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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

So, while the debate over recruiting continues ................


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Just a dad said:

Catholics have more “athletes per capita” due to all of the calisthenics they do in mass. Stand, sit, kneel, sit, stand, walk to the alter, genuflect, walk back, turn and shake hands, sit, stand…Did I miss any? Now we know the real secret to their success. 

You seem at least reasonably intelligent.  Are you are really going to deny the difference in student populations and that it should merely be ignored and/or that it isn't a huge advantage in a enrollment only based system?  To your earlier point, many family make this "sacrifice" based on educational opportunities.....that really doesn't matter at all.  Whatever the reasons are it results in a completely different student population with drastically less deadweight.  I am ok with all of that, but if we want the classes to be as close as we can get them to like for like.....this situation has to be accounted for.  I think it says alot about the real motives of private parents who are staunchly against it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

You seem at least reasonably intelligent.  Are you are really going to deny the difference in student populations and that it should merely be ignored and/or that it isn't a huge advantage in a enrollment only based system?  To your earlier point, many family make this "sacrifice" based on educational opportunities.....that really doesn't matter at all.  Whatever the reasons are it results in a completely different student population with drastically less deadweight.  I am ok with all of that, but if we want the classes to be as close as we can get them to like for like.....this situation has to be accounted for.  I think it says alot about the real motives of private parents who are staunchly against it.

Whenever I look at our student population, we have some kids in special needs classes that do count towards our enrollment that could never be included in a pool of students involved in extra curriculars. When I pulled up Mater Dei and Providence's faculty members, they do not seem to have a special education department. I think this sir is what you are eluding to. I've coached kids that have had to quit playing football and other sports because they have had to work to help support their family. Probably not a common thing at Mater Dei. All enrollments are not equal.

I don't have a big problem with any school recruiting kids for any reason. I just think everyone should be held to the same set of rules if they are competing against each other. Maybe the IHSAA should set some restrictions on movement such as a student can only have full eligibility for the school they begin the school with, unless there is a physical move. 

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

7 minutes ago, JQWL said:

Whenever I look at our student population, we have some kids in special needs classes that do count towards our enrollment that could never be included in a pool of students involved in extra curriculars. 1.)When I pulled up Mater Dei and Providence's faculty members, they do not seem to have a special education department. I think this sir is what you are eluding to. I've coached kids that have had to quit playing football and other sports because they have had to work to help support their family. Probably not a common thing at Mater Dei. All enrollments are not equal.

I don't have a big problem with any school recruiting kids for any reason. I just think everyone should be held to the same set of rules if they are competing against each other. 2.)Maybe the IHSAA should set some restrictions on movement such as a student can only have full eligibility for the school they begin the school with, unless there is a physical move

1.) There are Private / Parochial Schools with Special Needs programs. One I can name is Roncalli and their STARS program.

2.) You do realize there are more transfers out of Private/Parochial Schools to public than the other way around. Usually the student that transfers from Private/Parochial to Public gets an immediate sign off by the P/P school and on the flip side the rare occasion a student transfers from a Public to a Private/Parochial school there is no sign off by the Public forcing them to sit out a period of time. There are also a lot more Public to Public transfers especially in Indianapolis and surrounding counties

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Just a dad said:

Catholics have more “athletes per capita” due to all of the calisthenics they do in mass. Stand, sit, kneel, sit, stand, walk to the alter, genuflect, walk back, turn and shake hands, sit, stand…Did I miss any? Now we know the real secret to their success. 

I always tell non-Catholic friends before weddings or funerals it is pretty easy to get the hang of, just remember "stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight..."

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

21 minutes ago, JQWL said:

I don't have a big problem with any school recruiting kids for any reason. 

Recruiting is perfectly legal. Using undue influence is not legal, which is why you see coaches who call or text students at other schools getting into hot water (see most recent IHSAA minutes referred to in another GID topic)...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

1.) There are Private / Parochial Schools with Special Needs programs. One I can name is Roncalli and their STARS program.

2.) You do realize there are more transfers out of Private/Parochial Schools to public than the other way around. Usually the student that transfers from Private/Parochial to Public gets an immediate sign off by the P/P school and on the flip side the rare occasion a student transfers from a Public to a Private/Parochial school there is no sign off by the Public forcing them to sit out a period of time. There are also a lot more Public to Public transfers especially in Indianapolis and surrounding counties

1.) I'm sure there are. I just looked at Providence and Mater Dei, which didn't have any faculty listed as special ed. I didn't check every private school in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

You seem at least reasonably intelligent.  Are you are really going to deny the difference in student populations and that it should merely be ignored and/or that it isn't a huge advantage in a enrollment only based system?  To your earlier point, many family make this "sacrifice" based on educational opportunities.....that really doesn't matter at all.  Whatever the reasons are it results in a completely different student population with drastically less deadweight.  I am ok with all of that, but if we want the classes to be as close as we can get them to like for like.....this situation has to be accounted for.  I think it says alot about the real motives of private parents who are staunchly against it.

