3 Questions
- Thread starter MC63
- Start date
Answer and question. Running clock in Glenbard West v Downers Grove South this past weekend. Learned earlier this year, running clock can start before halftime if both coaching staffs agreed...saw that once this year. Interested to learn more from others on the topic.
1. 2 year commitment.
2. I believe the new rule is 2 championship games in 2 years as part of that 2 classification period
3. Yes. Seen it a lot.
So if Naz makes it to championship game this year, do they bump up to 8A next year?
Running clock applies exactly same in playoffs as it does regular season. 40 point differential at halftime or after. If the running clock starts earlier it’s because it’s agreed to by coaches.
Good question due to the fact that the IHSA changed the classification rules for this year and a new 2 year cycle was started. So does Nazareth’s win last year count or was it “reset” this year with the new 2 year cycle?
#2. Was the previous rule 2 championship games in 4 years? Haven't changed my opinion that it is wrong to punish success, but things are what they are. If you are correct in what you state, I suppose the "new" rule is more reasonable than the 2 games in 4 years rule. The new rule also applies only to non-boundaried schools, correct?
Been critical of the IHSA in the past, but with their "2-year window" policy for both the multiplier and the success factor, it appears they are trying to work toward a truly equitable way to accommodate both public and private school entities. May possibly be a moot point in the future however, if the public/private separation is implemented. Is this separation idea a result of the somewhat less restrictive requirements the private schools are under because of the new "2-year window" policy the IHSA has instituted? I would hate for the separation to be implemented because, with the current system, you do end up with an overall state champion per playoff class. You would lose that under the proposed separation I suspect.
This two year window is a truly terrible rule. So a team that wins two consecutive titles has a 50 percent chance of them being in the same arbitrary window and a 50 percent chance of straddling those arbitrary windows.
And where those titles fall in those arbitrary windows will dictate whether they get bumped up a class. Just mind boggling.
a team that finished as runner up two years in a row can get bumped up while a team that beats them for a championship in year 2 and repeats in year 3 would get no success factor bump because they were in two different windows. Again, mind boggling reasoning.
I get your point, but you do realize that we are having this discussion in the first place because of the fact that the IHSA members have decided to punish success attained by 15-17 year olds attending a certain type of school.
I totally agree. Whether or not you believe in the 2 year success rule, it would only make sense if it was a FLOATING 2 years.
Example is JCA: If JCA is somehow able to make it to the championship game again this year it would NOT qualify for the "success factor" because it straddled 2 different 2 year periods. There would be some serious crying about that. Or another example: Naz if they make the 7A championship again this year.
I think it’s just a matter of the IHSA wanting to only have to make adjustments to everyone on the same year and have consistency for at least 2 year chunks rather than adjustments up and down due to multiplier and success factor every year. Makes their life easier. It’s more “administratively efficient.”
I do not want to open a can here so I hesitate to ask.
Has there been a clear answer as to why the success factor only applies to private schools and not public schools as well?
Essentially, its OK for Public’s to dominate a class but not privates? First school that comes to mind is Rochester as they have been the most dominate program in the state for the past 10 years.
I think Rochester may be the best run program in the state and deserve everything they have earned. Just am confused why the success factor doesn’t apply there.
Has there been a clear answer as to why the success factor only applies to private schools and not public schools as well?
Essentially, its OK for Public’s to dominate a class but not privates? First school that comes to mind is Rochester as they have been the most dominate program in the state for the past 10 years.
I think Rochester may be the best run program in the state and deserve everything they have earned. Just am confused why the success factor doesn’t apply there.
Which has me totally baffled because they weren’t in the finals the year before the 6A loss.
Because at the time it was a rolling 4 year window and 2 title games in 4 years was a one class bump, 3 in 4 years a 2 class bump and 4 in a row a 3 class bump.
So for 2017 they looked at 2013-2016. In that time they had 2 title game appearances (2014 and 2015) which bumped them to 6a from the normal 5a for 2017. Then for 2018 they looked at 2014-2017. During that window they were in title game 3 times (14,15,17) and this bumped them 2 classes from 5a to 7a. Now they have changed to the 2 year window.
I forgot the most obvious and important reason for the 2 year cycle. Districts are being implemented and districts get shuffled every 2 years to adjust for enrollment changes etc. They can’t change multipliers and success factors every year and mess up the districts. So they have to make those adjustements on the same 2 year calendar as the district realignment.
Because this and multipliers are a step to satisfy the public’s who want separation. They are hoping this will level the field enough in the public schools mind to keep them content. Apparently it’s not working. To be honest nothing ever will until the private’s can’t win a single game against a public, at least for those who are adamant about separation.
Last edited:
So the team that won 7A last year and one of the top teams in 7A this year shouldn't be in 7A???? Are you saying they are not good enough for 7A and the only reason they are there is so public schools can win. Let's see, their typical class is 5A with Montini, St. Rita, JCA but, for some reason a public school need Naz to play up. When will people just accept that currently the SF is putting teams in the right classification for football. At some point it may not work but right now it is working for football.
Last edited:
Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say anything remotely like any of that. I was simply answering the guys question about why private’s have it and Public’s don’t. IF your assertion that it’s to get teams into the class they “belong in” was the accurate reason then they would also apply it to dominant public’s like Rochester as well. There is no doubt it is done to “level” things in the minds of the public’s. It’s a fact not an opinion.
