Jump to content
The Gridiron Digest

2.0 Multiplier Required to Fix Lower Class Competitive Balance Inequities


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BTF said:

So one of the three hardest working teams in the state. Not sure how you can prove that. Not sure how any program could claim that. Let's just say they are Top 25. Somewhere between 1 and 25, but who really knows. 

I would take Cathedral’s daily/weekly preparation and commitment to being the best football program as humanly possible over any other teams in the state. I’m sure someone from CG, New Pal, etc will argue otherwise but you aren’t going to find many, if any schools who take football more seriously than Cathedral and are dead set on being a championship contender every single year. If you think Cathedral just goes through the motions M-Th and just shows up on Friday you would be severely mistaken.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Footballking16 said:

I would take Cathedral’s daily/weekly preparation and commitment to being the best football program as humanly possible over any other teams in the state. I’m sure someone from CG, New Pal, etc will argue otherwise but you aren’t going to find many, if any schools who take football more seriously than Cathedral and are dead set on being a championship contender every single year. If you think Cathedral just goes through the motions M-Th and just shows up on Friday you would be severely mistaken.

Again, that's a hard claim to make considering you've never spent a day in the life of a football player at Dwenger, Pioneer, or Adams Central.............to name a few. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BTF said:

Again, that's a hard claim to make considering you've never spent a day in the life of a football player at Dwenger, Pioneer, or Adams Central.............to name a few. 

Didn’t ask you to agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Footballking16 said:

Didn’t ask you to agree with me.

Fair. I just think 25 football teams could make the same claim you are making. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LCKfan4life said:

State baseball tourney just concluded - 3 of the 4 state championships won by private schools...ridiculous. 6 of the 8 teams in the state finals were privates, yet private schools compose a little less than 20% of the TOTAL high schools in Indiana. Privates are playing with a different deck of cards. If you think otherwise, please continue to keep your heads buried. 

Slight correction-- 5 of the 8 baseball state finalists were private schools. The public schools went 1-2 (Tecumseh lost to LCC 4-1, Centerville lost to Illiana Christian 10-1, Penn beat Cathedral 3-0.) But I agree that the current Success Factor is not doing enough & the IHSAA willingly gave some big-time programs a huge break by dropping them down after just 1 season in a higher class. Some examples:

Chatard-- football. 15 state titles, including 11 3A titles this century alone. After winning 3A in '19 & '20, Chatard bumped up to 4A for just 1 season. Now back in 3A for the next 2 years.

Andrean-- baseball. 8 state titles, all in 3A from 2005-2022. When playing in 3A, Andrean has won state 5 straight 3A baseball titles-- 22,19,18,15,14. While bumped up to 4A, they lost in Sect (16), lost in Reg (17), Covid (20), lost in Sect (21). Since they earned 0 pts in 1 season '21+the Covid year '20, the IHSAA dropped them to 3A for this season. Mark my words-- Andrean will win at least one, maybe two 3A baseball state titles in '23 & '24 too. And they can thank the IHSAA for the head-scratching decision to drop them down for the '22 season. (All that said, this very-talented Andrean team may have won 4A this year.)

Lafayette Central Catholic-- baseball. 8 state titles, all in 1A from 2004-2022. When playing in 1A, LCC has won state 6 straight 1A baseball titles-- 22,13,12,11,10,09. In this case, I think the SF has gotten things right. During LCC's first 5 years up in 2A, they won 2 Semistates, 4 Regionals & all 5 Sectionals which says to me that LCC is VERY competitive in 2A baseball & should always be playing up there. But then the IHSAA foolishly dropped them back down to 1A in '22 after a Sectional loss in '21+Covid '20. This year, LCC outscored 5 Sect/Reg opponents 53-3, including 2 Top 10 teams. So LCC should send a thank you note to the IHSAA for that 8th 1A trophy. I think Illiana Christian would have beaten them in 2A.

