Covenent Christian - Why Privates Never Belong in 1A Football

[Guest DT]

6 minutes ago, Grandpa B said:

I might actually agree that this formula is close to being correct.   The "total buy in" you see in almost all programs PP or Public.   Center Grove is the 6A example of A + B = C.  I could find examples in all classes in all sports for both PP and Public.    The difference is that you want to penalize (pick a word here: penalize, punish) the PP schools with a 2.0 multiplier because they are able to implement that forumula, but OK for the public schools to do so.    Pathetic.  

I made a comment that in NWI, about 7 out of 33 schools would meet the criteria for "total buy in" to the high school football program.  Thats 21%.  Id say that is probably a good average number that you could apply to publics throughout the state if you went up and down and looked at every conference.  

Conversely, I think we both agree that PPs will have a very high "total buy in" number, especially when compared to the publics.  That is the first line of demarcation when comparing resource committment between PPs and publics.  We all know these things to be true.

Edited November 22, 2020 by DT

[Grandpa B]

4 minutes ago, DT said:

I made a comment that in NWI, about 7 out of 33 schools would meet the criteria for "total buy in" to the high school football program.  Thats 21%.  Id say that is probably a good average number that you could apply to publics throughout the state if you went up and down and looked at every conference.  

Conversely, I think we both agree that PPs will have a very high "total buy in" number, especially when compared to the publics.  That is the first line of demarcation when comparing resource committment between PPs and publics.  We all know these things to be true.

and for the 2nd post in a row, I agree with what you say here.  I totally "buy in" to what you are saying.   The difference is that I believe the Success Factor that is in place by the IHSAA is a very good solution that works and is accepted by most everyone.   You want a 2.0 multiplier that would make sure 99% of the PP schools would never win a state championship.  I would be that with your 2.0 multiplier (that by the way, I can't believe I have spent so much time debating since it has a 0% chance of happening), 90% of the PPs would not win a sectional.   The only school that would have a chance in football to compete with a 2.0 multiplier would be Cathedral.   

Let me ask you this one question, and I hope you give me an honest answer.   If a 2.0 multiplier was put into place, and after say 4 years, a PP school had not won or even played in a State Championship would you call that a success.   Let me show my hand here before you answer.   Unless I am missing something, I think you would call it a success.  I thinkg that is exactly what you want.   No state championships for PP schools.   A 2.0 multiplier will give you that.   As you say, "we know these things to be true".   Looking forward to your response here.  I really am. 

 

[Bobref]

7 minutes ago, DT said:

Conversely, I think we both agree that PPs will have a very high "total buy in" number, especially when compared to the publics.  That is the first line of demarcation when comparing resource committment between PPs and publics.  We all know these things to be true.

But how much of this amounts to a self inflicted wound? It is one thing to have unequal resources. It is quite another to have the resources, but make the choice to employ them elsewhere, and not go “all in.” There are a number of PPs that don’t excel in football, simply because they apply resources elsewhere.

If you really want to level the playing field in a multi-class format by, to the greatest extent possible, matching “like” against “like,” then you should find a way to adjust the classes of those schools that choose to apply their resources to go all in. You know, like a “success factor,” or something like that. And to make it fair and complete, you should do the same for those public schools that have shown their willingness to go “all in” as well.

Hey, wait a minute ...

[Guest DT]

2 minutes ago, Grandpa B said:

and for the 2nd post in a row, I agree with what you say here.  I totally "buy in" to what you are saying.   The difference is that I believe the Success Factor that is in place by the IHSAA is a very good solution that works and is accepted by most everyone.   You want a 2.0 multiplier that would make sure 99% of the PP schools would never win a state championship.  I would be that with your 2.0 multiplier (that by the way, I can't believe I have spent so much time debating since it has a 0% chance of happening), 90% of the PPs would not win a sectional.   The only school that would have a chance in football to compete with a 2.0 multiplier would be Cathedral.   

