What If the Rolling Success Factor Had Been Used From the Start?

[Frozen Tundra]

We could play the “what-if” game all day long as it pertains to how state championships and tournaments would be affected if the success factor was never put into place. How many state titles do New Palestine and Cathedral have if they never had to be bumped up from 4A? Or Bishop Luers from 2A? Or Indy Lutheran and LCC from 1A? I could go on. However, the “what-if” game I like to play now is “What if the rolling success factor had been instituted from the get-go?” We would’ve gotten the following:

-New Palestine in 6A in 2020 and 2021 due to their 2018 and 2019 5A state titles.

-Western Boone doesn’t get to win three straight 2A titles from 2018-2020. Who then wins 2A in 2020? It wouldn’t have been Eastbrook because their back-to-back losses to Western Boone in the 2018 and 2019 state championships would’ve bumped them up to 3A as well in 2020 and 2021.

-Pioneer doesn’t get to win the 1A state title in 2018. Their runner-up finish in 2016 and state title in 2017 would’ve bumped them up to 2A in 2018 and 2019.

-Who plays for the 2023 1A state title? 2023 was the third straight year Indy Lutheran defeated Adams Central for the 1A title. Both schools would’ve been bumped up to 2A in 2023 and 2024 if the rolling success factor had already been instituted.

Any other scenarios I’m missing? We talk about teams that wouldn’t have won state titles if certain teams didn’t have to be bumped up due to the success factor. How about the teams that would likely have won or played for a state title if the rolling success factor was used from the beginning in 2013?

[kdets89]

On 4/9/2026 at 9:35 AM, Frozen Tundra said:

 

-Who plays for the 2023 1A state title? 2023 was the third straight year Indy Lutheran defeated Adams Central for the 1A title. Both schools would’ve been bumped up to 2A in 2023 and 2024 if the rolling success factor had already been instituted.

Providence would have played North Judson in the '23 state title game, just as they did in '24.  Both would have been bumped to 2A for 2025.

[foxbat]

On 4/9/2026 at 9:35 AM, Frozen Tundra said:

We could play the “what-if” game all day long as it pertains to how state championships and tournaments would be affected if the success factor was never put into place. How many state titles do New Palestine and Cathedral have if they never had to be bumped up from 4A? Or Bishop Luers from 2A? Or Indy Lutheran and LCC from 1A? I could go on. However, the “what-if” game I like to play now is “What if the rolling success factor had been instituted from the get-go?” We would’ve gotten the following:

-New Palestine in 6A in 2020 and 2021 due to their 2018 and 2019 5A state titles.

-Western Boone doesn’t get to win three straight 2A titles from 2018-2020. Who then wins 2A in 2020? It wouldn’t have been Eastbrook because their back-to-back losses to Western Boone in the 2018 and 2019 state championships would’ve bumped them up to 3A as well in 2020 and 2021.

-Pioneer doesn’t get to win the 1A state title in 2018. Their runner-up finish in 2016 and state title in 2017 would’ve bumped them up to 2A in 2018 and 2019.

-Who plays for the 2023 1A state title? 2023 was the third straight year Indy Lutheran defeated Adams Central for the 1A title. Both schools would’ve been bumped up to 2A in 2023 and 2024 if the rolling success factor had already been instituted.

Any other scenarios I’m missing? We talk about teams that wouldn’t have won state titles if certain teams didn’t have to be bumped up due to the success factor. How about the teams that would likely have won or played for a state title if the rolling success factor was used from the beginning in 2013?

Are you doing the current three-to-stay up part of SF? 

If so, LCC would have returned to 1A back in 2023.  Likely would not have made an impact on blue/red rings as the GID predictor tool shows LCC as a 20+ underdog to both Lutheran and Adams Central that season.  LCC would have a been a 3.5 point favorite over North Judson and 13.5-point favorite over Sheridan who made it to semis. Given just a look at the top four that year, LCC would have had a battle to reach semis but would have been easily ousted.

That would have left LCC in 1A for 2024.  They would have been a 6.5 underdog against eventual winner Providence and a 7-point underdog to northern rep North Judson. LCC would have been a 21-point favorite over South Adams and a .5-point underdog to South Putnam who made it to semis.  Given just a look at the top four that year, LCC likely would have made semis and would have probably had a competitive match to try to get back to LOS.

