The IHSA should pull a Big East

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

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.

From the IHSA website: "The IHSA Board of Directors consists of 10 principals elected to three-year terms, plus a non-voting Treasurer who is appointed by the Board."

The current Treasurer just so happens to be from a private school (Decatur Christian). He doesn't vote, but you included him in your count of current directors from private and non-boundaried schools. That leaves four of ten.

Also from the IHSA website: "Seven members are elected from geographic divisions, while three members are elected at-large, one from an ethnic minority, one from the underrepresented gender, and one from a private school."

As it currently shakes out, all three of the at-large directors are from non-boundaried public or private schools, but only one of them is there because he represents a private school. I think you may not realize this, but the composition of the board changes every year. New members come on while members completing their terms rotate off. Conceivably, a future board could consist of 10 voting members, just one of whom is from a private school. Indeed, many past IHSA boards have been constituted exactly that way.

 

[redmen85]

Help me Ramblin. Do Privates make up 40% of the IHSA population?
Over-representation?

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

Help me Ramblin. Do Privates make up 40% of the IHSA population?
Over-representation?

Happy to help you, redmen.

For the record, there are THREE private school members on the CURRENT IHSA board. That's 30% of the voting members. Not 50% or 40%.

You have implied that private schools are over represented on the board. Let's analyze that statement beyond just simple mathematics.

Of the three members on the current IHSA board who work at private schools, one of them is on the board because he is from an under represented minority. His role on that board is not so much to represent private schools as it is to represent ethnic minorities. The next director filling that at-large role could very well be from a public school. Another private school principal is on the board because he was elected by ALL the schools in his IHSA legislative district to represent all those schools, not just private schools. The next director from that legislative district could very well be from a public school. There is ONE member of the board who is on that board specifically to represent private school interests.

If there are ten voting members of the board, each member represents one-tenth of that board. If private schools constitute 17% of all IHSA schools, having only one private school member on the board (which, as I pointed out earlier, has happened with regularity in the past) is too few if you are concerned about achieving a fair representation. But two or more create the over representation to which you refer. Regardless, anywhere from one to four private school directors would put them in the minority on a board with ten voting members.

So what is your larger point (assuming you have one)?

 

[redmen85]

I find it interesting that now you are qualified to define each member's role on the board.
I don't think it's fair to separate non-boundaried schools from privates. In the eyes of the IHSA they fall under the same rules.

 

[catsattackfor3]

For years I have heard old time CCL football guys say that joining the IHSA really hurt CCL football overall since they gave up a lot of things to join: Spring Practice, unlimited access to players in the Summer, they had to give up pre-season overnight summer training camp which many of the schools would go to for a few weeks, the ability to recruit and give scholarships for no other reason than the grade schooler was an athlete, and the ability to travel as far as they wanted to to play games (The IHSA has since changed that rule). Also they fought tooth and nail with the IHSA to keep the Prep Bowl which was huge because for many years only the League Champion would go to the IHSA playoffs and the rest of the League could still keep playing in the Prep Bowl playoffs.

As their website states they joined to give the other sports opportunites but for Football and Basketball it may not have been the best choice to keep those sports dominant

 

[PowerI66_]

and the ability to travel as far as they wanted to to play games (The IHSA has since changed that rule)

Have they changed it since Loyola played in Ireland in 2012?

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

I find it interesting that now you are qualified to define each member's role on the board.
I don't think it's fair to separate non-boundaried schools from privates. In the eyes of the IHSA they fall under the same rules.

And I find it interesting that you assume that board members from private schools are only on the board to represent private schools regardless of the circumstances which placed them on the board in the first place..

As for including non-boundaried schools with privates, go for it if that makes you happy, The ONE person on that CURRENT board from a non-boundaried public school school is there because she is a member of an under-represented gender who is on the board more for that purpose than to represent the interests of non-boundaried public schools. The next person to be appointed to that particular at-large directorship when the current person holding that role sees her term expire this year could quite possibly be from a boundaried public school as has been the case with regularity in the past.