Tecumseh-- softball. 4 state titles, all in 1A from 2009-2022. In this case, my only beef is that IHSAA decision to drop them back down to 1A in '22 after a Sectional loss in '21+Covid '20. Playing up in 2A for the 1st time due to the SF, Tecumseh won 2A Regional in '18 & State runner-up in '19. Again, the IHSAA dropped this perennial power back down to 1A in '22 after a Sectional loss in '21+Covid '20. Even though Tecumseh faced 5 ranked opponents, they still breezed to the 1A title by a combined 51-9 in 6 games. With only 1 regular starter graduating, Tecumseh will surely win 1 or 2 more 1A titles during the upcoming 2-year '23-'24 cycle. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LaSalle Lions 1976 said:

SB St Joe and Marian don't have boundaries.  Kids can go to either school

Most of the state doesn't only allow kids to enroll based on boundaries.  The schools I've taught in have open enrollment and they are all public.  Kids come from other counties or towns/cities and we lose kids all of the time to neighboring districts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my Dad has a good idea. The IHSAA should hand out 6 championship trophies in football-- 1A Champion, 2A Champion, 3A Champion, 4A Champion, 5A Champion and THE STATE CHAMPION. In the 4-class sports, the IHSAA will award a 1A Champion, 2A Champion, 3A Champion and THE STATE CHAMPION. Don't call it 4A (or 6A football) anymore-- maybe you call it Open Class because any school in any sport can choose to compete for THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP during the next 2 year cycle.

Granted, the smaller schools & privates would surely feel insulted by this change. But maybe it would entice some big-time programs (Andrean baseball, Cathedral football) to always compete in the Open Class for the biggest trophy of all instead of only being up in the top class after Success Factor bump-ups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, slice60 said:

I think my Dad has a good idea. The IHSAA should hand out 6 championship trophies in football-- 1A Champion, 2A Champion, 3A Champion, 4A Champion, 5A Champion and THE STATE CHAMPION. In the 4-class sports, the IHSAA will award a 1A Champion, 2A Champion, 3A Champion and THE STATE CHAMPION. Don't call it 4A (or 6A football) anymore-- maybe you call it Open Class because any school in any sport can choose to compete for THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP during the next 2 year cycle.

Granted, the smaller schools & privates would surely feel insulted by this change. But maybe it would entice some big-time programs (Andrean baseball, Cathedral football) to always compete in the Open Class for the biggest trophy of all instead of only being up in the top class after Success Factor bump-ups.

Serious question, do you really think a school like Andrean or Cathedral or Chatard really gives a sh*t when public school zealots try and diminish a state title because it was won in a lower enrollment class? Will assure you nobody from Andrean is losing sleep over what some blowhards on a message board think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2022 at 8:16 PM, BTF said:

No one is equating Dwenger to Cathedral. We know that Dwenger is built from the ground up...........kudos to them.

I agree with DT that we need a multiplier for the private schools. Ninety percent of a private school's population is privy to the kind of training that only 50% of students at a public school can afford. It's easy to preach "stop whining and bitching" when your school is stockpiling trophies at the expense of underprivileged competition. 

In all fairness, a public school that is rated highly in terms of socioeconomic status should also be given the multiplier treatment. 

 

Shouldn't success factor, if done better/correctly, be doing this?  If so, then you don't need a multiplier for just p/p.  If the idea is truly fairness, then it makes sense to spend some time and find the REAL issue tied to imbalance and address it as opposed to just using easy surrogate items like p/p.  Faith Christian is a p/p and, though they are now IHSAA, I can pretty much assure you that they are not "stealing" anyone right to get a blue ring ... in anything.  We also already know that p/p doesn't equate to automatic advantages ... we already had an Orwellian thread a while back that ran alongside the many-times-annually-p/p-Dead-Horse-Athon about how Noll should just hang it up in football.  Faith never had football and probably never will ... and it's not due to the fact that they are a baseball/basketball/*fill-in-the-blank* powerhouse and have just chosen to exploit their neighboring public school victims in that "power sport."