Let me ask you this one question, and I hope you give me an honest answer.   If a 2.0 multiplier was put into place, and after say 4 years, a PP school had not won or even played in a State Championship would you call that a success.   Let me show my hand here before you answer.   Unless I am missing something, I think you would call it a success.  I thinkg that is exactly what you want.   No state championships for PP schools.   A 2.0 multiplier will give you that.   As you say, "we know these things to be true".   Looking forward to your response here.  I really am. 

 

You are completely wrong relative to my motivation for pursuing this initiative.

I want to see high school football played at the highest level possible.  The fact that we dont get to see the very best of the PPs (Cathedral/Roncalli/Dwenger/Chatard) go head to head with the best that the publics have to offer is a real travesty.  

In my world, this year we would be seeing Cathedral /Roncalli playing for the 5A and 6A titles.  Chatard would be playing for a 4A title.  Andrean might be playing for a 3A championship.  

Comversely, its also possible that all of these schools could have been knocked out.  But the point is that we would likely see a higher level of compoetition, where the best are getting the opportunity to play the best.

There is no doubt that in Ohio, the two best teams in the state settled the championship on the field.  St X whipped Pickerington Central and left no doubt who was king of the hill.

That wont happen in Indiana.  And thats unfortunate.  I have no problem if the PPs sweep 2A thru 6A  I do have a problem if they sweep 1A thru 5A.  Therer is a huge difference in my view

 

[Guest DT]

8 minutes ago, Bobref said:

But how much of this amounts to a self inflicted wound? It is one thing to have unequal resources. It is quite another to have the resources, but make the choice to employ them elsewhere, and not go “all in.” There are a number of PPs that don’t excel in football, simply because they apply resources elsewhere.

If you really want to level the playing field in a multi-class format by, to the greatest extent possible, matching “like” against “like,” then you should find a way to adjust the classes of those schools that choose to apply their resources to go all in. You know, like a “success factor,” or something like that. And to make it fair and complete, you should do the same for those public schools that have shown their willingness to go “all in” as well.

Hey, wait a minute ...

Now you are cutting into cultural issues and deep program DNA.  It would be unreasonable to expect all public schools to put the same value on their high school football programs.  Highland will never approach Hobart's fervor for high school football.  Bishop Noll has nowhere near the passion for football as does Andrean.  Center Grove and Pike have nowhere near the same level of committment to prep football.  Columbus East and Jeffersonville are light years apart in their levcel of committment to the game.  As are Martinsville and BNL.  Snider and Northrup.  Central and Bosse.   Jasper and Vincennes.  Plymouth and Wawasee.  The list goes on and on.  

[Bobref]

4 minutes ago, DT said:

You are completely wrong relative to my motivation for pursuing this initiative.

I want to see high school football played at the highest level possible.  The fact that we dont get to see the very best of the PPs (Cathedral/Roncalli/Dwenger/Chatard) go head to head with the best that the publics have to offer is a real travesty.  

In my world, this year we would be seeing Cathedral /Roncalli playing for the 5A and 6A titles.  Chatard would be playing for a 4A title.  Andrean might be playing for a 3A championship.  

Comversely, its also possible that all of these schools could have been knocked out.  But the point is that we would likely see a higher level of compoetition, where the best are getting the opportunity to play the best.

There is no doubt that in Ohio, the two best teams in the state settled the championship on the field.  St X whipped Pickerington Central and left no doubt who was king of the hill.

That wont happen in Indiana.  And thats unfortunate.  I have no problem if the PPs sweep 2A thru 6A  I do have a problem if they sweep 1A thru 5A.  Therer is a huge difference in my view

 

We want the same thing, and for the same reason. We just differ on the tool to use. The “2.0 Multiplier” is a blunt instrument. Inflexible. It paints with too broad a brush. The Success Factor, especially if it were modified to a 4 yr. cycle, is a surgical blade.

