Success Factor Points Update (2025 Season)

[RegionFBFan]

1 hour ago, Indiana Fan said:

IHSAA should get rid of conferences. Enforce Districts that are re drawn, aligned with location, success factor and class obviously. Use the district play records to determine seeds within the tournament. Get rid of conference play and meaningless records. Could still have a couple out of district games of course, but use district play to determine seeds for tournaments. Not that hard. Would also help scheduling issues with schools. Probably too much work from the IHSAA though…

Why get rid of conference play? For many schools, winning the conference is goal and has meaning. Can you not achieve what it is your looking for by:

1. Keep Conferences

2. Add a 10th regular season game

2. Reduce number of teams in tourney - regular season means something 

3. Use sagarin or some other tool to determine tourney teams and seeding - regular season and strength of schedule would matter

4. Neutral sites for Regionals and semi state 

5. Neutral sites must be turf

In terms of competitive balance/success factor, I would just adopt Ohio’s policy and regulations. It requires more work by administrators and much more detailed as every player in your roster gets assigned a value and added to your enrollment from grades 9-11. It seems fair and definitely more logical than multipliers. 

[Muda69]

18 minutes ago, RegionFBFan said:

Why get rid of conference play? For many schools, winning the conference is goal and has meaning.

You forgot maybe the most important reason:  It's makes game scheduling a lot easier for AD's. 

 

[oldtimeqb]

4 hours ago, Muda69 said:

You forgot maybe the most important reason:  It's makes game scheduling a lot easier for AD's. 

 

Winner winner. Seeing how little effort is put in to field a competitive team at some schools, I know there would be less effort to find 3 opponents each year. 

As much as I would love the following: 10 game regular season. 
7 games against sectional opponents 

3 games against whoever you want 

Top 4 in each sectional make playoffs. Seeded by sectional record.

And yes - I realize some adjustments would be needed for 5/6A and sectionals with only 7 teams. 

[Indiana Fan]

5 hours ago, RegionFBFan said:

Why get rid of conference play? For many schools, winning the conference is goal and has meaning. Can you not achieve what it is your looking for by:

1. Keep Conferences

2. Add a 10th regular season game

2. Reduce number of teams in tourney - regular season means something 

3. Use sagarin or some other tool to determine tourney teams and seeding - regular season and strength of schedule would matter

4. Neutral sites for Regionals and semi state 

5. Neutral sites must be turf

In terms of competitive balance/success factor, I would just adopt Ohio’s policy and regulations. It requires more work by administrators and much more detailed as every player in your roster gets assigned a value and added to your enrollment from grades 9-11. It seems fair and definitely more logical than multipliers. 

Winning the district could be the same thing as winning the conference. That would have meaning and maybe even more as you fight for the playoffs. You could have all district teams just like all conference teams. You essentially get the same outcome and it makes it better for playoffs. You would not have the argument for computer rankings or some committee. And again, scheduling is easy!

[foxbat]

6 hours ago, Indiana Fan said:

IHSAA should get rid of conferences. Enforce Districts that are re drawn, aligned with location, success factor and class obviously. Use the district play records to determine seeds within the tournament. Get rid of conference play and meaningless records. Could still have a couple out of district games of course, but use district play to determine seeds for tournaments. Not that hard. Would also help scheduling issues with schools. Probably too much work from the IHSAA though…

 

6 hours ago, Bobref said:

This makes too much sense. Now, if you could just augment it with a tournament that requires some level of regular season success to qualify for postseason play, it would be best of all possible worlds.

This is basically the Texas model.

[HoopsCoach]

On 12/1/2025 at 1:23 PM, Indiana Native said:

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.

 

On 12/1/2025 at 6:08 PM, Indiana Native said:

It just seems to me there needs to be another layer of measure that includes a look at where the players are coming from.  

I hate to see a program have a 2-3 year run of success, only to get stuck in a higher class for 2 years - or worse yet get stuck there for several years with only moderate success. 