Ultimately, I like the idea of success factor rather than multipliers because it treats all on the basis of PROVEN advantage or PROVEN outcome as opposed to conjecture.  Frankly, if we are being really honest, we should be able to look at the contents of the unmarked box and determine if there an true impact on the balance.  Ultimately, I think that comes in the performance.  Yes, SF is flawed and doesn't adequately do that right now, but put a four year window on it and a couple of other tweaks, and I think we are closer to making it more pragmatic than punitive.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Shouldn't success factor, if done better/correctly, be doing this?  If so, then you don't need a multiplier for just p/p.  If the idea is truly fairness, then it makes sense to spend some time and find the REAL issue tied to imbalance and address it as opposed to just using easy surrogate items like p/p.  Faith Christian is a p/p and, though they are now IHSAA, I can pretty much assure you that they are not "stealing" anyone right to get a blue ring ... in anything.  We also already know that p/p doesn't equate to automatic advantages ... we already had an Orwellian thread a while back that ran alongside the many-times-annually-p/p-Dead-Horse-Athon about how Noll should just hang it up in football.  Faith never had football and probably never will ... and it's not due to the fact that they are a baseball/basketball/*fill-in-the-blank* powerhouse and have just chosen to exploit their neighboring public school victims in that "power sport."

Ultimately, I like the idea of success factor rather than multipliers because it treats all on the basis of PROVEN advantage or PROVEN outcome as opposed to conjecture.  Frankly, if we are being really honest, we should be able to look at the contents of the unmarked box and determine if there an true impact on the balance.  Ultimately, I think that comes in the performance.  Yes, SF is flawed and doesn't adequately do that right now, but put a four year window on it and a couple of other tweaks, and I think we are closer to making it more pragmatic than punitive.

THIS!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever thought of a MULITPLIER with the "out" being a (negative) Success Factor to place them a lower class in line with their actual enrollment?

And, YES I am aware that "tanking" will be the suggestion otherwise.  But I honestly believe that no respectable Coach/School would see that as a legitimate foundation of any extracurricular activity.   

Edited by Yuccaguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Yuccaguy said:

Has anyone ever thought of a MULITPLIER with the "out" being a (negative) Success Factor to place them a lower class in line with their actual enrollment?

And, YES I am aware that "tanking" will be the suggestion otherwise.  But I honestly believe that no respectable Coach/School would see that as a legitimate foundation of any extracurricular activity.   

@Muda69 has brought up relegation for several years now. It's an interesting idea in combination with the success factor. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yuccaguy said:

Has anyone ever thought of a MULITPLIER with the "out" of a (negative) Success Factor to place a non-competitive team in a lower class or their enrollment class;  Based upon their inability to compete at the assigned "multiplied" class?  

And, YES I am aware that "tanking" will be the suggestion otherwise.  But I honestly believe that no respectable Coach/School would see that as a legitimate foundation of any extracurricular activity.   

This has been bantered around, but I suspect that it would be hard to get the backing on this, if it's something like SF where applied, .  It's one thing to put a badge of honor on a team and say, "Hey, you're really good, so we are going to move you up" compared to "Hey, you guys really aren't all that good, so we're going to put you over here in a room with the safety scissors until you can prove to us that you won't put someone's eye out."  OK, I'm be a bit / a lot facetious, but I think you'd get buy in from teams that will never ever have this apply to them to "help the other teams." Kind of like the coach's son is always the first one to vote for extra laps for anyone who's late to practice because he's riding with Dad and knows Dad's never going to be late.  I think most teams/programs in the mix for possibly succumbing to this new badge of "special recognition," would vote against it ... especially if there's ANY chance that it's first few attempts get enacted half-*ssed, pardon my French, the way that SF did.  The tweaking is getting better on SF, but it still needs more work and there are REAL bodies/kids that are in the lab in real time as the experiment is worked out.

If it's something where you'd be eligible and could "opt" for it, I think you might have even fewer teams that would openly ASK to move down.  Most would like to have the ability to say, "They made us move down" or "Well, that's the rule" as opposed to "Can we please move down a level?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Irishman said:

@Muda69 has brought up relegation for several years now. It's an interesting idea in combination with the success factor. 

