Multiplier 2.0 Needed to Level the Playing Field

[Titan32]

4 hours ago, sr1 said:

If you took away 15 percent of the kids at Gibson Southern they would still be in 3A in football. You would have to take away around 23 percent to drop down to 2A

Close enough...let's do that then..hypothetically.

[Titan32]

9 hours ago, Esso Ayche said:

In the first sample (2010-2012) the PPs make up 80% of all State Championship winners, 63% of all SSC winners, 42% of all RC winners, and 23% of all Sectionals Champs.  Since 2013, PPs now make up 33% of all State Champs, 25% of all SSC, 23% of all RC, and 18% of all Sectional Champs.  The SF has certainly changed the landscape at the very top level, but there are still years where PPs (6% of the schools) bring home 50% of the State Championships (three times in seven years, to be exact)

We have all seen it...but nice job reminding us of some interesting statistics!

This stands out to me a bit.  I had not looked at it this way.

Before SF PPs (6% of our schools) made up 80% of State Championship winners.  After SF PPs (6% of our schools) make up 33% of all State Champion winners.  Semi-State drop off from 63% to 25% is huge as well.

[US31]

3 hours ago, Titan32 said:

We have all seen it...but nice job reminding us of some interesting statistics!

This stands out to me a bit.  I had not looked at it this way.

Before SF PPs (6% of our schools) made up 80% of State Championship winners.  After SF PPs (6% of our schools) make up 33% of all State Champion winners.  Semi-State drop off from 63% to 25% is huge as well.

IMO the effect of success factor on PPs is this....

Periodically Cathedral will bump up to 6A, Roncalli to 5A, Chatard to 4A, etc limiting their tournament "success" (Although this years teams are a beast, and would be successful in those classes)

and/or

Periodically some combination of Cathedral, Roncalli, Dwenger, Chatard, etc get moved around so that formerly "separate" PP powers now can knock each other out.

This year you have something "unusual" in the success factor era.  Several PP powers have dropped back "down" along with many of the geographically close schools being spread out in the classes.  I think this year is the SF anomaly...not a return to normal, as SF could potentially kick some of them up to where they will see other PP powers in their new class; or be in a class that is more competitive for that particular PP (e.g. Cathedral in 6A, Roncalli in 5A, etc)

[foxbat]

6 minutes ago, US31 said:

This year you have something "unusual" in the success factor era.  Several PP powers have dropped back "down" along with many of the geographically close schools being spread out in the classes.  I think this year is the SF anomaly...not a return to normal, as SF could potentially kick some of them up to where they will see other PP powers in their new class; or be in a class that is more competitive for that particular PP (e.g. Cathedral in 6A, Roncalli in 5A, etc)

Or, in the case of 1A public and private adversaries LCC and Pioneer it will look like Godzilla and Rodan in Kyoto instead of Tokyo as they will both, likely, have an opportunity to meet again in 2A via SF.

[Lysander]

5 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Or, in the case of 1A public and private adversaries LCC and Pioneer it will look like Godzilla and Rodan in Kyoto instead of Tokyo as they will both, likely, have an opportunity to meet again in 2A via SF.

Gotta love the Kaiju reference.

[George Orwell 2]

16 hours ago, Esso Ayche said:

After slogging through this discussion over the past several days I thought I would do a little digging and give myself more background on the topic (I know, weird).  Admittedly, I am not an Indiana native, and over the past decade or so I've had to peruse my way through many-a websites, forums, almanacs, and more to try to keep pace with the ins, outs, abbreviations, and nicknames (I still can't read a STC thread on the EIAC to save my life)... let alone feel brave enough to post confidently in any PP-themed topic.  So today I did what I do best:  Look up a bunch of stuff, put it in a spreadsheet, and try to make sense of it.  Some (most? all?) of it may not be completely relevant to the topic at hand, but I at least want to share the empirical data that I was able to glean out of my research.  Frankly, it was very interesting to me and I'd hate for it to go go to waste for anyone who is like me... interested, but ignorant.  I'm assume much of this has very likely been covered in bits and pieces all over this forum over the years, but I feel compelled to share this non-biased information (these are those fact-things people keep talking about) to those that might appreciate it and may not be aware of everything out of this particular set of data.  This isn't a resolution, just information.

. . .