[Guest DT]

1 minute ago, Bobref said:

We want the same thing, and for the same reason. We just differ on the tool to use. The “2.0 Multiplier” is a blunt instrument. Inflexible. It paints with too broad a brush. The Success Factor, especially if it were modified to a 4 yr. cycle, is a surgical blade.

I dont disagree with your premise, however, as I have stated ad nauseum, I believe we are in a different time and place now.  Covid is a game changer.  I believe it will have long lasting implications.  You believe that remains to be seen.  I respect your opinion.  In my view, Covid is significantly widening the competitive gap between the PPs and the publics.  I believe there will be less "Total buy in" amongst the publics, as a result of long term Covid impact, over time.  PPs are significantly less impacted.  Their inherent resource advantage insulates them from Covids damaging impact , at least as compared to many public schools.

How many PP game cancellations did you see this year?   

And how many public?

 

[Grandpa B]

31 minutes ago, Bobref said:

But how much of this amounts to a self inflicted wound? It is one thing to have unequal resources. It is quite another to have the resources, but make the choice to employ them elsewhere, and not go “all in.” There are a number of PPs that don’t excel in football, simply because they apply resources elsewhere.

If you really want to level the playing field in a multi-class format by, to the greatest extent possible, matching “like” against “like,” then you should find a way to adjust the classes of those schools that choose to apply their resources to go all in. You know, like a “success factor,” or something like that. And to make it fair and complete, you should do the same for those public schools that have shown their willingness to go “all in” as well.

Hey, wait a minute ...

Oh my goodness.  What a grat idea.  

[superjay]

It’s not so much that CC gets kids from Ben Davis(I’m sure they get a few).  They get lots of kids from Avon and Brownsburg even a few from Plainfield.  The location is ideal for loading up a football team.  

[Bobref]

4 minutes ago, DT said:

In my view, Covid is significantly widening the competitive gap between the PPs and the publics.  I believe there will be less "Total buy in" amongst the publics, as a result of long term Covid impact, over time.  PPs are significantly less impacted.  Their inherent resource advantage insulates them from Covids damaging impact , at least as compared to many public schools.

 

That is a very interesting theory, and it may turn out you are correct. My problems with your analysis are 2:

First, a “potential” long-term impact is not a reason for changing something that’s working now, unless you can show with a greater degree of certainly that this impact is going to occur, and it is going to cause a real “sea change” in the competitive picture of Indiana football. That is only theoretical at this point.

Secondly, the Success Factor, with a tweak to take it to a 4 yr. cycle, will accomplish all of your goals with less considerably more precision than a 2.0 multiplier.

[Grandpa B]

28 minutes ago, DT said:

You are completely wrong relative to my motivation for pursuing this initiative.

I want to see high school football played at the highest level possible.  The fact that we dont get to see the very best of the PPs (Cathedral/Roncalli/Dwenger/Chatard) go head to head with the best that the publics have to offer is a real travesty.  

In my world, this year we would be seeing Cathedral /Roncalli playing for the 5A and 6A titles.  Chatard would be playing for a 4A title.  Andrean might be playing for a 3A championship.  

Comversely, its also possible that all of these schools could have been knocked out.  But the point is that we would likely see a higher level of compoetition, where the best are getting the opportunity to play the best.

There is no doubt that in Ohio, the two best teams in the state settled the championship on the field.  St X whipped Pickerington Central and left no doubt who was king of the hill.

That wont happen in Indiana.  And thats unfortunate.  I have no problem if the PPs sweep 2A thru 6A  I do have a problem if they sweep 1A thru 5A.  Therer is a huge difference in my view

 

Appreciate the reply.  You did not answer the question.  This is not CNN asking Joe Biden questions here. :)  If a 2.0 multiplier was put into place and after 4 years not a single PP school won a state championship, would you call the 2.0 multiplier a success.  

