IHSA Dream Season
- Thread starter godfthr53
- Start date
Agree. First it was lets have more classes to let more schools in. Then its a multiplier. The multiplier didn't "work" well enough, so increase the multiplier. That apparently did not "work" well enough, so now lets have a "success" factor. Maybe that is not going to "work" well enough because a catholic school with limited recent success suddenly has a (apparently) successful season.
After many of the normal "power houses" don't have success this year (Naz, Providence, Montini, Brother Rice, Mt. Carmel,..etc) lets move the goal post again and say how "unfair" it is a private school is winning. It appears more an issue of any private school wins at any level for any reason. Never mind that in 3A because they are smaller schools, 2 or 3 exceptional athletes can make an outsized impact on the team. so is the next rule that smaller private schools are not allowed to have any exceptional athletes attend them? The assumption on this board is the only reason those athletes would attend that school is to rampantly crush public schools in athletics. Has nothing to do with any family factors such as Faith or belief in the Catholic tradition of instruction.
I went to Marian Central in the middle 80's. We had success starting in 84. up until then? Nada, bordering on terrible. starting in 84 started going deep in playoffs winning the title a few years. Complaint then? "you can recruit" never mind it was the only Catholic HS in the county. The biggest impact players on that first title team? A string of brothers that lived less than 1/2 mile from the school, practicing Catholics attending Catholic schools for grade and MS school. One other factor, summer before the oldest brother entered MCC, their father who had been principal for more than a decade was was out as part of a management overhaul by the Diocese, yet they still PAID to go to school there. Yet b/c of the family commitment to Catholic education the kids still went there. Another family of players who had a large impact on the first successful teams, literally lived in the house closest to school and again attended Catholic grade and MS.
Under some of the posters on this thread, the only reason they had success was because it was unfair and just a conspiracy to circumvent the IHSA rules.
Not for nothing, in 1981 a new coach, Don Penza arrived. He built a successful program, where later in his run did it maybe sway a player or two go there? Maybe, I don't know. When he died in 1989 the playoff runs stopped for more than a decade. think there was a correlation there?
LHS and Dr. seem to be suggesting or outright saying that ICCP should play in the 5A bracket (800 students at smallest school) or in the 6A bracket (1,085 students at smallest school) for a school that has 300 students. that is just asinine. Or another suggestion is because they play schools that size in the regular season they should play in the playoffs at that level. That is brilliant, think that one through. It would go the other way too, the private schools that are 6A/7A would start scheduling a bunch of 2A schools.
Under the same scenario are we going to move Loyola up to play some colleges? since they are in the highest bracket they can go to and they have success. it would only be "fair" right?
I have no kids at ICCP or affiliation there other than driving by it once every couple of months. This entire private/public argument is just ridiculous. no matter what rules are put in place its just not "fair" if any private wins.
Last edited:
It's completely fair if the rules are followed!
If they are not... well then there's a problem.
Pretty simple I would think
If they are not... well then there's a problem.
Pretty simple I would think
Considering ESL is in the semi with two 14 year olds starting offense (one on the O line and one WR) no I don't see a difference. If you can play, you can play.
Last edited:
Seriously? do you have kids? Do they have friends? have they or did they all develop physically at the same rate? Are you implying that all 14 year olds are the same developmentally as 18 year olds? Really? You cherry pick the most extreme example and then say all are the same?
Never said they weren't
Public schools have a zero ***** in my book if the rules are followed.
They also play bigger schools. They won the title in 2008 after going 5-4. They would have won it last year if not for running into another team that plays up then down.
No, not really, but have you seen how good these guys are?
Nope, I think they just hit a really good crop.
No it does not, but their lopsided scores sure do.
Again, I have a problem with the rule, not the school. Rage?.... LOL. GMAFB.
In my post, I said I was AGAINST the rules the IHSA has in place. I said they should be REFORMED and applied to all types of schools, not just privates. Did you even fuggin read my post???
I never said all but I did say if they can play, they can play. To list 9th graders on the roster to imply that they can't help is the same as saying they ALL can help. ESL average 1 or 2 Freshman starting or seeing playing time every year. Sophomores are a higher percentage of the starters. Every location and place is different however ball players can play regardless of age.
doctor_d:
I'll specify up front I am not one of the brighter men who post here, but I am having some difficulty following your original post. I am able to comprehend you are arguing in favor of a return to the policy of football enrollment, a practice of which I am also in favor.
I do, however, fail to see how you can argue for IC to be classified above their current ranking in 3A when the school's placement ranks them two classes above their natural class.
When I inquired as to your theory IC belongs in either 5 or 6A, I recognize you are suggesting this arrangement through a prism of football enrollment, but you failed to answer my question over how IC lands all this "talent," preferring to pivot and ask if I have seen them play. I would be grateful beyond words if you could try to answer and specifically define exactly what constitutes "5A/6A talent." I am most curious for a definition.
