2024 6A Who can win it all?

[psaboy]

23 hours ago, Komets2727 said:

Ok, I will bite in this topic for this year. Facts are facts for previous years. Warren Central is now a favorite for 6A  this year? Based on what? Transfers? What happens when they come to Fort Wayne and play Snider early in the year and lose again? Not saying they will, but nobody other than me had Snider winning at Warren Central last year. Turned out to be a laugher. If that happens, does that make Snider a contender in 6A? 

Having said that, we are about 2 months away from another season and I am ready to see it happen!!!
 

 

I was just about ready to post something on that. Last year most asked if Snider could stay within a TD or 2 of WC would that be a moral W for the Mighty Panthers of Snider. Well, they went to WC and kicked their a$$. Then we heard, well maybe WC is in an off year?? Just waiting to see how these years game plays out. I know Snider has some O players to reload on, but D should still be pretty stout. I may have a make the trip to the FWA metroplex for the game.

Never sleep on Snider, I think Tippman has it clicking now.

[temptation]

1 hour ago, BTF said:

This is hilarious. You're being played like a fiddle. 

Mental illness is real.

Edited June 20 by temptation

[temptation]

12 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

Get ready to puke, because CG is not an outlier...its a model if schools choose to follow it.  I would contend Westfield and others have started sometime ago to follow the model and they are reaping the benefits.

If its only size about football success, then tell my why all the schools I listed in a previous post that are in the top 15 largest enrollments are not exactly tearing it up.  And please don't use a school such as CG, BD, Westfield or others as their barrier for success in the post season.  

I think what KG is stating that the variables for success in football is much more than enrollment.  Heck, if that's the case, why play at all in 6A?  Carmel has it sewn up....and we all know that hasn't been the case...especially lately.

Westfield and Carroll are perfect case studies...they started improving their football programs a few years back when enrollments were even smaller.  (definitely in the case of Westfield) A number of other schools within their enrollment sizes have not.

Westfield has started the model because they CAN.  They are “Center Grove Lite” just two decades behind.  
 

Growing population, great place to raise a family, similar demographics, commitment to the sport, etc (though Gilbert leaving gives me pause).

You think just any school, regardless of enrollment or socioeconomic status can just be handed Eric Moore’s A-Z binder and duplicate what CG has done?

Its not that simple.

As for “KG”, once again NO one has said enrollment is the ONLY factor but it is A factor…a BIG one.

A school of roughly 2500-3000 with less than 25 percent of its student body on free/reduced lunch can and has competed with a school of 4500 with 80 percent free/reduced lunch.

I am always asked why I continue to bring these numbers up and am often mocked but look at it like this…15-20 percent of students at a school of 80% free/reduced lunch don’t even have basic needs met.  Football, more broadly athletics, is simply way down the priority list for the majority of their student body…not to mention the financial burden.  The homes they go to every day after the 3pm bell are broken in many instances and they have taken on unnecessary burdens that teens shouldn’t have to.

The school with 2500-3000 and a free/reduced rate of less than 25 percent, has some kids in this boat but not nearly as many.  Look at their participation numbers in sports across the board.  With 4500 students, shouldn’t BD have 100 kids out for cross country, tennis and swimming?  It’s not just their “feeder systems” failing.

Bash, and others often downplay this and he actually gets offended as he views this as a slight to what CG has built and as a shot at their coaching staff when it’s simply rather common sense.

Edited June 20 by temptation

[BTF]

19 minutes ago, temptation said:

Westfield has started the model because they CAN.  They are “Center Grove Lite” just two decades behind.  
 

Growing population, great place to raise a family, similar demographics, commitment to the sport, etc (though Gilbert leaving gives me pause).

You think just any school, regardless of enrollment or socioeconomic status can just be handed Eric Moore’s A-Z binder and duplicate what CG has done?

Its not that simple.

As for “KG”, once again NO one has said enrollment is the ONLY factor but it is A factor…a BIG one.

A school of roughly 2500-3000 with less than 25 percent of its student body on free/reduced lunch can and has competed with a school of 4500 with 80 percent free/reduced lunch.

I am always asked why I continue to bring these numbers up and am often mocked but look at it like this…15-20 percent of students at a school of 80% free/reduced lunch don’t even have basic needs met.  Football, more broadly athletics, is simply way down the priority list for the majority of their student body…not to mention the financial burden.  The homes they go to every day after the 3pm bell are broken in many instances and they have taken on unnecessary burdens that teens shouldn’t have to.