[Guest DT]

7 minutes ago, Bobref said:

That is a very interesting theory, and it may turn out you are correct. My problems with your analysis are 2:

First, a “potential” long-term impact is not a reason for changing something that’s working now, unless you can show with a greater degree of certainly that this impact is going to occur, and it is going to cause a real “sea change” in the competitive picture of Indiana football. That is only theoretical at this point.

Secondly, the Success Factor, with a tweak to take it to a 4 yr. cycle, will accomplish all of your goals with less considerably more precision than a 2.0 multiplier.

I have two problems with the SF

1. Constant up and dowm movement of schools from class to class

People in general are not enamnored with this element of the SF.  Coaches and fans in particular, as the kids graduate and move on and probably dont care .  Im just not a fan of all the prognosticating about where a school will wind up if they win a sectional or a regional or  a semi state this year or next year.  Fans want certanty.  Coaches surely like certainty.  

2. Public school classes are much less predictable than private are.

Privates can anticipate with god accuracy what kind of talent is coming thru the doors from year to year.  With publics, its a crapshoot.  And one very strong public school class can make things very difficult for weaker future classes.  

The Hard 2.0 Multiplier takes all the ambiguity out of the system.  I like its simplicity.  

[foxbat]

28 minutes ago, DT said:

 

I want to see high school football played at the highest level possible.  The fact that we dont get to see the very best of the PPs (Cathedral/Roncalli/Dwenger/Chatard) go head to head with the best that the publics have to offer is a real travesty.  

In my world, this year we would be seeing Cathedral /Roncalli playing for the 5A and 6A titles.  Chatard would be playing for a 4A title.  Andrean might be playing for a 3A championship.  

 

 

Actually, what you want to see and when you want to see it are the difference.  You want to see everything RIGHT NOW and don't seem to be willing to wait out SF to work itself out.  Realistically, if Roncalli really is a TRUE 6A school, it will get there eventually via SF provided that IHSAA doesn't get too cute and put them in the same sectional with someone like Cathedral where it has to be either/or.  In the same way, if Cathedral really was a true 6A school, and at best they are a lower-rung 6A, SF would keep them up in 6A.  Similarly, should Chatard get to 4A, assuming the IHSAA doesn't do, what our good friend @Impartial_Observer refers to as "stepping on their d*cks," and keeps them out of the same sectional with Roncalli, there will be ample opportunity for them to stay in 4A.  If Chatard really is a 4A or 5A school, then it's just a matter of time before 1) SF gets them there and 2) SF keeps them there ... again, assuming someone not getting "cute" with sectional assignments. 

This also goes to the problem, as I pointed out before, about a multiplier vs. SF.  SF moves based on performance and performance takes time.  Multiplier is done right now, but doesn't really achieve competitiveness, it only punishes or cripples.  So the questions really are, do you REALLY want competitiveness?  Do you REALLY want revenge/crippling?  And if it's the former, then why would you not be willing to see competitiveness shake out?

[foxbat]

28 minutes ago, DT said:

I dont disagree with your premise, however, as I have stated ad nauseum, I believe we are in a different time and place now.  Covid is a game changer.  I believe it will have long lasting implications.  You believe that remains to be seen.  I respect your opinion.  In my view, Covid is significantly widening the competitive gap between the PPs and the publics.  I believe there will be less "Total buy in" amongst the publics, as a result of long term Covid impact, over time.  PPs are significantly less impacted.  Their inherent resource advantage insulates them from Covids damaging impact , at least as compared to many public schools.

How many PP game cancellations did you see this year?   

And how many public?

 

Four for LCC alone out of their own quarantine and a fifth where a PP school they were going to play had to give up an opportunity to compete for a sectional championship due to COVID in their ranks.

 

[Guest DT]

13 minutes ago, Grandpa B said:

Appreciate the reply.  You did not answer the question.  This is not CNN asking Joe Biden questions here. 🙂 If a 2.0 multiplier was put into place and after 4 years not a single PP school won a state championship, would you call the 2.0 multiplier a success.  

