"Lynch quote ramps up debate..."

[sporthog_9er]

He had to make this a story (writer), but it is a public comment from both coaches that I thought was interesting.

Mount Carmel coach Jordan Lynch's quote ramps up debate on private school advantage issue before IHSA finals

"Look at yourself in the mirror. If you didn’t win or you are just not good enough, accept that. Stop looking for excuses," Lynch said.

chicago.suntimes.com

 

[Wittymoniker1]

Matt Rodewald on the Local Shaw podcast with Souce definitely has an opinion. in response to Jordan's comments.

It is worth a listen. Matt expresses himself clearly and made some interesting points. Not saying I agree with all, but a good debate.

 

[FootballDad1979]

O’Brien made an interesting point this year — that the success of athletic programs is often financially driven.


It’s not just about being from a high-income or low-income area. Take East St. Louis — not a wealthy community, but their strong donor and booster network helps sustain one of the most successful programs in the state.


The same goes for places like Batavia and Morris. They’re not high-income areas either, yet their organized financial support systems — through booster clubs, sponsors, and alumni — give their programs the resources they need to compete and thrive.


It raises an important question:. Is program success less about community wealth and more about how that community organizes and supports its athletes financially?


Most booster clubs are 501(c)(3) nonprofits, meaning their financial information is public. There’s real potential to study this — to see if schools with more robust booster club funding consistently perform better. Even private schools could be analyzed if their boosters are separately registered nonprofits.


Imagine a dataset comparing booster club revenue per athlete with on-field performance — it might reveal that community organization, not income level, is the true differentiator in athletic success.

 

[jha618]

He had to make this a story (writer), but it is a public comment from both coaches that I thought was interesting.

Mount Carmel coach Jordan Lynch's quote ramps up debate on private school advantage issue before IHSA finals

"Look at yourself in the mirror. If you didn’t win or you are just not good enough, accept that. Stop looking for excuses," Lynch said.

chicago.suntimes.com

I like it. Way too many people making excuses and looking for an easy way out...or easy way in based on the new Roxana proposal. Exactly why MC is my second favorite hs team to follow.

 

[sporthog_9er]

I actually don't mind the quote either. It's where I wish everyone was at with the whole debate.

Just call it like it is for what is happening "on the field". You simply aren't good enough.

If a player wants to go private because the academics are better or family tradition...I have no problem with that.

If a player wants to go private because athletic fit is better...I have no problem with that.

But don't give out the excuses of "you need to work harder"/"coach better"/"get into youth programs more". I can't stand that sentiment.

Because at the end of the day, what is on the field matters. Teams that don't have high level D1/D2 talent going up against teams that do, will often lose. NOT ALL THE TIME...but generally speaking, most of the time. No amount of "coaching", "weight room culture", "youth development" will matter when it's joe-schmo's against kids going to high level places. FOR THE MOST PART (not all the time, again).

That's why I actually kind of like this. Let's just drop the charade. You want to call it an advantage because some schools can grab the best kids in different areas and bring them together? That's fine, call it an advantage. Just be honest about the competition aspect of this on the field. You are either more talented or not. It's black and white to me. You're either good enough to do it, or you're not good enough.

And that's OK.

 

[Coleslaw9]

Cue all the Catholic accounts coming to defend "daddy".

 

[SiuCubFan8]

O’Brien made an interesting point this year — that the success of athletic programs is often financially driven.


It’s not just about being from a high-income or low-income area. Take East St. Louis — not a wealthy community, but their strong donor and booster network helps sustain one of the most successful programs in the state.


The same goes for places like Batavia and Morris. They’re not high-income areas either, yet their organized financial support systems — through booster clubs, sponsors, and alumni — give their programs the resources they need to compete and thrive.


It raises an important question:. Is program success less about community wealth and more about how that community organizes and supports its athletes financially?


Most booster clubs are 501(c)(3) nonprofits, meaning their financial information is public. There’s real potential to study this — to see if schools with more robust booster club funding consistently perform better. Even private schools could be analyzed if their boosters are separately registered nonprofits.


