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

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Change in SF?


Recommended Posts

Here is what I see for the Success Factor changes in football for the 2024 & 2025 seasons. Please correct me if I am wrong. (This has been UPDATED AFTER the Semistate games were played.)

1A - Lutheran 7+pts will be moved up to 2A.

Adams Central 6+pts will move up to 2A. 

2A - LCC 3+pts will remain in 2A.

FW Luers 5+pts will move up to 3A if they win State.

3A - Chatard 7+pts will move up to 4A.

4A - East Central 7+pts will move up to 5A.

Ev Memorial 2pts* will drop back to 3A. (*due to change made by IHSAA in July '23)

5A - FW Snider 5+pts will move up to 6A if they win State.

6A - Cathedral 3pts will remain in 6A.

So the only remaining unknowns involve FW Snider & FW Luers...

Adams Central may be back-to-back runner-up but still moved up to 2A. Personally, I don't like this as I feel a school without a State Championship should not be bumped up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, slice60 said:

 

Adams Central may be back-to-back runner-up but still moved up to 2A. Personally, I don't like this as I feel a school without a State Championship should not be bumped up.

To be accurate, AC is making their third straight visit to LOS in a row.  Win or not; especially given that that they are facing Lutheran, again, they kind of fit the mold of the spirit of the law behind SF.  Scecina ended up in that situation the first two years that SF tracking was in place and ended up in 2A with no blue rings.

Given the way that SF works, if the argument is that a team shouldn't be bumped up if they went to LOS twice in a row and got two red rings, couldn't a team that won state in Year 1 of the cycle and only got a regional in Year 2 make a compelling argument for not being bumped in that they were just good for the one year and, at least by the numbers, actually getting worse?  SF doesn't really address problems with precision, especially with just a two-year window, and the set points, regardless of acquisition sequence is just an artifact of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2023 at 2:36 PM, slice60 said:

Here is what I see for the Success Factor changes in football for the 2024 & 2025 seasons. Please correct me if I am wrong. (This was posted BEFORE the Semistate games were played.)

3A - Chatard 6+pts will move up to 4A.

4A - East Central 6+pts will move up to 5A.

5A - FW Snider 4+pts will move up to 6A if they win State.

6A - Cathedral 3pts will remain in 6A.

I think that the first three need to be moved up, no matter the outcomes. Cathedral should stay in 6A permanently. 

I personally cannot stand SF, I think they did a poor-man's relegation system. I would rather see a yearly movement of teams based on overall performance. Jeffersonville while is enrollment wise a 6A school...it is not competitive against 4, 5 or 6A schools. 

Terre Haute North has not had a winning season since 2013, they went .500 in 2017. Drop them and give way to East Central (which is finally happening due to SF) or even New Pal. 

I think we will find that there are schools that can compete two maybe even three classes higher than what they are right now. Plus, once they get to the 5A and 6A format, they get out of these enormous sectionals that take almost a month to get through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hhpatriot04 said:

A relegation system can't work with a geographically flawed all-in, unseeded tournament.

I know there are sectionals where teams are at least 2.5 hrs away from one another....such as Tippy Valley and Chatard (that is the one that comes to mind). 

The IHSAA could break the 1-4A divisions up, like they did with 5 and 6A, this gives everyone a week off before the playoffs start, and reduces the number of games to just earn 1 success factor point. Your could group your sectionals better based on geography, and this cuts down on the insane traveling some smaller schools are having, just to play each Friday night. 

Personally, I say either cut down the number of teams that make the tournament each year or seed the tournament.  Or the IHSAA could have Regions like the NCAA basketball tourney. Northeast, Northwest, Southeast and Southwest.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/17/2023 at 4:18 PM, PHJIrish said:

Did Bobby Cox get rehired at the IHSAA?  I thought when he retired everything would be a bit more "transparent."

The rule was changed in June. It has been published in the by laws since June. It was first brought up in the May IHSAA meeting and approved in June. In may there was a story in the Indy Star by Kyle Neddenriep.  Is it a lack of being transparent or is it you are just not paying attention?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, sr1 said:

The rule was changed in June. It has been published in the by laws since June. It was first brought up in the May IHSAA meeting and approved in June. In may there was a story in the Indy Star by Kyle Neddenriep.  Is it a lack of being transparent or is it you are just not paying attention?

