i don't have a narrative, just able to see what the IHSA is doing and that it seems to be working, most the games this past year in DeKalb were great..
CCL & ESCC schedules
- Thread starter ChiCathLeagueFan
- Start date
i don't have a narrative, just able to see what the IHSA is doing and that it seems to be working, most the games this past year in DeKalb were great..
The answer to your question is no.
Naz gets bumped up to 7A for finishing 2nd in 6A after winning 6A and 5A, in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Meanwhile, Rochester just won 4A for the 7th time in 8 years. Yeah, the success factor is all about achieving "competitive balance".
If Lenti was running the offense 7-2 and at worst 6-3. But if offense is completely revamped there may be some growing pains and a team from the green comes up and bites them like DLS did this year. Will be interesting how much MC changes the offensive side of the ball.
SF is about competitive balance/ open enrollment factors combined.
Is Rochester now an open enrollment school????
I am happy with what the IHSA is doing, would rather they crack down on the recruiting BS the private schools take part in, but they don't have the manpower, so this seems to be working
Doesn't make it legal though.. I think the cheating is so rampant, you guys don't even know its illegal.. reading the thread the other day about recruiting after the Lenti firing, couldn't tell if I was reading a college or high school thread..
Tiger:
Let's keep it civil. I am not directing sarcasm at you.
It doesn't appear this way to me. If I understand the rationale for the Multiplier and the Success Factor, both were enacted and applied to open boundary schools for the reason these schools were unique in their facility to attract students based on their potential athletic contributions. Critics of open boundary schools such as you often argue this unique ability to entice athletes is frequently surrounded by a pledge from the school to award financial assistance to the athlete as a basis for admission.
The way I interpret your contention, and many others with whom you find yourself in union on this issue, is this capacity to woo these athletes with financial assistance is a virtually insurmountable edge over public schools.
In effect, since financial assistance and the 30-mile radius remain available, the Multiplier and the Success Factor only level the playing field as opposed to removing the advantage you claim open boundary schools clutch over public schools.
If the purpose of either the Multiplier or the Success Factor, both of which I define as "sore-loser laws," were to remove a supposed boon over public schools, the Temple (my byword for the IHSA) would have passed a motion to reduce the 30-mile radius and place severe restrictions on the awarding of tuition assistance. As absurd as it sounds, only through the Temple sending out an amateur gumshoe to poke through a school's books would certify no fraud in tuition assistance occurred.
In my sober judgement, the Multiplier failed spectacularly to prevent open boundary schools (Oh, let's cut the crap: It's Catholic schools targeted here) from earning football titles so the Temple adopted idiotic Dr. Dunnan's warped alternative to the Multipler, the Success Factor. The SF only narrowed the targeted schools, but again failed to outright prevent Catholic schools from winning some classes. However, for critics of Catholic schools, it is only a matter of arithmetic: Fewer Catholic schools have claimed football titles since the enactment of both policies.
Critics of Catholics schools such as yourself may not see your favored schools win a championship as a result of the Multiplier or Success Factor; your school may advance further in the post-season, but it is just enough to rejoice in Catholic schools' failure to win a class due to the Temple codifying these policies.
You are aware that it was the weak sister and mid tier private schools that were pushing for the SF, correct????
Tiger:
From broad analysis provided by numerous posters and newspaper articles, it was my understanding the concept of the Success Factor was the creation of Dr. Jim Dunnan. Dunnan, as you well know, was a former administrator in the sleepy town of Washington, Il, a place no one has ever heard of before and few care to visit more than once. Washington, as you know, was often summarily dismissed from the playoffs by villainous Catholic schools. I checked the Temple's site and Washington advanced to the semi-finals in 2013, but apparently this wasn't good enough for the community or Dunnan.
As far as your claim mid-tier private schools somehow backed the development of the SF is a matter of which you are required to provide evidence.
