Coach Nowlin Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 School Choice Laws have absolutely taken off along with voucher program Public losing to other public schools Public losing to P/P P/P losing to Public I have coaching buddies who talk about what a blood bath places like Indy are and its not Cathedral types, but its ALL OF THEM It is truly the reality when State Law changed and Public Schools would be SILLY not to have open border and take on tuition from out of boundary families Rensselaer has had some at all grades last 5 years, they are in the School Board Notes, approval of tuition transfer for XYZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bobref said: The bottom line is that if the objective of a classification system is to have like schools playing like, so that the playing field is “level,” a M is too blunt an instrument. Its basic assumption – that all P/Ps are alike – is demonstrably wrong. If you’re going to address a disproportionate level of success for certain schools, then the best way to do it is to affect the schools that use their inherent advantages – whatever they may be – to achieve that disproportionate level of success, and not make things even harder for those schools who, for whatever reason, have not been able to translate whatever perceived advantages they have into that type of success. My two cents. Thank you for the eloquent opinion Bobref. A true system of promotion/relegation, taking enrollment entirely out of the equation, is the fair and logical way to go. My opinion on that has not wavered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCCAlum Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Muda69 said: How many members of the current West Lafayette football team actually reside in the Lafayette Jeff, McCutcheon, or Harrison geographical school districts? Just the tip of the iceberg. Starting QB Adams (who has committed to D1 George Mason) is a Battle Ground product. You clearly didn't read the J and C's article before the Jeff-WL football game this season, where it clearly laid out that Adams and Jeff's Maximus Grimes were the starting QBs of Battle Ground's 8th and 7th grade teams. Bet Harrison is pretty okay with losing both those kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Nowlin Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 https://www.nwitimes.com/sports/high-school/football/nick-testa-named-new-football-coach-at-clark/article_b4163150-49c5-5496-b708-4d431ecfe6f6.html Quote Testa was told that when Whiting advanced to the Class 2A state championship game in 2015, there were 14 Clark kids on the Oilers' roster. With Whiting's open enrollment, there is nothing illegal about students going to a different school a couple blocks away. But it's something Testa and his staff want to try to combat. "I was told we had over 40 kids in our middle school program," Testa said. "We have to have more of a presence at the middle school level. We have to go over there, talk with those kids and grow a relationship with them. 4 minutes ago, LCCAlum said: Just the tip of the iceberg. Starting QB Adams (who has committed to D1 George Mason) is a Battle Ground product. You clearly didn't read the J and C's article before the Jeff-WL football game this season, where it clearly laid out that Adams and Jeff's Maximus Grimes were the starting QBs of Battle Ground's 8th and 7th grade teams. Bet Harrison is pretty okay with losing both those kids. James Madison, Just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCCAlum Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, LCCAlum said: Just the tip of the iceberg. Starting QB Adams (who has committed to D1 James Madison) is a Battle Ground product. You clearly didn't read the J and C's article before the Jeff-WL football game this season, where it clearly laid out that Adams and Jeff's Maximus Grimes were the starting QBs of Battle Ground's 8th and 7th grade teams. Bet Harrison is pretty okay with losing both those kids. Edited for correct college. Edited October 15, 2019 by LCCAlum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DT Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Bobref said: Sit back, as this is going to take a while. But if you are really interested in this issue, I think it’s worth it. I think DT is one of the more progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers on this site. But DT and I are going to have to part company on this one. If you are going to address competitive issues by adding criteria other than raw size to a classification system, a Success Factor (SF) is a much better way to do it than a Multiplier (M). The M is a broadsword when what we are really looking for is a scalpel. Here’s why. In order to determine the best solution, you must first identify the issue and then decide on the goal you want to achieve. The issue the classification system attempts to address is simply that schools that are larger have advantages over schools that are smaller. Nowhere is this more evident than in football, which is in some respects, a numbers game. The goal of a classification system is to, within practical limits, have like schools playing like schools. The call for a classification system that takes into account more than just sheer school size came about not because P/Ps have some distinct advantages (although they do), but because they were having success disproportionate to their numbers. Is it really an advantage if it is not translated into success? Of course not. It was not uncommon to go to Thanksgiving weekend in Indy and see 60% P/Ps in the finals, when they comprise only 10% (or less) of the football-playing schools. This disparity was reflected in all levels of the tournament, i.e., sectional, regional and semistate championships. It has been well-documented on here that P/Ps have certain advantages: Absence of geographic boundaries, giving them access to a theoretically greater pool of potential players. A demographic makeup that results in their students being more willing/able to participate in extracurricular activities. A selective admissions process that, again theoretically, allows them to “recruit” athletes. Of course, there are P/P supporters who will fight you to the death as to whether these advantages actually exist, whether they are offset by advantages that public schools have, or whether these advantages translate to athletic success. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that these advantages do exist, and that they can result in greater athletic success. The problem with a M is that it treats all P/Ps exactly the same when it is inarguably clear that they are not. Some P/Ps capitalize on their inherent advantages, and some do not. No one in his right mind would argue that Cathedral and Bishop Noll should be treated the same. Yet, that is what a M system does. Chatard is a perennial contender for a state championship. Park Tudor has won just 15 of the 70 games they’ve played going back to the 2013 season. Yet, a M treats them as if they were the same. A classification system that seeks to promote fairness should address the real issue: disproportionate success resulting from a willingness to take advantage of the factors that contribute to success. Some P/Ps do, and some don’t. A M paints with too broad a brush. Since the issue is disproportionate success, a classification system based on success is the best way to address the issue. Now, you can certainly quibble over whether the current SF system is the best way to go about it. Is the cycle too short? Does it award the right number of “points” to certain achievements? Does it measure disproportionate success accurately? But what you can’t argue is that a success based system is the only fair way to address the problem of inherent advantages resulting in disproportionate success. Because it’s only when a school uses those advantages to be disproportionately successful that a perceived problem arises. If all the P/Ps had a level of success like Bishop Noll and Park Tudor, would anyone be clamoring for a M or SF? Of course not. The other positive attribute of a SF system is that is applies across the board to all schools, not just P/Ps. Because, you see, there are public schools that have advantages, too. They have greater access to financial resources than P/Ps. They pay their coaches better. They generally have better facilities. When was the last time you saw a P/P float a bond issue? New Palestine is a great example. During the same period that Park Tudor was 15-55, New Pal went 82-4, with 4 sectional titles, 4 regionals, 3 semistates, and 2 state championships. They have certain advantages in terms of their demographics, facilities, and, most importantly a supportive administration and community. They’ve leveraged those advantages into great success. In other words, they’ve proved they can punch above their weight class. A M system, however, would not address their disproportionate success. But under the SF, they are 5A, rather than the 4A they would be simply by enrollment. And they’re doing quite nicely in 5A. So there is no unfairness there. The bottom line is that if the objective of a classification system is to have like schools playing like, so that the playing field is “level,” a M is too blunt an instrument. Its basic assumption – that all P/Ps are alike – is demonstrably wrong. If you’re going to address a disproportionate level of success for certain schools, then the best way to do it is to affect the schools that use their inherent advantages – whatever they may be – to achieve that disproportionate level of success, and not make things even harder for those schools who, for whatever reason, have not been able to translate whatever perceived advantages they have into that type of success. My two cents. I would prefer to see a simple petition process, which has been used before by Mishawaka, if a school chooses to play up for competitive reasons. The SF is very sloppy. Its confusing, and fans don't know where their school is slotted from year to year. I doubt it makes much difference to the kids. Certainly, it will impact the way coaches think about their team. I like the simplicity of the Multiplier. It treats all PPs the same, and all publics the same. PPs have been calling out publics for years to get better or get beat. The same can be said for laggard PPs who dont keep up with their private peers. You mentioned Noll and Park Tudor, both schools that have been on The Contraction Watch list. Some PPs, like some publics, do not have the resources nor the will to play competitive high school football. They should drop the sport. Everyone is treated the same. Edited October 15, 2019 by DT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, DT said: I like the simplicity of the Multiplier. It treats all PPs the same, and all publics the same. Yes, it does. The problem with it is that not everyone is the same. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DT Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, Bobref said: Yes, it does. The problem with it is that not everyone is the same. I think the Success Factor has actually had a negative impact on PP football in Indiana. PPs have somewhat gone into a shell. We dont see as many high profile PP-Public cross over games as we used to. Public interest in those that are still played has waned. PPs have become more insulated, and play more amongst themselves, or out of state. The Circle City Conference is an example of their more insulated approach. Coaching has declined at many PPs. Perhaps the insular nature of the new PP approach is keeping some excellent coaching prospects on the sidelines, or turning them away to the public side. Talent also appears to be on the decline. Not as many PP players at the top of the recruiting lasts as we used to see. Roncalli, Chatard in particular. Bobby Cox raised the profile of public high school football in Indiana, but he had to marginalize the privates to make it happen. When something goes up, something else must come down to maintain balance. I believe a Multiplier would push the PPs to once again elevate their game, as the focus would return to their inherent advantages, not the actual results that occur on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 hour ago, LCCAlum said: You clearly didn't read the J and C's article before the Jeff-WL football