Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Conference Realignment - What's Coming in the Next Round?


Guest

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

If it were solely enrollment and $$, Carmel wins every year....

Good to know that CG is only a sporadic contender....😄

The three largest schools do in fact win almost every year. Twenty seven state championships...........nine each.

Dick Dullaghan, Chris Geesman, nor Russ Isaacs stuck around forever. Neither will Eric Moore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bash Riprock said:

I know you love to argue for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to get sucked into it...too much on my work plate.  

If it were solely enrollment and $$, Carmel wins every year.....the disparity would be too much to overcome.  We know that doesn't happen...especially when Carmel is in the southern bracket of the tournament.  They also don't win the MIC title every year....not even close.

BTW, I didn't limit the success equation to just coaching....lots more variables needed for success.

Good to know that CG is only a sporadic contender....😄

You are once again twisting my words and speaking in hyperbole.  I said coaching matters.  It’s why CG is what it is and NC isn’t.  Their SES numbers have grown apart gradually but they aren’t all THAT different.

But even THE BEST coach in the world can’t turn Arsenal Tech into Center Grove.  Not to sound redundant but too many variables outside of what happens in the school house, practice or game field play a vital role.  The pandemic only widened that gap.

Plus, you can only put 11 on the field at a time so the Carmel argument you attempted to make doesn’t hold water.  Now if you want to talk depth, special teams and fresh bodies, I’m all on board with Carmel having a huge advantage.

CG is a contender more often than not.  They were 8-6 three years ago (got hot and made a run to state), had 4 losses two years before that and went .500 in 2017.

Like BD, you can’t let the run of sectional titles fool you.  CG has a bye to the regional annually.  As did BD.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, BTF said:

The three largest schools do in fact win almost every year. Twenty seven state championships...........nine each.

Dick Dullaghan, Chris Geesman, nor Russ Isaacs stuck around forever. Neither will Eric Moore. 

So the equation for success is ......  Large enrollments x $$ = automatic success and championships.....unless, there is a HOF coach and that wipes out the formula.

Nothing else matters.....who knew it was so simple? Expand school enrollments and find some $$.

Carmel....crown them!!  Game over.  (exception Cathedral since they are private...forget about that adjustment to the success formula)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

So the equation for success is ......  Large enrollments x $$ = automatic success and championships.....unless, there is a HOF coach and that wipes out the formula.

Nothing else matters.....who knew it was so simple? Expand school enrollments and find some $$.

Carmel....crown them!!  Game over.  (exception Cathedral since they are private...forget about that adjustment to the success formula)

You’re doing it again.

No one said automatic…view it as a head start or being able to run a race on flat ground while others have to run uphill.

That work?

Edited by temptation
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, temptation said:

You are once again twisting my words and speaking in hyperbole.  I said coaching matters.  It’s why CG is what it is and NC isn’t.  Their SES numbers have grown apart gradually but they aren’t all THAT different.

But even THE BEST coach in the world can’t turn Arsenal Tech into Center Grove.  Not to sound redundant but too many variables outside of what happens in the school house, practice or game field play a vital role.  The pandemic only widened that gap.

Plus, you can only put 11 on the field at a time so the Carmel argument you attempted to make doesn’t hold water.  Now if you want to talk depth, special teams and fresh bodies, I’m all on board with Carmel having a huge advantage.

CG is a contender more often than not.  They were 8-6 three years ago (got hot and made a run to state), had 4 losses two years before that and went .500 in 2017.

Like BD, you can’t let the run of sectional titles fool you.  CG has a bye to the regional annually.  As did BD.

Don't confuse speaking in hyperbole as not buying into the elixer you are peddling.

8-6...got hot?  Or perhaps young players developed by playing such a tough schedule and could have easily won another title.  So what a team loses 4 games....play their schedule and see how easy it is.  No one gives a fart about losses in the early season...its about how a team plays at the end, correct?  Of course every year won't be the same....but when you look at a number of years and study true trends vs single years, there is no doubt they are a contender.  What team dreams to play CG in the tournament?

Carmel....16 losses over the past 5 years.....8-5 in 2017.  One state title during the period.....haven't made it out of the regional the last 2 years.  Wait a minute....they have the numbers.....$$.....and a really good coach.......hmmmmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

Don't confuse speaking in hyperbole as not buying into the elixer you are peddling.

