Multiplier 2.0 Needed to Level the Playing Field

[LaSalle Lions 1976]

I think it's time to get some information:

Are your CYO's for sports school based or parish based?

Here in South Bend/Mishawaka/Elkhart we have the ICCL which is school based.

[MHSTigerFan]

Quote

You don’t think nepotism happens at places other than unions?

Not only did I not say that, I pretty explicitly said the opposite of it.  I only mentioned nepotism in unions because you did.  But you had made an assertion different from nepotism -- you said that many employers favor private school grads.  There's no evidence for such a thing.

 

Quote

And is nepotism not just an overestimation of someone’s human capital, in this case based on where they went to school?

Nepotism typically involves favoritism towards family members.  But it is not necessarily an overestimation of anybody's "human capital".  Typically metric of merit are disregarded entirely.  In other words, it certainly could involve overestimating somebody's merit.  But it doesn't have to. 

 

Quote

Career earning power is a direct indication of how companies view you in terms of human capital.

Mmm, I don't think I agree with that.  A whole lot of high income people are professionals of one kind or another -- physicians, attorneys, accountants, engineers.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that an inordinate number of these people went to private high schools.  But that has nothing to do with employers favoring them in the hiring process because they went to private high schools.  Many other high earners are high volume salesmen.  There, too, this is something that one either is or isn't.  Sales reports really don't care where (or even if!) you graduated high school.  You either turn over a lot of business or you don't.

 

Quote

You’ve been arguing with everyone on this thread that PPs don’t have obvious advantages

First, you're the one who hijacked the thread with a tangent about employment.  Second, that's not really what I've said.  My primary point is that I don't think the IHSAA should be tinkering with rules in order to bring about certain favored (and thus prevent certain disfavored) outcomes based on some limited sense of relevant advantages and disadvantages.

In reality, I think a "level playing field" is something of a unicorn.  Nobody knows what kinds of athletes are coming up in what school programs at a given time.  And it's not as if administrators can control, for instance, a great soccer player in the Evansville area from going to Memorial or one in the Fort Wayne area going to Canterbury.  Of course the best players in a sport are going to have some extra interest in going to the best programs for that sport when they have an opportunity to do so.

This is why I referenced some history here.  In my school's case, it took us some 35 years to reach a state final in football -- despite all our alleged advantages.  It took us another 10 to win one.  We've never reached it in boys basketball.  Our football team has been pretty successful of late.  But, in between appearances in the finals, we spent a slew of years in the bottom half of our conference.  Why hath thou foresaken us, advantages?  Maybe they aren't actually worth what some presume?

Besides, I can and did name a couple of places where P/P schools tend to lag their public school counterparts:  budget and facilities.  Titan dismissed these -- but, what else would he do?  They don't really fit his narrative.  But, if money spent on athletic programs doesn't have any bearing on the success of those programs, then why the hell are school corporations wasting so much taxpayer money?  If they could have just as much athletic success with smaller budgets, then couldn't that money be put to productive use elsewhere?

Edited November 16, 2020 by MHSTigerFan

[MHSTigerFan]

1 hour ago, Titan32 said:

No ever said where they would put their 10 grand in this highly hypothetical (or is it) scenario.

Well, I don't bet on sports at any level.  And I sure as heck wouldn't bet on HS sports -- because it's a completely different beast than college or pro sports.  I think one can assume that Duke basketball is going to continue doing well so long as Coach K is roaming the sidelines.  HS sports have pretty much always been dependent on the state of their pipelines.  And those are unpredictable.

That said, if I were forced to make such a bet, I think I'd want more information about the schools than simply that one's public and one's private.  For instance, here in Evansville, Reitz and Bosse are both EVSC public schools.  One of them has a very rich football tradition and the other does not.  As I said earlier, we went over a decade without beating Reitz up until about 3 seasons ago.  Historically, I think most people around here would say that Reitz has the most successful football program in the area.

Bosse, on the other hand, has had lopsided records for quite some time, and not in the good way.

If you told me that the public school was Reitz and the private school was Memorial or Mater Dei, I'd bet on Reitz.  Because history would strongly favor me -- even recent history.  Over our last 10 matchups with Reitz, we're 4-6 (we played them twice this year after moving up to their 4A sectional) and that's after winning 4 straight.