However, if a program is constantly loading their program with non-feeder school 8th graders and/or transfers, it's an entirely different monster.  Not saying it's "wrong", but it's certainly different.

I think the “transfer portal” should absolutely be weighed into the enrollment number for all schools, and the data is already somewhat available to do it.  Last year, I put together an adjusted enrollment for each high school based upon the percentage of students their district receives from outside the district.  I took the total enrollment of the school and added the percentage of students from outside the district to their number, which basically just counts every out-of-district student twice.  As an example, if a high school had an enrollment of 400 students, and their district received 10% of their students from outside the district, then the adjusted enrollment for the school was counted as 440 students.  Private, parochial, and non-public charter schools receive all of their students from outside their district since they do not have a defined district, so their enrollments have a 100% addition to their total.  Since all schools, public and P/P/C, can receive and benefit from out-of-district transfers, I felt that this may be a way to add a multiplier to all schools rather than just P/P/C.  The result really wasn’t a significant impact on many schools, but it did reflect some of the advantages of schools who benefit from being in a larger urban area or in close proximity to one they can receive students from.  I’ve thought about posting it, but I may wait until the enrollment and transfer data for this year is posted and just include it with that data as a comparison.

Edited December 3, 2025 by HoopsCoach
Typo

[Bobref]

34 minutes ago, foxbat said:

 

This is basically the Texas model.

Many other places as well.

[RegionFBFan]

2 hours ago, HoopsCoach said:

 

I think the “transfer portal” should absolutely be weighed into the enrollment number for all schools, and the data is already somewhat available to do it.  Last year, I put together an adjusted enrollment for each high school based upon the percentage of students their district receives from outside the district.  I took the total enrollment of the school and added the percentage of students from outside the district to their number, which basically just counts every out-of-district student twice.  As an example, if a high school had an enrollment of 400 students, and their district received 10% of their students from outside the district, then the adjusted enrollment for the school was counted as 440 students.  Private, parochial, and non-public charter schools receive all of their students from outside their district since they do not have a defined district, so their enrollments have a 100% addition to their total.  Since all schools, public and P/P/C, can receive and benefit from out-of-district transfers, I felt that this may be a way to add a multiplier to all schools rather than just P/P/C.  The result really wasn’t a significant impact on many schools, but it did reflect some of the advantages of schools who benefit from being in a larger urban area or in close proximity to one they can receive students from.  I’ve thought about posting it, but I may wait until the enrollment and transfer data for this year is posted and just include it with that data as a comparison.

Your private/parichial calculation is unfair in the sense you are penalizing private for students that come from parochial grade/middle schools within their diocese. Once again, Ohio model accounts for all of this and is based in specific roster. Total enrollment is base then each player in roster assigned a value and added. Multiplier’s make no sense and quite simply are lazy way of determining classification.

[foxbat]

2 hours ago, HoopsCoach said:

 

I think the “transfer portal” should absolutely be weighed into the enrollment number for all schools, and the data is already somewhat available to do it.  Last year, I put together an adjusted enrollment for each high school based upon the percentage of students their district receives from outside the district.  I took the total enrollment of the school and added the percentage of students from outside the district to their number, which basically just counts every out-of-district student twice.  As an example, if a high school had an enrollment of 400 students, and their district received 10% of their students from outside the district, then the adjusted enrollment for the school was counted as 440 students.  Private, parochial, and non-public charter schools receive all of their students from outside their district since they do not have a defined district, so their enrollments have a 100% addition to their total.  Since all schools, public and P/P/C, can receive and benefit from out-of-district transfers, I felt that this may be a way to add a multiplier to all schools rather than just P/P/C.  The result really wasn’t a significant impact on many schools, but it did reflect some of the advantages of schools who benefit from being in a larger urban area or in close proximity to one they can receive students from.  I’ve thought about posting it, but I may wait until the enrollment and transfer data for this year is posted and just include it with that data as a comparison.