8-6...got hot?  Or perhaps young players developed by playing such a tough schedule and could have easily won another title.  So what a team loses 4 games....play their schedule and see how easy it is.  No one gives a fart about losses in the early season...its about how a team plays at the end, correct?  Of course every year won't be the same....but when you look at a number of years and study true trends vs single years, there is no doubt they are a contender.  What team dreams to play CG in the tournament?

Carmel....16 losses over the past 5 years.....8-5 in 2017.  One state title during the period.....haven't made it out of the regional the last 2 years.  Wait a minute....they have the numbers.....$$.....and a really good coach.......hmmmmmm.

We can go back and forth all day about CG.  This argument is splitting hairs.  They are a contender more often than not.  That we agree on.

Does Carmel have a “really good coach” though?  I’m not completely sold.

Meatloaf said it best…two outta three ain’t bad.

Edited by temptation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, temptation said:

We can go back and forth all day about CG.  This argument is splitting hairs.  They are a contender more often than not.  That we agree on.

Does Carmel have a “really good coach” though?  I’m not completely sold.

Meatloaf said it best…two outta three ain’t bad.

Hebert is 12-13 against the other big 3 in the MIC.

His predecessor was 13-7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, temptation said:

We can go back and forth all day about CG.  This argument is splitting hairs.  They are a contender more often than not.  That we agree on.

Does Carmel have a “really good coach” though?  I’m not completely sold.

Meatloaf said it best…two outta three ain’t bad.

For every one Center Grove, you have a Penn, Noblesville, Lake Central who check both boxes in the SES and enrollment departments who are just flat bad. Throw in a North Central who has been historically bad and a Fishers program who continues to slide further and further into mediocrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

For every one Center Grove, you have a Penn, Noblesville, Lake Central who check both boxes in the SES and enrollment departments who are just flat bad. Throw in a North Central who has been historically bad and a Fishers program who continues to slide further and further into mediocrity.

Damn.  Penn?  Already?  I was almost on board.

NC will be fascinating to watch as the heat has to be turned up on O’Shea this fall.  I think he’s easily a top 3 coach in the “former MIC” (maybe better).

Not ready to throw dirt on Fishers yet, Noblesville has zero excuse this fall and don’t know enough about Lake Central.

Now do the opposite for me.  Gimme the names of some 6A schools with low enrollment and low SES that have had consistent success on a state wide level.

Hell, do ANY class for me.

Edited by temptation
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, temptation said:

Damn.  Penn?  Already?  I was almost on board.

NC will be fascinating to watch as the heat has to be turned up on O’Shea this fall.  I think he’s easily a top 3 coach in the “former MIC” (maybe better).

Not ready to throw dirt on Fishers yet, Noblesville has zero excuse this fall and don’t know enough about Lake Central.

Now do the opposite for me.  Gimme the names of some 6A schools with low enrollment and low SES that have had consistent success on a state wide level.

Hell, do ANY class for me.

I don't need to give you names of other programs. I've given you plenty of names and examples of programs over the years who have high enrollment/his SES numbers that don't translate to winning football programs, which has been your primary argument for years. 

Why can't we agree that there is a multitude of factors that go into a winning formula and it isn't limited to money and high enrollment? Seems logical, no?

Edited by Footballking16
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation has been had many times before. Look up the thread "Unsuccessful Programs" . Here's some data I provided previously:

On 2/17/2022 at 6:07 PM, NLCTigerFan07 said:

I have gotten through 4A, 5A and 6A based on the 21-22 DOE Enrollment Data that was posted here on the GID as well as Free/Reduced Lunch % for the high school's based on this website https://www.in.gov/doe/files/2021-school-fr-data.pdf.

Here are the schools that fit your criteria of bottom half of their class by enrollment and over 50% free/reduced lunch.

Everyone - feel free to debate if any of these schools have had "long-term success".

