Better than expected but two of these years Nazareth was good enough to win a state championship. Those years (being their only state titles to date) could be called outliers and if you remove those two (14-15) it’s 6-2 Marist. And Marist isn’t as good as Loyola and I’m not saying nazareth can’t play a Marist or a Loyola every year (as they currently do in the ESCC) if they lose its one loss. But if you put them in with Loyola, Marist, and say Mount Carmel in a division they on some years are going to be 0-3 and up against it especially if they get tough crossovers that year. And let’s face it, Nazareth being good at football is a recent phenomenon and there is no guarantee of what’s to come... the smaller the school the more cyclical it can be.... big schools like Loyola, Marist, Mount Carmel are less cyclical and they have proven this with sustained success over time.
ESCC/CCL Merger Facts
- Thread starter redmen85
- Start date
Better than expected but two of these years Nazareth was good enough to win a state championship. Those years (being their only state titles to date) could be called outliers and if you remove those two (14-15) it’s 6-2 Marist. And Marist isn’t as good as Loyola and I’m not saying nazareth can’t play a Marist or a Loyola every year (as they currently do in the ESCC) if they lose its one loss. But if you put them in with Loyola, Marist, and say Mount Carmel in a division they on some years are going to be 0-3 and up against it especially if they get tough crossovers that year. And let’s face it, Nazareth being good at football is a recent phenomenon and there is no guarantee of what’s to come... the smaller the school the more cyclical it can be.... big schools like Loyola, Marist, Mount Carmel are less cyclical and they have proven this with sustained success over time.
I don’t disagree with the premise, at all. I think you’re spot on, but not ready to say Naz can’t compete with Marist lol. Marist isn’t as good as MC or Loyola though.
I didn’t say they couldn’t compete with Marist, likely to win tomorrow in fact. It’s the idea of having to play all 3 big powers in division that I’m arguing against. We’re on the same page.
Take a breath and enjoy the present.
Worrying about 2020 and competing because the success factor has you in a higher bracket isn't necessarily a bad thing.
MC, Rice, Rita, Provide, Now Loyola... Have had Horrible to down season in the past few years. (Loyola this season)
Football just like life can teach great lessons when your dick gets kicked in the dirt.
If my son was on this "Naz 2020 possible down season." I would have many great lessons to teach.
Not one time out of my mouth would an excuse be made.
"We'll if we were in a lower conference bracket we'd be in 5A playoffs and the semi's right now but since we we're so good for 2 years we got screwed."
I would reflect back on playing the best teams in state and how fun it was to go to battle with your boys and learn from those lessons.
I learned WAY more from losing to the best then pounding on lessor opponents.
Very few programs are having year in and out success record wise like Marist, Loyola, and MC. Over the past few years NAZ has proven they are right their with them.
You can look at it as a opportunity or a curse!
Your perspective typically dictates the success factor.
Gee thanks for the advice Stuart Smalley! Gosh darn it I’m good enough and people like me...
But thanks for validating the point, you all but admit that whoever gets grouped with Loyola, Marist, and Mount Carmel is going to be learning life lessons through losing and getting their junk kicked in the dirt.
Even if a team in that group goes 0-3 in divisional play, they will still very likely win at least 5 games - which will be the primary objective in the regular season with no conference title in play. They are hoping this format allows for the best chance for all 24 schools to achieve 5 wins - whether some have a legit chance or not.
If that were the aim would you not spread the best teams around as much as possible so no one team takes on a cluster of losses? It’s obviously not how the brain trust in the CCL thinks or they wouldn’t risk one of their conferences best teams missing the playoffs by putting them all together in the Blue.... occasionally leaves an otherwise quality team like providence or mt Carmel a few years ago out of playoffs. A conference should want their best teams representing them in the post season, not artificially helping a poor team in only to get trounced.
I’m just relaying what I think their line of thinking was...
I would prefer 3 divisions of 8.
Big, middle, small. 7 games against similar sized schools. Then your non-cons can be vs rivals or guaranteed wins if you think only 3 or 4 wins are attainable within division.
As previously stated, I agree with the enrollment based groupings. If you are competing with like size private schools how can anyone complain about fairness. Plus your best small schools, medium schools and big schools can all make playoffs and maybe the conference can pull a coup and get a state title in multiple levels.
The lower 8 of No Bias' Plan is probably better served by adding 6 catholics from the metro suburban and splitting the resulting lower 14 into 7/7. Group F plus guerin, acc, and Ed's. Group E to the extent it is suburban/exurban plus BMac, SF, and iccp.