Edited November 16, 2020 by MHSTigerFan

[scarab527]

11 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

 

 A whole lot of high income people are professionals of one kind or another -- physicians, attorneys, accountants, engineers.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that an inordinate number of these people went to private high schools. 

First, you're the one who hijacked the thread with a tangent about employment. 

Of course the best players in a sport are going to have some extra interest in going to the best programs for that sport when they have an opportunity to do so.

 

1. Thank you for proving my point. 

2. YOU brought up human capital, I just stated that fact that companies are already working as if certain prospective employees have higher human capital than others, and that educational history is a large part of these calculations. This is a fact. Again, why do people go to better colleges? And why do parents send their kids to better high schools? It is to increase their human capital in the eyes of employers. 

3. I’ll ignore all the rather sad “woe is me” stuff in your comment. If PPs can’t succeed in sports with all the advantages they have, including the huge one you just mentioned, that’s their fault and they have no one to blame but themselves. 

[MHSTigerFan]

Quote

1. Thank you for proving my point. 

Uh, making a living as a doctor or attorney has very little to do with an employer giving you special consideration for where you went to high school.  It wouldn't surprise me to learn that more of these sorts of professionals come from private schools (per capita, anyway).  But I have a hard time imagining a hospital  giving a hoot about where a prospective doc went to high school.  They might care where you went to medical school, but that's not what we're talking about.

 

Quote

2. YOU brought up human capital, I just stated that fact that companies are already working as if certain prospective employees have higher human capital than others, and that educational history is a large part of these calculations.

I didn't bring up human capital, Titan did.  I've repeated it because I find it rather peculiar terminology.

I can't speak for anybody else, but all I've ever really cared about when hiring are things like experience, skills and qualifications, attitude, professionalism, cultural fit.  I'll consider educational background when and where it's relevant -- such as with an accounting/finance position.  But I can't imagine what would ever prompt me to consider the particular high school they went to.  I never have -- and I've hired lots of people.  I don't know for sure, but I suspect most small business owners would say the same.

Quote

3. I’ll ignore all the rather sad “woe is me” stuff in your comment. If PPs can’t succeed in sports with all the advantages they have, including the huge one you just mentioned, that’s their fault and they have no one to blame but themselves. 

The point here is that all this supposed success we have is hardly universal.  I'm not looking for any sympathy -- let alone somebody to change rules.  Most people who do that are just sore losers.

Lastly, most of the football success my school has had recently can fairly be chalked up to two brothers and their cousin whose mothers are twin sisters and whose paternal aunt happens to be married to our head coach....not because of some ethereal advantage we have for being a Catholic school.  If that were actually the case, we wouldn't have been licking our wounds for the better part of a decade.

[Staxawax]

I think it’s time to close this thread. A few posters have made this a full-time job.

[US31]

14 minutes ago, Staxawax said:

I think it’s time to close this thread. A few posters have made this a full-time job.

Cant' they just give them a virtual timeout for a week or two like other forums do...instead of closing otherwise ok topics and discussion?

[fenderbender]

3 hours ago, LaSalle Lions 1976 said:

I think it's time to get some information:

Are your CYO's for sports school based or parish based?

Here in South Bend/Mishawaka/Elkhart we have the ICCL which is school based.

They are parish based.   Most of the kids who play will be in the school.  (My south side parish for example.)

When my son was an 8th grader, we had 2 kids out of 13 on his Cadet football team that did not attend the school.

They have to be registered members of the parish.

We get a couple of home schooled parish kids in various sports every year, but more this year for obvious reasons.   

The kids who do not attend school tend to drop in 7th and 8th grade as this is when the local middle school sports start.

My brother is on the school commission at a Chatard feeder and told me the other day that only about 20% of the North Deanery kids go to Chatard.  He said they lose a lot to North Central.

 

[foxbat]

2 hours ago, fenderbender said:

The kids who do not attend school tend to drop in 7th and 8th grade as this is when the local middle school sports start.

My brother is on the school commission at a Chatard feeder and told me the other day that only about 20% of the North Deanery kids go to Chatard.  He said they lose a lot to North Central.