I'm not necessarily sure this would be practically accurate.  In essence, what you are measuring seems to be a "shift" in district dynamic at the benefit or detriment of the district at the high school level.  The potential issue with this, and this is born out by several p/ps, especially Catholic programs, that can show that kids come from their own "feeder" ranks.  In these cases, many of these kids were "never in the district" to begin with and thus didn't shift anything from a district/districts.  Case in point, when we moved to Lafayette, my kids immediately went into Catholic schools as opposed to coming out of a public district.  Likewise, when they left the public edit:private schools, they went to homeschool as opposed to public school.  It wasn't until high school that my kids then entered the public schools part time.  In essence "just showing up" in a public district out of the blue in 9th grade and, effectively moving from private to public in the stream.  this is something that you see a lot of where families kids start in private school and eventually land in public schools.  I'd suspect the flow actually favors public schools at the high school level in net flow. 

In essence, the model has a somewhat skewed approach that everyone is a public kid and the p/ps pull from them, but just in my family there are five kids that were never part of the public count until high school.  Districts are almost always based on physical/geographical boundaries, although they don't necessarily have to be ... although that's usually the easiest way to do it.  when they are though, it tends to lend itself to the idea that everything is public and that non-geographic schools are anomalies to that idea.

 

Edited December 3, 2025 by foxbat

[HoopsCoach]

1 hour ago, RegionFBFan said:

Your private/parichial calculation is unfair in the sense you are penalizing private for students that come from parochial grade/middle schools within their diocese. Once again, Ohio model accounts for all of this and is based in specific roster. Total enrollment is base then each player in roster assigned a value and added. Multiplier’s make no sense and quite simply are lazy way of determining classification.

 

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

I'm not necessarily sure this would be practically accurate.  In essence, what you are measuring seems to be a "shift" in district dynamic at the benefit or detriment of the district at the high school level.  The potential issue with this, and this is born out by several p/ps, especially Catholic programs, that can show that kids come from their own "feeder" ranks.  In these cases, many of these kids were "never in the district" to begin with and thus didn't shift anything from a district/districts.  Case in point, when we moved to Lafayette, my kids immediately went into Catholic schools as opposed to coming out of a public district.  Likewise, when they left the public edit:private schools, they went to homeschool as opposed to public school.  It wasn't until high school that my kids then entered the public schools part time.  In essence "just showing up" in a public district out of the blue in 9th grade and, effectively moving from private to public in the stream.  this is something that you see a lot of where families kids start in private school and eventually land in public schools.  I'd suspect the flow actually favors public schools at the high school level in net flow. 

In essence, the model has a somewhat skewed approach that everyone is a public kid and the p/ps pull from them, but just in my family there are five kids that were never part of the public count until high school.  Districts are almost always based on physical/geographical boundaries, although they don't necessarily have to be ... although that's usually the easiest way to do it.  when they are though, it tends to lend itself to the idea that everything is public and that non-geographic schools are anomalies to that idea.

 

This is just my philosophy, but my application of the multiplier for P/P/C that they have no in-district students is a way to offset the advantage of being able to choose who is permitted to attend those schools.  P/P/C schools have the ability to accept/decline students from anywhere, while public schools cannot decline enrollment by students who reside in their geographic district.  Basically, if the school has a choice of whether to allow a student to enroll, those students would be counted twice in my formula.  Students that are entitled to attend based upon residency within the geographic district would only be counted once.

Edited December 3, 2025 by HoopsCoach
Typo

[23andCounting]

10 hours ago, foxbat said:

 

This is basically the Texas model.

Ping pong balls, lol.

[Bobref]

8 hours ago, HoopsCoach said:

 

This is just my philosophy, but my application of the multiplier for P/P/C that they have no in-district students is a way to offset the advantage of being able to choose who is permitted to attend those schools.  P/P/C schools have the ability to accept/decline students from anywhere, while public schools cannot decline enrollment by students who reside in their geographic district.  Basically, if the school has a choice of whether to allow a student to enroll, those students would be counted twice in my formula.  Students that are entitled to attend based upon residency within the geographic district would only be counted once.

