ADVERTISEMENT

The good ole days of 6 classes

JCHILLTOPPERS

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
10,370
793
113
"The 5A finale had its strange moments, too, chief among them a first-half sequence in which Providence had three fumbles and Mt. Carmel one, all within a total of five plays.

None of this fazed Mt. Carmel, which overwhelmed Providence (11-3) behind the option wizardry of quarterback Aaron Marshall and the running of Donald Dorham, who treated tacklers like swinging doors.

Joliet Catholic and Mt. Carmel were the class of this final six-class weekend. The debate, naturally, was about who's No. 1.

That one should be easy. Joliet Catholic, after all, beat Mt. Carmel 29-20 Sept. 1.

But that was seven weeks before Caravan coach Frank Lenti made Marshall, a transfer student, his QB starter. Since Marshall took over, Mt. Carmel (13-1) has won six games by an average score of 38.2-8.2.

No wonder Lenti joked that his players probably would take on Joliet Catholic in a parking lot if it meant getting a rematch"



I really can't believe, after at least pausing and thinking, that anyone could out argue me that 8 classes are better than 6 in Illinois. From better playoffs, to less early blowouts, to a more fair system, and lastly, to more true champions. I'm ready and armed - who really thinks 8 classes are better than 6? Anyone? Why? Based on what?
 
Allow me.

First, 6 was not all its cracked up to be. The old 5A was like the new 5A, but 4A was too. There was virtually zero overlap with the top publics and privates. The addition of 5-4 teams allowed teams to be more brave in their scheduling of non-conference games providing us with playoff caliber, even championship caliber games in the 1st few weeks of the season.

I'm afraid I have to disagree J Chill, 8 has proven better than 6 IMO
 
Good points! My favorite weeks in football are the non-con games because two of the best teams from any class will go ahead and play anybody. Although I do also really like the 6-class playoff system rather than the 8-class playoff system.

In the playoffs I also liked the 1-32 seeding in each class without geography being a factor. The one thing I cannot stand is seeing teams play another team a second time in the playoffs. Football only has a limited number of games so I would like to see secondary matchups minimized as much as possible.
 
Good points! My favorite weeks in football are the non-con games because two of the best teams from any class will go ahead and play anybody. Although I do also really like the 6-class playoff system rather than the 8-class playoff system.

In the playoffs I also liked the 1-32 seeding in each class without geography being a factor. The one thing I cannot stand is seeing teams play another team a second time in the playoffs. Football only has a limited number of games so I would like to see secondary matchups minimized as much as possible.
Yes, the 1-32 was definitely better, but that can be done in 8 classes. The rematches dont bother me if thats the way the chips fall in the 1-32 system, but not in this regionalized malarkey.
 
Allow me.

First, 6 was not all its cracked up to be. The old 5A was like the new 5A, but 4A was too. There was virtually zero overlap with the top publics and privates. The addition of 5-4 teams allowed teams to be more brave in their scheduling of non-conference games providing us with playoff caliber, even championship caliber games in the 1st few weeks of the season.

I'm afraid I have to disagree J Chill, 8 has proven better than 6 IMO

Bones, knew you would be quick to the draw.

I'll start with your best point: the 5-4 teams.

It's true, having some 5-4 teams in our playoffs has been a net-benefit. It's funny, too, because that was something i cried foul too with the news of the expansion...not the main reason, but a big one. However, time has shown us, enough 5-4 teams have performed outstandingly enough to look past their basically .500 season.

What's true about your post, however, is not just the point about the 5-4 teams, but the point about 5-4 teams when coupled with quality scheduling. When one looks past the numbers, you see it's not 5-4 teams that deserve a playoff shot. To the contrary, it is 5-4 teams that schedule well that deserve a shot.

Your ancillary point then is well stated. When the IHSA allows 5-4 teams in the playoffs, teams are encouraged...or perhaps in this whimper of a world we are in today...less scared of scheduling quality opponents - and that's a good thing.

But alas bones, your point - this your best point - is not an argument against 6 classes. Nope. Instead, it's an argument for allowing 5-4 teams in the playoffs; something we can still do with 6 classes.

There is absolutely no reason why with much effort at all, the 5-4 and 6-3 teams could not be lumped together, than sorted out. It would not be hard. In fact, i would suggest something as simple as playoff points/opponents wins/conference titles would suffice. Back in the day, 6-3 teams were not automatic bids themselves. Go back to 6 classes, 7-2 and better are auto-bids, the rest get in via a formula. Sorry, lose more than a 1/3 of your games, things get a little dicey. The fact is, most 6-3 teams will get in, the best 5-4 teams will get in (a la montini), and bad 6-3 and bad 5-4 teams get bounced.

Ohio ranks teams for the playoffs, why can't we?


As to your 5A point, you are wrong. You realize of course, just using JCA as the example (while plenty more would add to my argument), in 5A JCA played MC, Brook, WWS, Bloomington, Richards, any many more. Add in montini, SHG, Boyaln...the list goes on and on.