AGAIN, what is your POINT?

 

[catsattackfor3]

Have they changed it since Loyola played in Ireland in 2012?

I know you can travel anywhere with in the US to play but that is a great question about International travel. it used to be you couldn't even travel out of state...then the rule changed to a certain amount of miles...then it became you could only miss one day of classes...keeps changing.

 

[redmen85]

And I find it interesting that you assume that board members from private schools are only on the board to represent private schools regardless of the circumstances which placed them on the board in the first place..

I never said only. You added that. However they landed on the board, they do also represent private schools by their employment as Principals at such schools.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

I never said only. You added that. However they landed on the board, they do also represent private schools by their employment as Principals at such schools.

And your POINT is?

 

[LHSTigers94]

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.



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



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.



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?

Ram I expect more from you.

I NEVER complained about the amount of championships won by either party. I think it is an accomplishment for any team public or private. If private schools won all 8 championships I wouldn't see a problem with it. I do however feel that the schools I named are in a different class therefore you have to account for that. Outside of separation, what do you suggest. The number one argument I am against is your attempt to say an organization sole purpose is to prevent Private success.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

Ram I expect more from you.

I NEVER complained about the amount of championships won by either party. I think it is an accomplishment for any team public or private. If private schools won all 8 championships I wouldn't see a problem with it. I do however feel that the schools I named are in a different class therefore you have to account for that. Outside of separation, what do you suggest. The number one argument I am against is your attempt to say an organization sole purpose is to prevent Private success.

The schools you named are in a different class from Rochester? How so? MC has won a bunch of championships over the years, but have they won five of the last six as has Rochester? No. Have they ever won five in a row? No, but Rochester has. Outside of Driscoll, has ANY private school won five in a row? If you have to account for the schools you named being in a different class, how do you account for Rochester?

Outside of separation, the only suggestion I have is to puke the flawed classification by enrollment system and create a new one that takes into account record, strength of schedule, sizes of schools played, etc. Similar to New Jersey, for example. Create more competitive classes top to bottom. Put Rochester in 6A and Glenbard West in 8A if that's where they belong in the new system. Put Naz in 7A if that's where they belong. Just don't put a school in a higher class because they are private.

I expect more from you than the last line of your post. If you think that I am saying that the IHSA's sole purpose is to prevent private school success, you are sadly mistaken. Sole purpose? Come on, now. I never said anything close. Putting words in my mouth doesn't help your argument. However, I very much believe that many of the the rules they have enacted are designed not so much as to prevent private school success as they are to enhance the success of public schools relative to private schools. Many rules and sole purpose are two different things. Preventing private school success and enhancing the success of public schools relative to private schools are two different things.

 

[LHSTigers94]

The schools you named are in a different class from Rochester? How so? MC has won a bunch of championships over the years, but have they won five of the last six as has Rochester? No. Have they ever won five in a row? No, but Rochester has. Outside of Driscoll, has ANY private school won five in a row? If you have to account for the schools you named being in a different class, how do you account for Rochester?

Outside of separation, the only suggestion I have is to puke the flawed classification by enrollment system and create a new one that takes into account record, strength of schedule, sizes of schools played, etc. Similar to New Jersey, for example. Create more competitive classes top to bottom. Put Rochester in 6A and Glenbard West in 8A if that's where they belong in the new system. Put Naz in 7A if that's where they belong. Just don't put a school in a higher class because they are private.

I expect more from you than the last line of your post. If you think that I am saying that the IHSA's sole purpose is to prevent private school success, you are sadly mistaken. Sole purpose? Come on, now. I never said anything close. Putting words in my mouth doesn't help your argument. However, I very much believe that many of the the rules they have enacted are designed not so much as to prevent private school success as they are to enhance the success of public schools relative to private schools. Many rules and sole purpose are two different things. Preventing private school success and enhancing the success of public schools relative to private schools are two different things.

The middle paragraph is something most if not all will agree with. I don't think Rochester will ever be able to hang is 6a. Everything else sounds great to me.

 

[QBC16]

This is such an old and tired argument. If the private schools want to split from the IHSA, buh and bye.

From what I've witnessed on this board this year a great deal of he whining is coming from private schools.

Both sides need to shut the F up pull your big boy pants up and play.

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

The middle paragraph is something most if not all will agree with. I don't think Rochester will ever be able to hang is 6a.

Really? I do. In fact, I would say that, with a good seed, the typical Rochester team of the past six years could EASILY hang in the typical 6A for the first couple of rounds at least.

Look at it this way: if you were to place teams in classes based solely on their level of competition, that would mean that 6A would be made up of the teams ranked 65 through 96. Are you saying that Rochester couldn't hang with those programs?

 

[LHSTigers94]

Really? I do. In fact, I would say that, with a good seed, the typical Rochester team of the past six years could EASILY hang in the typical 6A for the first couple of rounds at least.

Look at it this way: if you were to place teams in classes based solely on their level of competition, that would mean that 6A would be made up of the teams ranked 65 through 96. Are you saying that Rochester couldn't hang with those programs?

I am telling you after seeing Rochester play in person, I am very confident that they would not have no where near they success they had in 4A. On the flip side, JC/Naz/Montini/SHG would have similar if not the same success in class 4 through 7.

 

[Wassup13_rivals219252]

4 Trophy's to the Public schools, 4 Trophy's to the Private schools.

Unless people believe every team should get a trophy, there is no debate here, JUST WHINERS!

Wassup

 

[ramblinman_rivals165935]

I am telling you after seeing Rochester play in person, I am very confident that they would not have no where near they success they had in 4A. On the flip side, JC/Naz/Montini/SHG would have similar if not the same success in class 4 through 7.

You previously stated that Rochester couldn't hang in 6A. That's not the same as saying they couldn't repeat their 4A success in 6A.

I think the typical Rochester team of the past few years could "hang" in the current 6A and maybe even go deep once or twice. If they can do that, then that is where they belong from a competitive standpoint.

If your response is that moving Rochester to 6A wouldn't be fair to the next year's kids who deserve a chance to compete in their schools sixth consecutive 4A title game appearance, yet you still feel it is fair to multiply a school like St. Bede into a higher classification, then that just shows you how far apart we are on this issue.

 

[LHSTigers94]

You previously stated that Rochester couldn't hang in 6A. That's not the same as saying they couldn't repeat their 4A success in 6A.

I think the typical Rochester team of the past few years could "hang" in the current 6A and maybe even go deep once or twice. If they can do that, then that is where they belong from a competitive standpoint.

If your response is that moving Rochester to 6A wouldn't be fair to the next year's kids who deserve a chance to compete in their schools sixth consecutive 4A title game appearance, yet you still feel it is fair to multiply a school like St. Bede into a higher classification, then that just shows you how far apart we are on this issue.

No, I think they would be a first round exit most years. Simply put. That is my opinion. I can care less about the kids before or after. As humans you line up and compete with whomever is in front of you.

 

[Corey90]

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.

Another twisted view. Like you have not attacked anyone on this site. Try looking in the mirror it might shock you.

 

[MWittman]

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..

HHS:

Once again, I will underline the fact I did not address you as HHSTigerFRAUD to keep our conversation civil and I will also ignore your stealth sarcasm to my post.

You mention statistics; and you classify them as "pesky."

What is with your pathological fixation on statistics?

Had public schools won all eight classes, would this have assuaged your anger? Had one Catholic school won a title and the others lost, would this cause you any despair?

I will resort to your mathematical worldview: Had Catholic schools, which represent 14 percent of IHSA membership, won less than 14 percent of titles, would you not appear vexed?

There has emerged an abundance of evidence to illustrate chicanery at public schools and you completely ignore this. I won't mention any school specifically, but there are some schools, all public, which have had highly-questionable transfers or students enrolled from out of district which have contributed handsomely to the school's athletic success and this appears meaningless to you.

You always appear to be concerned with a certain "bad" guy, but not others. You are never distressed with the scale of the violation, often undeniable, within public schools, preferring to bellow only about threats to public schools.

Your check against the phenomenon of Catholic schools' success, something you imply is some sort of chaotic disorder, is power applied from the IHSA onto Catholic schools exclusively.

The multiplier and the SF will never create the order you desire.

 

[TyC84]

Two or three of those Rochester teams could have competed and maybe won 5-7A. 2010 maybe would have won any class. 2012 and 2013 were very, very good. 2010 and 2013 beat SHG and 2012 was close and SHG won 5A title in 2012 and 2013. 6A was easier than 5A at that time

 

[cornerrat]

Two or three of those Rochester teams could have competed and maybe won 5-7A. 2010 maybe would have won any class. 2012 and 2013 were very, very good. 2010 and 2013 beat SHG and 2012 was close and SHG won 5A title in 2012 and 2013. 6A was easier than 5A at that time

All.... Everyone wants to be a comedian but so few end up becoming one. Sigh..... Ratsy

 

[TyC84]

All.... Everyone wants to be a comedian but so few end up becoming one. Sigh..... Ratsy

2010 Rochester beats SHG, goes 14-0 and I feel they could have competed with 5A and 6A teams...maybe higher?

2012 Rochester loses 29-26 at SHG to open SHG's new stadium....Rochester doubles SHG's yardage, but SHG make key plays and wins the game.....Rochester goes 13-1 an wins the title by as many points as they want, SHG has a strong year.

2013 Rochester beats SHG and puts up a ton of points....wins out 14-0 beats Geneseo in a battle. SHG beats Montini to win 5A....yet, Rochester can't play at that level? Please...

 

[mc140]

Beating up on 4A teams is a little different than 7A/8A teams in the playoffs.

 

[cornerrat]

2010 Rochester beats SHG, goes 14-0 and I feel they could have competed with 5A and 6A teams...maybe higher?

2012 Rochester loses 29-26 at SHG to open SHG's new stadium....Rochester doubles SHG's yardage, but SHG make key plays and wins the game.....Rochester goes 13-1 an wins the title by as many points as they want, SHG has a strong year.

2013 Rochester beats SHG and puts up a ton of points....wins out 14-0 beats Geneseo in a battle. SHG beats Montini to win 5A....yet, Rochester can't play at that level? Please...

All.... So your opinion on Rochester winning titles as high as 8A depending upon the year goes hand in hand on how well you played against SHG in a particular season How odd.

Let's look at those three seasons.

2010 .... Rochester 13 SHG 10 A late defensive play seals the win or the Cyclones win the game. SHG loses in the first round of the playoffs by the way.

2012 .... SHG 29 Rochester 26 SHG has 5 starters out in that game. and are using a 4th string rb.

2013 .... Rochester 38 SHG 33 SHG actually outplays the Rockets in the second half but were down by so much in the first half the Cyclones just didn't have enough time to come back. By the way it didn't matter. Rochester self reported (because it was going to get out) that they were using several ineligible players and had to forfeit the game. Actually they used them in several games but being the public school darlings of the IHSA only had to forfeit the one game.

Lastly. Food for thought. SHG's team with Gabe Green (his senior) year is considered by many as the best the school has ever had. But I'm not crazy enough to spout out " maybe's" in beating 7A and 8A champion level teams.... Not to mention what playing 5 games against teams that large and loaded with talent would do to a small roster. Ratsy

 

[LHSTigers94]

All.... So your opinion on Rochester winning titles as high as 8A depending upon the year goes hand in hand on how well you played against SHG in a particular season How odd.

Let's look at those three seasons.

2010 .... Rochester 13 SHG 10 A late defensive play seals the win or the Cyclones win the game. SHG loses in the first round of the playoffs by the way.

2012 .... SHG 29 Rochester 26 SHG has 5 starters out in that game. and are using a 4th string rb.

2013 .... Rochester 38 SHG 33 SHG actually outplays the Rockets in the second half but were down by so much in the first half the Cyclones just didn't have enough time to come back. By the way it didn't matter. Rochester self reported (because it was going to get out) that they were using several ineligible players and had to forfeit the game. Actually they used them in several games but being the public school darlings of the IHSA only had to forfeit the one game.

Lastly. Food for thought. SHG's team with Gabe Green (his senior) year is considered by many as the best the school has ever had. But I'm not crazy enough to spout out " maybe's" in beating 7A and 8A champion level teams.... Not to mention what playing 5 games against teams that large and loaded with talent would do to a small roster. Ratsy

Bottom Line is Rochester isn't or wasn't physical enough to even think about 7A/ 8A. I can't see Rochester beating 5A (JC/ Naz/ Montini) consistently. I give them credit for winning and dominating 4A.

 

[TyC84]

Not one player on the 2013 Rochester team was ineligible, none! A few players had money donated to them to cover some of the cost of the state championship ring the year before. So the IHSA picked one game as a punishment? Any one at that game, especially Ken Leonard will say that Rochester won the game on the field. Rochester finished that game with 3 defensive starters out and that was the only reason it ever got close. One kid never came back and another only played a few quarters the rest of the season. I am not saying Rochester would win any class other than 4A, but a few other there teams could have played with teams from another class

 

[TyC84]

If you beat the 5A champ, maybe you could compete at that level? Chatham won a 6A game or two after Rochester pounded them? I guess if you 40 point a team and they win games at that level, you couldn't compete?

 

[cornerrat]

Not one player on the 2013 Rochester team was ineligible, none! A few players had money donated to them to cover some of the cost of the state championship ring the year before. So the IHSA picked one game as a punishment? Any one at that game, especially Ken Leonard will say that Rochester won the game on the field. Rochester finished that game with 3 defensive starters out and that was the only reason it ever got close. One kid never came back and another only played a few quarters the rest of the season. I am not saying Rochester would win any class other than 4A, but a few other there teams could have played with teams from another class

All.... You miss the point once again. Rochester violated IHSA rules. The correct accounting of what's the word you used "punishment" never occurred. A good thing for the Rockets it should of been many more.... Ratsy

 

[cornerrat]

If you beat the 5A champ, maybe you could compete at that level? Chatham won a 6A game or two after Rochester pounded them? I guess if you 40 point a team and they win games at that level, you couldn't compete?

All.... Transitive logic (or lack of) while discussing football is not the road one should pursue in attempting to make a point. Ratsy

 

[HHSTigerFan]

HHS:

Once again, I will underline the fact I did not address you as HHSTigerFRAUD to keep our conversation civil and I will also ignore your stealth sarcasm to my post.

You mention statistics; and you classify them as "pesky."

What is with your pathological fixation on statistics?

Had public schools won all eight classes, would this have assuaged your anger? Had one Catholic school won a title and the others lost, would this cause you any despair?

I will resort to your mathematical worldview: Had Catholic schools, which represent 14 percent of IHSA membership, won less than 14 percent of titles, would you not appear vexed?

There has emerged an abundance of evidence to illustrate chicanery at public schools and you completely ignore this. I won't mention any school specifically, but there are some schools, all public, which have had highly-questionable transfers or students enrolled from out of district which have contributed handsomely to the school's athletic success and this appears meaningless to you.

You always appear to be concerned with a certain "bad" guy, but not others. You are never distressed with the scale of the violation, often undeniable, within public schools, preferring to bellow only about threats to public schools.

Your check against the phenomenon of Catholic schools' success, something you imply is some sort of chaotic disorder, is power applied from the IHSA onto Catholic schools exclusively.

The multiplier and the SF will never create the order you desire.

You are talking in what ifs, I am talking in what actually is going on..

 

[LHSTigers94]

If you beat the 5A champ, maybe you could compete at that level? Chatham won a 6A game or two after Rochester pounded them? I guess if you 40 point a team and they win games at that level, you couldn't compete?

Chatham won one and lost the second one. In my opinion, competing is Qtr's or better. Any team can win one game on any level. Winning 2 plus games is what the conversation is about.

 

[Cross Bones]

I agree with TyC, what about in 2014 when they beat Phillips like a drum? Phillips had already beaten/competed with larger suburban public and private schools that season. He makes a great argument for 2 classes. One closed boundary school class and one open boundary class.

After all if a 4A school can beat and 8A school then why shouldnt a 1A school be able to beat that 4A school?

 

[TyC84]

now this is crazy talk, the only part I liked is the "I agree with" part. I think Rochester over the past 5-7 seasons could beat many of the 5A and 6A playoff teams. And, maybe they could beat some of the 7A teams? I liked 2010's chances against many teams. It's another thing altogether to say win a class. I said they could be competitive against many. Depth and bigger schools just have a huge advantage in size and being more physical would take it's toll. But, for one game, Rochester could be competitive against many larger schools

 

[LHSTigers94]

I agree with TyC, what about in 2014 when they beat Phillips like a drum? Phillips had already beaten/competed with larger suburban public and private schools that season. He makes a great argument for 2 classes. One closed boundary school class and one open boundary class.

After all if a 4A school can beat and 8A school then why shouldnt a 1A school be able to beat that 4A school?

Phillips lost to a 7-4 Carmel team and Beat a 2-7 Naperville North team that year. Completely different phillips team that won state this year. I will add that they won a playoff game by 1 point that year as well.

 

[LHSTigers94]

now this is crazy talk, the only part I liked is the "I agree with" part. I think Rochester over the past 5-7 seasons could beat many of the 5A and 6A playoff teams. And, maybe they could beat some of the 7A teams? I liked 2010's chances against many teams. It's another thing altogether to say win a class. I said they could be competitive against many. Depth and bigger schools just have a huge advantage in size and being more physical would take it's toll. But, for one game, Rochester could be competitive against many larger schools

How would you rank this years team in terms of physical play? The couple times that I seen Rochester play they were FAR from physical. Most teams in 7A and 8A are very Physical

 

[TyC84]

Well this year this past year the defense was small and quick, but not very physical, 2014 was a little better. 2011 was very soft. 2010, 2012 and 2013 they were physical enough to play at higher levels. 2016-17 will swing back to the more physical teams. Size and depth really changes at Rochester from year to year, while offensive talent seems to stay on the high side.

 

[cornerrat]

Chatham won one and lost the second one. In my opinion, competing is Qtr's or better. Any team can win one game on any level. Winning 2 plus games is what the conversation is about.

All.... Correct, usually in the quarters one can start seeing a separation in overall talent. Ratsy

 

[LHSTigers94]

Well this year this past year the defense was small and quick, but not very physical, 2014 was a little better. 2011 was very soft. 2010, 2012 and 2013 they were physical enough to play at higher levels. 2016-17 will swing back to the more physical teams. Size and depth really changes at Rochester from year to year, while offensive talent seems to stay on the high side.

This years (2015) wasn't even close to being Physical. Althoff 145 lb Running backs were running through tackles. Again I respect Rochesters accomplishments but, I would also suggest that respect is given to the higher classes. I know people like to talk the hypothetical BS but, until you face the truly physical teams you wouldn't understand. It's a reason why most posters always comment about being healthy when discussing their season.