Atleast we are not New Jersey

Cat Box

Senior
Sep 23, 2012
1,118
718
0
https://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/10/njsiaas_absurd_football_playoff_system_is_an_utter.html

Lucas' Delran team is 7-1 but was left out of the playoffs when -- and this is not a typo -- 26 teams with losing records and seven public schools with two or fewer wins got in. That includes a Middletown North team that went 1-6. A one-win team should never make the playoffs. Why would it even want to?

Nice find MC140.
Read the article. What a disaster that system is. Yikes!
 

mchsalumni

All-Conference
Sep 24, 2008
5,702
3,531
0
This is awful. Rewarding or punishing schools based on previous results is ridiculous and someone needs to be fired for allowing a point spread to value quality of win for playoff purposes. What the hell were they thinking?
 

Snetsrak61

Senior
Aug 16, 2008
1,209
681
113
So am I reading that right that some fan basically had a power ranking system and they basically just said, sure that works.
 

Quags22

Senior
Aug 15, 2006
2,283
920
113
Remember, sports betting is now legal in New Jersey.

I'll take a 3-team parlay on......
 
Oct 12, 2017
1,137
680
0
So, if we were in New Jersey, would GCMS have covered the spread against Watseka? Do the Warriors move on because they actually scored...Or does 1-8 Manteno make the playoffs because they were dropped from the betting line after their QB broke his ankle week 2...Ya know, Manteno had made the playoffs eight straight years, so they should have gotten into the playoffs just because they are "usually good"...Strength of schedule is just so important...Or should we use the Raider's theory..."Just Win Baby"...Lot easier to justify decisions on the "Just Win Baby" system...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene K.

ignazio

All-Conference
Oct 25, 2007
3,837
2,878
0
NJ HS football - with their classes and zones, districts, divisions - kids win two games at the end of the year and they're all walking around with "state champion" windbreakers.
 

SSafety1

Redshirt
Aug 16, 2008
11
11
0
Grew up in Northern NJ. Yes state playoff system is much different IL. But lots of college and pro talent has come from NJ.
 
Jul 22, 2001
1,153
686
0
OK folks. I know we all hate it when the internet gets in the way of some facts. However, margin of victory was not the key culprit here.

In the New Jersey system, wins are adjusted based on the size and w/l record of opponents. Most of the teams Delran played was many classes below them so their wins were often given half value or less. (Michigan has a similar system, but is more transparent).

If Delran had played any type of schedule, this wouldn't have been an issue.

Not saying this is right, but this is what happens when you have rigid classifications. Imagine the outrage here if a 3000 enrollment school plays a schedule of 400 enrollment schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seyton

Alexander33

All-Conference
Oct 24, 2016
803
1,079
93
https://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2018/10/njsiaas_absurd_football_playoff_system_is_an_utter.html

Lucas' Delran team is 7-1 but was left out of the playoffs when -- and this is not a typo -- 26 teams with losing records and seven public schools with two or fewer wins got in. That includes a Middletown North team that went 1-6. A one-win team should never make the playoffs. Why would it even want to?
Just out of curiosity I went to CalPreps' prediction website and submitted a hypothetical game between Delran (7-1) and Middletown North (1-6). The projection was that Middletown North is 6 points better than Delran. It must have been a pretty easy schedule that allowed Delran to achieve a 7-1 record. It may be that Delran deserved to make the playoffs rather than Middletown North, but, on the other hand, perhaps them not making the playoffs was not as unfair as the article suggested.
 
Jul 22, 2001
1,153
686
0
Just out of curiosity I went to CalPreps' prediction website and submitted a hypothetical game between Delran (7-1) and Middletown North (1-6). The projection was that Middletown North is 6 points better than Delran. It must have been a pretty easy schedule that allowed Delran to achieve a 7-1 record. It may be that Delran deserved to make the playoffs rather than Middletown North, but, on the other hand, perhaps them not making the playoffs was not as unfair as the article suggested.

Delran's entire schedule was against schools a third its size. This is not as unfair as many people believe
 

jwarigaku

All-Conference
Jan 30, 2006
4,201
1,559
73
Yes let’s not let the facts get in the way that Batavia a school of 1899 will be playing a school of 760, and that the largest school in 7A, Glenbard East, has 2263 students. All of this jerrymandering because this is what’s right for student athletes.

Imagine the outrage here if a 3000 enrollment school plays a schedule of 400 enrollment schools.
 

mc140

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
8,781
2,830
113
IMG would not qualify for any IHSA post season tournament.

