Is IHSAA tournament success factor working? Two Indiana professors dive into the numbers.

[tango]

4 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

I think sectionals definitely matter, but there's only a total of about 10 schools since the success factor has been implemented that have won 5 straight sectionals, let alone 6 or 13 lol, and all but about 2 are 5a or 6a schools. So unless we want to send Center Grove off to play D3 football, they are gonna keep winning sectional championships yes.

But there are in other sports. You gotta remember that any SF / multiplier system applies to all sports, not just football. The IHSAA is never going to do one thing for football and something else for other sports. 

[jets]

45 minutes ago, tango said:

Please explain their advantages.  Day School has an enrollment of 44, Washington Catholic 74 and Rivet 68. Ev. Christian is just recently eligible for IHSAA tournament play, but EDS, WC and Rivet have been eligible for a long, long time and have had little success in any sport. In boys basketball, EDS had Evansville's career leading scorer (twice actually) and won 1 sectional each time. They have zero advantages over Tecumseh, Wood Memorial, Northeast Dubois, etc. The problem with an automatic bump is while some p/p schools can punch above their weight in many sports (eg. Memorial and Mater Dei in SW IN), there are as many, if not more schools that can barely land one in their own weight.   

Uh....yes.... they do.

I have walked the hallways of Memorial, I have walked the hallways of Mater Dei - and I have walked the hallways of Southridge. They are not the same - not even close. 

 

[US31]

2 minutes ago, tango said:

There are some weak sectional fields out there across some sports. I would never support a system where a program like GS girls tennis gets bumped up for multiple consecutive sectional titles while having never won a regional. 

While I am personally in favor of the following:

• a 4 year minimum, "rolling" SF.
• 1a should be smallest 32, 6a biggest 32.  Divide rest evenly by 4.
• No P/P in single A class of 32 smallest.

I would also piggy back on your comment above and add that (IMHO) no program should be SF'd up unless they have points AND a state title.  Something just doesn't seem right about SF if you are moving programs that have not actually won a title.  I maybe wrong about that...but its how I feel.

[First_Backer_Inside]

45 minutes ago, tango said:

But there are in other sports. You gotta remember that any SF / multiplier system applies to all sports, not just football. The IHSAA is never going to do one thing for football and something else for other sports. 

You are certainly right and I forget about other sports often when talking about success factor, moving conferences, seeding sectionals, etc...However we're kidding ourselves if we don't say that football is the driving force and reason for anything high school sports. The only reason we have the success factor is because you had the LCC, Luers, Chatard, and Cathedral teams winning state every year in football. I've never heard of another reason from another sport. Maybe I was too young at the time to hear anything different, but I also had a dad that coached anything and everything under the sun with a lot of other coaches. I feel like I would've heard something, but all I remember hearing them talk about was the four private schools dominating the football tournament year in and out. Also are there a lot of schools having the success factor applied to them outside of football? 

[oldtimeqb]

32 minutes ago, US31 said:

While I am personally in favor of the following:

• a 4 year minimum, "rolling" SF.
• 1a should be smallest 32, 6a biggest 32.  Divide rest evenly by 4.
• No P/P in single A class of 32 smallest.

I would also piggy back on your comment above and add that (IMHO) no program should be SF'd up unless they have points AND a state title.  Something just doesn't seem right about SF if you are moving programs that have not actually won a title.  I maybe wrong about that...but its how I feel.

I would agree with all 3 (and SF title requirement) in a heartbeat. 

[tango]

49 minutes ago, jets said:

Uh....yes.... they do.

I have walked the hallways of Memorial, I have walked the hallways of Mater Dei - and I have walked the hallways of Southridge. They are not the same - not even close. 

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I said there is no question Memorial and Mater Dei are capable of punching above their weight because I do not dispute that Memorial and Mater Dei have advantages over a lot of public schools of similar enrollment. I would argue they have some disadvantages too, but that is irrelevant to my question...

I asked what advantages Day School, Washington Catholic and Rivet have over Tecumseh, Northeast Dubois, etc.

You want to automatically bump all p/p schools, regardless of whether they have any success. If a p/p isn't having any success, why should they be bumped up?

