Next year 5A

[Snetsrak61]

Okay just throwing out wild ideas.

Formula to determine multiplier:

3^(p/10) where p is equal to your playoff wins the last two years (I question in general penalizing a current team for past teams successes, but anything past two is particularly excessive IMO. Given some type if success criteria let's cut it down)

So a team with two straight championships gets a max multiplier of 3 (perhaps you could add in a one class a year max bump/drop). A team with a finals loss and no playoff wins gets the same treatment as a team with two straight quarters appearances (1.55). This method makes each additional advancement worth more, thus reducing the penalty of relatively small round 1 wins.

Here's how the multiplier would look (rounded)
Wins - Mulitplier - Change
1 - 1.12 - .12
2 - 1.25 - .13
3 - 1.39 - .14
4 - 1.55 - .16
5 - 1.73 - .18
6 - 1.93 - .20
7 - 2.16 - .23
8 - 2.41 - .25
9 - 2.69 - .28
10 - 3.00 - .31

Edit- you could also weight year minus two results at 80%, which would give you a p where last years results weigh more heavily than wins two years ago (and revised formula 3^(p/9) or even weight last years results at 120% and keep the 3^(p/10)). This way a team with a round 1 loss and state title is not treated the same as a team with a state title two years ago and a round 1 loss.

 

[Bwm57]

If the consolidation goes as currently projected Lincoln Way West will be a little over 1900 students for the 2016-17 school year., That enrollment would put them fairly solidly in 7A this year.

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrake,

And this proposal would apply to all teams public and private?

Okay just throwing out wild ideas.

Formula to determine multiplier:

3^(p/10) where p is equal to your playoff wins the last two years (I question in general penalizing a current team for past teams successes, but anything past two is particularly excessive IMO. Given some type if success criteria let's cut it down)

So a team with two straight championships gets a max multiplier of 3 (perhaps you could add in a one class a year max bump/drop). A team with a finals loss and no playoff wins gets the same treatment as a team with two straight quarters appearances (1.55). This method makes each additional advancement worth more, thus reducing the penalty of relatively small round 1 wins.

Here's how the multiplier would look (rounded)
Wins - Mulitplier - Change
1 - 1.12 - .12
2 - 1.25 - .13
3 - 1.39 - .14
4 - 1.55 - .16
5 - 1.73 - .18
6 - 1.93 - .20
7 - 2.16 - .23
8 - 2.41 - .25
9 - 2.69 - .28
10 - 3.00 - .31

Edit- you could also weight year minus two results at 80%, which would give you a p where last years results weigh more heavily than wins two years ago (and revised formula 3^(p/9) or even weight last years results at 120% and keep the 3^(p/10)). This way a team with a round 1 loss and state title is not treated the same as a team with a state title two years ago and a round 1 loss.

Snet

 

[Snetsrak61]

I'm a realist first and foremost. Of course it only applies to privates.

If you wanted a proposal to include publics you'd have to revise it a bit I think, lest you really hurt the quality of the middle classes, as it is fairly aggressive if applied to every team.

My goal was using the quarterfinals as a baseline to have a multiplier comparable to the current across the board rate, which I think is what I've done. Consistent success above or below that modifies the relative weight of the non-boundary multiplier.

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrake,

Success is success whether at a private or public school. Let's not kid ourselves that people don't move to districts with schools like the following to achieve some extra-circulars advantage. The following public schools recruit either actively or passively. The have built huge programs for sports and the arts and aggressively show them off encouraging parents to move their kids into the district. I will give you a short list.

HF
Rochester
Neuqua
Bolingbrook
Barrington
Warren
Stevenson
LT
Phillips
Simeon

The list goes on, this list applies to Football and Basketball but also several other extra-circulars such as Band or Theater etc...

If you are going to multiply for success I have no problem with that but do it equally without discrimination!

I'm a realist first and foremost. Of course it only applies to privates.

If you wanted a proposal to include publics you'd have to revise it a bit I think, lest you really hurt the quality of the middle classes, as it is fairly aggressive if applied to every team.

My goal was using the quarterfinals as a baseline to have a multiplier comparable to the current across the board rate, which I think is what I've done. Consistent success above or below that modifies the relative weight of the non-boundary multiplier.

