crazy idea for reclassification of class

[Trojanmp52]

here is a crazy idea i had for reclassification 

Aug 1 ever school turns in the number of kids playing from 12 to 9. Let say school A had 156 total kids.  after you take that number you divided it by the number of males in the school. Lets say 2500 kids and 1250 are male.  You take 156 divided by 1250 and find the percent of kids playing football.  this would give the percent of males playing at 12%.  then you add 12 to the total number of players so if any new kids that might want to play still can and you all ready have a number for them.

my crazy head came up with for a few reason i felt it would be the most fair why for this reason

you have a P/s with 2800 kids in it and 1200 males.  your number of player in the program 97, that is 8% of males playing football

you have a P/P with 1200 kids say 700 male and you have 120 kids in the program that is 17% of kids playing football 

aslo you have a P/s with 3200 kids 1600 males and 100 kids in the program  that is 6%.  

I think  basing you 1-6 classification  number of kids total playing and not enrollment might be a better way of doing it, i know this a crazy idea and my say i have them all the time some times crazy ideas work they just might need a little help from others

[JQWL]

16 minutes ago, Trojanmp52 said:

here is a crazy idea i had for reclassification 

Aug 1 ever school turns in the number of kids playing from 12 to 9. Let say school A had 156 total kids.  after you take that number you divided it by the number of males in the school. Lets say 2500 kids and 1250 are male.  You take 156 divided by 1250 and find the percent of kids playing football.  this would give the percent of males playing at 12%.  then you add 12 to the total number of players so if any new kids that might want to play still can and you all ready have a number for them.

my crazy head came up with for a few reason i felt it would be the most fair why for this reason

you have a P/s with 2800 kids in it and 1200 males.  your number of player in the program 97, that is 8% of males playing football

you have a P/P with 1200 kids say 700 male and you have 120 kids in the program that is 17% of kids playing football 

aslo you have a P/s with 3200 kids 1600 males and 100 kids in the program  that is 6%.  

I think  basing you 1-6 classification  number of kids total playing and not enrollment might be a better way of doing it, i know this a crazy idea and my say i have them all the time some times crazy ideas work they just might need a little help from others

I like it!

[US31]

So.......

Hickory High:  Total Enrollment = 400 students, Male enrollment = 200.  Football Team = 35.  

35/200 = 17.5%

 

SuperSuburb  High:  Total Enrollment = 5000, Male enrollment = 2500.  Football Team = 150

150/2500 = 6%

 

Metro High:  Total Enrollment = 2500, Male Enrollment = 1250, Football Team = 50

50/1250 = 4%

 

Who does the following school get classified with?

Pope John's High: Total Enrollment = 700, Male enrollment = 350, Football Team = 90 (or more)

90/350 = 26%

[foxbat]

21 minutes ago, Trojanmp52 said:

here is a crazy idea i had for reclassification 

Aug 1 ever school turns in the number of kids playing from 12 to 9. Let say school A had 156 total kids.  after you take that number you divided it by the number of males in the school. Lets say 2500 kids and 1250 are male.  You take 156 divided by 1250 and find the percent of kids playing football.  this would give the percent of males playing at 12%.  then you add 12 to the total number of players so if any new kids that might want to play still can and you all ready have a number for them.

my crazy head came up with for a few reason i felt it would be the most fair why for this reason

you have a P/s with 2800 kids in it and 1200 males.  your number of player in the program 97, that is 8% of males playing football

you have a P/P with 1200 kids say 700 male and you have 120 kids in the program that is 17% of kids playing football 

aslo you have a P/s with 3200 kids 1600 males and 100 kids in the program  that is 6%.  

I think  basing you 1-6 classification  number of kids total playing and not enrollment might be a better way of doing it, i know this a crazy idea and my say i have them all the time some times crazy ideas work they just might need a little help from others

Interesting take.  Not a knock or anything, but could this lead to "culling" for numbers/classification?  In most schools, I think football is a "no-cut" sport, so you get lots of kids who play even if they don't play a bunch on Friday night.  Would teams feel compelled or at least enticed to cut kids to slim down?  For smaller schools, wouldn't it quickly increase their classification without necessarily a corresponding pound-for-pound equivalency?  For example, Trader Point Christian has 128 kids in the school.  Assume half are boys: 64.  Their roster shows 24 on the team which gives you 37.5%. For a school like Carmel, which has 5,286 kids, half for boys would be 2,643.  At 37.5%, that would be 991 kids that would be need to play to get to Trader's Point 37.5%.  I think you'd need something other than a linear formula for this.

[US31]

1 minute ago, foxbat said:

Interesting take.  Not a knock or anything, but could this lead to "culling" for numbers/classification?  In most schools, I think football is a "no-cut" sport, so you get lots of kids who play even if they don't play a bunch on Friday night.  Would teams feel compelled or at least enticed to cut kids to slim down?  For smaller schools, wouldn't it quickly increase their classification without necessarily a corresponding pound-for-pound equivalency?  For example, Trader Point Christian has 128 kids in the school.  Assume half are boys: 64.  Their roster shows 24 on the team which gives you 37.5%. For a school like Carmel, which has 5,286 kids, half for boys would be 2,643.  At 37.5%, that would be 991 kids that would be need to play to get to Trader's Point 37.5%.  I think you'd need something other than a linear formula for this.

The best 6% of football players from a BIG pool of players will be VASTLY superior to the best 6% of football players from a SMALL pool of players.

[foxbat]

1 minute ago, US31 said:

The best 6% of football players from a BIG pool of players will be VASTLY superior to the best 6% of football players from a SMALL pool of players.

