Indiana Catholic Football Needs a Governor to Regulate Out of Control Football Dominance

[foxbat]

51 minutes ago, Lysander said:

I alway enjoy “Harrison Bergeron” references…..even when indirect.

 

The milk bottle and ball-peen hammer was always the reference that stuck with me ... always made me cringe and the hair on my neck stand up just thinking about that sound.

[Esso Ayche]

4 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

...just because your program enjoys that benefit of being a rural school with many kids who have done physical labor since they could walk.

What?

Just because we play in the middle of a cornfield doesn't mean procreation and birth happened in the middle of the same field by some fifth generation midwife with seven teeth. There might be a couple "farm kids", at most. The rest of it happens in the weight room, period. Just like all the "soft" big city kids...

[MHSTigerFan]

1 hour ago, Esso Ayche said:

What?

Just because we play in the middle of a cornfield doesn't mean procreation and birth happened in the middle of the same field by some fifth generation midwife with seven teeth. There might be a couple "farm kids", at most. The rest of it happens in the weight room, period. Just like all the "soft" big city kids...

Well, first, I didn’t mean it literally.

Second, I’m glad we shouldn’t be generalizing about an entire school population.  Let’s agree on that, shall we?

Third, I agree that the primary ingredient is hard work.  Exactly my point.

Edited August 14, 2021 by MHSTigerFan

[Lysander]

5 hours ago, foxbat said:

The milk bottle and ball-peen hammer was always the reference that stuck with me ... always made me cringe and the hair on my neck stand up just thinking about that sound.

Read it in 8th grade (before the wheel was invented), it was absolutely formative.  It’s always stuck with me.

The irony is that I must have taken away something different than Vonnegut intended because I would guess that he and I would differ on…..well…….most everything.  

Go figure.

[FastpacedO]

19 hours ago, Titan32 said:

This is a fantastic post in that at it's core tugs at our heart strings and at what all people worth their salt try to teach their kids.  Unfortunately it doesn't apply in this case...not even in the slightest.   I still can't wrap my head around intelligent people on this forum pretending they don't know what the 1) P/P inherent advantages are.  DT's article 2) maybe didn't go down the best path to illustrate that, but neither does, "the rules are the rules", and you guys know that....all of you know that.  It has nothing to do with "trying harder" or "government being in the way"....you guys all know that too.  It's so simple at it's core and I'll say it again for the newbies:

Given decent tradition, coaching etc. a P/P has more athletes per capita/enrollment just by nature of their institution type.  That's it...that is all there is to it.  I get it, it's nice to get that advantage along with tuition, 3) but don't tell me I'm sending any kind of incorrect message to anyone (especially my kids) to call out that disparity.

1.) I haven't seen many P/P supporters deny that there are some inherent advantages. We also know the student body at P/P isn't the same make-up as Public Schools @Irishmanis my favorite on this subject because he is unbiased having coached at both P/P and Public. However I have seen non-P/P supporters gloss over advantages they could utilize. The biggest and number one advantage a Public School can use over a P/P school is feeder system. Not only is Coach Moore a terrific coach at CG and CG a big school, but Coach Moore has 100% utilized an advantage that no P/P school has. Feeder system the CG Bantham League. The Trojan youngsters are running CG's bread and butter Offense and Defense from 2nd grade in Bantham Football and the same system in their middle school teams. By the time they hit High School they know this offense and defense as well as their alphabet and multiplication tables. The Coaches work on strength, speed, discipline, and incorporating more in depth of the scheme and plays, but the basic principle of the scheme is already ingrained in them. That in no way is a bad thing towards CG, I am sure @Grovercan tell you the connection between Coach Moore and the Board/Coaches at CG Bantham is absolutely terrific. I am seeing more High Schools utilize this too.

While CYO is a terrific league with some great football being played. Many of those kids will be playing at different H.S. When they get to their H.S. those coaches are teaching their base Offense and defensive scheme as Freshman because some may have played in Shotgun and 3-4 but others were running I-Formation, Wing T, 4-3, or 50 defense.

2) Maybe didn't go down the best path? I don't think there is any maybe about it.