That would again have left LCC in 1A for 2025.  In that year, LCC would have been a 41-point underdog to South Putnam.  Pioneer would have been a 31-point favorite over LCC that year.  Of note is that LCC would have also been an underdog to South Adams (27.5) and Milan (15.5 points) who made it to semis.  LCC would not have made it to semis and it'd be questionable if a regional was doable.

Given all of that, it pretty much leaves us where we are for the upcoming 2026 season for LCC ... back in 1A.  It would have been likely that, perhaps with the exception of, maybe, 2024, LCC would not have ventured to LOS in any of those subsequent seasons

 

[Frozen Tundra]

10 hours ago, foxbat said:

Are you doing the current three-to-stay up part of SF? 

If so, LCC would have returned to 1A back in 2023.  Likely would not have made an impact on blue/red rings as the GID predictor tool shows LCC as a 20+ underdog to both Lutheran and Adams Central that season.  LCC would have a been a 3.5 point favorite over North Judson and 13.5-point favorite over Sheridan who made it to semis. Given just a look at the top four that year, LCC would have had a battle to reach semis but would have been easily ousted.

That would have left LCC in 1A for 2024.  They would have been a 6.5 underdog against eventual winner Providence and a 7-point underdog to northern rep North Judson. LCC would have been a 21-point favorite over South Adams and a .5-point underdog to South Putnam who made it to semis.  Given just a look at the top four that year, LCC likely would have made semis and would have probably had a competitive match to try to get back to LOS.

That would again have left LCC in 1A for 2025.  In that year, LCC would have been a 41-point underdog to South Putnam.  Pioneer would have been a 31-point favorite over LCC that year.  Of note is that LCC would have also been an underdog to South Adams (27.5) and Milan (15.5 points) who made it to semis.  LCC would not have made it to semis and it'd be questionable if a regional was doable.

Given all of that, it pretty much leaves us where we are for the upcoming 2026 season for LCC ... back in 1A.  It would have been likely that, perhaps with the exception of, maybe, 2024, LCC would not have ventured to LOS in any of those subsequent seasons

 

I hadn’t even considered the teams that would’ve moved back down had the three-to-stay-up rule been in place. Definitely adds another wrinkle to list of alternate timelines. Thanks for mentioning this and providing your research!

[Robert]

Very, very interesting. 

[Footballking16]

There's a very real chance that Cathedral is back in 4A for the 2027 and 2028 seasons, assuming they don't elect to stay in 5A. I believe they need to advance to the state championship this year to accumulate enough points to remain in 5A. Cathedral hasn't played in it's enrollment based classification since 2012.

[Frozen Tundra]

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

There's a very real chance that Cathedral is back in 4A for the 2027 and 2028 seasons, assuming they don't elect to stay in 5A. I believe they need to advance to the state championship this year to accumulate enough points to remain in 5A. Cathedral hasn't played in it's enrollment based classification since 2012.

You are correct. They need three points to stay in 5A and that would mean a state championship appearance. Of course, their biggest challenge to that will be in sectionals as they share one with New Palestine. The Dragons will need to advance to semi-state if they want to give 6A a shot in 2027 and 2028. Something has to give. 

[Southside]

2 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

There's a very real chance that Cathedral is back in 4A for the 2027 and 2028 seasons, assuming they don't elect to stay in 5A. I believe they need to advance to the state championship this year to accumulate enough points to remain in 5A. Cathedral hasn't played in it's enrollment based classification since 2012.

Cathedral was supposed to go back to 4A in 2019.  The rule that required 3 points to stay up was changed to 2 which made them stay in 5A.  The sectionals were released with Cathedral in 4A and then re-released after the rule change kept them in 5A.

[Frozen Tundra]

46 minutes ago, Southside said:

Cathedral was supposed to go back to 4A in 2019.  The rule that required 3 points to stay up was changed to 2 which made them stay in 5A.  The sectionals were released with Cathedral in 4A and then re-released after the rule change kept them in 5A.

Should’ve stayed at two points and I think you can make an argument it should be one point.

[foxbat]

On 4/29/2026 at 11:39 AM, Frozen Tundra said:

Should’ve stayed at two points and I think you can make an argument it should be one point.

Not sure about 1 because you run into the issue of a "great class" hangover possibility.  Overall, I can live with two.  Great class programs would be less likely to be caught up by the number vs. great programs that probably really belong in that next higher class.

