Because it's a well thought out and planned proposal. I don't agree with it, but they put in the work and it definitely has traction down state and if the CPS are on board then it's a lock to be voted on by all schools and would have a 50/50 chance of passing.
Roxana Proposal
- Thread starter RB_RocketFan
- Start date
Stagg has 2500+ kids. I would hope they would be more than just teetering on 5 wins playing 4a-6a schools that have half of the number of kids they have.
That 8-0 in opening games was against Joliet Central twice (1-17), Oak Lawn three times (2-25), 6a Thornwood (3-6), 7a Belleville West (3-6). Reavis was 5-4 and made the 7a playoffs. I dont think beating bad, smaller schools and rewarding them with a playoff spot is a good look. Ive often said the same thing about 7a collinsville who voluntarily left the SWC to play 4a and 5a schools.
"akz68" is right. Although they are on opposite ends of the "bell curve", the exact same principle applies to both the CPS and the CCL/ESCC. The principle is that a lack of competitiveness will exist if those schools are included in the regional plan. In the case of the Chicago Public Schools, all but a handful of them will get pounded year after year. In the case of the CCL/ESCC schools, all but a handful of them will hammer their public school counterparts year after year under the regional plan.
If the public schools do not like being dominated by the CCL/ESCC in the playoffs every year, (and they don't), then they will not like being dominated by the CCL/ESCC schools during the regular season either.
That’s not the point. The point is that the CCL has a scheduling and promotion and relegation system that already works so if you’re making exceptions for the CPS on competitive balance than why not do the same for the CCL? Not sure what Rice for example gets playing 4 teams in the SSC they will running clock instead of a CCL schedule to prepare for the playoffs.
Morton has over 7000 kids. Anyone that knows just a little bit about football knows it is not just enrollment that matters. Feeder program and having a student population that plays football and not soccer has a lot more to do with it.
The proposal author and you I believe are downstate guys from what I have gathered so I’ll use a non Chicagoland example. My analogy to you would be how come the SWC schools can’t compete against East St. Louis who has half their enrollment?
See enrollment isn’t everything.
One other thought I had that would be interesting to see is an opt-in approach to this model. Since I think it has more backing downstate as opposed to the suburbs, it would be interesting to see the proposal tweaked that for football only, a school can opt to be part of this scheduling model.
I know it would create more logistical issues, but it would be interesting to see how that would look. Basically if you’re happy with your conference stay in it, if you want out than opt-out but then be prepared to potentially be matched up with schools much further away if the rest of your conference chooses to stay intact.
A minuscule chance of happening, but like I said would be fascinating to see who would choose to stay or who would go from their current conference setup.
I know it would create more logistical issues, but it would be interesting to see how that would look. Basically if you’re happy with your conference stay in it, if you want out than opt-out but then be prepared to potentially be matched up with schools much further away if the rest of your conference chooses to stay intact.
A minuscule chance of happening, but like I said would be fascinating to see who would choose to stay or who would go from their current conference setup.
Completely blowing up a major feature of the IHSA like the FB playoff system does not really seem so probable. We see what happened with last big idea when "push came to shove."
Ya, not every school is created equal and not every administration cares about football.
And there's plenty of other conferences that have scheduling that also already works. There are roughly 500 schools that play 11 man football in illinois and CPS makes up 80 of them, the CCL has 24. One makes up close to 20% of all teams playing, the other only 5%, big difference. The CPS is basically it's own entity, you can't compare them to any other conference.
Many of the CCL schools could still keep plenty of their other CCL teams on the schedule. I'll use Provi as an example because the mock ups have them in the same region as Morris. They would have region games in weeks 4-8, meaning they could still schedule JCA in week 9, the other 2 teams in the orange in weeks 2 and 3 and another CCL team in week 1. Or if they wanted to ditch ND they could replace them with any other CCL or non CCL team they choose.
