Success Factor

[MsDavis10]

Absolutely laughable statement that most parents are sending their kid's for athletics.

They are sending their kid to the school because the tuition is free because their child is good at football/basketball. In many such cases they would not be able to afford the tuition of a private school and are stuck with the local public, which if they are in Chicago..it can be slim pickings. In a roundabout way they kind of are sending their kid there for athletics, yes.

Idk how I feel about all the recruiting but you can’t deny that in many cases Football/basketball is the vehicle that is putting them in an environment that will allow them to succeed off the field. An environment they wouldn’t be able to experience otherwise.

 

[Snetsrak61]

They are sending their kid to the school because the tuition is free because their child is good at football/basketball. In many such cases they would not be able to afford the tuition of a private school and are stuck with the local public, which if they are in Chicago..it can be slim pickings. In a roundabout way they kind of are sending their kid there for athletics, yes.

Idk how I feel about all the recruiting but you can’t deny that in many cases Football/basketball is the vehicle that is putting them in an environment that will allow them to succeed off the field. An environment they wouldn’t be able to experience otherwise.

Most families are getting free tuition? What fantasy world are you in?

 

[Anon1760269333]

Most families are getting free tuition? What fantasy world are you in?

Amazing what people think goes on at private schools. SMH

 

[4Afan]

Yea both stay up for 2026. If they don't place in 2026, back down in 2027. But if they place in 2026 I think they stay up for 2027 whereas under old 2 year rule they'd have been back down for 2027 either way.

Whats so dumb about the criteria though is they could go semi loss in 25, champ in 26, semi loss in 27... And go back down to 5A in 28. Now again I really don't like any success measure, but if it's about success and you can lay out weird scenarios like that because its so narrowly focused. But if that was a three year run, arguably 6A is a pretty good classification for them (really the class I'd like to see them in but I understand why they wouldn't voluntarily opt into it and play where the rules place them instead).

So, in theory, 5A in 2027 could have Provi, Franny, Naz, JCA, and St. Pat's.

 

[MsDavis10]

Most families are getting free tuition? What fantasy world are you in?

My fault, I ignored that the comment I replied to said most. I did not mean most. High school rosters are too big for that. Most difference makers though..

 

[stonedlizard]

Folks it's effectively the same schools, private and public, every year, this entire century. Don't expect different results from a playoff system that's not designed nor intended to drive competitive balance. New board; still the same old facts.

• Since 2001, 184 total champions have been crowned across all classes, but only 80 unique schools have won a championship
• 39 schools (~49%) have won multiple championships and are collectively responsible for 143 (~78%) of all titles over that same time frame;
  • 24 schools (~30%) have won 3+ and are responsible for 113 (~61%)
  • 15 schools (~19%) have won 4+ and are responsible for 86 (~47%)
• The private vs public split for each of these cohorts varies:
  • Of the 39 schools with multiple titles, 27 (~69%) are public
  • Of the 24 schools with 3+ titles, 14 (~58%) are public
  • Of the 15 schools with 4+ titles, 10 (~67%) are private

 

[MC63]

No the education at private schools is vastly different. Especially the one's in Chicago

What kind of arrogant nonsense is that?

 

[IHSAfan207]

In keeping with the IHSA theme of transparency, I always wondered why not just take the address of players in private schools and average their would be public school classes to determine that teams class instead of the multipliers? I feel it's simple, transparent, and could help limit some of the SF confusion. It takes in account area density that I have seen posted about on these boards. I don't know, just seems so simple, Im not very smart so I am sure I am missing something.

 

[Anon1753850091]

So, in theory, 5A in 2027 could have Provi, Franny, Naz, JCA, and St. Pat's.

And maybe Montini?

I assume PC and Francis have a decent shot to be bumped up to 6A.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Folks it's effectively the same schools, private and public, every year, this entire century. Don't expect different results from a playoff system that's not designed nor intended to drive competitive balance. New board; still the same old facts.