When I asked if you found IC harnesses a particular device to draw in the as-yet-to-be defined "5A/6A talent," you speculated they hit on a good group of kids. Is it fair for me to state, in addition to a solid group of skilled athletes, the program has in its employ a perfectly capable coach and staff to compliment this accomplished group of athletes?
Near the end of your post, you mention the "lopsided" victories IC had meted out to opponents. I will emphasize I have not seen IC play, ever actually, but this should not disqualify me from expressing an opinion regarding their football fortunes. Similarly, I think it is fair, based on your glowing review of the team, the team's skill level could account for delivering some "lopsided" scores. Why is this a problem for you this year as opposed to the four years prior, one of which IC failed to qualify for the post-season?
To your final remark, yes, I did read your post. This is precisely why I have so many questions.
I'll specify up front I am not one of the brighter men who post here, but I am having some difficulty following your original post. I am able to comprehend you are arguing in favor of a return to the policy of football enrollment, a practice of which I am also in favor.
I do, however, fail to see how you can argue for IC to be classified above their current ranking in 3A when the school's placement ranks them two classes above their natural class.
When I inquired as to your theory IC belongs in either 5 or 6A, I recognize you are suggesting this arrangement through a prism of football enrollment, but you failed to answer my question over how IC lands all this "talent," preferring to pivot and ask if I have seen them play. I would be grateful beyond words if you could try to answer and specifically define exactly what constitutes "5A/6A talent." I am most curious for a definition.
When I asked if you found IC harnesses a particular device to draw in the as-yet-to-be defined "5A/6A talent," you speculated they hit on a good group of kids. Is it fair for me to state, in addition to a solid group of skilled athletes, the program has in its employ a perfectly capable coach and staff to compliment this accomplished group of athletes?
Near the end of your post, you mention the "lopsided" victories IC had meted out to opponents. I will emphasize I have not seen IC play, ever actually, but this should not disqualify me from expressing an opinion regarding their football fortunes. Similarly, I think it is fair, based on your glowing review of the team, the team's skill level could account for delivering some "lopsided" scores. Why is this a problem for you this year as opposed to the four years prior, one of which IC failed to qualify for the post-season?
To your final remark, yes, I did read your post. This is precisely why I have so many questions.
I'm not. This year under the current rules, IC belongs in 3A. What I am saying is that in a FB enrollment scenario, they might be 4A or 5A.
It is an estimation of their ability on my behalf. Based on observations of their season. The most notable one is that they defeated a 6A semifinalist this year.
Yes, I believe they have good coaching. So does Wilmington and Byron and Monticello and lots of other teams in all classes.
WHY DO YOU KEEP ASKING THIS???????? I don't have a problem with ICCP. I have a problem with the system. I have a problem with the IHSA's rules. Good Lord.
If we weren't seeing teams go through everyone else in the bracket like a hot knife through butter, it wouldn't be an issue at all. Instead we have IC this year, Mac last year. AC in 2011 and 2012. Each of those years, nobody came close. It shouldn't be the norm to have a team win each playoff game by 30 - 40 points. If there was a compelling game at least every once in a while, it would be a different story, but there is not. It's one blowout after another.
Have a great day.
This is the point that most people miss. If ICCP this year was winning by 21 or less throughout the playoffs there would be an obvious classification issue. Most teams have at least one or maybe 2 games in which the score is within 20 points. If NO ONE can come within 30 points there is an issue no matter how any tries to spin it. I am not sure if there has been a public school that run through the playoffs beating everyone by 30+ points while shutting it down at half time.
doctor_d:
I will, thank you.
Since you continue to dodge my questions, let us fixate on one in which I remain eager for an answer. If you could take a moment, please define exactly what constitutes "5A/6A talent."
Don't Forget Monticello they have won by 41, 27 and 31. so lets see what happens when they play ICCP this week.
I thought you were talking about ICCP this year? why would another game matter? Your outrage at the current system used them as an example this year. PR and Monticello are from this year. Those are public schools this year right now. PR won by double your "30" number in the quarterfinals. Why does the goal post get moved again?
I am never outraged and don't care to that extent. I am a supporter of a public school that petitioned to play up. I can care less about a team whining about another team. As a competitor I am interested in playing the best competition regardless of class. I don't believe in the easy way out nor do I believe in creating a system that allow for any team to walk away not earning a championship. If this is one on one Basketball and I am 6'7 I am would not be happy winning a championship against people that are 6'0.