But what I find interesting is that the sectional champion piece of the pie really hasn't budged much (was 23% in 2010-2012 to 18% in 2013-2019).  The rest of the hardware take home, by round, has more than halved, but sectionals are still somewhat similar.  I can't quite wrap my head around what to infer from that yet. 

 

16 hours ago, Esso Ayche said:

TL;DR version... PPs are good at football, collectively.  SF dampened the top end of PP state champ dynasties.  Sometimes.

 

I don't disagree with your conclusion (that SF dampened the top end of PP . . .), but, your sample (2010-2012) is way too small.  In the 20 years prior to 2010 in Classes 1A - 4A, PP's won 46% of the state championships and 38% of the semi-state championships.  That is much different than the outcomes in 2010 - 2012 and much more closely resembles the long term reality of Indiana high school football.  Granted those are still high percentages for such a small group of schools, but, nowhere close to 100% and 80% from 2010 - 2012.  I am of the opinion that that was a unique time period in the history of PP football with only a few individual players (Jaylon Smith, the Martin brothers, and the Anthrop brothers, for instance) contributing significantly to those percentages.  In fact, one could pick a different 3 year period and end up with a much different perspective.  For example, 2004 - 2006 produced public school state champions 66% of the time and semi-state champions 66% of the time (Classes 1A - 4A).  In other words, from 2004 - 2006, PPs only won 33% of the state championships and 33% of the semi-state championships in Classes 1A - 4A.  Had you chosen that 3 year period instead you may have come to the conclusion that the SF actually helped PPs win more than they had previously not less.  Alas, that is not true, but, when undertaking a data driven analysis, which data sample one selects for comparison purposes is important.  Generally speaking, the larger the sample size the better.    

With respect to sectional championships, I suspect that of the different PPs who won those regional, semi-state, and state championships, many were in the same sectional.  I would guess that the vast majority of sectionals in Classes 1A - 4A do not have any PPs in them and the ones that do probably have multiple PPs in them.  

Notwithstanding the (very mild) constructive feedback, I appreciate someone bringing a data focused analysis to the discussion.  Your opinion was very well written and, as I mentioned above, I think you arrived at the correct conclusion. 

[Esso Ayche]

5 hours ago, George Orwell 2 said:

 

I don't disagree with your conclusion (that SF dampened the top end of PP . . .), but, your sample (2010-2012) is way too small.  In the 20 years prior to 2010 in Classes 1A - 4A, PP's won 46% of the state championships and 38% of the semi-state championships.  That is much different than the outcomes in 2010 - 2012 and much more closely resembles the long term reality of Indiana high school football.  Granted those are still high percentages for such a small group of schools, but, nowhere close to 100% and 80% from 2010 - 2012.  I am of the opinion that that was a unique time period in the history of PP football with only a few individual players (Jaylon Smith, the Martin brothers, and the Anthrop brothers, for instance) contributing significantly to those percentages.  In fact, one could pick a different 3 year period and end up with a much different perspective.  For example, 2004 - 2006 produced public school state champions 66% of the time and semi-state champions 66% of the time (Classes 1A - 4A).  In other words, from 2004 - 2006, PPs only won 33% of the state championships and 33% of the semi-state championships in Classes 1A - 4A.  Had you chosen that 3 year period instead you may have come to the conclusion that the SF actually helped PPs win more than they had previously not less.  Alas, that is not true, but, when undertaking a data driven analysis, which data sample one selects for comparison purposes is important.  Generally speaking, the larger the sample size the better.    

With respect to sectional championships, I suspect that of the different PPs who won those regional, semi-state, and state championships, many were in the same sectional.  I would guess that the vast majority of sectionals in Classes 1A - 4A do not have any PPs in them and the ones that do probably have multiple PPs in them.  

Notwithstanding the (very mild) constructive feedback, I appreciate someone bringing a data focused analysis to the discussion.  Your opinion was very well written and, as I mentioned above, I think you arrived at the correct conclusion. 

I 100% agree that the sample size is too small to get a full, meaningful grasp.  Without a doubt.  For me it was a starting point (10 year sample size) to get my head better wrapped around the conversations, and that three year window just happened to fit into it.  I would someday like to jump back another decade or two (or three?) to pick up a bigger representation across the board.  It was very interesting for me to dig into the numbers/results and, truthfully, see who these teams were losing to.  It is one thing to see who is winning, but I find it much more interesting to see who was on the cusp of winning.  So many great teams that just get stuck behind a juggernaut of a team/program and can't break through that ceiling.