• Since 2001, 184 total champions have been crowned across all classes, but only 80 unique schools have won a championship
• 39 schools (~49%) have won multiple championships and are collectively responsible for 143 (~78%) of all titles over that same time frame;
  • 24 schools (~30%) have won 3+ and are responsible for 113 (~61%)
  • 15 schools (~19%) have won 4+ and are responsible for 86 (~47%)
• The private vs public split for each of these cohorts varies:
  • Of the 39 schools with multiple titles, 27 (~69%) are public
  • Of the 24 schools with 3+ titles, 14 (~58%) are public
  • Of the 15 schools with 4+ titles, 10 (~67%) are private

Yes. We'll have to go refresh my old research that saw similar trends. It is certainly more likely for private schools to maintain very high level performance and they're overreprested at the very top performers. In the mid-tier it's public schools who over perform private schools.

At the lowest tiers they're about equal, although one thing I didn't really search is the incidence rate of schools ability to escape the lower rungs of performance (like Naz has done). I wouldn't be surpised if it's more common for Private schools to improve from bottom to top, with the caveat that they also just fail and end as an institution altogether.

One underrated component for private schools I think is just how political the public school institution is. Obviously private schools have their own internal politicking at play, but I think by and large are I think are probably more likely to get alignment in priority (whether that's athletics or academics). There's inherently a lot more hoops a public school has to jump through to follow through on priority, and ultimately roles like superintendent that drive policy sit at the pleasure of a publicly elected school board. Private schools advantage is nimbleness (although it can be double edged as wrong choices with that nimblesness may lead to institutional failure).

 

[Snetsrak61]

In keeping with the IHSA theme of transparency, I always wondered why not just take the address of players in private schools and average their would be public school classes to determine that teams class instead of the multipliers? I feel it's simple, transparent, and could help limit some of the SF confusion. It takes in account area density that I have seen posted about on these boards. I don't know, just seems so simple, Im not very smart so I am sure I am missing something.

Density isn't necessarily correlated to enrollment, for one. The densest part of the state is a ton of 4-6A schools (CPS). Many of your ex-burb areas are mostly 7-8A and not really that dense.

Also if IHSA and it's members schools are gonna go through the trouble of tracking and validating every athletes home address (this would be a huge administrative task) to derive some enrollment calc you can probably come up with a better system, something like the Ohio system which defines feeder schools/districts and looks at transfers from among 7th and 8th grade feeders to determine a multiplier/divisor effect.

 

[Dave Brody]

Folks it's effectively the same schools, private and public, every year, this entire century. Don't expect different results from a playoff system that's not designed nor intended to drive competitive balance. New board; still the same old facts.

• Since 2001, 184 total champions have been crowned across all classes, but only 80 unique schools have won a championship
• 39 schools (~49%) have won multiple championships and are collectively responsible for 143 (~78%) of all titles over that same time frame;
  • 24 schools (~30%) have won 3+ and are responsible for 113 (~61%)
  • 15 schools (~19%) have won 4+ and are responsible for 86 (~47%)
• The private vs public split for each of these cohorts varies:
  • Of the 39 schools with multiple titles, 27 (~69%) are public
  • Of the 24 schools with 3+ titles, 14 (~58%) are public
  • Of the 15 schools with 4+ titles, 10 (~67%) are private

Appreciate the research, good data and historical info. I know this is a football conversation, but it would be interesting to see the same research/results for Basketball. The point is…the IHSA must take into consideration the impact of their changes to the Public/Private debate on all sports.

 

[SiuCubFan8]

And maybe Montini?

I assume PC and Francis have a decent shot to be bumped up to 6A.

With Abrams only a JR I think Montini is a good chance.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Appreciate the research, good data and historical info. I know this is a football conversation, but it would be interesting to see the same research/results for Basketball. The point is…the IHSA must take into consideration the impact of their changes to the Public/Private debate on all sports.

Yes and no. Things like success factor, multiplier waiver, and number of classes all have football-specific rules. They can carve out any single sport exception they want.

 

[Travelin Fan]

In keeping with the IHSA theme of transparency, I always wondered why not just take the address of players in private schools and average their would be public school classes to determine that teams class instead of the multipliers? I feel it's simple, transparent, and could help limit some of the SF confusion. It takes in account area density that I have seen posted about on these boards. I don't know, just seems so simple, Im not very smart so I am sure I am missing something.

