Multiplier 2.0 Needed to Level the Playing Field

[BTF]

3 hours ago, DT said:

Its getting more interesting, no doubt.  

Snider goes down to 5a with an uptick in talent............what a shame. 

22 minutes ago, DT said:

1.5 does not achieve the desired objective.  2.0 does.  Id rather see the IHSAA go a little too far than not far enough with this initiative. 

Let's negotiate and arrive at 1.75.

[Footballking16]

11 minutes ago, WilELee said:

What is the desired objective that the success factor doesn't achieve?

Should we just cap the number of PP's that can be at LOS any given year? 

Success Factor achieves it's primary purpose, "penalize" the successful teams. 

DT speaks in absolutes about achieving competitive balance, how is Park Tudor or Bishop Noll playing 2-3 classes up achieving competitive balance?

[Footballking16]

15 minutes ago, BTF said:

Snider goes down to 5a with an uptick in talent............what a shame. 

Let's negotiate and arrive at 1.75.

A multiplier is redundant if you ask me. Either keep the success factor or designate an automatic 1 class bump for all P/P's and be done with it. 

A 2.0 multiplier doesn't even get Chatard 2 classes up and you can be damn sure Chatard is one of two schools that a multiplier is supposed to penalize. 

[Lysander]

16 minutes ago, Jon said:

Are there any IHSAA PP rules regarding Recruiting / Scholarships? 

If there are none then some formula of school size / number of Scholarship players might make sense.

 

 

Huh?

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Lysander

[gonzoron]

21 minutes ago, Jon said:

Are there any IHSAA PP rules regarding Recruiting / Scholarships? 

If there are none then some formula of school size / number of Scholarship players might make sense.

 

There are a few things we oughta get straightened out right at the start to avoid any grief later on:

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by gonzoron

[Muda69]

And here we go with the "well p/p school X has a moribund football program, why should they get bumped up to class Y?" argument.   

Items like the success factor and a multiplier are just Band-Aids over a flawed classification system where enrollment is still the primary factor.  It needs to be removed from the equation entirely, and the IHSAA needs to go to a true system of promotion/relegation where labels like '1A', '2A', '6A', etc.  have nothing to do with enrollment but are instead a measurable success or lack thereof of a school's football program.

 

 

 

[Guest DT]

25 minutes ago, BTF said:

Snider goes down to 5a with an uptick in talent............what a shame. 

Let's negotiate and arrive at 1.75.

Whats your logic?  Im firm at 2.0   It sends a signal not only to Indiana, but to the country that we are serious about maintaining competitive balance.

25 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Success Factor achieves it's primary purpose, "penalize" the successful teams. 

DT speaks in absolutes about achieving competitive balance, how is Park Tudor or Bishop Noll playing 2-3 classes up achieving competitive balance?

Both are strong contraction candidates.  That would be their respective contributions to the CB Initiative.

Edited November 9, 2020 by DT

[Footballking16]

9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And here we go with the "well p/p school X has a moribund football program, why should they get bumped up to class Y?" argument. 

If you're using a multiplier as the basis for competitive balance, how is doubling the enrollment of "p/p school x with a moribund football program" achieving that? It doesn't, which is why a multiplier is the single dumbest argument for achieving competitive balance. 

[Guest DT]

Just now, Footballking16 said:

If you're using a multiplier as the basis for competitive balance, how is doubling the enrollment of "p/p school x with a moribund football program" achieving that? It doesn't, which is why a multiplier is the single dumbest argument for achieving competitive balance. 

Its not.  Its used in many states.  

[Guest DT]

33 minutes ago, WilELee said:

What is the desired objective that the success factor doesn't achieve?

Should we just cap the number of PP's that can be at LOS any given year? 

The Success Factor recognizes that demographic, socio economic and cultural changes have a greater impact on public schools than they do on privates.  Private schools pride themselves on consistency of purpose and message.  Many look, feel and smell the same way they did 30 years ago.

The 2.0 Multiplier recognizes this consistency within the PP ranks and assigns a "hard" classification based on its multiplied enrollment.

The SF is a "soft" classification that is fluid and recognizes the changing environments which can impact competitiveness within the public school group.

 

[Footballking16]

10 minutes ago, DT said:

Its not.  Its used in many states.  

How is having Park Tudor and Bishop Noll playing 2 and 3 classes up achieving competitive balance? It doesn't. We have the success factor already and it's more than suffice. 

[Guest DT]

16 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

How is having Park Tudor and Bishop Noll playing 2 and 3 classes up achieving competitive balance? It doesn't. We have the success factor already and it's more than suffice. 

Interesting that you rush to the defense of the two weakest PPs in the state.

You dont seem to be too concerned about the plight of Perry Meridian in 6A.  Of course, that is fertile PP recruiting ground

[Guest DT]

https://www.coacht.com/tennessee/article.cfm?id=9959

2.0 not quite the reach some might think.

[Footballking16]

10 minutes ago, DT said:

Interesting that you rush to the defense of the two weakest PPs in the state.

You dont seem to be too concerned about the plight of Perry Meridian in 6A.  Of course, that is fertile PP recruiting ground

There's three P/P's that have dominated their respective enrollment classes in the last decade; Cathedral, Chatard, LCC. Telling Noll and Park Tudor they have to play schools twice their enrollment because Cathedral and Chatard punch above their weight doesn't make any sense. That's why the success factor was implemented. It punishes the schools that are actually successful not just by association. 

