Neighbors to the West, Unhappy

[wabashalwaysfights]

1 hour ago, Titan32 said:

This multiplier (below) doesn't seem so arbitrary....and it gets to the heart of the issue.  Enrollment alone doesn't work for classification because the enrollment types are so catastrophically different.

In addition....having to drive ones child to school....or a school having a newer squat rack than you doesn't give the publics any advantage, this is just silly.

It's beyond comical to watch you guys try and defend such an unfair system.  I just wonder how some of these "legend" P/P coaches around our state would have fared at ANY equally enrolled public in our state.  I know the answer and you guys do too.

It's not the coaches....it's not tradition....it's not feeder schools....it's not recruiting...it's not hard-working Catholic ancestry.  It is and always has been about quality, coachable, success-driven student-athletes per capita in the building (as is the nature of a pay-for-play enterprise).  Enrollment alone won't work....why do you think every state in the union struggles with this and there are all kinds of solutions across our country.  Some are better than others but ours isn't enough.  

 

 

Again, I'll ask, why is our current success factor not enough to address this issue?

[Titan32]

1 minute ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

Again, I'll ask, why is our current success factor not enough to address this issue?

I don't have the numbers handy.....on my cell....but check out sectional, regional and semi-state win's pre inception of the SF and post inception by our P/P friends.  I saw this someplace on a post here but the results were clear.

[wabashalwaysfights]

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.

[JQWL]

59 minutes ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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.

I think Providence and Mater Dei will both be in their enrollment only class.

[tango]

18 hours ago, Titan32 said:

This multiplier (below) doesn't seem so arbitrary....and it gets to the heart of the issue.  Enrollment alone doesn't work for classification because the enrollment types are so catastrophically different.

 

 

I would have no issue with an "enrollment adjustment" such as what Iowa uses for FRL instead of a blanket multiplier (which no one has still attempted to justify being applied to p/p schools such as Hammond Noll, Washington Catholic, and/or Vincennes Rivet). But I don't think it is the miracle salve.

Quickly using our respective alma maters based on my recollection of what you previously posted about GS's FRL numbers...

Using 35% of FRL population at GS, the adjustment would be from 771 to 663 (771 x 35% x 40% = 108; 771 - 108 = 663). Memorial has about 20% on FRL so our adjustment would be from 617 to 567 (617 x 20% x 40% = 49; 617 - 49 = 567).

 

 

[Titan32]

33 minutes ago, tango said:

I would have no issue with an "enrollment adjustment" such as what Iowa uses for FRL instead of a blanket multiplier (which no one has still attempted to justify being applied to p/p schools such as Hammond Noll, Washington Catholic, and/or Vincennes Rivet). But I don't think it is the miracle salve.

Quickly using our respective alma maters based on my recollection of what you previously posted about GS's FRL numbers...

Using 35% of FRL population at GS, the adjustment would be from 771 to 663 (771 x 35% x 40% = 108; 771 - 108 = 663). Memorial has about 20% on FRL so our adjustment would be from 617 to 567 (617 x 20% x 40% = 49; 617 - 49 = 567).

 

 

I think Memorial is very unique....will have to pull up that FRL doc to be sure with regard to having ANY FRL.  If I recall Mater Dei had 0% on FRL...don't quote me.  I think there should also be a provision for schools that have programs for students who are unable to participate in athletics due to physical and mental disabilities.  GS has a large program for these students so that would drive our number even lower.  

14 hours ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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.

Wouldn't that show that in some cases one class isn't enough?

[FastpacedO]

39 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

I think Memorial is very unique....will have to pull up that FRL doc to be sure with regard to having ANY FRL.  If I recall Mater Dei had 0% on FRL...don't quote me.  I think there should also be a provision for schools that have programs for students who are unable to participate in athletics due to physical and mental disabilities.  GS has a large program for these students so that would drive our number even lower.

Being a Private/Parochail doesn't make them not have student with physical disabilities. Some do have students with physical disabilities that cannot participate in athletics.

Also Roncalli High School has their STARS program.

[Titan32]

14 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

Being a Private/Parochail doesn't make them not have student with physical disabilities. Some do have students with physical disabilities that cannot participate in athletics.

Also Roncalli High School has their STARS program.

I didn't say there aren't any P/Ps with these programs.  I said that with an enrollment adjustment program, there should be a mechanism to adjust for them.

[wabashalwaysfights]

1 hour ago, Titan32 said:

Wouldn't that show that in some cases one class isn't enough?

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.

[Titan32]

8 minutes ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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.

