Jump to content

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


Guest DT
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest DT
2 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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.

Precisely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DT said:

Precisely

But if it’s mandatory, any one affected institution could challenge it legally and would likely prevail.

The IHSAA has to act as any other state actor does.  They can’t, for instance, lead or forbid voluntary prayer at their events.  Either would be a violation of the 1A.

Mandating a class bump on a discriminatory basis would have to survive strict scrutiny.  This isn’t impossible (race-based college admission policies have survived EP challenges because of this).  To do that, they’d have to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” — and I’m just skeptical that winning sports tournaments clears that bar.

Edited by MHSTigerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Titan32 said:

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.

 

 

 

Just count your blessings that Chatard is 4A this year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DT
22 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

But if it’s mandatory, any one affected institution could challenge it legally and would likely prevail.

The IHSAA has to act as any other state actor does.  They can’t, for instance, lead or forbid voluntary prayer at their events.  Either would be a violation of the 1A.

Mandating a class bump on a discriminatory basis would have to survive strict scrutiny.  This isn’t impossible (race-based college admission policies have survived EP challenges because of this).  To do that, they’d have to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” — and I’m just skeptical that winning sports tournaments clears that bar.

Its my understanding that Illinois has implemented a one class bump plus Success Factor combination.

This is precisely the model that I believe works best for Indiana and is in the best interests of the overall health of high school football in Indiana.  

How did Illinois and the IHSA clear that legal hurdle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DT said:

Its my understanding that Illinois has implemented a one class bump plus Success Factor combination.

This is precisely the model that I believe works best for Indiana and is in the best interests of the overall health of high school football in Indiana.  

How did Illinois and the IHSA clear that legal hurdle?

Was it challenged in court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DT said:

Its my understanding that Illinois has implemented a one class bump plus Success Factor combination.

This is precisely the model that I believe works best for Indiana and is in the best interests of the overall health of high school football in Indiana.  

How did Illinois and the IHSA clear that legal hurdle?

I looked into it just a bit.  Apparently, Illinois does have a multiplier - but they also use multiplier waivers for “non-boundaried” (which essentially means P/P) teams that have lacked success.  And I think success is determined by state championships, not merely a strong post-season run.

As such, their multiplier rule is based upon performance rather than just boundary status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DT said:

https://www.ihsa.org/Schools/Enrollments-Classifications/Two-Year-Cycle-Enrollments-and-Classifications?url=/data/school/2021-23 cycle/waivers-fall.htm

 

That is for you to research and determine, as you are the one playing defense here while I am clearly on offense.  

I haven’t seen anything about a legal challenge.  But I did find that they have waivers for schools that haven’t won championships.

That keeps their rule on a performance basis, rather than a public vs. private basis.

I didn’t see anything in your legally dubious proposal that kept the bump tethered to performance.

Edited by MHSTigerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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. 

Someone gets it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

But if it’s mandatory, any one affected institution could challenge it legally and would likely prevail.

The IHSAA has to act as any other state actor does.  They can’t, for instance, lead or forbid voluntary prayer at their events.  Either would be a violation of the 1A.

Mandating a class bump on a discriminatory basis would have to survive strict scrutiny.  This isn’t impossible (race-based college admission policies have survived EP challenges because of this).  To do that, they’d have to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” — and I’m just skeptical that winning sports tournaments clears that bar.

I think it will be easy to show that schools and pay institutions are so dissimilar that any class bumps are far from discriminatory.  What is discriminatory is enrollment only based classification. 

Edited by Titan32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DT
5 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

I think it will be easy to show that schools and pay institutions are so dissimilar that any class bumps are far from discriminatory.

I dont think anybody has to prove anything to anybody else.

The Catholic schools need to do the right thing and accept the new rules.

SF plus Bump.

If they refuse, the publics will stop scheduling them, and leave the PPs to their own devices.  They can form a 17 school super conference and play their own tournament.  The PPs dont mind travelling out of state so there should be no concern that they can fill out their schedules.  

 

Edited by DT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

I think it will be easy to show that schools and pay institutions are so dissimilar that any class bumps are far from discriminatory.

That’s not what would have to be shown.  That such a rule would be discriminatory is beyond question.  The question is whether the discriminatory rule would clear the standard for strict scrutiny - which means a couple things.

First they’d have to demonstrate a compelling state interest.  And second is that the discriminatory rule is narrowly tailored enough to achieve that compelling interest in a minimally restrictive manner.

I seriously doubt they’d clear the first hurdle.  How is greater parity in high school sports a “compelling state interest” so as to overcome the requirement for equal protection of the laws?

This is usually reserved for things like college admissions, state contracts, internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, etc.

But….those rich kids are winning more football games than we are?

Edited by MHSTigerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

That’s not what would have to be shown.  That such a rule would be discriminatory is beyond question.  The question is whether the discriminatory rule would clear the standard for strict scrutiny - which means a couple things.

First they’d have to demonstrate a compelling state interest.  And second is that the discriminatory rule is narrowly tailored enough to achieve that compelling interest in a minimally restrictive manner.

I seriously doubt they’d clear the first hurdle.  How is greater parity in high school sports a “compelling state interest” so as to overcome the requirement for equal protection of the laws?

This is usually reserved for things like college admissions, state contracts, internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, etc.

But….those rich kids are winning more football games than we are?

