Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Multiplier vs Success Factor - Multiplier is the Pure Choice


Guest DT

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, I'm not.

Just recognizing that a primarily-enrollment based system doesn't work, and creates too much competitive imbalance regarding the state tournament.   And so I'm putting forth a reasonable alternative.

 

If you eliminated half the field at the conclusion of the regular season and seeded the tournament this competitive imbalance wouldn't exist. The reason why blowouts are so widespread in the current format is that the best teams knock each other out early and they let teams in who have no business being in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

If you eliminated half the field at the conclusion of the regular season and seeded the tournament this competitive imbalance wouldn't exist. The reason why blowouts are so widespread in the current format is that the best teams knock each other out early and they let teams in who have no business being in. 

Good point, and something I support.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So you would vote against Cathedral competing in the current 6A enrollment tournament?  Are you saying they could not compete?

 

Did I say that? Cathedral has already played in the 6A tournament and I fully supported it via the success factor. If you have success in your enrollment-based classification, you should be bumped up.

What I have a problem with is telling a school like South Adams who has 369 kids, they now have to compete in a tournament with schools like Penn, Southport, Noblesville, etc. It ain't right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

Did I say that? Cathedral has already played in the 6A tournament and I fully supported it via the success factor. If you have success in your enrollment-based classification, you should be bumped up.

What I have a problem with is telling a school like South Adams who has 369 kids, they now have to compete in a tournament with schools like Penn, Southport, Noblesville, etc. It ain't right.

Again, why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Good point, and something I support.

 

So if you support that, why not push that agenda?

You understand that under your current proposal, the IHSAA would be hosting a tournament for 64 teams where only TWO have a winning record. 6-2 Frontier and 4-3 Oldenburg are the only two teams of the 64th worst rated Sagarin teams that have a winning record. Who would support that tournament format? That is the ultimate "lets give everybody a trophy". How do you justify that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

So if you support that, why not push that agenda?

I am.  Along with promotion/relegation.

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

You understand that under your current proposal, the IHSAA would be hosting a tournament for 64 teams where only TWO have a winning record. 6-2 Frontier and 4-3 Oldenburg are the only two teams of the 64th worst rated Sagarin teams that have a winning record. Who would support that tournament format? 

Yep.  Get better then move up to a higher classification bracket where the the competition is tougher, regardless of enrollment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LCCAlum said:

I think you'd have officiating crews turn back tournament assignments in that lowest class. It's not worth being in the weather for 60 bucks + mileage for low level football. 

Regardless of the level of play, to the two teams playing, it's about the most important thing in the world going on at that time. They deserve the third teams best effort regardless of the quality of the two teams playing. When the tournament starts, one team's seniors are playing the last game of their careers, that demands my respect, and demands our crew's best effort. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I am.  Along with promotion/relegation.

Yep.  Get better then move up to a higher classification bracket where the the competition is tougher, regardless of enrollment.

You would effectively kill any rooting interest of high school football in the state of Indiana in a few years with this system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LCCAlum said:

I think you'd have officiating crews turn back tournament assignments in that lowest class. It's not worth being in the weather for 60 bucks + mileage for low level football. 

A paycheck is a paycheck is a paycheck.  And what a professional attitude.

 

4 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

You would effectively kill any rooting interest of high school football in the state of Indiana in a few years with this system.

Maybe.  Then football could move from being sponsored primarily by government schools to a club model, which is really where it belongs. 

Playing the long game...............................

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just laying out all possible angles. Officials don't apply to the girls basketball tournament because of the level of play. I think you'd see that mentality carry over. Especially when the average age of officials in this state is 50+. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

So what is the correct 'x' factor when it comes to enrollment?  Apparently it is ok for a Cathedral to play in a tournament with schools 5-6x their enrollment but not 10x?

And in Indiana high school football whoever invests the long-term resources into building a lasting and successful program usually wins.  Why should they not be rewarded by playing similar schools with similar goals?

I simply don't comprehend the question.

2 minutes ago, LCCAlum said:

Just laying out all possible angles. Officials don't apply to the girls basketball tournament because of the level of play. I think you'd see that mentality carry over. Especially when the average age of officials in this state is 50+. 

I've heard a few officials don't apply because of the good ol' boys that have their own club.  Good girl's basketball is fun to watch.  The fundamentals and team attitude is great.  

Edited by Robert
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robert said:

I simply don't comprehend the question.