But if they did they would have followers on this board singing the praises of their coach and how they compete with only 600 kids in their school against much bigger schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClownBaby

Snetsrak61

Senior
Aug 16, 2008
1,209
681
113
But if they did they would have followers on this board singing the praises of their coach and how they compete with only 600 kids in their school against much bigger schools.
But they wouldn't qualify so no there wouldn't lol

I mean I guess it's cute to pretend a school with a recruiting range no less than 9,000 times the range as a IL Private HS (assuming we limit IMG recruiting range to just the US) would be viewed the same, but they wouldn't be (not to mention other differences in the respective institutions).
 
Last edited:

crusader_of_90

All-American
Nov 1, 2003
11,279
9,228
113
Not saying this is right, but this is what happens when you have rigid classifications. Imagine the outrage here if a 3000 enrollment school plays a schedule of 400 enrollment schools.
There is no outrage when a 400 enrollment here plays against 2000 in the playoffs.
 

go dogz

Sophomore
Oct 14, 2010
363
178
0
But they wouldn't qualify so no there wouldn't lol

I mean I guess it's cute to pretend a school with a recruiting range no less than 9,000 times the range as a IL Private HS (assuming we limit IMG recruiting range to just the US) would be viewed the same, but they wouldn't be (not to mention other differences in the respective institutions).


lets for agreement sake call them jca and naz.
as you all know, you recruit everyone recruits, this is not the problem. the fact that you all say one has to pay 10k o15k is just crap. I personally know of kids that play at a school for cutting grass and washing windows during the summer they must have been paid very well for their work. i know juans an joses that would have loved that job.
the bigger issue i have is depth. private schools pick needs every year, so you can easily reload at positions you get two or 3 (1)'s in each role as opposed to publics, where they will get determining on the size of the school a one and 3 for their depth.
we are all adults here and can acknowledge the size of the sidelines of each school. when you see a school as jwar likes to say naz's size but they have 55+ players on the sidelines and then you look at even a 6a school with only 30-45players on the sidelines that is a huge difference. and you have the depth players needed to fill in when injuries happen.
now go the to larger schools 8a yes they might have more kids wandering the halls, so they can potentially get a couple more depth players.
but, when you look at the break down of the schools. you still have the jocks, the stoners, the prancers, and the outcasts. so in reality you are looking out of those 2000-3000kids 100players.
football enrollment numbers is very key in determining class and class competition.
what we should be doing in these district area schools Lincoln ways, 218 etc, is consolidating the ahtletes in these districts. we can create larger programs for the area. make better teams and then the privates can stay in the football enrollment numbers they like.
 

Snetsrak61

Senior
Aug 16, 2008
1,209
681
113
Depth? Didn't the ESCC just elimination Frosh/Soph football and go to Varsity and JV? I don't think that was done because they were busting with depth.

Private schools recruit to stay open. Yea the football coach is going to try and attract football players and the soccer coach soccer players, etc, but theor admissions office isn't looking at a copy of the ******* depth charts. Get real.

Now I am actually sympathetic to the idea that some schools actually turn kids away (either due to high demands/standards or just lack of space) and therefor effectively keep what we'll call a "artificially low" enrollment. However the vast majority of private institutions are turning no one away, so their enrollment number is really reflective of a wider range of students and capabilities.

Fwiw I'm okay with some form of a multiplier, but I think it should be much more easily waived and the SF scrapped and incorporated into a revised multiplier that allows a majority of private schools to compete at their unadjusted enrollment level. For Naz, just some consistency in class would be welcomed.
 

go dogz

Sophomore
Oct 14, 2010
363
178
0
Depth? Didn't the ESCC just elimination Frosh/Soph football and go to Varsity and JV? I don't think that was done because they were busting with depth.

Private schools recruit to stay open. Yea the football coach is going to try and attract football players and the soccer coach soccer players, etc, but theor admissions office isn't looking at a copy of the ****ing depth charts. Get real.

Now I am actually sympathetic to the idea that some schools actually turn kids away (either due to high demands/standards or just lack of space) and therefor effectively keep what we'll call a "artificially low" enrollment. However the vast majority of private institutions are turning no one away, so their enrollment number is really reflective of a wider range of students and capabilities.