Please explain.
http://herald-review.com/sports/hig...cle_a4f3f9aa-ec2d-5579-b1af-a3c3e13d847d.html
The committee met on September 10 for an introductory meeting and will meet throughout the school year. The committee consists of Brian Brooks, Principal, St. Joseph-Ogden; Jim Dunnan, Principal, Washington; Pat Elder, Athletic Director/Football Coach, Richmond-Burton; Jeff Faulkenberg, Athletic Director, Triad; Mark Grounds, Football coach, Jacksonville; Mark Kuehl, Principal, Lena-Winslow; Becky Moran, Athletic Director, Zion-Benton; Randy Moss, Athletic Director, Monticello; Mike Pappocia, Athletic Director/Football Coach, Newman Central Catholic; Jim Prunty, Athletic Director, St. Ignatius; Jim Quaid, Principal, Gordon Tech; Eric Regez, Baseball Coach, Herscher; David Ribbens, Athletic Director, Chicago University; Ken Turner, Football Coach, Althoff Catholic; Lisa Wunar, Athletic Director, Hillcrest.
Last edited:
“But, for me, if I'd won state four years in a row, I think I'd want to go up and have a challenge.”
How about 7 in 8 years?
“It's been going on for years and it won't end with this,” he said. “It's not currently on the agenda, but that doesn't mean it can't be revisited.”
Revisit it. Apply it to all schools, as was originally intended. And only apply it (across the board in all sports) to those schools who win their given class. Making the final in football or the final 4 in other sports does not rise to the level of having the SF applied. A given school should need to demonstrate dominance in a given class. Dominance should equal multiple championships, not merely making the final (in football). What school currently is the most dominant in a given class? Is it a non-boundaried school? No and No. Revisit it.
How about 7 in 8 years?
“It's been going on for years and it won't end with this,” he said. “It's not currently on the agenda, but that doesn't mean it can't be revisited.”
Revisit it. Apply it to all schools, as was originally intended. And only apply it (across the board in all sports) to those schools who win their given class. Making the final in football or the final 4 in other sports does not rise to the level of having the SF applied. A given school should need to demonstrate dominance in a given class. Dominance should equal multiple championships, not merely making the final (in football). What school currently is the most dominant in a given class? Is it a non-boundaried school? No and No. Revisit it.
The block function is really good here. both Huckleberry and that aces guy are on it for me and i cant even see their posts if people quote them. It makes for a much better experience. That said I will definitely cast a vote with you should edgy put it up for vote.
Yes revisit it. Herein lies the problem with committees no one is accountable (BTW, it appears that 15 members of that committee, 10 public school members and 5 private school members), it goes into the committee that SF applies to all across the board and it comes out that only private schools get hit with it and presto! no one knows how that happened even the "creator" of the proposal. Yet somehow the one member of the committee from a private school in the city/suburbs was the one saying they really needed it to apply to privates to stop the rampant cheating in the city/suburbs by the privates. Sure, that is the ticket. Apply it across the board or don't apply it.
Of course for all the complaining about "cheating" by private schools, the single most blatant example in recent memory of recruiting violations is the H-F girls basketball program in 2013-2014 where Anthony Smith did not bring in 1 or 2 players he brought 6 including the ENTIRE group of starters from Bolingbrook (5 of the girls had the same one bedroom apartment address). Of course, the geniuses at the IHSA did not discover it through crack investigation, it was revealed by one of the displaced players suing the school, after the majority of the season had occurred. Even then the IHSA did not disqualify them because of recruiting but because of practice violations.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._anthony-smith-homewood-flossmoor-six-players
http://www.nwitimes.com/high-school...cle_9e29123f-090f-565c-914a-d7aa33e52c2f.html
Tiger:
I read it with interest and I see the point you are attempting to make. I am assuming you are laying blame at the doorstep of representatives from GT (now DePaul Prep), SICP and perhaps UC. Since the article specifically quotes Monticello's Moss as saying: "(Chicago-area non-boundaried school representatives) They didn't think the boundaried schools should be affected," am I to assume Newman's Pappocia and Althoff's Turner were mum on the issue at hand?
I think it's fair to say Chicago's non-boundaried schools are more likely to complain than rural private schools. Neither DePaul nor SICP have any real modern football tradition to boast of so naturally it makes sense for officials of these schools to sit on a board and quietly vent at CCL powerhouses.
As far as assigning blame to mid-tier private schools, I don't see it at all. I am likely to agree with you if you had limited your contention to UC High, SICP or DePaul, but I do not believe nor is it indicated in the article officials with Newman or Althoff supported the SF for boundaried schools only.
The make-up of the panel suggests two CCL weaklings and one Chicago private school likely used their seat on the panel as an instrument of retaliation against CCL rivals.