3) I don't see why you would send any message of disparity to your kids about disadvantage to P/P or advantages a P/P has. To me that is just setting them up for failure before they ever play. Not once did I ever mention to my son any disadvantage his school had or advantage a P/P school had when he played for a Public school. It didn't even come up not once. His discussions with me were with how he could become a better football player, how he could help his team, and more than anything else his technique. He focused on strength and speed with his coaches and technique was something he worked on non-stop. Wasn't blessed with the size and talent to be a D-1 college player, but his hard work and diligence made him a terrific D-3 player that he had some success at. I personally feel don't even send a message of disadvantages and focus on your own tools but that is just me and people of all walks have their own opinions.

Edited August 14, 2021 by FastpacedO

[Bobref]

13 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Doing this might also be ripe for an Equal Protection challenge.

Courts have found that state HS athletic associations, though technically private non-profits, are de facto state agencies.  As such, they are generally bound by the same limitations as a formal state agency.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. The court decisions in which state high school associations have been found to be ”state actors” for purposes related to litigation have, by and large, been eligibility cases, where one individual challenges a decision that restricts the individual’s ability to participate. In cases where an association is dealing with its own member schools, on the other hand, courts generally take a hands off approach, reasoning that the way in which voluntary membership organizations structure their internal workings is none of their business.

[Bobref]

We have been over this many times, and the logic doesn’t change. If the purpose of considering things like multipliers, the success factor, the “one class bump,” etc., is to move toward a balance where relatively similar teams — within reason — compete against one another, the SF is obviously the most efficient and targeted way to do that. The reason is simple. The SF does not depend on the presence or absence of theoretical “advantages” that are impossible to quantify, or “advantages” that exist, but which are not fully utilized by the schools to achieve athletic success. Rather, the SF only kicks in when advantages are utilized with the result that a team is able to consistently punch above its weight class, for whatever reason. In other words, multipliers or class bumps adjust classes for the possibility that a school has advantages which, if properly utilized, give it a leg up competitively. The SF, in contrast, adjusts those schools that actually use their advantages to excel. One is theoretical, the other is real world.

[MHSTigerFan]

36 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. The court decisions in which state high school associations have been found to be ”state actors” for purposes related to litigation have, by and large, been eligibility cases, where one individual challenges a decision that restricts the individual’s ability to participate. In cases where an association is dealing with its own member schools, on the other hand, courts generally take a hands off approach, reasoning that the way in which voluntary membership organizations structure their internal workings is none of their business.

Well, the precedential case here was Brentwood Academy.  You can read about it here.

Yes, the underlying case had to do with a TSSAA policy dealing with recruiting.  But the court first had to determine if the TSSAA was a state actor (and thus subject to the 1A, due process, etc).  And, in a split decision, the Supreme Court found that they were — as the org was “entwined” with the state’s public education structures.

The subsequent question on remand was whether they appropriately applied their rule in a way that complied with due process.  But that’s mostly irrelevant as to the previous question:  are they, or are they not, a state actor.

Because if they are, then all of the same restrictions that apply to other state actors also apply to the Athletic Association.  It’s not a cafeteria model, where some do and others do not.

If the IHSAA, a state actor, were to enact a policy that treated parochial schools differently than it treated public schools, it would very much be subject to an equal protection claim.  I would be willing to bet that this is a huge reason we ended up with the Success Factor (which is neutral so far as public vs private) than some other policy which was explicitly discriminatory.

[Guest DT]

10 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Well, the precedential case here was Brentwood Academy.  You can read about it here.

Yes, the underlying case had to do with a TSSAA policy dealing with recruiting.  But the court first had to determine if the TSSAA was a state actor (and thus subject to the 1A, due process, etc).  And, in a split decision, the Supreme Court found that they were — as the org was “entwined” with the state’s public education structures.

The subsequent question on remand was whether they appropriately applied their rule in a way that complied with due process.  But that’s mostly irrelevant as to the previous question:  are they, or are they not, a state actor.

Because if they are, then all of the same restrictions that apply to other state actors also apply to the Athletic Association.  It’s not a cafeteria model, where some do and others do not.

If the IHSAA, a state actor, were to enact a policy that treated parochial schools differently than it treated public schools, it would very much be subject to an equal protection claim.  I would be willing to bet that this is a huge reason we ended up with the Success Factor (which is neutral so far as public vs private) than some other policy which was explicitly discriminatory.

