Jump to content

Lysander1506841281

Varsity
  • Content Count

    1,159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

112 Excellent

2 Followers

About Lysander1506841281

  • Rank
    1000 Post Club
  • Birthday 08/31/1959

Profile Information

  • Location 2
    Indianapolis
  1. I am not speaking for anyone but myself when it comes to these things - so let's be clear on that. I recognize that there are advantages that Privates have but its not some of the cliches like "recruiting athletes" etc. (and if someone is doing it then they should be punished). It has to do with higher participation rates, socio-conomics (which are actually shared with some public schools like Carmel), better structured youth programs (again some publics like Center Grove probably share that advantage) and so on. First, I would like to see a head count that most could agree with. Many have mentioned that kids who are literally disabled fall into the current head count - if so, take them out. There has to be a reasonable way to count heads most can agree on. Whether you count classes 9-12 or only 12, again, I am not certain I care. Once done, let's look where the schools shake out. If Frankfort falls a class or 2, then great. But first, let's get a head count we agree is reasonable. Maybe just based on that, there will be a big shake up - although I doubt it. But I still think there will be some surprises and it will, in my opinion, result in more equitable breakdowns in classes. Next, if it is obvious that the new form of head count still doesn't do the job then either bump up all the privates a class or use a multiplier. Again, I don't really care which. Do I think it is necessarily the fairest way to do it? Not really, but the alternative is a separate tournament which would be unfairer still - just not enough private schools and their sizes too disparate. LCC is probably 3 times smaller than Chatard and Chatard 2 times smaller than Cathedral. Plus there would be less than 35 teams total. One of the issues I have with the "Tradition Factor" is that it is more of a "band aid" to the perceived problem. When Luers moves up then Ritter, Mater Dei or Andrean wins and then maybe Luers comes back down in a couple of years. Everybody knows that we are going to be right back here hearing the same complaints. Assuming a "fix" is needed, it clearly is not it. I actually understand that the IHSAA is trying to do something and will give them that much credit. Whatever "advantages" can be attributed to privates they all share them - if one private can't be as successful as another then so be it. Whether one is more successful than another shouldn't be looked at any differently than one public school being more successful than another (Carmel vs. New Castle). For that reason, if we are going do something then either move us all up or multiply us all-but don't pick and choose. All that said, I do believe something has changed in the publics in the last 10 years or so. This private school "dominance" wasn't as prevalent years ago. The privates aren't really doing anything they haven't always done - arguably many of their teams were even better 10 years or so ago. Yet the publics schools would seem to struggle much moreso today than they used to. I really wonder if the root problem doesn't have more to do with the changes in the public schools than what the privates are doing differently today. Regardless, the "fix" is apparently not going to come from that direction. As I have already said, though, we are under the Tradition Factor so arguing at this stage is an empty exercise. Let's see how it shakes out.
  2. I have never advocated the tradition factor - either in its current form or the coaches' proposed format. Far be it from me to defend it. Still, its what we have and I will live with it. Even so, its a lot fairer to those teams I mentioned specifically than what you are proposing. As to "athletic head count", I have always deferred to Irishman and others who have spoken extensively in the past as to this. His explanations seemed rational to me at the time I read them. Whether his exceptions would benefit Tipton, I have no inkling.
  3. Using Linton as an example. It seems that community has a passion about their football and that their teams punch above class. So long as the community, coaches and kids perform at their current high level they will essentially have to play MIC schools. But should the quality of their program decline (assumedly frustration may well set in) and they drop out of the top 64 then they will have a better shot. In other words, they will have to get "worse" to drop down into the next class of 64 to have a chance to compete effectively. And how is this good for those programs and the quality of football in general in that they have to decline in quality in order to reap the rewards under your system? As to you point about the talent pool at Frankfort - if that pool is somehow the lesser and would qualify to have students removed from the head count - then fine.
  4. Aside from the fact (yeah, we've argued about this idea the last 2 years so I am not going to rehash it all) that it is simply a bad idea, it has been evident to me based on some of the "seeding" discussions this year that people won't even agree to seed "all in" sectionals. Even when some agreed to the concept of seeding sectionals then the squabbling begins about what system you use to seed (Sagarin, coaches' vote, etc. etc.). From a practical perspective, there is no way people will agree to any system that breaks down the teams into units of 64 ranking from best to worst if they can't even agree to seed sectionals. The point is moot from a practical perspective. Additionally, it is simply unfair to smaller schools who have built excellent programs to lump them in with schools the size of Carmel, Penn and BD. Using this year as an example: N. Posey, Linton, Tipton, Mater Dei, Ritter, Lafayette CC and Heritage Christian would be competing in the top 64. these are schools that are 1A and 2A in size. Their reward for building a great smaller school program would be to play Carmel, etc. If you want to destroy smaller school programs and provide a disincentive then "Relegation and Promotion" would be perfect. Per Irishman's points about the problems with the way students are counted - start with that to get a fairer head count but stick with student population size as the basis to break down classes.
  5. Thanks. Sloppy reading/thinking on my part - got it stuck in my head the MD/Ritter game was on Saturday as well.
  6. Admittedly, I am not certain if I am making the drive to Ft. Branch at this stage but I have always wanted to see a game in the Reitz Bowl. Is it even close to a practical thought that someone could go to the Chatard/Gibson Southern (5:30 EST?) game and later make it to the Ritter/Mater Dei game (8:00 PM EST) sometime in the first quarter? Been to the Pit at Elder. Of course I have seen many, many games at the legendary Broad Ripple field (kidding, kidding). Really would like to see a game at Reitz Bowl and get a 2fer out of such a long trip.
  7. Lysander1506841281

