Multiplier 2.0 Needed to Level the Playing Field

[Guest DT]

21 minutes ago, Whiting89 said:

No coach or team would ever purposely lose. This would help programs that can’t get anything going for example portage Munster Griffith are some examples from the region maybe 1 class down they can build excitement and get better

Im not for this in any way, shaper or form.

Every school has an oipportunity to be successful in football.  Some simply choose not to be   They dont make the necesary investments to reap the rewards on the field.

We cant help those who refuse to help themselves.

If Munster and Lake Central decide that based on their demographic and socio economic circumstances that they are betting off investing in girls sports, golf, swimming, cross country, tennis and soccer, then so be it, that is their choice.

Therer is a Hobart and a Lowell to offset every Munster and Lake Central.

Portage can be a 6A power again if they decide that is what they want to do.  

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, DT said:

Im glad I did this thread because the response and the comments reflect the changing demographic, socio economic and cultural changes we have seen right here on The GID over the past 5 years.

We have a lot of newbies here , generally who sku younger, more rural and more lower income, that have little to no interest in the PP issues.  These fans are very regional and insular in nature, and many lack the education, experience or vocabulary skills to engage in deep conversation over these types of topics.  Frankly, I think many are a little intimidated to step into the fray.  The bottom line for most, however, is they lack the depth of knowledge and the desire to get involved.  This group stays deep into the woods in the conference threads.  

Then you have the old PP crowd, who for the most part have moved on.  For them, the war was fought and is now over.  The PPs have also somewhat retreated into their own little corner,  The Circle City Conference is the biggest example of this .  When the Indy public school conferences shunned PP advances for membership, the PPS decided to go their own way.  For the most part, the move has been sucessful as regular season schedules have filled nicely and the PPs take care of their own by not beating each other down too much within the conference.  

GID leadership has maintained a posture of nuetrality and their non participation in the competitive balance issue has generally lead to complate and total forum apathy relative to the subject.  Tim Adams was a staunch supporter of the PPs.  He was well aware of their inherent built in advantages.  But as an active assistant football coach, he also acknowledged that only hard work and dedication would allow the publics to overcome those PP advantages and reap the spoils of ultimate victory in late November.  That GID drive from the top has been gone for a decade, and forum culture reflects this ambivalence.

The single biggest snippet that has come out of this thread is a comment from a FW Dwenger supporter, who stated that ten years down the road, football will be a club sport at BD.  This comes from a deep Dwenger insider, and reveals changing attitudes towards American tackle football, even at a hotbed of participation like Dwenger High School.  If participation trends are pointing downward at a place like Dwenger, imagine what must be coming throughout the rest of the state where they take their high school football much less seriously.

Just like the rest of the world and the rest of society, I believe COVID will ultimately drive a "shakeout" effect in high school athletics, where the strong will get stronger and the weak will fall by the wayside.  Many schools will consider consolidating their extra curricular menus, and football will be sacrificed at some.  Ultimately, the game will be made stronger as the weakest programs at the bottom of the scale are left behind.  

I disagree.  I know the popular assessment is that posters like DT and Muda drive discussion, but I believe they're driving some posters away. I remember when TA used to talk about building up high school football and that was the purpose of this forum.  Apparently that has changed.

[WWFan]

2 minutes ago, Brettlow said:

I disagree.  I know the popular assessment is that posters like DT and Muda drive discussion, but I believe they're driving some posters away. I remember when TA used to talk about building up high school football and that was the purpose of this forum.  Apparently that has changed.

Or maybe engaging a person who just said most of the new posters are dumb and poor isn't something some like to do. I rarely engage with DT or Muda but read alot of what they post. Some comes across as redundant but others interesting until people just use it as a reason to attack (both sides can be guilty). I prefer his dandy dozen threads as I actually may learn a thing or 2 about the indy schools. But then again im apparently lucky I can even read to begin with

[Wedgebuster]

35 minutes ago, DT said:

Im not for this in any way, shaper or form.

Every school has an oipportunity to be successful in football.  Some simply choose not to be   They dont make the necesary investments to reap the rewards on the field.

We cant help those who refuse to help themselves.