There is no true litmus test for the Multiplier, The SF or the concept of competitive balance.  My version of success will likley differ from yours.  Its subjective and opinion based, so there is no true measurement.

The objective of the SF was to put a "governor" on the % of state championships won by the PPs.  The SF has achieved its objective.

The objective of the 2.0 Multiplier is to creatre an environment for the best programs to engage in more head to head matchups in order to determine championships.

As I said earlier, I would have no problem with a 2A to 6A PP sweep, because I would be assured that the IHSAA had done all it could to insure the highest quality matchups.

If the publics were to sweep the PPs 2A thru 6A, Id be fine with that too.

 

 

 

[Grandpa B]

6 minutes ago, DT said:

There is no true litmus test for the Multiplier, The SF or the concept of competitive balance.  My version of success will likley differ from yours.  Its subjective and opinion based, so there is no true measurement.

The objective of the SF was to put a "governor" on the % of state championships won by the PPs.  The SF has achieved its objective.

The objective of the 2.0 Multiplier is to creatre an environment for the best programs to engage in more head to head matchups in order to determine championships.

As I said earlier, I would have no problem with a 2A to 6A PP sweep, because I would be assured that the IHSAA had done all it could to insure the highest quality matchups.

If the publics were to sweep the PPs 2A thru 6A, Id be fine with that too.

 

 

 

So if I understand your reply, you are saying if PPs won 2A to 6A with the Success Factor you would be OK with it.  Or are you saying 2A to 6A with the multipier.  I can assure you with 100% certainty that a 2A to 6A sweep with the multiplier would never happen.   and by some miracle it did, you would be the first one to call for the PPs to go form their own tournament.   

[Guest DT]

2 minutes ago, Grandpa B said:

So if I understand your reply, you are saying if PPs won 2A to 6A with the Success Factor you would be OK with it.  Or are you saying 2A to 6A with the multipier.  I can assure you with 100% certainty that a 2A to 6A sweep with the multiplier would never happen.   and by some miracle it did, you would be the first one to call for the PPs to go form their own tournament.   

I disagree, and here is why.  Cathedral beat CG fair and square.  Their coaching staff gave away the ballgame.  

In my 2.0 Multiplier, Cathedral is a 6A school this year, and they are playing this weekend for the state championship, possibly against a team they have already beaten.  Therer are many opportunities to PPs to win the rest of the classes.  The Multiplier takes the SF up another level.  And it takes publics off the hook and keeps them solely enrollment based for classification

 

[WestfieldRocks]

42 minutes ago, superjay said:

It’s not so much that CC gets kids from Ben Davis(I’m sure they get a few).  They get lots of kids from Avon and Brownsburg even a few from Plainfield.  The location is ideal for loading up a football team.  

Location, location, location :)  It hasn't happened in football yet, but Guerin Catholic is another example. It is technically located in the Noblesville district. However, just across the street to the west is Westfield. And a half a mile to the south is Carmel. 

[foxbat]

10 minutes ago, DT said:

I disagree, and here is why.  Cathedral beat CG fair and square.  Their coaching staff gave away the ballgame.  

In my 2.0 Multiplier, Cathedral is a 6A school this year, and they are playing this weekend for the state championship, possibly against a team they have already beaten.  Therer are many opportunities to PPs to win the rest of the classes.  The Multiplier takes the SF up another level.  And it takes publics off the hook and keeps them solely enrollment based for classification

 

Then it's not really about competitiveness if publics get a pass against other publics when they clearly may/do have an advantage.  You're going to tell me that it's not OK for Roncalli to stay in 4A and they have to go to 6A because they pray before games, but it's OK for NewPal to bludgeon Frankfort in 4A?

[Guest DT]

1 minute ago, foxbat said:

Then it's not really about competitiveness if publics get a pass against other publics when they clearly may/do have an advantage.  You're going to tell me that it's not OK for Roncalli to stay in 4A and they have to go to 6A because they pray before games, but it's OK for NewPal to bludgeon Frankfort in 4A?