I think the problem with this is that you are talking about a paid professional sport vs. an extra curricular activity where many of the participants are unpaid, volunteer if you will, participants.  I think there are differences in that ability to get the similar results as an apple-apples comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, foxbat said:

This has been bantered around, but I suspect that it would be hard to get the backing on this, if it's something like SF where applied, .  It's one thing to put a badge of honor on a team and say, "Hey, you're really good, so we are going to move you up" compared to "Hey, you guys really aren't all that good, so we're going to put you over here in a room with the safety scissors until you can prove to us that you won't put someone's eye out."  OK, I'm be a bit / a lot facetious, but I think you'd get buy in from teams that will never ever have this apply to them to "help the other teams." Kind of like the coach's son is always the first one to vote for extra laps for anyone who's late to practice because he's riding with Dad and knows Dad's never going to be late.  I think most teams/programs in the mix for possibly succumbing to this new badge of "special recognition," would vote against it ... especially if there's ANY chance that it's first few attempts get enacted half-*ssed, pardon my French, the way that SF did.  The tweaking is getting better on SF, but it still needs more work and there are REAL bodies/kids that are in the lab in real time as the experiment is worked out.

If it's something where you'd be eligible and could "opt" for it, I think you might have even fewer teams that would openly ASK to move down.  Most would like to have the ability to say, "They made us move down" or "Well, that's the rule" as opposed to "Can we please move down a level?"

I hate to sound like a negative Ned...  but if ya suck because we 'multiplied you' by rule....  There needs to be a corrective action to 'help' you out for a while.  

And yes, we can call it "regulation"...but it's really CORRECTION.  

Edited by Yuccaguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yuccaguy said:

I hate to sound like a negative Ned...  but if ya suck because we 'multiplied you' by rule....  There need to be a corrective action to 'help' you out for a while.  

And yes, we can call it "regulation"...but it's really CORRECTION.  

I agree it sounds logical and makes sense that if you have one, you should have the balance ... I'm just not sure if you put it to a vote of the membership, there would be many takers.  And the fact that there's logic involved makes it now questionable 1) if the IHSAA would consider it in the first place and 2) if they did, how they could make the SF look like the Golden Rule in contrast ... a relative Midas Touch they sometimes have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts.....for years being opposed to the multiplier idea, I tracked season records in each class. This was about a 5 year period in the early days of this site. What I found was that half the teams in each class had 4 wins or less. About 10 in each class had 2 or less. 

My concern is we could possibly relegate so many teams that 1A and maybe 2A is full of them, while 5A and 6A are full of successful teams; to the point you could see 4A and maybe even 5A teams in those relegated classes. I think if that happens, you would see school size being a factor across the board. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, foxbat said:

I agree it sounds logical and makes sense that if you have one, you should have the balance ... I'm just not sure if you put it to a vote of the membership, there would be many takers.  And the fact that there's logic involved makes it now questionable 1) if the IHSAA would consider it in the first place and 2) if they did, how they could make the SF look like the Golden Rule in contrast ... a relative Midas Touch they sometimes have.

Fox, I totally agree with the TRUTH of the situation as it rests with the member schools!  

I just got back from the 2022 IHSAA Baseball Finals, and they were dominated by PP schools (for reasons completely non-related to those schools being primarily PP)

1A - LCC:  A Baseball history that can compete in 2A most years.  But dominates 1A

2A - Illinana Christian:  (a relocated juggernaut from Illinois now in Indiana HS baseball, who benefited from the ALL-IN that Indiana HS sports uses)

3A - Andrean: (Nuff Said).... besides they played Brebeuf

4A - Penn:  I don't think many will shed tears for the Kingsmen; They play great Baseball.  But they did play Cathedral (please don't start in with the Irish...they have had a wonderful program for many seasons) 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Over the past 10 years, the pps as a collective have moved even further ahead of the publics, outkicking the coverage that the SF was supposed to provide.  The biggest single factor that has widened the gap between public and private is Covid, which setback many public school programs 2 to 3 years in their development, while the privates navigated their way through the pandemic flawlessly and used the time period to put even more distance between themselves and the public schools.

