MHSTigerFan

But the judge wasn't discussing any hypothetical "bump" that had no relationship to success, much less ruling on one. Why else would he point out that only 10% of Alabama PPs were subject to the CBF? He references the recent success component numerous times throughout the opinion -- because the CBF had one. DT's proposal does not. It would hit all PPs, regardless of their level of success. You're citing a ruling about an apple to declare the constitutionality of an orange.

Given enough time there....I bet they would. It's a cultural thing as much as anything.

Well, I only mentioned it because he cited the "67 combined state championships" as a barometer of success. Yeah, there are all sorts of problems with that -- starting with the fact that it goes all the way back to 1973. But, that said, his proposal doesn't have a success measuring stick of any kind. The measuring stick is: if you're private or parochial, you go up a class. So, sticking with the SIAC, Mater Dei and their 1 state championship (from 20 years ago, no less). Bump Reitz and their 2 more recent state championships. No bump. Guerin hasn't ever won a Semi-State, let alone a state championship. Bump. Pioneer has won 5 Semi-States and 3 state championships. No bump. Traders Point Christian. Never gotten out of Sectional. Bump. Western Boone has won 4 state championships, and 3 in a row. No bump.

I'm an Evansville Memorial booster. We have 2 state football championships. Our crosstown Catholic rival is Mater Dei. They have 1. Here's a list of public schools that, under your proposal, would get no automatic class bump despite having as many or more state championships than Memorial and Mater Dei combined: Carmel - 9 Ben Davis - 9 Sheridan - 9 Warren Central - 9 Penn - 5 Hobart - 4 Jimtown - 4 Tri-West - 4 Franklin Central - 4 Carmel - 9 Ben Davis - 9 Sheridan - 9 Warren Central - 9 Penn - 5 Hobart - 4 Jimtown - 4 Tri-West - 4 Franklin Central - 4 Pioneer - 3 Western Boone - 3 New Palestine - 3 Reitz, another SIAC rival, has the same number of championships we have (2) and 1 more than Mater Dei has. No bump. Yeah, this makes sense.

Of course. But a couple things on that -- at least as regards this Alabama CBF vs. your proposal. First, that CBF (as well as Illinois' policy, as well as Indiana's SF) is measured off recent success. In other words, what a school did in the 1980s -- good, bad, or otherwise -- is irrelevant. I don't know exactly how far back they look. But I know that it's recent, because the court's opinion states as much. Second, your proposal has no quantified success metric at all. It's just: if you're private or parochial, you go up a class...in addition to any additional bump you might get from the Success Factor. So you're pointing to a list of 7 schools and the success they've had going back to the beginning of the tournament to justify a blanket bump on any PP. But the policy that we know has actually passed the courts is not a "blanket bump" on any and all PP. In fact, it only applies to 10% of Alabama's PPs. And the reason is that they look at recent success to determine applicability. What are you going to do if/when they dominate 6A, too? Because they probably would. Burn their schools down?

One thing where the judge did deviate from what I’ve been saying is that their claim was tested under rational basis rather than strict scrutiny. Rational basis is a lower burden than strict scrutiny. There are 3 levels of test for these sorts of claims - rational basis is the lowest of the three. He never really got into why. But it’s neither here nor there, given the merits.

Reading more through the opinion, the CBF bump only applied to 10% of the PP schools in Alabama - because it was based on success criteria. And this theme was repeated throughout the opinion. A rule untethered to success criteria, such as the one proposed by DT, would almost certainly run afoul of equal protection.

If you read the decision, Alabama’s rule was not an across-the-board bump for any and all P/P schools. It was based on success criteria. And that is why the decision declared that it was not motivated by animus towards private schools. This is from the decision: Last November, the Alabama High School Athletic Association adopted a “competitive balance factor” rule to increase by one level the classification of certain private school members’ sports teams with a demonstrated track record of consistent, recent success. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see any success related criteria in DT’s proposal. That would be critical to it passing EP.

I can’t ever decide if Nick’s non-con scheduling is brilliant, masochistic, or both. He’s going to beat one of those teams one of these times. Hope it’s this weekend!

Given that those things can malfunction, run out of juice, be poorly controlled, etc., if I was an AD I wouldn't want those things anywhere near a crowd of fans, players, coaches, officials, etc. I might allow a professional drone photographer, employed by one or both teams, to shoot the game. I'm sure they could get some great footage. But they'd have to demonstrate a high level of proficiency and follow some ground rules. How long until somebody tries to use one of these to spy on opponents' practices? Surely Belichick has already tried it.

When a team has a string of success like Central’s had, pre-season sentiment will linger. A winning (or losing) culture is a real thing. They lost a lot, yes. And they once again have a new coach. But they’ve got a capable QB in Herdes back - and a couple guys in Cooper and J. Boberg to anchor the D. Personally, I think Jasper and Reitz finish ahead of them. And maybe North, too.

Thanks for the life preserver. I really appreciate it! But I think I just need to man up and take my L here. If it’s not the IHSAA, then it doesn’t count for what I’m talking about.