It’s beyond question that enrollment only classification is discriminatory.  Public’s shouldn’t be forced into membership with such dissimilar institutions.  Nothing in high school athletics are going meet “compelling stare interest”.

Really? Rich kids?  This isn’t about class warfare for me?  You probably wouldn’t want to compare my income to the average Memorial parent.  Oh, and I’m a republican town councilman...go figure.  Enrollment only based classification is unjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

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.

I wouldn’t dismiss the significance of the fact that Brentwood ultimately lost, because the Court placed heavy emphasis on the fact that Brentwood had voluntarily agreed to the rule it ultimately violated, just like the IHSAA members would voluntarily agree on SF, a multiplier, a bump, or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 7:55 AM, DT said:

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.

Find me one school, on any issue, that has ever “taken one for the team” when it was not in their own self interest to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 7:55 AM, DT said:

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.

Where in Indiana might that concern be creeping up?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DT
11 minutes ago, tango said:

Where in Indiana might that concern be creeping up?  

Conference Indiana - Circle City alliance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DT
47 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Find me one school, on any issue, that has ever “taken one for the team” when it was not in their own self interest to do so.

Faced with the possibility of a scheduling boycott, the PPs will acquiesce, which essentially is tantamount to universal acceptance of their gridiron excellence.  

At the end of the day, its really a huge compliment to the PPs.  They should shake off their hubris and accept it as such.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I wouldn’t dismiss the significance of the fact that Brentwood ultimately lost, because the Court placed heavy emphasis on the fact that Brentwood had voluntarily agreed to the rule it ultimately violated, just like the IHSAA members would voluntarily agree on SF, a multiplier, a bump, or whatever.

I’m not dismissing that.  I think the courts got both questions right.  TSSAA was within its rights to have and enforce a rule regarding undue influence - so long as it’s enforced consistently.

But the relevance here is that the TSSAA argued that they weren’t subject to a due process claim because they’re a private entity.  But, so far as the federal courts are concerned, these organizations are state actors and thus subject to DP and EP.

That matters here - a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DT said:

Conference Indiana - Circle City alliance

There’s a zero percent chance that would happen in Southwestern Indiana.

But, even if it happened in Indy, the IHSAA would still be legally bound to make equal provisions for the Roncallis and Cathedrals of the world in the post-season tournaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DT said:

Faced with the possibility of a scheduling boycott, the PPs will acquiesce, which essentially is tantamount to universal acceptance of their gridiron excellence.  

At the end of the day, its really a huge compliment to the PPs.  They should shake off their hubris and accept it as such.

 

 

Sounds like a great pick-up line in a bar ...

"Hey honey, your way-too-big *ss, looks not overly gross in those two-sizes-too-small jeans.  ... Why are you flipping me off?  That was a compliment."

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DT said:

Faced with the possibility of a scheduling boycott, the PPs will acquiesce, which essentially is tantamount to universal acceptance of their gridiron excellence.  

At the end of the day, its really a huge compliment to the PPs.  They should shake off their hubris and accept it as such.

 

 

And for those who don’t?  Because there will be plenty who don’t.

I know the PTBs at Memorial and MD well and I’m very confident that neither would willingly agree to a class bump that isn’t tethered to performance in the affected sports.  They gripe about SF as it is…imagine if they’re asked to step up in class regardless how their teams do?  Not gonna happen.

And how could anybody even begin to think it justified for tiny 1A PPs like Rivet and Washington Catholic?  Those schools struggle to field athletic teams at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

And for those who don’t?  Because there will be plenty who don’t.

I know the PTBs at Memorial and MD well and I’m very confident that neither would willingly agree to a class bump that isn’t tethered to performance in the affected sports.  They gripe about SF as it is…imagine if they’re asked to step up in class regardless how their teams do?  Not gonna happen.

And how could anybody even begin to think it justified for tiny 1A PPs like Rivet and Washington Catholic?  Those schools struggle to field athletic teams at all.

All that said, it’s a moot discussion.  I do think the IHSAA would be legally safe to ask PPs to voluntarily accept a bump in class.  Few if any would, IMO.  Time will tell on that.

But it would be a pretty blatant violation of member institutions’ equal protection rights for the IHSAA to try to mandate it - and I’m confident their legal counsel is aware of that.  If not, he or she has no business being their legal counsel.

Let’s not forget that, back when SF was put in, some were pushing to segregate the PPs in one fashion or another.  But that proposal didn’t go anywhere, despite PPs only having one vote out of 19 on the Board.

I’d be willing to bet that fear of unfavorable litigation was a big reason it didn’t.

Edited by MHSTigerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 1:49 AM, MHSTigerFan said:

The general notion of changing rules to make life harder on more successful people or organizations in order for less successful people or organizations to enjoy the illusion of “success” is pernicious and indefensible.  There is no right way or good way to do it.

In this piece, the excuse is Covid.  When SF was put in, the excuse was something else.  Once Covid is gone, the excuse will be something else still.

If somebody doesn’t like their results, rather than lobbying to have rules changed to get more favorable results, just work within the rules to do so.  Rather than complaining about more successful competitors, see what you can learn from them to match their success.

The lesson that these sorts of proposals teach our kids is an awful one:  if they aren’t succeeding as much as somebody else, it’s because the deck is stacked in favor of the succeeders and the way to remedy that is to stack the deck in favor of the non-succeeders.

This is not how real life works.  In fact, it’s the antithesis of how real life works.

Nicely said !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...