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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Are we sure???


Recommended Posts

I know everyone is gearing up for their potential chance at a State Finals birth and it’s the most exciting time of the year- and for good reason. Nothing like punching that ticket to the State Finals. But something I can’t help but shake...and I know I should probably wait to start this topic till the offseason but I just gotta put it out there-

Are we sure this Success Factor is working/is the best thing?? I mean- just look at some of the potential match-ups that would/could have taken place:

1A- Pioneer vs LCC , Linton (unless their enrollment has moved them to 2A permanently?)

2A- SR vs MD...any others I may have missed??

3A- Memorial vs HH and/or Gibson, Chatard maybe in the South again?? 

4A- New Pal vs Columbus East, Roncolli vs Cathedral?? 

I guess with my first go around with it- I’m second guessing if it was necessarily the best thing?? I mean- I’m watching kids work their tails off and paying for the successes of classes before them. And then I’m watching teams achieve nearly the same feats but get no penalty because it fell in a different cycle?? In what world is it right for a team to be able to go to back-back State and then remain in the class, but a team can do the exact same thing and get penalized?? What am I missing here guys?? 

Anyway- feel free to delete this moderators if the discussion takes away from the game talk this weekend...just been something that’s been on my mind so I was throwing it out there. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legitimate question, but what’s your alternative proposal? If it involves changing from a 2 to 4 year cycle, I’m pretty sur3 that has been fully explored in previous threads, and there’s nearly universal agreement that if you’re going to have a success factor system, a 2 yr. cycle is too short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, jets said:

I know everyone is gearing up for their potential chance at a State Finals birth and it’s the most exciting time of the year- and for good reason. Nothing like punching that ticket to the State Finals. But something I can’t help but shake...and I know I should probably wait to start this topic till the offseason but I just gotta put it out there-

Are we sure this Success Factor is working/is the best thing?? I mean- just look at some of the potential match-ups that would/could have taken place:

1A- Pioneer vs LCC , Linton (unless their enrollment has moved them to 2A permanently?)

2A- SR vs MD...any others I may have missed??

3A- Memorial vs HH and/or Gibson, Chatard maybe in the South again?? 

4A- New Pal vs Columbus East, Roncolli vs Cathedral?? 

I guess with my first go around with it- I’m second guessing if it was necessarily the best thing?? I mean- I’m watching kids work their tails off and paying for the successes of classes before them. And then I’m watching teams achieve nearly the same feats but get no penalty because it fell in a different cycle?? In what world is it right for a team to be able to go to back-back State and then remain in the class, but a team can do the exact same thing and get penalized?? What am I missing here guys?? 

Anyway- feel free to delete this moderators if the discussion takes away from the game talk this weekend...just been something that’s been on my mind so I was throwing it out there. 

 

Not a perfect system and, as @Bobref said, it'd probably be better as a four-year cycle and that would take out some of the issues that tend to catch good classes in the same net with progressing programs. If you want to see the poster program for the Success Factor, take a look at Scecina.  The same year that LCC moved up to 2A for winning back-to-back state titles in 2011 and 2012, Scecina moved up and is the only team so far to move up who didn't win a single state title.  They remain in 2A based on size at this point; I think, having crossed the enrollment levels for 2A during their Success Factor time in 2A ... similar to Linton who moved up to 2A via Success Factor and ended up with 2A enrollment while there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been discussed and I agree 2 years is too short, the IHSAA should have used the IFCA 4 year proposal.

One thing I do wish was that New Palestine was in the North bracket in 5A like last year. Only because I would have selfishly wanted to see New Palestine vs Cathedral for a State Championship. The crowd they had at New Pal for the Regional would have been great to see at Lucas Oil. That is just my own selfish want though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't comment too much on here, but here's my 2 cents...A school that builds a program with the enrollment they have, and dominates consistently, should not be punished because they succeed.  Just my opinion.  I don't understand the "success factor"  at all.  In my eyes it's the same as taking a 5A school that never wins a game and bumping them down a few classes so maybe they have a chance.  It's ridiculous.  You work with the numbers you have, some are better at it than others, that's life.  It really affects the smaller programs more because typically you get a couple good classes, then they succeed for 5 or 6 years, then it's back to the usual. Just my opinion

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

The success factor achieved it’s goal. P/P’s no longer win 4 of the 6 titles. 

Sure - but you've got potential for a reemergence this year -

1A-LCC/Lutheran

2A - Andrean

3A- Chatard

4A - Memorial 

Seems to me, and this may not be totally accurate/sensible, but letting this thing (Success Factor) run its course it seems really didn't affect P/P all that much. In fact one could argue moving Pioneer/Linton out of 1A, New Pal out of 4A might have made the road that much smoother??

