Multiplier 2.0 Needed to Level the Playing Field

[Bobref]

4 minutes ago, IndianaWrestlingGuy said:

Translation: no law enforcement officer is going to arrest anyone for possession. The penalty is about the same as a parking ticket. The new America. 

I assume you mean possession for personal use only.

[Muda69]

2 hours ago, IndianaWrestlingGuy said:

DT’s life accomplishments consist of mustering up a thread that has more than 3 pages. I honestly think he defines personal success by topic views. 
 

The Castro socialism (Muda) paired with the Che Guevara (DT) incite and provoke act is a tired retread for the old dogs on the GID. Viva La P/P Revolucion Cuba style. 
 

Seriously though, we have been listening to Muda’s gloom and doom of the hegemony and imperialism of the P/Ps for about 10 years now. DT is just newer to the game. 

Please elaborate.  I may be many thing but a supporter of socialism isn't one of them.   Just go and read my various posts on the OOB forum.

 

 

14 hours ago, foxbat said:

Quantity or quality?

Depends on how you personally define "quality".

 

[Muda69]

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

Somebody’s going to need to find a better example to illustrate the point. Cocaine is a Schedule 2 substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act. State legalization would not alter the fact that it’s illegal under federal laws. And while weed is also still illegal under federal law, unlike weed, the federal authorities are not going to turn a blind eye to distribution of cocaine, regardless of what some state legislature says.

Yeah,  too many federal jobs at stake. Have to give those federal LEO's something to do........................

[Lysander]

15 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Please elaborate.  I may be many thing but a supporter of socialism isn't one of them.   Just go and read my various posts on the OOB forum.

 

No, you are definitely not.  I can vouch for that.  

Outside of HS football and some of your opinions there,  you and I are actually pretty simpatico.

Man....that kind of stung to say.....

[MDAlum82]

11 hours ago, Whiting89 said:

No state legalized cocaine if they did there would be a mass exodus from other states to the state that legalized it

Oregonians made their state the first in the United States to decriminalize the personal possession of illegal drugs, including cocaine, heroin, oxycodone and methamphetamine.

Measure 110 was passing by a wide margin in unofficial returns updated Wednesday morning.

The ballot measure reclassifies possession of small amounts of drugs as a civil violation, similar to a traffic offense. The penalty becomes a $100 fine, which a person can avoid by agreeing to participate in a health assessment. Selling and manufacturing drugs will remain illegal.  

https://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/04/oregon-measure-110-decriminalize-drugs/

 

[Whiting89]

11 minutes ago, MDAlum82 said:

Oregonians made their state the first in the United States to decriminalize the personal possession of illegal drugs, including cocaine, heroin, oxycodone and methamphetamine.

Measure 110 was passing by a wide margin in unofficial returns updated Wednesday morning.

The ballot measure reclassifies possession of small amounts of drugs as a civil violation, similar to a traffic offense. The penalty becomes a $100 fine, which a person can avoid by agreeing to participate in a health assessment. Selling and manufacturing drugs will remain illegal.  

https://www.opb.org/article/2020/11/04/oregon-measure-110-decriminalize-drugs/

 

That not legalizing it, it’s decriminalize. If it was legal you would see dispensaries like cannabis in numerous states. 

[MDAlum82]

43 minutes ago, Whiting89 said:

That not legalizing it, it’s decriminalize. If it was legal you would see dispensaries like cannabis in numerous states. 

From a semantical perspective, you are correct.  I should have chosen my words more carefully. Mea culpa.  However, the larger point I was trying to make is still relevant. 

 In my opinion, it is a poor argument to cite that “other states have done it” as your main justification for an action.  States are different, school systems are different, governing bodies - ie IHSAA, are different.  If someone wants to implement some sort of a multiplier, do some research, show your work and back up your suggestion with data that is relevant to our state.  Don't start with a flawed theory supported only by your own opinions...mi dos centavos.

[Guest DT]

16 hours ago, Whiting89 said:

Was it mythical like whiting?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nwitimes.com/conferences/greater-south-shore-conference/whiting-won-mythical-state-championships-in-1948-and-54-now-looking-for-first-in-ihsaa/article_280590f1-dbe0-5474-88ef-7eb44f3e1df0.amp.html

EC Roosevelt won 6 Mythical State Championships

The Rough Riders of Coach Pete Rucinski remain the greatest Indiana High School Football Dynasty of All Time

 

Mythical State Champs: 1945, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1955, 1957

[MHSTigerFan]

Some other ideas.

