The p/p hegemony continues unabated

[jets]

9 hours ago, Just a dad said:

I have learned in a very short time on the GID that some of the people are so attached to their narrative that it has become a defining part of who they are. To admit that there might even be the slightest chance that their chosen narrative might not be 100% correct causes them so much cognitive dissonance that they won’t even give credence to a differing perspective. They have chosen to go all in on the “it’s not fair” argument and that is all it will ever be. You choosing to supply facts and data will never counter their preferred explanation. After all, if they admit that “it’s not fair” is wrong then they are suddenly forced to face the fact that it comes down to something else. Maybe personal accountability. Their egos are too fragile to deal with that. Nice post though. Don’t be surprised if you get blasted by the fairness brigade. 

Hahahahaha....you wanna talk about "EGO!?!?" How much of an ego do you need to have to just honestly believe "we win because we just WORK HARDER, have a better FEEDER SYSTEM and it is our CULTURE." 

Like no one else has figured out those things. 

That, sir, is an EGO. 

[Just a dad]

20 minutes ago, jets said:

Hahahahaha....you wanna talk about "EGO!?!?" How much of an ego do you need to have to just honestly believe "we win because we just WORK HARDER, have a better FEEDER SYSTEM and it is our CULTURE." 

Like no one else has figured out those things. 

That, sir, is an EGO. 

See @foxbat. They are easy to find.

[First_Backer_Inside]

14 hours ago, foxbat said:

So I'm not sure I qualify as the guy you are looking to answer.  My parents both had Catholic education all of their life with my mom finishing from a Catholic college and my dad leaving Catholic college for the military and then finishing from a public university.  I went to Catholic school through 6th grade and then did public school for everything else through college.  Two of my kids have attended Catholic school, but all have also been homeschooled and attended public schools ... my three girls from Jeff and my oldest son finishing at Harrison this year and the youngest probably attending Harrison part-time for high school.  Nonetheless, I've been thinking about this issue for a bit and frankly, haven't yet been able to come up with a set of items that works for the argument as to why p/ps, in general win, that can then be applied across the board.  What I have been leaning toward though is something akin to the idea that it's less categories and more programs.  When I look at the issue in short timeframes, like this thread does every season, it's fairly easy to generalize.  Even when several short-terms are pieced together, that generalization is easy, but some things don't seem to specifically match up with the general premise.  With that said, I'm coming at this very much so from an Indiana perspective with some additional insights from Texas and Louisiana; but mainly Indiana.

The premise has often been, if there isn't some advantage, then how does x percentage win y percent of the time?  @Bobref has pretty much trademarked on GID that correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation.  That got me to thinking through some things that, rather than focusing on the generalities and trying to make an all-encompassing theory, I'd look at some case studies and try to work from there.  Also, and I don't recall who it was that asked the question in another thread, but what got me thinking about this was a general question that was asked about 6A ... which was never really fully answered or even really solidified.  The question was, and is very similar to the question first posited in the thread, "Why is it that only four teams/programs have ever won 6A?"  It went on to, and rightly so, point out that there weren't similarities between the schools as there are differences in size, FRL items, communities, offenses/defenses, etc. It just kind of ended up as a mystery.  Four teams out of roughly 40 teams that have been in and out of 6A since its inception 11 years ago, roughly 10%, have not only won SOME of the titles, but ALL of the titles in that class.  What is the categorization that defines that four programs that you could "bottle" or is it something much more complex that can't fit on a bumper sticker?

So let me start and see if the idea can perhaps be expanded by others with some real discussion on things.  The program that I'm most familiar with is LCC.  A couple of my kids attended Catholic school until the 3rd and 5th grade, but I coached in a youth program there for 18 seasons.  LCC first started playing ball back in 1958.  As seen in a couple of other threads currently in play, while LCC has a mystique about it that has it mentioned as a storied p/p powerhouse, it's really been about the last 15 years or so that LCC has probably earned that mystique.  It entered into a storied four-peat era back in 2009-2012, but prior to that, it was pretty much feast or famine according to season outcomes on Harrell's.  So I'll ask the first question that catches my eye with LCC and the statements often made about p/p in general.  If p/p have the automatic advantage, why did LCC have such gaps between its pre-four-peat timeframe?  Starting from 1976, until 2009 ... a 34-year period ... LCC got out of sectionals four times with gaps of 13, 10, and 6 years between each.  Incidentally, in every season for LCC, until 2021, when their season ended without a state title, it came at the hands of public schools ... only the last three seasons, in 2A, has LCC's season been ended by another p/p.  BTW, not just one p/p-killer public school, although Pioneer has a storied tradition for jousting with LCC, but over a dozen public schools have delivered deathblows to LCC's post season.  So if the idea that there's an inherent p/p advantage that LCC has, then why was it not there in force in the 34-year period and, probably more importantly, what were the MANY public schools doing that was causing LCC seasons to end really early in that timeframe?