The school with 2500-3000 and a free/reduced rate of less than 25 percent, has some kids in this boat but not nearly as many.  Look at their participation numbers in sports across the board.  With 4500 students, shouldn’t BD have 100 kids out for cross country, tennis and swimming?  It’s not just their “feeder systems” failing.

Bash, and others often downplay this and he actually gets offended as he views this as a slight to what CG has built and as a shot at their coaching staff when it’s simply rather common sense.

This is a football forum. I think most on here just want other to believe that their program does things better than their competitors, ignoring the built-in advantages that they possess over their counterparts.

At the end of the day, even with the advantages, there's still something to be said for what the coaching staffs have accomplished. Not just anyone can lead a program like Ben Davis, Cathedral, Carmel, or Warren Central to success. It takes a talent to do that.

Nick Saban has a talent, but damn, he also had the best athletes in the country. No way he could have had the same amount of championships at Michigan State than he did at Alabama.

I just don't know why it's so hard to say, "yeah, even though we have great men leading the way, we also have some advantages that some of our competitors don't have." It's ok to be a little humble. Just my opinion. 

[temptation]

5 minutes ago, BTF said:

This is a football forum. I think most on here just want other to believe that their program does things better than their competitors, ignoring the built-in advantages that they possess over their counterparts.

At the end of the day, even with the advantages, there's still something to be said for what the coaching staffs have accomplished. Not just anyone can lead a program like Ben Davis, Cathedral, Carmel, or Warren Central to success. It takes a talent to do that.

Nick Saban has a talent, but damn, he also had the best athletes in the country. No way he could have had the same amount of championships at Michigan State than he did at Alabama.

I just don't know why it's so hard to say, "yeah, even though we have great men leading the way, we also have some advantages that some of our competitors don't have." It's ok to be a little humble. Just my opinion. 

Did you notice that Saban’s Alabama teams came back to the field and were no longer superhuman once it became legal for EVERYONE to pay athletes?

The man is a legend and one of the greatest to ever do it but even he benefited from “advantages.”

[BTF]

7 minutes ago, temptation said:

Did you notice that Saban’s Alabama teams came back to the field and were no longer superhuman once it became legal for EVERYONE to pay athletes?

The man is a legend and one of the greatest to ever do it but even he benefited from “advantages.”

That's why I always touted Saban as a Top 20 coach. I'm not convinced that there isn't 20 other coaches around the country that couldn't do what he did. If you consider the number of coaches in college football, that's one hell of a compliment. I don't think it's possible to have an accurate ranking. Every coach has a different situation to work with. 

[Komets2727]

54 minutes ago, temptation said:

Did you notice that Saban’s Alabama teams came back to the field and were no longer superhuman once it became legal for EVERYONE to pay athletes?

The man is a legend and one of the greatest to ever do it but even he benefited from “advantages.”

Facts!!!

[BDGiant93]

14 hours ago, temptation said:

Cannot believe it took me 6 pages to connect the dots…this is the dude whose son is/was all-class and taking photos with kids and signing autographs after basketball games while he is in the stands trash talking on Facebook isn’t it?

If so, he’s not interested in/capable of actual discourse.

I honestly have no idea who he is. I just know he's been here for a long time.

[temptation]

11 minutes ago, BDGiant93 said:

I honestly have no idea who he is. I just know he's been here for a long time.

Same name calling and awful grammar?

LOL.  I do.

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, temptation said:

I am always asked why I continue to bring these numbers up and am often mocked but look at it like this…15-20 percent of students at a school of 80% free/reduced lunch don’t even have basic needs met.  Football, more broadly athletics, is simply way down the priority list for the majority of their student body…not to mention the financial burden.  The homes they go to every day after the 3pm bell are broken in many instances and they have taken on unnecessary burdens that teens shouldn’t have to.

Agreed. These schools may have a 4A-5A enrollment pool but their pool of available athletes is more in the 2A-4A range. There is also the case, as it is at Frankfort, where the majority of the available student "OMG! athletes" would rather play soccer than football. All part of the socioeconomic makeup of a school. Most families at FHS value the sport of soccer, and to a lesser extent baseball, as more important than American stalwarts of Football and Basketball.