 

[NazDad]

Your proposal has merit. However, off the top of my head, without doiing the math on all the teams potentially effected, the unintended consequenses would push some very good teams down due to the multiplied effect on others. ie.. 7A and 8A may get overwhelmed with multiplied teams. Again I have not done the math but I believe this would happen especially if it was only applied to nonboundry schools.

 

[psspfan]

Your proposal has merit. However, off the top of my head, without doiing the math on all the teams potentially effected, the unintended consequenses would push some very good teams down due to the multiplied effect on others. ie.. 7A and 8A may get overwhelmed with multiplied teams. Again I have not done the math but I believe this would happen especially if it was only applied to nonboundry schools.

and there in lies the flaw of a success factor. it does not equalize the talent in the lower class, just shifts talented teams around, moving talented bigger teams into lower classes. The excellent case study will be Nazareth running right over all the 5A competition. I guess they will be passing right over them too.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Your proposal has merit. However, off the top of my head, without doiing the math on all the teams potentially effected, the unintended consequenses would push some very good teams down due to the multiplied effect on others. ie.. 7A and 8A may get overwhelmed with multiplied teams. Again I have not done the math but I believe this would happen especially if it was only applied to nonboundry schools.

I initially used 3.5 as a random number and did adjust it downward. You could probably play around more.

Fact is, most private teams would benefit from this proposal. You aren't automatically multiplied based on a playoff win every four years. You are multiplied based on very recent results. If "all" you were capable of is consistently making the quarters each year, you would be multiplied LESS than you are now.

Now I appreciate jwars argument and it's one I've used before, but this idea is a compromise to adjust the rather harsh multiplier rule that effects many private schools that aren't recruiting on the same level and should be multiplied 65% almost off the bat. In return the top private schools take on a little extra pain (in a fairer way than the existing SF) that they've frankly shown an ability to take on from the very start of the multiplier. And to the above point, adding publics would cause the issue about pushing too much talent up and hurting quality on the middle classes, as I originally stated.

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrake,

If you multiply everyone the 1% compete against the 1% regardless of public or private, the 10% against the 10%, the 25% against the 25%, etc... until you fill out the brackets with the best 32 at each level. Call it a redistribution of talent wealth regardless of size. It will create a better brand of football and certainly a more competitive playing field if that's what we are really looking for. That said 8 classes are far to many and dilute the meaning of a championship.

I initially used 3.5 as a random number and did adjust it downward. You could probably play around more.

Fact is, most private teams would benefit from this proposal. You aren't automatically multiplied based on a playoff win every four years. You are multiplied based on very recent results. If "all" you were capable of is consistently making the quarters each year, you would be multiplied LESS than you are now.

Now I appreciate jwars argument and it's one I've used before, but this idea is a compromise to adjust the rather harsh multiplier rule that effects many private schools that aren't recruiting on the same level and should be multiplied 65% almost off the bat. In return the top private schools take on a little extra pain (in a fairer way than the existing SF) that they've frankly shown an ability to take on from the very start of the multiplier. And to the above point, adding publics would cause the issue about pushing too much talent up and hurting quality on the middle classes, as I originally stated.

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrake,

If you multiply everyone the 1% compete against the 1% regardless of public or private, the 10% against the 10%, the 25% against the 25%, etc... until you fill out the brackets with the best 32 at each level. Call it a redistribution of talent wealth regardless of size. It will create a better brand of football and certainly a more competitive playing field if that's what we are really looking for. That said 8 classes are far to many and dilute the meaning of a championship.

I initially used 3.5 as a random number and did adjust it downward. You could probably play around more.

Fact is, most private teams would benefit from this proposal. You aren't automatically multiplied based on a playoff win every four years. You are multiplied based on very recent results. If "all" you were capable of is consistently making the quarters each year, you would be multiplied LESS than you are now.

Now I appreciate jwars argument and it's one I've used before, but this idea is a compromise to adjust the rather harsh multiplier rule that effects many private schools that aren't recruiting on the same level and should be multiplied 65% almost off the bat. In return the top private schools take on a little extra pain (in a fairer way than the existing SF) that they've frankly shown an ability to take on from the very start of the multiplier. And to the above point, adding publics would cause the issue about pushing too much talent up and hurting quality on the middle classes, as I originally stated.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Well the flaw in the logic is assuming that the 1% last year will be the 1% this year. Which is a reason I'm opposed to the SF. Yet, this I think is a slightly better SF, especially on considerations you'd get on the multiplier.