I haven't seen this issue play out.  What I HAVE seen is not only private parents, but also some in the public sector that think that multipliers and automatic bumps and broadbrush painting are not the best way to solve a situation if equity is actually the end goal.  I've pointed out before, as have others, that there are private schools that can't/don't compete at their "expected" levels due to the fact that they are p/p.  Noll comes to mind.  Faith Christian in sports like baseball and basketball.  Likewise, there are public schools that have better facilities and opportunities than private schools.  SF is a good start, but needs modification to make it work the way it should. It'd be better to focus on that and gain common ground, than squaring off into an us vs. them mentality and ascribing nefarious "motives" to private school parents who are against it.  I bet that, if you polled the private parents and asked them to support a system where if you do well you move up and it was equitably applied to all, I bet you'd find almost no one that's "staunchly against it."  Where you get pushback is when you get a "let just push everyone with * fill in the blank with some characteristic * in to the next level."  Find common ground and you get much less pushback.   

I've been a participant and a parent of kids in both systems as well as a coach in both systems.  I've worked with coaches in many programs to help them with their systems.  I'm staunchly against multipliers and automatic bumps, not because I want more trophies or want to crush public school kids or anything else like that, but because it is a lazy way of approaching a situation that occurs when there are other, better, more equitable ways of addressing the issue.  In all programs that I've coahced in, the one thing I notice about the kids dedicated to the sport is exactly that, they are dedicated to the sport.  They work hard, they sacrifice like no nobody's business, they sweat hard, they hurt, and they bleed ... and that's been public and private.  I hate when I hear folks say, in so many words, "Congratulations, but you really didn't earn it."   Again, find a way to find that common ground and I'm on board; make it us vs. them and it becomes problematic.  And, just for the record, of my five kids, three finished from Jeff, one is playing at Harrison, and the other will be at Harrison in a couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tango said:

Recruiting is perfectly legal. Using undue influence is not legal, which is why you see coaches who call or text students at other schools getting into hot water (see most recent IHSAA minutes referred to in another GID topic)...  

I get letters from MD at the house and I don't have an issue with it and I as I have plastered all over this message board, I don't think that is the crux of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JQWL said:

Whenever I look at our student population, we have some kids in special needs classes that do count towards our enrollment that could never be included in a pool of students involved in extra curriculars. When I pulled up Mater Dei and Providence's faculty members, they do not seem to have a special education department. I think this sir is what you are eluding to. I've coached kids that have had to quit playing football and other sports because they have had to work to help support their family. Probably not a common thing at Mater Dei. All enrollments are not equal.

I don't have a big problem with any school recruiting kids for any reason. I just think everyone should be held to the same set of rules if they are competing against each other. Maybe the IHSAA should set some restrictions on movement such as a student can only have full eligibility for the school they begin the school with, unless there is a physical move. 

Haha....this would affect probably more publics than it would privates. 

While the OBVIOUS advantages the P/P's have - and have been discussed at nauseum on this forum ( with good reason) - an issue that is becoming more and more apparent throughout the State is the "poaching" and/or transferring of players. I know the IHSAA is doing the best they can - but to me they are failing massively. It it looks like a duck, and smells like a duck....well you get what I'm saying. Some of these transfers are SO PAINFULLY obvious, yet they are allowed. 

Freedom of choice, yada yada. I get it...I'm just asking if that's what we want HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS to turn into?? Basically AAU athletics? 

Without getting into details and naming names (which I don't think is appropriate on a public forum), I know for certain that the last three southern 3A public representatives for the State finals have had numerous players that transferred in and started for the Varsity programs at some point in their high school careers.  

ps. Just bump P/P's up a class - it is REALLY that simple. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JQWL said:

Whenever I look at our student population, we have some kids in special needs classes that do count towards our enrollment that could never be included in a pool of students involved in extra curriculars. When I pulled up Mater Dei and Providence's faculty members, they do not seem to have a special education department. I think this sir is what you are eluding to. I've coached kids that have had to quit playing football and other sports because they have had to work to help support their family. Probably not a common thing at Mater Dei. All enrollments are not equal.

I don't have a big problem with any school recruiting kids for any reason. I just think everyone should be held to the same set of rules if they are competing against each other. Maybe the IHSAA should set some restrictions on movement such as a student can only have full eligibility for the school they begin the school with, unless there is a physical move. 

I think that, on GID at least, this has always been something that all constituencies have been in agreement on.  Kids that are unable to be able to participate should not be counted in the enrollment base.  I'm pretty sure that DOE has the stats and ability to make that classification too.  The only argument that someone might have on that is, "But what about that kid that's classified special needs, but can kick the ball a mile."  I tend to say to that argument, that is going to be a rareity and, it's not going to change the overall landscape of Indiana football, so I think there really shouldn't be any real argument against adjusting those enrollment numbers to reflect the number of special ed kids that are in that population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

  I'm staunchly against multipliers and automatic bumps, not because I want more trophies or want to crush public school kids or anything else like that, but because it is a lazy way of approaching a situation that occurs when there are other, better, more equitable ways of addressing the issue.

Appreciate your thoughtful response. I have been exposed to both worlds myself but I contend that the MOST lazy approach is pretend enrollment alone works and 9 times out of 10 it's all about student population homogeneity.  It drives the disparity nationwide.  Half the states in the union like multipliers and I am starting to lean that way...punitive, "reactive" systems seem barbaric to me....let's be proactive and get out in front of the disparity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Titan32 said:

Appreciate your thoughtful response. I have been exposed to both worlds myself but I contend that the MOST lazy approach is pretend enrollment alone works and 9 times out of 10 it's all about student population homogeneity.  It drives the disparity nationwide.  Half the states in the union like multipliers and I am starting to lean that way...punitive, "reactive" systems seem barbaric to me....let's be proactive and get out in front of the disparity.

I agree, although Indiana has SF and, as I ... and others ... have posted in other threads, there are tweaks/modifications that can make that approach much more effective and equitable in the overall scheme of things.  SF isn't perfect, by a long shot, but it's a step in the right direction to finding a more equitable approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I think that, on GID at least, this has always been something that all constituencies have been in agreement on.  Kids that are unable to be able to participate should not be counted in the enrollment base.  I'm pretty sure that DOE has the stats and ability to make that classification too.  The only argument that someone might have on that is, "But what about that kid that's classified special needs, but can kick the ball a mile."  I tend to say to that argument, that is going to be a rareity and, it's not going to change the overall landscape of Indiana football, so I think there really shouldn't be any real argument against adjusting those enrollment numbers to reflect the number of special ed kids that are in that population.

Agree...but it's bigger than the special needs kids.  It's the kids who are just there because the law says they have to be there or are there to get that diploma with the least amount of friction/participation as possible.  My private friends seem to not want to admit how many of these kids are in even the most homogeneous of publics.  My kids think at GS it approaches 35%.   There isn't a private in the state who deals with that....therefore their effective enrollment is the single most impactful reason they punch above their class.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Appreciate your thoughtful response. I have been exposed to both worlds myself but I contend that the MOST lazy approach is pretend enrollment alone works and 9 times out of 10 it's all about student population homogeneity.  It drives the disparity nationwide.  Half the states in the union like multipliers and I am starting to lean that way...punitive, "reactive" systems seem barbaric to me....let's be proactive and get out in front of the disparity.

This does not matter. Mutiplier's do nothing but try to address a couple of teams because they had success,  while punishing some others.

Prime example how much more success has Gibson Southern had compared to Hammond Noll. Hammond Noll has won a grand total of like 3 games over the last 10 years. It is easy to just say "Slap a multiplier" and turn your head. 

Success Factor is a much better idea. The current success factor is flawed because it looks at 2 years only. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

Agree...but it's bigger than the special needs kids.  It's the kids who are just there because the law says they have to be there or are there to get that diploma with the least amount of friction/participation as possible.  My private friends seem to not want to admit how many of these kids are in even the most homogeneous of publics.  My kids think at GS it approaches 35%.   There isn't a private in the state who deals with that....therefore their effective enrollment is the single most impactful reason they punch above their class.  

This is anecdotal, but my graduating class at MD had about 105 students.  Let's say 50% were boys.  I can rattle off the names of 15 boys in my class that did absolutely nothing in HS other than show up for classes every day.  That's 30%!  Numbers may be different now, but there are still kids in the hallways that show up for class only and do nothing extracurricular.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wildcat1992 said:

This is anecdotal, but my graduating class at MD had about 105 students.  Let's say 50% were boys.  I can rattle off the names of 15 boys in my class that did absolutely nothing in HS other than show up for classes every day.  That's 30%!  Numbers may be different now, but there are still kids in the hallways that show up for class only and do nothing extracurricular.  