[tango]

33 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

You are certainly right and I forget about other sports often when talking about success factor, moving conferences, seeding sectionals, etc...However we're kidding ourselves if we don't say that football is the driving force and reason for anything high school sports. The only reason we have the success factor is because you had the LCC, Luers, Chatard, and Cathedral teams winning state every year in football. I've never heard of another reason from another sport. Maybe I was too young at the time to hear anything different, but I also had a dad that coached anything and everything under the sun with a lot of other coaches. I feel like I would've heard something, but all I remember hearing them talk about was the four private schools dominating the football tournament year in and out. Also are there a lot of schools having the success factor applied to them outside of football? 

Considering there are only a handful of schools currently being SF'ed in football, the other sports are probably relatively similar - a few in any given cycle.  

22 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

I would agree with all 3 (and SF title requirement) in a heartbeat. 

Me too. I'm okay with no p/p in 1A for football, but not other sports like basketball, baseball, etc. 

[US31]

18 hours ago, tango said:

Me too. I'm okay with no p/p in 1A for football, but not other sports like basketball, baseball, etc. 

I would reiterate, I think that should only happen if we shrink 1A to smallest 32.  

[jets]

18 hours ago, tango said:

Considering there are only a handful of schools currently being SF'ed in football, the other sports are probably relatively similar - a few in any given cycle.  

Me too. I'm okay with no p/p in 1A for football, but not other sports like basketball, baseball, etc. 

But wait ...what if they haven't had any success in football?? You would still move them up?? 

Of course you would because you realize they have built-in advantages over their public counterparts. 

Again - it really is THAT simple. 

[tango]

1 hour ago, jets said:

But wait ...what if they haven't had any success in football?? You would still move them up?? 

Of course you would because you realize they have built-in advantages over their public counterparts. 

Again - it really is THAT simple. 

No. I will never agree that every p/p has advantages over all similarly sized public schools - because it just isn't true. I ask again - what are the advantages that EDS, WC and Rivet have over Tecumseh, Wood Memorial and NE Dubois?  

To be honest, the only 1A p/p I'm aware of that actually plays football is Lutheran, who has demonstrated lots of success and yes, has advantages over most 1A publics. 

[foxbat]

19 hours ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

You are certainly right and I forget about other sports often when talking about success factor, moving conferences, seeding sectionals, etc...However we're kidding ourselves if we don't say that football is the driving force and reason for anything high school sports. The only reason we have the success factor is because you had the LCC, Luers, Chatard, and Cathedral teams winning state every year in football. I've never heard of another reason from another sport. Maybe I was too young at the time to hear anything different, but I also had a dad that coached anything and everything under the sun with a lot of other coaches. I feel like I would've heard something, but all I remember hearing them talk about was the four private schools dominating the football tournament year in and out. Also are there a lot of schools having the success factor applied to them outside of football? 

Let's be fairly realistic about this ... and this is the main reason that I'm against an automatic bump and, instead, all for a PERFORMANCE-based bump.

Folks often lump LCC into the "dominant" school programs of the IHSAA for all time.  But looking at the numbers at the time of SF policy consideration, and if you are including LCC as a reason for SF, then SF's reason for existing is flawed because LCC was, prior to the SF implementation and prior to their 4-peat run in 2009-2012, which ended in being part of the inaugural class of SF, a team that looks like lots of other public 1A schools in terms of their PERFORMANCE to that point .  Prior to their 4-peat run in 2009-2012, LCC the following post-season record ... starting in 1976:

• 1976 - State champion
• 1989 - Sectional champion
• 1999 - State champion
• 2005 - Sectional champion

That's it!  Two state championships, a decade and a half apart and two sectional championships ... every other season they left with nothing; including eight of those 33 seasons being bounced in the first game of sectionals.  The only thing that was close to being a power run was the fact that it took only six years after winning the state championship in 1999 to finally get out of sectionals again in 2005 ... then again, in three of those six seasons they were bounced by two different teams, in the first game of sectionals, so I'm not sure that's a real power run.  Incidentally, go back and look at how many DIFFERENT teams ended LCC's seasons in that timeframe.  It's not like it was just Pioneer.  In addition, it was Sheridan, Westfield, Frontier, South Decatur, Clinton Central, North Miami, Caston, North White, and Seeger; all public schools that ended LCC's season.  By the way, just for a couple of interesting comparisons, Clinton Central, who was one of those teams that ended LCC's season three times and all three times causing LCC to exit sectionals in Game 1, had:

• 1997 - Sectional Championship
• 2000 - Sectional Championship
• 2002 - Sectional Championship

While Sheridan had:

• 1976: Sectional Championship
• 1980: State Championship
• 1981: Sectional Championship
• 1983: Regional Championship
• 1984: State Championship
• 1985: Sectional Championship
• 1987: State Championship
• 1988: State Championship
• 1990: Sectional Championship
• 1992: State Championship
• 1994: Semi-State Championship
• 1998: State Championship
• 2004: Sectional Championship
• 2005: State Championship
• 2006: State Championship
• 2007: State Championship
• 2008: Semi-State Championship

And Pioneer had:

• 1997 - State champion
• 2001 - Regional champion
• 2002 - Regional champion
• 2006 - Sectional champion
• 2008 - Sectional champion

While Fountain Central had:

• 1978 - Semi-State champion
• 1983 - State champion
• 1996 - Sectional champion
• 1998 - Sectional champion
• 2004 - Sectional champion
• 2006 - Sectional champion

And North White

• 1994 - State champion
• 1998 - Semi-State champion
• 2000 - Regional champion

And, lastly as another data point set, Seeger:

• 1977 - Sectional champion
• 1995 - Sectional champion
• 1999 - Sectional champion
• 2002 - Sectional champion
• 2003 - Semi-State champion
• 2004 - State champion

There's no way that anyone can sanely convince me that LCC's post-season records, prior to their 4-peat run when SF was being considered, would be even in the mix as a data point for making the SF argument other than because they were P/P.  It wasn't until LCC thoroughly thrashed Fountain Central 52-0 in 2009 and then a year later 31-6 that anyone started taking notice and lumping LCC in with the Chatards and Cathedrals of the world.  Realistically, LCC's records to that point were no more spectacular than Seeger's, Pioneer's, North White's, Fountain Central's, and, of course, not Sheridan's.  With the 4-peat, LCC shot into IHSAA "legendary" status, but at the commencement of SF consideration, they looked no different than plenty of other public counterparts in their "dominance" moniker. 

If LCC was in the discussion driving SF, then it was pretty much 1) based on the 2009-2010 seasons ... so two data points ... which isn't a great driving force for policy, 2) ignoring all other data points of all other teams prior to 2009, or 3) based on the P/P categorization.  In reality, none of these SHOULD be true.  Lumping LCC in with some of the other P/Ps mentioned, ignores the data that was present at the time of the decisions and also generally tends to distort the analysis.  We can do a "lookback" a decade after the fact that LCC is in the SF discussion "post implementation," but by the data at the time, there's no honest way that someone could argue that, prior to the 4-peat season run, which started right around the time that SF discussions were peaking, that LCC could have been a driving factor, in football, for SF in the same bucket as Chatard/Cathedral unless we are willing to admit that it wasn't even really about whether the teams were dominant or even winning.

[foxbat]

21 minutes ago, tango said:

No. I will never agree that every p/p has advantages over all similarly sized public schools - because it just isn't true. I ask again - what are the advantages that EDS, WC and Rivet have over Tecumseh, Wood Memorial and NE Dubois?  

To be honest, the only 1A p/p I'm aware of that actually plays football is Lutheran, who has demonstrated lots of success and yes, has advantages over most 1A publics. 

When you say "plays" are you meaning they are competitive or participates?

If participation, then there are certainly some others like Traders Point ... for competitive it likely depends on what we are putting as a definition of competitive vs. dominant vs. punching above weight class.  The only one in 1A that's been close to LOS without buying a ticket, outside of Lutheran, now that LCC's been SF'd, is Covenant Christian.

For comparisons in 1A:

• Traders Point's history in IHSAA, since 2018, consists of no titles.  Eliminated in the years by South Putnam, LCC, Tri-County, Carroll, and Park Tudor.
• Covenant Christian's history, since 2015, consists of a state championship in 2020.  Outside of that, bounced in sectionals by Riverton Parke, North Vermission, South Putnam, Traders Point, and Lutheran ... rather unceremoniously this last season 56-0.
• Oldenberg Academy's history since 2015, consists of no titles.  Bounced by North Decatur, West Washington, Tri, Hagerstown, and Milan.  In don't think they compete anymore in football.
• Indiana Deaf ... speaking of teams that "don't have to take everyone" ... history since 1985, consists of no titles.
• Park Tudor's history, since 1985, consists of three sectional titles in 2002, 2005, 2022. 

