wabashalwaysfights

Don't be barbaric... the former Illinois counties will of course have to change their names in deference to their new Indiana overlords...

I mean... It's all incredibly unlikely, but the thought is kind of remarkable.

To stick with the original topic: I would think something like this would all but guarantee the end of the all in tournament no? Slightly off topic: I have been saying for years that we (Indiana) should just take over Illinois minus Chicago. It's essentially Indiana West anyway...

I never thought of knee pads as preventing ligament damage, more to protect against a bone bruise type injury on the actual knee cap. Unfortunately we've had kids not wearing knee pads and knock knees in practice and complain about how much it hurts, which this old guy says, "maybe wear your knee pads..."

Absolutely. This is especially true at smaller schools where staffs get smaller and teaching loads get heavier. As to hiring lay coaches: that's also not as straightforward as it seems, but again, this is by school district. There are some districts that will hire lay coaches as head coaches, but there are some places that place restrictions on what head coaching jobs can be filled by coaches with teaching contracts.

And I'll say it right to your face!

If you have the available finds to do so, sure. Like I said, most corporations would find a way...

My saying that it's not always as easy as it seems to get any coach in the building had nothing to do with funding, but everything to do with a number of other issues. It may be easy to find the money, but if a school wants "Coach X" who teaches math for example and all they have are English openings, that may be a bit of a problem for "Coach X." It's not hard for the school: emergency licenses are easy enough to come by, but "Coach X" may want no part of teaching English and may well reject the job because there are no math openings. And it isn't always as easy as simply creating a math position for "Coach X:" at a larger school this is likely easier, but the smaller the school gets, the harder it is to just create a position from whole cloth if you already have a department that is fully staffed. And you can't always just shuffle the teachers you already have to make room, an administration would need to consider the internal dynamics of the teaching staff and how they would react. No doubt that many, if not most, administrations would and do pick their top candidate, regardless of teaching certification, and make it work; and no doubt that many coaches, who want to be at a given school, would and are willing to teach whatever is available; but to act like it's just as easy as the snap of a finger ignores a number of other important dynamics.

See below: And as to your bolded comment: this has actually been a trend in our area, the open enrollment, and it actually puts a lot of stress on smaller schools because literally every student counts toward funding. I would imagine that the answer to this question would be similar to the answer for how does a school like Traders Point see their enrollment drop so fast. I don't know why that has happened and I'm not fishing there, but just saying that it seems like wild enrollment fluctuations both positive and negative, are not completely unheard of. I would imagine that at the end of the day it probably has to do with the fact that both Providence and Traders Point are P/P, but I'm not familiar enough with either school to comment with any certainty. It also seems to me that you are always going to have this issue with re-classing. Years ago, I was at Benton Central and we were constantly looking to see if we were going to be the smallest 2A or the biggest 3A, so despite my current situation, I have been there. Ultimately, I'm sure there are other alternatives to reshuffling the deck every single year, which would seem to me to be incredibly chaotic.

It's harder than you'd think.

This isn't always as easy as it sounds...

Bravo good sir...

Man, I knew we were small, I didn't realize we were that small...

Literally nothing as I think the success factor is more than adequate. And it's not an act: I still don't see any concrete proof as to why some kind of multiplier is needed in addition to or in place of the success factor. I think even something like the Iowa system is making assumptions that, while may be at least logical in terms of the disadvantages posed by low socio-economic situations, don't need to be made when you have the ability to adjust based on on the field results. As to why Indiana went to the success factor: it really doesn't matter what I think about the why - it is there now and at the end of the day it seems to work extremely well. Ultimately, I don't think either of us is going to change our minds, here, so I agree it likely is time to call it a day amicably. I made my 4 page prediction because I someone would cross over a line with the moderators, but all in all, I think the issue is just at an impasse, and that's okay.

You'd still multiply to achieve that, but is that legitimately what your after? Edit: btw, bravo everyone. My prediction of 4 pages or less has failed to materialize!

Then for the love if all that is good and pure: what are you for then? Seems to me like we've reached the semantics portion of the conversation: it seems to me that the "success factor" and a "multiplier" are both "enrollment modification systems. The Iowa system would seem to fall in the "multiplier" camp: primarily because you are taking the schools enrollment and reducing it accord to their free and reduced population, I would assume by "multiplying" somehow? At least that's how I read the image that you posted.

I do not advocate for enrollment alone. I have consistently said that the success factor that we currently have is a more than adequate adjustment to an enrollment based classification system rather than the application of any kind of multiplier.

Well this is the most rational and logical thing I've read today... Happy Friday the 13th everybody!

