MHSTigerFan

I couldn't agree more. The whole thing has a very "participation trophy" feel to it. And, frankly, I think that's one of the fundamentally wrong turns we've taken as a society. It was taken in the interest of promoting "success" by trying to eliminate (or, at least, diminish) the prospect of failure -- and it accomplishes this by making success harder for others to achieve. Imagine if, say, a commissioned sales force worked this way. We've got a team of 2 sales reps -- Joe and Bob -- and they each start out with an annual quota of $1 million. After a couple years in, both reps are making quota. But Joe is pushing $3 million in sales, while Bob is just getting beyond the $1 million quota. How much sense would it make to increase Joe's quota to the $3 million mark, while leaving Bob's alone? No matter what you might do with compensation, you'd still be telling your better rep that, because he's proven capable of selling more than the weaker rep, he's going to have to triple that guy just to keep his job....while the other guy can sell a third as much and still keep his. This isn't how the world works -- nor should it be. And to call it "fair" is positively Orwellian.

The enduring success that GS has had -- particularly since Nick Hart was hired -- is as good an example as I can point to why something like the SF is not only not good, but also not needed. GS is a smallish, rural public high school. Around 700 students from an area that is neither rich nor poor. It's not Carmel or Zionsville, but it's also not East Chicago. But the school not only has great facilities, it also has a very strong feeder program. I've had conversations with a number of GS people about it -- including one of the coaches. Coach Hart and the other members of the staff -- along with the administration, parents, and boosters -- have all done a phenomenal job putting together a top notch football program. Some years they have the horses to play with anybody, other years they're a bit down. Right now, you guys have a QB who will end up a 4-year starter and a sky-high potential. It's entirely conceivable that Allen will lead GS to LOS at least once, if not twice. But does that really mean that the kids coming up behind him, once he's gone, should be put on a steeper path? I don't think so. And, for me, it doesn't have anything to do with P/P versus public, or rich vs. poor, or anything like that. It has to do with common sense and logic -- plus a general belief that HS (athletics and otherwise) should properly prepare kids to compete in the workforce and policies like this work counter to that goal.

Even if this is the case, I don't think it justifies the SF or any other rule designed to make sports success more difficult for Dwenger (or anybody else). It's a really bad representation of how success, failure, etc. work in real life. If somebody else is having more success than you are at whatever pursuit or endeavor you're undertaking, and this is something you can't abide, the answer to that should never be to throw whatever bombs you have at your disposal in their path. That's not competition -- or, at least, it's not the way to deal with competition. The benefit of competition is that it makes all competitors strive to be better -- not to try to seek equal (or more equal) results, however possible. We shouldn't be teaching kids that the way to get the results they want in life is to take actions to hamper others who are seeking the same results, just because they're getting better ones. Because, among other reasons, that's not how it's going to work for them when they enter the workforce. If they want better results there, they're going to have to improve their own performance. I have a lot more sympathy for this argument. But wouldn't that mean having to officially exclude these kids from competing in athletics? It seems to me that would be a prerequisite for discounting them from the enrollment figures. I don't think it's something you can have both ways -- "we're going to exclude special education students from our enrollment figures, except those who actually participate in athletics." But, that issue aside, I do generally agree that it makes no sense to count them for the purpose of developing athletics classes. Well, this might just be a semantics thing. But, after all, schools that get enough points aren't moved down a class, right? They're not pulling out a pair of dice and rolling it to see which class they'll compete in in succeeding years, right? The entire idea is to pit those schools against stiffer competition -- which is another way of saying that they should have a harder time getting through tournaments. I guess we can debate whether or not "punishment" is the right word to describe this, but it certainly doesn't seem like any kind of reward. That said, whether or not it's a "punishment" isn't really my beef with it. My beef with it is that the SF burden is almost always placed on people who weren't responsible for the success. That makes no sense at all.

OK, I agree that the program is not immaterial and that this isn't an exact science. But the problem is that the success factor seems to rest on a presumption that the program is everything and the specific players -- those who had the success, those who come after -- are immaterial. The truth is that every scenario is different. My alma mater has been to 3 football state finals in a row, winning two. In the first season of this run, however, our headlines were reading "Memorial tops Jasper for first time in 10 years" (I don't remember the exact number of years...but that's roughly right). We had similar headlines when we beat (4A) Reitz and (2A) Mater Dei. So a program who has double-digit year losing streaks to 3 different annual opponents is now success-factored? As unfair as it is to chalk up the success of any team (especially in football, the ultimate team sport) to a handful of individuals, in our case it's almost certainly true. You take away Lindauer and the Combs brothers from us, and I strongly doubt we have the run we've had recently. But, while that era came to a close this weekend, our SF points have kept adding up. The kids who got them have moved on and the ones behind them, many of whom had nothing to do with it, now have an ostensibly steeper path to tournament success. I think most people see it that way, with reason. As I recall, there was even some discussion about putting P/Ps in their own division. But the SF system we have now is what they settled on. But why should the IHSAA, or any similar institution, be making policy designed to keep certain members happy at the implied expense of certain other members? If you want to have more success than you've had, take all the steps needed (within the rules, of course) to have more success. But to implement rule changes to make things harder for those who are having success? I wouldn't support any success factor policy, honestly. But, if they're going to have one, then they need to have a policy that better distinguishes between true perennial powers and programs that just happened to hit paydirt with a class or two of studs. I think the IFCA recommended a 4-year window to point up. That, at least, seems to guard better against the latter scenario.

