Success Factor Points Update (2025 Season)

[Komets2727]

On 11/20/2025 at 12:06 PM, 23andCounting said:

That was another error on the part of the IHSAA. It should have been the highest and lowest class with 32 teams. Why on earth they choose to just split the biggest class in two is beyond me. Not sure there was much thought process when that that decision was made. 

Yes!!!

[Muda69]

3 hours ago, crimsonace1 said:

LCC: Back to 1A next year (1 point during 2 years in 2A)
 

Knights win the 1A state title in 2026. You heard it here first. 

 

[crimsonace1]

On 11/20/2025 at 12:36 PM, First_Backer_Inside said:

How does the success factor work with someone who's enrollment goes down, but they are continuing to have success in their class?

An example would be Knox. I think they have accumulated 3 points in the last two years which would put them as successful in 3A, however, their enrollment might be low enough for 2A next year. Do they stay in 3A due to success or go down to 2A because of enrollment? I don't think they can get to 6 points, but what would happen if a team (Let's say they are in 3A like Konx) accumulated 6 points in a class they had enrollment for, and within two years the enrollment dropped but they had those 6 points. Would they go to 2A because of enrollment? Stay in 3A because of success but drop of enrollment? Or go to 4A due to success? Probably something that would rarely ever happen but would be possible.

If Knox's enrollment takes them to 2A next year, they go to 2A. They do not "stay up" with 3 points because they were not up due to success factor. 

However, if Knox were to get to 6 points in 3A, they would move up to 4A. 

20 hours ago, 23andCounting said:

So two teams bump up without a state title to show for it. Lol, only in Indiana.

Only team bumping up without a state title is Luers. 

[jakone]

24 minutes ago, crimsonace1 said:

If Knox's enrollment takes them to 2A next year, they go to 2A. They do not "stay up" with 3 points because they were not up due to success factor. 

However, if Knox were to get to 6 points in 3A, they would move up to 4A. 

Only team bumping up without a state title is Luers. 

Thank you Luers for your 2 years in 3a without winning the state championship. Your special prize for not winning state ftom the ishaa will be moving up a class to 4a.

Edited November 30, 2025 by jakone

[Bobref]

Why do people feel that the only barometer for disproportionate success is a state championship?

[23andCounting]

18 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Why do people feel that the only barometer for disproportionate success is a state championship?

Seriously? Every team's goal should be to win state. Anything left is unfinished business. I can't imagine you went to law school thinking you'd be the second best attorney. Or, "my goal is to be an average restaurant owner." Or, "I'm going to college to get average grades." I think it's okay for a coach to convey upon his team that the goal is to be the best, nothing less. I don't see the point of bumping up without achieving the reward. Certainly you're not defending the IHSAA on this. Please tell me your not. I can only presume that your in the mood for a debate. 

[Bobref]

17 minutes ago, 23andCounting said:

Seriously? Every team's goal should be to win state. Anything left is unfinished business. I can't imagine you went to law school thinking you'd be the second best attorney. Or, "my goal is to be an average restaurant owner." Or, "I'm going to college to get average grades." I think it's okay for a coach to convey upon his team that the goal is to be the best, nothing less. I don't see the point of bumping up without achieving the reward. Certainly you're not defending the IHSAA on this. Please tell me you’re not. I can only presume that you’re in the mood for a debate. 

There’s so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin:

• So, every team that doesn’t win a state championship is a failure? That’s beyond absurd.
• The reason the success factor was adopted was to promote the goal of class football - as far as practicality will allow, like teams should play like teams. The success factor is a crude tool for identifying programs that consistently punch above their weight class, and regrouping them with teams that are (presumably) more on their level. It does not, nor should it, require a team to win a state championship if they prove consistently that they can compete at a higher level. And they prove it by being disproportionately successful in their class. You can quibble with the point levels or the length of the points cycle if you want. But that says nothing about the validity of the basic concept.
• At bottom, your point seems to be that until a team demonstrates total domination of a class by winning a state championship, they shouldn’t be moved out of their class. You only have to look at Adams Central’s recent history to show how wrong that thinking is. They went to the state finals in 1A 3 straight years, losing every time, but accumulating enough points to bump up to 2A. To your way of thinking, they should have stayed in 1A. But they didn’t, and promptly won the 2A championship the next season (last year), and made it to the 2A semistate this year, losing to the eventual state champ. But to your way of thinking, it was unfair to move them up since they had “unfinished business” in 1A.

