Public Guys
- Thread starter JFelice
- Start date
I never wanted the split. Ramblinman was the one proposing th NIPL. Or something like it.
You wanna be the best, beat the best
You wanna be the best, beat the best
Biggest story on the "fairness" front is Rochester, a public school, winning the 4A title for the 6th time in 7 years. How this success factor is only applied to non-boundary schools is a travesty. Just adds to the bad postseason for the IHSA, IMO.
A
anon_4vszfu35bv677
Guest
Fenwick wont even join the Blue and you think them leaving would be that threatening? Please.
No split - got to play the best to be the best
How about we focus less about how to multiply down to the smallest class possible to win small Classification titles and focus more on the teams that petition up to try and play the best? I.e. The new Open Division class!!
How about we focus less about how to multiply down to the smallest class possible to win small Classification titles and focus more on the teams that petition up to try and play the best? I.e. The new Open Division class!!
Get over what? The incessant whining by public school people on this board? Well until it goes your way of course. Congrats on the win, and just think you didn't have to take Catholic schools out of the equation to do it!
Read the original post, should probably answer your question. Can you imagine if West Aurora wasn't properly awarded that touchdown in the first round... What might have been.
Your bitterness only makes my world sweeter Boy..
Whine, cry, and *****..
We are all good here sweetheart
Leave your passy at the door
Somewhere the logic in whiners like TPF has broken down. I don't know how to make him or get him to actually think reasonably as I am not an educator (although one might read the board and see me schooling him and his ilk).
If the argument is that the two types of schools get students in a completely different manner which makes classification of the two together nearly impossible--the fact that sometimes boundaried schools beat unboundaried schools doesn't even begin to address the argument. Yet, people like TFP seem to think that it does.
I invite @TPF523 to come and explain how MS beating LA means they get students the same way.
Now, truthfully, @IHSAStaff has done all they can do to try to keep it together with people like TPF crying the entire way. I sat here and watched people belittle the 5A game. Well people, that is 5A football, throwing a couple 8A schools in the mix doesn't make it better. They have had the opportunity for years to opt up into classes that more reflect their level of play and not once have the schools in question done it (I personally think the opt up provision is silly, but it is available). So now we have the SF to move up those schools who should have opted up on top of the multiplier.
All this to fix something that can't be fixed. No matter how many tweaks to the system are made we can't make open enrollment and boundaried schools the same. They are apples and oranges. Do I prefer having LA, MC (when they were 8A), Rice etc in 8A? Absolutely, but not at the expense of IC and BMac in 3A or Naz and JCA in 5A.
my good friend @ramblinman doesn't think enrollment is a good way to classify open enrollment schools, and I agree with him. Where we differ is that I think and most reasonable people think enrollment is perfectly fine to classify boundaried schools. Because of this dichotomy there is no objective way to classify the schools together.
If the argument is that the two types of schools get students in a completely different manner which makes classification of the two together nearly impossible--the fact that sometimes boundaried schools beat unboundaried schools doesn't even begin to address the argument. Yet, people like TFP seem to think that it does.
I invite @TPF523 to come and explain how MS beating LA means they get students the same way.
Now, truthfully, @IHSAStaff has done all they can do to try to keep it together with people like TPF crying the entire way. I sat here and watched people belittle the 5A game. Well people, that is 5A football, throwing a couple 8A schools in the mix doesn't make it better. They have had the opportunity for years to opt up into classes that more reflect their level of play and not once have the schools in question done it (I personally think the opt up provision is silly, but it is available). So now we have the SF to move up those schools who should have opted up on top of the multiplier.
All this to fix something that can't be fixed. No matter how many tweaks to the system are made we can't make open enrollment and boundaried schools the same. They are apples and oranges. Do I prefer having LA, MC (when they were 8A), Rice etc in 8A? Absolutely, but not at the expense of IC and BMac in 3A or Naz and JCA in 5A.
my good friend @ramblinman doesn't think enrollment is a good way to classify open enrollment schools, and I agree with him. Where we differ is that I think and most reasonable people think enrollment is perfectly fine to classify boundaried schools. Because of this dichotomy there is no objective way to classify the schools together.
He is a whining, crying, victim-playing poster that don't see a thing he don't want to see. He is just so happy about the MS Hawks, now he gets to type harder and prouder today.
Anomaly. School playing by the same rules as the rest of the class. For proper context, if there was a split and SHG won the large class (or however ramblinman classifies it) 20 years in a row I would be okay with that too, because they're playing by the same rules.
Wouldn't you want a playoff class where there are no excuses? Where boundaried schools can't claim OE was the advantage and where OE schools can't claim enrollment disparity as a disadvantage? I offer that.
I know of some counseling services to help you get through your grief. You can PM me for details.
Bones
Nice post. Your completely right. Privates and Publics will never agree on this issue. They have different rules and because we have different rules we will never agree. This complaining has gone on for as long as I can remember. Nothing has changed.
Last edited by a moderator:
The success factor is only instituted on non-boundary schools. We have a boundary school that has won 6 of 7 titles in a particular class. The success factor, as I understand it, is set up to address the situation of a school dominating a particular class, even after the multiplier. So, by the selective application of the success factor, the IHSA is saying: it's okay for a boundary school to dominate a particular class, but it's not okay for a non-boundary school to do so. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
I am not surprised MS won! Great coach and MS has that tradition of not ever giving up. The coach plays his best players both ways and he will do whatever it takes to win. He played several players both ways in 2005 championship and almost pulled it off an upset against an East team that I felt was superior. Credit the coach for figuring out a great game plan.
While I think you can argue forever about fine tuning the multiplier I agree that SF should be applied across the board to all schools.
As a public guy I 100% agree. The SF was supposedly installed to offset a school dominating a particular class. It shouldn't matter if that school is open or public.
I think the SF attempts to address WHY a school may dominate. I think they are attempting to say, "If you dominate because of the different rules then it is not okay, but if you play by the same rules then dominating is okay." Of course there is no way to determine the difference, but if it is coaching and hard work then the results should be the same for those pushed up by the SF. I can understand and see your point though.
What did you feel about my initial post?
Rochester is playing by the same rules as the vast majority of schools, thats the difference.. and lets not forget that if Driscoll is still open, Rochester would be the Buffalo Bills of the IHSA
I cant imagine the amount of ineptness a private school must have if they can NEVER win a football championship..
Actually it was installed to bump the ultra successful private schools like Montini into an even higher class as its been shown enrollment is not a great indicator when a football program can recruit from a huge population base..
PRokie. You can't reason with peasants like this. The guy starts a thread just looking for a fight.
What I find funny is that you have railed against private schools. You've also railed against Phillips, who you said should be multiplied. The irony? Take Althoff and Phillips out of 4A, and Rochester would have won 7 of the last 7 years.
And thats fine, I couldnt care less... Rochester has a defined boundary like most everyone else.. they can win the next 20 and that's fine, will just continue to be amazed at what they do down there..
Yes. Split into AFL / NFL premerger and play Super Bowl in 3-4 classes.
Lacking support for my completely frivolous and pedantic Super Bowl concept, I agree that SF should apply to all schools. If one school dominates one class, they need to prove it on a different level.
Multipliers are not a question I have the time or capacity to argue.
Carry on.
I would like to know how many Rochester players actually grew up in the district, or for that matter, was in the district three years before highschool age.
It is difficult to classify the schools in a similar manner. I don't have a major problem with the multiplier, especially since it now has a waiver mechanism for non-competitive private schools. My major issue is the selective application of the success factor. As an organization, is competitive balance the goal or not? If so, Rochester is making a mockery of the current application of the success factor.
I don't think Ramblin gave a detailed plan to classify teams in the system you have been arguing against. I believe he did say that enrollment would be part of the equation. I'm not sure what else to say on the matter.
For all of the IHSA's policies geared toward private schools and the alleged goal of leveling the playing field, the great leveler may end up being simple economics. From my perspective, it's getting more and more difficult to exist as a private school from an economic standpoint, let alone compete athletically. In five years, you will see less private schools on the landscape. Overall, I would expect to see less competitive private schools from an athletic standpoint. This may end up solving many of the IHSA's perceived problems, as it relates to those dreaded private schools.