Like you said, I'm sure there a lot of sectionals that have zero PPs, and many with multiple... that would be an interesting secondary, parallel study to see how many PPs are in the average "non-zero" PP sectionals... and how they collectively fare compared to those that don't have other PPs down the line until regionals or semi-state.  28 comes to mind as a heavy PP sectional.  I'm certain there are many others.

Still, I find that three year window (no matter how fortuitous to my sample) to be a very fascinating snap shot, whether it was PPs or publics doing that work.  Three years, four schools, twelve titles.  Amazing.  Across 50 states, I'd be interested if there have been comparative three year dynasties across four classes of football like that.  I'd bet not, but honestly I don't keep up with much beyond SWI... and barely that!

I appreciate the constructive feedback, for certain.  I knew going into it that there was not nearly enough information in the greater scheme of things to come to any meaningful "conclusion" in the overall conversation.  I know without a doubt there are a huge number on here who know this topic (and all the gory details) inside and out, but I found some of these numbers (sample size be damned!) too compelling not to share for those that might not have been around in those days (I can't be the ONLY transplant, can I??). Plus, it got me out of putting up Christmas decorations with my wife... because from across the room all spreadsheets look like real work!! (And honestly, who puts up Christmas decorations before Thanksgiving??)

[Lysander]

2 hours ago, Esso Ayche said:

I 100% agree that the sample size is too small to get a full, meaningful grasp.  Without a doubt.  For me it was a starting point (10 year sample size) to get my head better wrapped around the conversations, and that three year window just happened to fit into it.  I would someday like to jump back another decade or two (or three?) to pick up a bigger representation across the board.  It was very interesting for me to dig into the numbers/results and, truthfully, see who these teams were losing to.  It is one thing to see who is winning, but I find it much more interesting to see who was on the cusp of winning.  So many great teams that just get stuck behind a juggernaut of a team/program and can't break through that ceiling.

Like you said, I'm sure there a lot of sectionals that have zero PPs, and many with multiple... that would be an interesting secondary, parallel study to see how many PPs are in the average "non-zero" PP sectionals... and how they collectively fare compared to those that don't have other PPs down the line until regionals or semi-state.  28 comes to mind as a heavy PP sectional.  I'm certain there are many others.

Still, I find that three year window (no matter how fortuitous to my sample) to be a very fascinating snap shot, whether it was PPs or publics doing that work.  Three years, four schools, twelve titles.  Amazing.  Across 50 states, I'd be interested if there have been comparative three year dynasties across four classes of football like that.  I'd bet not, but honestly I don't keep up with much beyond SWI... and barely that!

I appreciate the constructive feedback, for certain.  I knew going into it that there was not nearly enough information in the greater scheme of things to come to any meaningful "conclusion" in the overall conversation.  I know without a doubt there are a huge number on here who know this topic (and all the gory details) inside and out, but I found some of these numbers (sample size be damned!) too compelling not to share for those that might not have been around in those days (I can't be the ONLY transplant, can I??). Plus, it got me out of putting up Christmas decorations with my wife... because from across the room all spreadsheets look like real work!! (And honestly, who puts up Christmas decorations before Thanksgiving??)

Perhaps you and “George Orwell”  might best offer your skills to the IHSAA.

[George Orwell 2]

6 hours ago, Lysander said:

Perhaps you and “George Orwell”  might best offer your skills to the IHSAA.

Thank you, Lysander.  I appreciate the sentiment and if it weren't for one unfortunate fact, I would do just that.  But . . . well, you know . . . I'm dead.  Sooooo . . . . . . yeah.  

[foxbat]

3 hours ago, George Orwell 2 said:

Thank you, Lysander.  I appreciate the sentiment and if it weren't for one unfortunate fact, I would do just that.  But . . . well, you know . . . I'm dead.  Sooooo . . . . . . yeah.  

 

[oldtimeqb]

On 11/19/2020 at 8:31 AM, Titan32 said:

We have all seen it...but nice job reminding us of some interesting statistics!

This stands out to me a bit.  I had not looked at it this way.

Before SF PPs (6% of our schools) made up 80% of State Championship winners.  After SF PPs (6% of our schools) make up 33% of all State Champion winners.  Semi-State drop off from 63% to 25% is huge as well.