Applying this current method to everyone... It's just a little too encompassing. almost every team past round two, would get bumped up from the previous year. 5A and 6A would be awful. If you want a similar approach but applied to all you have to restrict even further the impact of the lower round results, but then it starts to just look more like the actual SF and i would reason in turn the publics will hold out to keep the existing multiplier in tact (with the really wimpy auto waivers)

 

[cornerrat]

All.... Those (now) I think comments can be a bit tricky.... Ratsy

 

[cornerrat]

All.... Those (now) "I think" type comments can be a bit tricky. Ratsy

 

[cornerrat]

All.... Oh my I said it twice.... Ratsy

 

[jwarigaku]

So what you are saying is you want equality with discrimination...NIMBY right! I think your proposal has merit but only if applied to everyone equally. The DVC for example is proud of how competitive the league is...likewise is The West Suburban Siler & Gold, The CCL Blue, The ESCC, etc... God knows we hear other conferences that want to claim strength as well, I won't venture to guess who's the toughest top to bottom because it changes, but if your team, public or private has success they should be moved up. We here all the time success breeds success. Why be afraid to compete with the best if that's what you want to claim and profess. If you have success you move up and if not you step back down, it's a dynamic process and this way you compete at your own highest possible level.

If you apply it to just the privates you'll have 800 member schools competing with 4500 member schools, like what is about to happen to Montini. Is that a justified level field, or is it a field to force them to lose? I would argue that it's the latter and if you want to force out the privates that's fine as long as it's accompied by an ISBE resolution for school vouchers at will.

Well the flaw in the logic is assuming that the 1% last year will be the 1% this year. Which is a reason I'm opposed to the SF. Yet, this I think is a slightly better SF, especially on considerations you'd get on the multiplier.

Applying this current method to everyone... It's just a little too encompassing. almost every team past round two, would get bumped up from the previous year. 5A and 6A would be awful. If you want a similar approach but applied to all you have to restrict even further the impact of the lower round results, but then it starts to just look more like the actual SF and i would reason in turn the publics will hold out to keep the existing multiplier in tact (with the really wimpy auto waivers)

 

[Snetsrak61]

You're basically rehashing the same old complaints, which I largerly agree with and understand, but I personally find exhausting.

The privates are a minority here and the reality is any solution is going to look unfair because there isn't the support. I'm past the point of any fairness argument because it's moot and my point here is to look at it through a different lense, with a different approach- which in this case was to 1. give the best benefit to the most private schools possible and 2. Keep classes competitive, both with the real world argument that, were that to happen a compromise is gonna happen elsewhere to even the score so to speak.

You seem to struggle with this concept, but by all means you and anyone else is free to bang your head against the wall with the same old fairness arguments that have been hashed out to death weekly for the past however many years.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Given all that, try to look at it less as a SF fix and more of a multiplier fix. That was the way I approached it. And I kind of worked within constraints of wanting a fairly simple to apply mathematical approach that still worked on more of a scaled basis.

And I would of course support a "SF for all plan". But that's not my plan. It's applied way too broadly to the point of losing any meaningful definition of success.

 

[emillika]

I look forward to MCHS being in 7a in 2016.. after that not so sure.

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrake,

Aren't you the same poster from 2 weeks ago that thought it was fair/right to have a guy who gender identifies as a girl in my daughters locker room? Well actually one of the other guys daughters.

You're basically rehashing the same old complaints, which I largerly agree with and understand, but I personally find exhausting.

The privates are a minority here and the reality is any solution is going to look unfair because there isn't the support. I'm past the point of any fairness argument because it's moot and my point here is to look at it through a different lense, with a different approach- which in this case was to 1. give the best benefit to the most private schools possible and 2. Keep classes competitive, both with the real world argument that, were that to happen a compromise is gonna happen elsewhere to even the score so to speak.

You seem to struggle with this concept, but by all means you and anyone else is free to bang your head against the wall with the same old fairness arguments that have been hashed out to death weekly for the past however many years.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Um what does that have to do with this lol

 

[jwarigaku]

Just establishing agenda and credibility.

