Next year 5A

[JFelice]

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.

How about they win one, in 4a, first!

 

[Snetsrak61]

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.

Yea I'm more inclined to go with two in a row over one in a row. For one its kind of nice if you get to defend the state title you just won and potentially see some rematches.

Curious though why you'd have the multiplier and FE. They seem like they'd kind of counteract each other.

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

I think it should matter as a baseline. If you're already bumping up dozens of schools you escalate the talent vacuum problem.

 

[eireog]

How about they win one, in 4a, first!

Valid point !

 

[pjjp]

Just to chime in ....in regards to one issue of the current application of the success factor, I also do not think it should be applied unless a school wins said class in two of four years. In football, you only have to make it to the championship game for two of the four years to be SF-eligible. In other other sports (ie baseball), you only have to make it to the Final 4 for two of four years. IMO, the SF should only be applied if a given school is dominating a certain class. Dominating equates to winning it multiple times, IMO, not merely making it to the championship game in football or the Final 4 in other sports.

 

[eireog]

I think it should matter as a baseline. If you're already bumping up dozens of schools you escalate the talent vacuum problem.[/QUOTE]

I'm just saying to bump up the winner.

 

[Bwm57]

LWE enrollment is projected to be just under 2900 students for 2016-17 school year with the consolidation.
This would put them right in the middle of 8A

 

[Snetsrak61]

I'm just saying to bump up the winner.

But in year one, where will they compete? Naz, MCC, and JCA all are 4A by true enrollment but 5A or sometimes 6A for Naz. Do they first have to win 4A before they are presumed too successful and bumped up? It's a very agressive SF, which is why I ask. And then are they immediately bumped down if they lose in their new class? If a team like JCA were to start alternating between winning 4A and being eliminated from 5A is that the best route? Possibly you get a situation where a Naz and Montini end up on opposite schedules and trade off bump ups/bump downs and dominating the down class.

 

[eireog]

But in year one, where will they compete? Naz, MCC, and JCA all are 4A by true enrollment but 5A or sometimes 6A for Naz. Do they first have to win 4A before they are presumed too successful and bumped up? It's a very agressive SF, which is why I ask. And then are they immediately bumped down if they lose in their new class? If a team like JCA were to start alternating between winning 4A and being eliminated from 5A is that the best route? Possibly you get a situation where a Naz and Montini end up on opposite schedules and trade off bump ups/bump downs and dominating the down class.

If you win 4A next year you go to 5A, 5A you go to 6A, etc. Only one champion per class per year.

Ok, misunderstood your point. No year one really . So if they institute it this year all this years champions move up 1 class.

 

[psspfan]

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.

tantamount to saying, hey, if I want to discriminate against this person in renting or selling a home, they are always "free" to go buy and live somewhere else-. logic flawed, big time. look, the only way we would find out whether this is specifically targeting religious based schools is to throw it in front of a State Supreme Court. which the IHSA should not count out. how exactly does the IHSA get paid? from schools largely funded by public funds. Senator Connolly has a Senate Bill pending which would settle this whole thing. not sure it will go anywhere. I believe SB 75?

 

[Snetsrak61]

tantamount to saying, hey, if I want to discriminate against this person in renting or selling a home, they are always "free" to go buy and live somewhere else-. logic flawed, big time. look, the only way we would find out whether this is specifically targeting religious based schools is to throw it in front of a State Supreme Court. which the IHSA should not count out. how exactly does the IHSA get paid? from schools largely funded by public funds. Senator Connolly has a Senate Bill pending which would settle this whole thing. not sure it will go anywhere. I believe SB 75?

The fact that the IHSA receives money from publically funded institutions is potentially an issue... If they were discriminating on something that had legal protection. Granted some of the schools under the multiplier have rights as religious institutions, but unless you worship at the throne of HS athletics (which maybe that is the problem here) it isn't relevant.

100% any school in Illinois is free to end their relationship with the IHSA and I can think of at least one that has. They recruit at will and still support strong athletic teams and academics alike. They even play IHSA member schools. Not the same as housing where a minority can be systematically prevented from living in a specific area like what occurred with redlining.