Jump to content
slice60

Special treatment? Why is Cathedral dropping to 4A?

Recommended Posts

On 6/24/2019 at 4:22 PM, Bobref said:

I’m not criticizing New Pal for not playing up a class, regardless of their record in their current class. The success factor is the designated solution for teams that regularly play well above their classification. So, you play in your designated class and, if you overwhelm the competition consistently, the success factor takes care of that. Cathedral is where they are supposed to be, according to the IHSAA classification system, as modified by the success factor. They cannot, IMO, legitimately be criticized for that.

 

19 hours ago, BTF said:

Certainly I'm missing something here. Why is it stupid for a team to "remain" after earning 2 points? Snider earned 2 points by winning sectional championships each year they were in 6a. A team that is good enough to win a sectional championship shouldn't be moving down a class.

 

On 6/24/2019 at 4:37 PM, slice60 said:

FW Snider won their Sectional in 6A in each of the past 2 years. They seem to be pretty competitive to me.

Marquette boys basketball has won the 2A Sectional for 4 years straight. If the Minimum Points were still at 3, they would have dropped back down to 1A. To me, that's the best example of why the change to 2 Points make a whole lot of sense.

The ENTIRE success factor promotion and "stay up" factors are 100% arbitrarily set.  The success factor points and 2 year count process could easily be changed a number of ways which would yield other results.  

@Bobref claims the system is designed for when teams 'consistently' overwhelm the competition.  Really?  Is TWO years consistent?  Or is it the byproduct of a good class of athletes attending a school at the right (or wrong, depending on perspective) time?  East Central High school from 2015-2018 is a great example.  Those four years: state runner up, Regional Champ, State Champ, Sectional Champ.  That's 10 points in a 4 year span.  6 points in a two year span.  But because it's a two year cycle that resets, they never bumped up to 5A.  Meanwhile Indianapolis Scecina has losing seasons in 2009 and 2010.  Then they are state runner up in 2011 and 2012.  That's 6 points in two years - the RIGHT two years by the arbitrarily set standard and they get bumped up.  So which team consistently played above their class? 

So the system currently in place tells Scecina they've had "enough" success while East Central hasn't.  Got it.  Making a change like a rolling 2 year count, a 4 year cycle count, adding a bonus to a state championship - making it worth 5 points instead of 4.  All of these tweaks could be made to the current system.  Would we say teams that get promoted under that system would be more or less representative of consistent success? 

And both @BTF and @slice60 feel Snider has been competitive enough in 6A.  Perhaps.  I am not downplaying any team that wins a sectional, representative of a good season and lots of hard work by the teams.  But my biggest beef is that sectionals are somewhat geographically constructed and teams are blindly drawn.  Being best in your local area is good enough, and not when judged against the entire state.  The problem is not all sectionals are created equally, and it's more noticeable in 5A and 6A when there are four teams.  New Pal is currently playing in 5A.  So winning Sectional 14 should be viewed the same as winning sectional 13?  And both of those are the same as winning sectional 16 two years in a row?  

Southridge is playing up in 3A.  They were put in sectional 32.  Winning sectional 32 is the same as winning sectional 30?  And those are both the same accomplishment as winning sectional 28 in back to back years? 

No, I don't think being the best around and winning your sectional in two years is "enough" success to keep you up, when you had to be one of the best in the ENTIRE state to get promoted.  And as the East Central/ Scecina comparison proves, even getting bumped up is more a matter of timing than continued success.

      

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sectional 3 isn't Sectional 6, but it's not necessarily the weakest sectional in 6a either. If you are a sectional champion, then you have no business bumping down. The IHSAA was spot on with this new rule. The timing was interesting, but the rule is good for football.

I understand your point with regard to bumping up. Success, most times, runs in two year cycles. It's the rebuilding class that ends up playing in the a class they don't belong in. With regard to bumping UP, I agree, 2 years isn't enough to prove consistency. I'd rather see what happens over a four year span before determining whether a team should be bumped up or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Southridge in sectional 32 is a very tough draw.  Especially knowing their stud of QB is no longer playing football. The kid can flat out do anything with a ball....and it seems he is focusing on Baseball/Basketball.

 

to the point though. I feel like if The IHSAA were to implement rolling cycles for success...they should seed teams....how to do that where everyone is happy is anyone’s guess lol. If they were to do it though they should seed by regional....get rid of sectional assignments and just have regional assignments. Keep the sectional championship and such but seed 1-16

 

even if they don’t do a full 1-16, they could do 1-8 and then have a “random draw” for who the other 8 teams play  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think TSF was/is an over reaction won a couple schools winning 3 or 4 in a row a few years back   

1.  Competing for 2 years isn’t dominating anything.  All it does is punish the classes that typically follow the great ones.  It’s comparable to an NCAA team being put on probation.  The people that caused it don’t have the face the consequences.  In our system, the great teams never played up, just the ones who follow.  

2.  It should be a 4 year window.

3.  Winning the Sectional isn’t domination. If it is dominating anything.  It essentially is keeping all of the State’s stories programs in higher levels as long as they can where all the hard work that they put goes unrewarded.   

4.  All stories programs around the State are victims of TSF with the exception of the Indianapolis schools.  The same few schools win every single year.  Shouldn’t 6A teams have to sit out for two years?  Or form a Super Class with 8 teams based on the TSF?  Or does it only anger the powers that be when non Indy schools win a lot? And Indy kids can play wherever they want as long as the system is worked properly.

5.   All schools should have a one class bump maximum and the success factor should also bump some schools down based on participation and historical performance.  

6.  Somebody has to win, it’s ok when it’s kids who have worked hard their entire lives.  

7.  This is a Socialist rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
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...