Brentwood is the closest thing you will find to IMG

[MHSTigerFan]

48 minutes ago, Bobref said:

We have been over this many times, and the logic doesn’t change. If the purpose of considering things like multipliers, the success factor, the “one class bump,” etc., is to move toward a balance where relatively similar teams — within reason — compete against one another, the SF is obviously the most efficient and targeted way to do that. The reason is simple. The SF does not depend on the presence or absence of theoretical “advantages” that are impossible to quantify, or “advantages” that exist, but which are not fully utilized by the schools to achieve athletic success. Rather, the SF only kicks in when advantages are utilized with the result that a team is able to consistently punch above its weight class, for whatever reason. In other words, multipliers or class bumps adjust classes for the possibility that a school has advantages which, if properly utilized, give it a leg up competitively. The SF, in contrast, adjusts those schools that actually use their advantages to excel. One is theoretical, the other is real world.

I agree with this.

But I would also argue that the SF, while legally permissible, is practically flawed in the sense that it imposes (ostensibly) harder restrictions on subsequent classes of kids because of the achievements of earlier classes of kids.

A school gets a stud or two in a class, naturally wins a lot because of it, and the kids that come after the studs have to move up in class because of it?

That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either.  But at least it’s constitutionally sound.

[MHSTigerFan]

46 minutes ago, DT said:

Brentwood is the closest thing you will find to IMG

Perhaps.  But that wasn’t the question put before the court.  It could’ve been any plaintiff.

TSSAA’s defense was that they weren’t subject to Brentwood’s due process claim, because they (the TSSAA) were a private entity, not a state actor.

That had to be answered first, before the actual claim itself could be dealt with.  The Supreme Court found that the TSSAA was sufficiently “entwined” with Tennessee’s public education system to be considered a state actor.  They also created an entwinement test for similar future disputes.

Given the IHSAA’s governing structure (pretty much entirely governed by public school administrators), it seems a foregone conclusion that the courts would consider them a state actor just as TSSAA was.  As such, they’re subject to DP, EP, 1A, etc claims.

Your proposal almost certainly runs afoul of the equal protection rights in the 14th amendment.

Edited August 14, 2021 by MHSTigerFan

[southend]

2 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Perhaps.  But that wasn’t the question put before the court.  It could’ve been any plaintiff.

TSSAA’s defense was that they weren’t subject to Brentwood’s due process claim, because they (the TSSAA) were a private entity, not a state actor.

That had to be answered first, before the actual claim itself could be dealt with.  The Supreme Court found that the TSSAA was sufficiently “entwined” with Tennessee’s public to be considered a state actor.  They also created an entwinement test for similar future disputes.

Given the IHSAA’s governing structure (pretty much entirely governed by public school administrators), it seems a foregone conclusion that the courts would consider them a state actor just as TSSAA was.  As such, they’re subject to DP, EP, 1A, etc claims.

Your proposal almost certainly runs afoul of the equal protection rights in the 14th amendment.

Impressive. 

[MHSTigerFan]

43 minutes ago, DT said:

Brentwood is the closest thing you will find to IMG

It’s worth pointing out that the TSSAA’s fine against Brentwood was eventually upheld.  In other words, while they couldn’t claim immunity from a Due Process claim, the 6th Circuit ultimately agreed that TSSAA properly applied their rule about undue influence.

But that part wasn’t legally momentous.  The first part, where TSSAA was determined to be a state actor, was.

[Guest DT]

10 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Perhaps.  But that wasn’t the question put before the court.  It could’ve been any plaintiff.

TSSAA’s defense was that they weren’t subject to Brentwood’s due process claim, because they (the TSSAA) were a private entity, not a state actor.

That had to be answered first, before the actual claim itself could be dealt with.  The Supreme Court found that the TSSAA was sufficiently “entwined” with Tennessee’s public to be considered a state actor.  They also created an entwinement test for similar future disputes.

Given the IHSAA’s governing structure (pretty much entirely governed by public school administrators), it seems a foregone conclusion that the courts would consider them a state actor just as TSSAA was.  As such, they’re subject to DP, EP, 1A, etc claims.

Your proposal almost certainly runs afoul of the equal protection rights in the 14th amendment.

I think the PPs are rational, thoughtful people who care about high school football and believe in the concepts of fairness and equality.

I have no doubt they collectively can see how the potential damage their current level of domination impacts weaker public school programs.