 

[temptation]

24 minutes ago, Komets2727 said:

Facts!!!

Dabo also.

[temptation]

8 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Agreed. These schools may have a 4A-5A enrollment pool but their pool of available athletes is more in the 2A-4A range. There is also the case, as it is at Frankfort, where the majority of the available student "OMG! athletes" would rather play soccer than football. All part of the socioeconomic makeup of a school. Most families at FHS value the sport of soccer, and to a lesser extent baseball, as more important than American stalwarts of Football and Basketball.

 

Sorta.  This ties into my huge enrollment advantage for the 3500+ schools.

BD at 4500 with 85% FRL looks much different than Arsenal Tech at 2500 with 85% FRL.

BD’s enrollment allows them to negate their disadvantage to an extent…Arsenal Tech’s doesn’t.

The Titans are 6A in name only.

Edited June 20 by temptation

[scarab527]

Odds of a 6A title in 2024:

One of the Big 4: 99%
Everybody else: 1%

Edited June 20 by scarab527

[Bash Riprock]

5 hours ago, temptation said:

Westfield has started the model because they CAN.  They are “Center Grove Lite” just two decades behind.  
 

Growing population, great place to raise a family, similar demographics, commitment to the sport, etc (though Gilbert leaving gives me pause).

You think just any school, regardless of enrollment or socioeconomic status can just be handed Eric Moore’s A-Z binder and duplicate what CG has done?

Its not that simple.

As for “KG”, once again NO one has said enrollment is the ONLY factor but it is A factor…a BIG one.

A school of roughly 2500-3000 with less than 25 percent of its student body on free/reduced lunch can and has competed with a school of 4500 with 80 percent free/reduced lunch.

I am always asked why I continue to bring these numbers up and am often mocked but look at it like this…15-20 percent of students at a school of 80% free/reduced lunch don’t even have basic needs met.  Football, more broadly athletics, is simply way down the priority list for the majority of their student body…not to mention the financial burden.  The homes they go to every day after the 3pm bell are broken in many instances and they have taken on unnecessary burdens that teens shouldn’t have to.

The school with 2500-3000 and a free/reduced rate of less than 25 percent, has some kids in this boat but not nearly as many.  Look at their participation numbers in sports across the board.  With 4500 students, shouldn’t BD have 100 kids out for cross country, tennis and swimming?  It’s not just their “feeder systems” failing.

Bash, and others often downplay this and he actually gets offended as he views this as a slight to what CG has built and as a shot at their coaching staff when it’s simply rather common sense.

Don't make this personal as you closed out your dissertation.  Lessens the effectiveness of your point.  Also, less is more.  Pontificate less.

I am simply saying there are more variables to the success equation than purely numbers when it comes to football.  If it were all about the numbers, there would be many other programs in the top 10 enrollments schools in this state with far better football programs.

Moore has laid out a blueprint to follow and if majority of those other top enrolled schools would follow it, their program success would undoubtedly approve.

[Bash Riprock]

15 hours ago, BTF said:

For the 48th time, I never said enrollment was the end all be all, just a massive advantage. Call me an idiot, but I'm just not buying that the three largest schools having 34 state titles is just coincidence. 

And you and I will disagree about this being a massive advantage.  If such an advantage, why are those programs (except BD last year) on somewhat of a down trend?  Why aren't some of those other top 10 enrollment schools more successful?

When Carmel, BD and Warren were winning those state championships you referenced, they all had excellent coaches and outstanding feeder systems.  I coached against those feeder systems.  Those variables are every bit as important than just enrollment...I would contend even more important.

17 hours ago, Warren Central Warrior said:

Warren Central 

Absolutely...dominate girl's track program.

[Bash Riprock]

17 hours ago, temptation said:

The way they won was an exception Bash…two elite power 5 athletes combined for nearly 50 points.

Look at the remaining schools that made up the top 10, in both genders.

Track is no longer immune to the effects of socioeconomics.

As it is with most track championships.

YOU used track to make your point about more effluent suburban schools on the west side winning state titles.  I am saying that track doesn't need large funds to win as I don't believe the WCHS girls program is sinking big funds in track, yet they are still winning championships.  6 championships since 2005.  

Can you prove why it takes $$ and wealthier people to be successful at track??

