Footballking16

7 minutes ago, temptation said:

The way you constantly poo poo the plight of schools less fortunate is as transparent as a pane of glass.

The way I constantly "poo poo the plight of schools less fortunate"???? Are you off your meds?

You have me confused with the old man constantly telling this board what poor and less fortunate schools need to do with their football programs. Watching you become unhinged has been a treat. 

2 minutes ago, temptation said:

Not excusing that, but my point still stands.  Your head is so far in the sand regarding what poor and/or rural schools experience.

And you know that how? You don't know one damn thing about me. Keep your stupid and uninformed opinions to your GD self. 

Just now, temptation said:

“If it doesn’t concern Cathedral or is not an issue that directly affects Cathedral, it’s either a non-issue or a terrible idea.”

- FBK

Please, I beg you, to show me where I ever called co-op football a bad idea? Literally the only person who has argued or suggested co-op football was a bad idea was DT citing unnecessary travel to practice 4 days a week. He then proceeded to commemorate the idea 30 minutes later in the same exact thread. It's fascinating to watch this guy walk in circles. 

22 minutes ago, DT said:

The dunce FBK cannot grasp this concept

You've nailed it

LOL wtf?

I grasp the concept of co-op football, haven't ever disagreed with it? Aren't you the same dummy who in this same thread 30 minutes suggested it was a bad idea because kids might have to travel 30+ minutes to practice 4x a week? Now you're on board with it??

Like I said, you seemingly talk in circles and don't have an ounce of a clue as to what you're talking about. You've literally contradicted yourself and flipped your entirely on co-op football in a matter of 30 minutes simply so you could hear yourself talk. I find it fascinating. It's truly mesmerizing. 

8 minutes ago, DT said:

Ive never in 18 years here put anyone on ignore but that is exactly where you are going. 

Yeah and I bet that lasts as long as your bi-monthly retreat from here. 

Just now, DT said:

You really are an argumentative fool.  You dont even take the time to absorb the concept under discussion before typing some idiotic response.  I always feel like I need to take a shower or detox after engaging with you.  Ive never in 18 years here put anyone on ignore but that is exactly where you are going.  

Perfect. You talk in circles and don't make an ounce of sense. Why would a kid in Ripley County be driving 30 minutes to practice 4 days a week in the event his school district consolidated? No one is talking about the 3 Ripley County schools forming one football team, the OP is suggesting the 3 Ripley County schools consolidate into one high school and subsequently offer a football program. If you can coherently read to form any semblance of an argument, that's on you. 

1 minute ago, DT said:

Rural people think differently and act differently than city people.  I would choose not to commute 30 minutes to a consolidated practice site after school 4 days a week, but some farm kid in Ripley County might be happy to do it.  

A farm kid in Ripley County wouldn't have to drive 30 minutes a week to practice if his school district consolidated. He'd be practicing 500 feet from the building he attended school all day in. Don't make this harder than it needs to be. 

Just now, DT said:

No one is talking about consolidating football teams for competitive reasons. Maybe they should be.

Didn't you just say it was a bad idea because students would have to potentially drive 30+ minutes to practice 4x a week? Pick a side

1 minute ago, DT said:

The OP is talking about consolidating school districts that would in turn be able to offer more competitive athletic programs. Combing two or three rural high schools with 300-400 students isn't a novel idea and in fact has been happening for 50-60 years. It's more than practical. But its not done for the benefit of athletics.  Its done for financial reasons.

Of course it's going to be based on a financial reasons, doesn't mean athletics can benefit in the process. 

3 minutes ago, DT said:

Consolidating football teams for competitive reasons is a whole different concept than closing down county schools completely.  

No one is talking about consolidating football teams for competitive reasons.

The OP is talking about consolidating school districts that would in turn be able to offer more competitive athletic programs. Combing two or three rural high schools with 300-400 students isn't a novel idea and in fact has been happening for 50-60 years. It's more than practical. 