It's full-stop silly not to see the record of disproportionality in the tournament success of the P/P schools in this state or any state in the county for that matter.  It's why we have the success factor in the first place, because it was the only way to slow down the P/Ps and try and stay away from the alternative, which is likely a law suit from the P/Ps if any other solution was proposed that could be viewed as punitive.  

There is nothing in Iowa's enrollment adjustment classification system based on FRL that "devalues" anyone.  I'm sure there aren't any FRL kids getting up in the morning feeling bad their football team was lowered a class in Iowa because half of the school was on FRL.  Give me a break.

Essentially what you are saying is...."If I pay for an exclusive experience then I deserve a massively unfair advantage in athletics", I think I could respect your position more if you just came out and said it. 

It's borderline insanity to believe that enrollment homogeneity isn't the issue between a business and a public school.  I'll boil it down:  There is a kind of success-based disciplined student-athlete that makes all small school athletics successful.  This is just a simple fact that based on how many of these type of kids you have (regardless of facility perks) will lead to success.  Publics have a substantially smaller percentage of this type of student per capita.  Why? Because the most basic foundational reason parents send their kids to a P/P is for the exclusive experience of only being exposed to like-minded families.  These kids happen to be the kind of kids that make small school athletic programs successful.  This is why every state in the union has the same issue with enrollment....it will NEVER EVER work in terms of being an equitable measure for sports classification if you are going to allow businesses and public schools in the same tournament.

[wabashalwaysfights]

58 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

It's full-stop silly not to see the record of disproportionality in the tournament success of the P/P schools in this state or any state in the county for that matter.  It's why we have the success factor in the first place, because it was the only way to slow down the P/Ps and try and stay away from the alternative, which is likely a law suit from the P/Ps if any other solution was proposed that could be viewed as punitive.  

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.

58 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

There is nothing in Iowa's enrollment adjustment classification system based on FRL that "devalues" anyone.  I'm sure there aren't any FRL kids getting up in the morning feeling bad their football team was lowered a class in Iowa because half of the school was on FRL.  Give me a break.

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.

58 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Essentially what you are saying is...."If I pay for an exclusive experience then I deserve a massively unfair advantage in athletics", I think I could respect your position more if you just came out and said it. 

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?

58 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

It's borderline insanity to believe that enrollment homogeneity isn't the issue between a business and a public school.  I'll boil it down:  There is a kind of success-based disciplined student-athlete that makes all small school athletics successful.  This is just a simple fact that based on how many of these type of kids you have (regardless of facility perks) will lead to success.  Publics have a substantially smaller percentage of this type of student per capita.  Why?

Again, not denying this on merit, but how do you quantify this?

58 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Because the most basic foundational reason parents send their kids to a P/P is for the exclusive experience of only being exposed to like-minded families.  These kids happen to be the kind of kids that make small school athletic programs successful. 

Again, agreed, but again, how do you quantify this?

58 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

This is why every state in the union has the same issue with enrollment....it will NEVER EVER work in terms of being an equitable measure for sports classification if you are going to allow businesses and public schools in the same tournament.

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.  

[Titan32]

25 minutes ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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.  

The tournament disproportionality isn't solved yet, SF has helped a little.

I have never supported a flat multiplier.  The Iowa system is better (not perfect but might work well combined with some sort of improved success factor).  I value students on what they provide personally, not based on an association athletics-based enrollment modification system. I can't hardly believe anyone would, especially an educator.

I know Indiana HS football, I don't perceive advantages but I do point out real ones.

The only lack of perception in this debate is from the guys lining their trophy cases. 

Edited December 12, 2024 by Titan32

[foxbat]

18 hours ago, JQWL said:

I think Providence and Mater Dei will both be in their enrollment only class.

Providence will likely be bumped next season as all they need is a regional.  Mater Dei bumped up via SF equivalency, but then ended up at 3A enrollment the same year.  Same kind of thing that happened with Scecina after 2012 season, Linton after the 2016 season, and now AC after the 2023 season.

[wabashalwaysfights]

15 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

The tournament disproportionality isn't solved yet, SF has helped a little.

 

Let's try this a different way: what is the end goal then?  What does a "proportional" tournament look like?

15 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

The only lack of perception in this debate is from the guys lining their trophy cases. 

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.

[foxbat]

48 minutes ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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.  

I would suspect that, if this happened, there would then be a constant drumbeat of inequities between public schools.  In Texas, even though they have a public and private tourney, you still hear the grumblings every year about public schools where "they get the entire town" vs. other places where town's talent is "carved up" across schools.  I remember back in the day, when I was in the Texas football scene in the 70s, Dallas basically had some massive districts that had never split into multiple schools like Plano, Richardson, Highland Park, and the emerging Mesquite district which tended to run roughshod over the Houston schools as the post-season progressed.  At the time I was in Houston, our district has split into three 6A equivalent schools.  There was no way to compete with Dallas-area monster district that had the same number of students in a single district except ever once in a while.   There was ALWAYS grumbling in the post season amongst the public schools.