Frankfort was up this year and New Pal is down.  They play in separate conferences and avoid each other.  And how much of that do you really see?  A public playing above its class.  

Just now, DT said:

Frankfort was up this year and New Pal is down.  They play in separate conferences and avoid each other.  And how much of that do you really see?  A public playing above its class.  

Boby Cox threw that in there becaise it gave him protection against discrimination charges.

[Thor77]

3 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Then it's not really about competitiveness if publics get a pass against other publics when they clearly may/do have an advantage.  You're going to tell me that it's not OK for Roncalli to stay in 4A and they have to go to 6A because they pray before games, but it's OK for NewPal to bludgeon Frankfort in 4A?

Back to DTs original point, do you think it’s ok for CC to be at state 6 years after starting a football program?

[LaSalle Lions 1976]

1 hour ago, TheStatGuy said:

I sometimes look at 1a or 2a schools near cities or bigger schools.. Possible advantages. 

LaVille

15 miles from South Bend Adams, 21 miles from SB Clay and 15 miles from South Bend Riley. 10 miles from Plymouth High School, 11 miles from John Glenn. 

 

Look at Eastbrook is near Marion.. As is Oak Hill (oak hill 3a right now)

Lewis Cass is 15 miles from Peru, 11 miles from Northwestern, 18 miles from Kokomo high school and 10 miles from Logansport high school. 

Those are 3 schools I wouldn't mind coaching at if I were a coach.. Could be easy to get some transfers or kids go to a big school k-8 and enroll at a small one for HS. 

 

 

Why would they take kids from South Bend for football.  Wouldn't be a help to their program.  Who is going to get them to LaVille?

[Guest DT]

13 minutes ago, Thor77 said:

Back to DTs original point, do you think it’s ok for CC to be at state 6 years after starting a football program?

I dont

[Canoer]

I agree there should be no 1A private schools. The biggest problem I’ve had is these private schools (LCC) will win a couple state titles in a row move up to 2A then tank a couple of seasons back down to 1A , so your telling me LCC couldn’t win 2 sectionals in 2A to stay in 2A ? And then their right back winning state championships !!! Look at Indianapolis Lutheran in Softball they do the same think win a couple state championships up to 2A and then 3 years later back down in 1A their back in the state championship game again !!! They have done it many times !!! Look what happened to Pioneer they did win enough to stay in 2A but up against FWBL couple of kids got hurt then couldn’t compete as well 30 kids on the side line compared to 70 you don’t have the numbers. LCC at one time played separate offense team and defense most 1A schools kids play both ways the entire game ! Ok done with my rant against private schools in 1A 

[JustRules]

1 hour ago, DT said:

I have two problems with the SF

1. Constant up and dowm movement of schools from class to class

People in general are not enamnored with this element of the SF.  Coaches and fans in particular, as the kids graduate and move on and probably dont care .  Im just not a fan of all the prognosticating about where a school will wind up if they win a sectional or a regional or  a semi state this year or next year.  Fans want certanty.  Coaches surely like certainty.  

2. Public school classes are much less predictable than private are.

Privates can anticipate with god accuracy what kind of talent is coming thru the doors from year to year.  With publics, its a crapshoot.  And one very strong public school class can make things very difficult for weaker future classes.  

The Hard 2.0 Multiplier takes all the ambiguity out of the system.  I like its simplicity.  

1. I've enjoyed the up and down nature of it. It creates some new and interesting sectional matchups including teams at the bottom of a class that bump down because somebody bumps up.

2. You have a pretty good idea in November what class you'll be in. The only uncertainty is for enrollment splits which happen with or without SF or a multiplier. You know for sure in March/April what class you'll be in and what sectional you'll be in. Your regular season schedule doesn't change at all regardless of your class designation. How much planning are you doing before March/April for your sectional opponent?