- PP teams play with 10 players and lose one more with every state title they win.

- PP teams must have at least one biologically female student on the offensive line

- Make PP receivers wear jerseys made of varying amounts of lead...the more they win, the more weight...ya know, like they do horses

- PP teams have at least one starter be an alum from the previous decade.  Each regional win, go one decade farther back.  Shoot that gap, pops!  Whaddaya mean your knees hurt?!?

- PP teams, no buses.  Pack lightly and get walking early.

 

You know, being from the southwestern part of the state, we could probably make the case that Indy area teams have certain advantages.  Media exposure, money, etc.  I would imagine rural area teams might say the same about an opposing team from any larger city or town.

But it would never occur to me to suggest monkeying with the rules to try to counter these supposed advantages.

You know what makes a “level playing field” for two teams taking the gridiron?  The rules of football do.  Go play the game and do your level best within those rules.

And, for God’s sake, don’t try to change the rules to give yourself an advantage if you aren’t successful in doing that.

[Muda69]

35 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

You know what makes a “level playing field” for two teams taking the gridiron?  The rules of football do.  Go play the game and do your level best within those rules.

 

Then the enrollment of the two schools playing shouldn't matter at all, should it?

 

[MHSTigerFan]

37 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Then the enrollment of the two schools playing shouldn't matter at all, should it?

 

Well, I’d sooner support that than I would all this athletic welfare nonsense.  I always liked single-class sports - basketball, in particular.  I miss that tournament.  And it was awesome when a small school beat a big school.

But the general notion here is: if you can’t beat ‘em, rig the rules against ‘em.

 

[PHJIrish]

Honestly, we need to stop feeding the troll!  This is the only way to shut him down.  If he wants to talk high school football, that's fine, but he's just trying to get a reaction from serious fans.

[foxbat]

4 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Some other ideas.

- PP teams play with 10 players and lose one more with every state title they win.

- PP teams must have at least one biologically female student on the offensive line

- Make PP receivers wear jerseys made of varying amounts of lead...the more they win, the more weight...ya know, like they do horses

- PP teams have at least one starter be an alum from the previous decade.  Each regional win, go one decade farther back.  Shoot that gap, pops!  Whaddaya mean your knees hurt?!?

- PP teams, no buses.  Pack lightly and get walking early.

 

Is that you Mr. Vonnegut? 😀

[Lysander]

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

Is that you Mr. Vonnegut? 😀

I was sooooo there with you on that....Harrison Bergeron.

[MHSTigerFan]

15 minutes ago, Lysander said:

I was sooooo there with you on that....Harrison Bergeron.

Heh...didn’t have HB in mind when I wrote that.  But I should have.

Introducing our new IHSAA Handicapper General:  Diana Moon Glampers.

 

[Lysander]

2 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Heh...didn’t have HB in mind when I wrote that.  But I should have.

Introducing our new IHSAA Handicapper General:  Diana Moon Glampers.

 

......or DT.

 

edit....I always get a monster kick when I’m tracking something usually pretty obscure along with some others here...adds to the fun.

Edited November 14, 2020 by Lysander

[MDAlum82]

50 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Heh...didn’t have HB in mind when I wrote that.  But I should have.

Introducing our new IHSAA Handicapper General:  Diana Moon Glampers.

 

Kudos to anyone who can appropriately tie a vague Vonnegut reference to a discussion of high school football but, in this case, it fits.

 

[Guest DT]

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/competitive-balance-of-schools-remains-issue-in-several-states/

The attached article shows in detail how the Indiana Success factor has been used as a model for other states to emulate and to build on relative to their particular needs and requirements.

Indiana can and should stay out in front of this issue by taking the next step to maintain competitive balance amongst its member schools, by implementing the 2.0 PP Enrollment Multiplier, while maintaining the SF for its public school members.  This hybrid model takes into account that public schools and private schools have significant cultural, socio-economic, demographic and competitive characteristics, and a one size fits all mentality does not produce the most desirable outcomes.