I don't recall the point total change ever being mentioned by him or any reporter covering HS sports, but I must have missed it. If you have an article link handy, I'd love to see the article to learn the official rationale. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2023 at 1:43 PM, foxbat said:

To be accurate, AC is making their third straight visit to LOS in a row.  Win or not; especially given that that they are facing Lutheran, again, they kind of fit the mold of the spirit of the law behind SF.  Scecina ended up in that situation the first two years that SF tracking was in place and ended up in 2A with no blue rings.

Given the way that SF works, if the argument is that a team shouldn't be bumped up if they went to LOS twice in a row and got two red rings, couldn't a team that won state in Year 1 of the cycle and only got a regional in Year 2 make a compelling argument for not being bumped in that they were just good for the one year and, at least by the numbers, actually getting worse?  SF doesn't really address problems with precision, especially with just a two-year window, and the set points, regardless of acquisition sequence is just an artifact of that.

I think AC is gonna have to move up due to enrollment anyway. Some of the AC faithful could probably confirm or deny this a little better than I could but I know they've had a lot of kids coming in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, First_Backer_Inside said:

I think AC is gonna have to move up due to enrollment anyway. Some of the AC faithful could probably confirm or deny this a little better than I could but I know they've had a lot of kids coming in.

Yep.  Win or lose, they are likely to follow the path of Scecina and Linton ... teams that have seen LOS, ended up in 2A via SF, and end up with enrollment numbers to stay regardless of SF points to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, foxbat said:

Yep.  Win or lose, they are likely to follow the path of Scecina and Linton ... teams that have seen LOS, ended up in 2A via SF, and end up with enrollment numbers to stay regardless of SF points to stay.

Odds are once in 2A AC will be in the same sectional as Luers every year. Could provide some exciting matchups!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2023 at 1:10 PM, slice60 said:

Adams Central may be back-to-back runner-up but still moved up to 2A. Personally, I don't like this as I feel a school without a State Championship should not be bumped up.

Can't agree more....this is beyond stupid.

"Congratulations on building a program at a small public school that is on the cusp of winning a state title.  We are now going to bump you up a class even though you haven't won that title." Sincerely, hugs ang kisses, the IHSAA

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2023 at 1:43 PM, foxbat said:

To be accurate, AC is making their third straight visit to LOS in a row.  Win or not; especially given that that they are facing Lutheran, again, they kind of fit the mold of the spirit of the law behind SF.  Scecina ended up in that situation the first two years that SF tracking was in place and ended up in 2A with no blue rings.

Given the way that SF works, if the argument is that a team shouldn't be bumped up if they went to LOS twice in a row and got two red rings, couldn't a team that won state in Year 1 of the cycle and only got a regional in Year 2 make a compelling argument for not being bumped in that they were just good for the one year and, at least by the numbers, actually getting worse?  SF doesn't really address problems with precision, especially with just a two-year window, and the set points, regardless of acquisition sequence is just an artifact of that.

Can't disagree more....this quote is beyond stupid.  Bumping up a program without a title is a joke.  If AC's enrollement moves them up...so be it, but to SF a team up that has not won a title is a joke.

Edited by US31
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, US31 said:

Can't disagree more....this quote is beyond stupid.  Bumping up a program without a title is a joke.  If AC's enrollement moves them up...so be it, but to SF a team up that has not won a title is a joke.

And yet it's happened already and no one complained about it or disagreed more with it or considered it stupid a decade ago. 

The question to ask, to determine the spirit of things is, would AC, in its current form, be able to win sectionals in the average 2A sectional ... let's currently ignore the potential that they could end up in a sectional with Luers.  If the answer is "yes," then we're really only quibbling about small details because the general consensus is, if you can win a sectional each year in a class in which you got bumped into, then you deserve to stay up ... although the IHSAA, erroneously IMO, just recently changed their minds again on that.  Nonetheless, I suspect if you polled the site, most folks are OK with their OWN PROGRAM abiding by that idea; two sectionals or more and stay up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, foxbat said:

And yet it's happened already and no one complained about it or disagreed more with it or considered it stupid a decade ago. 

