Jump to content
The Gridiron Digest

2.0 Multiplier Required to Fix Lower Class Competitive Balance Inequities


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

To quote Turd Ferguson-"Who you crappin'?"

Whatever happen to old Turd? 

And speaking of such, probably need to pull that old thread out of the archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mebuck said:

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. 

That argument about public schools somehow being hobbled because they don't have youth programs and CYO having the "secret sauce" doesn't hold water other than in situational aspects.  I'm pushing six decades now and I started playing tackle football in second grade in the public parks program in New Orleans.  Mind you that New Orleans is a city where roughly 1/3 of its schools are p/p.  Youth programs, en mass, have been around for a long time.  As a matter of fact, the vast majority of p/p schools in New Orleans when I grew up saw their players play youth ball in the public park system.  I went to Catholic elementary school and, while the Catholic elementary school had a team, I played ball, along with many of my peers, in the park system.  The idea that somehow CYO came up with this.

As a side note, when the LCC youth program started, it was actually formed by LCC, West Lafayette, McCutcheon, and I'm forgetting the name of the fourth program, but it was a public school system.  There was nothing CYOish about, but just a bunch of folks from the area that decided to bring youth ball to the area for the kids back in the 1980s or so.  When I came to Indiana, coming from Louisiana and Texas where youth ball was a staple across the area, I found it quite odd to hear that youth ball was not, in the latter part of the 20th century, a foundation of an area with a 6A, 2 5A, and a 3A school.  I wonder if that was attributable to the Indiana basketball focus for so long.  Like I said, six decades ago in Louisiana and Texas, it was fully-established and a staple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mebuck said:

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. 

Just because they don't get paid doesn't mean they aren't quality coaches.

Case in point is the dominance of the Fort Wayne CYO against the South Bend/Mishawaka ICCL over the years.

Edited by LaSalle Lions 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

Which is exactly why the Success Factor was implemented instead of a multiplier.

That and the talk of a possible discrimination lawsuit brought against the IHSAA by P/P member schools if a multiplier was enacted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Well yeah, why wouldn't they?

Exactly.  Lawyers for the Catholic church have enough experience with litigation that suing the IHSAA into submission should be child's play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Exactly.  Lawyers for the Catholic church have enough experience with litigation that suing the IHSAA into submission should be child's play.

Why would the Catholic Church sue the IHSAA over artificially inflating school enrollments? You realize that not every P/P is a catholic school correct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Why would the Catholic Church sue the IHSAA over artificially inflating school enrollments? 

It's discrimination against a particular form of school.  The success factor can affect every school, government and p/p alike.

4 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

You realize that not every P/P is a catholic school correct? 

Yes. Catholic school barristers could just be one part of a legal team representing all p/p schools, Catholic or otherwise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Footballking16 said:

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. 

Did a very quick check, so this may not be complete, but take a look:

  • Adams Central - Had a regional in 98, another in 99, and a state in 2000.  I'm not sure if I'd classify after that as a falloff.  They did have the next two years without a sectional, but then had a regional in 2003, a sectional in 2004, a regional in 2005, a sectional in 2006, and then four seasons through 2010 without a sectional.  Leading into their last state appearance in 2021, there were two regionals in 2018/2019 and no sectional in 2020.
  • Sheridan - This one probably ends up being the one we'd expect without looking at the data given that they've had lots of state runs and haven't been back in the mix in the last 5-10 years.  Sheridan had a 4-peat visit/3-peat win cycle at LOS from 2005-2008.  The following two seasons, they didn't have a sectional, but did have regionals in 2011 and 2012, before running into LCC both seasons in semi-state on the backend of LCC's four-peat run.  Since then, they've yet to secure a sectional.
  • Linton - Linton had a run of moderate success in the latter part of the 2000s and into the 2010s.  Prior to getting to state, they had a run of three straight regionals followed by a sectional from 2011-2014.  There were two state visits in 2015 and 2016 resulting in a blue ring and an "invitation" from Uncle SF to come take a look at 2A.  Enrollment has kept them in 2A, so even though Uncle Sf came for them, they would have probably only had a another couple of years in 1A before the crystal flower in their palm started to blink ... Last Day. 
  • Pioneer - Like Linton, LCC, and Sheridan, also received a visit from Uncle SF.  Like Sheridan in their heyday, you can make an argument that they were power program rather than just a really good class.  One thing that you do have to take into account, when looking at their data is that it is going to look "lighter" than it really is due to the fact that Pioneer and LCC tended to be in the same sectional or regional and often knocked each other off in the early part of the tourney even though one or both were likely ranked top 5 at the time.  As such, there are a couple years, like 2009, where it looks like Pioneer didn't even win a sectional game, but when they lost to LCC that season, I think Pioneer was ranked #1.  You can probably argue that the 1997 state champ team was a class and year item given that the three seasons before and the three seasons after, they didn't win sectional titles.  A sectional, regional, sectional, semi, section title run from 2013-2015 preceded the three-peat visits / 2-peat win LOS trips in 2016, 2017, 2018.  Then Uncle SF came calling.
  • LCC - LCC won state in 1999.  From 1994-1998, LCC did not win any sectional titles.  From 2000 - 2004, LCC also did not win any sectionals.  A lone sectional win in 2005 and then no titles again from 2006-2008.  The four-peat run hit from 2009-2012 resulting in four blue rings.  Then Uncle SF came calling.  LCC actually picked up a regional in the second year of the two-year cycle in 2014.  Back down to 1A in 2015 with a state title followed by a sectional in 2016 ... run ended by Pioneer.  Then Pioneer struck and knocked them out of sectionals in both 2017-2018.  A state title in 2019, followed by a regional in 2020, and Uncle SF came calling again.
  • Scecina - Looking at just their 1A time, Scecina, prior to the 2-peat visit to LOS in 2011-2012 had no sectional titles from 2003-2010.  Scecina has the distinct "pleasure" of being the poster child for the exception for Uncle SF in that he came calling before they could place that blue ring on their hand.  They are the only team to be SF'd who did not pick up a blue ring on the way to their next-class invitation.  Scecina grew in size and never dropped back down to 2A .  They've had moderate success in 2A with three sectionals and two regionals sprinkled over nine seasons in 2A.
  • South Adams - This might be the one team that actually gets closest to the criteria and the spirit of the question asked, but we are too close to the results to know the answer.  Had a sectional in 2019, a state visit in 2020, and a sectional in 2021.
  • Lutheran - Been around since 2005.  Had a sectional in 2009 and then a streak of four regionals and a sectional from 2014-2018 en route to a showdown with LCC in 2019 at LOS and then a 2021 state title.  As such, I would say that the idea of build-up and let down isn't necessarily applicable here either.

There may be more that are in play and may reveal a match to your criteria, but these are the ones that we'd been looking at to start with.  Notice that, in the above mix, of the eight listed, four of them were SF'd, with LCC being SF'd twice, Pioneer not yet bouncing down, and Linton and Scecina growing into staying.  Of the other four, Sheridan might be the only one where you could argue that the program dropped off, but even in that case, Sheridan had a pair of semi-state visits in 2011 and 2012 AFTER the four-peat visit/three-peat win in the period 2005-2008.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, foxbat said:

Did a very quick check, so this may not be complete, but take a look:

  • Adams Central - Had a regional in 98, another in 99, and a state in 2000.  I'm not sure if I'd classify after that as a falloff.  They did have the next two years without a sectional, but then had a regional in 2003, a sectional in 2004, a regional in 2005, a sectional in 2006, and then four seasons through 2010 without a sectional.  Leading into their last state appearance in 2021, there were two regionals in 2018/2019 and no sectional in 2020.
  • Sheridan - This one probably ends up being the one we'd expect without looking at the data given that they've had lots of state runs and haven't been back in the mix in the last 5-10 years.  Sheridan had a 4-peat visit/3-peat win cycle at LOS from 2005-2008.  The following two seasons, they didn't have a sectional, but did have regionals in 2011 and 2012, before running into LCC both seasons in semi-state on the backend of LCC's four-peat run.  Since then, they've yet to secure a sectional.
  • Linton - Linton had a run of moderate success in the latter part of the 2000s and into the 2010s.  Prior to getting to state, they had a run of three straight regionals followed by a sectional from 2011-2014.  There were two state visits in 2015 and 2016 resulting in a blue ring and an "invitation" from Uncle SF to come take a look at 2A.  Enrollment has kept them in 2A, so even though Uncle Sf came for them, they would have probably only had a another couple of years in 1A before the crystal flower in their palm started to blink ... Last Day. 
  • Pioneer - Like Linton, LCC, and Sheridan, also received a visit from Uncle SF.  Like Sheridan in their heyday, you can make an argument that they were power program rather than just a really good class.  One thing that you do have to take into account, when looking at their data is that it is going to look "lighter" than it really is due to the fact that Pioneer and LCC tended to be in the same sectional or regional and often knocked each other off in the early part of the tourney even though one or both were likely ranked top 5 at the time.  As such, there are a couple years, like 2009, where it looks like Pioneer didn't even win a sectional game, but when they lost to LCC that season, I think Pioneer was ranked #1.  You can probably argue that the 1997 state champ team was a class and year item given that the three seasons before and the three seasons after, they didn't win sectional titles.  A sectional, regional, sectional, semi, section title run from 2013-2015 preceded the three-peat visits / 2-peat win LOS trips in 2016, 2017, 2018.  Then Uncle SF came calling.
  • LCC - LCC won state in 1999.  From 1994-1998, LCC did not win any sectional titles.  From 2000 - 2004, LCC also did not win any sectionals.  A lone sectional win in 2005 and then no titles again from 2006-2008.  The four-peat run hit from 2009-2012 resulting in four blue rings.  Then Uncle SF came calling.  LCC actually picked up a regional in the second year of the two-year cycle in 2014.  Back down to 1A in 2015 with a state title followed by a sectional in 2016 ... run ended by Pioneer.  Then Pioneer struck and knocked them out of sectionals in both 2017-2018.  A state title in 2019, followed by a regional in 2020, and Uncle SF came calling again.
  • Scecina - Looking at just their 1A time, Scecina, prior to the 2-peat visit to LOS in 2011-2012 had no sectional titles from 2003-2010.  Scecina has the distinct "pleasure" of being the poster child for the exception for Uncle SF in that he came calling before they could place that blue ring on their hand.  They are the only team to be SF'd who did not pick up a blue ring on the way to their next-class invitation.  Scecina grew in size and never dropped back down to 2A .  They've had moderate success in 2A with three sectionals and two regionals sprinkled over nine seasons in 2A.
  • South Adams - This might be the one team that actually gets closest to the criteria and the spirit of the question asked, but we are too close to the results to know the answer.  Had a sectional in 2019, a state visit in 2020, and a sectional in 2021.
  • Lutheran - Been around since 2005.  Had a sectional in 2009 and then a streak of four regionals and a sectional from 2014-2018 en route to a showdown with LCC in 2019 at LOS and then a 2021 state title.  As such, I would say that the idea of build-up and let down isn't necessarily applicable here either.

There may be more that are in play and may reveal a match to your criteria, but these are the ones that we'd been looking at to start with.  Notice that, in the above mix, of the eight listed, four of them were SF'd, with LCC being SF'd twice, Pioneer not yet bouncing down, and Linton and Scecina growing into staying.  Of the other four, Sheridan might be the only one where you could argue that the program dropped off, but even in that case, Sheridan had a pair of semi-state visits in 2011 and 2012 AFTER the four-peat visit/three-peat win in the period 2005-2008.

 

Thanks.

All those programs I would categorize as either historically good to currently good. Sheridan is probably the only team of that bunch who can't rebuild or retool in the event they were bumped to 2A nowadays but I'm willing to concede Sheridan would absolutely live through a grace period in which they were forced to play in 2A if it meant winning a state title. I'm guessing that would be the case for just about any 1A school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

It's discrimination against a particular form of school.  The success factor can affect every school, government and p/p alike.

Yes. Catholic school barristers could just be one part of a legal team representing all p/p schools, Catholic or otherwise.

 

Please stop with the discrimination lawsuit stuff. Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Please stop with the discrimination lawsuit stuff. Not a snowball’s chance in hell.

Once again, I was too slow and ran out of time to edit. Let me explain.

The IHSAA can be treated as a quasi-governmental entity when it deals with individuals in, for example, eligibility decisions. That’s why they often lose those lawsuits. But not so when they are dealing with their own member institutions. That’s completely different. There, they can essentially only be sued by a member institution  for violating their own rules. That’s because the rules are the equivalent of the terms of a contract with the member institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Once again, I was too slow and ran out of time to edit. Let me explain.