We are now back to the early 2000s, where there was talk every year of PPs sweeping the post season tournament.  With Cathedral now in 6A, that possibility is more likely this year than it has ever been before.  

On average, its fair to say that most PP football programs play at a level "2" full classes above their enrollment based classification.  That's not to say that they would dominate playing two classes up, but rather be very competitive, with regular success and solid post season title potential.  

The 2.0 Multiplier is the "only" guaranteed tool that will put pp programs in a long term classification where they truly belong, and one that brings maximum balance to the class system in Indiana

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

10 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

Serious question, do you really think a school like Andrean or Cathedral or Chatard really gives a sh*t when public school zealots try and diminish a state title because it was won in a lower enrollment class? Will assure you nobody from Andrean is losing sleep over what some blowhards on a message board think. 

Serious answer-- no, they do not give a sh*t. However, I would bet that Coach Pishkur would privately acknowledge to his coaching peers that Andrean's 8 3A titles do not equal 8 one-class/4A titles. Same with Coach Bordenet at LCC. 

Don't get me wrong-- those 2 coaches have built fantastic programs & deserve tons of credit. I attended the LP Semistate a week ago & watched LCC beat South Central in extra innings. LCC does not win that game without Coach Bordenet's masterful moves in the bottom of the 7th inning to slow the game momentum & make perfect strategical decisions in order to keep the winning run from scoring the game-ending run after a SC leadoff triple. And, in my opinion, Coach Pishkur & Andrean have arguably had the best team in any class during several of their championship seasons, including '22.

You can call me a jealous & petty Slicer fan living in the past (guilty as charged) but I believe that LP's 8 baseball titles (7 in single class, 1 in 4A) is greater than Andrean's 8 titles in 3A & LCC's 8 titles in 1A. While Andrean can compete with anybody in any season, they won just 1 Sectional while bumped up to 4A in '16, '17, 21. And during the one-class system, they had a great run in the late-80s & 90s but never broke through with a trip to the Final Four.

In terms of record-book accomplishments, I would place Jasper's 6 baseball titles (2 in one-class, 3 in 3A & the 4A title in '21) & Penn's 5 baseball titles (1 in one-class, 4 in 4A) above Andrean & LCC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, foxbat said:

This has been bantered around, but I suspect that it would be hard to get the backing on this, if it's something like SF where applied, .  It's one thing to put a badge of honor on a team and say, "Hey, you're really good, so we are going to move you up" compared to "Hey, you guys really aren't all that good, so we're going to put you over here in a room with the safety scissors until you can prove to us that you won't put someone's eye out."  OK, I'm be a bit / a lot facetious, but I think you'd get buy in from teams that will never ever have this apply to them to "help the other teams."

Yep, may hurt some teenager's or coaches widdle feelings.......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, foxbat said:

We also already know that p/p doesn't equate to automatic advantages

This is simply not true.  Every beating heart at a P/P has parents who have paid for a service and expect results.  The enrollment make up is completely different...so different in fact it is literally apples and oranges.  Quality, hard-working, success oriented, extracurricular participating students are at nearly 100% levels at a P/P (regardless if mom and dad drive a Chevy Cruze or a Bentley).  This is not the case at any public school no matter how good their free and assisted lunch numbers are or how rural/metro/affluent they are or anything else.  

Publics and P/Ps can both have all the things that make a football program successful or only a smaller subset of them....that's where these discussions always go and frankly it doesn't matter.  I won't list them all out as we all know what they are.  The enrollment type disparity will always be the issue and that is what makes multipliers attractive because it makes an attempt to address that issue with some crude math.

As an example.  I believe that Mater Dei (496) and Gibson Southern (704) run about the same in terms of the number of the type student I described above.  Ideally these two schools should be in the same classification if we want a fair system.

 

 

Edited by Titan32
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...