Jump to content
The Gridiron Digest

2.0 Multiplier Required to Fix Lower Class Competitive Balance Inequities


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Is it just me or is this conversation like listening to an 8-track tape that’s stuck on track 1. 

It came out of the player unraveled and @DT keeps rewinding it.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2022 at 10:20 AM, DT said:

278    Lafayette Central Catholic    296 x 2 = 592  Bump to 3A

LCC now has more 9-12 students than it's former HHC "competition", the Clinton Central Bulldogs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

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.

 

 

Not every p/p has a good football program regardless the percentage of students competing in extracurriculars. That's why the success factor, not multiplier, makes more sense. Park Tudor has always been one of the largest 1A schools and on a per capita basis is the wealthiest school in Indiana with the exception of maybe Culver Military and they haven't won a sectional since 2005. Hell, until last year, they hadn't had a winning season in over a decade. By @temptationmetrics, Park Tudor should be running away with state titles on the gridiron given their high enrollment number and extremely low SES numbers.

Silly to just start multiplying non-existent students to a school's enrollment because of perceived advantages that may not actually take place. The thought of Park Tudor playing 3A football because they have a bunch of students who play golf, lacrosse, and tennis is laughable. Let's let Park Tudor have some success in 1A and bump them up in the event of it happening rather than just adding nearly 400 mythical students to their enrollment. Seems practical, no?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

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.

 

 

Then why hasn't Noll had a winning season since 2006?  And again, I pointed out Faith Christian.  Why aren't they dominating IHSAA in the sports in the ones that they play?

As I pointed out, there was an Orwellian situation where we had  a thread here on GID talking about this very issue of blanket multipliers in one thread and, in another thread, at the same time, someone calling for Noll to be put out of their misery and contract/just stop trying football.  A 2.0 multiplier system would take a 2A school with roughly 500 students, which incidentally hasn't won more than one game per season in the last seven years, and thrust them into 4A.  Can you honestly state that is what you are looking for?  Or are you looking for, as you mentioned, schools like Mater Dei or Chatard or LCC or Cathedral to have to play up?  If it's the former, then it's a more punitive system; if it's the latter, then it's more based on outcome.  If we are really looking at that idea of fairness/balance/etc., then again, a performance-based/outcome-based system tends to be better at addressing the REALIZED advantage. 

And it also, very quickly does away with the p/p vs. public threads and also does away with subjectivity or having to convince folks of anything.  Right now, we keep rehashing this topic like the blind men describing the elephant and trying to determine whether we should keep it in the garage.  The guy who feels the trunk says, "It's just like a snake, so sure, let it in."  The guy who feels the ears says, "Well, it's probably not going to like it in a garage because it can't fly around, but what the heck."  The guy who feels the tail says, "It's just like rope and there's already rope in the garage, so sure let it in."  On the other hand, if we all agree, without even seeing what it is, that if it crushes a car when it sits on it it shouldn't be in the garage, then frankly I don't care if it's an elephant or a bird or a snake or rope.  It doesn't go in the garage.

Similarly, I don't care if it's p/p, a rich public school, a really big consolidated school, a rich school that only cares about the arts, or a really poor school that only cars about sports, inner-city/country, urban/suburban, or an average school that really only cares about academics, but likes to have some EC activities.  If it crushes the brackets, so to say, then it moves up.  If it has no impact on brackets, then why make the school dedicated to the arts potentially have to play up a couple classes if it's interested on football on the same level that some sports-crazed schools are interested in the chess teams?

 

 

 

Edited by foxbat
System double-posted for some reason.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

For the record guys...I didn't say I was for a multiplier.  What I do say is the current success factor is NOT working well.

What isn't working?

The purpose of the success factor wasn't to prevent private schools from ever winning state titles by the way. 

Edited by Footballking16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Not every p/p has a good football program regardless the percentage of students competing in extracurriculars. That's why the success factor, not multiplier, makes more sense. Park Tudor has always been one of the largest 1A schools and on a per capita basis is the wealthiest school in Indiana with the exception of maybe Culver Military and they haven't won a sectional since 2005. Hell, until last year, they hadn't had a winning season in over a decade. By @temptationmetrics, Park Tudor should be running away with state titles on the gridiron given their high enrollment number and extremely low SES numbers.

Silly to just start multiplying non-existent students to a school's enrollment because of perceived advantages that may not actually take place. The thought of Park Tudor playing 3A football because they have a bunch of students who play golf, lacrosse, and tennis is laughable. Let's let Park Tudor have some success in 1A and bump them up in the event of it happening rather than just adding nearly 400 mythical students to their enrollment. Seems practical, no?

Eh, as another poster mentioned about Liberty Christian, Park Tudor’s focus has been basketball.

They are 172-66 over the last decade and probably boasted two teams that could have competed for the 4A title.

Their facilities have experienced a fairly significant upgrade and it appears their football program is on the precipice of turning the corner.  Even you can’t deny that.  They’ll get a title sooner rather than later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Titan32 said:

For the record guys...I didn't say I was for a multiplier.  What I do say is the current success factor is NOT working well.

Well then we are in agreement.  I even acknowledged the same in the post that you grabbed a single sentence out of:

From the same post:

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, temptation said:

Eh, as another poster mentioned about Liberty Christian, Park Tudor’s focus has been basketball.

They are 172-66 over the last decade and probably boasted two teams that could have competed for the 4A title.

Their facilities have experienced a fairly significant upgrade and it appears their football program is on the precipice of turning the corner.  Even you can’t deny that.  They’ll get a title sooner rather than later.

Lol.

The reason Park Tudor has 1 winning season in the last 16 years has nothing to do with their facilities by the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a coach at small school for the past 10+years here I can say one thing about PP every time we have played them, they have had bigger numbers and bigger staff's, which I believe that second part matters more. With modern football, the ability of a bigger staff can make practice more individualize for all positions on a team/JV as well. Most of the time bigger staff means more stipend money for them which it's hard to get people to come out and coach for a small school team for free these days, especially someone who knows what they are doing and not just a parent who will be around for 2 years then leave once their kid graduates. It's even harder to find teachers who coach with the shortage on top of all this. Now that being said here at South Putnam we will never shy away from PP, because that's not how we are built but majority of 1A programs in Indiana don't have a chance to stand up to them simply because of these reasons here. Most smalls schools through the decades had to wait for that once in a generation group of kids to come through but I will say it is easier to get that one extra lineman or one extra WR when there are no recruiting rules for you at PP to fill the gaps of needs, not saying any of them still do this or not that we play just in general those are the rules for PP, I.E. none.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Lol.

The reason Park Tudor has 1 winning season in the last 16 years has nothing to do with their facilities by the way. 

Way to:

1.  Draw that conclusion from my post.  I was simply stating that it appears Park Tudor’s commitment to football seems to be turning the corner.

2.  Ignore 90 percent of the substance in my post and focus on your ridiculously drawn conclusion.

 

We we’re just starting to get along too…damn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Well then we are in agreement.  I even acknowledged the same in the post that you grabbed a single sentence out of:

From the same post:

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.

Fair enough, I was just pointing out the real issue with P/Ps vs Publics....enrollment type per capita.  It really is that simple.  How to fix it, not so simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Fair enough, I was just pointing out the real issue with P/Ps vs Publics....enrollment type per capita.  It really is that simple.  How to fix it, not so simple.

But those various arguments exist in publics as well ... we've already seen it in GID as well talking about the FRL/SES aspects ... although we often tend to lay that yoke on P/P or successful publics.  To show you how skewed this goes, and I kid you not on this, when I played ball in Texas, I went to a very, predominantly White school public school ... the demographics of that school have now shifted away from that demographic predominance.  We were a fairly well-known school in the area/state/nation for academics, sports, arts, etc.  One year, something happened to our schedule and, rather than playing our traditional suburban schedule, we played a school from the inner-city.  After having our *sses handed to us on a platter in that game, I recall some of my teammates grousing on the LONG bus ride about how unfair the pairing was because that school was very, predominantly-Black and had all the "natural athletes."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

What isn't working?

The purpose of the success factor wasn't to prevent private schools from ever winning state titles by the way. 