The IHSAA can be treated as a quasi-governmental entity when it deals with individuals in, for example, eligibility decisions. That’s why they often lose those lawsuits. But not so when they are dealing with their own member institutions. That’s completely different. There, they can essentially only be sued by a member institution  for violating their own rules. That’s because the rules are the equivalent of the terms of a contract with the member institution.

Will defer to you, but is there anything written in a contract that states the IHSAA can selectively manipulate member institutions enrollments for their own purpose? Wouldn't selectively choosing a handful of schools to artificially inflate their enrollment numbers be some form of discrimination? 

I could be way off base but isn't that a plausible reason why the IHSAA went with the success factor as it could be applied to all schools rather than the multiplier that theoretically discriminates only against a handful of schools? Or is to gray of an area that the IHSAA rather avoid altogether.

I know other states have multipliers, but not familiar with the route taken as to how they were implemented and what kind of leg P/P's had to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Footballking16 said:

Will defer to you, but is there anything written in a contract that states the IHSAA can selectively manipulate member institutions enrollments for their own purpose? Wouldn't selectively choosing a handful of schools to artificially inflate their enrollment numbers be some form of discrimination? 

I could be way off base but isn't that a plausible reason why the IHSAA went with the success factor as it could be applied to all schools rather than the multiplier that theoretically discriminates only against a handful of schools? Or is to gray of an area that the IHSAA rather avoid altogether.

I know other states have multipliers, but not familiar with the route taken as to how they were implemented and what kind of leg P/P's had to stand on.

There’s no doubt that the IHSAA is litigation-averse, and that may be one of the reasons they implemented the SF instead of the multiplier, aside from the fact that it is infinitely more fair. Whether their fear of litigation was actually justified is another issue. “Discrimination” gets a bad rap, because people automatically think that all forms of discrimination are illegal. But there are actually very few forms of discrimination that are addressed by litigation. Race, creed, national origin, gender (sometimes), age (sometimes), sexual orientation (sometimes).  Perhaps a few others.But there are lots of forms of discrimination that do not run counter to the law. Suppose a private employer decided he would hire only left-handed people because he was left-handed. Could a right-handed person denied a job sue him for that discrimination? Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bobref said:

There’s no doubt that the IHSAA is litigation-averse, and that may be one of the reasons they implemented the SF instead of the multiplier, aside from the fact that it is infinitely more fair. Whether their fear of litigation was actually justified is another issue. “Discrimination” gets a bad rap, because people automatically think that all forms of discrimination are illegal. But there are actually very few forms of discrimination that are addressed by litigation. Race, creed, national origin, gender (sometimes), age (sometimes), sexual orientation (sometimes).  Perhaps a few others.But there are lots of forms of discrimination that do not run counter to the law. Suppose a private employer decided he would hire only left-handed people because he was left-handed. Could a right-handed person denied a job sue him for that discrimination? Nope.

Goes to protected class status, right?  And "handed-ness" is not a protected class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Goes to protected class status, right?  And "handed-ness" is not a protected class.

That’s actually a more understandable way to express it. You’re protected from discrimination if you fall into one of those classes. But if you don’t, tough luck. Now some places have local laws that expand the list of protected classes. But still, protection is not available if your class is not on the list.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bobref said:

Suppose a private employer decided he would hire only left-handed people because he was left-handed. Could a right-handed person denied a job sue him for that discrimination? Nope.

As a left-handed individual I support this initiative.  After all we lefties are the only ones in our right minds..............

Edited by Muda69
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

As a left-handed individual I support this initiative.  After all we lefties are the only ones in our right minds..............

Neurological humor! Love it!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 3:13 PM, Muda69 said:

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.  

Argentina's system is probably the best, but since you don't get to choose your players, it won't be like promotion and relegation in most sports.   Usually, the most money wins.  

On 6/21/2022 at 10:50 AM, Muda69 said:

Exactly.  Lawyers for the Catholic church have enough experience with litigation that suing the IHSAA into submission should be child's play.

That's not the smartest thing I've read.  The supporters would probably volunteer their expertise. 

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...