The problem with your formula - the problem with all multiplier solutions - is that they treat all P/Ps alike, when they clearly are not. If true competitive balance is what you are after, what is the justification for treating Andrean (75-28 in the last 8 seasons with 2 state titles) the same as Bishop Noll (9-59 with 0 tournament wins in their last 8 seasons)? That’s why the success factor approach is more valid. It addresses those P/Ps who take their inherent advantages and use them to succeed disproportionately in their class, while sparing those, like Bishop Noll, who don’t. How is an across the board multiplier more fair than that?

The other reason I like the success factor approach is it applies to all schools. P/Ps are not the only schools with inherent advantages. There are public schools that are clearly advantaged socioeconomically over other publics. If they utilize those advantages to consistently compete above their class, they move up. Again, if competitive balance is the goal, that is only fair.

[foxbat]

8 hours ago, HoopsCoach said:

 

This is just my philosophy, but my application of the multiplier for P/P/C that they have no in-district students is a way to offset the advantage of being able to choose who is permitted to attend those schools.  P/P/C schools have the ability to accept/decline students from anywhere, while public schools cannot decline enrollment by students who reside in their geographic district.  Basically, if the school has a choice of whether to allow a student to enroll, those students would be counted twice in my formula.  Students that are entitled to attend based upon residency within the geographic district would only be counted once.

Realistically, which p/p schools, in Indiana, are controlling admissions for the purpose of staying in a certain enrollment class?  I say that not to be flippant, but to take out the stand-by argument that p/ps are only allowing cream of the crop athletes and shunning everyone else while manipulating the enrollment count to make sure that they are two students below the cutoff line for the next highest classification.  That gamesmanship might happen in other places ... heck, there was just a story the other day about a team that lost a game on purpose so that they could be placed in a lower competition state final bracket ... but that's not anything that I've seen here in Indiana.

Frankly, rather than using multipliers that tend to make assumptions and use broad-sweeping claims that definitely don't work ... Bishop Noll, Faith Christian, Blackhawk in football, etc. ... I'd be much more interested in seeing a reduction in student numbers for schools that, as you mentioned, don't have the option of admissions.  Students who can't play, shouldn't be counted in any school's enrollment numbers for classification.  Yes, it tends to be true that as a percentage, p/ps tend to have less students with physical/mental disability, so for them, it's unlikely that that such an adjustment would be big enough to impact classification placement.  At the same time, it's fairly certain that there will be some schools, especially in the lower and middle classes that it would result in a change of classification.  I think you could also go to an extent, without double-counting, that you could throw in some lowering modifier applied to FRL.  That would also allow you to catch some of the socio-economic issues in addition to disability issues as well as a classification modifier.

The state already has data on both of these points, so it just now becomes an issue of the formula to make it a reality.  I'd be curious to see how many schools end up with this type of class modification change.  I'm not sure if it would be huge, but it starts moving the needle to thinking about class as more than just enrollment based in flat numbers.  Keep Success Factor in there too, with some minor modifications to length of evaluation and points to stay ... still think it should be four years for eval and an average of a sectional a year in upper classes once moved to stay ... and I think there are the makings of shifting enrollment-based classification ..,. although the initial placements would start with enrollment, but eventually be morphed through a more modified approach to classification.

[Muda69]

12 minutes ago, foxbat said:

  I think you could also go to an extent, without double-counting, that you could throw in some lowering modifier applied to FRL.  That would also allow you to catch some of the socio-economic issues in addition to disability issues as well as a classification modifier.

Case in point:

https://indianagps.doe.in.gov/Summary/School/3435

 

[HoopsCoach]

8 hours ago, Bobref said:

The problem with your formula - the problem with all multiplier solutions - is that they treat all P/Ps alike, when they clearly are not. If true competitive balance is what you are after, what is the justification for treating Andrean (75-28 in the last 8 seasons with 2 state titles) the same as Bishop Noll (9-59 with 0 tournament wins in their last 8 seasons)? That’s why the success factor approach is more valid. It addresses those P/Ps who take their inherent advantages and use them to succeed disproportionately in their class, while sparing those, like Bishop Noll, who don’t. How is an across the board multiplier more fair than that?