This is what Williamsville's proposal (on behalf of the Sangamo Conference) was last year basically. My initial read of it thought it was well written out, but I have a decidedly central/downstate bias and didn't do any of the math for Chicago area schools. If I remember correctly what it simplified down to was the enrollment of a private school would be determined by the average enrollment from its "recruitment area" (not trying to trigger anybody with that word, its early and I don't drink coffee) of schools with higher enrollments than the private school. I know it eliminated the private school multiplier, not sure about the success factor.

Example being SHG would be the average enrollment of the Springfield schools, Chatham, Rochester, maybe Jacksonville and Lincoln - I don't recall what the mileage measure was. I do recall at the time it put them squarely in the range that is commonly 5A.

Drawbacks: A small private school in the Chicago or St. Louis area being dragged way higher than enrollment numbers. I didn't re-run the numbers but I imagine Belleville Althoff would jump 2 or maybe 3 classes due to the 2,000+ at each of the other Belleville schools and O'Fallon. Not sure if the smaller neighboring communities to the southeast of them would be enough to offset. Also - this would require the IHSA to do work every year, and I'm not sure anybody is confident in that!

 

[IHSAfan207]

Density isn't necessarily correlated to enrollment, for one. The densest part of the state is a ton of 4-6A schools (CPS). Many of your ex-burb areas are mostly 7-8A and not really that dense.

Also if IHSA and it's members schools are gonna go through the trouble of tracking and validating every athletes home address (this would be a huge administrative task) to derive some enrollment calc you can probably come up with a better system, something like the Ohio system which defines feeder schools/districts and looks at transfers from among 7th and 8th grade feeders to determine a multiplier/divisor effect.

Yeah I guess I just feel enrollment is a antiquated system for class placement. When all teams play with 11 per side. I mean I have seen 5A public varsity team sidline look vacant compared to 700 person private sideline, so I don't think enrollment always translates 1 to 1.

I understand what you are saying in regards to tracking but I guess if a school want to cheat that's on them, all I would say is make punishment for cheating severe. But unless some schools are registering students with pencil and paper all this information is electronic and would not be that difficult to compute with a relatively simply address program. Teams could submit a simple roster with address of players on a spreadsheet, heck youth programs do this with realistic ease. So I don't think it's as huge of admistrative task as you think, I am sure they most are submitting something similar to the state, district, diocese, or even IHSA all ready. (The unintended benefit would be that the data would catch the famous "apartment" publics I here rumors of.)

Interesting on the Ohio system, I will research that some as I am not familiar with it. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Yeah I guess I just feel enrollment is a antiquated system for class placement. When all teams play with 11 per side. I mean I have seen 5A public varsity team sidline look vacant compared to 700 person private sideline, so I don't think enrollment always translates 1 to 1.

I understand what you are saying in regards to tracking but I guess if a school want to cheat that's on them, all I would say is make punishment for cheating severe. But unless some schools are registering students with pencil and paper all this information is electronic and would not be that difficult to compute with a relatively simply address program. Teams could submit a simple roster with address of players on a spreadsheet, heck youth programs do this with realistic ease. So I don't think it's as huge of admistrative task as you think, I am sure they most are submitting something similar to the state, district, diocese, or even IHSA all ready. (The unintended benefit would be that the data would catch the famous "apartment" publics I here rumors of.)

Interesting on the Ohio system, I will research that some as I am not familiar with it. Thanks for the reply.

It's a doable administrative task but as far as I'm aware one that has zero infrastructure today. As I understand it, IHSAs enforcement policy as it stands today is entirely investigative when a issue is reported and not ongoing compliance/monitoring. Maybe that's wrong. But does the IHSA have someone ready to implement and run that program? Will they have to hire a consulting firm to help build it? What's the cost worth to build it and keep it up?

Like yea my local AYSO youth program gathers addresses, but there is zero validation of it and even then they aren't that good at it, just good faith volunteers who are, for example, trying to align teams on geography. Comparatively low stakes if they screw up.