Imagine a dataset comparing booster club revenue per athlete with on-field performance — it might reveal that community organization, not income level, is the true differentiator in athletic success.

Cannot speak for Morris's economic situation but Batavia is a very nice area. I disagree with adding Batavia to not high-income area, it is not Hinsdale but it is nice.

 

[pjjp]

Matt Rodewald on the Local Shaw podcast with Souce definitely has an opinion. in response to Jordan's comments.

It is worth a listen. Matt expresses himself clearly and made some interesting points. Not saying I agree with all, but a good debate.

Just listened to Matt’s comments. Don’t think I’ve ever heard him that animated.

Didn’t realize a 2.5 multiplier was being considered. That would change the landscape with private schools moving up and publics moving down.

 

[PowerI66]

Cannot speak for Morris's economic situation but Batavia is a very nice area. I disagree with adding Batavia to not high-income area, it is not Hinsdale but it is nice.

Batavia and Morris are both 20% low-income, oddly enough. ESL is listed as 99%

 

[Btimpone22]

Every district is listed as some percentage “low income” to qualify for federal $$. It isn’t real.

 

[Wittymoniker1]

Just listened to Matt’s comments. Don’t think I’ve ever heard him that animated.

Didn’t realize a 2.5 multiplier was being considered. That would change the landscape with private schools moving up and publics moving down.

Yes, he was animated. Not sure if I'm a fan of increasing it to 2.5.

 

[gobears26]

not sure why we're bothering with this when mcmillen of wsf brought up the real hot button topic

 

[Anon1753850091]

Yes, he was animated. Not sure if I'm a fan of increasing it to 2.5.

And the 2.5 multiplier and the MC situation are two different beasts too.

The situation with MC (and Loyola the last few years) is proof of the need for an "open class."

The 2.5 multiplier would be to help 2A-6A public schools so Byron and Morris don't run into Montini and Antioch doesn't run into whatever 5A/6A private power.in the playoffs. Although it doesn't really help the 6A schools that much as it would just push 7A public schools down to 6A.

The real answer is open class. Let MC, LWE, LA, ESL, BR, Oswego, Naz, and Batavia go at it in an open class. Maybe double that 8 to a total of 16.

In a perfect world, then you take the remaining 7 classes and instead of grouping them by enrollment, group them by maxpreps/massey/whatever algorithm or committee eye test. Top 32 in 7A, next 32 in 6A. So maybe Providence plays in 6A with Byron, Rochester, Montini, and Oswego East.

5A can be for Morris, Metamora, Simeon, St. Pat's, etc.

4A can be for Lena-Winslow, Bishop Mac, Plainfield East, Wauconda, etc.

And 1A would be for the weakest teams who snuck into the postseason. All of that doesn't eliminate the blowout and parity problems, but it sure does cut them at least in half.

 

[Wittymoniker1]

And the 2.5 multiplier and the MC situation are two different beasts too.

The situation with MC (and Loyola the last few years) is proof of the need for an "open class."

The 2.5 multiplier would be to help 2A-6A public schools so Byron and Morris don't run into Montini and Antioch doesn't run into whatever 5A/6A private power.in the playoffs. Although it doesn't really help the 6A schools that much as it would just push 7A public schools down to 6A.

The real answer is open class. Let MC, LWE, LA, ESL, BR, Oswego, Naz, and Batavia go at it in an open class. Maybe double that 8 to a total of 16.

In a perfect world, then you take the remaining 7 classes and instead of grouping them by enrollment, group them by maxpreps/massey/whatever algorithm or committee eye test. Top 32 in 7A, next 32 in 6A. So maybe Providence plays in 6A with Byron, Rochester, Montini, and Oswego East.

5A can be for Morris, Metamora, Simeon, St. Pat's, etc.

4A can be for Lena-Winslow, Bishop Mac, Plainfield East, Wauconda, etc.