[Spitting Llamas]

32 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And here we go with the "well p/p school X has a moribund football program, why should they get bumped up to class Y?" argument.   

Items like the success factor and a multiplier are just Band-Aids over a flawed classification system where enrollment is still the primary factor.  It needs to be removed from the equation entirely, and the IHSAA needs to go to a true system of promotion/relegation where labels like '1A', '2A', '6A', etc.  have nothing to do with enrollment but are instead a measurable success or lack thereof of a school's football program.

 

 

 

So where do we start this system? Are we all in one big class and in 2/4/6 years start classifying teams based on their success? You know, since we can't use enrollment in the equation. 

[WWFan]

This is quite an interesting read if we can actually chat about it. I do think eventually it'll be come a automatic 1 class bump. But who knows. 

[Guest DT]

11 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

There's three P/P's that have dominated their respective enrollment classes in the last decade; Cathedral, Chatard, LCC. Telling Noll and Park Tudor they have to play schools twice their enrollment because Cathedral and Chatard punch above their weight doesn't make any sense. That's why the success factor was implemented. It punishes the schools that are actually successful not just by association. 

The PPs that have joined mixed public/private conferences have been playing up 1,2  and sometimes 3 classes for years

Andrean

St Joe

Marian

Luers

Dwenger

LCC

Memorial

Mater Dei

This will be status quo for all or most of them, and I fully expect they will embrace the challenge.

The Indy privates will feel the most heat, but they are also blessed with the greatest resources to meet the challenge head on.

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by DT

[Spitting Llamas]

I'm not sure why what we are currently using doesn't work. If a team is successful and earns enough points they "bump up". If they continue to be successful they continue to move up the ladder. Maybe we change the points system or what it takes to "bump up", but just moving all private schools up based on twice their enrollment regardless of success seems ignorant. There is no reason a school of any size should be penalized and placed in a class well above their enrollment when they might have an absolutely horrible athletic program. 

Indiana classed all sports many years ago to give more kids a chance to be successful. Now it appears some don't feel the right people are benefitting from classification.

[Footballking16]

10 minutes ago, Spitting Llamas said:

I'm not sure why what we are currently using doesn't work. If a team is successful and earns enough points they "bump up". If they continue to be successful they continue to move up the ladder. Maybe we change the points system or what it takes to "bump up", but just moving all private schools up based on twice their enrollment regardless of success seems ignorant. There is no reason a school of any size should be penalized and placed in a class well above their enrollment when they might have an absolutely horrible athletic program. 

Indiana classed all sports many years ago to give more kids a chance to be successful. Now it appears some don't feel the right people are benefitting from classification.

Stop making sense, please and thanks. 

[Guest DT]

20 minutes ago, Spitting Llamas said:

I'm not sure why what we are currently using doesn't work. If a team is successful and earns enough points they "bump up". If they continue to be successful they continue to move up the ladder. Maybe we change the points system or what it takes to "bump up", but just moving all private schools up based on twice their enrollment regardless of success seems ignorant. There is no reason a school of any size should be penalized and placed in a class well above their enrollment when they might have an absolutely horrible athletic program. 

Indiana classed all sports many years ago to give more kids a chance to be successful. Now it appears some don't feel the right people are benefitting from classification.

I see two major flaws with the current system :

1. There are no regular/permananent PPs in Class 6A.  The best football in the state is played in 6A.  Big PPs are often at the very top of the heap - all classes

2. There should never be any pps in Class A.  Too many advantages for the PPs to even start the discussion.

 

 

[foxbat]

7 minutes ago, DT said:

I see two major flaws with the current system :

1. There are no regular/permananent PPs in Class 6A.  The best football in the state is played in 6A.  Big PPs are often at the very top of the heap - all classes

2. There should never be any pps in Class A.  Too many advantages for the PPs to even start the discussion.

 

 

Convenient.

Faith Christian?

[BTF]

1 hour ago, Spitting Llamas said:

I'm not sure why what we are currently using doesn't work. If a team is successful and earns enough points they "bump up".

It doesn't make sense because talented classes typically run in two year cycles. The 19' & 20' teams do well, then the program has a downturn in talent. The less talented kids move up a class. Actually, it makes no sense at all. Reclassify every four years in my opinion. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by BTF
correction

[Spitting Llamas]

1 minute ago, BTF said:

It doesn't make sense because talented classes typically run in two year cycles. The 19' & 20' teams do well, then the program has a downturn in talent. The less talented kids move up a class. Actually, it makes no sense at all. Reclassify every four years in my opinion. 

While I don't disagree entirely with your argument you seem to be going further away from the direction DT wants to go. But moving up in class due to success will always penalize the next group of kids coming in, no matter how frequently or infrequently you do it.  

[PHJIrish]

Oh my, it's deja vu all over again!  (and quite early for DT's diatribe)

[Spitting Llamas]

56 minutes ago, DT said:

I see two major flaws with the current system :

1. There are no regular/permananent PPs in Class 6A.  The best football in the state is played in 6A.  Big PPs are often at the very top of the heap - all classes

2. There should never be any pps in Class A.  Too many advantages for the PPs to even start the discussion.

 

 

The fact that there are no PPs in 6A further demonstrates that the current system is working. If PPs were truly "at the very top of the heap in all classes" as you put it, there would be PPs in 6A. The fact that there are not should tell us all we need to know. The current system keeps PPs from being able to dominate their class because they are moved up to a level where they simply can't have that level of success. Case closed.