 

[Dave Brody]

Yeah I guess I just feel enrollment is a antiquated system for class placement. When all teams play with 11 per side. I mean I have seen 5A public varsity team sidline look vacant compared to 700 person private sideline, so I don't think enrollment always translates 1 to 1.

I understand what you are saying in regards to tracking but I guess if a school want to cheat that's on them, all I would say is make punishment for cheating severe. But unless some schools are registering students with pencil and paper all this information is electronic and would not be that difficult to compute with a relatively simply address program. Teams could submit a simple roster with address of players on a spreadsheet, heck youth programs do this with realistic ease. So I don't think it's as huge of admistrative task as you think, I am sure they most are submitting something similar to the state, district, diocese, or even IHSA all ready. (The unintended benefit would be that the data would catch the famous "apartment" publics I here rumors of.)

Interesting on the Ohio system, I will research that some as I am not familiar with it. Thanks for the reply.

You must not have seen the St Francis sideline during the regular season - a 5A private - had probably less than 40 players.

Lyons Township (8A) must have 85+ varsity players on their roster (with multiple players playing both ways, go figure).

 

[Snetsrak61]

Just as a basic example of how a Ohio type system could work that was slightly smaller scale than theirs.

Base multiplier = 2.25.

Adjusted multiplier = Base - (1-x) where x is the the number of players from outside defined feeder schools over total players. If 60% of your program is "feeder based" you're multiplier is same as today = 1.65. If you're still even further on the spectrum and 90%+ of your program is feeder based (probably like a Chicago Christian) your multiplier could be as low as 1.25-1.3. If you're recruitment area is very broad maybe you're now a 1.8 or 2.0 multiplier.

Obviously some details would have to be worked out in defining the feeder schools, but conceptually it's easy to apply without getting into details like population density or tracking every address change. And really big picture a similar concept could be applied to public schools (using a different base multiplier) but basically push up public schools who recruit or even create a divisor for public schools who lose a lot of kids.

 

[Snetsrak61]

You must not have seen the St Francis sideline during the regular season - a 5A private - had probably less than 40 players.

Lyons Township (8A) must have 85+ varsity players on their roster (with multiple players playing both ways, go figure).

Yea, I don't understand how little weight some put into depth, especially in a sport like football. I mean even when I looked at the basketball top 25, it's a lot of big schools. That's a sport where 3 studs can carry a team, and even then the correlation of enrollmemt feels apparent. It matters when the base population to draw athletes is just bigger. It's not a 1.0x r correlation, but surely it's significant.

 

[Anon1753850091]

With Abrams only a JR I think Montini is a good chance.

If Montini is in a 3A final in 24 and a 4A final in 25, is that enough to bump them to 5A in 26? Or do they need to make a final in 4A in 26 to get bumped to 5A in 27?

If they don't get bumped for 26, that is precisely the problem with the success factor. FB doesn't have fixed enrollment/classification breakdowns and they change each year so Montini can be "allowed" to have a 3 peat before being success factored simply by virtue of dropping down to be a large 3A school in 24.

 

[Snetsrak61]

If Montini is in a 3A final in 24 and a 4A final in 25, is that enough to bump them to 5A in 26? Or do they need to make a final in 4A in 26 to get bumped to 5A in 27?

If they don't get bumped for 26, that is precisely the problem with the multiplier. FB doesn't have fixed enrollment/classification breakdowns and they change each year so Montini can be "allowed" to have a 3 peat before being success factored simply by virtue of dropping down to be a large 3A school in 24.

I beleive the rule is still based off lowest class you won in. So yes, until they have 2 trophies in 3 years in 4A they wouldn't get bumped to 5A.

Some of this stuff will be less quirky if the rules stay consistent since the waiver was so easy to obtain for a few years. Though always possible to be natural edge-enrollment team and you could see those quirks.

 

[godfthr53]

There is a public school in this state that has as many or more…noticed you didn’t mention that.

But their fans say its all in the off-season workouts.

 

[johnndoe]

Does anyone feel the whole punitive success factor concept is fundamentally a consequence applied unfairly to a future team(s) of high school kids?

 

[godfthr53]

Yea both stay up for 2026. If they don't place in 2026, back down in 2027. But if they place in 2026 I think they stay up for 2027 whereas under old 2 year rule they'd have been back down for 2027 either way.

