MHSTigerFan

Was it challenged in court?

But if it’s mandatory, any one affected institution could challenge it legally and would likely prevail. The IHSAA has to act as any other state actor does. They can’t, for instance, lead or forbid voluntary prayer at their events. Either would be a violation of the 1A. Mandating a class bump on a discriminatory basis would have to survive strict scrutiny. This isn’t impossible (race-based college admission policies have survived EP challenges because of this). To do that, they’d have to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” — and I’m just skeptical that winning sports tournaments clears that bar.

Again, it’s not what I would do. But, I do agree that a 4 year cycle would be a significant improvement and guard against the “one great class” defect of the current SF rule. That’s what the IFCA has always advocated, isn’t it?

If the bump was voluntary, the IHSAA would be on solid legal ground. It sounds like you’re arguing in that direction here: that the PPs should accept one for the greater good of Indiana High School (in this case) football. So, sure, put it out there as an option. But if it’s mandatory, it’s probably illegal.

It may only be for a two class cycle. But it kinda stinks for the actual flesh and blood kids in those classes, dunnit? Again, my problem with the SF is practical, not legal. I make no bones about the fact that I think the IHSAA should just make divisions and let the chips fall where they may. Obviously, the SF hasn’t succeeded in bringing about the parity its backers sought. Else they wouldn’t be here arguing for more adjustments. But I don’t think the IHSAA could legally just bump up every P/P school. All it would take is one institution to challenge such a move in court. And I think they’d have a pretty strong EP claim — because it would be treating institutions differently based not on what they have or haven’t done, but on who they are. And that’s pretty much always legally dubious.

It’s worth pointing out that the TSSAA’s fine against Brentwood was eventually upheld. In other words, while they couldn’t claim immunity from a Due Process claim, the 6th Circuit ultimately agreed that TSSAA properly applied their rule about undue influence. But that part wasn’t legally momentous. The first part, where TSSAA was determined to be a state actor, was.

Perhaps. But that wasn’t the question put before the court. It could’ve been any plaintiff. TSSAA’s defense was that they weren’t subject to Brentwood’s due process claim, because they (the TSSAA) were a private entity, not a state actor. That had to be answered first, before the actual claim itself could be dealt with. The Supreme Court found that the TSSAA was sufficiently “entwined” with Tennessee’s public education system to be considered a state actor. They also created an entwinement test for similar future disputes. Given the IHSAA’s governing structure (pretty much entirely governed by public school administrators), it seems a foregone conclusion that the courts would consider them a state actor just as TSSAA was. As such, they’re subject to DP, EP, 1A, etc claims. Your proposal almost certainly runs afoul of the equal protection rights in the 14th amendment.

I agree with this. But I would also argue that the SF, while legally permissible, is practically flawed in the sense that it imposes (ostensibly) harder restrictions on subsequent classes of kids because of the achievements of earlier classes of kids. A school gets a stud or two in a class, naturally wins a lot because of it, and the kids that come after the studs have to move up in class because of it? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either. But at least it’s constitutionally sound.

Well, the precedential case here was Brentwood Academy. You can read about it here. Yes, the underlying case had to do with a TSSAA policy dealing with recruiting. But the court first had to determine if the TSSAA was a state actor (and thus subject to the 1A, due process, etc). And, in a split decision, the Supreme Court found that they were — as the org was “entwined” with the state’s public education structures. The subsequent question on remand was whether they appropriately applied their rule in a way that complied with due process. But that’s mostly irrelevant as to the previous question: are they, or are they not, a state actor. Because if they are, then all of the same restrictions that apply to other state actors also apply to the Athletic Association. It’s not a cafeteria model, where some do and others do not. If the IHSAA, a state actor, were to enact a policy that treated parochial schools differently than it treated public schools, it would very much be subject to an equal protection claim. I would be willing to bet that this is a huge reason we ended up with the Success Factor (which is neutral so far as public vs private) than some other policy which was explicitly discriminatory.

Well, first, I didn’t mean it literally. Second, I’m glad we shouldn’t be generalizing about an entire school population. Let’s agree on that, shall we? Third, I agree that the primary ingredient is hard work. Exactly my point.

Another great example is Jasper. Can you remember a time when Jasper hasn’t fielded highly competitive teams in….just about every sport? Both them and their neighbor to the south just won baseball championships. And Southridge has had a lot of success in football (and other sports) recently. I’m sure, if somebody was so inclined, they could do a deep dive in Jasper’s culture (both the community and the schools) and find things that help explain why they’ve long managed to remain one of the premier athletic programs not only in Southern Indiana, but in the entire state. And maybe those things are inherent advantages they have that a school like, say Boonville, doesn’t. And so what? That doesn’t mean Jasper should have weights tied to their ankles so that Boonville can have a better chance to succeed as Jasper has.

🙂 Honestly, I’ve always found these scrimmages to be a tease like pre-season NFL games. It’s better than nothing, but it’s just not the real thing. At least, unlike the NFL, it only lasts for one week. I’m happy to see my team tonight…but I’m really looking forward to next weekend.

