MHSTigerFan

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.

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.