Multiplier Waviers

[Colin2299]

Chicago Leo and Woodstock Marian didn’t apply for waivers.

Please make it make sense

 

[mc140]

Chicago Leo and Woodstock Marian didn’t apply for waivers.

Please make it make sense

Coach/AD malpractice.

 

[Colin2299]

You haven’t made the playoffs in forever and the football gods throw you a bone and you can possibly make some noise if you play in your class but you don’t apply and now will do nothing.

 

[Cross Bones]

There should also be a mechanism for programs like Joliet Central to play down from their classification. A divider if you will.

 

[Colin2299]

There should also be a mechanism for programs like Joliet Central to play down from their classification. A divider if you will.

Why

 

[Cross Bones]

Why

Same reason Leo and Marian would want to play down from their classification.

 

[Colin2299]

Same reason Leo and Marian would want to play down from their classification.

Not the same thing

 

[80sRambler]

Not the same thing

How so?

 

[Colin2299]

How so?

Not worth typing it out

 

[good_nocall]

Peru St. Bede missed the deadline as well.

 

[dstanger]

Marian Central waiver application was submitted but denied by the IHSA...because they have been very close to qualifying for the playoffs at 4-5 the last 2 years.

 

[Colin2299]

Marian Central waiver application was submitted but denied by the IHSA...because they have been very close to qualifying for the playoffs at 4-5 the last 2 years.

That’s not how it works. It’s black and white. Either you meet the requirements for the waiver or you don’t. If you do, you apply and it’s applied.

Really a shame for these teams.

Was really looking forward to seeing what Marian would have done in 1A and Leo in 2A.

Their admins are . IMO, it’s a fireable offense.

 

[4Afan]

That’s not how it works. It’s black and white. Either you meet the requirements for the waiver or you don’t. If you do, you apply and it’s applied.

Really a shame for these teams.

Was really looking forward to seeing what Marian would have done in 1A and Leo in 2A.

Their admins are . IMO, it’s a fireable offense.

This is not correct. If you haven't won a playoff game in the previous 3 seasons that allows you to apply for the waiver, but all waiver applications are reviewed on a case by case basis. So you can meet the requirements and still have your waiver denied.

 

[Colin2299]

Actually, perhaps I’m wrong….

“Teams that do not meet the success
criteria are eligible to apply for a waiver.
Being eligible to apply does not guarantee
that a waiver will be granted. Information
collected from the application will be
reviewed for consideration of a waiver.”

This IHSA can deny waivers at their own discretion? Has this happened before?

 

[Colin2299]

This is not correct. If you haven't won a playoff game in the previous 3 seasons that allows you to apply for the waiver, but all waiver applications are reviewed on a case by case basis. So you can meet the requirements and still have your waiver denied.

I defend the IHSA in almost all cases but this one is bonkers to me. Make it make sense.

 

[4Afan]

Actually, perhaps I’m wrong….

“Teams that do not meet the success
criteria are eligible to apply for a waiver.
Being eligible to apply does not guarantee
that a waiver will be granted. Information
collected from the application will be
reviewed for consideration of a waiver.”

This IHSA can deny waivers at their own discretion? Has this happened before?

This waiver process is relatively new and from what I've seen most applications for football have been denied.

In the case of Leo it's up for debate as to whether they should have applied, but it most certainly would have been denied. In my opinion it would have been due to their schedule and the fact that they went 5-4 with the smallest school they played being IC and the rest were 5A-8A schools.

Even with a waiver they would have been 3A not 2A.

 

[Colin2299]

This is BS - how can the IHSA make a waiver rule but then allow for it to be denied?

And also have no clear verbiage for why the board can deny it?

 

[4Afan]

This is BS - how can the IHSA make a waiver rule but then allow for it to be denied?

And also have no clear verbiage for why the board can deny it?

It's in the rule that each waiver application gets reviewed on a case by case basis. Having no playoff wins in 3 years just triggers a schools eligibility to apply, it's not a firm rule. Not sure what the waiver threshold is for other sports.