The other reason I like the success factor approach is it applies to all schools. P/Ps are not the only schools with inherent advantages. There are public schools that are clearly advantaged socioeconomically over other publics. If they utilize those advantages to consistently compete above their class, they move up. Again, if competitive balance is the goal, that is only fair.

I should have clarified, my suggestion of a transfer portal multiplier would be in addition to the success factor, not eliminating the success factor in favor of the transfer portal multiplier.  The transfer portal multiplier would apply to all schools, not just P/P/C, so it would equally impose an increase in the school enrollment total for each student a school chooses to accept.  No penalty would be applied for students a school is required by law to accept as residents of their geographic district.  This would make enrollments a closer reflection of the inherent advantages some schools have from their location in, or in close proximity to, a population center they can pull students from.

8 hours ago, foxbat said:

Realistically, which p/p schools, in Indiana, are controlling admissions for the purpose of staying in a certain enrollment class?  I say that not to be flippant, but to take out the stand-by argument that p/ps are only allowing cream of the crop athletes and shunning everyone else while manipulating the enrollment count to make sure that they are two students below the cutoff line for the next highest classification.  That gamesmanship might happen in other places ... heck, there was just a story the other day about a team that lost a game on purpose so that they could be placed in a lower competition state final bracket ... but that's not anything that I've seen here in Indiana.

Frankly, rather than using multipliers that tend to make assumptions and use broad-sweeping claims that definitely don't work ... Bishop Noll, Faith Christian, Blackhawk in football, etc. ... I'd be much more interested in seeing a reduction in student numbers for schools that, as you mentioned, don't have the option of admissions.  Students who can't play, shouldn't be counted in any school's enrollment numbers for classification.  Yes, it tends to be true that as a percentage, p/ps tend to have less students with physical/mental disability, so for them, it's unlikely that that such an adjustment would be big enough to impact classification placement.  At the same time, it's fairly certain that there will be some schools, especially in the lower and middle classes that it would result in a change of classification.  I think you could also go to an extent, without double-counting, that you could throw in some lowering modifier applied to FRL.  That would also allow you to catch some of the socio-economic issues in addition to disability issues as well as a classification modifier.

The state already has data on both of these points, so it just now becomes an issue of the formula to make it a reality.  I'd be curious to see how many schools end up with this type of class modification change.  I'm not sure if it would be huge, but it starts moving the needle to thinking about class as more than just enrollment based in flat numbers.  Keep Success Factor in there too, with some minor modifications to length of evaluation and points to stay ... still think it should be four years for eval and an average of a sectional a year in upper classes once moved to stay ... and I think there are the makings of shifting enrollment-based classification ..,. although the initial placements would start with enrollment, but eventually be morphed through a more modified approach to classification.

Where did I say anything in my post about P/P schools deliberately keeping enrollments below a certain number to stay in a lower class?  For the vast majority of schools, that isn’t the reason they decline enrollment for certain students.  Non-public schools can, and do, decline enrollment for students based upon a variety of factors such as historical attendance, disciplinary incidents, academic performance, services required to be provided to the student, or a combination of those factors.  If a student moves into a public school district with a history of poor attendance, bad behavior, failing grades, and also happens to have an IEP, the public school has no choice but to accept the student.  Non-public schools have a choice of whether to enroll that student or not.  Do you think most private schools would enroll that student?  There is also an high probability that the same student is also economically disadvantaged.  Would any private schools offer a voucher (if they take vouchers) to that student and accept them?  Is the conversation different if the student is a good athlete?  That is why I am suggesting a transfer portal multiplier that would apply to every student a school enrolls that they had a choice to accept or decline.