It's amazing to me, actually, that those who detest the privates and cry out advantage don't petition the IHSA for a return to 6 classes. It lumps all of the privates into the top classes (for the most part). That's indisputable. At worst, all of the privates would be in 4,5,6 with just a few in 4, most in 5, and some in 6.

Also, maybe rambl or 140 or MW can answer this....are there more or fewer teams competing now than 15 years ago?


Lastly, you still can't deny that with 8 classes, the titles are distilled. I like the idea of truer champions.

Bottom line: your argument is 3: My answers

1. 5-4 teams have competed well; Can do that in 6 classes too.
2. 5-4 allowance makes scheduling easier and more fan friendly; can do that in 6 classes too.
3. Class 4 and 5 are basically the same now as they were. ok so it's a draw at worse.

But in 6 classes you get truer champions.
 
Bones, knew you would be quick to the draw.

I'll start with your best point: the 5-4 teams.

It's true, having some 5-4 teams in our playoffs has been a net-benefit. It's funny, too, because that was something i cried foul too with the news of the expansion...not the main reason, but a big one. However, time has shown us, enough 5-4 teams have performed outstandingly enough to look past their basically .500 season.

What's true about your post, however, is not just the point about the 5-4 teams, but the point about 5-4 teams when coupled with quality scheduling. When one looks past the numbers, you see it's not 5-4 teams that deserve a playoff shot. To the contrary, it is 5-4 teams that schedule well that deserve a shot.

Your ancillary point then is well stated. When the IHSA allows 5-4 teams in the playoffs, teams are encouraged...or perhaps in this whimper of a world we are in today...less scared of scheduling quality opponents - and that's a good thing.

But alas bones, your point - this your best point - is not an argument against 6 classes. Nope. Instead, it's an argument for allowing 5-4 teams in the playoffs; something we can still do with 6 classes.

There is absolutely no reason why with much effort at all, the 5-4 and 6-3 teams could not be lumped together, than sorted out. It would not be hard. In fact, i would suggest something as simple as playoff points/opponents wins/conference titles would suffice. Back in the day, 6-3 teams were not automatic bids themselves. Go back to 6 classes, 7-2 and better are auto-bids, the rest get in via a formula. Sorry, lose more than a 1/3 of your games, things get a little dicey. The fact is, most 6-3 teams will get in, the best 5-4 teams will get in (a la montini), and bad 6-3 and bad 5-4 teams get bounced.

Ohio ranks teams for the playoffs, why can't we?

I dont even know generally that its the 5-4 teams making the playoffs, just that it emboldens teams to schedule riskier. We had some PC teams, Montini once, LWE once, and MC once making serious noise at 5-4, but I think the leeway just makes schools braver, schools that likely arent finishing 5-4 anyways.

I don't think we'd be able to "sort it out" I prefer to not handle the situation subjectively. Wins and playoff points it is. Ohio? I read about their system but didnt spend too much time on it. It didn't make its process apparently clear and does anyone here trust the IHSA with murky numbers?

As to your 5A point, you are wrong. You realize of course, just using JCA as the example (while plenty more would add to my argument), in 5A JCA played MC, Brook, WWS, Bloomington, Richards, any many more. Add in montini, SHG, Boyaln...the list goes on and on.

It's amazing to me, actually, that those who detest the privates and cry out advantage don't petition the IHSA for a return to 6 classes. It lumps all of the privates into the top classes (for the most part). That's indisputable. At worst, all of the privates would be in 4,5,6 with just a few in 4, most in 5, and some in 6.

Also, maybe rambl or 140 or MW can answer this....are there more or fewer teams competing now than 15 years ago?

I'll give you Richards. Bolingbrook and Bloomington back then would be young upstarts who were goodish in 5A. Meanwhile the best schools, and you can attest to this, would have been your NN's, WWS (which made its way to 6A), Lincoln Way etc. Believe me, I thought we were on that level, but when I transferred I was able to see the clear difference between 6A and 5A. We could barely be on the field with 6A Andrew back then. Lincoln Way beat them to death every time.


Lastly, you still can't deny that with 8 classes, the titles are distilled. I like the idea of truer champions.

Bottom line: your argument is 3: My answers

1. 5-4 teams have competed well; Can do that in 6 classes too.
2. 5-4 allowance makes scheduling easier and more fan friendly; can do that in 6 classes too.
3. Class 4 and 5 are basically the same now as they were. ok so it's a draw at worse.

But in 6 classes you get truer champions.
Ehhh dont remember too many 5-4's making it with 6 classes.
4 with a hefty multiplier would be a better argument. We just combine classes and add another playoff round.
 
I dont even know generally that its the 5-4 teams making the playoffs, just that it emboldens teams to schedule riskier. We had some PC teams, Montini once, LWE once, and MC once making serious noise at 5-4, but I think the leeway just makes schools braver, schools that likely arent finishing 5-4 anyways.

I don't think we'd be able to "sort it out" I prefer to not handle the situation subjectively. Wins and playoff points it is. Ohio? I read about their system but didnt spend too much time on it. It didn't make its process apparently clear and does anyone here trust the IHSA with murky numbers?



I'll give you Richards. Bolingbrook and Bloomington back then would be young upstarts who were goodish in 5A. Meanwhile the best schools, and you can attest to this, would have been your NN's, WWS (which made its way to 6A), Lincoln Way etc. Believe me, I thought we were on that level, but when I transferred I was able to see the clear difference between 6A and 5A. We could barely be on the field with 6A Andrew back then. Lincoln Way beat them to death every time.



Ehhh dont remember too many 5-4's making it with 6 classes.
4 with a hefty multiplier would be a better argument. We just combine classes and add another playoff round.

I think 4 with a multiplier would be ok, too. But i have a huge problem with a multiplier, and frankly, using my legal opinion (which I paid a lot of money fore) it's one that if some schools used to challenge, I am confident they would win. Simply put, the multiplier does not treat all schools equal. see below.

The multiplier exists or is justified because it assumes only privates have an advantage. One assumes that because privates can draw from areas larger than public districts, privates have the ability to draw in better players from a larger area.

however, the multiplier, as a static number, works - or is fair - if a similar number of kids exist in all of the 30 miles around private schools. For some reason, SHG is multiplied by the same number as is St. Rita, when I am sure that the number of high school eligible kids near St. Rita crushes the number of high school kids eligible around SHG.

that's one reason i don't like the multiplier, and why i would not include it in any system I created. Though i would accept it 1000xs before accepting the most worst idea of bumping a team up due to a prior season's success. LOL what a dumb idea.
 
I think 4 with a multiplier would be ok, too. But i have a huge problem with a multiplier, and frankly, using my legal opinion (which I paid a lot of money fore) it's one that if some schools used to challenge, I am confident they would win. Simply put, the multiplier does not treat all schools equal. see below.

The multiplier exists or is justified because it assumes only privates have an advantage. One assumes that because privates can draw from areas larger than public districts, privates have the ability to draw in better players from a larger area.

however, the multiplier, as a static number, works - or is fair - if a similar number of kids exist in all of the 30 miles around private schools. For some reason, SHG is multiplied by the same number as is St. Rita, when I am sure that the number of high school eligible kids near St. Rita crushes the number of high school kids eligible around SHG.

that's one reason i don't like the multiplier, and why i would not include it in any system I created. Though i would accept it 1000xs before accepting the most worst idea of bumping a team up due to a prior season's success. LOL what a dumb idea.
Neither do the unequal enrollment practices.
But I think the same number of playoff eligible schools and top privates with top publics is the only way to go. You want true champs right?
 
I think 4 with a multiplier would be ok, too. But i have a huge problem with a multiplier, and frankly, using my legal opinion (which I paid a lot of money fore) it's one that if some schools used to challenge, I am confident they would win. Simply put, the multiplier does not treat all schools equal. see below.

The multiplier exists or is justified because it assumes only privates have an advantage. One assumes that because privates can draw from areas larger than public districts, privates have the ability to draw in better players from a larger area.

however, the multiplier, as a static number, works - or is fair - if a similar number of kids exist in all of the 30 miles around private schools. For some reason, SHG is multiplied by the same number as is St. Rita, when I am sure that the number of high school eligible kids near St. Rita crushes the number of high school kids eligible around SHG.

that's one reason i don't like the multiplier, and why i would not include it in any system I created. Though i would accept it 1000xs before accepting the most worst idea of bumping a team up due to a prior season's success. LOL what a dumb idea.


Have to remember SR is within 6.5 miles of Marist and BR is in the middle.
 
I love what Ohio does they have weekly computer rankings- So a solid 5-4 could get in over a garbage 7-2
 
Dean,

I like it too and have been giving you all the PIAA District 3 formula used for the calculation for the last several years. 4 classes and move on, 8 is just silly.
 
Dean,

I like it too and have been giving you all the PIAA District 3 formula used for the calculation for the last several years. 4 classes and move on, 8 is just silly.
My memory is getting bad, either from the cognac or getting trucked while on hamburger D, but I think you were going to simulate a playoff class using the formula for us. Or we may have outsourced it to guerin...
 
Running that formula by hand would take hours.

The biggest flaw I noticed is a win over Montini by an 8a school would be less than a win over say Leyden using that formula
 
Running that formula by hand would take hours.

The biggest flaw I noticed is a win over Montini by an 8a school would be less than a win over say Leyden using that formula
MC,
It would only have a negative impact if they lost. Conversely it would have rewarded Montini with a Bonus had they won. Then again if we go to 4 classes they are all likely in 4A and it's a wash. Finally teams in PA wear playing in the top class as a badge of honor, rather than bitching about having to play up!
 
I am appointing myself Czar of the playoffs and am just going to arbitrarily put teams in a class based on who they play, enrollment etc. I am keeping things to 6 classes.
 
I have my own computer ratings system in head I will use and will just seed however I want.
 
LOL

I wish there could be a real panel to classify and seed

go 4 classes Dean
 
ADVERTISEMENT