If Munster and Lake Central decide that based on their demographic and socio economic circumstances that they are betting off investing in girls sports, golf, swimming, cross country, tennis and soccer, then so be it, that is their choice.

Therer is a Hobart and a Lowell to offset every Munster and Lake Central.

Portage can be a 6A power again if they decide that is what they want to do.  

 

 

I would like to hear DT's ideas on just how a school could make this "decision".  I've read enough of his thoughts on the general investment that schools must make in football to be winners year in and year out.  I would love to hear some of our thoughtful posters ideas on just how this "decision" can be "made" by a school system. 

[oldtimeqb]

33 minutes ago, DT said:

Im not for this in any way, shaper or form.

Every school has an oipportunity to be successful in football.  Some simply choose not to be   They dont make the necesary investments to reap the rewards on the field.

We cant help those who refuse to help themselves.

Gonna channel my inner Tom Cruise for a moment....

Why the two orders, Colonel?  Why do we need a 2.0 multiplier to even out competitive balance?  You just said every school has an opportunity to be successful in football, but some simply choose not to make the necessary investments. Yet in your very first post in this thread your justification of a multiplier is to combat the deep pockets and resource advantages of the P/Ps.  I can have the court reporter read it back to you if you have forgotten. So which is it?  P/P's have deep pockets and resource advantages that require a multiplier, or every school can be successful but refuse to help themselves?  

[Note: I am amazed at your ability to call other posters uneducated when your post makes my head hurt with all the misspellings and grammatical issues.  Proofread just once, please.] 

[Muda69]

45 minutes ago, Wedgebuster said:

I would like to hear DT's ideas on just how a school could make this "decision".  I've read enough of his thoughts on the general investment that schools must make in football to be winners year in and year out.  I would love to hear some of our thoughtful posters ideas on just how this "decision" can be "made" by a school system. 

And it's not just a government school system decision but a decision by the community as well.  Dollar to donuts that most if not all of these perennially successful school programs have a top notch youth program in their community as well.

 

 

[Muda69]

43 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

Gonna channel my inner Tom Cruise for a moment....

Why the two orders, Colonel?  Why do we need a 2.0 multiplier to even out competitive balance?  You just said every school has an opportunity to be successful in football, but some simply choose not to make the necessary investments. Yet in your very first post in this thread your justification of a multiplier is to combat the deep pockets and resource advantages of the P/Ps.  I can have the court reporter read it back to you if you have forgotten. So which is it?  P/P's have deep pockets and resource advantages that require a multiplier, or every school can be successful but refuse to help themselves?  

[Note: I am amazed at your ability to call other posters uneducated when your post makes my head hurt with all the misspellings and grammatical issues.  Proofread just once, please.] 

I don't recall the vast majority of successful P/P's programs being that way due to "deep pockets and resource advantages".  If fact most of the p/p zealots on this forum have crowed about how those programs have had perennial success despite not having the "deep pockets and resource advantages" of their government school counterparts.

 

[LaSalle Lions 1976]

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And it's not just a government school system decision but a decision by the community as well.  Dollar to donuts that most if not all of these perennially successful school programs have a top notch youth program in their community as well.

 

 

I agree.  For the most part, the community decides if a program is successful.  They invest their money, resources (players), and effort into making a successful program.

Some areas don't have that commitment.  Some programs have trouble getting coaches for their youth programs.  Some coaches don't follow the head coaches directives.  

For some programs it's just an opportunity to give guidance and supports to kids who don't have that.  The most important thing is to keep those kids engaged (for many winning isn't the incentive).  These programs serve the greater good of a community.  

Moving schools up and down classes might be the way to go, but having kids get a positive experience and have something to tell their grandkids is more important.

Others say that there are other opportunities out there.  Most I have found in my area are very disorganized and loosely run that may cause more harm than good.

So here's to high school football.  Although some programs are the most polished, they can still shine

[crimsonace1]

On 11/10/2020 at 12:42 PM, DT said:

Would any PPs fight the 2.0 Multiplier, which could include suing the IHSAA in civil court for discrimination?

Yes. it was fought tooth and nail when the 1.5 multiplier was proposed, with lawsuits threatened and religious discrimination being discussed as a reason to fight it. 

