Footballking16

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

A true system of promotion & relegation, where grades 9-12 enrollment is taken entirely out of the equation, is the logical step.

Not feasible or practical for high school athletics. 

New Palestine not on there is laughable.

21 minutes ago, temptation said:

Cool, but he said ANYTHING.

Doyel was on record as stating that Carson Wentz’s unvaccinated status made him a terrible human being, that players would die if college football had fans, and thousands would die if the Indy 500 allowed fans.

And like most lefties, was DEAD wrong and refuses to acknowledge or apologize for it.

There’s one word to describe someone like Gregg Doyel, and that’s unhinged. Way too many people in that profession have just absolutely lost their minds in the last 5-6 years.

Nobody fell further and harder than Rick Reilly though. He hit every branch of the way down. Olberman needs 24 hour surveillance.

52 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Here come the talk of all the things many of them do well related to football....tradition, youth league, feeder, admin...bla bla bla.  Many publics have those same things...it's about a 3A private having about the same number of quality success driven student athletes as a 4A or 5A public.  Agree with you that it equates to more wins when the number of Jimmy's and Joes is stacked in your favor.

And it's why the Success Factor exists. It's why the 3A schools you've mentioned (Chatard and Memorial) have spent half their time in 4A since the implementation of the Success Factor. The multiplier in which you've advocated affects enrollment for the entire school. 

5 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Yes, that is in effect what the success factor does when you have an enrollment based classification system.

 

That's not at all how the SF works, good Lord.

The SF bumps up a specific athletic program temporarily who has found success in their current class. A multiplier, which most of these posters are advocating, artificially increases a school's enrollment which in turn bumps up every athletic program, regardless of success. There's zero reason why Chatard's basketball team should be playing in the 4A tournament because their football team is a dominant 3A school. That's what a multiplier does.

Not your best day today Muda. 

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Yeah, so?  For every one government school who wins a football state championship, there are hundreds more who aren't competitive in many of their other athletic programs.

Has anyone ever suggested that a public school needed their enrollment multiplied based on the success of their football program? I didn't think so either therefore your comparison holds zero water. 

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_and_relegation

Not practical for high school athletics. 

19 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Interesting that you don't present the flip side of that argument.  Have p/p's from 1A-5A won a "fraction" of the state championships over the last 20-25 years?

For every one P/P who wins a football state championship, there’s a dozen more who aren’t competitive in many of their other athletic programs.

14 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

Lol. I shouldn't get into this, but if they make up such a small fraction, then why do they win so much? Maybe because a purely enrollment-based classification benefits the schools with less dead weight? 

The argument about dead-weight enrollment would hold a ton more weight if the Success Factor didn’t exist. Why should the rest of Chatard’s athletic programs have to suffer as a permanent fixture in 4A at the expense of its football who’s not even a regular 3A school anymore? Why should Park Tudor, a program who’s wallowed in 1A for years, have to suffer even further in 2A football because they have a high percentage of kids who play in the country club sports?

11 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

It's been stated on this thread many times.  Crimsonace stated it well like this " Participation numbers are greater at p/ps than public schools and that's largely due to the fact that because your pool of students is people who are willing to pay tuition, they've already self-screened and are from the population of students/families that is *much* more likely to be involved in extracurricular activities (whether sports, band, choir, theater, clubs ...). The kids who just show up, go to class and then go home at the end of the day aren't as likely to have families who seek out a private-school alternative. "

Even the highest quality publics aren't going to have as many quality success driven kids to choose from.  It's a major factor.  Privates shouldn't be rewarded for having less dead weight.  For that reason enrollment alone doesn't work....never has, never will.  SF has helped some and is certainly better than nothing.

Lol.

P/P’s make up a fraction of the IHSAA member schools and it’s even a lesser percent when you break it down by each individual class. Using Chatard and Memorial (who make up 2% of 3A) as a reason why classifying schools by enrollment is a horrible idea is about the biggest bad faith argument I’ve heard on here. Most 3A schools have a similar athletic profile across the board and that’s because they’re all liked-sized. It’s why the IHSAA classifies schools by enrollment and why the success factor exists. 

2 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

No...but it changes effective enrollment.  I don't have the answer...but enrollment is absolutely horrible at determining similar institutions.  The square footage of the building might as well be used.

How is it horrible? 

Most schools (and I said most not all) are likely on a similar level  playing field with other schools with like-sized enrollments. On average, a school with 900 kids is going to kill a school with 300 kids and are going to get killed by a school with 3,000 kids. And I don't really think I'm re-inventing the wheel by suggesting this. 

Enrollment is by far and away the easiest and most practical way to classify schools and it's really irrelevant if there's a handful of schools in each class that punch way above their weight. It's why the Success Factor exists. 

5 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

I support a multiplier to account for the difference in enrollment type.  People at the IHSAA get paid to do the math.  For the record SF has helped some and it keeps the IHSAA out of potential litigation.   Most of us agree that it also needs tweeks.

That isn't practical or feasible in my opinion. 

Either bump all P/P's up a class and be done with it or stick with the current success factor that bumps certain programs(not schools as a whole) up for actual on field success. High % participation rates in EC and/or low SES numbers doesn't automatically guarantee success.

8 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_and_relegation

Also not practical or feasible in high school athletics.

44 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

But enrollment is the most practical way to start. And with the Success Factor, teams can move from there. 