If you are a program that enjoys disproportionate success in your class throughout the points cycle - however long it is - you should move up. But the idea that you can only be considered such by winning the state championship makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine.

[jakone]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

There’s so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin:

• So, every team that doesn’t win a state championship is a failure? That’s beyond absurd.
• The reason the success factor was adopted was to promote the goal of class football - as far as practicality will allow, like teams should play like teams. The success factor is a crude tool for identifying programs that consistently punch above their weight class, and regrouping them with teams that are (presumably) more on their level. It does not, nor should it, require a team to win a state championship if they prove consistently that they can compete at a higher level. And they prove it by being disproportionately successful in their class. You can quibble with the point levels or the length of the points cycle if you want. But that says nothing about the validity of the basic concept.
• At bottom, your point seems to be that until a team demonstrates total domination of a class by winning a state championship, they shouldn’t be moved out of their class. You only have to look at Adams Central’s recent history to show how wrong that thinking is. They went to the state finals in 1A 3 straight years, losing every time, but accumulating enough points to bump up to 2A. To your way of thinking, they should have stayed in 1A. But they didn’t, and promptly won the 2A championship the next season (last year), and made it to the 2A semistate this year, losing to the eventual state champ. But to your way of thinking, it was unfair to move them up since they had “unfinished business” in 1A.

If you are a program that enjoys disproportionate success in your class throughout the points cycle - however long it is - you should move up. But the idea that you can only be considered such by winning the state championship makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine.

If a team can't win it all in one class what makes anyone think they can win in a higher class. 

[kdets89]

23 minutes ago, jakone said:

If a team can't win it all in one class what makes anyone think they can win in a higher class. 

I'm confused.  You literally quoted @Bobref's example of Adams Central from 2021-2024.

I'd also point to Scecina from 2013.  After 2-straight runner-up attempts in 2011-12, they were bumped to 2A.  If not for running into Ritter's best team in the regional in 2013, they might likely have been the 2A champ with a roster that included 23 seniors.

The competitive difference between single classes isn't always as big as we think.  Nobody has won after being bumped up two classes, however.  New Pal may get the next shot at that in 2027.

[jakone]

13 minutes ago, kdets89 said:

he competitive difference between single classes isn't always as big as we think.  Nobody has won after being bumped up two classes, however.  New Pal may get the next shot at that in 2027.

Isn't as big as we think but no one has won who has been bumped up 2 classes has won state. Exactly my point. 

Edited November 30, 2025 by jakone

[Bobref]

28 minutes ago, kdets89 said:

I'm confused.  You literally quoted @Bobref's example of Adams Central from 2021-2024.

 

56 minutes ago, jakone said:

If a team can't win it all in one class what makes anyone think they can win in a higher class. 

😂🤣

[23andCounting]

3 hours ago, Bobref said:

There’s so much wrong with this, I hardly know where to begin:

• So, every team that doesn’t win a state championship is a failure? That’s beyond absurd.
• The reason the success factor was adopted was to promote the goal of class football - as far as practicality will allow, like teams should play like teams. The success factor is a crude tool for identifying programs that consistently punch above their weight class, and regrouping them with teams that are (presumably) more on their level. It does not, nor should it, require a team to win a state championship if they prove consistently that they can compete at a higher level. And they prove it by being disproportionately successful in their class. You can quibble with the point levels or the length of the points cycle if you want. But that says nothing about the validity of the basic concept.
• At bottom, your point seems to be that until a team demonstrates total domination of a class by winning a state championship, they shouldn’t be moved out of their class. You only have to look at Adams Central’s recent history to show how wrong that thinking is. They went to the state finals in 1A 3 straight years, losing every time, but accumulating enough points to bump up to 2A. To your way of thinking, they should have stayed in 1A. But they didn’t, and promptly won the 2A championship the next season (last year), and made it to the 2A semistate this year, losing to the eventual state champ. But to your way of thinking, it was unfair to move them up since they had “unfinished business” in 1A.