The question to ask, to determine the spirit of things is, would AC, in its current form, be able to win sectionals in the average 2A sectional ... let's currently ignore the potential that they could end up in a sectional with Luers.  If the answer is "yes," then we're really only quibbling about small details because the general consensus is, if you can win a sectional each year in a class in which you got bumped into, then you deserve to stay up ... although the IHSAA, erroneously IMO, just recently changed their minds again on that.  Nonetheless, I suspect if you polled the site, most folks are OK with their OWN PROGRAM abiding by that idea; two sectionals or more and stay up.

I considered it stupid a decade ago.  I said the SF was the dumbest thing the IHSAA had done since they went to class basketball.  I don't think the IHSAA wanted to have a SF, but they felt they had to because LCC and Luers had both just finished winning state 4 years in a row.  The way the SF is set up now, it could ruin your program.  I don't think it helped Pioneer very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, US31 said:

Can't agree more....this is beyond stupid.

"Congratulations on building a program at a small public school that is on the cusp of winning a state title.  We are now going to bump you up a class even though you haven't won that title." Sincerely, hugs ang kisses, the IHSAA

I think you’re missing it. As I read your post, you don’t object to the concept of the SF. Rather, it’s the definition of “success” that you find “beyond stupid.” Am I reading that correctly?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, foxbat said:

... although the IHSAA, erroneously IMO, just recently changed their minds again on that.  Nonetheless, I suspect if you polled the site, most folks are OK with their OWN PROGRAM abiding by that idea; two sectionals or more and stay up.

I can't agree more with you on this part.

As for the rest....I'm not trying to make this just an AC thing.  I've always said SF shouldn't move anyone up unless they have the points AND a title.  

And also....DON'T FORGET ABOUT WEBO!!!!😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bobref said:

I think you’re missing it. As I read your post, you don’t object to the concept of the SF. Rather, it’s the definition of “success” that you find “beyond stupid.” Am I reading that correctly?

My own personal feelings....IHSAA's "success" factor was supposed to prevent a monopoly on state titles within a given class (not necessarily my goal, but I think most assumed that was IHSAA's goal).  To that end, why would a program be SF'd up a class if they did not win a state title?  So I think you are reading me correctly.  My definition of success would not simply be state final appearances...but the SF points AND a state title.  This is my opinion...others have their own.

25 minutes ago, Tippy said:

I considered it stupid a decade ago.  I said the SF was the dumbest thing the IHSAA had done since they went to class basketball.  I don't think the IHSAA wanted to have a SF, but they felt they had to because LCC and Luers had both just finished winning state 4 years in a row.  The way the SF is set up now, it could ruin your program.  I don't think it helped Pioneer very much.

I agree with most all of this.  I wouldn't go so far as to say "ruin your program", but SF shouldn't effect your classification unless you have won a title in some rather recent history (I could be talked into some variability on how long ago "recent" would be.  And yes, that means at some point I would be ok with Cathedral moving back down to 5A if they don't win a title in the next ???? many of years)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tippy said:

I considered it stupid a decade ago.  I said the SF was the dumbest thing the IHSAA had done since they went to class basketball.  I don't think the IHSAA wanted to have a SF, but they felt they had to because LCC and Luers had both just finished winning state 4 years in a row.  The way the SF is set up now, it could ruin your program.  I don't think it helped Pioneer very much.

I wasn't talking about SF per se, but the idea of a team getting bumped without winning a state title.  It happened with Scecina and no one complained about it ... just thought it was an unfortunate consequence, but as you point out, most folks didn't have an issue with it because it got rid of LCC and taking out Scecina was seen as icing on the cake and not a travesty. 