There's never going to be a perfect system and there's no logical way to ever achieve fair and competitive balance in high school athletics, nor is it the job of the IHSAA. 

@Titan32how else would you propose the IHSAA classify teams as a base guideline if not for enrollment? I'd love to hear a more practical or feasible alternative.

5 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Agree....and neither are all publics.  Any of us can have the pieces to be successful if we choose to put in the work.  The question is what's the starting point for classification regardless of those things.  One thing is for certain, enrollment alone doesn't work.

But enrollment is the most practical way to start. And with the Success Factor, teams can move from there. 

There's never going to be a perfect system and there's no logical way to ever achieve fair and competitive balance in high school athletics, nor is it the job of the IHSAA. 

7 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Our private friends want us to ignore what they know their tuition dollars get them and the biggest most statistically significant thing it gets them is into a club with a larger pool of like minded peers.  It's a great thing that I too would have paid for if I didn't have other options.  

It's not ignored. It's why the Success Factor exists. Here to tell you that not all private schools are created equally either. 

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

You never read anything at The Indianapolis Star by Gregg Doyel or James Briggs, do you?

 

Thankfully the paywall prevents me from reading anything Gregg Doyel related. Not sure there is a more miserable person on the planet right now than Gregg Doyel. 

7 minutes ago, PHJIrish said:

You do realize that Plainfield has double the enrollment of Cathedral?  Cathedral has enrollment of approximately 1100 students, and about half of those are young ladies, just to refresh your memory.  Not all male students are all state caliber football players.  In fact, a small percentage of Irish football players ae recruited to high D1 colleges.  Hard work pays off at most private and parochial schools, both in the classroom and on the field of play.

The Irish will play wherever they're placed1

Saw Cathedral's enrollment is under 1100 for the first time in awhile. It was pushing 1300 almost a decade ago. Heard Chatard is hurting as well, had less than 30 freshman football players last year if what I was told is true. 

8 minutes ago, temptation said:

Here is where I am at:

vs Penn State:  lean loss (as silly as this sounds, this game could set the tone for the entire season, its a Thursday night so it'll be a great atmosphere)

vs Indiana State:  win

@ Syracuse:  lean win (Purdue teams seem to always drop one they should not so this one scares me a bit)

vs Florida Atlantic:  win

at Minnesota:  lean loss (just don't know what to make of the Gophers)

at Maryland:  lean win (already tired of the Taulia hype, guy throws it to the other team too much)

vs Nebraska:  lean win (not a believer in Frost but no other team in America was more unlucky in 2021 than the Huskers)

at Wisconsin:  lean loss (Camp Randall is the difference)

vs Iowa:  lean win (Boilers seem to always have Iowa's number, pick your WR to go for 200+)

at Illinois:  win (Illini are better but not good enough yet)

vs Northwestern:  win (like Fitz but I think he moves on from his alma mater eventually)

at Indiana:  lean win (Hoosiers are better than 2021 but nowhere near 2020 form; it will be close)

 

This adds up to 9.  But there are so many toss ups here.  Anything from 5-7 to 10-2 is possible IMO.

 

Wow, didn't realize just how favorable their schedule was....again.

Have to feel like anything less than 8 wins is a mild disappointment given the scheduling dynamic. 

IU just landed two OL recruits in the last 72 hours, both with decent offer lists.

Purdue just lost their prized QB recruit and by far and away their best committed player of the 23 class. 

Crimsonrace nailed it. It did what it was intended to do, and that’s prevent a select few programs from running off 4-5 state championships in a row.

The SF has benefitted a handful of programs in the process but by in large part, hasn’t moved the needle in terms of improving competitive balance. 
 

So to answer the question, I voted no, as it hasn’t benefitted Indiana High School as a whole. 95+% of IHSAA member teams remain largely unaffected by the SF.

1 hour ago, temptation said:

Throw the Covid year out.  It was an anomaly.

 

 

What about the 8 win season the year before?

7 hours ago, BTF said:

Just curious. It always fascinates me when someone's favorite team is outside the state they call home. 

State? Maybe city but I don't think that's weird at all. People living in NW IN and the Region are closer to Chicago by almost two hours than Indianapolis. Have never lived in that area of the state but would guess most local coverage goes to the Bears before it does the Colts. In fact, I'm pretty sure Chicago's metro population encompasses Lake and Porter Country. 

3 minutes ago, DT said:

We all have our place here FBK.

Im The Driver.

You're The Village Idiot.

It is what it is.

 

Clown or whipping boy seems like a more appropriate fit for you.

You take it well though, credit where credit is due.

Just now, DT said:

My departures and returns here have always been good for business.  No one moves the needle like DT.  

Yawn

1 minute ago, DT said:

I could care less whether people take me seriously or not on this site.  Im here for one reason and one reason only.  

I think you mean couldn’t care less.

Clearly you care, hence your nearly half-dozen short lived farewells.

5 minutes ago, DT said:

could care less about the PU staff.  This is about IU.  Why the spin?

Because you just flat out lied about Purdue maintaining good staff continuity. Not only is that not true, it was rebuffed in a matter of 20 seconds.

My one tip, if you want people to take you seriously, at least get your facts straight.

IU lost one noteworthy staff member last year: Deland McCullough. There was nothing IU could do to prevent him from going to Notre Dame.