I do like and completely agree with your suggestion of a reducer based upon the percentage of special needs and FRL students.  As I said above, I would be in favor of success factor for program specific success/dominance as well as my transfer portal multiplier for geographic and admission advantages.  Add in your suggestion for a reducer based upon the percentage of disadvantaged students.  Put those three things together and I think it brings us much closer to a true reflection of a school’s population and competitive level.

[foxbat]

16 minutes ago, HoopsCoach said:

 

Where did I say anything in my post about P/P schools deliberately keeping enrollments below a certain number to stay in a lower class?  For the vast majority of schools, that isn’t the reason they decline enrollment for certain students.  Non-public schools can, and do, decline enrollment for students based upon a variety of factors such as historical attendance, disciplinary incidents, academic performance, services required to be provided to the student, or a combination of those factors.  If a student moves into a public school district with a history of poor attendance, bad behavior, failing grades, and also happens to have an IEP, the public school has no choice but to accept the student.  Non-public schools have a choice of whether to enroll that student or not.  Do you think most private schools would enroll that student?  There is also an high probability that the same student is also economically disadvantaged.  Would any private schools offer a voucher (if they take vouchers) to that student and accept them?  Is the conversation different if the student is a good athlete?  That is why I am suggesting a transfer portal multiplier that would apply to every student a school enrolls that they had a choice to accept or decline.

I do like and completely agree with your suggestion of a reducer based upon the percentage of special needs and FRL students.  As I said above, I would be in favor of success factor for program specific success/dominance as well as my transfer portal multiplier for geographic and admission advantages.  Add in your suggestion for a reducer based upon the percentage of disadvantaged students.  Put those three things together and I think it brings us much closer to a true reflection of a school’s population and competitive level.

I wasn't specifically saying that's what you said, but it is always part of the equation in "limiting enrollment," so I thought I'd get it off the table before even delving into anything else.

As for kids with disciplinary problems, historical attendance, disciplinary incidents, etc. these can all pretty much be addressed in the kids that aren't eligible to play.  I used disability as a factor because that's the traditional argument when talking about the disadvantage that public schools have, but there are several other non-disability items that could also fall into that.  A kid who's got a truancy or discipline issue wouldn't be allowed to play anyway via IHSAA rules, so it really makes no real sense that they should be counted as part of the eligible denominator.  It wouldn't be automatic dismissal of the kid in the denominator, but I gather from what you are presenting is you are talking about chronic disciplinary issue as opposed to the kid caught throwing spitballs in Mr. Johnson's science class or a kid whose got a chronic truancy issue as opposed to the kid whose family pulled him out of classes for three days before Spring Break because they wanted a longer family vacation.  Again, these end up being quite easy to codify. 

Without attaching stigma, it could also be kids with a drug dependency issue or single-parents still attending school.  BTW, I'm quite aware that a kid recovering from a dependency issue or a single mom can certainly play sports.  Matter of fact, in some cases, it might actually be beneficial in keeping them focused.  I think these cases would be fairly limited and removing them from the denominator, but having them still play sports is not likely to be a tilting factor on classifications, so I wouldn't let something like that be a clogging factor for not incorporating it in limitations. 

The biggest issue, even with your initial approach in saying that p/ps can exclude people for a number of reasons is that it presupposes that public schools are at a disadvantage because they can't turn kids away.  I would note that there are kids with mental/physical disabilities in p/ps.  As a percentage of the student body, it's likely much less than the percentage in public schools, but in still exists.  In a multiplier situation, not only do those kids not play, but at a p/p the impact is even bigger than at a public school because, while at both schools, that student isn't going to play and would regularly be part of the denominator anyway, for the p/p they get the added penalty of having that person multiplied.  While it is objectively true that public schools can't turn kids away, it overlooks the fact that we're talking about many items that, while fairly complex in addressing and solving them, are actually fairly easy to codify and address in numbers ... or more specifically the denominator.  Again, by looking at level the playing fields by being realistic about the denominators, we get much closer to a truer solution than multipliers can address.

[US31]

Once again....