I have been thinking about this thread, probably a little too much this week.  I am not naive enough to think the keyboard warriors of a message board will have much sway over IHSAA opinion, especially because your post and others in this thread are a little too logical and rational for that.  But I digress. 

One of the issues in this debate is the strict lumping of P/Ps into a one-size-fits-all category.  Hat tip to @Esso Ayche for his data dive into the last decade, but notice we are talking about FOUR (4) schools in Ft. Wayne, Lafayette, and Indianapolis and used their success as the catalyst to change the statewide playoff system with the SF points.  To Gibson Southern fans like yourself 2013, 2015, and 2016 are all the same.  A great team that had their season ended by a P/P school.  Never mind that in 2013 it was Brebeuf, 2015 it was Chatard, and 2016 was Memorial.  Memorial fans can give a long list of how they are different from the Indianapolis schools, and Chatard and Brebeuf can point out distinct differences between a private Jesuit school and an Archdiocesan school.  And all three schools will show differences between Evansville Day, Evansville Christian, Cathedral, Park Tudor, and La Lumiere - other members of the P/P grouping.  Pardon the poor analogy, but I assume Gibson Southern would bristle as well to be grouped with East Noble, Western Boone, and North Vermillion with constant banter about how   Directional County Schools (DCS) have had playoff success the last 3-4 years.  This is one sticking point that prevents discussion every time a multiplier is raised.

A second problem with a multiplier is that it would be hard to quantify exactly what it should be. I thoroughly enjoyed @George Orwell 2's statistics refresher although he didn't draw a distinction between which variables are endogenous and exogeneous. (Nerd joke.)  Put another way, we are trying to set up classifications based upon success, but success is also determined by the initial classification.  Cathedral as a 4A school is much different than Cathedral as a 6A school.  But the same could be said for New Pal and Columbus East.  Additionally, some who favor a multiplier give no justification for 1.5, 1.6, 1.8. 2.0, etc.  The only explanation DT has given for a 2.0 is that other states have 1.6 and 1.85 and it doesn't seem to do enough.  Well if Spinal Tap logic is all we need, let's turn it all the way up to 11.

I don't want to conflate football success with classification though.  If any school has witnessed the impact of non-enrollment variables like a new coach, community support, and administrative support (especially Principal and AD are outstanding) it is GS. Those are big boosts to any program, regardless of enrollment.  Not to mention a growing local economy is a big benefit was well.    

Which leads me to my point and the reason I quoted you.  A point you made came up in a conversation I had with my son earlier this week.  I mentioned a grade school classmate of his and he remarked, "He decided to go to Signature School, but his sister goes to Memorial."   The student in question was a good student, but had minimal athletic ability.  And that is the advantage of a non-district school vs. a district school.  In a public school, there's a much greater chance that both siblings will be enrolled there, even if one really only desires to be in academics and not extra-curricular activities/athletics.  There are athletes at Memorial/Mater Dei who have siblings attending public schools.  It has been discussed on this board that a key starter for an Evansville P/P has a sibling who is a starter for a nearby DCS.

With your 15-20% estimate, you have at least tried to reasonably capture this self-selection phenomenon.  That sounds a touch low perhaps, but I could see the case for a 1.25 if it was backed with evidence and data.  A simple multiplier like 1.85 or 2.0, take it or leave it, "just because" argument will be and should be met with resistance.       

     

[foxbat]

2 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

Which leads me to my point and the reason I quoted you.  A point you made came up in a conversation I had with my son earlier this week.  I mentioned a grade school classmate of his and he remarked, "He decided to go to Signature School, but his sister goes to Memorial."   The student in question was a good student, but had minimal athletic ability.  And that is the advantage of a non-district school vs. a district school.  In a public school, there's a much greater chance that both siblings will be enrolled there, even if one really only desires to be in academics and not extra-curricular activities/athletics.  There are athletes at Memorial/Mater Dei who have siblings attending public schools.  It has been discussed on this board that a key starter for an Evansville P/P has a sibling who is a starter for a nearby DCS.

With your 15-20% estimate, you have at least tried to reasonably capture this self-selection phenomenon.  That sounds a touch low perhaps, but I could see the case for a 1.25 if it was backed with evidence and data.  A simple multiplier like 1.85 or 2.0, take it or leave it, "just because" argument will be and should be met with resistance.       