And 1A would be for the weakest teams who snuck into the postseason. All of that doesn't eliminate the blowout and parity problems, but it sure does cut them at least in half.

Interesting idea. I actually applied the 2.5 multiplier to Rita's situation, and the enrollment (after being doubled) comes to around 2100 which is 7A--something the Mustangs are obviously used to.

 

[bryce45]

There needs to be consideration of population a non-boundary school can draw from. Montini can draw from a population of over 3 million. Their QB is from Arlington Heights (as example). The non-boundary schools that do not have the same population to draw from are at a major disadvantage.

 

[GMAN81]

The argument that will never go away.

 

[Running_Clock]

O’Brien made an interesting point this year — that the success of athletic programs is often financially driven.

I would imagine this being true and not earth shattering news. It is not hard to imagine programs success being driven by financial support.

*Notice I did not call out Private. This logic can be applied to both Public & Private, btw.

I'd also take this a step farther when I think of financial support, one could think of "tradition." Lots of these programs are historically successful and have strong tradition because of the building blocks many many many plus seasons ago. Kids want to play for a winning program. Coaches want to learn, coach, and get experience at programs like that. Success breeds success, and these coaches and kids join these programs and buy in. And when they go up against an average program, that average program already lost before they even get off the bus because they don't have it.

This all adds to the "culture" and "tradition" of these programs. They are expected to be successful, and for the most part they are (with the exception of a few down years here and there)... the financial support brings in this mindset and winning programs succeed year after year. Expect to win, where the losing/average programs "hope" to compete.

 

[4Afan]

And the 2.5 multiplier and the MC situation are two different beasts too.

The situation with MC (and Loyola the last few years) is proof of the need for an "open class."

The 2.5 multiplier would be to help 2A-6A public schools so Byron and Morris don't run into Montini and Antioch doesn't run into whatever 5A/6A private power.in the playoffs. Although it doesn't really help the 6A schools that much as it would just push 7A public schools down to 6A.

The real answer is open class. Let MC, LWE, LA, ESL, BR, Oswego, Naz, and Batavia go at it in an open class. Maybe double that 8 to a total of 16.

In a perfect world, then you take the remaining 7 classes and instead of grouping them by enrollment, group them by maxpreps/massey/whatever algorithm or committee eye test. Top 32 in 7A, next 32 in 6A. So maybe Providence plays in 6A with Byron, Rochester, Montini, and Oswego East.

5A can be for Morris, Metamora, Simeon, St. Pat's, etc.

4A can be for Lena-Winslow, Bishop Mac, Plainfield East, Wauconda, etc.

And 1A would be for the weakest teams who snuck into the postseason. All of that doesn't eliminate the blowout and parity problems, but it sure does cut them at least in half.

So is open division an actual open division where teams can opt in, or are you using computer rankings to determine who goes in the "open" class? If using computer rankings Montini is #5 in most rankings so they'd be in the open division. Massey and MaxPreps have Byron in the top 16 in the state, do you throw them in the open class?

Trying to determine classes based solely on competitive balance won't work.

 

[Anon1753850091]

So is open division an actual open division where teams can opt in, or are you using computer rankings to determine who goes in the "open" class? If using computer rankings Montini is #5 in most rankings so they'd be in the open division. Massey and MaxPreps have Byron in the top 16 in the state, do you throw them in the open class?

Trying to determine classes based solely on competitive balance won't work.

Why not? Sure if Byron is ranked in the top 16 let them have a shot at the highest class. I feel like 8 brackets that are essentially A-B-C-D type brackets eliminates a fair amount of the ridiculous lopsidedness.

Or take the field of 256 and divide it in two by enrollment. 128 large schools and 128 small schools. Create four classes in each of those two subgroups. So 4A would be Byron and ic and Morris and Montini and Wilmington and all the best of the smallest schools. 5A would be the weakest 32 from the larger classes.