"The issue isn't the students that P/P or Public schools count....its who the P/P schools NEVER have to count and Public schools ALWAYS have to count."

[whiteshoes]

On 11/17/2025 at 2:54 PM, Frozen Tundra said:

Not a fan of teams needing 3 points to stay up. Should’ve stayed at 2 points. 

Should be at 1 point

[Frozen Tundra]

1 hour ago, whiteshoes said:

Should be at 1 point

Actually I agree with this. But, at the very least, it never should’ve increased from 2.

[crimsonace1]

On 12/3/2025 at 8:18 AM, Bobref said:

The problem with your formula - the problem with all multiplier solutions - is that they treat all P/Ps alike, when they clearly are not. If true competitive balance is what you are after, what is the justification for treating Andrean (75-28 in the last 8 seasons with 2 state titles) the same as Bishop Noll (9-59 with 0 tournament wins in their last 8 seasons)? That’s why the success factor approach is more valid. It addresses those P/Ps who take their inherent advantages and use them to succeed disproportionately in their class, while sparing those, like Bishop Noll, who don’t. How is an across the board multiplier more fair than that?

The other reason I like the success factor approach is it applies to all schools. P/Ps are not the only schools with inherent advantages. There are public schools that are clearly advantaged socioeconomically over other publics. If they utilize those advantages to consistently compete above their class, they move up. Again, if competitive balance is the goal, that is only fair.

One thing Illinois - which has a 1.65 multiplier for p/p and charter schools - does is have "multiplier waivers." Basically, it's a reverse success factor. If you haven't won a trophy in the tournament in that sport (or, in football, a tournament game) in two years, the multiplier is waived and your school is classed on your enrollment. 

Illinois also has a success factor, but it only applies to p/p/charter schools (you bump up if you win two State Finals trophies in a rolling three-year span). 

[jakone]

Since the start of sf what is the percentage of p/p's have moved up in class vs. tax supported public schools? 

On 11/30/2025 at 6:27 PM, Yuccaguy said:

They HAVE...  Adams Central as the example 

 

[CoachMack219]

20 hours ago, crimsonace1 said:

One thing Illinois - which has a 1.65 multiplier for p/p and charter schools - does is have "multiplier waivers." Basically, it's a reverse success factor. If you haven't won a trophy in the tournament in that sport (or, in football, a tournament game) in two years, the multiplier is waived and your school is classed on your enrollment. 

Illinois also has a success factor, but it only applies to p/p/charter schools (you bump up if you win two State Finals trophies in a rolling three-year span). 

We would need an entire waiver department in the IHSAA with all the football waivers filled out. Lmao but I like that they have some sort of "solution" for teams that have no business being multiplied up. 

19 hours ago, jakone said:

Since the start of sf what is the percentage of p/p's have moved up in class vs. tax supported public schools? 

 

I might be wrong here but with the data I could assemble/locate these were my findings... 

IHSAA Private Success Factor "Climbers" since 2013 = 19

IHSAA Public Success Factor "Climbers" since 2013 = 14

 

IF someone has better, more accurate data, please provide. This was not my best effort but an effort. 

[Indiana Fan]

Can we get a list going here on schools we believe will be moving up or down based on enrollment numbers? These can be hard to track I know, but are there teams we should be on the lookout for to be moving with their enrollment?

[Coach Nowlin]

@HoopsCoach  and @crimsonace1  are my 2 go to members on that 

[jakone]

3 hours ago, CoachMack219 said:

We would need an entire waiver department in the IHSAA with all the football waivers filled out. Lmao but I like that they have some sort of "solution" for teams that have no business being multiplied up. 

I might be wrong here but with the data I could assemble/locate these were my findings... 

IHSAA Private Success Factor "Climbers" since 2013 = 19

IHSAA Public Success Factor "Climbers" since 2013 = 14

 

IF someone has better, more accurate data, please provide. This was not my best effort but an effort. 

So p/p's are getting moved up percentage wise astronomically more.