Last edited:
That would create a mess. What if half of a conference opts in and the rest don't? Then there's 4 or 5 teams left for, what essentially would be a defunct conference.
What if even one CCL team opted in? Then your left with an odd number of teams. How do you balance the divisions?
I'm assuming you're referring to the districts proposal and thankfully it failed, but it still made it to a full member vote.
CCL doesn't even need to do anything other than no crossovers. Or some other set up. I still do not want it but CCL is a little different with their set up of 4 team divisions.
You'd certainly have to have the opt in periods be a decent length of time (at least 4 or 5 years, if not longer) and with probably a years notice.
I think in such a hypothetical, broader scheduling alliances and not traditional conferences would be the solution for non-district schools.
I called the CCL more of a confederation than a conference, and I think that's kind of a route for all schools who want to combat conference shuffling. The traditional 8-12 team conference setup obviously hasn't worked for many (though some are still quite stable and successful at same time). But yea, you'd have to basically kill the traditional conference model, though you'd probably see these broader confederation of schools where if a new opt in comes up in a enrollment cycle they'd be nimble enough to adjust.
No enrollment isn't everything but its a huge advantage. Programs like esl can have success being a smaller school because they have a committment from the community that cares about winning football. Schools shouldn't be assigned conferences based on how much they care, or don't care about football.
Anyone who complains about recruiting and transfers in 2025 just isn't very bright. Everyone is doing it. Just because you feel one school might be better at it than you isnt a reason to pout about it.
I like this post. The CCL is nimble enough to figure out a situation to keep the CCL strong in a changing environment.
I get what you're saying, but in your example isn't a "broader confederation" just another way of saying region or district?
Pretty much, just semi-self directed rather than a larger (.. er... federal?) mandate
Are they? Don't follow or really care about the CCL so honestly asking. In this hypothetical what if all 4 teams from the red opted into the proposal to be put in regions wit public teams for a better chance to make the playoffs and ND joined them, the CCL would be left with 19 teams. How would they balance that?
I guess my thought was all CCL is "IN". They play their regional games and can still play there 3 div games or some other set up within CCL.
Totally spit balling...
With the current proposal they would all be in, I was referencing Snetsrak61's suggestion for teams choosing to opt in or out.
100% agree. It would be chaos but also fascinating at the same time the will they or won’t they opt-in standpoint.
True but not many conferences have 24 teams so that was my thinking as to why to exempt those schools if you were the proposal author and wanting this to pass.
I mean to be clear I think a sort of opt-in system only would make sense if there was a legit schism of district v status quo that was about to be upset and it was a way to ease the divide. I doubt anyone would want a split system as choice one, but if theres strong reform sentiment, but lack of coalition behind what reform, something may end up being the straw to break the camels back. Like maybe district/regional does pass on narrow lines ansd goes through 4-5 very unpopular years, but maintains enough backers where a new system can't flip the switch backeasily on a straight vote. What happens then? Maybe it takes a decade+ to play out, but seems like some major reform is bound to happen at some point.
It wasn't a complaint. It was a one-word answer.
I applaud every team's successful ability to passively recruit players.
What is interesting is that the DVC has support on both proposals 19 and 20. My guess is that only one of them will make it to the ballot.
if 20 makes it to the ballot and the CPL plus the conferences of all the co-sponsors vote for this, then it should pass.
if 20 makes it to the ballot and the CPL plus the conferences of all the co-sponsors vote for this, then it should pass.
When I saw this proposal originally I thought it had only 3 games that could be scheduled by teams but now I am seeing it is 4 and it is not 384 teams but rather 320 for playoffs so 8 more teams per class.
So to my earlier point of not including the CCL schools, I guess it is moot in that this eliminates three crossovers if they keep their 6 division setup.
And those three extra crossovers would result in the CCL teams eliminating each other potentially where here you could have 3 division games and only 1 crossover instead of 4 crossovers.
Long story short, I stand corrected on potential CCL support for this as I didn’t see the recent updates from when it was 384 teams and only an 8 game instead of 9 game regular season schedule. This would actually solve their crossover problem somewhat so I could potentially see another 24 Yes votes coming on this.
So to my earlier point of not including the CCL schools, I guess it is moot in that this eliminates three crossovers if they keep their 6 division setup.
And those three extra crossovers would result in the CCL teams eliminating each other potentially where here you could have 3 division games and only 1 crossover instead of 4 crossovers.
Long story short, I stand corrected on potential CCL support for this as I didn’t see the recent updates from when it was 384 teams and only an 8 game instead of 9 game regular season schedule. This would actually solve their crossover problem somewhat so I could potentially see another 24 Yes votes coming on this.
Last edited:
Voting from one town hall that I was just told:
Flexed Regionals 5 yay, 27 nay
Playoff Expansion 20 yay, 13 nay
Flexed Regionals 5 yay, 27 nay
Playoff Expansion 20 yay, 13 nay
Looking at the District for Rochester, I would oppose it. The quality of opponents would diminish by 25%. If we wanted to be in the Corn Belt conference, we would have never left it in 2010. Average ranking of JUST the conference opponents for Rochester this season is 228. Average ranking of Rochester opponents in this proposal is 285. This proposal also DECREASES travel for Rochester.
Looking at the district for SHG, I would oppose it. The quality of opponents would also diminish by 25%. If they wanted to be in the old CS8 and have half of their state titles because they played subpar competition, they would have never expanded the CS8. Average ranking of JUST the conference opponents for SHG this season is 262. Average ranking of SHG opponents in this proposal is 329. Also, let's hear it for the supporters of this proposal who want to give an easier path to the playoffs for private schools such as SHG as you weaken their competition. This proposal also DECREASES travel for SHG.
Where are all of the "dEcReAsE tRavEl" people and the "pRiVaTe ScHoOlS hAVe It So EaSy" crowds at with this?
Looking at the district for SHG, I would oppose it. The quality of opponents would also diminish by 25%. If they wanted to be in the old CS8 and have half of their state titles because they played subpar competition, they would have never expanded the CS8. Average ranking of JUST the conference opponents for SHG this season is 262. Average ranking of SHG opponents in this proposal is 329. Also, let's hear it for the supporters of this proposal who want to give an easier path to the playoffs for private schools such as SHG as you weaken their competition. This proposal also DECREASES travel for SHG.
Where are all of the "dEcReAsE tRavEl" people and the "pRiVaTe ScHoOlS hAVe It So EaSy" crowds at with this?
Last edited:
Playoff expansion so we can see more blowouts up to the quarterfinals? Yeah, that's a good idea.
Playoff expansion wouldn't lead to any more quaterfinal blowouts though. Because if you think bad/underserving teams are going to make the expanded playoffs, they wouldn't make the quarterfinals. If someone who could possibly make a quarterfinal from the expanded set of teams, they certainly wouldn't get blown out any worse than the team they beat to get there.
Playoff expansion could potentially make round 2 slightly more interesting with different 4-5 or 3-6 teams having a chance to knock off teams from weaker conferences in the new "first" round.
Looks like playoff expansion is happening.
The seeding will still be an issue with "top" 16 seeds getting a bye and with less teams worrying about the 5 wins can get in with 3 or 4. Marist gets in with this system and Loyola and JCA would have made it without a worry. This will help with scheduling but not certain as much as schools think. Most public schools are not clamoring to play Loyola, MC, etc.
The seeding will still be an issue with "top" 16 seeds getting a bye and with less teams worrying about the 5 wins can get in with 3 or 4. Marist gets in with this system and Loyola and JCA would have made it without a worry. This will help with scheduling but not certain as much as schools think. Most public schools are not clamoring to play Loyola, MC, etc.
This "proposal" would only help scheduling slightly if at all. Talking to fans and event workers during this year's playoffs, I've yet to find someone who likes it. Most don't like the 4-5's getting in.