Listening to Dunnan's logic is laughable. I am not sure if the author of the article is aiming to inform his audience or attempting a broadside at Dunnan, but the writer states: "Dunnan originated the idea with the IHSA. The Washington football team is 58-13 in the last six years, but hasn't made it past the state semifinals. In four of those seasons, a non-boundaried school -- three times Joliet Catholic and last season Springfield Sacred Heart-Griffin -- knocked Washington out."
Boo-hoo Dr. Dunnan.
Clearly, Dunnan's intentions are entirely selfish. The concept of an adolescent daydreamer enraged at the failure of his team to earn a title, he runs to the Temple to facilitate a pathway to a championship, and they still can't advance further. Sooner or later the Temple and idiotic administrators such as Dunnan will realize even shortcuts won't guarantee success.
I'll bet Dunnan's advanced degrees were the culmination of two hours toiling in online classrooms.
I read it with interest and I see the point you are attempting to make. I am assuming you are laying blame at the doorstep of representatives from GT (now DePaul Prep), SICP and perhaps UC. Since the article specifically quotes Monticello's Moss as saying: "(Chicago-area non-boundaried school representatives) They didn't think the boundaried schools should be affected," am I to assume Newman's Pappocia and Althoff's Turner were mum on the issue at hand?
I think it's fair to say Chicago's non-boundaried schools are more likely to complain than rural private schools. Neither DePaul nor SICP have any real modern football tradition to boast of so naturally it makes sense for officials of these schools to sit on a board and quietly vent at CCL powerhouses.
As far as assigning blame to mid-tier private schools, I don't see it at all. I am likely to agree with you if you had limited your contention to UC High, SICP or DePaul, but I do not believe nor is it indicated in the article officials with Newman or Althoff supported the SF for boundaried schools only.
The make-up of the panel suggests two CCL weaklings and one Chicago private school likely used their seat on the panel as an instrument of retaliation against CCL rivals.
Listening to Dunnan's logic is laughable. I am not sure if the author of the article is aiming to inform his audience or attempting a broadside at Dunnan, but the writer states: "Dunnan originated the idea with the IHSA. The Washington football team is 58-13 in the last six years, but hasn't made it past the state semifinals. In four of those seasons, a non-boundaried school -- three times Joliet Catholic and last season Springfield Sacred Heart-Griffin -- knocked Washington out."
Boo-hoo Dr. Dunnan.
Clearly, Dunnan's intentions are entirely selfish. The concept of an adolescent daydreamer enraged at the failure of his team to earn a title, he runs to the Temple to facilitate a pathway to a championship, and they still can't advance further. Sooner or later the Temple and idiotic administrators such as Dunnan will realize even shortcuts won't guarantee success.
I'll bet Dunnan's advanced degrees were the culmination of two hours toiling in online classrooms.
Considering making a post where I will donate to a school or charity of your choice if you block him.
All of us watched Rochester win their second straight 4A title and their 7th in the past 8 years.
Does IC move up in 2018 due to SF? If so, isn't that what the one note Sally is looking for? Will be a great playoff game IC against Rochester.
I don't know about IC. The one note Sally is looking for anything that will discriminate against private schools.
well IC won in 2016 & 2017 so that is 2 in 4 year span which means SF is triggered, thinking they would move from 3A to 4A and so they will get to play Rochester in the playoffs/championship at some point.
Since one note Sally is convinced that this is the only fair way to treat private schools and make them go against "fair" competition it will be truly interesting. It will be even more interesting in such a scenario if they beat Rochester the new rational for it not being "fair" and to immediately move IC to 8A.
Especially since IC is one of the schools that brings out the inner Alex Forrest in one note Sally.
With what the bus drops off talent.. should IHSA step in and make their coach leave???
Actually... just glad the IHSA is being realistic and open to stop discriminating against the public schools..
Keep crying about the SF, it was the lower tier private schools that were pushing for it as a compromise.. the next step, you guys really wont be happy..
No, the success factor will never apply to closed boundary schools..
The next step, if there is one, will be separate classes for the two types of schools..
It appears I am the only one NOT crying in this thread, seems the system is pretty good right now..
just because you repeat it over and over does not make it so. Even the author/creator of the rule said it was meant to apply to all schools not just privates.