3 minutes ago, DT said:

I cant imagine kids driving 30 minutes every day after school to go to a consolidated county football practice.  But I live in the city so what do I know.?  

Right. 

So if two or three schools consolidated into one, they'd all be practicing at the same location. Problem solved. 

3 minutes ago, DT said:

Im all for team consolidation, not school consolidation.  If three schools can remain open and service their students, and combine three bad football programs into one good one, whats wrong with that?  

Logistics would be a big challenge but if they can overcome that, would love to see it happen.  

Wouldn't team consolidation present the same travel issues you ascribed above? Wouldn't that actually cause a bigger problem?

12 minutes ago, Old Man High Pants said:

All of the schools I've listed are within twenty minutes of each other. I'm an East Central graduate, lived almost in Ohio, drove 25 minutes everyday to get to school, some of my teammates had further drives. Not asking anyone to make hour long commutes.

That and most of the schools I mention consolidating are in the same county. How do kids in Rush County all make it to Rushville High School? How do all the kids in Franklin County make it to Franklin County High School? How do all of the kids in Jennings County make it to Jennings County High School? 

He's being pedantic. He wants schools to shut down their programs. That should have been your first sign. 

10 hours ago, DT said:

How do you handle practice 4 days a week when there is so much travel involved?

I'd imagine the same way they currently get home from practice...

9 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Once again, I was too slow and ran out of time to edit. Let me explain.

The IHSAA can be treated as a quasi-governmental entity when it deals with individuals in, for example, eligibility decisions. That’s why they often lose those lawsuits. But not so when they are dealing with their own member institutions. That’s completely different. There, they can essentially only be sued by a member institution  for violating their own rules. That’s because the rules are the equivalent of the terms of a contract with the member institution.

Will defer to you, but is there anything written in a contract that states the IHSAA can selectively manipulate member institutions enrollments for their own purpose? Wouldn't selectively choosing a handful of schools to artificially inflate their enrollment numbers be some form of discrimination? 

I could be way off base but isn't that a plausible reason why the IHSAA went with the success factor as it could be applied to all schools rather than the multiplier that theoretically discriminates only against a handful of schools? Or is to gray of an area that the IHSAA rather avoid altogether.

I know other states have multipliers, but not familiar with the route taken as to how they were implemented and what kind of leg P/P's had to stand on.

1 minute ago, gonzoron said:

It depends on how you look at it. Are you more concerned with assembling an all-star team or offering more student athletes a chance to participate in an extra-curricular activity they love?

Guess it would depend. What were the participation #'s for the two Elkhart schools prior to consolidation? Have to think with consolidation you're really able to set up a freshman and JV squad and really look to develop players for the future. A lot of opportunities out there to grow a program with the right amount of numbers.

3 hours ago, foxbat said:

Did a very quick check, so this may not be complete, but take a look:

• Adams Central - Had a regional in 98, another in 99, and a state in 2000.  I'm not sure if I'd classify after that as a falloff.  They did have the next two years without a sectional, but then had a regional in 2003, a sectional in 2004, a regional in 2005, a sectional in 2006, and then four seasons through 2010 without a sectional.  Leading into their last state appearance in 2021, there were two regionals in 2018/2019 and no sectional in 2020.
• Sheridan - This one probably ends up being the one we'd expect without looking at the data given that they've had lots of state runs and haven't been back in the mix in the last 5-10 years.  Sheridan had a 4-peat visit/3-peat win cycle at LOS from 2005-2008.  The following two seasons, they didn't have a sectional, but did have regionals in 2011 and 2012, before running into LCC both seasons in semi-state on the backend of LCC's four-peat run.  Since then, they've yet to secure a sectional.
• Linton - Linton had a run of moderate success in the latter part of the 2000s and into the 2010s.  Prior to getting to state, they had a run of three straight regionals followed by a sectional from 2011-2014.  There were two state visits in 2015 and 2016 resulting in a blue ring and an "invitation" from Uncle SF to come take a look at 2A.  Enrollment has kept them in 2A, so even though Uncle Sf came for them, they would have probably only had a another couple of years in 1A before the crystal flower in their palm started to blink ... Last Day. 
• Pioneer - Like Linton, LCC, and Sheridan, also received a visit from Uncle SF.  Like Sheridan in their heyday, you can make an argument that they were power program rather than just a really good class.  One thing that you do have to take into account, when looking at their data is that it is going to look "lighter" than it really is due to the fact that Pioneer and LCC tended to be in the same sectional or regional and often knocked each other off in the early part of the tourney even though one or both were likely ranked top 5 at the time.  As such, there are a couple years, like 2009, where it looks like Pioneer didn't even win a sectional game, but when they lost to LCC that season, I think Pioneer was ranked #1.  You can probably argue that the 1997 state champ team was a class and year item given that the three seasons before and the three seasons after, they didn't win sectional titles.  A sectional, regional, sectional, semi, section title run from 2013-2015 preceded the three-peat visits / 2-peat win LOS trips in 2016, 2017, 2018.  Then Uncle SF came calling.
• LCC - LCC won state in 1999.  From 1994-1998, LCC did not win any sectional titles.  From 2000 - 2004, LCC also did not win any sectionals.  A lone sectional win in 2005 and then no titles again from 2006-2008.  The four-peat run hit from 2009-2012 resulting in four blue rings.  Then Uncle SF came calling.  LCC actually picked up a regional in the second year of the two-year cycle in 2014.  Back down to 1A in 2015 with a state title followed by a sectional in 2016 ... run ended by Pioneer.  Then Pioneer struck and knocked them out of sectionals in both 2017-2018.  A state title in 2019, followed by a regional in 2020, and Uncle SF came calling again.
• Scecina - Looking at just their 1A time, Scecina, prior to the 2-peat visit to LOS in 2011-2012 had no sectional titles from 2003-2010.  Scecina has the distinct "pleasure" of being the poster child for the exception for Uncle SF in that he came calling before they could place that blue ring on their hand.  They are the only team to be SF'd who did not pick up a blue ring on the way to their next-class invitation.  Scecina grew in size and never dropped back down to 2A .  They've had moderate success in 2A with three sectionals and two regionals sprinkled over nine seasons in 2A.
• South Adams - This might be the one team that actually gets closest to the criteria and the spirit of the question asked, but we are too close to the results to know the answer.  Had a sectional in 2019, a state visit in 2020, and a sectional in 2021.
• Lutheran - Been around since 2005.  Had a sectional in 2009 and then a streak of four regionals and a sectional from 2014-2018 en route to a showdown with LCC in 2019 at LOS and then a 2021 state title.  As such, I would say that the idea of build-up and let down isn't necessarily applicable here either.

There may be more that are in play and may reveal a match to your criteria, but these are the ones that we'd been looking at to start with.  Notice that, in the above mix, of the eight listed, four of them were SF'd, with LCC being SF'd twice, Pioneer not yet bouncing down, and Linton and Scecina growing into staying.  Of the other four, Sheridan might be the only one where you could argue that the program dropped off, but even in that case, Sheridan had a pair of semi-state visits in 2011 and 2012 AFTER the four-peat visit/three-peat win in the period 2005-2008.

 

Thanks.

All those programs I would categorize as either historically good to currently good. Sheridan is probably the only team of that bunch who can't rebuild or retool in the event they were bumped to 2A nowadays but I'm willing to concede Sheridan would absolutely live through a grace period in which they were forced to play in 2A if it meant winning a state title. I'm guessing that would be the case for just about any 1A school. 

38 minutes ago, Old Man High Pants said:

I'll repost here for those that didn't see it on the other contraction thread DT started 

Consolidation not Contraction

I know in the southeastern part of the state there are quite a few football programs that would benefit from this. Now I know school corporations make decisions based on a thousand other things then athletic programs but some of these smaller schools that are still out there I think would benefit from either consolidating with other small schools or a big school.