[temptation]

12 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

Don't make this personal as you closed out your dissertation.  Lessens the effectiveness of your point.  Also, less is more.  Pontificate less.

I am simply saying there are more variables to the success equation than purely numbers when it comes to football.  If it were all about the numbers, there would be many other programs in the top 10 enrollments schools in this state with far better football programs.

Moore has laid out a blueprint to follow and if majority of those other top enrolled schools would follow it, their program success would undoubtedly approve.

Just made it personal because your responses are predictable.

No one is disputing the first sentence of your second paragraph, just the extent to which it matters.  After all, football is a classed sport, so those that matter believe it matters a whole hell of a lot.

[temptation]

14 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

And you and I will disagree about this being a massive advantage.  If such an advantage, why are those programs (except BD last year) on somewhat of a down trend?  Why aren't some of those other top 10 enrollment schools more successful?

When Carmel, BD and Warren were winning those state championships you referenced, they all had excellent coaches and outstanding feeder systems.  I coached against those feeder systems.  Those variables are every bit as important than just enrollment...I would contend even more important.

Absolutely...dominate girl's track program.

Because they are poorer than they have ever been.  When Warren was winning those titles in the mid 2000s, they were under 60 percent (maybe even sub 50) free and reduced.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Why has Jayson West not had the immediate success at FC that he had at Warren?

Don’t get me wrong, the Flashes are clearly on the rise but the guy with two state titles at his previous stops is 11-19 in 3 years.  Check his Twitter…they are seeing never before seen numbers at the elementary and middle school levels.

He was 28-10 in his first three years at Warren…did he forget how to coach?

 

16 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

As it is with most track championships.

YOU used track to make your point about more effluent suburban schools on the west side winning state titles.  I am saying that track doesn't need large funds to win as I don't believe the WCHS girls program is sinking big funds in track, yet they are still winning championships.  6 championships since 2005.  

Can you prove why it takes $$ and wealthier people to be successful at track??

Same reasons outlined in this thread multiple times when talking about any sport.

[Bash Riprock]

55 minutes ago, temptation said:

Because they are poorer than they have ever been.  When Warren was winning those titles in the mid 2000s, they were under 60 percent (maybe even sub 50) free and reduced.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Why has Jayson West not had the immediate success at FC that he had at Warren?

Don’t get me wrong, the Flashes are clearly on the rise but the guy with two state titles at his previous stops is 11-19 in 3 years.  Check his Twitter…they are seeing never before seen numbers at the elementary and middle school levels.

He was 28-10 in his first three years at Warren…did he forget how to coach?

 

Same reasons outlined in this thread multiple times when talking about any sport.

If its true Warren is poorer than in the past (not sure how you know this for certainty) then how do you explain WC winning so many girls state championships in track since 2005?  You stated in a previous response that socioeconomics was becoming a major player in track, yet a school you claim is poorer continues to win track state championships, over an extended period of time. 

Many of the schools in the top 10 state's enrollments are not poorer at all....just the opposite,  Yet they are not successful football programs....not even close to winning state titles.  Warren is a better program than many of those in the top 10...majority of them.  So, not sure how you make the arguments that is always about the $$.  My guess is that WC will have a pretty solid team this season.

BTW, WC has won 2 state titles in football since formation of 6A.  2013-14; 2018-19 (undefeated that season with a decisive win over a very wealthy school)

Jayson West moved to a program that has been down...he is building back a culture that used to be at that school in football.  He is doing a fine job and the improvement is absolutely there.

[Bash Riprock]

1 hour ago, temptation said:

Just made it personal because your responses are predictable.

No one is disputing the first sentence of your second paragraph, just the extent to which it matters.  After all, football is a classed sport, so those that matter believe it matters a whole hell of a lot.

My responses are predictable?....ok.  Could I say the same about you? Should I get personal?  Does it help my case?

Finally...some common ground.  You put your money and enrollment and wealth pieces of the pie....I'll do the same for coaching, feeder systems, and culture of the sport in that community.  

Under your theory, wouldn't Carmel be the champ every year?

Edited June 20 by Bash Riprock

[BTF]

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

And you and I will disagree about this being a massive advantage.  If such an advantage, why are those programs (except BD last year) on somewhat of a down trend?  Why aren't some of those other top 10 enrollment schools more successful?