6A

21   Southport 2379 69.22%
22   Perry Meridian 2373 58.50%
23   Portage 2269 55.92%
24   Lawrence Central 2245 64.11%
27   Lafayette Jefferson 2153 61.71%
28   Indianapolis Arsenal Tech 2111 67.18%

5A

49   Hammond Morton 1729 53.46%
56   Mishawaka 1584 51.21%
61   Michigan City 1526 71.01%
62   Fort Wayne North Side 1513 55.72%

4A

99   Marion 1036 69.33%
105   Connersville 981 50.77%
106   Beech Grove 968 58.01%
112   Indianapolis Washington 906 63.82%
119   Western 838 51.23%
121   Mississinewa 808 53.01%
123   South Bend Washington 801 67.34%
128   South Bend Clay 778 53.60%

Just looking at it, Mishawaka (4 sectional titles in 5A since 2015), Mississinewa (3 sectional titles since 2017) and Michigan City (3 sectional titles since 2017) are the only ones who I would classify as successful. Marion had a good run with two Regional Championships in 2018 and 2020. Lafayette Jefferson has struggled in their sectionals with tough matchups usually including either Carmel or Merrillville.

On 2/18/2022 at 12:26 PM, NLCTigerFan07 said:

Follow up to my previous post. Here are the schools that fit the @temptation criteria in 1A, 2A and 3A

3A

161   Calumet 622 65.02%
184   West Vigo 525 53.96%
190   River Forest 511 68.66%

2A

227   Switzerland County 428 50.12%
236   Elwood 410 56.38%
244   Lake Station Edison 388 70.23%
245   LaVille 388 53.28%
246   North Knox 388 54.81%

1A

289   North White 272 73.68%
295   Culver 255 51.02%
298   Union City 246 55.22%
       

Of these schools, the only ones you could even give remote consideration to as being "long-term successful" in the last decade would be:
LaVille (2 Sectional Championships since 2017 with 4 other Sectional Championship appearances and a 70-31 record since Coach Hostrawser took over) 
Calumet (Sectional title in 2020, winning record last 4 seasons)

You'd have STRETCH argument for North Knox (no postseason championships, but doesn't help being in the sectionals they've been in).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Footballking16 said:

I don't need to give you names of other programs. I've given you plenty of names and examples of programs over the years who have high enrollment/his SES numbers that don't translate to winning football programs, which has been your primary argument for years. 

Why can't we agree that there is a multitude of factors that go into a winning formula and it isn't limited to money and high enrollment? Seems logical, no?

For the last time, I’ve conceded that there are a multitude of factors but none bigger than the two mentioned in this very thread.  Nothing is guaranteed…just scroll up and take a look at my head start analogy.

And why won’t you give me names?  If one is true, shouldn’t the reverse also be true?

Low SES + the bottom of your class in enrollment = irrelevance on a state level.

Prove me wrong by naming some that make the above statement false.

55 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

This conversation has been had many times before. Look up the thread "Unsuccessful Programs" . Here's some data I provided previously:

Try all CAPS or bold next time.  Maybe he always sat in the front of the classroom on East 56th Street.

(Or watched too many Disney movies.)

Edited by temptation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

No one gives a fart about losses in the early season...its about how a team plays at the end, correct? 

Wait a minute! Every time I bring up the desirability of a playoff qualification system, because the “all in” tournament devalues the regular season, I’m told I’m crazy because “every game matters,” and “there’s no such thing as a meaningless game.” The “all in” tournament breeds exactly the attitude described above … which makes Indiana high school football less than what it could be.

  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, temptation said:

For the last time, I’ve conceded that there are a multitude of factors but none bigger than the two mentioned in this very thread.  Nothing is guaranteed…just scroll up and take a look at my head start analogy.

And why won’t you give me names?  If one is true, shouldn’t the reverse also be true?

Low SES + the bottom of your class in enrollment = irrelevance on a state level.

Prove me wrong by naming some that make the above statement false.

Try all CAPS or bold next time.  Maybe he always sat in the front of the classroom on East 56th Street.

(Or watched too many Disney movies.)

Lawrence Central has a better football program than Lake Central and has had statewide success in the last decade. Deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Lawrence Central has a better football program than Lake Central and has had statewide success in the last decade. Deal with it.

LOL at using a one off and a team that is .333 since winning that state championship to try to drop the mic.