It's not even close to public and we all know that.  I didn't ask my kids to only think of boys.  Lets put it this way....GS and MD are probably really close in the effective student body population.  GS and ERM are not close.  ERM competes with Castle for All sports conference honors....how is such a thing possible?  We know how it's possible and it is what I have put forth.

Edited by Titan32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, FastpacedO said:

This does not matter. Mutiplier's do nothing but try to address a couple of teams because they had success,  while punishing some others.

Prime example how much more success has Gibson Southern had compared to Hammond Noll. Hammond Noll has won a grand total of like 3 games over the last 10 years. It is easy to just say "Slap a multiplier" and turn your head. 

Success Factor is a much better idea. The current success factor is flawed because it looks at 2 years only. 

No doubt the multiplier is a blunt instrument, while a success factor actually addresses the issue in a more focused fashion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bobref said:

No doubt the multiplier is a blunt instrument, while a success factor actually addresses the issue in a more focused fashion.

It's a start but it's reactive...I would argue we can predict success with a pretty good degree of accuracy proactively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wildcat1992 said:

This is anecdotal, but my graduating class at MD had about 105 students.  Let's say 50% were boys.  I can rattle off the names of 15 boys in my class that did absolutely nothing in HS other than show up for classes every day.  That's 30%!  Numbers may be different now, but there are still kids in the hallways that show up for class only and do nothing extracurricular.  

I would say our senior class has close to 105 students. Maybe a little under. 9 played football. 4 played tennis. Not sure on Cross Country. 0 are playing basketball that did not play football or tennis. I think we have 2 boys wrestling that did not play football. I'd expect no one senior baseball players that did not do a fall or winter sport. Who knows about track. So of the 50 boys, I would say we have 15 that participate in athletics. That's 30%!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jets said:

ps. Just bump P/P's up a class - it is REALLY that simple. 

Give me one good, simple reason why Bishop Chatard should be bumped up from 3A to 4A in boys basketball when they haven't won a 3A sectional since 2004? 

8 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

ERM competes with Castle for All sports conference honors....how is such a thing possible?  We know how it's possible and it is what I have put forth.

ERM hasn't won the all-sport trophy in years. Probably won't now that Jasper is also involved.  Castle should win every SIAC title in every sport, every year. So, if you ask me, Castle punches way below its own weight.   

You cannot have a system that says a school with 525 students (MD) is effectively equal to a school with 700 students (GS), yet a school with 575 students (ERM) is effectively equal to a school with 1800 students (Castle). 

Your "data" is asking your kids how many kids don't do anything at GS. I would argue GS has more non-deadweight boys available for football than ERM, because we have a lot boys involved in soccer. So GS's "dead-weight" may be roaming the halls doing nothing, but we have "dead-weight" roaming the halls who attend soccer after school. The result is the same, neither group plays football. Our girls softball has rarely been good and the reason why is so many of our girls play soccer and the travel season is busy in the spring. We reap the rewards in fall with state soccer titles and will get bumped up in the next cycle due to the SF.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, tango said:

Give me one good, simple reason why Bishop Chatard should be bumped up from 3A to 4A in boys basketball when they haven't won a 3A sectional since 2004? 

ERM hasn't won the all-sport trophy in years. Probably won't now that Jasper is also involved.  Castle should win every SIAC title in every sport, every year. So, if you ask me, Castle punches way below its own weight.   

You cannot have a system that says a school with 525 students (MD) is effectively equal to a school with 700 students (GS), yet a school with 575 students (ERM) is effectively equal to a school with 1800 students (Castle). 

Your "data" is asking your kids how many kids don't do anything at GS. I would argue GS has more non-deadweight boys available for football than ERM, because we have a lot boys involved in soccer. So GS's "dead-weight" may be roaming the halls doing nothing, but we have "dead-weight" roaming the halls who attend soccer after school. The result is the same, neither group plays football. Our girls softball has rarely been good and the reason why is so many of our girls play soccer and the travel season is busy in the spring. We reap the rewards in fall with state soccer titles and will get bumped up in the next cycle due to the SF.  

No argument that Castle punches below its weight.  Sheer numbers should help to offset the P/P enrollment advantage.  My mistake on recent all sports trophies.

