Bobref

I was in Jamaica last week. Practically had to beat the weed vendors away with a stick. I confess, I tried it ... but I didn’t inhale. 😜

Makes me nostalgic for the old days. #ditchweed 😉

There are more states in the US with fewer schools than Indiana, than there are that have more. Guess how many of them have an all in format. And as far taking away something good, just remember: “Good is the enemy of better.”

Exactly right. Add to it that Elmer was not the kind of guy that was going to say things people wanted to hear if he didn’t mean them. A Hall of Famer. Similar scenarios have been played out in several places, and it always mystifies me.

As a postscript to my earlier observation, I believe there are only 3 other Power 5 schools that have admission requirements comparable to ND: Stanford, Duke, and Georgia Tech. That 2 of the 3 are in the ACC was a significant factor in ND’s decision to “affiliate” with that conference. Now, if we could only convince Clemson to elevate their standards .... 😆

The admissions process at ND, like most places, is multi-factorial. So, there is no absolute “standard” against which applicants are measured, be they athletes or not. Each application is an individual decision. I can say 2 things, however, with confidence. 1. Notre Dame has higher eligibility standards than the NCAA. The latter requires students to maintain a 1.8/4.0 GPA, while ND requires a 2.0. And a 2.0 at ND is no laughing matter, since athletes do not have a P.E. major where they can take courses like recreational camping, or dodgeball 101. As a consequence, the admissions philosophy is that they won’t admit a student athlete who the admissions committee does not believe will achieve that. 2. The last assessment I saw on the subject said basically that if you took the top 100 recruits in a given year, ND would not even bother talking to 50 of them, because there would be no hope that they could withstand the scrutiny of the admissions process. Where Mr. Stepp falls in all this is unknown, at least, to me.

I’m confident Commissioner DT would have some sort of Veeck-like promotion that would pack ‘em in.

The concept of the Cluster system was, and remains, valid. The implementation was fatally flawed because the rules did not allow enough teams to qualify, leading to inequitable results. Expand the number of teams getting in, and problem solved.

Looks like I’m going to be in the house at Concord Friday night. What can I expect from these teams?

Man, you are a glutton for punishment. Incoming !!!

I suppose the fact that CG has had a star injured all season who might make it back for the playoffs has nothing to do with your thoughts. This is what I mean when I say that everyone is looking out for their own team, and no one is looking out for the sport in general. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Right now, using Sagarin ratings as an example, the #16 team in 6A is Merrillville. The #17 team is FW Carroll. However, Carroll is playing 4A Wayne, who is 0-8, this Friday. Should be an easy win for them. Merrillville, on the other hand, plays Chesterton who is 6-2. In a top 16 format (for 6A), since Merrillville can readily assume Carroll will win their game Friday, the Pirates' game with Chesterton could very well determine whether they make the playoffs or not. So they would pull out all the stops to win that one. Instead, they know the game means essentially nothing to them. So they will play conservatively, not wanting to show their first round playoff opponent anything, and hoping that no one will get hurt. The Merrillville fans are not particularly excited about the game since even with a win, Merrillville can't enhance their playoff position (no seeding, the draw is already done), and can't win their conference championship. So it becomes a ho-hum game where, if playoff qualification was hanging in the balance, it would be anything but. Multiply that scenario times games like that all over the state all during the last half of the season, and you have a much, much more exciting high school football scene. Simply put, a qualification scenario turns many, many regular season games into playoff-type atmosphere games. And that is good for Indiana football.

The fatal flaw in both systems was that they did not have enough teams in the playoffs. This led to the inequities you pointed out. A "top 50%" qualification system fixes those flaws and, I agree with you, would be optimal in terms of both "fairness" and making the regular season much, much more meaningful.

Yes, it does. The problem with it is that not everyone is the same.