We dont want to get to a point where publics stop scheduling privates.  That is already a concern that is creeping up with some schools around the state.

As a group, I would expect the PPs would accept the SF/One Class Bump combination because they know its the right thing to do and its in their best long term interests.

With regards to Bishop Noll, they should contract - end of story.  They simply do not have the resources to compete.  Probably the most financially challenged PP in the state.

Park Tudor - they have more money than God.  They are no different that CC   If they want to win a state championship in football, they will buy there way to a title.  They have the means and the resources.  

Edited August 14, 2021 by DT

[Irishman]

20 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I agree with this.

But I would also argue that the SF, while legally permissible, is practically flawed in the sense that it imposes (ostensibly) harder restrictions on subsequent classes of kids because of the achievements of earlier classes of kids.

A school gets a stud or two in a class, naturally wins a lot because of it, and the kids that come after the studs have to move up in class because of it?

That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either.  But at least it’s constitutionally sound.

While it may be true that some schools are impacted by earlier classes of kids who excel, the fact is the entire enrollment based classification system does that. Every member school/team in the IHSAA is impacted by previous classes of students. Instead of just looking at a class of a couple of stud athletes impacting a program, look at the opposite end. There are a large number of schools that have students who cannot participate die to physical and/or mental health issues. In our building, that is about 8% of the population. Then there is unfortunately the population of kids who do nothing. They show up half the time, contribute little to nothing to the school, yet still count against a program. There are a number of schools across the State that feel that impact yearly. So, yeah, a program might bump up due to the success of an exceptional class. But the bump up is only for a two year cycle. While I don’t have the info in front of me, my impression is that most schools that are impacted by the SF seem to have sustained success to at least stay one class above where their enrollment would place them. 

[DanteEstonia]

9 hours ago, Lysander said:

Read it in 8th grade (before the wheel was invented), it was absolutely formative.  It’s always stuck with me.

I read it in the 9th Grade.

[MHSTigerFan]

13 minutes ago, Irishman said:

While it may be true that some schools are impacted by earlier classes of kids who excel, the fact is the entire enrollment based classification system does that. Every member school/team in the IHSAA is impacted by previous classes of students. Instead of just looking at a class of a couple of stud athletes impacting a program, look at the opposite end. There are a large number of schools that have students who cannot participate die to physical and/or mental health issues. In our building, that is about 8% of the population. Then there is unfortunately the population of kids who do nothing. They show up half the time, contribute little to nothing to the school, yet still count against a program. There are a number of schools across the State that feel that impact yearly. So, yeah, a program might bump up due to the success of an exceptional class. But the bump up is only for a two year cycle. While I don’t have the info in front of me, my impression is that most schools that are impacted by the SF seem to have sustained success to at least stay one class above where their enrollment would place them. 

It may only be for a two class cycle.  But it kinda stinks for the actual flesh and blood kids in those classes, dunnit?

Again, my problem with the SF is practical, not legal.  I make no bones about the fact that I think the IHSAA should just make divisions and let the chips fall where they may.  Obviously, the SF hasn’t succeeded in bringing about the parity its backers sought.  Else they wouldn’t be here arguing for more adjustments.

But I don’t think the IHSAA could legally just bump up every P/P school.  All it would take is one institution to challenge such a move in court.  And I think they’d have a pretty strong EP claim — because it would be treating institutions differently based not on what they have or haven’t done, but on who they are.  And that’s pretty much always legally dubious.

 

[foxbat]

9 hours ago, Lysander said:

Read it in 8th grade (before the wheel was invented), it was absolutely formative.  It’s always stuck with me.

The irony is that I must have taken away something different than Vonnegut intended because I would guess that he and I would differ on…..well…….most everything.  

Go figure.

I'm the same way with Ayn Rand.  I've read the vast majority of her non-fiction works and differ with her a great deal ... although I do admire her thought process.  On the other hand, I simply love her fiction works with Anthem being one of my all-time favorite reads.

[MHSTigerFan]

36 minutes ago, DT said:

I think the PPs are rational, thoughtful people who care about high school football and believe in the concepts of fairness and equality.

I have no doubt they collectively can see how the potential damage their current level of domination impacts weaker public school programs.

We dont want to get to a point where publics stop scheduling privates.  That is already a concern that is creeping up with some schools around the state.