If you are a program that enjoys disproportionate success in your class throughout the points cycle - however long it is - you should move up. But the idea that you can only be considered such by winning the state championship makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine.

Never said "anything less than a championship" is a failure. Only a head coach can determine whether or not his team had a successful year. Normally, if a team plays to their potential, that's a successful season. You could go 3-7 and have it considered a success. All I'm saying, is that the goal for every team should be to win the state championship. Anything less than that, then that's going to be your ceiling. 

I have no issue with the success factor other than it needing a couple of tweaks. First off, it should be a 4-year cycle, not two. Second, if you don't win a state title, you don't advance. 

Adams Central was moving up due to enrollment anyway, so not really a good example. If a team finishes at runner-up ten years in a row, they shouldn't bump up, period. I'm not bending. If you're not good enough to win the class you're in, moving up to a higher one makes NO SENSE. "Sorry you're not good enough to win the class you are in, but now you have to bump up and do it there instead." That's utter insanity. But again, it's the IHSAA. No desire to write an entire page on it. Is what it is. 

[Yuccaguy]

3 hours ago, jakone said:

If a team can't win it all in one class what makes anyone think they can win in a higher class. 

They HAVE...  Adams Central as the example 

[Sparty]

Does Brownsburg move up to the BIG 10 or SEC next year?   Man are they good.  

[Yuccaguy]

18 minutes ago, Sparty said:

Does Brownsburg move up to the BIG 10 or SEC next year?   Man are they good.  

Start small.  MAC 1st...   those Tuesday games are a MOFO though. 

🤣🤣🤣

[23andCounting]

32 minutes ago, Yuccaguy said:

They HAVE...  Adams Central as the example 

Anomaly.

The success factor in it's current form just kind of sucks. 

29 minutes ago, Sparty said:

Does Brownsburg move up to the BIG 10 or SEC next year?   Man are they good.  

NAIA. Put em up against Marian. 

[foxbat]

3 hours ago, Yuccaguy said:

They HAVE...  Adams Central as the example 

Scecina was the first.  Scecina lost twice in a row to LCC, but I suspect there aren't too many folks saying that Scecina wasn't good enough to win 1A.  It just happened to be those two years that they ran into LCC.  If they'd lost in semi-state those two years, it would have been Linton bouncing up to 2A with a pair of red rings ... and there would have been much wailing and gnashing of teeth instead of the near crickets

[Sparty]

4 hours ago, Yuccaguy said:

Start small.  MAC 1st...   those Tuesday games are a MOFO though. 

🤣🤣🤣

MACtion

[Coach Nowlin]

Trip down memory lane

IFCA had a proposal of 4 year cycle and 10 points I believe in 4 years.....   Mr. Cox, took that proposal and created his own........

Correct me if I'm am wrong, thought Adams Central was bumping up in 2a in the last reclassification because of enrollment anyways?   Same with Luers fro 2a to 3a 

 

[23andCounting]

2 hours ago, Coach Nowlin said:

Trip down memory lane

IFCA had a proposal of 4 year cycle and 10 points I believe in 4 years.....   Mr. Cox, took that proposal and created his own........

Correct me if I'm am wrong, thought Adams Central was bumping up in 2a in the last reclassification because of enrollment anyways?   Same with Luers fro 2a to 3a 

 

Luers jumped over six 3A enrollment schools. AC jumped over twenty 2A enrollment schools. 

Luers is the team in question here. They have thirteen state titles, all at the 2A level. They've never won 3A, so it seems odd that they would be bumped to 4A. It's my opinion that a team should not bump up without a championship to show for it. "You're not good enough to win the class you're in, but we're bumping you anyway." Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the sense in that. 

[Justasportsfan]

Its ugly yet SF was created to help programs get their fan base to state when you have a perennial power constantly in their way. I guess the communities of Knox and Twin Lakes think Luers is a 4a program, according to our current SF, they are. A ring is a ring, regardless the color, if a team gets too many too quickly, they move up. Gone are the days of LCC, Luers, and Cathedral winning 4 in a row in the same class..