[Muda69]

23 minutes ago, crimsonace1 said:

Yes. it was fought tooth and nail when the 1.5 multiplier was proposed, with lawsuits threatened and religious discrimination being discussed as a reason to fight it. 

And such a lawsuit raised on those grounds would have failed,  probably with multiplier programs already in place in other states as a precedent.  Then there is the fact that the IHSAA is not a government organization and membership in the association is voluntary.

 

 

[MDAlum82]

On 11/8/2020 at 8:03 PM, DT said:

Covid has had a devastating and long term impact on many high school athletic programs across the state.  Unfortunately, those who could least afford to deal with the impact of Covid are being hit the hardest,  and their ability to compete in this brave new world has been compromised.

Conversely, wealthy school districts and PPs have the deep pockets and overall resources to navigate the pandemic and come out stronger on the other side.

Given the events of the past 12 months and the outcomes that we have seen playod out on the athletic fields across the state, its time for The IHSAA to step back in and revisit the issue of competitive balance between and amongst its member institutions.  One of COVIDS unintended consequences has been to further the competitive gap between the haves and the have nots, taking an ever dwindling number of post season contenders and further reducing that once again.  

Two findamental changes are needed to further addrewss the widening gulf that is separating the haves from the have nots, especiually in high cost sports such as football.

1. Roll back the Success Factor to include Indiana Public Schools only.  

2. Institute the Mandatory 2.0 PP Multiplier, whereas all PP schools will have their actual enrollments multiplied by "2" to achieve class designation.

We are seeing a new period of emerging PP dominance, due primarily to the PPs ability to better manage and manuever their way thru the COVID Pandemic.  Most observers will agree that common sense would dictate that PP football programs generally play "up" during the regular season and "down" during the post season.  This reality defies all good logic and common sense, and clearly has a negative overall impact on competitive balance within the classes.  

Under this new proposal, PPs will accept their new 2.0 Multiplied Classification, or have the option to contract their football program.  There are several throughout the state that might seriously consider contraction.

Below is a recap of the new enrollment numbers to be used for classification purposes :

Roncalli    1188/2376    6A

Cathedral   1099/2198    6A

Dwenger     1015/2030    6A

SB St Joe   857/1714       5A

Brebeuf     791/1582        5A

Guerin        761/1522       5A

Chatard      714/1428      4A

Marian        645/1290       4A

Ev Memorial  609/1218    4A

Ritter          566/1132       4A

Luers         542/1084       4A

Mater Dei    497/994     4A

Heritage Christian  462/924    4A

Bishop Noll  460/920     4A  (Contract)

Scecina       427/854     4A

Andrean      414/828     4A

Covenent Christian   365/730  3A

LCC                287/574          3A

Ind Lutheran    225/450      2A

Traders Point Christian   128/256   (Auto minimum 1 class bump)

 

 

 

We are seeing a new period of emerging PP dominance, (based on what info & data exactly?) due primarily to the PPs ability to better manage and manuever their way thru the COVID Pandemic (how did you come to this conclusion? What evidence, other than your opinion, do you have that this is factually correct?).  Most observers will agree (Assumes facts not in evidence, to say the least) that common sense (so called “common sense” is neither common nor often based on said “sense”) would dictate that PP football programs generally play "up" during the regular season and "down" during the post season.  This reality defies all good logic and common sense, and clearly has a negative overall impact on competitive balance within the classes.  (The reason for this is entirely geographical.  Most of these programs are from smaller schools located in cities with larger public schools. For convenience, cost of travel, safety of the students, etc. these schools choose play teams that are nearby.  Nothing sinister going on.)  

Under this new proposal, PPs will accept their new 2.0 Multiplied Classification, or have the option to contract their football program.  (Power has gone to someone’s head, me thinks!?) There are several throughout the state that might seriously consider contraction.

[Muda69]

9 minutes ago, MDAlum82 said:

 (Power has gone to someone’s head, me thinks!?) 

What power exactly?

 

[MDAlum82]

On 11/9/2020 at 3:16 PM, DT said:

Its not.  Its used in many states.  

Some states just legalized cocaine.  Does that mean all states should follow suit.  Poor argument

 

On 11/9/2020 at 3:59 PM, 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.