The more I'm watching this thing (Success Factor) play out, the more I'm thinking we got it wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said:

Interesting:  Memorial could win 4a while playing up a class......hmmmmm  

Would they only be the 4th school to bump up a class due to success factor and win a state title in a higher class if they do it? Only 3 I can think of are 

New Pal, Cathedral, Columbus East 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Olympian06 said:

Would they only be the 4th school to bump up a class due to success factor and win a state title in a higher class if they do it? Only 3 I can think of are 

New Pal, Cathedral, Columbus East 

Correct...these 3 have won the State Championship in the next class.

Only CE and Cathedral have been able to move all the way up 2 classes.

Edited by Lysander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Olympian06 said:

I’m extremely surprised Chatard hasn’t done it. They are an absolute machine most years. 

That was when: (1) you still needed 4 points to stay up; (2) New Pal/CE both on the rise in a BIG way; (3) Roncalli was still competitive and (4) Chatard down a bit compared to the 3-peat teams (2010-12) just prior to them.  

All those factors contributed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jets said:

Sure - but you've got potential for a reemergence this year -

1A-LCC/Lutheran

2A - Andrean

3A- Chatard

4A - Memorial 

Seems to me, and this may not be totally accurate/sensible, but letting this thing (Success Factor) run its course it seems really didn't affect P/P all that much. In fact one could argue moving Pioneer/Linton out of 1A, New Pal out of 4A might have made the road that much smoother??

The more I'm watching this thing (Success Factor) play out, the more I'm thinking we got it wrong. 

Linton would have moved up on enrollment anyway.

Give it another year and Pioneer will likely be back to put some potential balance back into things.  Realize that while you are talking about making it smoother, the two years that LCC spent in 2A, , along with Scecina SF'd up to 2A too despite not having a state title win,  made the road smoother for Tri-Central, Eastern Hancock, North Vermillion, and Pioneer to make it to 1A state in 2013 and 2014.

This stuff is coming in cycles and you have to look at the totality rather than a single year.  In 2013, the first year of LOS-influenced LOS appearances, five made it and three won.  In 2014, three made it and one won.  In 2015, three made it and three won.  In 2016, three made it and three won.  In 2017, only two p/p teams made it to LOS and one won.    In 2018, only 2 p/p teams made it to LOS and only one won.  The trending suggests decrease in p/p appearance for the last five years.  The idea of "getting it wrong" has too few data points to make that determination yet and, more importantly, looking at a single season out of six makes this year actually look more like an anomaly or a start of a new cycle as opposed to a decision point for the success or failure of the policy.  With that said, I think there's a preponderance of agreement that they length of the cycle should be longer ... perhaps 4 years ... and possibly the criteria for remaining elevated once moved up could also be changed.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Coach Nowlin said:

Interesting:  Memorial could win 4a while playing up a class......hmmmmm  

New Pal might win back-to-back 5A state titles playing up a class. Cathedral won back-to-back 5A state titles in 2013 & 2014 playing up a class.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Linton would have moved up on enrollment anyway.

Give it another year and Pioneer will likely be back to put some potential balance back into things.  Realize that while you are talking about making it smoother, the two years that LCC spent in 2A, , along with Scecina SF'd up to 2A too despite not having a state title win,  made the road smoother for Tri-Central, Eastern Hancock, North Vermillion, and Pioneer to make it to 1A state in 2013 and 2014.

This stuff is coming in cycles and you have to look at the totality rather than a single year.  In 2013, the first year of LOS-influenced LOS appearances, five made it and three won.  In 2014, three made it and one won.  In 2015, three made it and three won.  In 2016, three made it and three won.  In 2017, only two p/p teams made it to LOS and one won.    In 2018, only 2 p/p teams made it to LOS and only one won.  The trending suggests decrease in p/p appearance for the last five years.  The idea of "getting it wrong" has too few data points to make that determination yet and, more importantly, looking at a single season out of six makes this year actually look more like an anomaly or a start of a new cycle as opposed to a decision point for the success or failure of the policy.  With that said, I think there's a preponderance of agreement that they length of the cycle should be longer ... perhaps 4 years ... and possibly the criteria for remaining elevated once moved up could also be changed.

I'm just not so sure the answer isn't just scrap the whole dang thing?? I seriously wonder what the date would like like had it not been in place?? Would THAT much of changed?? I know WHY the rule was implemented in the first place, and was done so with good intentions - I'm just not sure it's been the best thing/is working. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, slice60 said:

New Pal might win back-to-back 5A state titles playing up a class. Cathedral won back-to-back 5A state titles in 2013 & 2014 playing up a class.

 

5A was virgin fields in 2013-14.  It’s never been an intrinsically good class excepting when Snider is in it based on population.  Valpo’s strength is very recent.

Its basically been the old 4A Championship since CE, New Pal, Cathedral and others moved up into it.  It’s much harder to win 5A these days due to the moved up 4A teams.

That said, there is now a power vacuum in 4A.  
 

