Would a Conference containing a mix of both Public & Private Schools work?

[stonedlizard]

That's a good question. Would imagine there's people for and against it. I'm sure the community around those 60 schools that won something in the first 3 years, having never won before, are all for it. I'm also sure there's some folks used to winning championships every year that may be unhappy. It's the most populous state in the country and the only thing I'd bet they're close to a universal opinion on is their lack of water. Interviewees in the article I linked acknowledged that it's not perfect, but better than their prior system and also allowed for continuous improvement without separating publics and privates. Seems like a solid mindset to me.

I think we're getting caught up in extreme failure examples of both the current system and whatever a "competitive equity" based system could look like. Would imagine one could structure a system in such a way that the only change is essentially bumping up the top 7-10 perennial private & public powers in 5-8A into the same class. Really, one could structure it anyway.

I think we can agree that the current system can be improved upon. Where you see that improvement coming by means of separation, I chose to look to alternative methods. My reasoning, football, high school athletics in general, can mean so much more than winning state championships. I feel they can serve as a foundational tool to understand the ways of the world after high school/college. Life isn't' always fair. Hard work does ultimately pay off. Hold yourself to a higher standard. Dedication, perseverance, bla bla bla. There's a reason humans have chosen to compete in sports for thousands of years. There's a reason our economic system is based on competition. To turn around and teach our kids that "it's OK, you won't have to play against that team because they have kids from farther away than we do" or because "no, you can't play them because they have more students even though you think you can beat them" is to fail to prepare them for world after 18 years old. I want to hear more "why can't we beat them?" and less "why do I have to play them?" That's why I would hate to see a split, and that's why I applaud a state as large as California for trying to find a way to do the same.

 

[stonedlizard]

@Cross Bones I'd encourage you to think of it somewhere along the lines of march madness. Simply making the tournament is an honor in itself. In this case, let's say there's 8 tournaments with 8A being the highest quality of competition. Simply qualifying for the highest level is the ultimate honor, a defacto "top 32 in state" finish, and likely the way most schools would begin to classify success.

You think your 2015 Tri-Valley team wouldn't relish that opportunity?

 

[Cross Bones]

I have acknowledged that it would be cool to have such a class with all the biggest baddest teams. Such things are fun to speculate on. However, I am a pragmatist and I just don't see how this is implemented and how it works in the real world. We cannot use California because they don't even have a real playoff and state championship... they have a bowl game like how college did it before the playoff.

Maybe if someone could post the system of how this would work, or even just who would be in each class from the supposedly great schools class that wouldnt have any blowouts, to the really awful schools class then I could understand how it would work. But until then.

 

[stonedlizard]

I have acknowledged that it would be cool to have such a class with all the biggest baddest teams. Such things are fun to speculate on. However, I am a pragmatist and I just don't see how this is implemented and how it works in the real world. We cannot use California because they don't even have a real playoff and state championship... they have a bowl game like how college did it before the playoff.

Maybe if someone could post the system of how this would work, or even just who would be in each class from the supposedly great schools class that wouldnt have any blowouts, to the really awful schools class then I could understand how it would work. But until then.

Fair enough, I can absolutely appreciate the pragmatic. Perhaps I'll take a stab in the next few weeks.

 

[ramblinman]

A public school of 350 has ZERO chance of winning a class with the highest enrollment public schools. It could be their class of a century and they would still have ZERO chance of winning. Maybe they have a team that can be competitive against the bottom the largest class, but then how is that right? Really imagine this, in 2015 you're Tri-Valley enrollment of 325 and 9-0 and due to @stonedlizard and @ramblinman's "competitive playoff format" you get a 5-4 Bolingbrook with 3500 kids fresh off of a win vs Homewood-Flossmoor. This cannot make sense to you. And it would make equally less sense to drop The Beloved down to a class with Tri-Valley just so they can have a chance to win after an awful regular season..

I don't know about stonelizard's format, but I'm not suggesting that a pubilc school of 350 would ever be playing in the highest class. However, I am talking about schools like Bradley, Montini, MC, ESL, GBW, etc. playing in such a class. I am talking about devising a system that attempts to identify and classify schools by competitive level, not by the 32 largest schools, and the next 32 largest, and the next all the way down to the smallest.