Ha…anybody care for eggs this morning? Just grab some right off my face here. Got plenty. Shows you how much I follow wrestling.

Putting it in the wrestling context - I absolutely loved it when tiny Mater Dei dominated single-class wrestling in the state. Not because they’re in EVV or because they’re Catholic. But because their wrestling program has long been the epitome of what a well-run sports program should look like. Our west-siders live and breathe wrestling from the time they’re little kids. And for many years, they dominated the sport regardless of enrollment. Knocking they down to a lower class, having any classes, diminished their success. And I didn’t like it.

I’m predisposed to disfavor anything that is meant to bring about more equal outcomes. I’m not even crazy about the idea of classes. But given football is so based on numbers, it’s about the only sport where it makes some sense. Other than that, I’d do away with classes in all other sports. It makes sense that we had classes in football, and only football, for many years. So I didn’t have any more sympathy for small schools (including my own) clamoring for multi-class basketball back when that happened. I badly miss the single-class hoops tournament. It was a great, great thing — done in by people who wanted to see the success spread around. I mean, my alma mater isn’t nearly as successful as fellow 3Aer Chatard has been - and Dwenger and Cathedral before they moved up. But it would never have occurred to me to push for rules to get them out of our way so we could have a better chance of a championship. I encounter a lot of people with this mindset, and not only in sports. And I have pretty much no respect for it in any context. It’s a mindset for losers.

As has already been pointed out, Illinois’ “bump” has performance based waivers. It’s basically the SF in reverse. Also, we have a couple of 1A PPs (Rivet and WashCath) down here that have fewer than 100 students. You’d really throw them into 2A…because they’re Catholic? Good luck with this bad idea.

His piece doesn’t say anything about the PP bump being voluntary. I’ve suggested that it would have to be in order to survive a certain lawsuit. Bumping all PPs, regardless of their degree of success, would almost certainly be unlawful.

All that said, it’s a moot discussion. I do think the IHSAA would be legally safe to ask PPs to voluntarily accept a bump in class. Few if any would, IMO. Time will tell on that. But it would be a pretty blatant violation of member institutions’ equal protection rights for the IHSAA to try to mandate it - and I’m confident their legal counsel is aware of that. If not, he or she has no business being their legal counsel. Let’s not forget that, back when SF was put in, some were pushing to segregate the PPs in one fashion or another. But that proposal didn’t go anywhere, despite PPs only having one vote out of 19 on the Board. I’d be willing to bet that fear of unfavorable litigation was a big reason it didn’t.

And for those who don’t? Because there will be plenty who don’t. I know the PTBs at Memorial and MD well and I’m very confident that neither would willingly agree to a class bump that isn’t tethered to performance in the affected sports. They gripe about SF as it is…imagine if they’re asked to step up in class regardless how their teams do? Not gonna happen. And how could anybody even begin to think it justified for tiny 1A PPs like Rivet and Washington Catholic? Those schools struggle to field athletic teams at all.

There’s a zero percent chance that would happen in Southwestern Indiana. But, even if it happened in Indy, the IHSAA would still be legally bound to make equal provisions for the Roncallis and Cathedrals of the world in the post-season tournaments.

I’m not dismissing that. I think the courts got both questions right. TSSAA was within its rights to have and enforce a rule regarding undue influence - so long as it’s enforced consistently. But the relevance here is that the TSSAA argued that they weren’t subject to a due process claim because they’re a private entity. But, so far as the federal courts are concerned, these organizations are state actors and thus subject to DP and EP. That matters here - a lot.

That’s not what would have to be shown. That such a rule would be discriminatory is beyond question. The question is whether the discriminatory rule would clear the standard for strict scrutiny - which means a couple things. First they’d have to demonstrate a compelling state interest. And second is that the discriminatory rule is narrowly tailored enough to achieve that compelling interest in a minimally restrictive manner. I seriously doubt they’d clear the first hurdle. How is greater parity in high school sports a “compelling state interest” so as to overcome the requirement for equal protection of the laws? This is usually reserved for things like college admissions, state contracts, internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, etc. But….those rich kids are winning more football games than we are?

It’s hard to tell too much from these scrimmages. On Castle’s side, I thought Tilly looked crisp and Guerzini should be among the top rushers in the conference. Their D played well for most of the reps, but made a couple of costly errors on a few. Memorial looked rusty. Some missed tackles and blocks. Line play mostly looked good. Aiden Farmer picked up where he left off and broke around for a couple “sacks”. I hope Ellspermann stays healthy. 😬

I haven’t seen anything about a legal challenge. But I did find that they have waivers for schools that haven’t won championships. That keeps their rule on a performance basis, rather than a public vs. private basis. I didn’t see anything in your legally dubious proposal that kept the bump tethered to performance.

I looked into it just a bit. Apparently, Illinois does have a multiplier - but they also use multiplier waivers for “non-boundaried” (which essentially means P/P) teams that have lacked success. And I think success is determined by state championships, not merely a strong post-season run. As such, their multiplier rule is based upon performance rather than just boundary status.