game this season, where it clearly laid out that Adams and Jeff's Maximus Grimes were the starting QBs of Battle Ground's 8th and 7th grade teams. No, I don't have a subscription to the Urinal and Courier. So the IHSAA approved these transfers since they obviously were not just for athletic reasons, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbat Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 hour ago, DT said: Interesting Are public school football magnets becoming an issue impacting competitive balance? If so, should this be addressed? That's why Success Factor makes more sense than a multiplier. It would apply to all schools evenly, not by the privateness or limits of their enrollment, but by the content of their talent. The biggest issue with Success Factor is not that there's a "bouncing," but that the length is too short so the bouncing is more pronounced. The way the Success Factor runs now, it's more of an issue that tends to catch schools with a talented class more often than a program that's actually got an advantage or has had a more holistic program growth in competitiveness. If you go back and look at the IFCA's suggestion, a four-year window ends up with much less bouncing and much less of an issue to impact a school based on a great class. Frankly, I'd like to see the Success Factor, since the idea is really behind "leveling playing fields" also have a "Failure Factor" component to it too. If a 2A school, regardless of public/private, can be said to really be 3A in competitive level by the Success Factor, isn't it actually realistic that a 4A school could really be 3A in terms of competitiveness too? Of course, that's not going to happen because no one wants to be tagged/recognized as being relegated/demoted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 20 minutes ago, foxbat said: If a 2A school, regardless of public/private, can be said to really be 3A in competitive level by the Success Factor, isn't it actually realistic that a 4A school could really be 3A in terms of competitiveness too? Of course, that's not going to happen because no one wants to be tagged/recognized as being relegated/demoted. Your Knights hosted one of those 4A schools in the pre-season IIRC. Although I would place that high school football talent at more a 2A level, maybe even a high 1A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballking16 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Muda69 said: No, I don't have a subscription to the Urinal and Courier. So the IHSAA approved these transfers since they obviously were not just for athletic reasons, right? They weren't "transfers". They just exercised their right to open enrollment and decided to attend a public school outside their district. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 58 minutes ago, Footballking16 said: They weren't "transfers". They just exercised their right to open enrollment and decided to attend a public school outside their district. But I thought when open enrollment was made law the IHSAA stated that it's member schools would still have to adhere to some form of IHSAA approved "transfer" rule in order to students to eligible to participate in extracurricular athletics? The following article is primarily about basketball, but could apply to any IHSAA member sport: https://usatodayhss.com/2019/indiana-high-school-basketball-transfers-have-become-a-growing-problem Quote ... But what to do about athletics? The IHSAA allows transfers to have eligibility as long as, “you do not transfer from one school to another primarily for athletic reasons.” Or, falling under the category of undue influence: “Your parents or guardians have not been influenced by any person to secure you as a student or a member school.” (Insert laughter here.) ... Only a fool would believe there are not ways to get around these rules — or that the IHSAA could police all of the transfers. In most cases in Indiana, if administrators from both schools “sign off” on the transfer and there is no evidence of a transfer for athletic reasons, the IHSAA will allow full eligibility. IHSAA commissioner Bobby Cox has told me in previous interviews and conversations that the IHSAA — and other state associations — do not have the time or manpower to investigate every transfer. According to the IHSAA, of the 3,167 total transfers for the 2018-19 school year, 92.3% (2,923) were granted full eligibility. Another 230 were given limited eligibility (junior varsity) and 14 were ineligible. I have talked to Cox about the transfer conundrum before, and how the IHSAA deals with transfers. When the open enrollment law went into effect in 2009, it further complicated the process. Cox told me this in 2014: “I told (former Indiana state superintendent) Tony Bennett that the minute you change this (open enrollment), it’s not going to be about academics anymore. Look at where we’re at today. That’s why. It’s not about academics. It’s, ‘My kid isn’t getting enough touches, enough carries, enough exposure.’ That’s what it’s becoming.’” Other states have more black-and-white rules when it comes to transfers. Some require a one-year period of ineligibility without a change of address. Some have a semester. In 2018, Ohio strengthened its transfer rules after previously allowing eligibility after a transfer sat out the first half of a season. Cox said the flexibility within the IHSAA’s rules ultimately allows for more eligibility than ineligibility. .... So again, did these open enrollment transfers from Battleground/Harrison to West Lafayette do it for the athletics or the academics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impartial_Observer Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Muda69 said: But I thought when open enrollment was made law the IHSAA stated that it's member schools would still have to adhere to some form of IHSAA approved "transfer" rule in order to students to eligible to participate in extracurricular athletics? The following article is primarily about basketball, but could apply to any IHSAA member sport: https://usatodayhss.com/2019/indiana-high-school-basketball-transfers-have-become-a-growing-problem So again, did these open enrollment transfers from Battleground/Harrison to West Lafayette do it for the athletics or the academics? As an 8th grader, you can enroll in ANY HS in the state without penalty, and the IHSAA didn't make the rules, the state legislature did with their property tax laws. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said: As an 8th grader, you can enroll in ANY HS in the state without penalty, and the IHSAA didn't make the rules, the state legislature did with their property tax laws. So the IHSAA just has to deal with resulting mess. Gotcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DT Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said: As an 8th grader, you can enroll in ANY HS in the state without penalty, and the IHSAA didn't make the rules, the state legislature did with their property tax laws. Again, that sounds like a big deal, but the overwhelming majority of kids go to school in their home district. Yes there are exceptions to the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballking16 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, DT said: Again, that sounds like a big deal, but the overwhelming majority of kids go to school in their home district. Yes there are exceptions to the rule. But it completely disproves your argument that public schools play by the same rules. They don't. The multiplier doesn't combat competitive balance, the success factor does because it actually "punishes" the programs who are successful. There's no sense in upping Hammond Noll or Park Turdor's enrollment by 1.5 because Cathedral has a good football team. They aren't the same. The success factor already takes care of that. And the multiplier would cap enrollments. There is an argument that Cathedral should be playing in 6A every year and because of the success factor, it's already happened. That would never have been the case under a multiplier. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impartial_Observer Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 18 minutes ago, DT said: Again, that sounds like a big deal, but the overwhelming majority of kids go to school in their home district. Yes there are exceptions to the rule. Sure, but some of the kids who do make moves are game changers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said: But it completely disproves your argument that public schools play by the same rules. They don't. The multiplier doesn't combat competitive balance, the success factor does because it actually "punishes" the programs who are successful. There's no sense in upping Hammond Noll or Park Turdor's enrollment by 1.5 because Cathedral has a good football team. They aren't the same. The success factor already takes care of that. And the multiplier would cap enrollments. There is an argument that Cathedral should be playing in 6A every year and because of the success factor, it's already happened. That would never have been the case under a multiplier. So we extend the multiplier to include any schools that currently have high school students enrolled that do not reside within that school's geographically mandated boundaries. Easy peasy. But again, a true system of promotion/relegation, with classifications not based on enrollment, is the only true and logical answer to this problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballking16 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Muda69 said: So we extend the multiplier to include any schools that currently have high school students enrolled that do not reside within that school's geographically mandated boundaries. Easy peasy. But again, a true system of promotion/relegation, with classifications not based on enrollment, is the only true and logical answer to this problem. No it's not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impartial_Observer Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 21 minutes ago, Muda69 said: So the IHSAA just has to deal with resulting mess. Gotcha. The IHSAA deals with transfers. If you enroll in a different district as an 8th grader, you are not a transfer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, Footballking16 said: No it's not Yes, it is. Sure a heck of a lot better than the primarily enrollment based system we have now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 Just now, Impartial_Observer said: The IHSAA deals with transfers. If you enroll in a different district as an 8th grader, you are not a transfer. So you are saying the vast majority of these transfers are happening as 8th graders in order to elude the long arm of the IHSAA? And what if little Johnny Football, who transferred from school X to school Y as an 8th grader primarily due to school Y's elite football program, is now in the 11th grade and isn't getting "the touches" his daddy things he should? Should he be able to transfer to school Z without any penalty from the IHSAA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballking16 Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Yes, it is. Sure a heck of a lot better than the primarily enrollment based system we have now. The success factor offsets that lol. If you have success you're bumped up a class. The IHSAA isn't designed to crown a champion for the best 64 teams in the state and then a second champion for the next 64 best teams and so on and so on. It's designed to crown a champion for like sized schools. If you happen to have continued success, you're bumped up. Don't overthink this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impartial_Observer Posted October 15, 2019 Share Posted October 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, Muda69 said: So you are saying the vast majority of these transfers are happening as 8th graders in order to elude the long arm of the IHSAA? And what if little Johnny Football, who transferred from school X to school Y as an 8th grader primarily due to school Y's elite football program, is now in the 11th grade and isn't getting "the touches" his daddy things he should? Should he be able to transfer to school Z without any penalty from the IHSAA? No I didn't say anything of the sort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.