In Louisiana, the have segregated football, in more ways than one, but separate public and private/parochial leagues.  There's an underlying understanding/discussion about the differences between the "rich, white academy public schools" and some of the minority-heavy parochial schools which mirror the same type of arguments that we hear here in Indiana about public vs. private.  There the grumbling is within the private schools.  

 

[Titan32]

17 minutes ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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.

The end goal is to have schools classified in a manner which actually reflects the potential student athletes in the building which is kind of like playing chess (not easy to find a way that works).  Using enrollment alone is more akin to playing checkers.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2024 by Titan32

[Titan32]

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I would suspect that, if this happened, there would then be a constant drumbeat of inequities between public schools.  In Texas, even though they have a public and private tourney, you still hear the grumblings every year about public schools where "they get the entire town" vs. other places where town's talent is "carved up" across schools.  I remember back in the day, when I was in the Texas football scene in the 70s, Dallas basically had some massive districts that had never split into multiple schools like Plano, Richardson, Highland Park, and the emerging Mesquite district which tended to run roughshod over the Houston schools as the post-season progressed.  At the time I was in Houston, our district has split into three 6A equivalent schools.  There was no way to compete with Dallas-area monster district that had the same number of students in a single district except ever once in a while.   There was ALWAYS grumbling in the post season amongst the public schools.

In Louisiana, the have segregated football, in more ways than one, but separate public and private/parochial leagues.  There's an underlying understanding/discussion about the differences between the "rich, white academy public schools" and some of the minority-heavy parochial schools which mirror the same type of arguments that we hear here in Indiana about public vs. private.  There the grumbling is within the private schools.  

 

For the record, I don't think there is an issue at a certain enrollment point (larger schools).  At critical mass, the economies of scale overcome the P/P advantage.  Said another way...once a school gets big enough they can round up 30 success-driven studs pretty easily.  

[wabashalwaysfights]

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.

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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.  

Promotion and relegation.  The real solution.

 

[wabashalwaysfights]

Just now, Muda69 said:

Promotion and relegation.  The real solution.

 

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

[JQWL]

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

Providence will likely be bumped next season as all they need is a regional.  Mater Dei bumped up via SF equivalency, but then ended up at 3A enrollment the same year.  Same kind of thing that happened with Scecina after 2012 season, Linton after the 2016 season, and now AC after the 2023 season.

Providence will be by enrollment regardless. The enrollment they listed in the state finals program is higher than ours.

[foxbat]

23 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

For the record, I don't think there is an issue at a certain enrollment point (larger schools).  At critical mass, the economies of scale overcome the P/P advantage.  Said another way...once a school gets big enough they can round up 30 success-driven studs pretty easily.  

My point had nothing to do with public vs. private and size.  What I was noting is that, even in a situation where public vs. private isn't the issue, there will still be complaints about "advantages."  As noted in Texas, while you say you don't think size is an issue, I can tell you for the better part of a decade plus while I was down there, there was always a public-school debate about the large north Dallas districts that never split into multiple high schools. 

Similarly, in the Louisiana football environment there's plenty of grousing that goes on in the private ranks as well even though public and private are split.  In essence, doesn't really matter whether there are multipliers, success factors, separate tourneys, there will always be reason to complain.

[Titan32]

3 hours ago, foxbat said:

My point had nothing to do with public vs. private and size.  What I was noting is that, even in a situation where public vs. private isn't the issue, there will still be complaints about "advantages."  As noted in Texas, while you say you don't think size is an issue, I can tell you for the better part of a decade plus while I was down there, there was always a public-school debate about the large north Dallas districts that never split into multiple high schools. 

Similarly, in the Louisiana football environment there's plenty of grousing that goes on in the private ranks as well even though public and private are split.  In essence, doesn't really matter whether there are multipliers, success factors, separate tourneys, there will always be reason to complain.

No doubt…people will complain about a free meal lol.  Such is human nature, but I’m not going to let that stop me from doing what’s right.

[jets]

6 hours ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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.  

Answer me this : Chatard's 630 student population ....(Name any public School) 630 student population

You think they are the same?? And you think its ok for Chatard (or any P/P) to play in the same classification ?? 

If you do think they should AND IT IS FAIR - well then, that's where we differ greatly 

[Muda69]

4 hours ago, wabashalwaysfights said:

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

No, it doesn't.  A true system of promotion & relegation takes enrollment entirely out of the equation.