I think a great example of this would be the schools in Decatur County. Currently those include Greensburg, North Decatur & South Decatur. These are three schools that are all within a 20 minute drive of each other (Greensburg & North Decatur are literally on the opposite sides of 74).

According to the last enrollment numbers if all three of these schools combined they would have a student population of 1,278. This would make "Decatur County High School" a lot more competitive as a 4A school, maybe even a good team to play with Greensburg conference opponent East Central. In recent years South Decatur has had number issues and both North & South have had conference issues.

Other schools in southeastern Indiana that could benefit from this:

Milan + South Ripley + Jac-Cen-Del = "Ripley County High School" with 950 kids (South Ripley & Jac-Cen-Del do not have football teams)

Madison + Southwestern Hanover = "Jefferson County High School" with 1,114 kids (Southwestern Hanover doesn't have a football team)

Connersville + Union County = "Fayette-Union High School" with 1,374 kids

Switzerland County + Rising Sun = "Switz-Ohio High School" with 657 kids (Rising Sun doesn't have a football team)

Personally I think consolidation has a lot of benefits when it comes to the actual classroom and educational experience a student has. Small school generally means small resources. But when it comes to all the problems DT/HHF talks about I think this could be an answer. It creates schools with large enough enrollments to field football teams and gives even more kids opportunity to play football.

I don't have enough knowledge about other parts of the state but I'm sure there are similar situations across the state.

I could definitely get on board with consolidation especially if it provides not only opportunity but a more competitive environment. I imagine this could potentially add some logistical and economic nightmares but it's not the end of the world. Elkhart recently did this and sounds like it is already paying off in the athletic department.

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Exactly.  Lawyers for the Catholic church have enough experience with litigation that suing the IHSAA into submission should be child's play.

Why would the Catholic Church sue the IHSAA over artificially inflating school enrollments? You realize that not every P/P is a catholic school correct? 

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

That and the talk of a possible discrimination lawsuit brought against the IHSAA by P/P member schools if a multiplier was enacted.

 

Well yeah, why wouldn't they?

4 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

I believe initially it was a 4 year cycle for Success Factor, but then it was changed to the 2 year cycle. I believe the 2 year cycle is better. Imagine a small 1A school that isn't private school has an amazing class of athletes that win a sectional (1pt), regional (2pts) then State title (4pts). That's 7 points now accumulated.

But then they graduate.

The 4 classes behind them have to play up a class their entire high school careers because of a once in a lifetime run from their small community.

2 year cycle has been a better change in my opinion.

Is there any examples of a 1A school where a team has ridden a good group of sophomores and juniors to a sectional and regional title and then won it all the following year only to completely fall off a cliff? Not saying it hasn't or couldn't happen but that I think that is an absolute extreme scenario.

Honestly haven't tracked the SF in the lower classes, is there any example(s) of teams with little to no football history bumping up a class due to a one and a lifetime class? Just going off memory, the teams that have bumped up were all usual suspects and the ones that weren't New Pal have completely elevated their level of play. 

5 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

No arguments regarding multipliers not applying to P/Ss that focus on synchronized swimming.  But for schools that have the football pieces in place....the only issue is the one I described.  Perhaps a modified success factor can fix that...but the enrollments are so catastrophically different between P/Ps and even successful publics ...student type is the fundamental issue.  A pay to play club and a mandatory institution have very little in common.

I think the Success Factor should be moved from a 2 year cycle to a 4 year cycle. Accrue anything less than 4 points and you bump back to your original class, accrue anywhere from 4 to 6 points you remain in your current class and anything over 7 you're bumped another class.  

4 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

No that doesn't work, just because at the P/Ps one pays to be in a club with like minded students/athletes, one shouldn't be afforded the reward of classification that only counts bodies.  Said another way, if we have 20% of our student population only showing up because they have a pulse and the law says they have to be there...why should we (3A rural public), be punished for that.  If we could ship those kids to a 2A P/P...suddenly now that P/P would be 3A and have a lot more administrative things to worry about..