(Lake Central has been nearly .500 in that same time frame by the way.)

Why’d West leave LC for Warren then?  Enrollment.

Why’d he leave Warren for FC?  SES.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

This conversation has been had many times before. Look up the thread "Unsuccessful Programs" . Here's some data I provided previously:

There’s nearly as many schools in the top half of enrollment and below 50% F/R lunch in 6A that I would define as not having long term success as the schools you listed for 6A in the bottom half of enrollment and over 50% of F/R lunch? What’s your point?

All that illustrates is success isn’t limited to any single factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, temptation said:

LOL at using a one off and a team that is .333 since winning that state championship to try to drop the mic.

(Lake Central has been nearly .500 in that same time frame by the way.)

Why’d West leave LC for Warren then?  Enrollment.

Why’d he leave Warren for FC?  SES.

If Lawrence Central played Lake Central’s schedule in Lake Central’s conference in that half of the bracket they’d be considered a decent program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Footballking16 Geezus Chryst who peed in your Cheerios this morning? All I did was provide some context and stats around this discussion that has been had time and time again on this thread. You need to lighten up Francis.

But since you asked, my point would be that both enrollment and SES or F/R lunch statistics are the two biggest indicators of whether or not a school can field a successful program. Obviously they are not THE ONLY things in play (as @temptation has stated also), but you are doing everything you can to try and dismiss them entirely it seems.

My opinion is that being in the top half of enrollment a school's class is the first major indicator of whether or not that school can have a successful football program. It is an automatic advantage if this is the case. The next indicator is SES of the school. Do you have a small or large portion of F/R lunch? If your SES indicators are on the lower end, that is the next step in the right direction for being set up to have a successful football program. Then there are many other factors after those two that make an impact that can also help overcome shortfalls in either of those two indicators initially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

@Footballking16 Geezus Chryst who peed in your Cheerios this morning? All I did was provide some context and stats around this discussion that has been had time and time again on this thread. You need to lighten up Francis.

But since you asked, my point would be that both enrollment and SES or F/R lunch statistics are the two biggest indicators of whether or not a school can field a successful program. Obviously they are not THE ONLY things in play (as @temptation has stated also), but you are doing everything you can to try and dismiss them entirely it seems.

My opinion is that being in the top half of enrollment a school's class is the first major indicator of whether or not that school can have a successful football program. It is an automatic advantage if this is the case. The next indicator is SES of the school. Do you have a small or large portion of F/R lunch? If your SES indicators are on the lower end, that is the next step in the right direction for being set up to have a successful football program. Then there are many other factors after those two that make an impact that can also help overcome shortfalls in either of those two indicators initially.

I’ve acknowledged all this years ago and yet nobody can answer why schools like Noblesville, Lake Central, etc have such poor football programs? If enrollment and SES were the two primary factors those two schools would be head over heels better than they are and Carmel would win the state title every single year. 
 

Too many people like yourself and Temp want to dismiss culture/coaching/community support as non-factors. I can tell you that a school like North Central could be as good as any team in the state if they wanted too, they just don’t try. Their youth program is a joke. There’s so many kids from Washington Twp who end up playing CYO ball at an early age because there’s no structure or support in the youth system and those kids ultimately end up at Cathedral, Chatard, or Brebeuf.

Center Grove’s bantam league is a huge reason why they keep kids from going to a school like Roncalli. Center Grove wouldn’t be where they are today without its youth program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I’ve acknowledged all this years ago and yet nobody can answer why schools like Noblesville, Lake Central, etc have such poor football programs? If enrollment and SES were the two primary factors those two schools would be head over heels better than they are and Carmel would win the state title every single year. 

You must be extremely dense. You literally said it yourself. They are the two PRIMARY factors, not ONLY factors. Those two factors, enrollment and SES, are the foundation of potential success for a football program at the high school level in Indiana. It does not guarantee success if a school finds itself in a good spot with both, nor does it guarantee failure if a school finds itself in a bad spot with both.

Edited by NLCTigerFan07
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

You must be extremely dense. You literally said it yourself. They are the two PRIMARY factors, not ONLY factors. Those two factors, enrollment and SES, are the foundation of potential success for a football program at the high school level in Indiana. It does not guarantee success if a school finds itself in a good spot with both, nor does it guarantee failure if a school finds itself in a bad spot with both.