Really?  Others in this thread seem to believe it is reprehensible for a school to play another school 10x it's enrollment in the state tournament, but playing a school that is 5-6x the enrollment is ok.    What is the cutoff point?    Is the difficulty level really exponential when you compare school enrollments in regards to high school football, or it more like a bell curve?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LCCAlum said:

Just laying out all possible angles. Officials don't apply to the girls basketball tournament because of the level of play. I think you'd see that mentality carry over. Especially when the average age of officials in this state is 50+. 

I'm 54, if we have a lousy assignment, we'll complain, we'll whine, we'll cuss the weather, (officials are notorious whiners), but we'll prepare the same way we do every week, we'll show up at the same time we do every week, and we'll work the game to the best of our ability. 

Football is a different animal than BB. One of the state finals crews from last year opened the tournament with Madison/Edgewood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Really?  Others in this thread seem to believe it is reprehensible for a school to play another school 10x it's enrollment in the state tournament, but playing a school that is 5-6x the enrollment is ok.    What is the cutoff point?    Is the difficulty level really exponential when you compare school enrollments in regards to high school football, or it more like a bell curve?

 

But we all know that's not the reason you bring it up.  You could care a whole lot more that the enrollments are different.  Equity on the playing field just isn't going to come because the games are not set up to be a social experiment, but a real-life competition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Robert said:

But we all know that's not the reason you bring it up.  You could care a whole lot more that the enrollments are different.  Equity on the playing field just isn't going to come because the games are not set up to be a social experiment, but a real-life competition.  

I simply don't comprehend the statement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BTF said:

If that were truly the case, Snider would be shooting for their 20th state championship this year. 

Since Rod Woodson's camp has gone, it hasn't been the same.  With forced bussing in Fort Wayne, kids really do come from far away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2019 at 1:39 PM, foxbat said:

That's why Success Factor makes more sense than a multiplier.  It would apply to all schools evenly,

"Evenly." That's the problem with the Success Factor. The privates have an advantage over the publics. Always have, always will. Zero boundaries. I'm all for the 1.65.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BTF said:

"Evenly." That's the problem with the Success Factor. The privates have an advantage over the publics. Always have, always will. Zero boundaries. I'm all for the 1.65.

Zero boundaries?  Sounds familiar.  If a multiplier comes in, you bet your bippy recruiting will be ugly.  I haven't worked for East Allen for several years, but when Harding was reimagined, the other 4 schools would put on their recruiting hats when they went to have their talk with the Junior High kids.  There are coaches on here who do teach for EACS, but I think they'll stay mum on this.  Maybe they all go to New Haven now anyhow.  

Edited by Robert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robert said:

Zero boundaries?  Sounds familiar.  

You never could get over the fact that the Snider/Luers series was so lopsided. Instead of acknowledging the fact that Snider's success over Luers is due to the size of the schools, you went on recruiting rampage against the Panthers. Certainly Snider's success had nothing to do with a great coaching staff that built one heck of a program, it just HAD to be recruiting. Even with the 1.65 multiplier, Snider is still twice the size of Luers................and that is why the series is so lopsided. Stop the nonsense Robert. 

DT. You said it yourself. Per capita, Fort Wayne shells out more than their fair share of high level football players. If they all went to Snider, the Panthers would literally have 20+ championships. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the goal is to equalize all schools then we play a 364 (or whatever it is now) tournament and only allow the upper enrollment programs to play their best players by quarter, upper enrollment of course includes the current success factor teams. Reduce to the common dominator. Sounds "fair" right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BTF said:

"Evenly." That's the problem with the Success Factor. The privates have an advantage over the publics. Always have, always will. Zero boundaries. I'm all for the 1.65.

How is that a problem with the Success Factor?  The ones that have an advantage and benefit from it would be moved up if they capitalize on that.  Just like public schools that have advantages over other public schools and capitalize on it.  In other words, RESULTS generate movement as opposed to general pre-classification.  The problem with the Success Factor is that its timeline is too short and its potential as to what it requires to remain in a higher class might be too high although that has recently been addressed by making it harder to drop back down.  Outside of that, if the idea is to match like competition with like competition, it's not a completely bad way of applying a similar standard across the board, both public and private and urban and rural and higher socioeconomic and lower socioeconomic that can certainly address real advantages while not penalizing for perceived advantages; especially allowing for much more individualized cases as opposed to broad brush approaches.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/15/2019 at 10:46 AM, 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:

 

  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.

Excellent & insightful read...thanks for posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...