[tango]

4 minutes ago, foxbat said:

When you say "plays" are you meaning they are competitive or participates?

I meant actually participates. My knowledge of 1A is pretty limited because we don't have many 1A schools that have football programs down here in SW IN. I thought LCC was 2A on enrollment. 

[Cappy]

9 minutes ago, tango said:

I thought LCC was 2A on enrollment. 

296 students, 25 schools bigger than them playing football in 1A in the 22-23 and 23-24 football classification on IHSAA.org

[jets]

1 hour ago, tango said:

No. I will never agree that every p/p has advantages over all similarly sized public schools - because it just isn't true. I ask again - what are the advantages that EDS, WC and Rivet have over Tecumseh, Wood Memorial and NE Dubois?  

To be honest, the only 1A p/p I'm aware of that actually plays football is Lutheran, who has demonstrated lots of success and yes, has advantages over most 1A publics. 

Um...the same advantages that every p/p has over their public school counterparts. 

Controlled enrollment, socioeconomic factors, parental support - "clearinghouse issues" as I've read somewhere else on this thread (I like to call it the "hallway test). Do we really need to state them every time this argument gets brought up?? 

[First_Backer_Inside]

37 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Let's be fairly realistic about this ... and this is the main reason that I'm against an automatic bump and, instead, all for a PERFORMANCE-based bump.

Folks often lump LCC into the "dominant" school programs of the IHSAA for all time.  But looking at the numbers at the time of SF policy consideration, and if you are including LCC as a reason for SF, then SF's reason for existing is flawed because LCC was, prior to the SF implementation and prior to their 4-peat run in 2009-2012, which ended in being part of the inaugural class of SF, a team that looks like lots of other public 1A schools in terms of their PERFORMANCE to that point .  Prior to their 4-peat run in 2009-2012, LCC the following post-season record ... starting in 1976:

• 1976 - State champion
• 1989 - Sectional champion
• 1999 - State champion
• 2005 - Sectional champion

That's it!  Two state championships, a decade and a half apart and two sectional championships ... every other season they left with nothing; including eight of those 33 seasons being bounced in the first game of sectionals.  The only thing that was close to being a power run was the fact that it took only six years after winning the state championship in 1999 to finally get out of sectionals again in 2005 ... then again, in three of those six seasons they were bounced by two different teams, in the first game of sectionals, so I'm not sure that's a real power run.  Incidentally, go back and look at how many DIFFERENT teams ended LCC's seasons in that timeframe.  It's not like it was just Pioneer.  In addition, it was Sheridan, Westfield, Frontier, South Decatur, Clinton Central, North Miami, Caston, North White, and Seeger; all public schools that ended LCC's season.  By the way, just for a couple of interesting comparisons, Clinton Central, who was one of those teams that ended LCC's season three times and all three times causing LCC to exit sectionals in Game 1, had:

• 1997 - Sectional Championship
• 2000 - Sectional Championship
• 2002 - Sectional Championship

While Sheridan had:

• 1976: Sectional Championship
• 1980: State Championship
• 1981: Sectional Championship
• 1983: Regional Championship
• 1984: State Championship
• 1985: Sectional Championship
• 1987: State Championship
• 1988: State Championship
• 1990: Sectional Championship
• 1992: State Championship
• 1994: Semi-State Championship
• 1998: State Championship
• 2004: Sectional Championship
• 2005: State Championship
• 2006: State Championship
• 2007: State Championship
• 2008: Semi-State Championship

And Pioneer had:

• 1997 - State champion
• 2001 - Regional champion
• 2002 - Regional champion
• 2006 - Sectional champion
• 2008 - Sectional champion

While Fountain Central had:

• 1978 - Semi-State champion
• 1983 - State champion
• 1996 - Sectional champion
• 1998 - Sectional champion
• 2004 - Sectional champion
• 2006 - Sectional champion

And North White

• 1994 - State champion
• 1998 - Semi-State champion
• 2000 - Regional champion

And, lastly as another data point set, Seeger:

• 1977 - Sectional champion
• 1995 - Sectional champion
• 1999 - Sectional champion
• 2002 - Sectional champion
• 2003 - Semi-State champion
• 2004 - State champion

There's no way that anyone can sanely convince me that LCC's post-season records, prior to their 4-peat run when SF was being considered, would be even in the mix as a data point for making the SF argument other than because they were P/P.  It wasn't until LCC thoroughly thrashed Fountain Central 52-0 in 2009 and then a year later 31-6 that anyone started taking notice and lumping LCC in with the Chatards and Cathedrals of the world.  Realistically, LCC's records to that point were no more spectacular than Seeger's, Pioneer's, North White's, Fountain Central's, and, of course, not Sheridan's.  With the 4-peat, LCC shot into IHSAA "legendary" status, but at the commencement of SF consideration, they looked no different than plenty of other public counterparts in their "dominance" moniker. 

If LCC was in the discussion driving SF, then it was pretty much 1) based on the 2009-2010 seasons ... so two data points ... which isn't a great driving force for policy, 2) ignoring all other data points of all other teams prior to 2009, or 3) based on the P/P categorization.  In reality, none of these SHOULD be true.  Lumping LCC in with some of the other P/Ps mentioned, ignores the data that was present at the time of the decisions and also generally tends to distort the analysis.  We can do a "lookback" a decade after the fact that LCC is in the SF discussion "post implementation," but by the data at the time, there's no honest way that someone could argue that, prior to the 4-peat season run, which started right around the time that SF discussions were peaking, that LCC could have been a driving factor, in football, for SF in the same bucket as Chatard/Cathedral unless we are willing to admit that it wasn't even really about whether the teams were dominant or even winning.

You are completely right. They get grouped into it because they are a private school that won four straight state championships around the time of determining the success factor. I guess I group them in with the rest because of what LCC also was three or four years after the SF. If the SF doesn't happen in 2012, LCC wins 7 straight state titles, and then we are definitely grouping them with the other schools mentioned previously. Instead they got bumped up and still managed to have success in 2A only losing to the 2A state runner up and the 2A state champion the next year before going back down and winning another state championship. So they might not have had the success the other schools did previous to the SF, but they were starting to become a problem for 1A. 

[US31]

40 minutes ago, foxbat said:

When you say "plays" are you meaning they are competitive or participates?

If participation, then there are certainly some others like Traders Point ... for competitive it likely depends on what we are putting as a definition of competitive vs. dominant vs. punching above weight class.  The only one in 1A that's been close to LOS without buying a ticket, outside of Lutheran, now that LCC's been SF'd, is Covenant Christian.

For comparisons in 1A:

• Traders Point's history in IHSAA, since 2018, consists of no titles.  Eliminated in the years by South Putnam, LCC, Tri-County, Carroll, and Park Tudor.
• Covenant Christian's history, since 2015, consists of a state championship in 2020.  Outside of that, bounced in sectionals by Riverton Parke, North Vermission, South Putnam, Traders Point, and Lutheran ... rather unceremoniously this last season 56-0.
• Oldenberg Academy's history since 2015, consists of no titles.  Bounced by North Decatur, West Washington, Tri, Hagerstown, and Milan.  In don't think they compete anymore in football.
• Indiana Deaf ... speaking of teams that "don't have to take everyone" ... history since 1985, consists of no titles.
• Park Tudor's history, since 1985, consists of three sectional titles in 2002, 2005, 2022. 

For the record...any SF discussion I particpate in is supposed to begin with DON'T FORGET ABOUT WEBO!!!  🤪

My issue with 1A is you could very well end up with a yo-yo situation of P/Ps moving up and down "taking turns" in 1A.  Lutheran, LCC, CC...

Shrinking 1A down to 32 would bump some of these schools up to 2A.  I don't think its unrealistic to move any other P/P up into the 33-?? 2A.

[oldtimeqb]

11 minutes ago, US31 said:

For the record...any SF discussion I particpate in is supposed to begin with DON'T FORGET ABOUT WEBO!!!  

WEBO 2018-2020 and Ev Mater Dei 2021-2022 are prime examples why 2 years, hard cut offs are ridiculous implementations of the SF.