Actually was in this exact situation in high school as it turns out. Are the student populations the same? Probably not, but to pretend that any student population of any school, public or P/P is the same is laughable. When I was in high school, Benton Central, Crawfordsville, and West Lafayette were all 3A schools: all public, all in the same general geographic area (West Central part of the state). Were those 3 student populations the same? I would argue absolutely not: Crawfordsville is a stand alone town, West Lafayette is one of 4 public schools in a more metropolitan area (to say nothing of their proximity to Purdue) and Benton Central (who actually shares a school boundary with West Lafayette) has what was at one point when I taught there years ago, the largest geographic district in the state withsome studentswhonhad tobdrive 45 minutesone way to getto school. I can tell you from experience, those student populations are in no way the same: so how do you control for those variables, even among public schools? Is it okay for public schools of a similar size to play in the same classification as Chatard? Yes, it perfectly logical for them to do so. I graduated from Crawfordsville High School in 2006: we played Chatard my sophomore through senior year. I get it: our student populations were not the same, no more than our student population and Benton Central's were the same (BC was likely at a much greater disadvantage than we were given how spread out that district is). We wouldn't have had to play in the same classification as Chatard if the IHSAA would impose a multiplier or we had the success factor in the early to mid 2000s: we didn't. We got blown out my Sophomore/Junior year and played a damn competitive game my Senior year (lost 21-7). Was that fair to me and my classmates? I would argue it was at the time given the rules we had to play by (straight up enrollment, no success factor): we were all born 15ish years too early. Now, I've answered all your questions, please answer mine. Why is a multiplier more advantageous than our current success factor? Would not Chatard have been bumped up to 4A prior my having to play them? Depending on when it was implemented, absolutely. It arrives at quite literally the same place that that you who so desperately are pushing for a multiplier, and does so not explicitly on the basis of public versus P/P, but on the basis of a programs success on the field and nothing else. See the above. Theoretically, I love true promotion and relegation in professional sports, in high school sports you have to have a baseline to work off of, and enrollment is by far and away the most logical. It makes the most sense to start with enrollment and let results on the field ( the success factor) work the rest out. Look ladies and gentlemen, as foxbat said, there's literally always going to be some reason to complain. Are there logical problems with the success factor? I'm sure there are, though I have yet to see any. Is it perfect? I'm sure it's not because nothing is perfect. Personally, I think there are bigger problems with our tournament system, for example I absolutely hate the all in format, but that's not the subject here. But to pretend that a blanket multiplier either instead of or somehow in addition to the current success factor is, to me, laughable. As I said before, the success factor quite literally arrives at the same result, only it is results based and applies to publics as well as P/P schools, which again, makes perfect sense. Under the logic I keep seeing here, public schools with sustained success (New Pal, Adams Central, and Linton as examples) clearly have some kind of advantage over their fellow public school counterparts, why not bump them as well?

And I feel like the success factor essentially does this; again, based on results on the field/court.

Sorry Titan32, I guess I'm a simpleton. I don't see it as evaluating student-athletes on their potential, but based on what they do. As a good friend of mine once said, "show me someone with potential and I'll show you someone who hasn't done anything yet." To me, the success factor is enough to accomplish what your end goal is without getting too complicated.

Let's try this a different way: what is the end goal then? What does a "proportional" tournament look like? Brother, trust me, I teach/coach at a public school and we have far from been "lining our trophy cases" and yet you and I have totally different views on this topic.

Again, not challenging that P/Ps have been disproportionately more successful, but what I will challenge is the assertion of a random multiplier and not one based on something rational like on field performance. Again I ask: why is the success factor that we have now not enough to address this issue for you and anyone else? I have yet to see a logical explanation. Again, not saying that student-athletes are aware of any of this, far from it. However, any multiplier places a value on student-athletes and their individual situations, positively or negatively. As an educator, I refuse this premise on principle. Totally false. I have said, again and again, let the results on the field dictate whether a program goes up (or down) a class. I could respect your position more if you would ever answer my question directly, which you have not. Again I ask: why is adding a multiplier to our current success factor necessary? Again, not denying this on merit, but how do you quantify this? Again, agreed, but again, how do you quantify this? So am I to conclude that you would prefer a separate tournament for public and P/P schools? If so, why don't you simply advocate for that? Again, at the end of the day my basic point, everything else aside, is this: our current success factor, on its own and without any major modifications, would seem to be a more than adequate way to adjust for the success of any program, public or P/P, and does not need any additional measures. It allows programs, regardless of whatever real or perceived advantages they have, to naturally arrive at the most optimal and equitable level of competition. I understand the arguments for a multiplier, but personally reject it because there is no logical way to adjust for any real or perceived advantages one program may have over another.

No? I don't follow your logic and I think it has to do with the intended goals. Is the goal to have some measure of "proportionality" of public versus P/P schools that win at each level of the tournament? If that is the case, I full stop reject that premise. And if one class isn't enough, how would a multiplier be a better solution than simply letting the success factor logically place any program, public or P/P, in the appropriate classification based on their performance on the field? And to your post on free and reduced lunch: again, I understand the logic, but just as I find it wrong to value a student-athlete who attends a P/P more simply because they attend a P/P, I find it equally wrong to essentially devalue a student who is on free and reduced lunch. Again, that is not to deny the socio-economic factors at play with both populations, they are there, they are real, and they cannot be denied. My issue is how do you quantify those advantages and disadvantages in a logical meaningful way? Ultimately, I cannot conceive of an answer besides letting results on the field determine those advantages and disadvantages; hence the success factor.

Clear as in not adequate enough? Like you, I'm on my phone, so searching is not super friendly, but as I think back on recent years it seems to me, at least anecdotally, that if your goal is essentially to bump the P/P schools then mission accomplished. I can't think of a single P/P program that is currently, or will be after the next cycle, that will be in its enrollment only class.