws of a multiplier (which fails in other States too)..

Edited November 29, 2023 by FastpacedO

[Just a dad]

2 hours ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

No it was all complete sarcasm. Just repeating what I always hear about why Chatard is so good. 50 years of foundation laid for them to be where they are...or they are just pulling from 4 different feeder schools in Indianapolis. Take your pick.

Here is a photo I saw on X yesterday of the Chatard State Championship team from 25 years ago. To save everyone from having to count (unless you love seeing enormously oversized shoulder pads), there are 31 kids in uniform. What’s my point? Every program has to start somewhere. Chatard didn’t get to 85 on varsity overnight.

[Impartial_Observer]

4 hours ago, BTF said:

Lol, that's funny. Certainly your joking though. 

Negative. 

4 hours ago, foxbat said:

 

He said BEST school lunches.

 

I don’t eat fish so……

I don’t drink water either….because fish fu…in it. 

[cloudofdust]

2 hours ago, Just a dad said:

Here is a photo I saw on X yesterday of the Chatard State Championship team from 25 years ago. To save everyone from having to count (unless you love seeing enormously oversized shoulder pads), there are 31 kids in uniform. What’s my point? Every program has to start somewhere. Chatard didn’t get to 85 on varsity overnight.

And 97 and 98 were back to back State Champ years. 2 years later they went on to a 3 peat

I'd bet there are a lot of schools that would love to win a state championship with only 30 kids. I wonder what the difference is?

Most likely this picture is truly just the varsity players, as the caption reads.

[BTF]

2 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

The original proposal was a 4 year cycle. Also I was not trying to make an attack on you. Just pointing out the flaws of a multiplier (which fails in other States too)..

I get it. I actually appreciate the information you provide. You do this weird thing where you back your positions with data. It takes some getting used to. 

[coachkj]

On 11/27/2023 at 12:37 PM, cloudofdust said:

It's obvious they fare better at the 1A-3A level because they can control their enrollment. The quality of student/athlete is just different.

The solution is to move them all up a class. No P/P should ever be competing at a 1A level and it's been proven through SF that they can compete at higher levels.

The problem is, the powers that be don't care because the big schools don't care. They have the enrollment numbers and funds to overcome.

This is the most ignorant argument that can possibly be made.   Spend a year at any private or parochial school and you'll realize how absolutley foolish this often used statement is made.  

 

[foxbat]

11 minutes ago, coachkj said:

This is the most ignorant argument that can possibly be made.   Spend a year at any private or parochial school and you'll realize how absolutley foolish this often used statement is made.  

 

Actually, it really only takes a couple of weeks of Mass announcements at the start of the registration period to hear the fact/tone that it's not a PSA and, instead a very earnest appeal for enrollments.

[cloudofdust]

16 minutes ago, coachkj said:

This is the most ignorant argument that can possibly be made.   Spend a year at any private or parochial school and you'll realize how *absolutely foolish this often used statement is made.  

 

You're telling me P/Ps cannot control who is or is not allowed to enroll at their school?

 

 

[cloudofdust]

8 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Actually, it really only takes a couple of weeks of Mass announcements at the start of the registration period to hear the fact/tone that it's not a PSA and, instead a very earnest appeal for enrollments.

Again, what causes enrollment to be an issue?

Surely students wouldn't be turned down or left out for any reason would they?

[Gatorguy]

3 hours ago, Just a dad said:

Here is a photo I saw on X yesterday of the Chatard State Championship team from 25 years ago. To save everyone from having to count (unless you love seeing enormously oversized shoulder pads), there are 31 kids in uniform. What’s my point? Every program has to start somewhere. Chatard didn’t get to 85 on varsity overnight.

Looks like 37 in uniform to me, but I'm getting older and the eyes aren't what they used to be.

Chatard listed 66 on the state finals roster that year.  29 were Freshmen.

[US31]

18 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Actually, it really only takes a couple of weeks of Mass announcements at the start of the registration period to hear the fact/tone that it's not a PSA and, instead a very earnest appeal for enrollments.

So ANYONE who wants to go to LCC can?  And they can stay enrolled FOREVER....no matter attendance issues, multiple suspensions, sever discipline issues?  Parents never have to pay a dollar or show up for PTC or disciplinary meetings?

Sounds sweet!  

[FastpacedO]

17 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

You're telling me P/Ps cannot control who is or is not allowed to enroll at their school?

No he is telling you P/P's are not controlling their enrollment to remain in a certain class for football so they can win blue ring.

Most are hoping to have more applicants to fill to capacity. Those who wouldn't be good candidates to enroll likely aren't enrolling in the first place because their parents aren't going to take the risk.

[kdets89]

7 minutes ago, cloudofdust said:

Again, what causes enrollment to be an issue?

Surely students wouldn't be turned down or left out for any reason would they?

Not exactly sure why this is hard to understand.  You never want to think people are being intentionally dense, but sometimes you have to wonder.

Maybe the issue is how people understand the phrase "controlling enrollment".  That's often used in the context of enrollment numbers, as in, "private schools control their numbers to remain in a particular class."  This doesn't happen.  Ever.  Schools may grow faster than their projected rates (Guerin?), but any limitations on enrollment are based solely on building capacity.  No school wants to have a population smaller than their building capacity, especially if it's a school that can't issue a bond referendum for expansion.

If you're referring to "controlling enrollment" in the context of evaluating the quality of students for admission, that absolutely happens.  But it's not based on height/weight/40-time.  And it's probably pretty rare that a student is denied a seat when there's one available (see the point above).