 

[foxbat]

Just now, First_Backer_Inside said:

You are completely right. They get grouped into it because they are a private school that won four straight state championships around the time of determining the success factor. I guess I group them in with the rest because of what LCC also was three or four years after the SF. If the SF doesn't happen in 2012, LCC wins 7 straight state titles, and then we are definitely grouping them with the other schools mentioned previously. Instead they got bumped up and still managed to have success in 2A only losing to the 2A state runner up and the 2A state champion the next year before going back down and winning another state championship. So they might not have had the success the other schools did previous to the SF, but they were starting to become a problem for 1A. 

The only reason that LCC moved back down was due to a fault in the original implementation of SF which required four points to stay up as opposed to two points. Had two points been in place like it is now, LCC would have remained in 2A.

Yes, they are CURRENTLY in that SF debate, but at the time of the SF decision, they weren't and shouldn't have been.  You can also make a similar argument for Pioneer, until you can't.  Pioneer was as much a dominant force in 1A as LCC and I would argue probably even more so for a long time.  Pioneer and LCC tended to finish #1 and #2 almost every other season for maybe the better part of a decade; typically ending each others' seasons.  It was a shame they were in the same regional/sectional most of the time.  When LCC returned to 1A in 2015, Pioneer turned around and smacked them around ... putting an exclamation point on it with a 70-7 on LCC's HOME FIELD.  This, incidentally is that same LCC program post 2A that you mentioned.  In that run up to being SF'd to 2A, Pioneer appears at LOS three seasons in a row and putting the icing on the cake outscoring their opponents in post season 364-14 including that 70-7 beatdown of the former 2A and state champ Knights.  Pioneer then enters 2A and pulls a similar move to LCC's first run in 2A including knocking off 2A p/p Andrean and picking up a regional.  Again, the difference is that Pioneer picks up 2 points after the IHSAA changes the rule, otherwis they'd still be in 2A too ... but then they end up back down in 1A.  Their run up to 2A and their first two years in 2A look similar to LCC's.  Incidentally, LCC teams, while strong in general, look nothing like the teams that were in that 4-peat period.  LCC is one of the few teams to be SF'd by NOT getting to LOS in the year before they went up.  Ask 1A South Adams just how "worrisome" 1A LCC was as they were wishing them well on the way out of 2A with a 42-9 victory over LCC.

 

[foxbat]

15 minutes ago, oldtimeqb said:

WEBO 2018-2020 and Ev Mater Dei 2021-2022 are prime examples why 2 years, hard cut offs are ridiculous implementations of the SF.

 

Pioneer saw LOS three times in three years, and four in five, before being bumped as well.  The last three visits were: lost the first, then the new cycle came, then won two back-to-back.  Matter of fact, if you look at their time before going up, you realize there may need to be something beyond just a two-year window and simple cutoffs.

• 2013 - Sectional champ
• 2014 - State runner-up
• 2015 - Sectional champ
• 2016 - State runner-up
• 2017 - State champ
• 2018 - State champ

It's not Sheridan and LCC four-peat visits to LOS, but it's definitely close in the neighborhood ... about a couple of doors down.

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, foxbat said:

 By the way, just for a couple of interesting comparisons, Clinton Central, who was one of those teams that ended LCC's season three times and all three times causing LCC to exit sectionals in Game 1, had:

• 1997 - Sectional Championship
• 2000 - Sectional Championship
• 2002 - Sectional Championship

 

The Bulldog faithful call this the "power of the green tie (and giant shoulder pads)".

Nowadays CC is lucky it can field a team.

 

Quote

 It wasn't until LCC thoroughly thrashed Fountain Central 52-0 in 2009 and then a year later 31-6 that anyone started taking notice and lumping LCC in with the Chatards and Cathedrals of the world.  

96-0. Never forget.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Muda69

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, jets said:

Um...the same advantages that every p/p has over their public school counterparts. 

Controlled enrollment, socioeconomic factors, parental support - "clearinghouse issues" as I've read somewhere else on this thread (I like to call it the "hallway test). Do we really need to state them every time this argument gets brought up?? 

Most p/p zealots will call bullcrap on the controlled enrollments, claiming that all these institutions are so hard up for money they'll take any student with a pulse and a tuition check that doesn't bounce.

 

[foxbat]

35 minutes ago, US31 said:

For the record...any SF discussion I particpate in is supposed to begin with DON'T FORGET ABOUT WEBO!!!  🤪

My issue with 1A is you could very well end up with a yo-yo situation of P/Ps moving up and down "taking turns" in 1A.  Lutheran, LCC, CC...