That's what I was hinting at with the pound-for-pound equivalency.  At a lot of small schools, and even some mid-sized schools, they have players on the team who are "just enough to play."  The first question the coach probably asks is "Are you alive?" as opposed to "What's your best position?" or "How many years have you played?" 

 

[oldtimeqb]

Haven't had time to digest this idea yet - but quick question.  

Didn't football used to be "male enrollment" for classification?  I'm almost positive that was the case when I played. 

Or at least our joke was "They told the IHSAA everybody named Chris was short for Christina."  Seemed funny at the time... 🤷‍♂️

[foxbat]

5 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

Haven't had time to digest this idea yet - but quick question.  

Didn't football used to be "male enrollment" for classification?  I'm almost positive that was the case when I played. 

Or at least our joke was "They told the IHSAA everybody named Chris was short for Christina."  Seemed funny at the time... 🤷‍♂️

I think what you might be thinking about is, in the case of an all-male school, I thought the IHSAA had an exception component that would double the count for classification purposes to make the classifications more apples and apples.

[WestfieldRocks]

15 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

Haven't had time to digest this idea yet - but quick question.  

Didn't football used to be "male enrollment" for classification?  I'm almost positive that was the case when I played. 

Or at least our joke was "They told the IHSAA everybody named Chris was short for Christina."  Seemed funny at the time... 🤷‍♂️

I believe you are correct. I think this was the case when they went to the every school is in the tournament format. I also remember when other class sports started, they went to using total enrollment, because they did not want, say, a school's boys basketball team playing in 3A while the girls team was in 2A because there were more boys in the school than girls. Maybe this is when they switched football to total enrollment? I can't remember.

Finally, do they still give schools the option of playing up a class? If so, with Cathedral locked into 5A for two more years, I would think that they would want to play in 6A rather than beat up on 5A in the tournament, since they already play a mostly 6A regular season schedule. This could perhaps apply to other schools.

[foxbat]

2 minutes ago, WestfieldRocks said:

I believe you are correct. I think this was the case when they went to the every school is in the tournament format. I also remember when other class sports started, they went to using total enrollment, because they did not want, say, a school's boys basketball team playing in 3A while the girls team was in 2A because there were more boys in the school than girls. Maybe this is when they switched football to total enrollment? I can't remember.

Finally, do they still give schools the option of playing up a class? If so, with Cathedral locked into 5A for two more years, I would think that they would want to play in 6A rather than beat up on 5A in the tournament, since they already play a mostly 6A regular season schedule. This could perhaps apply to other schools.

I though that teams can petition to play up, but I believe it requires the IHSAA to approve said request ... especially because of the impact in 5A/6A which have set numbers of teams.  A petition from Cathedral, for example, to play up, would force a 6A team to move down based on activity not applied to all schools in general process ... i.e., SF.  Not that too many 6A schools on the lower rung of 6A would vigorously object to heading down to 5A.

[Radar36]

Wow, that’s a whole lot of math to give large schools an unfair advantage over small schools, but I digress...

In your scenario.... it completely discounts the potential for female football players.  While not a ton of them, the number is growing.  I believe it was South Adams that had the very good female kicker a year or so ago. So coaches would either fill their kicking rolls with female soccer players to keep their numbers down (if females don’t count), or schools wouldn’t want females at all because it would skew their overall numbers.  Either way,  Sounds like a Title IX issue.

[Lysander]

My guess is that the percentage of boys playing football gets higher the smaller the school size......just a guess.

Chatard would be roughly 35% based on a quick calculation.

 

[foxbat]

19 minutes ago, Radar36 said:

Wow, that’s a whole lot of math to give large schools an unfair advantage over small schools, but I digress...

In your scenario.... it completely discounts the potential for female football players.  While not a ton of them, the number is growing.  I believe it was South Adams that had the very good female kicker a year or so ago. So coaches would either fill their kicking rolls with female soccer players to keep their numbers down (if females don’t count), or schools wouldn’t want females at all because it would skew their overall numbers.  Either way,  Sounds like a Title IX issue.

Linton had Dyllanne Deischer back in about 7-8 years ago.  She was a point machine!

[Radar36]

30 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Linton had Dyllanne Deischer back in about 7-8 years ago.  She was a point machine!

I’m getting old, I completely forgot about her. 😬 I went back and looked, I was thinking of Baliea Sprunger Adam’s Central 2018.  

[JeffO2]

I think if a school like IMG Academy popped up, that could be a factor because an extremely high percentage of their students would play sports. It would be similar for some of these traveling basketball schools.

I would hate to see coaches play around with their numbers. A lot of schools that start to have success get a lot of kids out who just want a ring. I think the current system addresses that.

One rule that might help would be if you're a 1A or 2A school with a D1 commit, you have to bump up. 3A or 4A with 2 or more bump up. 5A with 3 or more bumps up.

[DanteEstonia]

How do you handle schools that have participation rates above 50%?

[Trojanmp52]

On 11/20/2020 at 6:07 PM, DanteEstonia said:

How do you handle schools that have participation rates above 50%?

ok the participation percentage was just a way to get to a number to add to the over all number of kids playing  after the Aug 1 count.  so if any kids joined after you would have them counted. You can even not use and just go with a set number across the board of 5 or 10 or 7,  

Edited December 1, 2020 by Trojanmp52

[Grandpa B]

I like the concept.  How about having the classification be based upon the number of Senior Males enrolled.    Can you even get those numbers?  If you can, I wonder what the classification would look like.   Those schools in social/economic challenged school districts would be placed in a class where they could better compete.