Multiplier vs Success Factor - Multiplier is the Pure Choice

[Guest DT]

The more I look at the Success Factor, the less I like it.  I don't like the bouncing back and forth between classes that the Success Factor promotes.  

Public schools all play by the same rules.  They are all restricted by boundaries, or all participate with equal rules in open enrollment districts, where families can make choices.  Public schools should never leave their class until they grow out of it.  That is the way class sports were designed and intended to operate.

PPs know they have inherent built in advantages, and they enjoy the challenge of playing up in class.  I doubt they enjoy bouncing up and down from class to class as they do in the current model.

Let's abolish the Success Factor.  Give Bobby Cox his kudos for doing all he can to address competitive balance.  And go back to the Pure Multiplier 1.65, which was designed to balance out the roster advantages PPs hold over their public counterparts.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by DT

[FastpacedO]

Must be a boring day for DT.

[MarshallCounty]

What is meant by "pure" choice?

[Guest DT]

Just now, MarshallCounty said:

What is meant by "pure" choice?

The Multiplier is designed solely to stifle PP hegemony.

It is a more "pure" tool to achieve the objective.

The Success Factor broke the ice, The Multiplier will finish the job and clean up the mess left behind by Cox and his crew.

[FastpacedO]

7 minutes ago, DT said:

The Multiplier is designed solely to stifle PP hegemony.

It is a more "pure" tool to achieve the objective.

The Success Factor broke the ice, The Multiplier will finish the job and clean up the mess left behind by Cox and his crew.

[foxbat]

2 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

Must be a boring day for DT.

 

[jets]

5 hours ago, DT said:

The more I look at the Success Factor, the less I like it.  I don't like the bouncing back and forth between classes that the Success Factor promotes.  

Public schools all play by the same rules.  They are all restricted by boundaries, or all participate with equal rules in open enrollment districts, where families can make choices.  Public schools should never leave their class until they grow out of it.  That is the way class sports were designed and intended to operate.

PPs know they have inherent built in advantages, and they enjoy the challenge of playing up in class.  I doubt they enjoy bouncing up and down from class to class as they do in the current model.

Let's abolish the Success Factor.  Give Bobby Cox his kudos for doing all he can to address competitive balance.  And go back to the Pure Multiplier 1.65, which was designed to balance out the roster advantages PPs hold over their public counterparts.

 

 

Holy smokes- did I just agree with what DT wrote?? Well, guess there is a first for everything! Spot on in this post...good work. 

[Guest DT]

1 minute ago, jets said:

Holy smokes- did I just agree with what DT wrote?? Well, guess there is a first for everything! Spot on in this post...good work. 

Keep drinkin that DT Koolaid my friend   😁

[Impartial_Observer]

We're about the enter the first week of the tournament, we have from the first of December until the first of August to deal with seeding the tournament, multipliers, success factor, conference alignment, etc. 

[oldtimeqb]

18 hours ago, DT said:

The more I look at the Success Factor, the less I like it.  I don't like the bouncing back and forth between classes that the Success Factor promotes.

Agree

18 hours ago, DT said:

Public schools all play by the same rules.  They are all restricted by boundaries, or all participate with equal rules in open enrollment districts, where families can make choices.  

You realize you contradict yourself within the same breath? They are all restricted, unless they are open.

 

[Guest DT]

14 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

Agree

You realize you contradict yourself within the same breath? They are all restricted, unless they are open.

 

Not really

 

Either they are restricted by boundaries, or they are in an open enrollment district

 

[Titan54]

I actually agree with this.

[Titan32]

Sounds like a good plan to me.

[FastpacedO]

25 minutes ago, DT said:

Not really

 

Either they are restricted by boundaries, or they are in an open enrollment district

 

You do realize all of Indiana is Open Enrollment

[Guest DT]

1 minute ago, FastpacedO said:

You do realize all of Indiana is Open Enrollment

No, I was not aware of that

[Impartial_Observer]

3 minutes ago, DT said:

No, I was not aware of that

Yea has been for about 11 years.