Fwiw I'm okay with some form of a multiplier, but I think it should be much more easily waived and the SF scrapped and incorporated into a revised multiplier that allows a majority of private schools to compete at their unadjusted enrollment level. For Naz, just some consistency in class would be welcomed.


but, look around at football numbers are low all over. the fact is that you are finding the 6'2" 235lbs guys and the halls do not give you 3 6' 4" guys that want to play guard or tackle .
but absolutely!! I totally agree. and also ALL schools need to be adjusted, either up or down. accordingly to their competitive levels.
 

Cross Bones

All-Conference
Aug 19, 2001
52,884
3,959
113
But they wouldn't qualify so no there wouldn't lol

I mean I guess it's cute to pretend a school with a recruiting range no less than 9,000 times the range as a IL Private HS (assuming we limit IMG recruiting range to just the US) would be viewed the same, but they wouldn't be (not to mention other differences in the respective institutions).
I don't understand what "recruiting range" has to do with anything, can you explain?

Plus the cost to attend IMG is over 70k if you play a sport.
 

ignazio

All-Conference
Oct 25, 2007
3,837
2,878
0
i still think the best rule would be to let a kid transfer for any reason - the only restriction would be that he couldn't participate in the playoffs for one year.
 

mc140

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
8,781
2,830
113
I don't understand what "recruiting range" has to do with anything, can you explain?

Plus the cost to attend IMG is over 70k if you play a sport.

The Gap Between Naz and Manteno is greater than the Gap between IMG and NAZ. All of them are similar in size.
 

Cross Bones

All-Conference
Aug 19, 2001
52,884
3,959
113
The Gap Between Naz and Manteno is greater than the Gap between IMG and NAZ. All of them are similar in size.
You think? I haven't seen Manteno ever. I also haven't seen IMG this year. There is likely a sizable difference between Manteno and Naz though.

I would like to know how "recruiting range" affects this analogy and also why the $70K+ tuition doesn't even it up.
 

Snetsrak61

Senior
Aug 16, 2008
1,209
681
113
I would like to know how "recruiting range" affects this analogy and also why the $70K+ tuition doesn't even it up.
The IHSA limits the recruiting range of member, open enrollment schools. How would a school with zero restrictions not clearly be a different example? I mean sure there are some parallels, but public and private schools both work under some constrsints and freedoms whereas an IMG operates under a totally different universe, even with the tuition hurdle.
 

Cross Bones

All-Conference
Aug 19, 2001
52,884
3,959
113
The IHSA limits the recruiting range of member, open enrollment schools. How would a school with zero restrictions not clearly be a different example? I mean sure there are some parallels, but public and private schools both work under some constrsints and freedoms whereas an IMG operates under a totally different universe, even with the tuition hurdle.
I am not sure how the restrictions matter. The points are still the same. If the argument is that because IMG is capable of attracting students from a more broad base they have an advantage then that applies perfectly to public/private here. If 600 students isn't an indication of the type of talent IMG puts on the football field because of that capability to attract students from vast distances then that applies perfectly to public/private here. If the $70k+ per year tuition doesn't really matter to mitigate the ability to attract talent at IMG then the $6K to $20K here doesn't mitigate the ability to attract students from a distance. If a 1.65 multiplier wouldn't fix the IMG issue then it wouldn't fix the issue here, because it's all the same.

Enrollments make sense for public/boundried schools for classifications. They don't for schools who attract or recruit their student bodies. Outside of a separation I don't know how it gets fixed.
 

Voodoo Tatum 21

All-Conference
May 18, 2016
2,970
1,765
0
I am not sure how the restrictions matter. The points are still the same. If the argument is that because IMG is capable of attracting students from a more broad base they have an advantage then that applies perfectly to public/private here. If 600 students isn't an indication of the type of talent IMG puts on the football field because of that capability to attract students from vast distances then that applies perfectly to public/private here. If the $70k+ per year tuition doesn't really matter to mitigate the ability to attract talent at IMG then the $6K to $20K here doesn't mitigate the ability to attract students from a distance. If a 1.65 multiplier wouldn't fix the IMG issue then it wouldn't fix the issue here, because it's all the same.

Enrollments make sense for public/boundried schools for classifications. They don't for schools who attract or recruit their student bodies. Outside of a separation I don't know how it gets fixed.

I don’t think IMG is allowed to compete for Florida state championships either.

I also have heard that they waive the tuition for some athletes and offer “ athletic scholarships”

I could be wrong - but I think there are two types of “student athletes” that attend IMG

1. The athletic prodigies - paying zero

2. The kids of super wealthy families - paying full freight

If the above is accurate - then the biggest separator between IMG and private’s in IL is the ability to offer athletic specific scholarships.
 