As a group, I would expect the PPs would accept the SF/One Class Bump combination because they know its the right thing to do and its in their best long term interests.

With regards to Bishop Noll, they should contract - end of story.  They simply do not have the resources to compete.  Probably the most financially challenged PP in the state.

Park Tudor - they have more money than God.  They are no different that CC   If they want to win a state championship in football, they will buy there way to a title.  They have the means and the resources.  

If the bump was voluntary, the IHSAA would be on solid legal ground.  It sounds like you’re arguing in that direction here:  that the PPs should accept one for the greater good of Indiana High School (in this case) football.

So, sure, put it out there as an option.  But if it’s mandatory, it’s probably illegal.

[foxbat]

21 minutes ago, Irishman said:

While it may be true that some schools are impacted by earlier classes of kids who excel, the fact is the entire enrollment based classification system does that. Every member school/team in the IHSAA is impacted by previous classes of students. Instead of just looking at a class of a couple of stud athletes impacting a program, look at the opposite end. There are a large number of schools that have students who cannot participate die to physical and/or mental health issues. In our building, that is about 8% of the population. Then there is unfortunately the population of kids who do nothing. They show up half the time, contribute little to nothing to the school, yet still count against a program. There are a number of schools across the State that feel that impact yearly. So, yeah, a program might bump up due to the success of an exceptional class. But the bump up is only for a two year cycle. While I don’t have the info in front of me, my impression is that most schools that are impacted by the SF seem to have sustained success to at least stay one class above where their enrollment would place them. 

 

3 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

It may only be for a two class cycle.  But it kinda stinks for the actual flesh and blood kids in those classes, dunnit?

Again, my problem with the SF is practical, not legal.  I make no bones about the fact that I think the IHSAA should just make divisions and let the chips fall where they may.  Obviously, the SF hasn’t succeeded in bringing about the parity its backers sought.  Else they wouldn’t be here arguing for more adjustments.

But I don’t think the IHSAA could legally just bump up every P/P school.  All it would take is one institution to challenge such a move in court.  And I think they’d have a pretty strong EP claim — because it would be treating institutions differently based not on what they have or haven’t done, but on who they are.  And that’s pretty much always legally dubious.

 

I think the main issue with the SF is that the time period is too short.  I think that @Irishman is correct in that many teams impacted by SF can sustain success a class up, I also think that's currently only impacting a smaller segment of teams than it actually could.  Ultimately, I think SF could be used to help develop programs in addition to just placing programs; however, not with it's current two-year length.

I think looking at the idea from a four-year period would blunt the impact that a good class has in the current negative implications of SF and also address some of @MHSTigerFan's concerns too.  There's also the impact of scheduling that makes SF, in its current form, less effective.  As an example, many teams in Indiana are scheduled within class or competition-level for their seasons ... that is, 1A teams tend to schedule 1A teams or lower-level 2A teams during the season.  Those schedules tend to be fairly locked in for at least two-year windows.  If they get bumped, the current two-year cycle means that the vast majority of teams are just going to take that two-year "sentence" and ride it out with their current schedules which are already set ... and also less likey to help them tremendously to compete in their new higher class.  A 1A team that is really a 2A team, probably isn't going to be as impacted as much ... think of a team like Pioneer or LCC; although LCC's different because its schedule is already different than most 1A programs with several 2A and 3A teams on their regular schedule as part of being in the Hoosier Conference.  A 1A team that can grow into 2A is more likely to yo-yo with a two-year cycle as opposed to a four-year cycle where they have more opportunity to strengthen that schedule in respond to the SF bump.  With a two-year cycle, most teams that are on the cusp just ride out that two-year term whereas, with a four-year cycle, there may be some upgrading to the schedule that is seen as beneficial ... and possibly help more programs progress via SF.

[MHSTigerFan]

1 minute ago, foxbat said:

 

I think the main issue with the SF is that the time period is too short.  I think that @Irishman is correct in that many teams impacted by SF can sustain success a class up, I also think that's currently only impacting a smaller segment of teams than it actually could.  Ultimately, I think SF could be used to help develop programs in addition to just placing programs; however, not with it's current two-year length.