    Success Factor

    Sorry, not following. Park Tudor, Lutheran, Scecina, Ritter are 5A (6A next year)? Is that what you are saying (I am trying to be honest as to this)? If so, I am assuming you are being facetious....at least I hope so.
  8. Lysander1506841281

    Thank A Vet

    Thank you SFVetA553-wherever you might be. As a Green Beret, you can say whatever you want here...whenever you *amn well want. You have earned the right. Just wish you could "burn the town down" this weekend. God bless you...and all your brothers-in-arms.
  9. I think many of us are excited to see the new challenge. I admit to having issues with the "Tradition Factor" as it stands but, as always, Chatard will likely play when, where and who they are told - no complaints. That said, your comments that I boldfaced can likely be applied to 3A as well as 4A. As regards the public schools, there seems to be a significant drop-off from today vs. the early 2000s. The early 2000s Chatard teams were "packed" with talent yet they struggled to win 3A. More recently, Chatard has seemed to have an easier time of it.without quite the same depth of talent. My opinion is that something has changed in 3A (per your post, possibly 4A). Perhaps a different (or new) thread, but what has changed in 3A or 4a? My understanding (perhaps incorrect) is that one of TA's missions for the GID was to improve the quality of Indiana HS football - in the broadest sense, is that happening? If not, does the "Tradition Factor" assist in TA's mission? Not saying it is the same mission as the IHSAA....or anyone else for that matter. Honestly, just curious...I don't have any sort of agenda on this issue. What is going on? Is Indiana getting better or getting worse? Does it matter at all?
  10. Lysander1506841281

    Chatard At Gibson Southern

    Probably so, my guess is that you would know better than I. Clearly the '08 EM team was able to largely shut down Chatard's run. In '09, Chatard ran the ball very effectively but, in the end, just couldn't keep up with the scoring horserace (much like this year's Ritter game). Additionally, Chatard was missing their kicker/punter in '09. He was arguably one of the 2-3 best in the state and it really changed their game. FYI - as he has already admitted for those that haven't figured it out, h0tr0d has a very, very big spoon and he is always looking for a pot. He also has excellent taste in fast food (your new avatar has my stomach growling).
  11. Lysander1506841281

    Thank A Vet

    "Amen" to that.
  12. Lysander1506841281

    Chatard At Gibson Southern

    Good observation. I tend to agree.
  13. Isaiah Lewis (Ben Davis) Michigan State,
  14. Mater Dei 20 Lawrenceburg 7 Half
×