Morris and SHG being right on the cutline would be interesting. If they fell in the smaller half they would wind up 4A with the aforementioned small school powers. But find yourself on the bigger half, and they likely wind up on a 6A/7A bubble with the fairly competitive larger schools.

Upon further review, this right here is the proposal. 128 big qualifiers. 128 small qualifiers. Split each into 4 classes based on competitiveness. So many problems solved.

The 4A quarterfinals could be.....

Montini (unless they get SF'd up to the larger half)
Morris
Rochester
Lena-Winslow
Byron
IC
Bishop Mac or Breese Central
Wilmington

What's not to love about that?

 

[gobears26]

And the 2.5 multiplier and the MC situation are two different beasts too.

The situation with MC (and Loyola the last few years) is proof of the need for an "open class."

The 2.5 multiplier would be to help 2A-6A public schools so Byron and Morris don't run into Montini and Antioch doesn't run into whatever 5A/6A private power.in the playoffs. Although it doesn't really help the 6A schools that much as it would just push 7A public schools down to 6A.

The real answer is open class. Let MC, LWE, LA, ESL, BR, Oswego, Naz, and Batavia go at it in an open class. Maybe double that 8 to a total of 16.

In a perfect world, then you take the remaining 7 classes and instead of grouping them by enrollment, group them by maxpreps/massey/whatever algorithm or committee eye test. Top 32 in 7A, next 32 in 6A. So maybe Providence plays in 6A with Byron, Rochester, Montini, and Oswego East.

5A can be for Morris, Metamora, Simeon, St. Pat's, etc.

4A can be for Lena-Winslow, Bishop Mac, Plainfield East, Wauconda, etc.

And 1A would be for the weakest teams who snuck into the postseason. All of that doesn't eliminate the blowout and parity problems, but it sure does cut them at least in half.

perhaps you're just listing schools off the top of your head, but if you sincerely think batavia and oswego or any other public school would accept being in an open class with the current 6-8a privates you are crazy. if that happened the only public school team that would participate would be east saint louis.

 

[Anon1753850091]

perhaps you're just listing schools off the top of your head, but if you sincerely think batavia and oswego or any other public school would accept being in an open class with the current 6-8a privates you are crazy. if that happened the only public school team that would participate would be east saint louis.

perhaps you're just listing schools off the top of your head, but if you sincerely think batavia and oswego or any other public school would accept being in an open class with the current 6-8a privates you are crazy. if that happened the only public school team that would participate would be east saint louis.

No doubt. Open class as defined by choice won't work. Batavia opted to 7A to avoid ESL. 2 years ago, LA's opting to 8A effectively deprived us of MC-LA in the playoffs. Nobody chooses to bump up in class in football it seems (except for ESL and LA).

So it has to be all Massey/Calpreps/committee work to place the top 16 or 32 into the 8A "open" or "forced open" class. But if we're going to do that, then we may as well just use that algorithm or committee to place all 256 teams into 8 classes. And now we're really tackling some competitive balance issues.

 

[4Afan]

Why not? Sure if Byron is ranked in the top 16 let them have a shot at the highest class. I feel like 8 brackets that are essentially A-B-C-D type brackets eliminates a fair amount of the ridiculous lopsidedness.

Or take the field of 256 and divide it in two by enrollment. 128 large schools and 128 small schools. Create four classes in each of those two subgroups. So 4A would be Byron and ic and Morris and Montini and Wilmington and all the best of the smallest schools. 5A would be the weakest 32 from the larger classes.

MaxPreps top 8

MC
BR
ESL
Montini
Naz
LWE
Fenwick
MS

Massey's top 8

MC
ESL
BR
LWE
Montini
Naz
Loyola
Rita

Rivals top 8

MC
ESL
BR
LWE
Montini
Naz
Maine South
Loyola

Which ranking are you using for your "open" division? None of them have Oswego, an 8A finalist. Which rankings do you use to seed all the teams in all your other classes? Proposals like this with no actual thought behind them are non starters. Please see my post in the success factor thread.