The only adjustment I would propose to current system is a rolling 3-4 yr average which, I recognize, would be REALLY difficult for scheduling purposes but not impossible, since all schools would be subject to same system.  Current system often punishes kids that happen to have bad luck of coming directly on the heals of a really strong class or two of athletes.  Nearly every school has seen these 2-3 cycles but with the 2 year re-set, the kids who actually have to live with the step up are often not the same kids who had the success.

2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

What power exactly?

 

Quote

or have the option to contract their football program

. Yes they did say "option" but is it really an "option" to many programs?  Move up or shut down if you don't like our rules?

[Muda69]

33 minutes ago, MDAlum82 said:

. Yes they did say "option" but is it really an "option" to many programs?  Move up or shut down if you don't like our rules?

Yes.  Eliminating an extracurricular activity is always an option, and it is something that a community should have the ability to do if so warranted. 

As for "move up or shut down if you don't like our rules" membership in the IHSAA is voluntary.

  

[PHJIrish]

What'll be the over/under for this thread?  10 pages? 15 pages? 20 pages?

[foxbat]

59 minutes ago, PHJIrish said:

What'll be the over/under for this thread?  10 pages? 15 pages? 20 pages?

Quantity or quality?

[LaSalle Lions 1976]

I am coming to this from a different angle.  I am pro P/P not needing a multiplier.

This group of schools weren't even recognized by the IHSAA until 1942.  Then, it was still hard to compete.

My father played for South Bend Catholic in the early 40s.  He told me stories of how opposition fans throwing fish on the field.  The only public they played on a regular basis was Gary Roosevelt.

I don't know how it was for the other P/Ps, but I know the IHSAA owes these schools everything they deserve, because of how they were treated back in the old days.

Maybe some of you also have stories to share about this. I, for one, thinks these stories need to come to light here.

So here's to the P/Ps.  You have earned your right to be an equal member.

[Guest DT]

9 minutes ago, LaSalle Lions 1976 said:

I am coming to this from a different angle.  I am pro P/P not needing a multiplier.

This group of schools weren't even recognized by the IHSAA until 1942.  Then, it was still hard to compete.

My father played for South Bend Catholic in the early 40s.  He told me stories of how opposition fans throwing fish on the field.  The only public they played on a regular basis was Gary Roosevelt.

I don't know how it was for the other P/Ps, but I know the IHSAA owes these schools everything they deserve, because of how they were treated back in the old days.

Maybe some of you also have stories to share about this. I, for one, thinks these stories need to come to light here.

So here's to the P/Ps.  You have earned your right to be an equal member.

My dad was ann All American Lineman for the great EC Roosevelt teams of the early to mid 1950s.  They travelled and played the SB schools for the state title back then.  

[Whiting89]

10 minutes ago, DT said:

My dad was ann All American Lineman for the great EC Roosevelt teams of the early to mid 1950s.  They travelled and played the SB schools for the state title back then.  

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

[Guest DT]

1 hour 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

Yes

[PHJIrish]

4 hours ago, foxbat said:

Quantity or quality?

Well, we've already seen the quality!😁

[Whiting89]

6 hours ago, MDAlum82 said:

Some states just legalized cocaine.  Does that mean all states should follow suit.  Poor argument

 

The only adjustment I would propose to current system is a rolling 3-4 yr average which, I recognize, would be REALLY difficult for scheduling purposes but not impossible, since all schools would be subject to same system.  Current system often punishes kids that happen to have bad luck of coming directly on the heals of a really strong class or two of athletes.  Nearly every school has seen these 2-3 cycles but with the 2 year re-set, the kids who actually have to live with the step up are often not the same kids who had the success.

. Yes they did say "option" but is it really an "option" to many programs?  Move up or shut down if you don't like our rules?

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

[IndianaWrestlingGuy]

13 hours ago, PHJIrish said:

What'll be the over/under for this thread?  10 pages? 15 pages? 20 pages?

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. 

[Bobref]

8 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

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.

[IndianaWrestlingGuy]

34 minutes 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.

Surely you don’t think anyone in Portland is concerned about federal governance. They just watched their city burn for 90 days while shunning any federal assistance. And, though cocaine and heroin isn’t legalized in Oregon, it is decriminalized.
 

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.