This is the main reason of the disparity in football success (using body counting) for schools that also have the other things it takes to be successful in football.

Which is exactly why the Success Factor was implemented instead of a multiplier. Having heavy extracurricular participation numbers doesn't automatically equate to success; see my point about Park Tudor football. What kind of participation numbers do you think a school like Hammond Noll enjoys? why should their enrollment be doubled?

Bump up the individual team, not entire school, for the programs who show success. Seems rather simple to me. 

Just now, DT said:

The purpose of the SF was to provide more balance.  It has not achieved that primary objective.  We have more imbalance today than ever, and stronger and deeper PPs at the top of every class

LOL.

There's going to be haves and have nots regardless of what you do to the P/P's. Multiplying the P/P's by however many students isn't going to address the issue of competitive balance. The purpose of the SF wasn't to prevent the P/P's from ever winning a state title again. Multiply the P/P enrollments by 2 and now you're just going to have the same one or two public schools win in class 1A and 2A every year, how does that address competitive balance.

If you don't want the P/P's to ever win a state title again, then put them in their own division. However, the IHSAA knows that'll never hold up. 

2 minutes ago, DT said:

Park Tudor is the perfect example of the advantages of small school private football.  One day, PT decided to be a state contender in football after ignoring the sport for decades.  Two years later they are being mentioned as a state contender.  You can spend, hire and recruit your way to the top very quickly as a private (Hello Covenant Christian) .  Publics do not have those capabilities.

Who is mentioning Park Tudor as a state title contender other than you? 

1 minute ago, temptation said:

Eh, as another poster mentioned about Liberty Christian, Park Tudor’s focus has been basketball.

They are 172-66 over the last decade and probably boasted two teams that could have competed for the 4A title.

Their facilities have experienced a fairly significant upgrade and it appears their football program is on the precipice of turning the corner.  Even you can’t deny that.  They’ll get a title sooner rather than later.

Lol.

The reason Park Tudor has 1 winning season in the last 16 years has nothing to do with their facilities by the way. 

3 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

For the record guys...I didn't say I was for a multiplier.  What I do say is the current success factor is NOT working well.

What isn't working?

The purpose of the success factor wasn't to prevent private schools from ever winning state titles by the way. 

29 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

This is simply not true.  Every beating heart at a P/P has parents who have paid for a service and expect results.  The enrollment make up is completely different...so different in fact it is literally apples and oranges.  Quality, hard-working, success oriented, extracurricular participating students are at nearly 100% levels at a P/P (regardless if mom and dad drive a Chevy Cruze or a Bentley).  This is not the case at any public school no matter how good their free and assisted lunch numbers are or how rural/metro/affluent they are or anything else.  

Publics and P/Ps can both have all the things that make a football program successful or only a smaller subset of them....that's where these discussions always go and frankly it doesn't matter.  I won't list them all out as we all know what they are.  The enrollment type disparity will always be the issue and that is what makes multipliers attractive because it makes an attempt to address that issue with some crude math.

As an example.  I believe that Mater Dei (496) and Gibson Southern (704) run about the same in terms of the number of the type student I described above.  Ideally these two schools should be in the same classification if we want a fair system.

 

 

Not every p/p has a good football program regardless the percentage of students competing in extracurriculars. That's why the success factor, not multiplier, makes more sense. Park Tudor has always been one of the largest 1A schools and on a per capita basis is the wealthiest school in Indiana with the exception of maybe Culver Military and they haven't won a sectional since 2005. Hell, until last year, they hadn't had a winning season in over a decade. By @temptationmetrics, Park Tudor should be running away with state titles on the gridiron given their high enrollment number and extremely low SES numbers.

Silly to just start multiplying non-existent students to a school's enrollment because of perceived advantages that may not actually take place. The thought of Park Tudor playing 3A football because they have a bunch of students who play golf, lacrosse, and tennis is laughable. Let's let Park Tudor have some success in 1A and bump them up in the event of it happening rather than just adding nearly 400 mythical students to their enrollment. Seems practical, no?