Sit back, as this is going to take a while. But if you are really interested in this issue, I think it’s worth it. I think DT is one of the more progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers on this site. But DT and I are going to have to part company on this one. If you are going to address competitive issues by adding criteria other than raw size to a classification system, a Success Factor (SF) is a much better way to do it than a Multiplier (M). The M is a broadsword when what we are really looking for is a scalpel. Here’s why. In order to determine the best solution, you must first identify the issue and then decide on the goal you want to achieve. The issue the classification system attempts to address is simply that schools that are larger have advantages over schools that are smaller. Nowhere is this more evident than in football, which is in some respects, a numbers game. The goal of a classification system is to, within practical limits, have like schools playing like schools. The call for a classification system that takes into account more than just sheer school size came about not because P/Ps have some distinct advantages (although they do), but because they were having success disproportionate to their numbers. Is it really an advantage if it is not translated into success? Of course not. It was not uncommon to go to Thanksgiving weekend in Indy and see 60% P/Ps in the finals, when they comprise only 10% (or less) of the football-playing schools. This disparity was reflected in all levels of the tournament, i.e., sectional, regional and semistate championships. It has been well-documented on here that P/Ps have certain advantages: Absence of geographic boundaries, giving them access to a theoretically greater pool of potential players. A demographic makeup that results in their students being more willing/able to participate in extracurricular activities. A selective admissions process that, again theoretically, allows them to “recruit” athletes. Of course, there are P/P supporters who will fight you to the death as to whether these advantages actually exist, whether they are offset by advantages that public schools have, or whether these advantages translate to athletic success. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that these advantages do exist, and that they can result in greater athletic success. The problem with a M is that it treats all P/Ps exactly the same when it is inarguably clear that they are not. Some P/Ps capitalize on their inherent advantages, and some do not. No one in his right mind would argue that Cathedral and Bishop Noll should be treated the same. Yet, that is what a M system does. Chatard is a perennial contender for a state championship. Park Tudor has won just 15 of the 70 games they’ve played going back to the 2013 season. Yet, a M treats them as if they were the same. A classification system that seeks to promote fairness should address the real issue: disproportionate success resulting from a willingness to take advantage of the factors that contribute to success. Some P/Ps do, and some don’t. A M paints with too broad a brush. Since the issue is disproportionate success, a classification system based on success is the best way to address the issue. Now, you can certainly quibble over whether the current SF system is the best way to go about it. Is the cycle too short? Does it award the right number of “points” to certain achievements? Does it measure disproportionate success accurately? But what you can’t argue is that a success based system is the only fair way to address the problem of inherent advantages resulting in disproportionate success. Because it’s only when a school uses those advantages to be disproportionately successful that a perceived problem arises. If all the P/Ps had a level of success like Bishop Noll and Park Tudor, would anyone be clamoring for a M or SF? Of course not. The other positive attribute of a SF system is that is applies across the board to all schools, not just P/Ps. Because, you see, there are public schools that have advantages, too. They have greater access to financial resources than P/Ps. They pay their coaches better. They generally have better facilities. When was the last time you saw a P/P float a bond issue? New Palestine is a great example. During the same period that Park Tudor was 15-55, New Pal went 82-4, with 4 sectional titles, 4 regionals, 3 semistates, and 2 state championships. They have certain advantages in terms of their demographics, facilities, and, most importantly a supportive administration and community. They’ve leveraged those advantages into great success. In other words, they’ve proved they can punch above their weight class. A M system, however, would not address their disproportionate success. But under the SF, they are 5A, rather than the 4A they would be simply by enrollment. And they’re doing quite nicely in 5A. So there is no unfairness there. The bottom line is that if the objective of a classification system is to have like schools playing like, so that the playing field is “level,” a M is too blunt an instrument. Its basic assumption – that all P/Ps are alike – is demonstrably wrong. If you’re going to address a disproportionate level of success for certain schools, then the best way to do it is to affect the schools that use their inherent advantages – whatever they may be – to achieve that disproportionate level of success, and not make things even harder for those schools who, for whatever reason, have not been able to translate whatever perceived advantages they have into that type of success. My two cents.

I have no illusions about the likelihood of doing away with the all in format. The “welfare” mentality persists among coaches, fans, administrators, etc., since they’ve never had to earn the right to playoff participation, it’s become a handout. And if you asked 320 people who have been getting a freebie for 30+ years whether they’d be willing to give it up “for the good of society in general,” how many of them do you think would be willing to do so? The problem is that everyone is committed to doing what is best for his or her school. No one is looking out for the best interests of Indiana high school football in general. So, with that mentality, Indiana football will never be as good as it could be.

It’s like you’re right there in my head. 😀

Just tellin’ it like it is. 😜

If only that were so. In the first couple of rounds, it’s often more about geographic proximity, since officials get paid mileage for the tournament.

One thing that the “it doesn’t matter whether you play them in the first round or the third” folks probably haven’t considered: by the time the sectional championship rolls around you’re working with officiating crews who are in the top 1/3 of the crews in the state. Guess what you get in the first round. Who do you want working the Cass-Pioneer game?

From your lips to the Commissioner’s ear.

It most certainly does matter.

The blind draw cheats the fans and the kids. No other rational way to view it.

More's the pity.

If you have "zero knowledge" of the circumstances, then why be judgmental about it? Unlike most places, there is no connection at ND between the athletic department and the admissions office. You commit to ND, that does not guarantee admission. You've still got to satisfy the admissions committee, regardless of how the athletic department feels about you.

If you have "zero knowledge" of the circumstances, then why be judgmental about it? Unlike most places, there is no connection at ND between the athletic department and the admissions office. You commit to ND, that does not guarantee admission. You've still got to satisfy the admissions committee, regardless of how the athletic department feels about you.