Doing this might also be ripe for an Equal Protection challenge. Courts have found that state HS athletic associations, though technically private non-profits, are de facto state agencies. As such, they are generally bound by the same limitations as a formal state agency. The SF (as deeply flawed as it is) is safe from EP and DP challenges because it applies equally to everybody and is tied to actual historical performance — ie, not who you are, but what you’ve done. When the law treats different people or entities differently because of who they are, rather than what they’ve done, it gets on thin legal ice very quickly.

Actually, programs like Gibson Southern are a great example of what I’m talking about. It’s a genuinely elite football program - and it’s a public school. Nick has put together a fantastic feeder program and a culture that has bred a consistent level of success. Has he done it alone? Not at all. He inherited something good and made it even better - and had the support and buy-in of parents, administrators, the kids, etc. FTR, if you read my post more carefully, you’ll note a couple things. First, it’s not emotional. I don’t know where you’re getting this “heartstrings” thing. I assure you, I’m not a heartstrings guy. What I wrote was a hard and undeniable truth of life: you don’t make yourself better by seeking to hold others back simply because you don’t like that they have succeeded more than you have. Second, I spoke nothing to advantages and such. I neither touted nor denied them. And that’s because I just don’t think reality is that simple. Anybody who wants to go looking for inherent advantages or disadvantages, in order to complain about results, could find them. I think it’s an advantage that you guys have a B10 quarterback under center and the rest of us in the area don’t. That doesn’t mean it would ever even occur to me to try to screw with rules in some kind of perverse effort to “level the playing field.” GS also has an abundant supply of strong-as-oxes farm kids year after year. Trust me, it’s not the norm where I’m from — and it sure would be nice to have. But it’s no reason for me to try to throw bombs in your path, just because your program enjoys that benefit of being a rural school with many kids who have done physical labor since they could walk. No, I’m not talking about advantages and disadvantages. I’m talking about teaching a bad lesson to kids: that their destinies are largely the result of chance and a stacked deck that could (and should) be stacked differently to achieve parity in outcomes. The first fault with that is the belief that equality in outcomes is something that should even be sought. The second fault with that is that our economy simply isn’t built that way. Competition is hard and other guys are going to have advantages and disadvantages. The earlier kids can learn that reality, the better for everybody.

The general notion of changing rules to make life harder on more successful people or organizations in order for less successful people or organizations to enjoy the illusion of “success” is pernicious and indefensible. There is no right way or good way to do it. In this piece, the excuse is Covid. When SF was put in, the excuse was something else. Once Covid is gone, the excuse will be something else still. If somebody doesn’t like their results, rather than lobbying to have rules changed to get more favorable results, just work within the rules to do so. Rather than complaining about more successful competitors, see what you can learn from them to match their success. The lesson that these sorts of proposals teach our kids is an awful one: if they aren’t succeeding as much as somebody else, it’s because the deck is stacked in favor of the succeeders and the way to remedy that is to stack the deck in favor of the non-succeeders. This is not how real life works. In fact, it’s the antithesis of how real life works.

The only consensus is that MD, MHS, and Castle are the top 3. Not a lot of conviction from any of them which one will prevail.

You can just stop posting without deleting your account. To quote the immortal John “Bluto” Blutarsky: don’t cost nuthin.

I can’t remember which year it was, but it was during the McIntosh era. Both Reitz and MD were either undefeated or close to it. If the bowl could’ve accommodated 15,000 fans, they could have sold it out. Everybody in town was talking about it, and those who had tickets would let you know about it. Reitz would go on to win the 4A championship that year. Maybe the best team in SIAC history — certainly of the last 30 or 40 years.

They did not replace the lights. But they need to badly. Foot Candle levels are way below industry standards at almost every point of the playing field. Even Enlow is better lit.

It began as a retaining wall dug into the hill upon which Reitz High School sits. Shortly after it was created, somebody suggested it would be a good venue for a football stadium. The main grandstand is concrete that goes nearly halfway around the field. There is also a smaller visitor bleacher opposite. It seats about 10,000. Both Reitz and Mater Dei play their home games there. UE once played their home games there as well. It also played home to the “Refrigerator Bowl” postseason college football game. The river you see is the nearby Ohio. There are some great elevated views of the river from atop the Bowl.

I couldn’t agree more. There are nicer, newer, bigger, and fancier HS football stadiums in the state. But there isn’t another one quite like the Bowl. It is to Indiana HS football about what Fenway Park is to baseball. The Bowl started life as an architecturally necessary retaining wall.

Lol…if it’s any consolation, in British English Warwick and Warrick are homophones. If you ever go outside London and ask for a ticket to Warwick Castle, just pretend it’s the county in which Boonville and Newburgh are located and they won’t look at you funny.

I can’t edit or delete this post. So I’ll just respond to it by saying that the kid I was referring to was at practice today — which is why I didn’t want to mention any names.

That’s true. Kids go through a lot of life changes at that age. And that often leads to them making decisions to go a different direction.

Speaking of Memorial’s roster, I’ve heard that a senior who had significant playing time last year and was expected to get a lot this year is no longer with the team. I’m not mentioning his name until I can confirm it.