 

Around here, there are noticeable exodus points from the Catholic schools to the public ranks:

• After 2nd grade.  Some parents have their kids in Catholic school until they make First Communion. 
• After 3rd grade.  This is a natural break point between two of the three Catholic elementary schools, so some kids head to public schools in the split between schools which is 3rd/4th grade split.
• After 6th grade. Junior high tuition is costlier than the elementary tuition.  It's not a huge jump, only about $1,000, but it also ends up being a natural age point for some of the public middle schools/junior highs too.
• After 8th grade.  Cost differential between junior and senior is about $2,300.  Natural break point for folks in general. 

As a former youth coach at LCC, while there are a lot of kids that go through the Catholic elementary schools and end up on the LCC high school team, there are also a decent number of them that end up on the public school teams too ... and around here, there are two 5A, a 6A, and a 3A school all within about five miles of LCC ... not to mention a Christian high school too.

[fenderbender]

6 hours ago, LaSalle Lions 1976 said:

I think it's time to get some information:

Are your CYO's for sports school based or parish based?

Here in South Bend/Mishawaka/Elkhart we have the ICCL which is school based.

One more thing to consider is that there are a few parishes that do not have schools but still field CYO teams.  Both are North Side parishes that are pretty large.  (St. Elizabeth Seaton and Holy Spirit Geist.)

[Grandpa B]

Oh My.  I go away for a few years and come back and I see DT and Muda continue with this nonsense of the 2.0 multiplier.   I sure remember my days as "Rebel Dad" with these Gentelmen.   I see the Big push to get Roncalli up to 6A.   This is a program that has won ONE state championship in the last 15 YEARS.  ONE.   One still too many boys?  They went 10-13 the last two years.   Put together a good year, and up two classes you go!   Pathetic 20 years ago, pathetic now.  I loved the sentence, "PPs will accept".  Newsflash - No they will not and nor should they.  

[Muda69]

8 minutes ago, Grandpa B said:

Oh My.  I go away for a few years and come back and I see DT and Muda continue with this nonsense of the 2.0 multiplier.   I sure remember my days as "Rebel Dad" with these Gentelmen.   I see the Big push to get Roncalli up to 6A.   This is a program that has won ONE state championship in the last 15 YEARS.  ONE.   One still too many boys?  They went 10-13 the last two years.   Put together a good year, and up two classes you go!   Pathetic 20 years ago, pathetic now.  I loved the sentence, "PPs will accept".  Newsflash - No they will not and nor should they.  

Good to hear from you again RebelDad.

And again for the record I do not support a multiplier.  As an interim step I support an automatic one class bump-up for all p/p's, with the ultimate goal scrapping the entire enrollment-based classification system entirely and replacing it with a true system of promtion/relegation.

 

[MHSTigerFan]

2 hours ago, Grandpa B said:

I loved the sentence, "PPs will accept".  Newsflash - No they will not and nor should they.  

I wonder if PP schools would have standing and grounds on which to sue the IHSAA if they were reclassified simply because they’re a private school.

The SF, as ridiculous as it is, at least is based on objective criteria that apply equally to all member institutions.  So, while I think it’s a bad policy, I’m sure courts would be very reluctant to get involved.  But I’m not sure that would still be the case if classification policy was openly discriminatory.

Edited November 17, 2020 by MHSTigerFan

[Muda69]

3 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I wonder if PP schools would have standing and grounds on which to sue the IHSAA if they were reclassified simply because they’re a private school.

Possibly.  But then again the IHSAA is a private, not a government, organization.  Membership in the association is entirely voluntary.

 

[MHSTigerFan]

10 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Possibly.  But then again the IHSAA is a private, not a government, organization.  Membership in the association is entirely voluntary.

 

True.  But courts have in the past declared entities like the IHSAA to be quasi-governmental in nature.  That could be operative in a number of ways — even things like 1st amendment cases involving prayer and such.

And, of course, even being a fully private entity is no shield from civil litigation.  I’m an employer and I can assure you that I’m expected to abide all sorts of anti-discrimination laws - including ones involving religion.

I’m not sure if Indiana courts have ever viewed the IHSAA as quasi-governmental.  But I do know that courts elsewhere have approached similar organizations that way.

Edited November 17, 2020 by MHSTigerFan

[Muda69]

3 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

True.  But courts have in the past declared entities like the IHSAA to be quasi-governmental in nature.  That could be operative in a number of ways — even things like 1st amendment cases involving prayer and such.