I think looking at the idea from a four-year period would blunt the impact that a good class has in the current negative implications of SF and also address some of @MHSTigerFan's concerns too.  There's also the impact of scheduling that makes SF, in its current form, less effective.  As an example, many teams in Indiana are scheduled within class or competition-level for their seasons ... that is, 1A teams tend to schedule 1A teams or lower-level 2A teams during the season.  Those schedules tend to be fairly locked in for at least two-year windows.  If they get bumped, the current two-year cycle means that the vast majority of teams are just going to take that two-year "sentence" and ride it out with their current schedules which are already set ... and also less likey to help them tremendously to compete in their new higher class.  A 1A team that is really a 2A team, probably isn't going to be as impacted as much ... think of a team like Pioneer or LCC; although LCC's different because its schedule is already different than most 1A programs with several 2A and 3A teams on their regular schedule as part of being in the Hoosier Conference.  A 1A team that can grow into 2A is more likely to yo-yo with a two-year cycle as opposed to a four-year cycle where they have more opportunity to strengthen that schedule in respond to the SF bump.  With a two-year cycle, most teams that are on the cusp just ride out that two-year term whereas, with a four-year cycle, there may be some upgrading to the schedule that is seen as beneficial ... and possibly help more programs progress via SF.

Again, it’s not what I would do.  But, I do agree that a 4 year cycle would be a significant improvement and guard against the “one great class” defect of the current SF rule.

That’s what the IFCA has always advocated, isn’t it?

[Irishman]

1 hour ago, MHSTigerFan said:

It may only be for a two class cycle.  But it kinda stinks for the actual flesh and blood kids in those classes, dunnit?

Again, my problem with the SF is practical, not legal.  I make no bones about the fact that I think the IHSAA should just make divisions and let the chips fall where they may.  Obviously, the SF hasn’t succeeded in bringing about the parity its backers sought.  Else they wouldn’t be here arguing for more adjustments.

But I don’t think the IHSAA could legally just bump up every P/P school.  All it would take is one institution to challenge such a move in court.  And I think they’d have a pretty strong EP claim — because it would be treating institutions differently based not on what they have or haven’t done, but on who they are.  And that’s pretty much always legally dubious.

 

I agree with you about the bump up. But I disagree with your conclusion about the SF. We do see teams advance farther. We do see more teams competing against teams who basically have the same legitimate pool of students to draw from. 

47 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Again, it’s not what I would do.  But, I do agree that a 4 year cycle would be a significant improvement and guard against the “one great class” defect of the current SF rule.

That’s what the IFCA has always advocated, isn’t it?

Yes, the four year cycle was the initial IHSAA proposal. I too feel that would be a better use of the SF. 

[Titan32]

16 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Actually, programs like Gibson Southern are a great example of what I’m talking about.  It’s a genuinely elite football program - and it’s a public school.  Nick has put together a fantastic feeder program and a culture that has bred a consistent level of success.  Has he done it alone?  Not at all.  He inherited something good and made it even better - and had the support and buy-in of parents, administrators, the kids, etc.

FTR, if you read my post more carefully, you’ll note a couple things.

First, it’s not emotional.  I don’t know where you’re getting this “heartstrings” thing.  I assure you, I’m not a heartstrings guy.  What I wrote was a hard and undeniable truth of life: you don’t make yourself better by seeking to hold others back simply because you don’t like that they have succeeded more than you have.

Second, I spoke nothing to advantages and such.  I neither touted nor denied them.  And that’s because I just don’t think reality is that simple.  Anybody who wants to go looking for inherent advantages or disadvantages, in order to complain about results, could find them.

I think it’s an advantage that you guys have a B10 quarterback under center and the rest of us in the area don’t.  That doesn’t mean it would ever even occur to me to try to screw with rules in some kind of perverse effort to “level the playing field.”  GS also has an abundant supply of strong-as-oxes farm kids year after year.  Trust me, it’s not the norm where I’m from — and it sure would be nice to have.  But it’s no reason for me to try to throw bombs in your path, just because your program enjoys that benefit of being a rural school with many kids who have done physical labor since they could walk.

No, I’m not talking about advantages and disadvantages.  I’m talking about teaching a bad lesson to kids:  that their destinies are largely the result of chance and a stacked deck that could (and should) be stacked differently to achieve parity in outcomes.