Whats so dumb about the criteria though is they could go semi loss in 25, champ in 26, semi loss in 27... And go back down to 5A in 28. Now again I really don't like any success measure, but if it's about success and you can lay out weird scenarios like that because its so narrowly focused. But if that was a three year run, arguably 6A is a pretty good classification for them (really the class I'd like to see them in but I understand why they wouldn't voluntarily opt into it and play where the rules place them instead).

Wait. Was it changed again? I thought it was 2 trophies in the 2 year enrollment cycle.

 

[godfthr53]

My fault, I ignored that the comment I replied to said most. I did not mean most. High school rosters are too big for that. Most difference makers though..

I can guarantee you with 100% confidence that there isnt a single kid at Naz going to school for free.

 

[SiuCubFan8]

I can guarantee you with 100% confidence that there isnt a single kid at Naz going to school for free.

The people that believe it will always believe it no matter what is said.

 

[cornerrat#1]

I beleive the rule is still based off lowest class you won in. So yes, until they have 2 trophies in 3 years in 4A they wouldn't get bumped to 5A.

Some of this stuff will be less quirky if the rules stay consistent since the waiver was so easy to obtain for a few years. Though always possible to be natural edge-enrollment team and you could see those quirks.

All.... That is correct. Ratsy

 

[Snetsrak61]

Wait. Was it changed again? I thought it was 2 trophies in the 2 year enrollment cycle.

Yea, now to a 3 year cycle. So we've had 4 year (rolling) , 2 year (fixed), and now 3 year (rolling) cycles.

 

[Wittymoniker1]

So, for next year, Naz stays in 6A. SF and PC stay in 5A? And Montini moves up to 5A?

 

[Snetsrak61]

So, for next year, Naz stays in 6A. SF and PC stay in 5A? And Montini moves up to 5A?

I don't believe anyone moves next year based on Success Factor. Enrollment or waiver changes... Not sure.

 

[Anon1753850091]

So, for next year, Naz stays in 6A. SF and PC stay in 5A? And Montini moves up to 5A?

It sounds like Montini's repeat finals appearances may not "count" as the first one was 3A and second was 4A. So they would need to return to 4A final in 26 in order to get bumped to 5A in 27

 

[Anon1753850091]

It sounds like Montini's repeat finals appearances may not "count" as the first one was 3A and second was 4A. So they would need to return to 4A final in 26 in order to get bumped to 5A in 27

Going into 27, if Naz and JC don't make final appearances in 6A in 26, they will drop back down. SF and PC very well may bump up to 6A. Naz back down to 5A. JC to 4A/5A bubble. Montini likely back up to 5A.

It's like a game of musical chairs with a handful of programs just shuffling classes.

 

[jha618]

I beleive the rule is still based off lowest class you won in. So yes, until they have 2 trophies in 3 years in 4A they wouldn't get bumped to 5A.

Some of this stuff will be less quirky if the rules stay consistent since the waiver was so easy to obtain for a few years. Though always possible to be natural edge-enrollment team and you could see those quirks.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the rule, but i thought there was a cap on how many classes you could be bumped based on the SF.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Maybe I am misunderstanding the rule, but i thought there was a cap on how many classes you could be bumped based on the SF.

I don't think there is a upper limit, but in a given evaluation period it is still one class from lowest trophy.

So if Naz trophies next two years in 6A they can bump to 7A. Then could get bumped to 8A if trophies twice in 7A in 3 years.

Conversely I think you get bumped back one class at a time if you fail to trophy in that 3 year rolling period.

(I think this is all accurate based on revised rules)

 

[Snetsrak61]

Going into 27, if Naz and JC don't make final appearances in 6A in 26, they will drop back down. SF and PC very well may bump up to 6A. Naz back down to 5A. JC to 4A/5A bubble. Montini likely back up to 5A.

It's like a game of musical chairs with a handful of programs just shuffling classes.

Definitely one of the shortfalls of the rule.

 

[IHSAfan207]

You must not have seen the St Francis sideline during the regular season - a 5A private - had probably less than 40 players.