Shrinking 1A down to 32 would bump some of these schools up to 2A.  I don't think its unrealistic to move any other P/P up into the 33-?? 2A.

I didn't want to toss WeBo under the bus like that. 😃

Seriously, when SF was first being considered, I thought the same thing about the yo-yoing; especially in 1A.  Part of that was also, when it was first implemented, it took four points to stay up instead of two points, which I though for sure would set up a situation of roughly three or four teams taking turns wearing the crown.  That hasn't ended up materializing; especially with the two-point modification.  That kept Pioneer up in 2A instead of letting them back down ... and keep in mind that had they returned to 1A it would have been on the heals of picking up a regional title in 2A the year before over Andrean.  For the most part, there really hasn't been any yo-yoing of 1A teams.  Note that LCC won a sectional in 2A last season, so another sectional win and they stay.  

Although it's been about a decade since the first teams were SF'd, we're still still very young in the process.  We've only had a about five cycles and, in that time we've also had some issues with having to modify the stay-up points, so we've really only had four cycles and one of them was the wonky COVID cycle.  We don't have as many data points as it seems like we might have at this point, but I think SF is doing a decent enough job at this point, even if it's not at 100% of what it was expected/hoped to do.  I'd say it's a step in the right direction and better than where we were.

As for the p/p auto bump, in 1A, the only really competitive school at this point is Lutheran that's there.  SF is about to take care of them.  I also suspect that they will be able to pick up two points in 2A barring getting a 2A sectional of death like the 3A sectional of death or the infinite wisdom of putting Chjatard and Roncalli in the same sectional when Chatard bumped up to 4A.  Enrollment will end up taking care of Covenant Christian and Park Tudor most likely the next time around, so it's likely to be a fairly moot point in the next year or so.

[tango]

1 hour ago, jets said:

Um...the same advantages that every p/p has over their public school counterparts. 

Controlled enrollment, socioeconomic factors, parental support - "clearinghouse issues" as I've read somewhere else on this thread (I like to call it the "hallway test). Do we really need to state them every time this argument gets brought up?? 

I will give you some degree of socioeconomics and definitely increased parental support at p/p schools, but evidently those don't translate to athletic success at Day School, Wash. Catholic or Rivet. As for controlled enrollment, those 3 schools could have significantly higher enrollment and still be 1A, so I'm not sure that holds water. The implication that schools like Memorial and Mater Dei control the enrollment to stay in a given class for athletics is wrong (or "bull crap" as Muda says, LOL). There is no question p/p schools cannot adequately provide for every type of student, especially those with significant learning challenges. Not being able to accept those student is a form of "enrollment control" but it has nothing to do with athletics. Having served on the board of trustees at Memorial for a long time, we would love to be able to accept all students, but the economic reality is we can't. If we could get another 200-300 non-sports playing students, we would take them in heart beat because it would mean tuition doesn't grow by 10-15% every year. 

[jets]

6 minutes ago, tango said:

I will give you some degree of socioeconomics and definitely increased parental support at p/p schools, but evidently those don't translate to athletic success at Day School, Wash. Catholic or Rivet. As for controlled enrollment, those 3 schools could have significantly higher enrollment and still be 1A, so I'm not sure that holds water. The implication that schools like Memorial and Mater Dei control the enrollment to stay in a given class for athletics is wrong (or "bull crap" as Muda says, LOL). There is no question p/p schools cannot adequately provide for every type of student, especially those with significant learning challenges. Not being able to accept those student is a form of "enrollment control" but it has nothing to do with athletics. Having served on the board of trustees at Memorial for a long time, we would love to be able to accept all students, but the economic reality is we can't. If we could get another 200-300 non-sports playing students, we would take them in heart beat because it would mean tuition doesn't grow by 10-15% every year. 

Of course ...more students = more $$ . I get that. 

Anyone on message boards will pick apart any little thing - but I think the point is pretty clear as far as advantages p/p's have over their public counterparts - thus my feelings for just an "auto-bump" and be DONE with the success factor. 

Oh....AND SEED THE D#@$ SECTIONALS ALREADY! And none of this "only top 2" bologna - do the entire thing - GIVE SOME CREDENCE to a good regular season.