[Muda69]

6 hours ago, PHJIrish said:

Honestly, we need to stop feeding the troll!  This is the only way to shut him down.  If he wants to talk high school football, that's fine, but he's just trying to get a reaction from serious fans.

So please PHJIRish, tell all about how "serious" a fan you are.  Maybe I can aspire to live up to your seriousness about a game played by children.

 

[Titan32]

On 11/14/2020 at 8:40 AM, MHSTigerFan said:

Some other ideas.

- PP teams play with 10 players and lose one more with every state title they win.

- PP teams must have at least one biologically female student on the offensive line

- Make PP receivers wear jerseys made of varying amounts of lead...the more they win, the more weight...ya know, like they do horses

- PP teams have at least one starter be an alum from the previous decade.  Each regional win, go one decade farther back.  Shoot that gap, pops!  Whaddaya mean your knees hurt?!?

- PP teams, no buses.  Pack lightly and get walking early.

 

You know, being from the southwestern part of the state, we could probably make the case that Indy area teams have certain advantages.  Media exposure, money, etc.  I would imagine rural area teams might say the same about an opposing team from any larger city or town.

But it would never occur to me to suggest monkeying with the rules to try to counter these supposed advantages.

You know what makes a “level playing field” for two teams taking the gridiron?  The rules of football do.  Go play the game and do your level best within those rules.

And, for God’s sake, don’t try to change the rules to give yourself an advantage if you aren’t successful in doing that.

Once again, a post that questions the "toughness" of anyone who would bring into question the inequities/rules that line P/Ps trophy cases.  You seem pretty thoughtful in your posts and reasonably intelligent although this one is more tongue in cheek.  I am just a country boy (not even a caveman lawyer), so let me see if I understand correctly.  Are you saying that enrollment alone is an equitable way to rank pay vs non-pay institutions for competitive classification in Indiana High School athletics?

[MHSTigerFan]

35 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Once again, a post that questions the "toughness" of anyone who would bring into question the inequities/rules that line P/Ps trophy cases.  You seem pretty thoughtful in your posts and reasonably intelligent although this one is more tongue in cheek.  I am just a country boy (not even a caveman lawyer), so let me see if I understand correctly.  Are you saying that enrollment alone is an equitable way to rank pay vs non-pay institutions for competitive classification in Indiana High School athletics?

I’m saying that the powers that be shouldn’t be monkeying with the rules in order to bring about certain preferred outcomes — that is, in favor of those which apparently aren’t preferred.

I mean, what if they made these classifications based on money?  Each school turns in budgets and they classified teams based on that?  Is that more or less fair than the current structure?  Why or why not?

You want to start comparing budgets, facilities, and coaching staff salaries?

The fatal flaw of the SF arrangement is that each particular class plays for 4 years.  Then they move on and are replaced by different kids.  So, if a school happens to have a couple studs in a class or two — say, a QB who accepted a B10 scholarship offer prior to his junior year — and those classes goes on to win a lot as expected, why does it make any sense to ostensibly make things harder on those who come after?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t.  The kids put on the steeper road had nothing to do with the “success” and, just because a school happened to produce a Charlie Spegal, a Jack Kiser, a George Karlaftis, or a Brady Allen doesn’t mean the kids who were in 8th or 9th grade when those guys were doing their thing should have weights put around their ankles.

So, yeah, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with the class system we used to have.  I’m not saying it’s the alpha and omega for how to approach it.  But to make policies that are explicitly designed to combat certain (non-preferred) outcomes, and thus help to bring about different (preferred) ones?

It’s nothing short of athletic welfare - made, I’d guess, at the behest of those who are usually on the wrong side of those outcomes....whining and moping about all their supposed disadvantages.

Good grief, the Ev. Central team that lost in 4 OTs in the 4A state finals a couple years ago had 3 literally homeless kids starting — starring even — on that team.  Talk about disadvantages.  It didn’t hold them back.  And they never once whined about it...nobody even knew about it until Gregg Doyel wrote a great piece about these kids and the battles they fought off the field.

Life - and sports - is about overcoming your obstacles.  Not trying to hack the rules to make things tougher on others who don’t have them.

[Titan32]

4 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I’m saying that the powers that be shouldn’t be monkeying with the rules in order to bring about certain preferred outcomes — that is, in favor of those which apparently aren’t preferred.