And if it was “working right now” good enough you wouldn’t have a public school with a current proposal on the table to separate the private’s due to their dominance in his mind due to being in like a mere 35% of championship games. How low would it have to be to make that proposal author happy?
Last edited:
Didn't put words in your mouth, I asked you a question. How is Naz being in 7A, obviously where they belong right now is a plus for public schools? For most public schools that are 5A and below, the only solution is separation. SF actually punish publics by spreading out the top private in each class.
Before SF, You only had 3A (IC, Bishop Mac) and 5A (Montini, JCA, Naz and SHG) where things where shaky for public schools. The SF forced those same teams to be spread between 3A through 7A allowing the opportunity for two more private championships in 4A and 6A (some years) with added more to the 7A fire as well. If the public school purpose is to minimize the private success, the SF was never the answer.
I made the EXACT same point last year I believe about spreading out the good private’s into more classes as an unintended consequence of their desire to level the field. I don’t disagree with that but nevertheless my previous statement stands. Leveling of the field for private’s is the INTENDED purpose of multipliers and the success factor.
That's where we disagree. It's not about leveling the playing field, it's about putting certain teams in the correct class based on competition. 90% or more of the privates schools will never be affected by SF. I absolutely agree with you on the multiplier. Not raising the multiplier and implementing the SF was an effort to not punish ALL privates based on the success of a very few.
That's really not true. In the 10 years prior to the success factor, class 5A is the only class that the Private schools dominated. The rest of the Private titles were spread out pretty evenly among the classes. Here is the breakdown of Privates winning a title in the 10 years prior to the SF
2A-3 titles
3A-3 titles
4A-4 titles
5A- 9 titles
6A- 4 titles
7A-3 titles
8A-1 title
And the guy who wrote the current proposal to separate private’s would argue (as he did in his proposal) that 3-4 titles in 10 years is statistically (30-40%) too many for the private’s to have won.
I fully understand your argument. The reason I disagree with your stated purpose is this: if it wasn’t to “level” things beyond the multiplier then why wouldn’t it be also implemented for public schools who aren’t multiplied? Why wouldn’t a Rochester minus the multiplier still be success factored if you are correct? You can’t answer that question intelligently without ultimately agreeing with me that it’s a leveling device beyond the multiplier for private’s.
FWIW, since the SF started, the privates are winning at basically the same rate. Privates won 27 titles in the 10 years prior to the implementation, and 13 titles in the 5 years since. Not really sure what to make of it. I guess some people think the success factor is not doing its intended job, or else we wouldn't have a proposal for separation.
3A-3 titles
4A-1 title
5A-3 titles
6A- 2 titles
7A-2 titles
8A - 2 titles
that is ******** your son didn't play
I am for competition! I think it should be a challenge to win state! If you are blessed with local talent or have the ability to assemble a great team, you should play at the highest level that will challenge you.
A little later after it occurred to me I expanded on this post with another post (copied below), which is the real reason for the 2 year cycle without a change:
“I forgot the most obvious and important reason for the 2 year cycle. Districts are being implemented and districts get shuffled every 2 years to adjust for enrollment changes etc. They can’t change multipliers and success factors every year and mess up the districts. So they have to make those adjustements on the same 2 year calendar as the district realignment.”
I have stated on here many times that I do not agree with the SF, mainly because it only pertains to non-boundary schools which is kind of ridiculous. If it is a success factor then it should apply to all successful teams. At the very least it should be renamed the “anti-private luxury tax” or something to that effect.
At the same time it seems clear that some measures (multiplier, SF, something else, etc..) should be implemented due to the vast differences between the different ends of the spectrum that can typically be found in the small and mid class sizes. Extreme example would be if ICCP were in 2A, where their true enrollment dictates. They’d have won the last 5 or 6 titles with no end in sight. To some people that’s no issue at all. In fact, some posters here might find it downright magnificent, but (un?)fortunately the majority of the IHSA member schools think otherwise.
Trying to find some equity is a tough cookie to crack. There have been some pretty interesting ideas posted here over the years.
Unfortunately (for real) I think the ship is pointed in the direction of playoff separation.
At the same time it seems clear that some measures (multiplier, SF, something else, etc..) should be implemented due to the vast differences between the different ends of the spectrum that can typically be found in the small and mid class sizes. Extreme example would be if ICCP were in 2A, where their true enrollment dictates. They’d have won the last 5 or 6 titles with no end in sight. To some people that’s no issue at all. In fact, some posters here might find it downright magnificent, but (un?)fortunately the majority of the IHSA member schools think otherwise.
Trying to find some equity is a tough cookie to crack. There have been some pretty interesting ideas posted here over the years.
Unfortunately (for real) I think the ship is pointed in the direction of playoff separation.
He's a soph that got pulled up for mainly scout, he's happy to be a part and share this with his older brother who does play.. The senior class is big so making sure they all get in and the juniors too is more important than a soph.. Running clocks go fast and any long drive can wipe out a quarter real fast..
I've seen a few running clocks at Batavia and the coaching staff does a great job getting kids in, even when the other team keeps in their first string.. It's just hard to get in all 80+ kids in a game sometimes..
I think if certain schools agree to play in 6A or higher, the split talk will slow down or go away.