And, of course, even being a fully private entity is no shield from civil litigation.  I’m an employer and I can assure you that I’m expected to abide all sorts of anti-discrimination laws - including ones involving religion.

I’m not sure if Indiana courts have ever viewed the IHSAA as quasi-governmental.  But I do know that courts elsewhere have approached similar organizations that way.

What is to stop the p/p schools from forming their own athletic association, then trying to lure other non-p/p schools to join it? 

After all isn't the IHSAA a de-facto Indiana monopoly when it comes to high school athletic associations?  Perhaps some competition would do it some good.

 

[MHSTigerFan]

16 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Possibly.  But then again the IHSAA is a private, not a government, organization.  Membership in the association is entirely voluntary.

 

This is from Justice Souter’s opinion in Brentwood Academy vs TSSAA, regarding the latter’s standing as a private entity:

"The nominally private character of the Association is overborne by the pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in its composition and workings, and there is no substantial reason to claim unfairness in applying constitutional standards to it."

The court ultimately found for TSSAA in a 5-4 decision.  But they also had made clear that the TSSAA was still bound by constitutional standards.

[PHJIrish]

3 hours ago, Grandpa B said:

Oh My.  I go away for a few years and come back and I see DT and Muda continue with this nonsense of the 2.0 multiplier.   I sure remember my days as "Rebel Dad" with these Gentelmen.   I see the Big push to get Roncalli up to 6A.   This is a program that has won ONE state championship in the last 15 YEARS.  ONE.   One still too many boys?  They went 10-13 the last two years.   Put together a good year, and up two classes you go!   Pathetic 20 years ago, pathetic now.  I loved the sentence, "PPs will accept".  Newsflash - No they will not and nor should they.  

Some things just never change!🤣

[MHSTigerFan]

27 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

What is to stop the p/p schools from forming their own athletic association, then trying to lure other non-p/p schools to join it? 

After all isn't the IHSAA a de-facto Indiana monopoly when it comes to high school athletic associations?  Perhaps some competition would do it some good.

 

Well, nothing is stopping them from doing that.  I think the ICSA is still around and consists of non-IHSAA affiliates.  There may be others.

But I don’t think any school voluntarily being in the IHSAA requires them to surrender their constitutional protections or absolves the IHSAA from having to respect them.  The Supreme Court ultimately found that Tennessee’s sanctioning body wasn’t violating Brentwood Academy’s 1A rights by requiring them to comply with rules regarding recruitment.  But the suit was allowed to proceed on the basis that the TSSAA was effectively a state actor.

Well, the 14A guarantee of equal protection seems like it would make it difficult for the IHSAA to establish different rules for private school members than it has for public school members.

I seem to remember some discussion about separating out the PPs back when the success factor rule was adopted.  This happened after the Brentwood decision.  It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the Association’s legal counsel advised them not to go that route.

[Titan32]

16 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Well, nothing is stopping them from doing that.  I think the ICSA is still around and consists of non-IHSAA affiliates.  There may be others.

But I don’t think any school voluntarily being in the IHSAA requires them to surrender their constitutional protections or absolves the IHSAA from having to respect them.  The Supreme Court ultimately found that Tennessee’s sanctioning body wasn’t violating Brentwood Academy’s 1A rights by requiring them to comply with rules regarding recruitment.  But the suit was allowed to proceed on the basis that the TSSAA was effectively a state actor.

Well, the 14A guarantee of equal protection seems like it would make it difficult for the IHSAA to establish different rules for private school members than it has for public school members.

I seem to remember some discussion about separating out the PPs back when the success factor rule was adopted.  This happened after the Brentwood decision.  It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the Association’s legal counsel advised them not to go that route.

14A is the only reason we don't have a real, comprehensive, fair and equitable way to classify private businesses vs public schools in Indiana for competition.  In addition, Indiana just doesn't have enough privates to do a seperate tournament for privates like some states enjoy.  They had to be creative and find something that appeared to also "throttle" the publics as well as privates.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Titan32

[MHSTigerFan]

1 minute ago, Titan32 said:

14A is the only reason we don't have a real, comprehensive, fair and equitable way to classify private businesses vs public schools in Indiana for competition.  In addition, Indiana just doesn't have enough privates to do a seperate tournament for privates like some states enjoy.  They had to be creative and find something that appeared to also "throttle" the publics as well as privates.