I mean, what if they made these classifications based on money?  Each school turns in budgets and they classified teams based on that?  Is that more or less fair than the current structure?  Why or why not?

You want to start comparing budgets, facilities, and coaching staff salaries?

The fatal flaw of the SF arrangement is that each particular class plays for 4 years.  Then they move on and are replaced by different kids.  So, if a school happens to have a couple studs in a class or two — say, a QB who accepted a B10 scholarship offer prior to his junior year — and those classes goes on to win a lot as expected, why does it make any sense to ostensibly make things harder on those who come after?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t.  The kids put on the steeper road had nothing to do with the “success” and, just because a school happened to produce a Charlie Spegal, a Jack Kiser, a George Karlaftis, or a Brady Allen doesn’t mean the kids who were in 8th or 9th grade when those guys were doing their thing should have weights put around their ankles.

So, yeah, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with the class system we used to have.  I’m not saying it’s the alpha and omega for how to approach it.  But to make policies that are explicitly designed to combat certain (non-preferred) outcomes, and thus help to bring about different (preferred) ones?

It’s nothing short of athletic welfare - made, I’d guess, at the behest of those who are usually on the wrong side of those outcomes....whining and moping about all their supposed disadvantages.

Good grief, the Ev. Central team that lost in 4 OTs in the 4A state finals a couple years ago had 3 literally homeless kids starting — starring even — on that team.  Talk about disadvantages.  It didn’t hold them back.  And they never once whined about it...nobody even knew about it until Gregg Doyel wrote a great piece about these kids and the battles they fought off the field.

Life - and sports - is about overcoming your obstacles.  Not trying to hack the rules to make things tougher on others who don’t have them.

SF has flaws and I didn't mention it in my post.  Let's go back to a world without it....in that world do you honestly believe enrollment alone is an equitable way to rank pay vs non-pay institutions for competitive classification in Indiana High School athletics?  (yes or no)

 

[LaSalle Lions 1976]

I wonder what the players would think of this argument.  Most just want to play.  The adults muck it up with equity and fairness.

I could be that Small Town High would play whoever was their opponent.  I bet St. Maximilian Kobe High would feel the same.

Just let the kids play.  Give no one a trophy.  It's for the adults anyway

[MHSTigerFan]

30 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

SF has flaws and I didn't mention it in my post.  Let's go back to a world without it....in that world do you honestly believe enrollment alone is an equitable way to rank pay vs non-pay institutions for competitive classification in Indiana High School athletics?  (yes or no)

 

Well, I said I didn’t see anything wrong with it.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  And the only reason anybody thought it was broke was because (in particular) Cathedral, Chatard, Roncalli, Luers and Dwenger had “too much” success.

So I’m guessing this whole Multiplier 2.0 discussion is coming around because the SF hasn’t done enough to quash their success.

There are all kinds of variables the IHSAA could, I guess, consider to hold back programs they don’t want winning.  But I would question why they would want to do that in the first place.

You want to beat Cathedral or Chatard?  Hit the weight room.  Hit the film room.  Put more effort and focus on your feeder program.  Institute better discipline.

But don’t gripe about them having advantages you don’t and can’t have and thus try to justify establishing rules which are obviously designed to make life harder on them just because they’ve been more successful than you have been.  That’s, among other things, a horrible life lesson for the kids we’re raising.

Edited November 15, 2020 by MHSTigerFan

[dazed and confused]

6 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Well, I said I didn’t see anything wrong with it.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  And the only reason anybody thought it was broke was because (in particular) Cathedral, Chatard, Roncalli, Luers and Dwenger had “too much” success.

So I’m guessing this whole Multiplier 2.0 discussion is coming around because the SF hasn’t done enough to quash their success.

There are all kinds of variables the IHSAA could, I guess, consider to hold back programs they don’t want winning.  But I would question why they would want to do that in the first place.

You want to beat Cathedral or Chatard?  Hit the weight room.  Hit the film room.  Put more effort and focus on your feeder program.  Institute better discipline.

But don’t gripe about them having advantages you don’t and can’t have and thus try to justify establishing rules which are obviously designed to make life harder on them just because they’ve been more successful than you have been.  That’s, among other things, a horrible life lesson for the kids we’re raising.

you just described our government...