Um what does that have to do with this lol

 

[Snetsrak61]

Well one is an issue of federal protections of discrimination of gender. If there's a constitutional or legal argument to be made for the success factor I'm all ears, but for the moment I'll take the stand that attempting to link the two only calls into question the credibility of one person and it ain't me.

Other thread aside, which I'm happy to discuss there and not derail this thread, what exactly is my "agenda" supposed to be as a private school supporter?

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrak,

Are you saying that private schools based on religious or other affiliation are not protected against discrimination?
The multiplier was selected with no scientific basis, and the Success factor is selectively applied to private schools only. The public schools can have all the success they want, can recruit using their weight rooms, Theater studios, etc... With middle school kids invited to participate in "open gym" and have zero risk of discriminatory practices like being moved up 1,2,3 classes or more until they fail. How is this allowed under State & Federal anti-discrimination laws?

Well one is an issue of federal protections of discrimination of gender. If there's a constitutional or legal argument to be made for the success factor I'm all ears, but for the moment I'll take the stand that attempting to link the two only calls into question the credibility of one person and it ain't me.

Other thread aside, which I'm happy to discuss there and not derail this thread, what exactly is my "agenda" supposed to be as a private school supporter?

 

[Snetsrak61]

is that really a question? To be clear you think the competitive/size class a team plays in for IHSA football is a federally protected right whereby minority parties (non-boundary schools) need protection from discrimination? The same way we protect against discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, etc?

You've jumped off the deep end here. If you think there's an actual legal argument of discrimination to be made here you're are off. For one, any non-boundary school is free to take part in any recruitment effort they want and end their voluntary relationship with their IHSA. This isn't about the schools protections to operate as a private religious institution.

 

[spr8484]

is that really a question? To be clear you think the competitive/size class a team plays in for IHSA football is a federally protected right whereby minority parties (non-boundary schools) need protection from discrimination? The same way we protect against discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, etc?

You've jumped off the deep end here. If you think there's an actual legal argument of discrimination to be made here you're are off. For one, any non-boundary school is free to take part in any recruitment effort they want and end their voluntary relationship with their IHSA. This isn't about the schools protections to operate as a private religious institution.

I don't think he's jumped off the deep end. How many schools are subject to the Multiplier? Of those, how many school are religious / faith based? Of those faith based schools how many are Catholic?

 

[Snetsrak61]

It has zero to do with their freedom to practice religion. Zero. None. Plus their involvement in IHSA is totally voluntary and to my knowledge, the IHSA is not a public institute not accept federal funding of any kind. No rights are infringed upon here.

I'll try out some numbers but I suspect my idea actually keeps strong middle teir catholic programs In the middle classes like 4A and 5A rather than being bumped up where their recruitment efforts haven't shown to be effective at the artificially high levels.

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrake,

Yep I guess I went off the deep end because I think EVERYONE should be treated EQUALLY, and think that those rights should be protected regardless of Race, Religion, Gender, Disability, or Age. Guess I'm a Zealot.

is that really a question? To be clear you think the competitive/size class a team plays in for IHSA football is a federally protected right whereby minority parties (non-boundary schools) need protection from discrimination? The same way we protect against discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, etc?

You've jumped off the deep end here. If you think there's an actual legal argument of discrimination to be made here you're are off. For one, any non-boundary school is free to take part in any recruitment effort they want and end their voluntary relationship with their IHSA. This isn't about the schools protections to operate as a private religious institution.

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrake,

IHSA does not accept federal funds but they do enjoy the status of a not for profit company that pays no taxes and compensates its Board Member very well and even provides deferred retirement benefits.

It has zero to do with their freedom to practice religion. Zero. None. Plus their involvement in IHSA is totally voluntary and to my knowledge, the IHSA is not a public institute not accept federal funding of any kind. No rights are infringed upon here.

I'll try out some numbers but I suspect my idea actually keeps strong middle teir catholic programs In the middle classes like 4A and 5A rather than being bumped up where their recruitment efforts haven't shown to be effective at the artificially high levels.