Snetsrak61

Senior
Aug 16, 2008
1,209
681
113
I am not sure how the restrictions matter. The points are still the same. If the argument is that because IMG is capable of attracting students from a more broad base they have an advantage then that applies perfectly to public/private here. If 600 students isn't an indication of the type of talent IMG puts on the football field because of that capability to attract students from vast distances then that applies perfectly to public/private here. If the $70k+ per year tuition doesn't really matter to mitigate the ability to attract talent at IMG then the $6K to $20K here doesn't mitigate the ability to attract students from a distance. If a 1.65 multiplier wouldn't fix the IMG issue then it wouldn't fix the issue here, because it's all the same.

Enrollments make sense for public/boundried schools for classifications. They don't for schools who attract or recruit their student bodies. Outside of a separation I don't know how it gets fixed.
The 50-60k difference in tuition isn't equitable to the removal of all other recruitment restrictions (not to mention the institutional focus shifted primarily to athletics). Private schools in IL participating in IHSA athletics operate under many restrictions.
 

Cross Bones

All-Conference
Aug 19, 2001
52,884
3,959
113
I don’t think IMG is allowed to compete for Florida state championships either.

I also have heard that they waive the tuition for some athletes and offer “ athletic scholarships”

I could be wrong - but I think there are two types of “student athletes” that attend IMG

1. The athletic prodigies - paying zero

2. The kids of super wealthy families - paying full freight

If the above is accurate - then the biggest separator between IMG and private’s in IL is the ability to offer athletic specific scholarships.
Do we know who pays what here? Is it any of our business? I don't want to know, nor do I care.

They don't compete in the playoff system, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. It's likely an opportunity few athletes would pass up and I can't blame them. But the attraction/enrollment issues remain the same.
 

Cross Bones

All-Conference
Aug 19, 2001
52,884
3,959
113
The 50-60k difference in tuition isn't equitable to the removal of all other recruitment restrictions (not to mention the institutional focus shifted primarily to athletics). Private schools in IL participating in IHSA athletics operate under many restrictions.
But the underlying tenets remain the same. Their ability to attract students from a wide range makes actual enrollment inconsequential to their on field talent even despite the $70K+ per year tuition. Sure it's at a different magnitude than Illinois privates, but the magnitude doesn't defeat the argument.
 

Snetsrak61

Senior
Aug 16, 2008
1,209
681
113
But the underlying tenets remain the same. Their ability to attract students from a wide range makes actual enrollment inconsequential to their on field talent even despite the $70K+ per year tuition. Sure it's at a different magnitude than Illinois privates, but the magnitude doesn't defeat the argument.
And that different magnitude would mean no one would claim IMG should compete I'm 4A. Everyone would say they don't qualify to compete. It's not a minor difference, the specific magnitude is HUGE.
 

Voodoo Tatum 21

All-Conference
May 18, 2016
2,970
1,765
0
Do we know who pays what here? Is it any of our business? I don't want to know, nor do I care.

They don't compete in the playoff system, but that doesn't change the facts of the matter. It's likely an opportunity few athletes would pass up and I can't blame them. But the attraction/enrollment issues remain the same.

I agree it doesn’t change the facts or the attraction/enrollment component. I agree their enrollment size is totally a non factor and could not be used to “place them” in a classification.

That said - there is a difference between all other private’s (even the private’s in Florida) and IMG and I wanted to point out the difference. I think the Florida version of IHSA also thinks there is a difference and hence they treat IMG as a special case and not like all the other Florida private schools?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cross Bones

Hill1729

Freshman
Aug 3, 2017
129
96
0
Depth? Didn't the ESCC just elimination Frosh/Soph football and go to Varsity and JV? I don't think that was done because they were busting with depth.

Private schools recruit to stay open. Yea the football coach is going to try and attract football players and the soccer coach soccer players, etc, but theor admissions office isn't looking at a copy of the ****ing depth charts. Get real.

Now I am actually sympathetic to the idea that some schools actually turn kids away (either due to high demands/standards or just lack of space) and therefor effectively keep what we'll call a "artificially low" enrollment. However the vast majority of private institutions are turning no one away, so their enrollment number is really reflective of a wider range of students and capabilities.

Fwiw I'm okay with some form of a multiplier, but I think it should be much more easily waived and the SF scrapped and incorporated into a revised multiplier that allows a majority of private schools to compete at their unadjusted enrollment level. For Naz, just some consistency in class would be welcomed.

Is this a turn the Naz poses becoming the ESCC posse?