The fatal flaw of the success factor is that it aims to make life harder on kids who had nothing to do with the success. ”Programs” don’t have success. Particular kids do. Should the IHSAA similarly add strokes to the scores of golfers or time to swimmers whose schools happened to have a few standouts the past couple years? “No, but those are individual sports!” Not really. They have both team and individual tournaments. And the success of a team is going to depend a whole lot on how good their individual athletes are.... ...which is no different than football or any other team sport.

Austin Jones looks headed to UIndy. He’s a great OLer. Did a phenomenal job on Karlaftis in last year’s final. But he just doesn’t have FBS size. And size is a prerequisite at that position. I’m sure Brock will play somewhere. But, yeah, it’s nuts he doesn’t have an offer. He’s a freak of nature - easily one of the best players to come out of Evansville since I’ve been paying attention.

Well, that’s probably true. But I’m not sure what it has to do with athletics.

You think they’re shelling out this money...because of sports?

I agree with this. Mooresville was very tough (and huge)!

The youngest, Brady, is in sixth grade.

What does this mean? Memorial has had an incredible run the past three years. That’s true. And Coach Hurley took two other teams to back to back runner-up appearances in ‘08 and ‘09. But in between, there were a bunch of tough years. A couple years ago, it was a running joke how long it had been since Memorial had beaten certain opponents — namely Jasper, Reitz, and Mater Dei. Two of the three of those are not P/P schools. I mean, I get that programs like Cathedral, Chatard, and Dwenger seem to always be good. But that doesn’t mean that any P/P program is always good and just has the luxury of getting whoever they want/need to succeed.

I don’t want to take away anything from any of the kids on Memorial’s D. They got a lot of contributions from a slew of kids - Brackett, Johnson, Jones, Stepto, Lively, Agler, etal. But Brock Combs and Ben Johnson are a lethal combination. Ben’s as smart of a defensive mind as you’ll run into at the HS level. And Brock is just a rare physical specimen with an insatiable killer instinct and a twin-turbo motor with a bottomless fuel tank.

If we were still in 3A this year, we probably wouldn’t be celebrating right now.

That was a thorough kicking of the rear end. Hate to see it - I’m a Memorial Tiger, proud of the Patriots and anybody else down in our neck of the woods. But Chatard looked as good as everybody said they would be. Glad we didn’t have to play them this year. Congrats!

And still had a decent shot to win at the end against a terrific WL team. They went (twice) right after a backup cornerback who was playing for an injured starter. I’m not much on wouldas and couldas (and, frankly, it was smart...I’m surprised that Chatard didn’t exploit the injury in the SS as WL did in the finals), but I think it was a difference maker. It’s hard to come back from a two score deficit early in the game against a great team. But EM had a juggernaut offense last year. Not so much this year.

It’s a luxury when they don’t have to. But, naturally, it’s a lot more common than it is in 5A/6A.

Good question. EM’s offense has been pretty inconsistent this year - which I guess can be expected after losing a generational QB/WR combo like Lindauer and (Branson) Combs. But one significant thing has changed in the tournament — the reps and touches that (Brock) Combs has been getting. He was used sparingly on offense during the regular season. Mostly just short yardage situations. He’s been getting the ball a lot more during the post-season. And I’d say it’s made a clear difference. Mooresville did a fine job stifling the Tigers offense. And they aren’t the first. It’s been EM’s Achilles Heel this year.

I’m pickin’ up what you’re puttin’ down. It’s entirely possible that this year’s Chatard team is just that much better than everybody else in 3A. So I would not be surprised if they win, by a small margin or a big margin. But you’re certainly right that we heard a lot of the same talk last year. And my beloved Tigers thumped them pretty decisively. After that game, it was hard to avoid the notion of Indy bias — whether from fans or media. It would be like any team from Indiana — New Pal, 2017 Ben Davis, last year’s WC — playing an elite team from Texas. Few would give the Indiana team a chance...because Indiana teams don’t beat Texas teams in HS football. But there’s a reason they play the games. Go Pats!

How awful. Coach Bowsman is such a young man - mid 40s, maybe? Sending prayers to his family and the WW community.

This bears posting here. Brock Combs is a beast. 5C15FE2B-99F1-40D7-82F8-531EC42A7449.MP4

Yeah, that’s one thing I hate about sports fans - imputing the behavior of one or a small handful of bad fans to the entire fanbase of a team. It happens at all levels. Somebody follows their team to an away game, a few of the home fans are jerks and, ergo, all that team’s fans are jerks. Newsflash: every team has some bad fans...but most people are generally respectful.

Yeah, that’s one thing I hate about sports fans - imputing the behavior of one or a small handful of bad fans to the entire fanbase of a team. It happens at all levels. Somebody follows their team to an away game, a few of the home fans are jerks and, ergo, all that team’s fans are jerks. Newsflash: every team has some bad fans...but most people are generally respectful.

I think GS will get their shot. They still have Brady Allen for two more years. He’s got a lot of potential and Hart’s a fantastic coach. And, while their regular season game against HH was a blowout, the sectional game was nip and tuck. GS led most of the game. I’d watch out for the Titans at least the next couple years.

That’s probably true. But there aren’t many 5A or 6A schools in the southern part of the state. Columbus has 2 schools in 6A — and I don’t think there are any south of there. There are only about 6 or 7 5A schools down south.

I’ll refrain from making any predictions about this or any other game. Not my thing. But I will say that, last year, we heard a lot about how incredible Chatard was. Honestly, they weren’t very good against us in the semi-state. Maybe it was just a down game for them. But GS was every bit as good — and HH beat them twice this year. Of course, teams change from year to year. And it’s entirely possible that Chatard really is a juggernaut this year. But we heard it last year and our game against them wasn’t close.