 

[Colin2299]

It's in the rule that each waiver application gets reviewed on a case by case basis. Having no playoff wins in 3 years just triggers a schools eligibility to apply, it's not a firm rule. Not sure what the waiver threshold is for other sports.

Right…case by case basis and the IHSA’s board makes the call based on….what?

Marian hasn’t made the playoffs in (8) years and is 3-6. They aren’t a very good program.

 

[Colin2299]

Why did Woodstock Marian’s get denied but not Marmion?

Marmion plays in a much better conference and made the playoffs in 2024.

While Marian hasn’t been in the playoffs for (8) years, in the past (8) years Marmion went to the playoffs 3x and won (4) playoff games.

Marmion has beaten Leo 6x in a row over the past (8) seasons and yet Leo doesn’t get a waiver but Marmion does.

 

[Colin2299]

The opposite should be true as well then…

A team who is enforced the multiplier should be able to apply for a waiver and the IHSA board should be able to vote on their case.

Example, Aurora Central Catholic. Their one playoff win in (3) years was against a pathetic CPS team and bc of that win, they are multiplied and bumped up a class. After that playoff win, they followed it up with a 57-6 loss in round 2.

 

[4Afan]

Why did Woodstock Marian’s get denied but not Marmion?

Marmion plays in a much better conference and made the playoffs in 2024.

While Marian hasn’t been in the playoffs for (8) years, in the past (8) years Marmion went to the playoffs 3x and won (4) playoff games.

Marmion has beaten Leo 6x in a row over the past (8) seasons and yet Leo doesn’t get a waiver but Marmion does.

In your very first post you said Leo and Marian didn't apply for a waiver. So did they not apply or was it denied? You can't complain about one school getting approved and the other not if the second schools didn't even bother to apply.

 

[mc140]

Leo beat Marmion last year in prep bowl playoffs.

 

[4Afan]

The opposite should be true as well then…

A team who is enforced the multiplier should be able to apply for a waiver and the IHSA board should be able to vote on their case.

Example, Aurora Central Catholic. Their one playoff win in (3) years was against a pathetic CPS team and bc of that win, they are multiplied and bumped up a class. After that playoff win, they followed it up with a 57-6 loss in round 2.

What? Teams who are multiplied are the only schools that can apply for the MULTIPLIER waiver.

No playoff wins over 3 years and they can apply. Now you want exceptions if a win comes against a CPS team?

In the case of ACC they weren't multiplied because of one playoff win. All non boundary schools are multiplied by default, now the multiplier waiver exists and they can have the multiplier removed if they haven't won a playoff game over the last 3 years. Nothing can be done if they choose not to apply. Maybe they're fine with the class the multiplier puts them in and they don't need you to complain on their behalf.

 

[Colin2299]

In your very first post you said Leo and Marian didn't apply for a waiver. So did they not apply or was it denied? You can't complain about one school getting approved and the other not if the second schools didn't even bother to apply.

If you can read you saw that I changed my stance once I learned that the IHSA has the ability to deny waivers…

I assume every team applied for the waivers and the IHSA denied several

 

[4Afan]

If you can read you saw that I changed my stance once I learned that the IHSA has the ability to deny waivers…

I assume every team applied for the waivers and the IHSA denied several

The IHSA denies most, but not all schools apply. Also not sure on the deadline to apply. If it's at the beginning of the season then some schools are either fine with their multiplied class or don't think they'll make the playoffs.

 

[4Afan]

Marian Central waiver application was submitted but denied by the IHSA...because they have been very close to qualifying for the playoffs at 4-5 the last 2 years.

You got a link to where the reason for the IHSA's decision was made public?

 

[Colin2299]

What? Teams who are multiplied are the only schools that can apply for the MULTIPLIER waiver.

No playoff wins over 3 years and they can apply. Now you want exceptions if a win comes against a CPS team?

In the case of ACC they weren't multiplied because of one playoff win. All non boundary schools are multiplied by default, now the multiplier waiver exists and they can have the multiplier removed if they haven't won a playoff game over the last 3 years. Nothing can be done if they choose not to apply. Maybe they're fine with the class the multiplier puts them in and they don't need you to complain on their behalf.