 

[Anon1753850091]

MaxPreps top 8

MC
BR
ESL
Montini
Naz
LWE
Fenwick
MS

Massey's top 8

MC
ESL
BR
LWE
Montini
Naz
Loyola
Rita

Rivals top 8

MC
ESL
BR
LWE
Montini
Naz
Maine South
Loyola

Which ranking are you using for your "open" division? None of them have Oswego, an 8A finalist. Which rankings do you use to seed all the teams in all your other classes? Proposals like this with no actual thought behind them are non starters. Please see my post in the success factor thread.

Make it 32 instead of 8. Limit it to the largest 128 qualifiers if you want to keep the smaller half of schools amongst their own.

these are ideas that I am fairly sure could be hammered out into a detailed proposal. I am not spending the time or energy to create that proposal now but I have no idea why suggesting classifications by competitiveness is a non starter. We have been trapped by enrollment for the last half century. We have tools now to quantify competitive balance and could use those tools to create better classes and better playoff games.

using enrollment and multipliers and success factors now just seems so outdated and unnecessary and is responsible for the horrid nature of the last few ihsa playoffs.

 

[Floyd2807]

A parent, I presume, from Montini (he made it clear he was from Montini and maybe he's on this page) called out the downstate/ central illinois in a FB comment and basically said "its people from the small country towns" and "get off the farm" and get your kids in personal training and maybe you might be able to compete... said its the parents failing the kids south of Chicago... maybe, maybe not, but that's a bold statement to make considering... personal training must be why the private schools are so successful...

 

[4Afan]

Make it 32 instead of 8. Limit it to the largest 128 qualifiers if you want to keep the smaller half of schools amongst their own.

these are ideas that I am fairly sure could be hammered out into a detailed proposal. I am not spending the time or energy to create that proposal now but I have no idea why suggesting classifications by competitiveness is a non starter. We have been trapped by enrollment for the last half century. We have tools now to quantify competitive balance and could use those tools to create better classes and better playoff games.

using enrollment and multipliers and success factors now just seems so outdated and unnecessary and is responsible for the horrid nature of the last few ihsa playoffs.

As far as I know, Arizona is the only state that uses MaxPreps for their open division, even Texas, the king of HS football bases their playoffs on enrollment. It's not just Illinois, all states do it. If computer seeding worked better I'm sure more states would have tried it by now.

 

[Doctor_D]

Debate will go on forever and ever and ever.

 

[Wittymoniker1]

Why not? Sure if Byron is ranked in the top 16 let them have a shot at the highest class. I feel like 8 brackets that are essentially A-B-C-D type brackets eliminates a fair amount of the ridiculous lopsidedness.

Or take the field of 256 and divide it in two by enrollment. 128 large schools and 128 small schools. Create four classes in each of those two subgroups. So 4A would be Byron and ic and Morris and Montini and Wilmington and all the best of the smallest schools. 5A would be the weakest 32 from the larger classes.

Morris and SHG being right on the cutline would be interesting. If they fell in the smaller half they would wind up 4A with the aforementioned small school powers. But find yourself on the bigger half, and they likely wind up on a 6A/7A bubble with the fairly competitive larger schools.

Upon further review, this right here is the proposal. 128 big qualifiers. 128 small qualifiers. Split each into 4 classes based on competitiveness. So many problems solved.

The 4A quarterfinals could be.....

Montini (unless they get SF'd up to the larger half)
Morris
Rochester
Lena-Winslow
Byron
IC
Bishop Mac or Breese Central
Wilmington

What's not to love about that?

Curious: where does St. Rita fall into this? Basically, a 7A team?

 

[McCaravan]

Not that long ago, well at seems that way, Public Schools were just as dominating. Maine South, WWS, Naperville Central, and so on. While all still competitive, they aren't what they used to be. Why? Do people not play football anymore in Wheaton? Don't say St. Francis is taking all the talent because I don't buy that. What about the Naperville schools? I understand coaching changes and geographic changes but is there something I'm missing? I 100% agree with Coach Lynch it's exhausting.