When Carmel, BD and Warren were winning those state championships you referenced, they all had excellent coaches and outstanding feeder systems.  I coached against those feeder systems.  Those variables are every bit as important than just enrollment...I would contend even more important.

Hawley and Isaacs built a machine at Snider from the late 70's to the early 2000's. I can assure you, with 99% certainty, that BD, WC, and Carmel weren't doing anything better with their programs than Snider was. Snider pulled through one time. If they had a student population of 3500, the 1 turns into 10+. Again............"massive." You're not going to change my mind on this. And I'm going keep going back to the largest three schools having 90% of the titles. It's not coincidence. And yes, they had good coaching as well. You can't have one without the other. 

 

[temptation]

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

If its true Warren is poorer than in the past (not sure how you know this for certainty) then how do you explain WC winning so many girls state championships in track since 2005?  You stated in a previous response that socioeconomics was becoming a major player in track, yet a school you claim is poorer continues to win track state championships, over an extended period of time. 

Many of the schools in the top 10 state's enrollments are not poorer at all....just the opposite,  Yet they are not successful football programs....not even close to winning state titles.  Warren is a better program than many of those in the top 10...majority of them.  So, not sure how you make the arguments that is always about the $$.  My guess is that WC will have a pretty solid team this season.

BTW, WC has won 2 state titles in football since formation of 6A.  2013-14; 2018-19 (undefeated that season with a decisive win over a very wealthy school)

Jayson West moved to a program that has been down...he is building back a culture that used to be at that school in football.  He is doing a fine job and the improvement is absolutely there.

The SES data is readily available on the DOE’s website so yes, I know.  Also, I’ve lived it.  Warren in 2005 is akin to where Avon and Franklin Central are now.  It’s simple urban sprawl/white flight.

Look, when 9 of the top 10 schools in the state finals of a particular sport are affluent/suburban schools, you’ve chosen the outlier.  It does not mean that the trend is untrue.

The gap in enrollment from the suburban schools has narrowed tremendously over the last decade.  The top 4 Indy schools used to boast much larger margins as only about a half dozen schools were over 3000 students.  That number has doubled and the gap on the field has also narrowed.

Taking nothing away from West but he’s had three years at FC…by his third year at his previous stop he already had a title and was averaging 10 wins per year.  If he has great coaches and development programs, what’s taking so long?

Spoiler:  Warren’s enrollment was the difference.  He will win there but it will take time.

[temptation]

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

My responses are predictable?....ok.  Could I say the same about you? Should I get personal?  Does it help my case?

Finally...some common ground.  You put your money and enrollment and wealth pieces of the pie....I'll do the same for coaching, feeder systems, and culture of the sport in that community.  

Under your theory, wouldn't Carmel be the champ every year?

Still speaking in black and white about enrollment I see.

I have been outspoken that the Carmel coaching staff is on the hot seat this fall in my opinion.  I’ve also stated that there is eventually a point of diminishing returns when it comes to enrollment.

Carmel has roughly 2500 boys in its school, 250+ are involved in either cross country or swimming, another 100 non/football players run track.  
 

I spoke on here recently that they may actually have the opposite problem as the other mega schools.  At last check, their FRL numbers was around 9 percent and with suburban mom’s shying away from football, that may actually hurt them.

No sympathy though.  They should be better.

If I were offered any head coaching job in 6A right now but had to start from scratch, gimme Brownsburg…no excuse for them.

Growing enrollment, buy in, great facilities and a free/reduced rate just under 30 percent.  PERFECT for a football powerhouse.

[BTF]

7 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Agreed. These schools may have a 4A-5A enrollment pool but their pool of available athletes is more in the 2A-4A range. There is also the case, as it is at Frankfort, where the majority of the available student "OMG! athletes" would rather play soccer than football. All part of the socioeconomic makeup of a school. Most families at FHS value the sport of soccer, and to a lesser extent baseball, as more important than American stalwarts of Football and Basketball.

 

Good post. Good to see you discussing football. How come you removed me from the Out of Bounds Club?

[Rodney]

to bring nick Saban back into the conversation, 

 

if nick saban took over (insert random 1a school nobody has heard of) right now,

 

how many years do you who believe a feeder system is more important think it would take him to consistently win the 6a tournament with his excellent feeder system and program he would undoubtedly build,

 

 

Edited June 20 by Rodney
because i wanted to