I know it's too much to ask and maybe a bit more complex, but I'd really to see some scrutiny provided if we end up going back to 2.  I think it's possible for the "great class" scenario to end up catching even a regular program.  I'd almost like to see a situation where 2 in Year 1 and 0 in Year 2 has the ability to allow you to return and this would favor those average teams with a "great class" situation to not get stuck in a higher class any more than need be.  On the other hand, you could make an argument that 0 in Year 1 and 2 in Year 2 is an indication of more likely fit to stay in the higher class kind of pending Year 3's outcome.  Going 1 in Year 1 and 1 in Year 2 is a fairly decent indicator that the program seems to have competitive potential in that higher class.

I know the IHSAA won't ever do that, but it's an easy system to implement and you can even have it automated if you think through the parameters correctly.  It also makes much more sense now that we are doing rolling evaluation.  Would still like to see a four-year period for evaluations, but heck I'll take continually improving anytime.  My first thought before anything is we need to get back to 2 to stay and get rid of 3 to stay.  That kind of lets all but the most elite programs off the hook.

[Frozen Tundra]

12 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Not sure about 1 because you run into the issue of a "great class" hangover possibility.  Overall, I can live with two.  Great class programs would be less likely to be caught up by the number vs. great programs that probably really belong in that next higher class.

I know it's too much to ask and maybe a bit more complex, but I'd really to see some scrutiny provided if we end up going back to 2.  I think it's possible for the "great class" scenario to end up catching even a regular program.  I'd almost like to see a situation where 2 in Year 1 and 0 in Year 2 has the ability to allow you to return and this would favor those average teams with a "great class" situation to not get stuck in a higher class any more than need be.  On the other hand, you could make an argument that 0 in Year 1 and 2 in Year 2 is an indication of more likely fit to stay in the higher class kind of pending Year 3's outcome.  Going 1 in Year 1 and 1 in Year 2 is a fairly decent indicator that the program seems to have competitive potential in that higher class.

I know the IHSAA won't ever do that, but it's an easy system to implement and you can even have it automated if you think through the parameters correctly.  It also makes much more sense now that we are doing rolling evaluation.  Would still like to see a four-year period for evaluations, but heck I'll take continually improving anytime.  My first thought before anything is we need to get back to 2 to stay and get rid of 3 to stay.  That kind of lets all but the most elite programs off the hook.

My argument would be that if you can win a sectional in a higher classification then you’re good enough to stay up at that level for two years. Winning a sectional is literally half of the tournament. The “great class” idea only works when a school gets bumped up from obtaining six points in a two year span. If you’re bumped up AND you win a sectional on top of that then that’s more than just one great class. Generally, a great class is an experienced team full of juniors and seniors. If they’re winning three sectionals in four years (including one in a higher classification) then that’s a sign of a good program (whether longterm or short term).

Edited April 30 by Frozen Tundra

[foxbat]

6 minutes ago, Frozen Tundra said:

My argument would be that if you can win a sectional in a higher classification then you’re good enough to stay up at that level for two years. Winning a sectional is literally half of the tournament. The “great class” idea only works when a school gets bumped up from obtaining six points in a two year span. If you’re bumped up AND you win a sectional on top of that then that’s more than just one great class. Generally, a great class is an experienced team full of juniors and seniors. If they’re winning three sectionals in four years (including one in a higher classification) then that’s a sign of a good program (whether longterm or short term).

Potentially, but some of those great class teams  can be teams that win a regional with that great class with kids that are sophomore and juniors and then pop state the next year with that junior class that are then seniors.  That first year a class up is what I was referring too about the "hangover effect."  You have those seniors, especially if it's a big class, now that are the remnant of a "great team," but in Year 2, you are back to regular program status.  In essence, that decision to keep them up is not based on them winning a couple of sectionals in two years in a new class, but instead on the single Year 1 data which is still, to an extent, an indicator of the "great class." 

You are correct that most "great teams" burn through that greatness just getting to state in the lower class.  It think that probably the vast majority of "great classes" that get bumped to the next higher class.  there can be some outliers that make that next level and pick up a regional and that's it, and I don't think it's that hard to use a scalpel in determinations.  I guess worst case scenario in not being refined in evaluation is that you get a hangover "great class" that ends up spending three years in the next higher class instead of two, but with a little extra scrutiny, it'd be fairer and representative of the idea of separating great programs from great class to use a little extra scruitiny.

In either case, I think you and I are both on the same side saying that 3-to-stay needs to go ... no pun intended.  Good discussion.