[23andCounting]

15 minutes ago, Justasportsfan said:

Its ugly yet SF was created to help programs get their fan base to state when you have a perennial power constantly in their way. I guess the communities of Knox and Twin Lakes think Luers is a 4a program, according to our current SF, they are. A ring is a ring, regardless the color, if a team gets too many too quickly, they move up. Gone are the days of LCC, Luers, and Cathedral winning 4 in a row in the same class..

Strongly disagree on this. Again, "you're not good enough to take home the ultimate prize in the class you're in, but now you have to do in one class higher." I just don't see how anyone can make sense of this. 

[Indiana Native]

I posted this a couple years ago and think it generally still rings true.  

SF certainly can impact kids transferring, fan support, finances and overall positive momentum in a program.

Transfers:  Why go here (or stay here) if we face a guaranteed buzz saw in sectionals or regionals.

Fan Support:  It may not be immediate, but after 2 years of early playoff losses many lose interest.  

Finances:  Less concessions and merchandise money with less games.  Less support as success diminishes.

Positive Momentum:  After consecutive years of deep playoff runs and/or a state title, momentum is at its peak.  Lose in the 1st or 2nd round 2 years in a row and by the time it resets the positive mojo just isn't what it was.  

If the idea behind SF is to offset open enrollment in public schools and/or no district map in private schools, the better equation would be evaluating rosters for organic enrollment.  Have AD's submit an affidavit showing where ROSTERED PLAYERS attended 7th and 8th grade, as well as any high school transfers.  If more than X number or Y percent is over a threshold, have a SF policy that deals with it.

[First_Backer_Inside]

No matter what system you put in place, there's always going to be an odd man out. If Luers is left in 3A, what's stopping them from piling semi-state after semi-state after semi-state. At some point you have to say they are punching higher than the class they are in. I agree, moving up a class without winning a state title doesn't feel right, but neither does allowing a team to make it to state over and over without winning a title stay in that class. Clearly they are more than successful in that class. Not sure there is a right answer to Luers situation unfortunately. Obviously there are going to be situations that come up in any system that don't feel right, but I think for the most part the system that has been in place with slight modifications has been doing its job when looking at the overall scope of Indiana High School Football. 

Something that could avoid a lot of the problems we are seeing with the success factor would be seeding the North and South or even sectionals. But then you open up a whole different conversation and can of worms with how to seed. 

[CoachMack219]

55 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

No matter what system you put in place, there's always going to be an odd man out. If Luers is left in 3A, what's stopping them from piling semi-state after semi-state after semi-state. At some point you have to say they are punching higher than the class they are in. I agree, moving up a class without winning a state title doesn't feel right, but neither does allowing a team to make it to state over and over without winning a title stay in that class. Clearly they are more than successful in that class. Not sure there is a right answer to Luers situation unfortunately. Obviously there are going to be situations that come up in any system that don't feel right, but I think for the most part the system that has been in place with slight modifications has been doing its job when looking at the overall scope of Indiana High School Football. 

Something that could avoid a lot of the problems we are seeing with the success factor would be seeding the North and South or even sectionals. But then you open up a whole different conversation and can of worms with how to seed. 

I bolded the parts that feel important to the conversation of success factor and whether or not it "works" or is working. I totally agree that no system is perfect and there will be outliers (like this curious case of Luers). Correct me if I'm wrong but a large part of the idea of the success factor (and the addition of 6A) was "more schools playing for and winning state championships?" If that was "the main goal" of the IHSAA they succeeded, sort of, based on the data I compiled. 

From 2013-2025 (Success Factor Era) there have been 47 different State Champions (42 of them from classes 1A-5A) crowned from classes 1A-6A and 81 different schools have competed in the State Football Finals.

By comparison, from 2000-2012 (the 13 years directly prior to SF) there were 32 different State Champions crowned from classes 1A-5A and 65 different schools competed in the State Football Finals. 

While not perfect, the system is working if the MAIN GOAL is "more schools playing for and winning state championships."