The first fault with that is the belief that equality in outcomes is something that should even be sought.  The second fault with that is that our economy simply isn’t built that way.  Competition is hard and other guys are going to have advantages and disadvantages.  The earlier kids can learn that reality, the better for everybody.

Although football teaches a lot about life, I still feel this life lesson talk regarding our economy, equality of outcomes, other people will always have advantages over you, is a bit of a stretch.  No one is talking about equality of outcomes, we are talking about rules in sports.  Let the outcomes fall where they may, but we need to fix our broken system in Indiana High School Football.  What I have taught my kids is that, along with hard work...life isn't fair etc.  is to not sit back and allow injustice....be the person with the courage to affect change.  That is what we are talking about here.  Not just sit back and suck it up because the "rules are the rules"  when they are clearly broken.  I would certainly hope we agree that sports need rules right?  Or do we?  One could conclude from your comments above that the class system itself isn't needed and football in Indiana shouldn't worry about trying to alight the classes as best as possible because...well life isn't fair so why should Indiana football be right?

We are talking about a sport played by children (channeling my inner Muda there lol) and if you would read my comments a little more closely you might see I am making a counter point that continually gets glossed over when P/P guys read my posts.  You may not be taking about advantages, but I am as part of my counterpoint.  

The same thing happens when this is brought up, trust me your response wasn't unique (neigher was my friends from CG) in that multiple folks will go into lengthy diatribes spouting what it takes to be a quality program in our state, or pointing out to me what GS, Jasper, HH, SR does well etc.  That really has little to do with this.  I am pulling these numbers out of my @ss, but you will get the point.   Let's just say that the top third of all football schools in Indiana have all the attributes these lengthy responses mention:  Coaching, work ethic (either community based or common purposed based), feeder systems, pool of athletes (community based or common purpose based), community support, admin support, etc.  This top third has many public and private schools in it.  GS, Memorial, Mater Dei, Jasper, CG....all of these schools have these things, so from now on let's just throw that out the window.  Everyone just STOP talking about those things in these discussions.  These are not the inherent advantages I am calling out.

Here is the part all you P/P guys (or Publics "just need to work harder guys") need to read twice and don't respond to any other part of my post but this:  You are not even the same institution type as a Public School, people pay for a service at your institution and expect a result for their 7k+ fee.  You get a higher quality customer when a premium is paid, particularly vs a free service.  Your enrollment make up is NOT THE SAME...it can't be...it never will be....it is simply an advantage that can't be ignored.  My four kids believe that there are at least 200 kids at GS who just take up space and probably aren't concerned much with extracurriculars or in many cases even too focused on academic endeavors either.  Many are only there because the law says they have to be.  A subset of those might even have behavior or other issues.   Another subset just wants to get that degree, get out and get that job.  Additionally many publics house wonderful programs for the disabled that can affect enrollment as well.

Let's do an experiment.....let's ship those 200 kids to Memorial next week.  How will that affect the hallways do you think?  Will the classroom environment/lesson planning/teacher focus change at all?  How will the day in the life of an administrator change?  And don't look now but Memorials enrollment will come in at 809, probably pushing them into 4A.  How about GS, now that those 200 kids are gone how will things change do you think?  How will life change for the GS administrators?  One change is that the enrollment would now be 503, squarely in 2A and look at that...so similar to the enrollment of Mater Dei 497.   We at GS have known for years we are much more analogous to MD than Memorial athletically.  

Honestly how intelligent people can sit on this forum and say that enrollment ONLY based classification is fair is mind boggling.  The data is clear on the P/P dominance and what I have pointed out above is the reason.  Life might not be fair but a game played by children should be.  About the only thing in common in the top third schools I mention above between Publics and Privates (other than doing football well) is that they both play sports and both have books.  These differences should be accounted for if we are going to play in the same tournament.

 

 

 

[Irishman]

Sometimes it does take a lot of typing to say simply….this really is about the types of kids that do NOT attend non public schools. I agree that it is that point that is often ignored. 

[Bobref]

3 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

I would also argue that the SF, while legally permissible, is practically flawed in the sense that it imposes (ostensibly) harder restrictions on subsequent classes of kids because of the achievements of earlier classes of kids.

I agree that the SF is a sound concept, but the implementation has been flawed. The 2 yr. cycle is too short to detect — and promote — true “program” success, as opposed to what might be the short term effect of a single outlier class.