If that's the case, then so much for the idea of a Multiplier or anything else that only applies to private school members.  Again, I'm no lawyer -- and Muda's right that the IHSAA is technically a private organization.  But it would appear that they're (correctly, IMO) regarded as a quasi-governmental authority and thus bound by the 14th amendment (as well as the 1st, etc.).

But, here again, I think it's wrong for them to try to "throttle" anybody -- whether it's legal or not.

[Muda69]

10 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

If that's the case, then so much for the idea of a Multiplier or anything else that only applies to private school members.  Again, I'm no lawyer -- and Muda's right that the IHSAA is technically a private organization.  But it would appear that they're (correctly, IMO) regarded as a quasi-governmental authority and thus bound by the 14th amendment (as well as the 1st, etc.).

But, here again, I think it's wrong for them to try to "throttle" anybody -- whether it's legal or not.

Can you please explain exactly what makes the IHSAA a "quasi-governmental authority", especially if membership under this authority is completely voluntary?

 

[Titan32]

Just now, MHSTigerFan said:

If that's the case, then so much for the idea of a Multiplier or anything else that only applies to private school members.  Again, I'm no lawyer -- and Muda's right that the IHSAA is technically a private organization.  But it would appear that they're (correctly, IMO) regarded as a quasi-governmental authority and thus bound by the 14th amendment (as well as the 1st, etc.).

But, here again, I think it's wrong for them to try to "throttle" anybody -- whether it's legal or not.

Even at a 4 star public like GS with very low free and assisted numbers...I recently asked a GS grad (super smart kid), what he thought the percentage of kids who don't participate in ANYthing at all and simply just take up space.  His guess was 15%....although this isn't very scientific, my estimation is that it's pretty close.  I'm not even going to finish this point because you know the truth and you know it affects outcomes in athletics when using enrollment alone as classification criteria.

Hypothetically take those (15%) kids away from GS and classify the school as a 2A private.  Would GS be any more successful in any sports boys or girls?  My guess is that across multiple boys and girls sports we start to look like super hard working Catholic kids (that attend Mass and tithe) with amazing coaches that work for pennies in meager facilities AND collect a LOT more trophies.  But that is just a guess.

 

 

[MHSTigerFan]

55 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Can you please explain exactly what makes the IHSAA a "quasi-governmental authority", especially if membership under this authority is completely voluntary?

 

Did you see what Justice Souter said about this?  I posted it above.

The TSSAA had initially fought Brentwood's suit (it was a First Amendment claim) on the grounds that they were a private entity and that Brentwood, like all its members, was a voluntary member of it.  As such, they believed they had no duty to respect the constitutional limitations the way a governmental agency would.  Essentially, the court first held that TSSAA was a quasi-governmental agency (for the reasons Souter explained) and thus did have an obligation to respect the constitutional rights of its members.  This allowed the lawsuit to proceed.  With this, the court established what is called an "entwinement test" to determine when an agency like the TSSAA is a state actor.

FTR, that doesn't necessarily mean that the IHSAA would be found to be a state actor by way of the entwinement test.  But I'd be willing to bet that the prospect of this had a lot to do with the fact that the Success Factor was implemented, rather than a rule that was clearly discriminatory towards P/P member institutions as some had been advocating at the time.

Edited November 17, 2020 by MHSTigerFan

[MHSTigerFan]

43 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Even at a 4 star public like GS with very low free and assisted numbers...I recently asked a GS grad (super smart kid), what he thought the percentage of kids who don't participate in ANYthing at all and simply just take up space.  His guess was 15%....although this isn't very scientific, my estimation is that it's pretty close.  I'm not even going to finish this point because you know the truth and you know it affects outcomes in athletics when using enrollment alone as classification criteria.

Hypothetically take those (15%) kids away from GS and classify the school as a 2A private.  Would GS be any more successful in any sports boys or girls?  My guess is that across multiple boys and girls sports we start to look like super hard working Catholic kids (that attend Mass and tithe) with amazing coaches that work for pennies in meager facilities AND collect a LOT more trophies.  But that is just a guess.

As I said above, if we really have access to all these advantages, we're pretty bad at taking advantage of them -- considering those loooong losing streaks to the likes of Reitz, Jasper, Castle, and Mater Dei.  I had asked how this real-world (and not very ancient) history squared up with your "once in a decade" idea.  But you never answered.