I am working on some more concrete data but I am firmly convinced we aren't even close to ERM as NP is no where close to MD.  Just using the eye test over the past decade we put a product on the field probably much closer to MD than we do ERM.  This is why I have never really seen ERM as a "rival" ...more of a goliath that we had a couple opportunities to try and slay.  If they do private right....noone in 3A should be able to touch them under the current broken system.  We all know enrollment alone doesn't consider the student population factors.  We have plenty of soccer only kids....baseball only kids as well (that probably a pretty ubiquitous challenge across publics and privates).....doesn't change the fact we are pulling from a smaller pool of quality success driven student athletes in the building per capita enrollment.

Edited by Titan32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the problem with assigning "what everyone knows"

19 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

It's a start but it's reactive...I would argue we can predict success with a pretty good degree of accuracy proactively.

The problem with predictive is that it still misses.  As an example, I'll apply anecdotal evidence from a Catholic household with very involved parents who are well off.  In addition, that household has a parent who coached athletic teams, more than one sport, for almost two decades.  His oldest kids grew up from the time they were 3 and 1 1/2 on the sidelines and practices with Dad and the other three from the time they were born.  They were all introduced to sports very early on in their lives and encouraged to try various sports from basketball, to volleyball, to soccer, to football, to baseball.  The two oldest were in p/p schools and played sports there until they were fifth/third grade when they left the schools while the two youngest played in p/p sports from the time they were about 2nd/3rd grade.  Given our predictive component, we expect that all five kids in this family would be counted 100% in the sports count for a p/p school if they went there.  All of the background, demographics, and even the extra exposure to sports from having direct exposure through coaching would tell us us, predictively, that they would count toward the "active enrollment" of the school ... especially if they were at a p/p.  Realistically, what happened ...

  • The oldest girl attended Jeff and promptly went academics with no sport activity.  Was an operator on the robotics team and also participated in quiz bowl activities, foreign language activities, and science competitions including regional awards.
  • The second oldest attended Jeff, did honors classes, and basically attended class, hung out with friends, and went to school events, but spent all of her time outside of school in a professional dance company. 
  • The third oldest spent a year on the varsity dance squad as a sophomore, but basically that was about it.  Took lots of classes at Ivy Tech as a junior/senior, but not overly attached to the high school and its activities.  Got into volleyball her senior year, but was for an area team rather than the high school.
  • The fourth plays football and baseball for Harrison.
  • The fifth plays football and baseball in Harrison youth programs and will likely play for the high school when he gets there.

Overall, even in our family, which predictives would say would produce a high level of athletic involvement, that isn't the case.  Matter of fact, we're only at about 40% full-time athletics for the family with a little trickle of the one year of volleyball.  We easily fit the p/p family demographics from every aspect and we also fit the "intangibles" that are always tossed around about p/p families such as stable households, high education, both parents with ability to work while having flexibility whether both do or don't, stable neighborhood, relatively good health, kids not needing to work to support/help the family, etc.  By predictives and all of the discussions so far, we would produce 100% enrollment consideration ... but realistically, it's not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Titan32 I can agree that all schools do not put the same weight on athletics in general or specific sports. I also agree that kids don’t equally weigh their sports of choice. Maybe the answer is to let school systems decide if they want to be placed into a Competitive Division or a Participatory Division per sport. Let each have their own championships, playoffs and awards.  This might limit the number of teams in the Competitive Division and will then reduce the number of Classes and consolidate the power. For example allow for 128 (or 256 I don’t really care) schools to choose Competitive. Divide them into 4 classes based on enrollment initially. Divide each class into a North/South/East/West division. Give -2 points for wins against lower classified teams and +3 for wins agains higher classified teams. Hold an “All in” playoff each year and seed the teams based on rotating division pairings (One year East plays South in the first round. The next year East plays West). Division winners (based on earned competitive points) earn a first round bye and home field advantage. Utilize relegation (or SF) in conjunction with these annual “Dynasty” points to move teams up and down every 2-4 years. Let teams opt in or out every decade as long as the brackets work out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

No doubt the multiplier is a blunt instrument, while a success factor actually addresses the issue in a more focused fashion.

I would argue that at the lowest levels, (1A-3A) all that has happened is different P/P schools take turns having the advantages.  They yo-yo up and down so often there is always a a p/p school there to take up the advantages in population that P/P's afford over smaller public schools.  Not the best example of "addressing" the situation.

IMHO: There should not be a P/P competing in the 1A tournament. 

I would argue that a one class "bump" for P/P's, combined with SF for all (public & P/P) with a longer SF adjustment (every 4 instead of every 2) would be a great system.

Edited by US31
  • Like 1
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...