 

[Snetsrak61]

And yet- I've not yet really come out in support of the multiplier or SF, but it is the reality we as private school supporters find ourselves in the IHSA, so how could those concepts be applied more soundly? I believe I've laid out an interesting idea and to you any situation that doesn't treat boundary and non-boundary exactly the same is a non starter.

I guess there's really nothing left to discuss at this point then.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Also I don't think you're a zealot. But I don't put freedom of athletic enrollment on par with issues like race and gender, and I suppose we do disagree there.

 

[jwarigaku]

Snetsrak,

Your driving this to athletic participation but that's not all that is happening here, rather we have a specific class discrimination only designed to penalize successful private schools. I am not resistant to successful programs having to compete at higher levels so long as it applies to everyone. In the end what I'm asking for is equal rights to all not just some, else by definition we have discrimination.

Also I don't think you're a zealot. But I don't put freedom of athletic enrollment on par with issues like race and gender, and I suppose we do disagree there.

 

[DeanOfSelection]

Side note I am really looking forward to 7A next year. Montini supposed to have an "A" team will be in 7A with GBN who returns everyone I think, GW, MC, Batavia, LWW (bumped up w consolidation), Cary w Pennington as a senior, PC who will be back. I am assuming LWE goes 8A but who knows.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Case in point for how my idea helps keep more private schools at an appropriate level:

Currently a hypothetical private school in any class from 2-7A will be automatically bumped up at least a class if multiplied, even if they are the smallest school in that class. So the only way that doesn't happen is if they apply for or get an auto-waiver. The auto waiver basically kicks in on a 4 year look back and you lose it if you win even one playoff game. So many schools play up.

In my proposal, a median enrollment school will not be bumped up if they win one playoff game in the previous two years (7A is close and obviously this is a moving target, but all other classes are safe). A hypothetical lowest enrollment school could win two or even three playoff games without feeling the bump. If you average 4 wins over a two year span, which is like making the quarters each year, you are multipled about 10% less than you are now which could be the difference of a top 5 enrollment school getting bumped one class vs two classes.

So without any specific examples this keeps more non-boundary schools down in more appropriate classes. Yes - at the expense of very high achievers which is currently a few of the dozens of private schools. But since it really takes performance beyond quarters its extremely unlikely you see a significant number of schools play up beyond the current scope of the multiplier, and it's much more quick to adjust itself with only a two year look back.

Now of course the question- why not apply it to all? It's designed to do too much. With a single playoff win kicking in some level of multiplier, it covers way too many schools and will bump up all the talent into a few classes which is basically what most don't want to happen where talent vaccuums accumulate. A "SF for all " plan needs only kick in at the semi or state final level IMO. I'm not opposed to a "SF for all" proposal BUT THIS IS NOT IT.

 

[eireog]

Why not make it very simple, if you win your class you move up a class public or private ?

 

[Snetsrak61]

Snetsrak,

Your driving this to athletic participation but that's not all that is happening here, rather we have a specific class discrimination only designed to penalize successful private schools. I am not resistant to successful programs having to compete at higher levels so long as it applies to everyone. In the end what I'm asking for is equal rights to all not just some, else by definition we have discrimination.

Nitpick, but the rule is for non-boundaries which does include public schools. Now I do understand some have questioned some waivers given to some public non-boundary schools, but that's another discussion in my opinion, as it would be pretty narrowly applied (potentially abused I suppose).

I'm not sure I understand your differentiation you are trying to make regarding athletics vs the school as a whole though.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Why not make it very simple, if you win your class you move up a class public or private ?

Is that with or without a multiplier?

 

[eireog]

Shouldn't matter. No multiplier on public and privates moving up a class anyway.

 

[DeanOfSelection]

Is that with or without a multiplier?

I would have the multiplier, FE, and SF. SF you would have to WIN your class 2 in a row then u advance ONE class. Not advanced unless u won 2 in a row and I would apply SF to public and private.

 

[eireog]

I would have the multiplier, FE, and SF. SF you would have to WIN your class 2 in a row then u advance ONE class. Not advanced unless u won 2 in a row and I would apply SF to public and private.

No matter how you determine the move up or SF , as long is its done regardless of public or private I think it's fair.

 

[eireog]

I think it would be very interesting to see a team like Phillips we will say. If they could maintain their level of success over four years and possibly win 4A through 8A in consecutive years.