Dude…I know.

What I’m saying is if the IHSA can deny a teams application to remove the waiver even though the team, by their own rules, meets the criteria to have it removed then….

Teams that don’t qualify for the waiver should be able to have the IHSA step in and remove it even though the rules state it should be applied.

Their can’t be a rule that the IHSA board is able to step in and say “even though we made this rule, we have the right to step in and not enforce it.”

 

[Colin2299]

Marian Central waiver application was submitted but denied by the IHSA...because they have been very close to qualifying for the playoffs at 4-5 the last 2 years.

I really hope you are Dirk Stanger (head football coach for Woodstock Marian).

 

[4Afan]

Dude…I know.

What I’m saying is if the IHSA can deny a teams application to remove the waiver even though the team, by their own rules, meets the criteria to have it removed then….

Teams that don’t qualify for the waiver should be able to have the IHSA step in and remove it even though the rules state it should be applied.

Their can’t be a rule that the IHSA board is able to step in and say “even though we made this rule, we have the right to step in and not enforce it.”

I'll try this again, not winning a playoff game over the last 3 years only triggers a teams eligibilty to apply for a waiver, it's not black and white.

No playoff wins in 3 years isn't a waiver guarantee, it is only the benchmark to allow a team to apply and IF a team chooses to apply then each application gets reviewed on a case by case basis.

 

[Colin2299]

I'll try this again, not winning a playoff game over the last 3 years only triggers a teams eligibilty to apply for a waiver, it's not black and white.

No playoff wins in 3 years isn't a waiver guarantee, it is only the benchmark to allow a team to apply and IF a team chooses to apply then each application gets reviewed on a case by case basis.

Again…I know

 

[4Afan]

"What I’m saying is if the IHSA can deny a teams application to remove the waiver even though the team, by their own rules, meets the criteria to have it removed then…."

You sure? Seems like you're interpreting it as a team qualifies for a waiver with no playoff wins in 3 years, when it's actually that they qualify to apply for a waiver. It's not triggered automatically after 3 years with no wins and the IHSA reserves the right to take the waiver away.

 

[Colin2299]

“The multiplier waiver was initially implemented in hopes of trying to provide greater competitive equity to teams who were being embarrassed in their multiplied class in certain sports,” said IHSA Executive Director Craig Anderson.

How does denying Marian’s waiver help the above quote Craig?


The board now votes on the waivers. The board of (15) has (3) private/non-boundried reps on it. One of the private reps doesn’t offer football and another’s program is terrible. Of course they are never going to waive a waiver.

 

[Colin2299]

"What I’m saying is if the IHSA can deny a teams application to remove the waiver even though the team, by their own rules, meets the criteria to have it removed then…."

You sure? Seems like you're interpreting it as a team qualifies for a waiver with no playoff wins in 3 years, when it's actually that they qualify to apply for a waiver. It's not triggered automatically after 3 years with no wins and the IHSA reserves the right to take the waiver away.

Correct…the IHSA reserves the right to take the waiver away language is BS.

 

[4Afan]

Correct…the IHSA reserves the right to take the waiver away language is BS.

That's what you're not getting. If a team has no wins in 3 years a waiver doesn't automatically kick in. A school could have no wins in 3 years and never apply for a waiver so it can't be approved or denied by the IHSA. It's all about a school choosing to apply once they qualify and then it gets reviewed.

 

[Colin2299]

That's what you're not getting. If a team has no wins in 3 years a waiver doesn't automatically kick in. A school could have no wins in 3 years and never apply for a waiver so it can't be approved or denied by the IHSA. It's all about a school choosing to apply once they qualify and then it gets reviewed.

Dude…I know. Move on

 

[Cross Bones]

That's what you're not getting. If a team has no wins in 3 years a waiver doesn't automatically kick in. A school could have no wins in 3 years and never apply for a waiver so it can't be approved or denied by the IHSA. It's all about a school choosing to apply once they qualify and then it gets reviewed.

Its abuse at this point. I think we've seen enough from buddy to make some conclusions.