The IHSA should pull a Big East

[brickben]

Ramblin, where were you 43 years ago when the CCL voted to JOIN the IHSA? I don't think Pavlov's or Seligman's dogs voted to rid themselves of their independence.
http://www.chicagocatholicleague.com/static.asp?path=2889

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

Ramblin, where were you 43 years ago when the CCL voted to JOIN the IHSA? I don't think Pavlov's or Seligman's dogs voted to rid themselves of their independence.
http://www.chicagocatholicleague.com/static.asp?path=2889

I was sad to lose some CCL traditions like spring football and lights and heavies hoops, but that was outweighed by the desire to start kicking some public school ***. Basically, I was all for it 40+ years ago..

It wasn't until the IHSA began to DISCRIMINATE against private (read: Catholic) schools with transfer rules, enrollment radii, multipliers and success factors that I began to sour on the IHSA. The IHSA was like, "Hey, come over here and play with us. We'll have fun." And then the public school members of the IHSA decided they hated it when we beat them, even though they would beat us as well (see Geneseo), so they started to change the rules of the game.

Whiners.

 

[anon_4vszfu35bv677]

Ramblin, this whole thread is about your whining...

Tell your story walking...

 

[jwarigaku]

Why are you such a Beoch?! come up with something new already or just move on. You never add anything to the discussion but rather just complain that nothing is discussed here other than the catholic schools and then call catholic schools whiners. Move on! The sport has past you by, and those that enjoy debating each other; even when each find the other annoying, are better than the likes of you.

Ramblin, this whole thread is about your whining...

Tell your story walking...

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

Ramblin, this whole thread is about your whining...

Tell your story walking...

Here I am giving you and your ilk the perfect solution, and you would rather take a shot at me than consider the merits that solution.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

 

[LHSTigers94]

I was sad to lose some CCL traditions like spring football and lights and heavies hoops, but that was outweighed by the desire to start kicking some public school ***. Basically, I was all for it 40+ years ago..

It wasn't until the IHSA began to DISCRIMINATE against private (read: Catholic) schools with transfer rules, enrollment radii, multipliers and success factors that I began to sour on the IHSA. The IHSA was like, "Hey, come over here and play with us. We'll have fun." And then the public school members of the IHSA decided they hated it when we beat them, even though they would beat us as well (see Geneseo), so they started to change the rules of the game.

Whiners.

The fact that you cheer when a 300lbs kid move 150lbs all over the place but, when someone brings a 300lbs kid to match your 300lbs kid you cry that someone is out to get you is the problem. The fact that when a private school can compete, they are in the wrong class (too high) but when they win, its coaching, system etc. Your argument, which has valid points at times, will go a lot further if everything wasn't centered around the BEST solution for privates to WIN.

You see, when the IHSA make changes, there is NO guarantee that a PUBLIC school will benefit from the change. Example this year, class 4-8 all had a private school competing with the exception of 7A. Had they not added the success factor, 6A was guaranteed to have a public championship between PR and Crete. 5A would have been a private slaughter house with (Montini, SHG, JC, Naz, etc). Seem to me if there was an attempt to punish privates, they would have left things the same and let 5A be the private play ground. Before one down of football was played, the success factor guaranteed a private contender in both 5A and 6A opposed to just one class of private domination. Everyone knew the SF would only affect Montini and SHG leaving 5A to JC to run through. The only wild card was Naz. If they really wanted to PUNISH privates, they would have left things alone and made no changes. It's hard to argue that ADDING another possibility for a private championship (moving the top two 5A teams to 6A) is punishment.

Also you never answered my question, if great coaching and programs are the key to success, why do you care so much about what class any great team play in. Great coaches should be able win regardless of class right?

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

The fact that you cheer when a 300lbs kid move 150lbs all over the place but, when someone brings a 300lbs kid to match your 300lbs kid you cry that someone is out to get you is the problem.

I don't know where you are getting the above from, but my posting record has been pretty clear that I don't like mismatches of ANY kind. I have long decried on this board the CCL crossover games and the HUGE top to bottom competitive discrepancy that exists YEAR AFTER YEAR within EACH playoff class that has NOTHING to do with the public/private situation. I have long proposed striving to achieve a classification system based more on competitive level than on enrollment. But, every time I bring this up, I also state that private and public schools MUST be treated equally in such a system. When I say that, the public school apologists can't abide it.

Your argument, which has valid points at times, will go a lot further if everything wasn't centered around the BEST solution for privates to WIN.

I'm glad you concede my argument has valid points. What is unfortunate is that people like you and LWEastdad can't seem to separate the argument from its proponent. You prefer to focus on my historical role as agitator and overall thorn in your sides than to really debate the argument.

My argument in this thread and in another recent one is that private schools should ultimately be separate from the IHSA. How is it that you think my argument will go further if it weren't centered around private schools winning? Winning WHAT? If my argument comes to fruition, just what do you think that private schools would be winning in that scenario relative to public schools?

You see, when the IHSA make changes, there is NO guarantee that a PUBLIC school will benefit from the change. Example this year, class 4-8 all had a private school competing with the exception of 7A. Had they not added the success factor, 6A was guaranteed to have a public championship between PR and Crete. 5A would have been a private slaughter house with (Montini, SHG, JC, Naz, etc)....

There may not be a guarantee that public schools would benefit from the change, but that was clearly the INTENT of the recent changes with respect to multipliers and success factors applying to non-boundaried schools, the majority of which are private.. The fact that the tactics employed by the IHSA to achieve that intent have backfired at times is not the fault of the private schools.

Also you never answered my question, if great coaching and programs are the key to success, why do you care so much about what class any great team play in. Great coaches should be able win regardless of class right?

Wrong.

Mike Papoccia from Newman Central Catholic High School has 308 career wins at Newman. That puts him at 6th on the list of career coaching wins in Illinois. Nobody can argue that he is not a great coach.

With an actual enrollment of 247, Newman is a 1A sized school multiplied into 3A this past year. Should a Papoccia coached Newman be able to win regardless of class size? Seeing as how Newman and Papoccia have never gotten past the semifinals in 3A, I think the answer has to be no.

I also think that an argument can be made that 3A is not the optimal class for Newman. Papoccia's Newman teams have won five state titles since 1990, three of which were in 2A and two were in 1A. Under Papoccia, Newman has been multiplied into the 3A playoffs five times since 2008 where it has never won even a single semifinal game, much less a title. Could some of those Newman teams that played in 3A have won in 1A or 2A? Maybe, maybe not.

Newman beat Hall by one point in the regular season this year, and Hall didn't get past the 2A quarters. Why was 3A the fair classification for Newman competitively this year in the current enrollment based system? Because they are a private school? That's what rubs me the wrong way about the IHSA and its discriminatory policies. The IHSA denied those Newman kids the opportunity to compete for a 1A title for no other reason than they attend a private school.

 

[LHSTigers94]

I don't know where you are getting the above from, but my posting record has been pretty clear that I don't like mismatches of ANY kind. I have long decried on this board the CCL crossover games and the HUGE top to bottom competitive discrepancy that exists YEAR AFTER YEAR within EACH playoff class that has NOTHING to do with the public/private situation. I have long proposed striving to achieve a classification system based more on competitive level than on enrollment. But, every time I bring this up, I also state that private and public schools MUST be treated equally in such a system. When I say that, the public school apologists can't abide it.



I'm glad you concede my argument has valid points. What is unfortunate is that people like you and LWEastdad can't seem to separate the argument from its proponent. You prefer to focus on my historical role as agitator and overall thorn in your sides than to really debate the argument.

My argument in this thread and in another recent one is that private schools should ultimately be separate from the IHSA. How is it that you think my argument will go further if it weren't centered around private schools winning? Winning WHAT? If my argument comes to fruition, just what do you think that private schools would be winning in that scenario relative to public schools?



There may not be a guarantee that public schools would benefit from the change, but that was clearly the INTENT of the recent changes with respect to multipliers and success factors applying to non-boundaried schools, the majority of which are private.. The fact that the tactics employed by the IHSA to achieve that intent have backfired at times is not the fault of the private schools.



Wrong.

Mike Papoccia from Newman Central Catholic High School has 308 career wins at Newman. That puts him at 6th on the list of career coaching wins in Illinois. Nobody can argue that he is not a great coach.

With an actual enrollment of 247, Newman is a 1A sized school multiplied into 3A this past year. Should a Papoccia coached Newman be able to win regardless of class size? Seeing as how Newman and Papoccia have never gotten past the semifinals in 3A, I think the answer has to be no.

I also think that an argument can be made that 3A is not the optimal class for Newman. Papoccia's Newman teams have won five state titles since 1990, three of which were in 2A and two were in 1A. Under Papoccia, Newman has been multiplied into the 3A playoffs five times since 2008 where it has never won even a single semifinal game, much less a title. Could some of those Newman teams that played in 3A have won in 1A or 2A? Maybe, maybe not.

Newman beat Hall by one point in the regular season this year, and Hall didn't get past the 2A quarters. Why was 3A the fair classification for Newman competitively this year in the current enrollment based system? Because they are a private school? That's what rubs me the wrong way about the IHSA and its discriminatory policies. The IHSA denied those Newman kids the opportunity to compete for a 1A title for no other reason than they attend a private school.

1. You should be able to win at any level. The fact that he can't win one (at least for now in your story) tells me that there is something missing. Does that make him any less of a coach, no but, it does point to the fact that it takes MORE than great coaching and kids and it put things back into perspective. There is a constant claim (not necessarily by you all the time) that publics should quit whining and get better coaching however, the same coaching that can win at one level can't win at the next. To me, they are one in the same.

2. As far as your argument for separation, I totally agree. My reason for agreeing is so people that complain on both sides will be forced to look in the mirror. Take away the excuses and see what happen.

3. We disagree solely on IHSA intensions to stick it to private schools. I agree that there are both private and public schools that hate the current systems but, as a whole, I think people are really trying to even the field. Regardless of the outcome, positive or negative, evening the field is the ultimate goal. I think the SF is one way to NOT punish all privates and focus solely on the minority that are in the incorrect class. Your argument for a while has been the affect changes have on the schools who can't have similar success. Why punish those schools right? The SF addresses that by only dealing with the teams who obviously are misplaced. Not because they win, but based on the level of competition on the field.

We both agree they should separate, I just don't agree with the hidden agenda theory.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

1. You should be able to win at any level. The fact that he can't win one (at least for now in your story) tells me that there is something missing. Does that make him any less of a coach, no but, it does point to the fact that it takes MORE than great coaching and kids and it put things back into perspective. There is a constant claim (not necessarily by you all the time) that publics should quit whining and get better coaching however, the same coaching that can win at one level can't win at the next. To me, they are one in the same.

2. As far as your argument for separation, I totally agree. My reason for agreeing is so people that complain on both sides will be forced to look in the mirror. Take away the excuses and see what happen.

3. We disagree solely on IHSA intensions to stick it to private schools. I agree that there are both private and public schools that hate the current systems but, as a whole, I think people are really trying to even the field. Regardless of the outcome, positive or negative, evening the field is the ultimate goal. I think the SF is one way to NOT punish all privates and focus solely on the minority that are in the incorrect class. Your argument for a while has been the affect changes have on the schools who can't have similar success. Why punish those schools right? The SF addresses that by only dealing with the teams who obviously are misplaced. Not because they win, but based on the level of competition on the field.

We both agree they should separate, I just don't agree with the hidden agenda theory.

In the meantime, we are stuck with what we have.

I answered your question, now you answer mine. Why was 3A the right classification competitively for Newman this past year? What is fair about this year's Newman players being denied the opportunity to compete for a title in 1A?

 

[LHSTigers94]

In the meantime, we are stuck with what we have.

I answered your question, now you answer mine. Why was 3A the right classification competitively for Newman this past year? What is fair about this year's Newman players being denied the opportunity to compete for a title in 1A?

They got to the quarters last year and lost in the second round to the champs this year. Are you really asking why they shouldn't be competing in 3A? So out of about 50 plus schools, the are in the top 32 and one year they are top 8 and the other they are top 16. And it's not fair because they didn't have a shot at Winning (you only assume this is an option by admitting to having the thought that the lower class is EASIER) the 1A title this year?

Am I understanding your question correctly?

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

They got to the quarters last year and lost in the second round to the champs this year.

That's your spin. Here's mine: Newman won a 3A first round game this year and they won a 3A second round game last year. And because of those three wins over two years, you believe that 1A sized Newman is well placed competitively in 3A? If that's the case, then why focus on Newman and not also on a school like Tri Valley?

I don't think it's a stretch to state with a straight face that, year in and year out, the 1A winner could easily win a few games in 2A and the 2A winner could easily win a few 3A games. Case in point: In Tri-Valley was a 1A runner up in 2013. In 2015 they pretty much dominated their way through the playoffs to the 2A title, beating Auburn 41-8 in the final game. Clearly, Tri Valley could win a few games in the 3A playoffs. If you think that 1A sized Newman is competitively well placed in 3A, then for sure you should want 2A sized Tri-Valley in 3A as well. Right?

This speaks to my earlier point about the competitive imbalance from top to bottom that exists in each class each year. There are 7A and 8A playoff qualifiers that would lose first round games in 4A and 5A. Phillips beat undefeated Althoff 51-7 in the 4A title game. 51-7!!! Surely Phillips would have been competitive in 6A or 7A.

Public school apologists like to point to Bishop Mac's big win over Unity in the 3A title game as evidence that the multiplier needs to be strengthened or tweaked. These same people conveniently ignore the fact that Phillips beat a multiplied private school by an even bigger margin in the 4A title game.

If we had a classification system based on competitive level more than enrollment, I would have no problem with Newman being in 3A if that is where they fell along with all other schools, regardless of being public or private. But, we don't. Instead, we have a system whereby 1A sized Newman is placed in 3A because they are private and that is where their multiplied enrollment puts them. Could Newman have won a couple of more playoff games in 1A than they did in 3A this year? Maybe, but we'll never know because the IHSA kept them from doing that.

Am I understanding your question correctly?

You sure are.

 

[LHSTigers94]

That's your spin. Here's mine: Newman won a 3A first round game this year and they won a 3A second round game last year. And because of those three wins over two years, you believe that 1A sized Newman is well placed competitively in 3A? If that's the case, then why focus on Newman and not also on a school like Tri Valley?

I don't think it's a stretch to state with a straight face that, year in and year out, the 1A winner could easily win a few games in 2A and the 2A winner could easily win a few 3A games. In fact, two years ago,Tri-Valley was a 1A runner up and this year they pretty much dominated their way through the playoffs to the 2A title, beating Auburn 41-8 in the final game. Hey, if you think that 1A sized Newman is competitively well placed in 3A, then for sure you should want 2A sized Tri-Valley in 3A as well. Right?

This speaks to my earlier point about the competitive imbalance from top to bottom that exists in each class each year. If we had a classification system based on competitive level more than enrollment, I would have no problem with Newman being in 3A if that is where they fell along with all other schools, regardless of being public or private. But, we don't. Instead, we have a system whereby 1A sized Newman is placed in 3A because they are private and that is where their multiplied enrollment puts them. Could Newman have won a couple of more playoff games in 1A than they did in 3A this year? Maybe, but we'll never know because the IHSA kept them from doing that.



You sure are.

Ram,
In your own post you identify to ends of the spectrum with the Multiplier that shows no attempt to specifically punish privates. If that was the case, Both Newman and Tri Valley would have been 3A by design to compete with Bishop Mac this year. To me that is an attempt to PUNISH privates. Is it flaws in the current system, yes. Can there be changes made to address some of the issues, yes. To say the system is in place simply to punish privates is incorrect. Failed attempt of combining competitive play with enrollment is what we have. Intentional grounding is not the call here.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

To say the system is in place simply to punish privates is incorrect. Failed attempt of combining competitive play with enrollment is what we have. Intentional grounding is not the call here.

The system is in place and it does punish private schools and their students. Ask the kids at Newman if they were happy with their second round knock out as a multiplied school in 3A this year or if they would have been happier with the opportunity to extend their season and maybe win a few more games in 1A this year against similarly sized schools.

Whether you say punish privates or you say enhance public school playoff competitiveness vs. similarly sized private schools, it's all semantics.

Tomayto, tomahto.

 

[LHSTigers94]

The system is in place and it does punish private schools and their students. Ask the kids at Newman if they were happy with their second round knock out as a multiplied school in 3A this year or if they would have been happier with the opportunity to extend their season and maybe win a few more games in 1A this year against similarly sized schools.

Whether you say punish privates or you say enhance public school playoff competitiveness vs. similarly sized private schools, it's all semantics.

Tomayto, tomahto.

Not really concerned what would make Newman (one school out of hundreds) the happiest. If they wanted to go further in the playoffs, they should have prepared and coached themselves better to do so. If you say anything other than that, you are validating the public school concerns about privates having a competitive advantage. (For the record I never felt that privates have a competitive advantage). I also feel that the number of students walking the hallways is not a good measure. It is tough to be fair but it is not hard to be consistent.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

Not really concerned what would make Newman (one school out of hundreds) the happiest.

Therein lies the rub. You and your kind don't care about the minority. As long as your boundaried public schools are taken care of, you're good.

 

[LakeCtyNewt]

So what if the multiplier and football adders were eliminated? Where would schools like Montini, NAZ and Loyola have played this pat season?

I mean Ramblin is that what you want? Do you want the multi gone so the private schools can start playing schools of similar size?

I guess when you claim discrimination what are you and your private school brethren being discriminated against?

I'd prefer not to go back through the list of posts and try and find the logic so wondering if you could shed some light.

 

[LHSTigers94]

Therein lies the rub. You and your kind don't care about the minority. As long as your boundaried public schools are taken care of, you're good.

No, therein lies your issue. You took one statement that specifically speaks to Newman's happiness and added the minority as well as elevate my statement to suggest the public schools should be happy. You just showed the bases of how YOU twist things to fit your agenda.

Let's try this again. I am not concerned with ONE school public or private happiness when it comes to where they fit in the class system. I don't any system should be created with winning championships for a specific school in mind.

 

[redmen85]

Wasn't Sterling Newman's Head Football Coach on the Football Advisory Committee when the success factor was approved?

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

So what if the multiplier and football adders were eliminated? Where would schools like Montini, NAZ and Loyola have played this pat season?

Now we are back to the argument about trying to fit square pegs in round holes. The IHSA insists on a playoff classification by enrollment system. Their multipliers and success factors certainly seem fair for the top tier private schools like the ones you mentioned.

Problem is, most private schools are square pegs. They aren't the round peg top tier football schools. The same multiplier and success factor that puts Montini where you think it belongs also impacts the Peru St. Bedes of the private school world.

St. Bede is a school with an actual enrollment of 314. All time, St. Bede has compiled a playoff record of 7-15. As far as they have ever gotten in the playoffs came in 2002 when they lost (badly) in the 2A semis. Their last playoff win came in 2011 in 1A. Their two 1A playoff wins in 2011 mean that they have to be multiplied for the following SIX years. The result? Three one and dones for them in 3A in 2012, 2013, and 2014. They didn't qualify at all this year, but if they do next year, they will be multiplied.

Tell me what is right about that, Newt.

Want more? Decatur St. Teresa and Champaign St. Thomas More to name a couple. Hell, I'm even good with saying that Brother Rice should be allowed to demonstrate sustained success in 7A before they deserve to be multiplied to 8A.

I mean Ramblin is that what you want? Do you want the multi gone so the private schools can start playing schools of similar size?

I guess when you claim discrimination what are you and your private school brethren being discriminated against?

Not against, Newt. Discriminated BY. Private schools are being discriminated BY the public school majority within the IHSA. They have instituted rule after rule designed to limit our competitiveness against public schools. Or, if you want to look at it another way, designed to enhance the competitiveness of public schools relative to private schools.

The problem is, not all private schools are like Loyola, Montini, etc. Indeed, most are not. So then we have a situation whereby the private schools that are not all that competitive, but competitive enough to qualify for the playoffs and win a game or two every six years, are forced to compete against larger public schools in the playoffs.

Again, tell me what is right about that.

Do I want the multi gone? Yes. It unfairly discriminates against schools that do not need to be multiplied. Do I want Loyola in 7A? No. My preference is that they would petition to play up. Loyola has more than proven its ability to compete well and win against the best of 8A.

But, what if Loyola were in 7A with no multiplier? Come on, Newt, think about it. How much different would it have been for Loyola in 7A this past year? I betcha a Loyola vs GBW 7A title game would have been closer than the 8A title game was this year. And I think that there's no way that Loyola could beat GBW 10 out of 10 or even 9 out of 10. Hell, Gooms thinks GBW would beat Loyola most times. Perhaps one of those times for GBW would have been this past year.

But, Newt, how would you have felt if Loyola had beaten L'ville in the semis in order to face GBW in the finals? Would you have felt that the L'ville boys had been cheated out of a title game appearance by the big bad private school?

How much different would it have been for Montini to play in 4A? I think Phillips would have given Montini all they could handle. Don't you?

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

No, therein lies your issue. You took one statement that specifically speaks to Newman's happiness and added the minority as well as elevate my statement to suggest the public schools should be happy. You just showed the bases of how YOU twist things to fit your agenda.

Let's try this again. I am not concerned with ONE school public or private happiness when it comes to where they fit in the class system. I don't any system should be created with winning championships for a specific school in mind.

I don't think so either, but Newman is representative of MANY private schools that are needlessly multiplied in football and in other sports. In another post in this thread, I named a few others like St.Teresa, St. Bede, St. Thomas More, etc.

 

[LakeCtyNewt]

Now we are back to the argument about trying to fit square pegs in round holes. The IHSA insists on a playoff classification by enrollment system. Their multipliers and success factors certainly seem fair for the top tier private schools like the ones you mentioned.

Problem is, most private schools are square pegs. They aren't the round peg top tier football schools. The same multiplier and success factor that puts Montini where you think it belongs also impacts the Peru St. Bedes of the private school world.

St. Bede is a school with an actual enrollment of 314. All time, St. Bede has compiled a playoff record of 7-15. As far as they have ever gotten in the playoffs came in 2002 when they lost (badly) in the 2A semis. Their last playoff win came in 2011 in 1A. Their two 1A playoff wins in 2011 mean that they have to be multiplied for the following SIX years. The result? Three one and dones for them in 3A in 2012, 2013, and 2014. They didn't qualify at all this year, but if they do next year, they will be multiplied.

Tell me what is right about that, Newt.

Want more? Decatur St. Teresa and Champaign St. Thomas More to name a couple. Hell, I'm even good with saying that Brother Rice should be allowed to demonstrate sustained success in 7A before they deserve to be multiplied to 8A.



Not against, Newt. Discriminated BY. Private schools are being discriminated BY the public school majority within the IHSA. They have instituted rule after rule designed to limit our competitiveness against public schools. Or, if you want to look at it another way, designed to enhance the competitiveness of public schools relative to private schools.

The problem is, not all private schools are like Loyola, Montini, etc. Indeed, most are not. So then we have a situation whereby the private schools that are not all that competitive, but competitive enough to qualify for the playoffs and win a game or two every six years, are forced to compete against larger public schools in the playoffs.

Again, tell me what is right about that.

Do I want the multi gone? Yes. It unfairly discriminates against schools that do not need to be multiplied. Do I want Loyola in 7A? No. My preference is that they would petition to play up. Loyola has more than proven its ability to compete well and win against the best of 8A.

But, what if Loyola were in 7A with no multiplier? Come on, Newt, think about it. How much different would it have been for Loyola in 7A this past year? I betcha a Loyola vs GBW 7A title game would have been closer than the 8A title game was this year. And I think that there's no way that Loyola could beat GBW 10 out of 10 or even 9 out of 10. Hell, Gooms thinks GBW would beat Loyola most times. Perhaps one of those times for GBW would have been this past year.

But, Newt, how would you have felt if Loyola had beaten L'ville in the semis in order to face GBW in the finals? Would you have felt that the L'ville boys had been cheated out of a title game appearance by the big bad private school?

How much different would it have been for Montini to play in 4A? I think Phillips would have given Montini all they could handle. Don't you?

I agree Ramblin and here is the issue, I don't know a way to make this work. I wouldn't have had an issue with Loyola playing Lib and beating them. Or Phillips playing Montini. I am one who doesn't care about a lot of that stuff - multipliers etc.

To me, Loyola and Montini are examples of schools that can handle the process either way. Whether its the play up success factor rule which I think sucks, or the multiplier.

I don't know how to fix it and not sure that its entirely as much a problem as everyone would be lead to believe. If the private schools all agreed to move away from the IHSA, that would be one thing and would likely fix most if not several of the supposed problems. But even then there are still issues.

I guess I cant understand why we just cant do football like all other sports. Yes the season is shorter, but who cares, You can do a regional system like they do in Missouri, sectionals like Texas and California. It can be done.

The success factor multiplier is dumb. I wouldn't call it discriminatory so much as I would just say that it rewards mediocrity too much. If a program is successful one or two years in a row that guarantees nothing year three or year four.

Damn you Ramblin now you got me doing it.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

The success factor multiplier is dumb. I wouldn't call it discriminatory so much as I would just say that it rewards mediocrity too much. If a program is successful one or two years in a row that guarantees nothing year three or year four.

What's more dumb, applying the success factor to private schools that make multiple final game appearances in a four year period or multplying a private school because it won a single playoff game six years ago and hasn't even qualified for the playoffs in the previous five years?

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

I agree Ramblin and here is the issue, I don't know a way to make this work.

Well, we've tried the multiplier and the success factor, and the public schools are still complaining about too much private school success.

Why not try a classification system based on competitive level and influenced by enrollment?

NJ has an interesting system. I don't like how many different titles they offer with groups (based on enrollment size) and sections (based on geography), but I do think their qualification, classification and seeding system is intriguing.

First of all, NJ playoffs are opt in. You have to declare your intent to participate by the end of October.

NJ schools are given 6 power ratings points for a win and 3 for a tie. Then, they are given additional points for the enrollment sizes of the opponents they defeated. The larger the school (and the private schools are multiplied), the more points that are given. For instance, borrowing IHSA verbiage, a school might get 8 pts for beating an 8A sized school, 7 pts for 7A, etc. Schools also earn points for each win (3 pts) or tie (1.5 pts) of their defeated opponents. Schools even get points for losing. When you lose to an opponent, you get a point for every win that opponent notched against other schools.

To qualify for the playoffs, NJ teams are selected based solely on their total power ratings points from a team’s best 7 of their 8 completed games. At least 70% of a team’s entire schedule must be played against other NJ schools. The 8 highest ranked schools participate in the playoffs in each Group in each Section. Seeding is based on the number of points.

Don't get caught up in the verbiage or the numbers. All this could be easily adapted to Illinois.

What have we got to lose?

Here's a link to their rules:

http://www.njsiaa.org/sites/default/files/document/Football 2015 Regulations.pdf

 

[Cross Bones]

Rainmaker made ramblinman argue against his point. 8A has been dominated by private schools despite the total championships. And when confronted with the prospect that his school has not dominated he quickly buried his previous "whoa is me" argument.

 

[HHSTigerFan]

Seems the ones being discriminated against is the public schools by the state of Illinois.. The private schools are allowed to bring in kids from a huge area, but the public schools are restricted by both the state and the IHSA..

 

[SOUTHSIDECFD]

Seems the ones being discriminated against is the public schools by the state of Illinois.. The private schools are allowed to bring in kids from a huge area, but the public schools are restricted by both the state and the IHSA..

Sorry but it goes both ways.

http://wgntv.com/2016/01/04/cps-watchdog-get-suburbanites-out-of-chicago-schools/

 

[Corey90]

Rainmaker made ramblinman argue against his point. 8A has been dominated by private schools despite the total championships. And when confronted with the prospect that his school has not dominated he quickly buried his previous "whoa is me" argument.

As I sit here and read all the Rambling by Ram it amazes how he seems to be the voice for all privates. Reading his posts and whining has gotten to the point of pathetic embarrassment. Really you privates want this guy to be your voice? Surely their must be others of more rational?
I am so done with poor me private debate and how the IHSA has it out for them. Cry me a river the last I looked privates still have a 30 mile radius to recruit whoever they want. That's real fair now isn't it. Let's hear it Ram!
Bla bla bla to you and your long winded borning posts!

 

[MWittman]

As I sit here and read all the Rambling by Ram it amazes how he seems to be the voice for all privates. Reading his posts and whining has gotten to the point of pathetic embarrassment. Really you privates want this guy to be your voice? Surely their must be others of more rational?

corey:

Yes, I do; ramblin speaks for me.

I am perfectly comfortable with ramblin's posts on this matter. I do not know another member of this forum better equipped to expand on the idiosyncrasies and nuances of IHSA regulations. The reason you and your public school variety appear to tire of the discussion is because you remain above the threshold.

Why would you or your public-school associates moan when the field is tilted in your favor?

What is both amusing and befuddling is the continued opprobrium from public schools even though the IHSA is partial to your monolith with its advantageous edicts. You have the multiplier and now the SF, both of which have failed to avert Catholic school success.

When did the expression of outrage relating to such palpable bias become irrational whining?

 

[HHSTigerFan]

corey:

Yes, I do; ramblin speaks for me.

I am perfectly comfortable with ramblin's posts on this matter. I do not know another member of this forum better equipped to expand on the idiosyncrasies and nuances of IHSA regulations. The reason you and your public school variety appear to tire of the discussion is because you remain above the threshold.

Why would you or your public-school associates moan when the field is tilted in your favor?

What is both amusing and befuddling is the continued opprobrium from public schools even though the IHSA is partial to your monolith with its advantageous edicts. You have the multiplier and now the SF, both of which have failed to avert Catholic school success.

When did the expression of outrage relating to such palpable bias become irrational whining?

Tilted to our favor?????? OMG

Your 14% is winning nearly 40% of the titles.... Damn pesky stats getting in the way of your good story..

 

[OldLeaf]

This entire thread and almost other threads on this subject provide all the justifications and reasons for private/public separation.......in addition to just plain simple common sense.

 

[UlbKA91]

Sorry but it goes both ways.

http://wgntv.com/2016/01/04/cps-watchdog-get-suburbanites-out-of-chicago-schools/

I brought that up before in a similar context (or very far upthread in this one). With that in mind, the only CPS schools that should not have a multiplier are those base-level neighborhood schools that people will take any alternative - even a dubious charter academy - out of.

 

[Capt Morgan]

Tilted to our favor?????? OMG

Your 14% is winning nearly 40% of the titles.... Damn pesky stats getting in the way of your good story..

But when only 7% of the public schools win 40% titles, that's all good and fair. Stats are stats...

 

[ignazio]

Setting aside the supposedly enlightened minds of the public school crowd arguing that segregation based on demographics is acceptable, the best part of the report is the Cal City resident claiming a Chicago Heights address to gain entry into CPS.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

Rainmaker made ramblinman argue against his point. 8A has been dominated by private schools despite the total championships. And when confronted with the prospect that his school has not dominated he quickly buried his previous "whoa is me" argument.

You mean woe is me. And I didn't argue against my point.

Rainmaker was a rogue in this thread. A minor detour, if you will. With him, I simply argued that Loyola does not have the poor record that he thinks they have.

With the rest of you dolts in this thread, my point is that the IHSA discriminates against private schools because they are private, not because those schools have all experienced sustained athletic success. My original point is that the public school majority members of the IHSA should vote to dissolve the association and reorganize it as a public school only membership association. That would solve everything.

Rather than argue the merits of these points, you would rather take us down detours, attack the messenger, etc. Your loss.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

As I sit here and read all the Rambling by Ram it amazes how he seems to be the voice for all privates. Reading his posts and whining has gotten to the point of pathetic embarrassment. Really you privates want this guy to be your voice? Surely their must be others of more rational?
I am so done with poor me private debate and how the IHSA has it out for them. Cry me a river the last I looked privates still have a 30 mile radius to recruit whoever they want. That's real fair now isn't it. Let's hear it Ram!
Bla bla bla to you and your long winded borning posts!

What's more unfair, corey, to be able to enroll up to 100% of the students in a boundaried district or to be able to recruit (but not necessarily enroll ) any student in a 30 mile radius? I know you think that private schools can get any kid they want, but you are flat out wrong in that respect. Simply because a student is recruited by a private school does not mean that student enrolls.

BTW, the sure sign of a loser is to attack the arguer and not the argument.

 

[LHSTigers94]

You mean woe is me. And I didn't argue against my point.

Rainmaker was a rogue in this thread. A minor detour, if you will. With him, I simply argued that Loyola does not have the poor record that he thinks they have.

With the rest of you dolts in this thread, my point is that the IHSA discriminates against private schools because they are private, not because those schools have all experienced sustained athletic success. My original point is that the public school majority members of the IHSA should vote to dissolve the association and reorganize it as a public school only membership association. That would solve everything.

Rather than argue the merits of these points, you would rather take us down detours, attack the messenger, etc. Your loss.

My point goes against your middle paragraph. There is no way to single out specific schools without some one pressing the unfair button. The comments on the SF is key. Therefore ALL privates have to suffer if you want to call it suffering. The same as ALL publics are based on enrollment. Sure Morton would love to play 2A/3A ball but they can't. Just like you can find some private schools that can not compete at their multiplied class. The world we live in dictate what you do for one you have to do for all. Right now, there are separate rules for two groups in one organization, which mean to right the ship you need to separate. I hope this never happen simply because I like playing against the competitive private schools. I also feel like there is no way that things will ever be considered fair by some.

The second point of IHSA dissolving and rebuilding is you wanted someone else to do the job privates can't do. IHSA don't have to do anything, how about the privates just leave on their own. No school is FORCED to be a member of the IHSA.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

My point goes against your middle paragraph. There is no way to single out specific schools without some one pressing the unfair button. The comments on the SF is key. Therefore ALL privates have to suffer if you want to call it suffering. The same as ALL publics are based on enrollment. Sure Morton would love to play 2A/3A ball but they can't. Just like you can find some private schools that can not compete at their multiplied class. The world we live in dictate what you do for one you have to do for all. Right now, there are separate rules for two groups in one organization, which mean to right the ship you need to separate. I hope this never happen simply because I like playing against the competitive private schools. I also feel like there is no way that things will ever be considered fair by some.

The second point of IHSA dissolving and rebuilding is you wanted someone else to do the job privates can't do. IHSA don't have to do anything, how about the privates just leave on their own. No school is FORCED to be a member of the IHSA.

I bolded and italicized your key phrases above.

Regarding all privates having to suffer, that that is complete baloney but sadly indicative of the vindictive mindset of most of the IHSA. The IHSA is simply too LAZY and STUPID and FEARFUL of change to try something different and creative like what New Jersey does. Beyond being those things, I sincerely believe that there are vindictive elements within the IHSA membership and leadership that find it much more satisfying to punish all private schools with a hammer than to try to address the sustained extraordinary athletic success of ALL member schools with tweezers.

With respect to the IHSA not having to do anything, the IHSA is already doing things -- lots of things. They are creating volumes of rules and regulations surrounding athletic eligibility, many of which favor public school student athletes over private school student athletes. They are counting 1.65 private school students for every 1 boundaried public school student as it pertains to classification. They have instituted a success factor.

Private schools should not just have to leave on their own simply because your kind are making it miserable for them to stay in. Although public schools represent a prohibitive majority of IHSA members, the IHSA is not a public school organization. My suggestion is for you to make it just that by dissolving and reorganizing it. If private schools are so scary, so unfairly competitive, and so deserving of discrimination, why not just form your own public school association and EXCLUDE private schools from it? Voila! Problem solved.

Are you guys Nazis? No? Then tell me, what kind of perversion do you call it that has a majority keeping a minority who they don't like close to them, yet segregated, and continue to hold them back and discriminate against them at every opportunity?

Just take your toys and go. Please!

 

[LHSTigers94]

I bolded and italicized your key phrases above.

Regarding all privates having to suffer, that that is complete baloney but sadly indicative of the vindictive mindset of most of the IHSA. The IHSA is simply too LAZY and STUPID and FEARFUL of change to try something different and creative like what New Jersey does. Beyond being those things, I sincerely believe that there are vindictive elements within the IHSA membership and leadership that find it much more satisfying to punish all private schools with a hammer than to try to address the sustained extraordinary athletic success of ALL member schools with tweezers.

With respect to the IHSA not having to do anything, the IHSA is already doing things -- lots of things. They are creating volumes of rules and regulations surrounding athletic eligibility, many of which favor public school student athletes over private school student athletes. They are counting 1.65 private school students for every 1 boundaried public school student as it pertains to classification. They have instituted a success factor.

Private schools should not just have to leave on their own simply because your kind are making it miserable for them to stay in. Although public schools represent a prohibitive majority of IHSA members, the IHSA is not a public school organization. My suggestion is for you to make it just that by dissolving and reorganizing it. If private schools are so scary, so unfairly competitive, and so deserving of discrimination, why not just form your own public school association and EXCLUDE private schools from it? Voila! Problem solved.

Are you guys Nazis? No? Then tell me, what kind of perversion do you call it that has a majority keeping a minority who they don't like close to them, yet segregated, and continue to hold them back and discriminate against them at every opportunity?

Just take your toys and go. Please!

Again all this is hot air. Privates won half, I repeat half, of the championships! How can you twist this to be a negative?? As far as their lots of things, did MC win a 4A championship before the multiplier? Do you really think that is right? Again your claim is that the IHSA is out to get privates yet almost EVERY thing they implement ADD more championships for private schools. Not really sure what the punishment is. Based on the results, I would take this kind of punishment any day. To me punishment would be making All the good private teams (JC, Naz, Montini, SHG, MC, etc) play 8A which is a division that is routinely won by public schools. Spreading these teams over 4 classes by adding a multiplier and SF is by far not punishing anyone. Right now you are like a drunk guy at the bar looking at an ugly duckling and trying to convince everyone that she is the most beautiful girl in the world. Winning four of the eight championships can never be considered punishment.

 

[redmen85]

Ramblin
Due to the over representation of the privates/non-boundaried on the IHSA Board of Directors
(5 of 10) I don't see your plan ever being implemented.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

Privates won half, I repeat half, of the championships! How can you twist this to be a negative??.

Quite the contrary. I think winning championships is a POSITIVE -- for ANY school. It's you and your ilk who get all bent out of shape when the championships are not evenly distributed among public and private, northern and southern, etc. It's also you and your ilk who have no problem with Rochester ripping off five straight titles but your sphincters get all puckered when Montini rips off four in a row.

As far as their lots of things, did MC win a 4A championship before the multiplier? Do you really think that is right?

Is it right that all private schools are discriminated against because of a relative handful of private schools winning championships?

Again your claim is that the IHSA is out to get privates yet almost EVERY thing they implement ADD more championships for private schools.

That's because the IHSA thanks tactically and not strategically...and their tactical thinking is lacking. Enacting a multiplier and a success factor are examples of tactical thinking. Dissolving the IHSA and reorganizing it to be an exclusively public school organization is an example of strategic thinking. The IHSA was too stupid to realize that the potential consequences of their tactics could produce a result opposite of what they had intended with that tactic.

You are getting into some pretty unrealistic territory here. Do you really think for one second that the IHSA took those actions that they took to add more championships for private schools? Of course not. The fact that SOME private schools have continued to succeed in spite of being discriminated against simply means that the IHSA tactical actions to make all private schools less competitive relative to public schools did not work out in the case of those successful private schools.

Not really sure what the punishment is. Based on the results, I would take this kind of punishment any day.

Of course you aren't sure, because you fail to look beyond the relative handful of successful private outliers. But what if you are from St. Bede or any one of a large number of private schools that are unfairly multiplied? Why should they be forced to play up in larger classes?