 

[Still Missing34]

The people that use to move to Naperville are now moving to Plainfield, Oswego and Yorkville.

 

[Anon1753850091]

Curious: where does St. Rita fall into this? Basically, a 7A team?

I assume 7A or the 8A "open class." If they are top 32 after 9 games, then they are 8A.

33-64 and they wind up 7A.

Although if we isolate the smaller schools you have to remove any of those schools from the rankings first. So if Morris or IC were ranked high but in the smaller half of enrollment, they would be removed from the rankings in determining tje top 32 and the next 32, etc.

So without looking up the rankings, I assume Rita would be a 7A/8A team on the bubble, probably 7A with their number of losses this season. Most seasons when they go 7-2 or 6-3 I would imagine they would be ranked in the top 20-25, though.

 

[4Afan]

Not that long ago, well at seems that way, Public Schools were just as dominating. Maine South, WWS, Naperville Central, and so on. While all still competitive, they aren't what they used to be. Why? Do people not play football anymore in Wheaton? Don't say St. Francis is taking all the talent because I don't buy that. What about the Naperville schools? I understand coaching changes and geographic changes but is there something I'm missing? I 100% agree with Coach Lynch it's exhausting.

It was that long ago. We're coming up on 30 years since those schools were consistently dominant. Many of those areas are now aging communities. If you bought a decent house 30-40 years ago in Naperville you're now likely sitting on a $1 million property and that's a big chunk of some people's retirement. Also, there's demographic changes in some of those areas and football isn't the priority it once was.

Lynch is a phenomenal coach, but this comment is rich coming from him. He's basically the Ryan Day of Illinois high school football (born on 3rd base).

 

[Still Missing34]

Was Oswego even in the top 32 after week 9?

 

[Anon1753850091]

Was Oswego even in the top 32 after week 9?

Likely not with losses to minooka and yorkville on the resume. But they would be primed to make a decent run at 6a or 7a. I assume they would be top 64 so probably 7a.

 

[Snetsrak61]

The possibility of a 5 extra games is a big deal for players and schools. Being on the cusp of 32/33, 32 with a first round matchup against MC or ESL and 33 primed for a possible long playoff run seams more like a punishment than reward for team 32. It's not like it's the difference between FBS and FCS where there's real advantages or clout.

Create a financial incentive for schools or make it an actual separate classification with a separate in season format (say a longer season). A straight ranking 1 through 64 or 1 through 128, or whatever it is, just would reward extended post season play for, what is frankly, mediocrity at the lower classes.

I've said before and will say again the primary goal should be equal opportunity in classes, not guarantee of equal or competetive outcomes. There's plenty of room for debate on what equal opportunity entails (both between private and public and within each group). But to make success and equality of matchup the overwhelming criteria misses the boat.

 

[McCaravan]

It was that long ago. We're coming up on 30 years since those schools were consistently dominant. Many of those areas are now aging communities. If you bought a decent house 30-40 years ago in Naperville you're now likely sitting on a $1 million property and that's a big chunk of some people's retirement. Also, there's demographic changes in some of those areas and football isn't the priority it once was.

Lynch is a phenomenal coach, but this comment is rich coming from him. He's basically the Ryan Day of Illinois high school football (born on 3rd base).

Here is the link of State Champions. Outside of LA and MC scrolling down from 2021 you will see a large amount of Public schools winning the larger classes...

IHSA Football Champions & Runners-Up

 

[4Afan]

Here is the link of State Champions. Outside of LA and MC scrolling down from 2021 you will see a large amount of Public schools winning the larger classes...

IHSA Football Champions & Runners-Up

Yes, I'm aware of the stats, I read stoned lizards post. I was replying to the specific schools you mentioned.

 

[Snetsrak61]

This is just for fun because it's a total hypothetical that won't happen, but I think the actual best way to do an open class would be a SMALL invitational style semi-double elimination bracket. A 5 week tourney of 8 teams could look like below. Rd1 and Rd 2 games are hosted at home with 50/50 gate splits between schools. Rd 3 thru champ at neutral sites with 20/40/40 after costs (20 to IHSA)

Why?
Creates incentive. There's financial incentive for schools and its small enough to be very exclusive and prestigious so to be appealing to most who might be invited. Also with a semi-double elimination format it helps all teams accepting the invite at least 2 extra games and not the possibility of a tough 1 and out.

Also matchups like 1 v 8 are much more likely to give us strong matchups every week unlike 1 v 32 would in a large open class.

Round 1
Game 1 : 1 v 8
Game 2 : 2 v 7
Game 3 : 4 v 5
Game 4 : 3 v 6

Round 2
Game 5 : W Game 1 v W Game 3
Game 6 : W Game 2 v W Game 4
Elimination Games
Game 7 : L Game 1 v L Game 3
Game 8 : L Game 2 v L Game 4

Round 3
Byes: Winner Game 5 and Winner Game 6
Elimination Games:
Game 9 : Winner Game 7 v Loser Game 6
Game 10: Winner Game 8 v Loser Game 5

Semis (at this point it is win or go home)
Reseed based on original rankings
Semi 1: higher of Bye v lower of Game 9/10
Semi 2 : lower of Bye v higher of Game 9/10

Championship
Winner of Semi 1 v Semi 2

This would in all likelihood give us 13 great games. It would be an action packed 5 weeks and I think give fans what they're looking for - a competetive playoff run. You could additionally have a large school and small school invitational format running side by side.

 

[4Afan]

This is just for fun because it's a total hypothetical that won't happen, but I think the actual best way to do an open class would be a SMALL invitational style semi-double elimination bracket. A 5 week tourney of 8 teams could look like below. Rd1 and Rd 2 games are hosted at home with 50/50 gate splits between schools. Rd 3 thru champ at neutral sites with 20/40/40 after costs (20 to IHSA)

Why?
Creates incentive. There's financial incentive for schools and its small enough to be very exclusive and prestigious so to be appealing to most who might be invited. Also with a semi-double elimination format it helps all teams accepting the invite at least 2 extra games and not the possibility of a tough 1 and out.

Also matchups like 1 v 8 are much more likely to give us strong matchups every week unlike 1 v 32 would in a large open class.

Round 1
Game 1 : 1 v 8
Game 2 : 2 v 7
Game 3 : 4 v 5
Game 4 : 3 v 6

Round 2
Game 5 : W Game 1 v W Game 3
Game 6 : W Game 2 v W Game 4
Elimination Games
Game 7 : L Game 1 v L Game 3
Game 8 : L Game 2 v L Game 4

Round 3
Byes: Winner Game 5 and Winner Game 6
Elimination Games:
Game 9 : Winner Game 7 v Loser Game 6
Game 10: Winner Game 8 v Loser Game 5

Semis (at this point it is win or go home)
Reseed based on original rankings
Semi 1: higher of Bye v lower of Game 9/10
Semi 2 : lower of Bye v higher of Game 9/10

Championship
Winner of Semi 1 v Semi 2

This would in all likelihood give us 13 great games. It would be an action packed 5 weeks and I think give fans what they're looking for - a competetive playoff run. You could additionally have a large school and small school invitational format running side by side.

Biggest issue here is the IHSA will never settle for not getting the bulk of the gate, let alone none of it for 2 rounds.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Biggest issue here is the IHSA will never settle for not getting the bulk of the gate, let alone none of it for 2 rounds.

I mean the IHSA is member run. If the invitational is big enough it will be a gate draw at a non 100% take.

 

[johnndoe]

With all the complicated proposals being floated, maybe the brakes should be pumped to consider the problem-solving guidance known as Ockham's Razor. Attributed to an English Franciscan (Catholic) friar from the 14th Century, a philosopher and theologian, the principle states, "The simplest, most straightforward solution is usually the best one." We can each individually interpret how that applies in this controversy.