Of course, Noll is always mentioned.  Noll has a very storied past in that it never seemed to have any p/p mojo outside of 1989 when it won 3A.  Outside of that, according to Harrell's, Noll made it to a sectional championship only three times, never making it out of the sectional, and has been ousted in the first game of sectionals for the last decade ... all by public teams.  

Ritter has an amazing past.  Five state titles with three in 1A and two in 2A.  For a long time, they were one of the poster children for p/p dominance, but now, closing in on a decade, no one whispers their name anymore.  Their last state title was in 2016; however, since then, they haven't made it out of a sectional.  They've also not even been close oustings.  The closest they got was this year's 23-point second sectional game loss to Eastern Hancock.  Maybe they have a string of "bad classes" ... the opposite of those "good classes" that public school lament might SF them unfairly into the next higher class ... but, for all of the talk about p/p mojo, four losing seasons in the last seven and three of the last four would seem to indicate that reloading, which is fairly automatic for p/p schools as I've been told, would seem worrisome and not in line with the meme.

Heritage Christian ... an often forgotten p/p ... maybe because they aren't Catholic.  Only has around a two-decade history history according to Harrell's.  Has back-to-back state appearances in 2007-2008 with one blue ring.  Outside of that, two sectional titles in 2019-2020.  Has a mix of being ousted by both public and private schools.  Fairly good records, but not really drawing any of the p/p ire directed at the categorization as a whole.

Culver Academy has been around since the mid-1980s, yet only has a pair of sectional titles spaced a decade and a half apart ... 2000 and 2015.  Again, almost never referred to or draws the ire of the p/p category and I've NEVER in over two decades of being in Indiana ever once heard anyone talk about the unfair advantage that Culver Academy has, not only as a p/p, but a p/p that has had students on its rosters from foreign countries!  Wanna talk about recruiting or being outside of a youth program circle?  Also, Culver Academy used to be Culver Military Academies, so I'm pretty sure that their lack of state titles wasn't due to not being competitive.

Again, I don't have a specific answer to your question because the general answer that folks hope is given doesn't fit with all of the categorization.  Just the subset above actually refutes the generalized statements that tend to be made.  Also, I see the issue as being more complex than many of the bumper-sticker takes that have been bantered around.  I think there's something to be said for focused, driven groups in a school, but similarly, I would contend that Noll, LCC, and others have been equally focused, driven, etc., if the narratives are to be fully-embraced, but the outcomes don't seem similar.  With that said, what I think MAY be an issue is that there may be advantages that come from said make-ups, but that they aren't uniformly autonomous and that what's actually happening, which dovetails back into the 6A questions is that programs, and not necessarily categories, have figured out how to wield/harness the power as opposed to demographics.  I also believe that, and Ritter and LCC look like interesting cases for this, that while a program may be able to leverage some type of advantage, it isn't necessarily something that's inherent and automatic by birthright of categorization and, for example in the case of Ritter, it may be something that isn't eternal.

Thank you for posting this. When looking at your LCC paragraph I'm not sure what the answer was prior to the four-peat. Just a little bit before my time. Obviously the game of football has changed just a little bit since then, so the style of play could have factored into that possibly. My dad has always told me at the end of the day, no matter how good of a coach you are, if you don't have some dudes on your team, making a deep run in the tournament is difficult. The stars and sectionals can all aline, because we are in Indiana, for you to get a good draw and make a deep run with an average team and really good coaching. But eventually you are gonna run into a team with better dudes than you have. My only argument and frustration comes from the rate at which some of these p/p's, not all of them which you did a great job of pointing out and going into detail about, are reloading year after year. Can public schools do it to an extent? Yes but it doesn't seem to always happen as quickly as the p/p's. When an off year for a team is a sectional and regional championship, I'd say that ain't too bad. 