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Edited by Lysander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tango said:

That is remarkable. 

Yes, both are remarkable, but I think CE’s run was probably a little more impressive since they did it when 5A had more competitive teams in it.

All that said, I think Cathedral time in 6A may, in retrospect, be more competitive than CE’s will be.  Again, total speculation on my part there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jets said:

I'm just not so sure the answer isn't just scrap the whole dang thing?? I seriously wonder what the date would like like had it not been in place?? Would THAT much of changed?? I know WHY the rule was implemented in the first place, and was done so with good intentions - I'm just not sure it's been the best thing/is working. 

Depends on what the expectation of the rule was.  If it was making it where p/p teams can't win titles, then it didn't work.  If the idea was to look at the idea that some teams have advantages whether they are p/p or sole options in a large market, or in affluent suburbs, or *fill in the blank* or just happen to have gotten better over time and "outgrown" their fishbowl, then I think the general idea is certainly workable.  Of course, there are more instances of some of the wrong programs perhaps getting swept into the net approach, but that's more because the "holes in the net are too small ... make it four years and make winning a regional, or two sectionals, in the new class perhaps the minimum necessary to stay in a class and I think it ends up being more successful in addressing the issue regardless of p/p or public standing.  As for what would have changed?  I can't speak for all classes, but I can pretty much say that, in 1A, LCC would have, minimally, seven-peated from 2009-2015. 

I agree that it's not the best thing, again see the issues regarding length and remaining criteria, but if you look at 2012 - 2008 ... the five seasons before SF ... at a minimum, what you see respectively is six p/p with four winning, seven p/p with four winning, six p/p with four winning, three p/p with two winning, and five p/p with three winning ... BTW, note that these are all 5-class seasons.  Just on the comparison of the two five-year periods, the data says that, 'yes' it works if the idea is to blunt p/p and, if the idea is a broader to effect a blunting of all teams with "advantages" or just progress that outgrows the fishbowl, then the answer would again be 'yes' ... with allowances that the short time period and remaining criteria could have caught a couple that shouldn't have perhaps been caught and perhaps released a couple that shouldn't have been released.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jets said:

I'm just not so sure the answer isn't just scrap the whole dang thing?? I seriously wonder what the date would like like had it not been in place?? Would THAT much of changed?? I know WHY the rule was implemented in the first place, and was done so with good intentions - I'm just not sure it's been the best thing/is working. 

Agree to disagree on this.  I think it was targeted at 2-3 central Indiana teams.  It's like the school teacher punishing the entire class because little Johnny acted up the day they had a substitute.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree that the current system is not perfect, I think that the current Success Factor system has been positive overall-- for all sports.

Speaking of football only-- In general, programs that are bumped up are still competitive playing up with several (Cath, New Pal, Dwenger, Col East) continuing to advance far in the tournament. 

For those who propose a 4-year cycle, I offer this counter-argument. Let's say your school has a "golden" class or two which brings home a couple of state titles earning enough points in the 4-year cycle to be bumped up to a higher class. That means the incoming Freshmen would have to compete in that higher class for all 4 years of their HS career. 

The IHSAA recognized that something (Success Factor, Multiplier, separate P/P tournament) had to be done & they selected the best option, in my opinion. Just looking at 4A football is a great example-- from 1996-present, just 3 schools have taken home 14 state championships & 5 runner-ups in those 23 years. That means Cathedral, Roncalli & Dwenger (under 5% of the 64 -team field) made up 19 of the 46 (41%) state finalists & 14 of the 23 champions (61%) during those years.

The Success Factor provides some competitive balance & should not be viewed as a punishment to those programs. Look at what Cathedral has done-- after dominating 4A with 5 state titles in 7 years, they went up to 5A & won back-to-back state titles. After going up to 6A, they still won back-to-back Sectionals (then dropped down to 5A before the change from 3 points to 2 points). Back to 5A, they won Regional in 2017 & Sectional in 2019.

Dwenger just got bumped up into 5A this year & they are playing in the Semi State on Friday. In my mind, those top-notch football programs are currently playing at the right level of competition.

Besides those folks who support those schools with overflowing trophy cases, do we really want to see the exact same teams at LOS every year? Without the Success Factor system, this year's 4A title game would likely be Dwenger vs Cathedral. Personally, I'm happy to see that Hobart, East Noble & Mt Vernon are all just 1 win away from LOS. And programs like Dwenger & Cathedral still have a legitimate shot at taking home the 5A state trophy-- Dwenger is playing in the Semi State & Cathedral had a 2nd half lead in last week's Regional.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

Agree to disagree on this.  I think it was targeted at 2-3 central Indiana teams.  It's like the school teacher punishing the entire class because little Johnny acted up the day they had a substitute.

I agree.  The success of LCC, Chatard, & Cathedral was the biggest factor..

Edited by tango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...