Lyons Township (8A) must have 85+ varsity players on their roster (with multiple players playing both ways, go figure).

No unfortunately I did not see them, and I didn't mean it applied to all. You can find examples both ways,. For example 7A Larkin from Elgin cancelled games because they didn't have enough. I am pretty sure they would have loved to have the 40 from St Francis.

 

[cornerrat#1]

I don't think there is a upper limit, but in a given evaluation period it is still one class from lowest trophy.

So if Naz trophies next two years in 6A they can bump to 7A. Then could get bumped to 8A if trophies twice in 7A in 3 years.

Conversely I think you get bumped back one class at a time if you fail to trophy in that 3 year rolling period.

(I think this is all accurate based on revised rules)

All.... Correct once again. Ratsy

 

[panthers91]

Let’s stay on point here….

The IHSA made immediate changes last year because of the lack of competitive title games & too many privates winning.
As a result of their efforts….us fans are going to watch a weekend filled with….blowouts….again.

So, did any of this actually help anything?

What if, the success factor applied to everyone.

Lena would be 2A.
Byron would be 4A.
Rochester would be 5A.
East St Louis would be 7A. Assuming IHSA rules would override their conference rule.

Wilmington would still be 2A…I think.

And what if they go back to the 1.65 multiplier not going into effect based on a single playoff win?

Hope would be 1A
Bishop Mac would be 2A
Aurora Christian would be 1A
St Laurence would be 5A

The rules that were implemented did nothing. Chicago Christian, DePaul and Altoff didn’t even make the playoffs and much of these rules were because of them.

No matter what multiplier/success factors the state applies it doesn’t affect the CCL.

Think this would provide a much better upcoming weekend for all.

Just curious by what you mean when you ask "did this help anything?" Of course it did. No, it may not make a difference to you as a fan, but this isn't supposed to be about what's best for your entertainment. This is supposed to be about what is best, and most fair for the kids and teams that end up in the playoffs each year. The success factor and multiplier are there to keep what happened last year in 1a from happening again. Lena-Winslow lost the 2023 title game to Camp Point Central. Althoff Catholic lost earlier in the playoffs to Camp Point Central. What did the 3 schools do? Lena-Winslow brought back their 5 remaining seniors, their juniors, sophomores and freshmen who had been at Lena-Winslow for the past 10 years, worked harder than ever, and pushed for another shot at the state game. Camp Point Central brought back their underclassmen and worked their tails off to defend their title. What did Althoff do? Went out on the recruiting trail because they had 1 more season in 1a to rip everyone to shreds. I don't know what the stat was exactly, but a large number of starters on that team did not attend Althoff prior to the their 2024 title year.

As a alum of Lena-Winslow and father of a former player, I can tell you very confidently that almost every player that has started a state game for Lena-Winslow was a homegrown kid. In 2022, a kid moved back to Lena for his senior season because his school had gone to 8-man, he grew up in Lena, and wanted to finish his career in 11-man. Other than that, the entire 2021 state teams starters were K-12 Lena. All but 1 of the 2019 state team was K-12 in Lena, and I believe that 1 came to Lena in early grade school. Those are the teams I am most familiar with because my kids grew up with those teams. I know the 2010, 2013, and 2017 were not much different, though I cannot give you exact numbers.

So, you'd like to slap a success factor on Lena-Winslow or Byron for winning too much? And what, punish the next class of kids who are next in line to earn a spot on this team? What does this year's team have to do with next year's? I'm so lost on this logic. These are closed boundary, small town farm schools. Their record starts at 0-0, and the coaches take a look at who is going out for football, they get them to the weight room, figure out who is playing where, and they season them for the post season. Why should they be punished for other kid's success?

 

[Phil413]

Lena would likely win 2A Byron the same in 4A and East St. Louis in 7a. East St. Louis car be factored up to 7 because they are already playing up a class in 6. Rochester might win 5a too

Only way Lena wins 2A is if Wilmington went 3A. Regardless, I think it is a combination of North vs South and having the multiplier. Unless we go 1-32 for all classes there will always be blowouts in the finals. 1-32 isnt 100% fix but it will significantly increase the odds of a better championship game.