I agree. We shouldn't just throw all the p/p's in their own division because I stated this in another thread early in the season when in the right class they make the class as a whole and the football in it better. Example, take a look at Rochester over the past four years. Started 0-10 four years ago. Every year the mindset is we have to beat LCC, everything that is done is to beat them. Haven't been able to do it, but we have reaped the rewards in the regular season by winning a lot more games because of what the mindset is leading up to the season and the work put in. Chatard in 3A a little different. Unlike LCC, Chatard hasn't been able to stay up in 4A, so they come back down right when things seem to be looking up and rattle off two more state championships and then its back to 4A. So how do we fix this?

I think we have to realign sectionals and classes every year. Put the SF on a 4 year cycle like many have said, but the one adjustment is if a team wins a state championship move them up into the next class the following year. Where it gets hairy is how to determine keeping the team up or down and for how long in that remaining 3 or less years. This is something I wouldn't be good at determining but maybe someone could help me out with this part. I think this would help with those 2 peat public teams that have a good class that wins two state championships and then dips for the classes under them to get beat up on for two straight years. It also gives a Chatard more time to see if they can break through that 4A wall they can't seem to get through. It also gets a team out of a class faster after winning a state championship. Again not perfect, put it's a suggestion to this problem we think we have that can move the stronger p/p's around easier while not punishing those that aren't the strongest football programs.

[Titan32]

2 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

I get that and you are in the minority on this. Most complain about other things without a clue and it spreads like wild fire. I can tell you I have been around my fair share of youth football tournaments where a dad from a public youth football program sees a kid that looks to be a stud and states "He is being recruited by  Insert P/P " only for a few years down the road he isn't even playing High School football or is on the local Public school football team. A majority of them speak nothing but transfers, recruiting, and where they get kids from. The water cooler talk can get pretty comical from an outside perspective. 

No I am saying that every State in the US athletic association gets incessant griping about it (mostly not for the advantages you speak of) that they have no choice but to look for solutions. Most of them come up with off the cuff solutions that do nothing to combat what they are trying to do. But hey they have tried to do something to wane the constant bickering to them. The success factor (although was adjusted from its initial proposal) was a more thought out way of combating it without using a multiplier. Also no I am not saying that only admin, coaching, youth, feeder are the only cause. There are other factor (including location to metropolitan etc. Also sometimes it simply comes down to mistakes made by one team and not the other in a game. To state in better terms there are times a Public team perfectly capable of taking down a P/P team just simply goofed up multiple times in the game. It wasn't that they weren't capable and the score wasn't indicative of the game, they just made mistakes and the other team didn't. They are teenagers after all and turnovers can be very critical in a game.

Absolutely not my claim. My claim is there are many factors. Yet in large part regardless of those factors the majority of complaint is the same old transfer, recruit, etc complaint with very little support to their argument. While you think I feel there isn't inherent advantages that is far from the truth because there is. There are inherent advantages not just to P/P but also location to major city's and large populations. More so in some states than others. I would bet you could go through each state and some of the top teams are near large population metropolitan areas. There is more to the inherent advantages than gets discussed in large part. Yet most of the complaints come down to recruiting and transfer.

I appreciate the thoughtful response.  I agree that the proximity to urban areas is a big factor....but again, more so for the p/p because in my view this is really a 1A to 3A problem.  With regard to publics, the schools just get bigger in the urban areas and once you get over 1000 kids or so the issue with student population type goes away just due to sheer economies of scale. 

[coachkj]

19 hours ago, JQWL said:

You know, sometimes I like to do things for entertainment purposes. The other day, I emailed an athletic director at a private school in the state. Basically that my son was getting interest from some small D-1 and NAIA programs and we were interested in transferring him for his senior year to better prepare him for college. Mentioned he is a solid student. Top 10 in his class. Things like that. I feel like the AD probably should have just told me that transfers for athletic reasons aren't allowed in Indiana. However, I was referred to their Enrollment Director to set up a meeting. I didn't take it any further than that.

You FEEL.  YOU feel. That is exactly what the AD should do!  Not talk to you about a single thing until you have cleared the admissions.  Not sure of your point.  If the AD would have said something if you were sent to the coach or asked for film.  Since they didn't you have feelings.

I FEEL you should get a different hobby.

[FastpacedO]

27 minutes ago, Titan32 said:

I appreciate the thoughtful response.  I agree that the proximity to urban areas is a big factor....but again, more so for the p/p because in my view this is really a 1A to 3A problem.  With regard to publics, the schools just get bigger in the urban areas and once you get over 1000 kids or so the issue with student population type goes away just due to sheer economies of scale. 

In all honesty some schools you see in 5A and 6A have experienced the benefits of urban sprawl to grow them to what they are now. They are not too far from being some of the top contenders for 3A though. Some examples Zionsville, Whiteland, Hamilton Southeastern. They were right there competing  with some of the P/P in metro areas. Their schools have burst into large student populations. Heck HSE once a very good 3A school, grew so big so fast they created Fishers High School and now both are 6A. Many rosters (both P/P and Public) have grown over the years as the schools have. You can go look at State Championship programs on the IHSAA and see the big difference.

Look at the 1992/93 Wesfield (2A at the time 35 on roster) vs 2013/14 (6A and 133 on roster)  or the 1992/93 Cathedral (3A at the time 50 on roster) vs 2013/14 (5A and 123 on roster). That is why I contend location to metropolitan. Plus on some of these teams you can look at the years they made finals and see the legacy names on the rosters

[jets]

1 hour ago, Just a dad said:

See @foxbat. They are easy to find.

I'm not following??? 

[Titan32]

Just now, jets said:

I'm not following??? 

It just means he is too attached to his narrative.

[foxbat]

44 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

 

I agree. We shouldn't just throw all the p/p's in their own division because I stated this in another thread early in the season when in the right class they make the class as a whole and the football in it better. Example, take a look at Rochester over the past four years. Started 0-10 four years ago. Every year the mindset is we have to beat LCC, everything that is done is to beat them. Haven't been able to do it, but we have reaped the rewards in the regular season by winning a lot more games because of what the mindset is leading up to the season and the work put in. Chatard in 3A a little different. Unlike LCC, Chatard hasn't been able to stay up in 4A, so they come back down right when things seem to be looking up and rattle off two more state championships and then its back to 4A. So how do we fix this?

 

A couple of things to be careful of with Chatard is that the reason that they aren't still in 4A has little to do with the IDEA of SF not working and much more to do with anomalies.  As such, I'm not all that worried about Chatard in the long run having an impact on the landscape.  Realize that Chatard has been in 4A twice under SF:

• In 2013, they ran into New Pal in its ascendancy toward a 2014 state title.  Likely half a dozen other sectionals and they would have gotten more points.  In 2014, they dropped a post-season game to Roncalli.  The problem with the 2013-2014 SF cycle is that it required 4 POINTS to stay up.  Cathedral is the only team that I recall that was part of the inaugural SF crowd that actually remained on POINTS ... a couple of others went for SF and stayed for enrollment.  Even without running into New Pal in 2013, I think the chances of most teams garnering 4 points would be hard to see happening.  Even LCC, who headed to semi-state and dropped a 3-point game with the eventual 2A winner in 2014, RCHS, only picked up a total of 2 points on the cycle.  I would not count the 2013-2014 SF cycle as an indicator for any data points because the 4-point stay requirement was high-flawed and basically made the first SF cycle more like a beta test, at best, than anything else. 
• In 2021, they went up again, but only stayed for a single season due to the "COVID factor" and the IHSAA sticking them in a sectional with Roncalli.  That year, LCC had 1 point in 2A and stayed up and Chatard had 0 points in 4A and dropped back down.  The two-year cycle problem was even worse as a one-year cycle.  

In essence, I wouldn't necessarily say that Chatard not staying up in 4A is something that will require them figuring out "how to get better" or weather 4A.  The two times that they ended up in 4A were both not what I would consider regular cycles for figuring potential/trends given the stay-point flaw and the COVID anomaly treatment.

Incidentally, I think the IHSAA is making a mistake moving from a 2-point stay requirement to a 3-point stay requirement.  Pretty much that means if you don't make it out of sectionals in any year of the cycle, you need a ring the next year to stay ... and that's getting into anomaly territory again.

 

 

[First_Backer_Inside]

6 minutes ago, foxbat said:

A couple of things to be careful of with Chatard is that the reason that they aren't still in 4A has little to do with the IDEA of SF not working and much more to do with anomalies.  As such, I'm not all that worried about Chatard in the long run having an impact on the landscape.  Realize that Chatard has been in 4A twice under SF:

• In 2013, they ran into New Pal in its ascendancy toward a 2014 state title.  Likely half a dozen other sectionals and they would have gotten more points.  In 2014, they dropped a post-season game to Roncalli.  The problem with the 2013-2014 SF cycle is that it required 4 POINTS to stay up.  Cathedral is the only team that I recall that was part of the inaugural SF crowd that actually remained on POINTS ... a couple of others went for SF and stayed for enrollment.  Even without running into New Pal in 2013, I think the chances of most teams garnering 4 points would be hard to see happening.  Even LCC, who headed to semi-state and dropped a 3-point game with the eventual 2A winner in 2014, RCHS, only picked up a total of 2 points on the cycle.  I would not count the 2013-2014 SF cycle as an indicator for any data points because the 4-point stay requirement was high-flawed and basically made the first SF cycle more like a beta test, at best, than anything else. 
• In 2021, they went up again, but only stayed for a single season due to the "COVID factor" and the IHSAA sticking them in a sectional with Roncalli.  That year, LCC had 1 point in 2A and stayed up and Chatard had 0 points in 4A and dropped back down.  The two-year cycle problem was even worse as a one-year cycle.  

In essence, I wouldn't necessarily say that Chatard not staying up in 4A is something that will require them figuring out "how to get better" or weather 4A.  The two times that they ended up in 4A were both not what I would consider regular cycles for figuring potential/trends given the stay-point flaw and the COVID anomaly treatment.

Incidentally, I think the IHSAA is making a mistake moving from a 2-point stay requirement to a 3-point stay requirement.  Pretty much that means if you don't make it out of sectionals in any year of the cycle, you need a ring the next year to stay ... and that's getting into anomaly territory again.

 

 

Agreed, this will definitely be a problem moving forward. Not to get off topic because I know this was in a separate thread, but any idea on why the IHSAA did this? The only thing I can come up with is to make it easier for public schools to get back down to their enrollment class. I know it sounds bad, but typically public schools don't have too much success that I can remember when they are the ones success factored up. Maybe Webo and Pioneer had a little success that I can remember. Any other schools I'm missing that SF up and had sectional championship and higher success?

[FastpacedO]

2 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

Agreed, this will definitely be a problem moving forward. Not to get off topic because I know this was in a separate thread, but any idea on why the IHSAA did this? The only thing I can come up with is to make it easier for public schools to get back down to their enrollment class. I know it sounds bad, but typically public schools don't have too much success that I can remember when they are the ones success factored up. Maybe Webo and Pioneer had a little success that I can remember. Any other schools I'm missing that SF up and had sectional championship and higher success?

New Palestine

[Titan32]

16 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Incidentally, I think the IHSAA is making a mistake moving from a 2-point stay requirement to a 3-point stay requirement.  Pretty much that means if you don't make it out of sectionals in any year of the cycle, you need a ring the next year to stay ... and that's getting into anomaly territory again.

 

This ^^^

[foxbat]

6 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

Agreed, this will definitely be a problem moving forward. Not to get off topic because I know this was in a separate thread, but any idea on why the IHSAA did this? The only thing I can come up with is to make it easier for public schools to get back down to their enrollment class. I know it sounds bad, but typically public schools don't have too much success that I can remember when they are the ones success factored up. Maybe Webo and Pioneer had a little success that I can remember. Any other schools I'm missing that SF up and had sectional championship and higher success?

As Gordon Lightfoot used to sing, and as applies to the IHSAA, "If I could read your mind, love, what a tale your thoughts could tell."

 

[jets]

39 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

Agreed, this will definitely be a problem moving forward. Not to get off topic because I know this was in a separate thread, but any idea on why the IHSAA did this? The only thing I can come up with is to make it easier for public schools to get back down to their enrollment class. I know it sounds bad, but typically public schools don't have too much success that I can remember when they are the ones success factored up. Maybe Webo and Pioneer had a little success that I can remember. Any other schools I'm missing that SF up and had sectional championship and higher success?

Technically and under the old "1 point to stay up" - SR is STILL SF'd up from our original class from 2017 & 2018 season. Believe we might be the longest tenured public school (maybe New Pal) that was SF'd up and stay up.

2017 - State Champ .....2018- Semi-State (bumped up to 3A)

2019-HH bounced during sectional (no points) ...2020 made it semi state (stay up in 3A)

2021- bounced in sectional (no points)....2022 Sectional champs (stay up in 3A)

2023 - bounced in sectional by HH....

[Robert]

On 11/29/2023 at 7:51 AM, Muda69 said:

The best solution is for the IHSAA to go to a true system of promotion/relegation, and take enrollment entirely out of it's classification system.  

Much like the success factor, this won't work because the kids aren't there for long.  Your examples in soccer still have dominant teams.  Recruiting will only get worse and intentional losses will come.  

[US31]

5 hours ago, FastpacedO said:

Absolutely not my claim. My claim is there are many factors. Yet in large part regardless of those factors the majority of complaint is the same old transfer, recruit, etc complaint with very little support to their argument. While you think I feel there isn't inherent advantages that is far from the truth because there is. There are inherent advantages not just to P/P but also location to major city's and large populations. More so in some states than others. I would bet you could go through each state and some of the top teams are near large population metropolitan areas. There is more to the inherent advantages than gets discussed in large part. Yet most of the complaints come down to recruiting and transfer.

None of which are what I've pointed to in any of my posts.....I agree with you these issues now extend across to most schools in Indiana.  I also understand that p/p's want as large an enrollment as they can accommodate. 

But, whether some will admit it or not, the fact that p/p enrollment is SELECTIVE rather than MANDATORY is the difference.  Public school enrollementy is mandatory, every kid in their district is an enrollee regardless of any other factors.  

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Much like the success factor, this won't work because the kids aren't there for long.  Your examples in soccer still have dominant teams.  Recruiting will only get worse and intentional losses will come.  

So Indiana High School football currently don't have dominant, or upper echelon, teams?

 

[Lysander]

3 hours ago, foxbat said:

A couple of things to be careful of with Chatard is that the reason that they aren't still in 4A has little to do with the IDEA of SF not working and much more to do with anomalies.  As such, I'm not all that worried about Chatard in the long run having an impact on the landscape.  Realize that Chatard has been in 4A twice under SF:

• In 2013, they ran into New Pal in its ascendancy toward a 2014 state title.  Likely half a dozen other sectionals and they would have gotten more points.  In 2014, they dropped a post-season game to Roncalli.  The problem with the 2013-2014 SF cycle is that it required 4 POINTS to stay up.  Cathedral is the only team that I recall that was part of the inaugural SF crowd that actually remained on POINTS ... a couple of others went for SF and stayed for enrollment.  Even without running into New Pal in 2013, I think the chances of most teams garnering 4 points would be hard to see happening.  Even LCC, who headed to semi-state and dropped a 3-point game with the eventual 2A winner in 2014, RCHS, only picked up a total of 2 points on the cycle.  I would not count the 2013-2014 SF cycle as an indicator for any data points because the 4-point stay requirement was high-flawed and basically made the first SF cycle more like a beta test, at best, than anything else. 
• In 2021, they went up again, but only stayed for a single season due to the "COVID factor" and the IHSAA sticking them in a sectional with Roncalli.  That year, LCC had 1 point in 2A and stayed up and Chatard had 0 points in 4A and dropped back down.  The two-year cycle problem was even worse as a one-year cycle.  

In essence, I wouldn't necessarily say that Chatard not staying up in 4A is something that will require them figuring out "how to get better" or weather 4A.  The two times that they ended up in 4A were both not what I would consider regular cycles for figuring potential/trends given the stay-point flaw and the COVID anomaly treatment.

Incidentally, I think the IHSAA is making a mistake moving from a 2-point stay requirement to a 3-point stay requirement.  Pretty much that means if you don't make it out of sectionals in any year of the cycle, you need a ring the next year to stay ... and that's getting into anomaly territory again.

 

 

Agreed.  That sums it up for the most part.  People have forgotten that 4A New Pal AND 4A Columbus East both had teams during that period that were operating at the level of this year’s East Central team….not just for 1 year but several years.  It was almost impossible to run the 4A gamut and earn the needed 4 points to stay up during that time….let alone beat Roncalli in Sectional year after year.

I, too, think the IHSAA went the wrong direction in raising it to 3 points from 2 points (I really would like to know their reasoning for this change).  Frankly, they should lower it to 1 point.  If you can win a Sectional in a bumped up class 50% of the time that seems pretty definitive that you can compete effectively in that class and indicative that you truly belong in that class.

I’m pretty certain that if it had only required 1 point to stay “up” in 2013, Chatard would STILL be in 4A starting then…..and that’s with them sharing a Sectional with Roncalli (which I will contend is a bad pairing if the IHSAA really was committed to the intent of the SF).

I think everybody here that’s paid attention knows I’ve LONG wanted to see Chatard a fixture in 4A (but with the ability to potentially move up even more via the Success Factor).  I think that an improved SF remains the way v. automatic bumps or multipliers.  If anyone remembers, I was strongly opposed to the SF back in the day and advocated an automatic bump.  I’ve had a lot of years to reconsider and have come around that the automatic bump for EVERY P/P school in EVERY sport (boys and girls) because a handful of schools have extraordinary football success simply isn’t the right or fair approach. Bump schools in the sport tge punch above class in but leave everything else alone.  The SF seems the only way to get this right.

[MHSTigerFan]

13 hours ago, jets said:

Hahahahaha....you wanna talk about "EGO!?!?" How much of an ego do you need to have to just honestly believe "we win because we just WORK HARDER, have a better FEEDER SYSTEM and it is our CULTURE." 

Like no one else has figured out those things. 

That, sir, is an EGO. 

“We just work harder”, I agree with you.  That’s nonsense.

But culture is a real thing in any organization - and it is a huge, huge deal.  Peter Drucker popularized the saying “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” (with regards to businesses) and he did so for a reason.  It may sound like TED Talk BS.  But it really isn’t.

The problem with it is that it’s a helluva lot easier said than done.  You can’t just have a coaches retreat and collectively decide “We’re going to establish a winning culture this year.”

[Irishman]

On 11/28/2023 at 3:41 PM, Just a dad said:

Just for clarification: I don’t despise those kids. Just the opposite. I was pointing out the absurdity of omitting any group of students based on the fact that they won’t contribute to the sports program of choice. Every school has kids with other interests. 

But do non public schools have special needs students? It isn't only about kids with other interests. It's about the kids who are not able to participate because of various disabilities. There is also the population that is interested in nothing. Our building in particular has over 200 ELL kids, and more than 12% of our students are non diploma track kids. Yet we are in 4A.........implying that just based on numbers, we are identical to Bishop Dwenger. Want to know what the numbers above look like in their building? About 1% and all of their kids are diploma track kids. Others? and the ELL kids that Catholic Charities helped bring here as refugees? Non existent. 

[Rodney]

2 hours ago, Irishman said:

But do non public schools have special needs students? It isn't only about kids with other interests. It's about the kids who are not able to participate because of various disabilities. 

My man have you not heard of Switowski

[FastpacedO]

6 hours ago, Irishman said:

But do non public schools have special needs students? It isn't only about kids with other interests. It's about the kids who are not able to participate because of various disabilities. There is also the population that is interested in nothing. Our building in particular has over 200 ELL kids, and more than 12% of our students are non diploma track kids. Yet we are in 4A.........implying that just based on numbers, we are identical to Bishop Dwenger. Want to know what the numbers above look like in their building? About 1% and all of their kids are diploma track kids. Others? and the ELL kids that Catholic Charities helped bring here as refugees? Non existent. 