I understand the private desire to get a trophy the easiest way possible so it is what it is. I just argued with a public guy about Phillips suggesting he should stop crying and play ball. In the end, I don't think any team should run the table by 30 plus points. If they do, they aren't properly classified. It may not be their fault but it definitely highlight something wrong with the system.
Recent Rochester championship seasons playoff margins of victory:
2010: 29 pts.
2012: 30 pts.
2014: 25 pts.
In those seasons did Rochester have ANY game that came within 20 points? That is what you should be answering if you are trying to discuss my comment.
Very difficult to follow. they are already bumped up 2 classes. Now they are supposed to anticipate how many points they are going to beat teams 2-3 games in advance in a single elimination tournament? What does that system look like? Crystal ball?
What about PR? are they supposed to move up too? when would this be decided? when they were winning their regular season by 40, 50 or 60 points?
Oh, I thought you said 30+ pts. Perhaps Normdog is right about you moving the bar.
But, to answer your comment, they did have games that came within 20 pts in 2010. Not in 2012. In 2014, there was one playoff opponent that managed a 19 pt defeat to the Rockets. The rest weren't close.
Ramblin, forget it. Its simple. Privates are simply trophy shopping and keeping the publics down. They don't train and practice for 9 months to get to this spot, only public's do. Privates are taking away what is rightly theirs.
Still waiting for an answer on PR. They are winning big but they are earning it, just like any other team.
Stop arguing and read my post. I said every playoff game by 30 plus points. Never wavered or changed my argument.
In other threads people argue that open enrollment schools shouldnt be classified based on enrollment and that its actually a problem. Then in other threads they try to make the argument that they are already up due to the multiplier ignoring that they already admitted that enrollment is a poor way to classify them.
I agree with them, it is a poor way to classify them. And I understand a portion of the argument. If ICCP was not a good team the past few years it is somewhat unfair to say they dont belong in 3A, except if this years team is just so full of players the typical 3A school will never see. Which does happen to be the case.
The solution? Split. The open enrollment schools can be classified by ramblinman and his competitive formula that way ICCP this season can be in the class with Loyola and Rice and Montini and Phillips.
I agree with them, it is a poor way to classify them. And I understand a portion of the argument. If ICCP was not a good team the past few years it is somewhat unfair to say they dont belong in 3A, except if this years team is just so full of players the typical 3A school will never see. Which does happen to be the case.
The solution? Split. The open enrollment schools can be classified by ramblinman and his competitive formula that way ICCP this season can be in the class with Loyola and Rice and Montini and Phillips.
Do you have some sort of condition? I don't want to be accused of picking on the handicapped. I answered each of your questions. Reply #48 and #52.
You do not understand that typically the talent level goes up as the class goes up?
5A/6A talent in the doctor_d dictionary is defined as the talent necessary to be competitive with the field and possibly win 5A and/or 6A.
Especially with the multiplier (which if I remember correctly was supposed to "level the playing field") and now the "punishment for success factor" for the Catholic schools. Would love to see one of the teams this weekend try to move the goal posts and see what happens.
OH sorry, one of their playoff games they only won by 27, which is probably balanced by their win by 64 points in the semi's.
ICCP won their semi by 34 points so barely above you "unreasonable" win margin, just like 27 is barely below it.
Never agreed with the rule however I don't think it is punishment by no stretch of the imagination.
My argument is that ALL schools shouldn't be classified based solely on enrollment, not just open enrollment schools. Much to my disappointment, we have such a system in place nevertheless.
Because of whiners like you, the open enrollment schools are multiplied. Sure, I point that out to other whiners who CONVENIENTLY FORGET that the schools that they succeeded in multiplying aren't already multiplied. Some of them think that certain private schools should be classified even higher despite the fact that some of them are multiplied up not one, but TWO classes.
Yeah, but what you think about public schools makes no sense, while you are correct that enrollment figures for open enrollment schools is a worthless endeavor. So multiplying a worthless # by another worthless random # gives you another worthless #. Meanwhile, with boundaried schools the enrollment is a great way to classify.
doctor_d:
No, I do not have a handicap or at least none I am aware. What you gave appears to be evasions.
Are you asserting ICCP has attracted better-quality football athletes as a result of the IHSA elevating the school two classes?
What?
I'm getting more attitude than answers here; it's both crude and off-putting. What you offer is rambling, vague, shallow, simplistic, insulting, ad hominem, and self-obsessed language disguised as answers.
Instead of engaging in questions you refuse to answer satisfactorily or asking for cogent definitions to your whimsical creations, I'll advance to one, single reliable question to determine your stance on ICCP.
How badly did IC beat your son's team?
31 on the varsity squad. 12 sr., 13 jr., 6 soph. There are 8 other sophs that play in the JV game before the varsity game and the are allowed to suite up for the varsity game. The playoff roster of 55 has all the sophs and some freshman