Yes, SF is flawed in its current form.  As I pointed out in the post above, and as others who were part of the IFCA proposal will tell you, SF was not really approached with the idea of detail or precision.  Four year rolling cycles as opposed to two-year fixed cycles would have been a much better way of addressing things with much less collateral damage.  That would also open up the idea of addressing the fact that teams with same points aren't necessarily the same.  As an example, take the current situation of 6 points ... across a two year cycle, that could represent three different teams: 4-2, 2-4, and 3-3 across a two-year cycle in how points were accumulated.  Under the current form, an argument could likely be made that 2-4 is in ascendancy although no guarantee that it's not a single class issue, 4-2 may well be more of a single class, and 3-3 could be an argument of foundational program ... although, with two-year cycles, still hard to determine.  And thus the dilemma upon us ... the IHSAA doesn't really distinguish between the 6-pointers ... they are all considered better-than-average.  Not optimal and possibly not fair, but consistent and easy to implement ... which as an alternative to potential lawsuits, is pretty much what the IHSAA was looking for.  Part of the biggest problem with SF is that it was backward-engineered and implemented to solve a specific problem.  In the tight-focused approach, they didn't realize that sometimes the traps set for one type of prey often catch other unintended entities just wandering around the same fields.

I completely agree with you about Pioneer getting caught up in SF, although probably lesser of an issue for Pioneer as Pioneer was a high-performing program for years, so it was more in a position to absorb that hit than say a team like North Decatur making to LOS this year and getting a blue ring and heading to 2A.  Nonetheless, it still will have some (negative) impact on Pioneer's program.  Would like to see the IHSAA move to a four-year cycle which would be a much better step in the right direction to minimizing damage while also allowing for movement of teams that can compete at a higher level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sr1 said:

The rule was changed in June. It has been published in the by laws since June. It was first brought up in the May IHSAA meeting and approved in June. In may there was a story in the Indy Star by Kyle Neddenriep.  Is it a lack of being transparent or is it you are just not paying attention?

Maybe I just don't pay enough attention!😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2023 at 1:10 PM, slice60 said:

Here is what I see for the Success Factor changes in football for the 2024 & 2025 seasons. Please correct me if I am wrong. (This has been UPDATED AFTER the Semistate games were played.)

1A - Lutheran 7+pts will be moved up to 2A.

Adams Central 6+pts will move up to 2A. 

2A - LCC 3+pts will remain in 2A.

FW Luers 5+pts will move up to 3A if they win State.

3A - Chatard 7+pts will move up to 4A.

4A - East Central 7+pts will move up to 5A.

Ev Memorial 2pts* will drop back to 3A. (*due to change made by IHSAA in July '23)

5A - FW Snider 5+pts will move up to 6A if they win State.

6A - Cathedral 3pts will remain in 6A.

So the only remaining unknowns involve FW Snider & FW Luers...

Adams Central may be back-to-back runner-up but still moved up to 2A. Personally, I don't like this as I feel a school without a State Championship should not be bumped up.

If Snider bumps up, who drops down, school with lowest enrollment I would think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, psaboy said:

If Snider bumps up, who drops down, school with lowest enrollment I would think?

Adams Central may be back-to-back runner-up but still moved up to 2A. Personally, I don't like this as I feel a school without a State Championship should not be bumped up.

Ask Linton-Stockton what THEY think?  This has been done before to a school.....

Should be a 'grace' allowed in these situations?  I think so!!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Yuccaguy said:

Adams Central may be back-to-back runner-up but still moved up to 2A. Personally, I don't like this as I feel a school without a State Championship should not be bumped up.

Ask Linton-Stockton what THEY think?  This has been done before to a school.....

Should be a 'grace' allowed in these situations?  I think so!!!  

Eastern Hancock most likely benefited from this happening in the past back in 2013.  Scecina moving up via SF, despite not winning a title in two straight appearances, cleared the way in the south for EH.  Tri-Central beat EH anyway, but SF cleared the deck for EH to have a shot at LOS which likely would have been filled by Scecina had they not been SF'd.

Linton had a red and blue ring, respectively, in their back-to-backs in 2015 and 2016 which then saw them SF'd and then "enrollmented (trademark pending)."

  • Thanks 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...