IF****

IF high enrollment and low ses WERE the two primary factors for having a successful program you wouldn't see so many 6A schools with 3000+ kids and low SES numbers having programs as bad as they are. Clearly they aren't the two primary factors.

Re-read what I said and that get back to me on who is being dense. 

Edited by Footballking16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

You must be extremely dense. You literally said it yourself. They are the two PRIMARY factors, not ONLY factors. Those two factors, enrollment and SES, are the foundation of potential success for a football program at the high school level in Indiana. It does not guarantee success if a school finds itself in a good spot with both, nor does it guarantee failure if a school finds itself in a bad spot with both.

Primary factors for ANY sport.

Think Tech could hire Tiger Woods as their boys golf coach and turn into state contenders?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I don't need to give you names of other programs. I've given you plenty of names and examples of programs over the years who have high enrollment/his SES numbers that don't translate to winning football programs, which has been your primary argument for years. 

Why can't we agree that there is a multitude of factors that go into a winning formula and it isn't limited to money and high enrollment? Seems logical, no?

While we often try to look at things that are similar across groups from year to year that are easily measures, like SES, enrollment, p/p or public, etc., there are other factor that weigh in that aren't as easily defined and end up being more qualitative than quantitative ... although we often try to simplify it using a proxy/surrogate that doesn't always fit and often points in the incorrect/incomplete direction of explanation.  I see evidence of this in evaluating a program like LCC.  Just some general ideas/numbers:

  • For general context of where some of this is going, in part, in 1983, LCC went 0-10, followed by a 1984 season of 1-9.  After that 1983 season, it was decided that that could not happen again and that a focus on introduction to football BEFORE high school was needed.  That was the advent of the youth program at LCC.
  • Prior to LCC's four-peat run, starting in 2008, and beyond, LCC's win percentage, historically as a program, was 53.6%.  It's current percentage is around 60.2%.
  • Going back to that first bullet point, from the start of the youth program to the senior year of its first players, LCC's program went about 42% as a winning percentage.
  • From the season of that first youth program's senior class to the start of the state championship runs, LCC went just under 63% winning percentage.
  • The O'Shea era for LCC started in 2008 and went until 2016.  Coach O'Shea finished an impressive 91.9% winning percentage in his time at LCC.  You could argue that he won because he was at a p/p school with money and the like, but the same argument of the four plus coaches that were there in the seasons preceding his arrival and they also had the benefit of a youth program in place that was yielding 63% wins since the first class had gone all the way through the program and through varsity. 
  • Since O'Shea, LCC is 55.7%.  Same youth program, same supposed SES, slightly larger enrollment. 
  • O'Shea was the right coach at the right time while, for O'Shea, LCC was the right program at the right time.  There was a unique synergy there.  It wasn't that he was a 90% winning coach when he got there or even after he left, so it can't just be all about the coach.  Likewise, the SES and enrollments weren't too far off for the coaches precedeing him or the coaches after him, so it can't be all about the SES or enrollment or even the p/p aspect from an internal perspective.
  • If it was only about size, SES, p/p vs. public, then the program should be experiencing much higher numbers than they are.  If it was only about the youth program, then again, you might be able to make an argument that 25 years is the magic number ... the number of years the youth program had been in place when O'Shea arrived and thus no one else before then benefited ... although the percentages say otherwise.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

IF****

IF high enrollment and high SES WERE the two primary factors for having a successful program you wouldn't see so many 6A schools with 3000+ kids and low SES numbers having programs as bad as they have. Clearly they aren't the two primary factors.

Re-read what I said and that get back to me on who is being dense. 

There are 32 teams in 6A man.  Somebody has to be at the bottom.

Can your statement regarding the two LC’s also apply to Noblesville?  Put them in the DAC…

Look at last year’s Sagarin ratings.  

Noblesville was 37th in Indiana.  Let’s not pretend they are fodder.  They played the #4 schedule in the state and would contend for a sectional/regional title in any other class.

Coaching matters, no doubt.  But you are the one dismissing the two most important factors for any athletic program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...