     

This is an interesting case that I've seen at LCC where there are "split families" where some of the kids in the family go to LCC and some of them go to the public school.  Of interest is that it isn't really something tied directly to sports/non-sports.  I've seen siblings where the sister stays at LCC and doesn't play sports while the brother is at the public school playing sports.  I've seen situations where it's a brother at LCC playing football and a sister at the public school not playing sports.  I've seen a split where neither is playing a sport.  I'll have to do some thinking on this to see if there's a situation that I recall where the siblings were both playing sports at LCC and a public school.

Incidentally, this also happens with public school families too.  My kids have been homeschooled since my oldest was 5th grade and they tend to split time between homeschool and the public school/Ivy Tech when they get to high school ... although my middle kid went public in junior high and the first two years of high school and returned to split schooling this year.  My oldest three went/go to Jeff and my boys are attending / will attend Harrison.  Even in the public school families, sometimes it's a house divided. 🙂

[George Orwell 2]

2 hours ago, oldtimeqb said:

A second problem with a multiplier is that it would be hard to quantify exactly what it should be. I thoroughly enjoyed @George Orwell 2's statistics refresher although he didn't draw a distinction between which variables are endogenous and exogeneous. (Nerd joke.) 

Lysander and some others may remember a dissertation I posted a few years ago on the impossibility of identifying endogenous and exogenous characteristics with respect to high school football.  For everyone's benefit, I will not repeat it here.   

[Lysander]

1 hour ago, George Orwell 2 said:

Lysander and some others may remember a dissertation I posted a few years ago on the impossibility of identifying endogenous and exogenous characteristics with respect to high school football.  For everyone's benefit, I will not repeat it here.   

Many of us recall it.

9 hours ago, George Orwell 2 said:

Thank you, Lysander.  I appreciate the sentiment and if it weren't for one unfortunate fact, I would do just that.  But . . . well, you know . . . I'm dead.  Sooooo . . . . . . yeah.  

Yes.  That “dead” thing can tend to get in the way.

But at least you can still vote......

[Titan32]

1 hour ago, George Orwell 2 said:

Lysander and some others may remember a dissertation I posted a few years ago on the impossibility of identifying endogenous and exogenous characteristics with respect to high school football.  For everyone's benefit, I will not repeat it here.   

I recall it...I'm sure I rebutted some of it LOL.

[gonzoron]

21 minutes ago, Lysander said:

 That “dead” thing can tend to get in the way.

But at least you can still vote.....

This may be what killed him. 4 years after 1984.

[Grandpa B]

I think this paragraph from Indy Star Kyle Neddenriep details what most of the state things about the PP success this year.   Would believe that Mr. Neddenriep reaches thousands more that DT with his view. 

Is it a “problem” if five private schools win state titles? I don’t sense that. The Indiana High School Athletic Association’s tournament success factor is designed to address some of those dynasty issues. Chatard will move up to 4A for the next two-year cycle. Cathedral has not won a state title since 2014 and Roncalli since 2016.

Since the IHSAA added a sixth class in 2013, private schools have won 15 of a possible 42 titles. Private schools have filled 22 of a potential 84 spots in the state finals (not counting this season). We did not hear much about the private school dominance when only one private school won in 2017 and again in ’18. There were only two private schools in the state finals each of those years. Since 2013, we have not seen more than three private schools win titles in a given year. There were three in 2013, ’15, ’16 and ’19.

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Grandpa B

[psaboy]

When does the 2021/2022 reclassification come out?

[George Orwell 2]

On 11/20/2020 at 5:32 PM, Titan32 said:

I recall it...I'm sure I rebutted some of it LOL.

You tilted at some windmills that day if I remember correctly.  🙂 

[Titan32]

1 hour ago, George Orwell 2 said:

You tilted at some windmills that day if I remember correctly.  🙂 

LOL....oh I know who the enemy is!

[George Orwell 2]

41 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

LOL....oh I know who the enemy is!

I don't recall you mentioning the groups that are trying to eliminate youth and high school football in that discussion.  Although, admittedly, it has been a long time.  

[Titan32]

Just now, George Orwell 2 said:

I don't recall you mentioning the groups that are trying to eliminate youth and high school football in that discussion.  Although, admittedly, it has been a long time.  

Yes...a long time indeed.