The purpose of the SF was to provide more balance.  It has not achieved that primary objective.  We have more imbalance today than ever, and stronger and deeper PPs at the top of every class

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, temptation said:

Way to:

1.  Draw that conclusion from my post.  I was simply stating that it appears Park Tudor’s commitment to football seems to be turning the corner.

2.  Ignore 90 percent of the substance in my post and focus on your ridiculously drawn conclusion.

 

We we’re just starting to get along too…damn.

Park Tudor is the perfect example of the advantages of small school private football.  One day, PT decided to be a state contender in football after ignoring the sport for decades.  Two years later they are being mentioned as a state contender.  You can spend, hire and recruit your way to the top very quickly as a private (Hello Covenant Christian) .  Publics do not have those capabilities.

Edited by DT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DT said:

The purpose of the SF was to provide more balance.  It has not achieved that primary objective.  We have more imbalance today than ever, and stronger and deeper PPs at the top of every class

LOL.

There's going to be haves and have nots regardless of what you do to the P/P's. Multiplying the P/P's by however many students isn't going to address the issue of competitive balance. The purpose of the SF wasn't to prevent the P/P's from ever winning a state title again. Multiply the P/P enrollments by 2 and now you're just going to have the same one or two public schools win in class 1A and 2A every year, how does that address competitive balance.

If you don't want the P/P's to ever win a state title again, then put them in their own division. However, the IHSAA knows that'll never hold up. 

2 minutes ago, DT said:

Park Tudor is the perfect example of the advantages of small school private football.  One day, PT decided to be a state contender in football after ignoring the sport for decades.  Two years later they are being mentioned as a state contender.  You can spend, hire and recruit your way to the top very quickly as a private (Hello Covenant Christian) .  Publics do not have those capabilities.

Who is mentioning Park Tudor as a state title contender other than you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

There's going to be haves and have nots regardless of what you do to the P/P's. Multiplying the P/P's by however many students isn't going to address the issue of competitive balance. The purpose of the SF wasn't to prevent the P/P's from ever winning a state title again. Multiply the P/P enrollments by 2 and now you're just going to have the same one or two public schools win in class 1A and 2A every year, how does that address competitive balance.

Which is why the IHSAA needs to stop screwing around with a success factor or multipliers and implement a true system of promotion and relegation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

But those various arguments exist in publics as well ... we've already seen it in GID as well talking about the FRL/SES aspects ... although we often tend to lay that yoke on P/P or successful publics.  To show you how skewed this goes, and I kid you not on this, when I played ball in Texas, I went to a very, predominantly White school public school ... the demographics of that school have now shifted away from that demographic predominance.  We were a fairly well-known school in the area/state/nation for academics, sports, arts, etc.  One year, something happened to our schedule and, rather than playing our traditional suburban schedule, we played a school from the inner-city.  After having our *sses handed to us on a platter in that game, I recall some of my teammates grousing on the LONG bus ride about how unfair the pairing was because that school was very, predominantly-Black and had all the "natural athletes."

 

No that doesn't work, just because at the P/Ps one pays to be in a club with like minded students/athletes, one shouldn't be afforded the reward of classification that only counts bodies.  Said another way, if we have 20% of our student population only showing up because they have a pulse and the law says they have to be there...why should we (3A rural public), be punished for that.  If we could ship those kids to a 2A P/P...suddenly now that P/P would be 3A and have a lot more administrative things to worry about..

This is the main reason of the disparity in football success (using body counting) for schools that also have the other things it takes to be successful in football.

Edited by Titan32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

No that doesn't work, just because at the P/Ps one pays to be in a club with like minded students/athletes, one shouldn't be afforded the reward of classification that only counts bodies.  Said another way, if we have 20% of our student population only showing up because they have a pulse and the law says they have to be there...why should we (3A rural public), be punished for that.  If we could ship those kids to a 2A P/P...suddenly now that P/P would be 3A and have a lot more administrative things to worry about..

This is the main reason of the disparity in football success (using body counting) for schools that also have the other things it takes to be successful in football.

Which is exactly why the Success Factor was implemented instead of a multiplier. Having heavy extracurricular participation numbers doesn't automatically equate to success; see my point about Park Tudor football. What kind of participation numbers do you think a school like Hammond Noll enjoys? why should their enrollment be doubled?