Who knows how complex the success piece will be, but here are number of wins from 2017 through week 6 of 2018 (including playoff wins)
LaGrange Park (Nazareth Academy) 18
Chicago (Marist) 16
Wilmette (Loyola Academy) 15
Chicago (Mt. Carmel) 14
New Lenox (Providence Catholic) 13
Chicago (St. Ignatius) 13
Lisle (Benet Academy) 13
Lombard (Montini) 12
Niles (Notre Dame) 12
Chicago (St. Rita) 10
Chicago (De La Salle) 10
Burbank (St. Laurence) 10
Woodstock (Marian) 10
Oak Park (Fenwick) 9
Chicago (Brother Rice) 8
Aurora (Marmion Academy) 8
Chicago (Leo) 7
Chicago (St. Patrick) 6
Joliet (Catholic Academy) 6
Arlington Heights (St. Viator) 5
Westchester (St. Joseph) 4
Mundelein (Carmel) 3
Chicago (DePaul) 2
Chicago Heights (Marian) 1
Are there actual details on the success formula?
So the first season is based on conference records of two different conferences? Going forward, seems like that will just create a lot of noise year over year.
Yeah that’s what they agreed to, just a starting point as conferences shuffle every 2 years. There are some teams that are gonna have some stupid easy divisions but w/e. There were definitely better ways to do this but it is what it is.
Safe to say the new master schedule will say "all game times and locations in certain areas subject to legal proceedings in the City of Chicago" . Interesting that on the day the merger is announced a game in the CCL had to be moved. ESCC fans: Welcome to your new reality.
If DPP was more competitive, I think you'd not have as much merger talk with the CCL having a clean 6 Blue, 6 Green and Hope, St. Joe and Leo in the MSC. I know DPP is prone to losses to CPS selectives, but I wonder if it's the association with DePaul university actually keeps some more conservative traditional families from looking at the school.
Some interesting comments about the merger in these articles:
https://www.suntimeshighschoolsports.com/2018/10/04/chicago-catholic-league-east-suburban-catholic/
https://football.dailyherald.com/sports/20181004/escc-catholic-league-merge-for-football
https://www.suntimeshighschoolsports.com/2018/10/04/chicago-catholic-league-east-suburban-catholic/
https://football.dailyherald.com/sports/20181004/escc-catholic-league-merge-for-football
2 comments that jump out:
1 - "It's a more competitive balance based on a good formula that was created by the Catholic League.”
2 - “As someone in the meetings said, you'll walk off the bus knowing you have a chance to win most of your games."
Why would it not be a formula devised by both leagues... ESCC willing to put fate in CCL’s hands when it was CCL that really needed the bail out.
The comment about winning most games is ridiculous... guy that said this must be from a school that knows they are getting put in a joke of a division.
Montini and Naz should be in the same division. There's no getting around this.
Not sure the CCL needed a bailout but I do believe the CMC was a good thing on paper. Back then schools like Marist and a few others weren't up for the test. Maybe with the playing field leveled this is a good thing from a football POV.
And why can't everyone be happy here? This is good for propping up all Catholic schools in the area. What's bad about that?
Last edited:
Another plus is this will help out programs...not just varsity level...Scheduling has become an issue for schools that have the traditional model still in play (Fr/So/Varsity) . I assume some of the groupings will minimize the problem of getting games for the lower levels to an extent
What's the beef with the comment? You increase the pool of conference members. You should be able to increase the probability that you can form more competitive divisions. Could a team, like Naz, be "penalized" for an extraordinarily talented class? Yes, but the system is set up to correct a problem like that by re-adjusting every two years.
No system is going to be perfect, but this is an improvement for both conferences, IMO. Increase the pool of participants. Again, increase the likelihood of maintaining a more equitable competitive balance.
This could've happened like 5 years ago when everyone wanted this game. Don't get me wrong it would still be a big game just IMO not the magnitude it could have been.
Another benefit of the new conference should be all but eliminating or minimizing crossover games that should not be scheduled. For instance, IMO, Loyola should never play teams like St. Joe's, Depaul or Leo. There shouldn't be a need for the top tier teams ever playing the lowest tier, since the pool of conference teams has increased.
Agreed, but it will still be pretty big now and could be as big as it wouldve been in the future.
Because they would be with more schools of similar size and not be stuck as a sacrificial lamb for a 6A, 7A or 8A crossover.
I think this merger is great. Wait till the Mighty JCA sees who their with at the bottom of the division. Maybe when they see that on paper, they will realize how far they have fallen. Lol. Scheduling power house nonconference teams will really look stupid when your playing bad teams in your division. Lol. This will knock their peter in the dirt. I’m loving it. Didn’t someone tell me losing is good???? Lmao
There's talk of a football success rate, enrollment, football participation dictating how the divisions are determined. Is that just for the initial divisions or will that same formula be used every 2 years?
I think it would make more sense to just go with division record after the initial setup. Go 6-0 you get moved up, no questions ask and vice versa. Enrollment, etc. could be used when there are ties.
I think it would make more sense to just go with division record after the initial setup. Go 6-0 you get moved up, no questions ask and vice versa. Enrollment, etc. could be used when there are ties.
In 2013 and 2014 Montini played Maine South and East St Louis in their non-conf games.
In 2013 Naz played Proviso East and Julian and in 2014 played Bloomington and Riverside Brookfield in their non-conf games.
Maybe you wanted Naz to play Montini, but someone over at Naz didn't want that game. In any event Montini and Naz will play, and it will be a big game.
Last edited: