MHSTigerFan

Well, size isn’t everything. But it’s not nothing, either. But I’ve seen way too many undersized guys — at all levels — get the better of big guys over the years to put too much stock in it. All other things equal, bigger is better than smaller. And if a kid is both big AND good, then that’s a load. And it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that all of Roncalli’s kids are both. It’s a top-notch program. And I know that Lauck is getting elite offers. But, yeah, top to bottom that’s probably the biggest OL I’ve ever seen at the HS level. There are D1 teams that won’t be that big.

Yeah, most of the good public programs down our way have good youth/feeder programs. I’ve felt like GS has one that any and all programs should emulate. And I think it has a lot to do with their sustained success.

We don’t “play nice” with our fellow SIAC schools. We have a terrific relationship with them, and it’s genuine. Always has been. We’re all fellow neighbors, coworkers, church members, bowling leaguers for crying out loud. Thus the whole idea of “community.” Why should we stop being as much when the uniforms go on?

And yet you advocate for a statewide rule that has no distinction but public or private. Condolences to the kids at Traders Point. They’ve never even gotten out of sectional. But, regardless, they clearly have too many advantages to compete at 1A. Bump those losers up!

In that case, I’m getting a crap return on my investment. Reitz has as much or more football success than we’ve ever had…and they don’t pay anything. Meanwhile, Chatard has a ton more trophies…and we’re paying almost as much as they do! You’ve got me thinking about asking for a refund, Titan.

I suspect Rodes will be a big contributor for them the next 3 seasons. He’s gotten rave reviews from a couple people whose opinions I value - and he performed very well in their scrimmage. Considering all they lost from their 3-headed monster running game of a year ago, he could be just what the doctor ordered for the Bears.

If there was, nobody had a way to express it in a public forum. But I do remember some talk about splitting off the PPs into their own class when the SF was adopted. I was like….back to the days of segregation, eh? Because of a bunch of sore losers? Oh well. You’ll always have people who blame the system when somebody else is more successful.

Not in that situation, no. For one thing, we weren’t the team we were the year before. For another, I know that HH was pretty dang good that year and I saw what Chatard did to them in the finals. I did my Jethro Bodine gozintas and figured….glad we played East Noble in 4A!

Heh…maybe. But it’s worth pointing out that being in 4A in 2019 got us a title we almost certainly wouldn’t have gotten had we been in 3A. No 3A team was going to beat Chatard that year. HH had a good team, and Chatard curb-stomped them at state. We had beaten Chatard pretty soundly the year before - but that was with Lindauer and both Combs bros.

OMG, that’s hilarious!

I agree! We've got a lot of catching up to do. Do me a favor....sneak into Chatard's locker room and pour some concrete in their girdles. Those guys clearly have it too easy.

Makes a pretty strong case for class-bumping the Irish! 😜

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.