Does Roncalli still have their STARS program for Special Education Services? I know Cathedral offers language support programs, but that is not special needs. I don't think Brebeuf has any special needs. I know both schools do not discriminate against disabilities and have had disabled students, but that is different tan special needs. I definitely respect your knowledge of it because unlike others I know you have taught in both Public and P/P.

[FastpacedO]

21 hours ago, jets said:

Hahahahaha....you wanna talk about "EGO!?!?" How much of an ego do you need to have to just honestly believe "we win because we just WORK HARDER, have a better FEEDER SYSTEM and it is our CULTURE." 

Like no one else has figured out those things. 

That, sir, is an EGO. 

I don't think anyone from P/P is saying "we win because we just work harder". As for feeder system (assuming you mean feeder football league) I have first hand knowledge of this one. There are some excellent feeder Jr. football leagues for public schools, and you can tell because it shows up at the High School level (just some examples CG's Bantam, New Pal, Brownsburg, Whiteland). I have been to several Jr league tournaments and you can usually see which ones are well ran, the ones poorly ran, and the ones starting to make the turn.  More on comparison I've witnessed with CYO later. As for culture this is not just something obtained by P/P, there are plenty of Public schools with football culture it is not just selective to P/P. Some have even really started to breed a culture, using @Titan32 as a example, it has not been unnoticed by me that Coach Hart has really built a football culture at Gibson Southern. Building that culture mixed with a terrific youth football league those schools start to reload instead of rebuild. I would say Gibson Southern has now hit that echelon of reloading from what I have seen (I 100% mean that as a compliment).

I will speak on one thing I have noticed over the years (taking out student population) looking strictly at feeder programs. When it comes to CYO you can check out @Cyoguru posts about CYO football he has always had some great posts. I am going to do just a small comparison of something I have noticed when it comes to advantages of feeder program. Let's take Chatard for an example on P/P. In CYO you will have lets say 7 or 8 elementary schools that have a CYO football team for 3rd/4th, 5th/6th, and 7th/8th (these aren't exact numbers). Now lets look at Danville for an example on Public. They will have a youth league that has say 6-7 teams for 3rd/4th and 5th/6th (these aren't exact numbers) then those filter into 1 Middle School for 7th/8th football where they play schools in their conference. Now when you snap shot that Chatard (while they will lose some from CYO to Cathedral, Brebeuf, and sometimes even the local public) Can be bringing in 7-8 kids that well experienced at QB (just using that position as an example) and go on down the line at positions. Danville however has filtered from multiple in youth league to 2 or 3 at Jr High level so the High School will only get that many. Personally that is where the depth comes from and it tend to keep the roster large coming in as Freshman at Chatard, then some will drop off after Freshman year not to play again but they will try to keep the interest of them all to come back for JV/Varsity. Where as Danville will get a drop off from Middle school to Freshman (just like Chatard does from Freshman to JV/Varsity) and then another drop off from Freshman to JV/Varsity. To me that is definitely one advantage that I have watched. I am not saying it is the only advantage either, and there is no "ego" involved for me.

Some programs have done very well at retaining and even have outstanding youth programs. To me Center Grove's youth program (Bantam and Jr. Trojans) is unparalleled in the state of Indiana. There is a reason their program reloads and is very strong regardless of being in 6A. I think their Jr Trojans are 10 time champions of the Trojan Horse Tournament in Ohio.

[Irishman]

1 hour ago, FastpacedO said:

Does Roncalli still have their STARS program for Special Education Services? I know Cathedral offers language support programs, but that is not special needs. I don't think Brebeuf has any special needs. I know both schools do not discriminate against disabilities and have had disabled students, but that is different tan special needs. I definitely respect your knowledge of it because unlike others I know you have taught in both Public and P/P.

The point to my post really is about who actually is available in each building. With the lack of students in the areas I mentioned, the reality is that non public schools have a number available/able to participate that is more on par with schools that are a class or two above where their enrollment places them in the current system. And there are too many people who simply refuse to consider that, or they just discount the impact of differences in population. 

[FastpacedO]

1 minute ago, Irishman said:

The point to my post really is about who actually is available in each building. With the lack of students in the areas I mentioned, the reality is that non public schools have a number available/able to participate that is more on par with schools that are a class or two above where their enrollment places them in the current system. 

Oh I definitely understood your post and wasn't dismissing it.