Bump up the individual team, not entire school, for the programs who show success. Seems rather simple to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Which is exactly why the Success Factor was implemented instead of a multiplier. Having heavy extracurricular participation numbers doesn't automatically equate to success; see my point about Park Tudor football. What kind of participation numbers do you think a school like Hammond Noll enjoys? why should their enrollment be doubled?

Bump up the individual team, not entire school, for the programs who show success. Seems rather simple to me. 

No arguments regarding multipliers not applying to P/Ss that focus on synchronized swimming.  But for schools that have the football pieces in place....the only issue is the one I described.  Perhaps a modified success factor can fix that...but the enrollments are so catastrophically different between P/Ps and even successful publics ...student type is the fundamental issue.  A pay to play club and a mandatory institution have very little in common.

Edited by Titan32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

No arguments regarding multipliers not applying to P/Ss that focus on synchronized swimming.  But for schools that have the football pieces in place....the only issue is the one I described.  Perhaps a modified success factor can fix that...but the enrollments are so catastrophically different between P/Ps and even successful publics ...student type is the fundamental issue.  A pay to play club and a mandatory institution have very little in common.


I think the Success Factor should be moved from a 2 year cycle to a 4 year cycle. Accrue anything less than 4 points and you bump back to your original class, accrue anywhere from 4 to 6 points you remain in your current class and anything over 7 you're bumped another class.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

I think the Success Factor should be moved from a 2 year cycle to a 4 year cycle. Accrue anything less than 4 points and you bump back to your original class, accrue anywhere from 4 to 6 points you remain in your current class and anything over 7 you're bumped another class.  

I believe initially it was a 4 year cycle for Success Factor, but then it was changed to the 2 year cycle. I believe the 2 year cycle is better. Imagine a small 1A school that isn't private school has an amazing class of athletes that win a sectional (1pt), regional (2pts) then State title (4pts). That's 7 points now accumulated.

But then they graduate.

The 4 classes behind them have to play up a class their entire high school careers because of a once in a lifetime run from their small community.

2 year cycle has been a better change in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NLCTigerFan07 said:

I believe initially it was a 4 year cycle for Success Factor, but then it was changed to the 2 year cycle. I believe the 2 year cycle is better. Imagine a small 1A school that isn't private school has an amazing class of athletes that win a sectional (1pt), regional (2pts) then State title (4pts). That's 7 points now accumulated.

But then they graduate.

The 4 classes behind them have to play up a class their entire high school careers because of a once in a lifetime run from their small community.

2 year cycle has been a better change in my opinion.

Is there any examples of a 1A school where a team has ridden a good group of sophomores and juniors to a sectional and regional title and then won it all the following year only to completely fall off a cliff? Not saying it hasn't or couldn't happen but that I think that is an absolute extreme scenario.

Honestly haven't tracked the SF in the lower classes, is there any example(s) of teams with little to no football history bumping up a class due to a one and a lifetime class? Just going off memory, the teams that have bumped up were all usual suspects and the ones that weren't New Pal have completely elevated their level of play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2022 at 9:39 AM, DT said:

The "private training" comes in the form of CYO football.  Many public school kids are putting on pads and helmet for the first time in high school while their PP counterparts have been playing organized football with specialized coaching with a 5 to 7 year head start.  Even if public school kids play junior high football , they are coached by very young, inexperienced guys who are trying to work their way up to the varsity staff.  

This is the "secret sauce" of PP football.  Young PP players are learning how to pull, pass protect and trap block while their public opponents are still playing video games at home after school.  

There are many public schools who have tried to duplicate/replicate the CYO model in a public environment.

Some of the best are :

Center Grove

Eastbrook

FW Snider

Hobart

South Adams

Adams Central

Michigan City

New Prairie

Brownstown Central

Heritage Hills

 

 

Sorry, most CYO coaches are the dad's who volunteer to coach. PAL football,  Carroll in Fort Wayne, Homestead and even Leo have youth football programs starting in 4th and 5th grade. So you are just wrong. I thought this was about 1A and 2A. Success factor will move your schools out of your way so you can win. 

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...