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/schools-debate-law-s-impact-on-open-enrollment/article_622c7b90-36ea-5f9a-bceb-9b3e820ab040.html

[Footballking16]

18 minutes ago, DT said:

No, I was not aware of that

So does that completely change your stance?

[Guest DT]

Not at all.  The vast majority of students stay within their districts.  There are a few public football magnets in the state.

FW Snider

Hammond Morton

SB Washington

Not enough to move the needle.

 

 

[Footballking16]

2 minutes ago, DT said:

Not at all.  The vast majority of students stay within their districts.  There are a few public football magnets in the state.

FW Snider

Hammond Morton

SB Washington

Not enough to move the needle.

 

 

?

You just made an argument that public schools all play by the same rules without knowing there has been open enrollment in every Indiana school district for the last decade. How does that not change things?

I will assure you that parents and students are choosing public schools from outside their current district for the sole purpose of athletics? How does that not level the playing field? Not every P/P is an athletic juggernaut and you would be penalizing schools that already struggle in their current classification. The success factor is suffice.

[Guest DT]

4 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

?

You just made an argument that public schools all play by the same rules without knowing there has been open enrollment in every Indiana school district for the last decade. How does that not change things?

I will assure you that parents and students are choosing public schools from outside their current district for the sole purpose of athletics? How does that not level the playing field? Not every P/P is an athletic juggernaut and you would be penalizing schools that already struggle in their current classification. The success factor is suffice.

If what you say is true, I would be interested in seeing some data to prove your point.

We know that kids from all over FW attend Snider to play football.  We can also assume that some west side Hammond kids go to Morton on the east to play.

But do Highland kids, living in Highland, go to Munster?  I have never seen any data on the effect that football magnets have on other local public schools

Could Shelbyville kids be going to New Pal to play ball?

Would be interesting to find out.

 

[Footballking16]

1 minute ago, DT said:

If what you say is true, I would be interested in seeing some data to prove your point.

We know that kids from all over FW attend Snider to play football.  We can also assume that some west side Hammond kids go to Morton on the east to play.

But do Highland kids, living in Highland, go to Munster?  I have never seen any data on the effect that football magnets have on other local public schools

Could Shelbyville kids be going to New Pal to play ball?

Would be interesting to find out.

 

One of the most high profile players in the history of Indiana played out of district.

Hunter Johnson was an Avon kid who didn't want to play behind Brandon Peters at Avon so he went to Brownsburg. His brother was playing at Avon while he was playing at Brownsburg.

I use this as an example because because he is the highest profile player to do so, but you're naive to the fullest extent if you don't think public school kids are jumping districts for athletic purposes.

[LCCAlum]

West Lafayette is a football magnet in Tippecanoe County. It happens everywhere. 

[Guest DT]

Interesting

Are public school football magnets becoming an issue impacting competitive balance?

If so, should this be addressed?

[Bobref]

21 hours ago, DT said:

The more I look at the Success Factor, the less I like it.  I don't like the bouncing back and forth between classes that the Success Factor promotes.  

Public schools all play by the same rules.  They are all restricted by boundaries, or all participate with equal rules in open enrollment districts, where families can make choices.  Public schools should never leave their class until they grow out of it.  That is the way class sports were designed and intended to operate.

PPs know they have inherent built in advantages, and they enjoy the challenge of playing up in class.  I doubt they enjoy bouncing up and down from class to class as they do in the current model.

Let's abolish the Success Factor.  Give Bobby Cox his kudos for doing all he can to address competitive balance.  And go back to the Pure Multiplier 1.65, which was designed to balance out the roster advantages PPs hold over their public counterparts.

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:

 

1. Absence of geographic boundaries, giving them access to a theoretically greater pool of potential players.

    

2. 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.

[Muda69]

30 minutes ago, LCCAlum said:

West Lafayette is a football magnet in Tippecanoe County. It happens everywhere. 

How many members of the current West Lafayette football team actually reside in the Lafayette Jeff, McCutcheon, or Harrison geographical school districts?