And, AGAIN, it isn't about dropping schools down to give them a chance to win. It's about moving schools up AND down in an effort to even out the competitive level in each class.

It's frustrating to argue with you, Bones. On the one hand, you are very smart, and you have the capacity to argue intellectually, Unfortunately, capacity does not equal reality (just like Chicago Christian's capacity to recruit from far and wide does not make it an athletic powerhouse). You argue like a teenager. Seriously. You either go for the cheap sound bite type of pithy comment, or you search for the most extreme example that will likely never happen in a gajillion freaking years, and you can't get past it.

Why would we have provisions that limit going up classes? What is going "up" in class when the classes are defined by "competitiveness" and not enrollment?

The provisions limiting how many classes a school is moved up or down would be a in place specifically to avoid the one in a gajillion situations that seem to be such a deal breaker for you. How would classification decisions be made? Again, that's putting the cart before the horse. In a previous post in this thread, I provided a very general idea of what factors might be used to help determine competitive level. Why should I argue those with you when you don't think the current system is flawed enough to warrant a new approach?

How do you decide who gets to be in the "Super Awesome" class and who gets to be in the "Crappy" class?

This is what I mean about pithy comment. If it would make you feel better, I agree to keep your 1A through 8A nomenclature in the new system.

Last week Bradley spanked Lincoln Way East. Earlier in the year LWE spanked Bolingbrook. Bradley beat Bolingbrook by going for the 2pt conversion with a minute left in the game. Blowouts happen, even between equally matched schools. Its not avoidable. A mismatch is when you have public schools with vastly different enrollments. Yes, some programs are awful even if they have a large enrollment. The same way a BMW and a Renault are both foreign cars, but one is awful while the other is the ultimate driving machine. We can't compare Renaults to bicycles in order to make the car look better.

In the playoff system that you are defending, Bradley doesn't even get classified in the same class with LWE and the Brook!

Besides, playoffs are different from the regular season. The way the playoffs are currently designed is that similarly sized schools are put in the same class, and then they are seeded and bracketed in an attempt to have the most competitive teams play the least competitive in each round. ALL I am talking about is to compose the classes in such as way that the competitive discrepancy between the most competitive school and the least competitive school in each class is made as small as it can be.

Here's a some real life scenarios that refute your point from some recent Bolingbrook seasons

2012
week 7 Oct 5 7:30 L 6 13 H Orland Park (Sandburg) 7-3 3406.00
week 10 Oct 26 7:00 W 39 7 A Orland Park (Sandburg) 7-3 3406.00

2006
week 9 L 7 17 5-5 *Orland Park (Sandburg) 3771.00
week 10 W 40 0 5-5 Orland Park (Sandburg) 3771.00

Twice we faced the a team 2x in the season losing the 1st time and blowing them out the 2nd time. How is the blowout due to non-competitive playoffs? Blowouts happen.

In 2006, Sandburg was 4-4 going into that week 9 game with a 7-1 Brook. It was a situation where Bolingbrook was fighting only for a higher seed, and Sandburg was fighting to qualify for the playoffs. Who knows the backstories taking place in a situation like that. Is it possible in your world that Sandburg might have been just a tad more motivated to win that game than Bolingbrook? Maybe Ivlow decided to rest his better or banged up players. Maybe the players he did play slacked off or lacked focus. When it came time for the playoffs, and when both teams were in a do or die situation, the #4 seed Raiders blew out the #13 seed Eagles in round one.

in the greatest season in IL football history, 2011, we got to play DGS in the qtrs. A DGS fresh off of tremendous beating of Rice. A DGS who we had played 5x the previous 4 seasons including a playoff game with no margin of victory being greater than 7 points. The 2011 game was 47-3 in the 3rd qtr. Now I am sure we both know that anecdotes are not data. However, I think we can agree that blowouts even in later rounds of playoffs are common enough that it is data.

There have even been blowouts in title games. I get that, and I'm not trying to build a system to avoid all blowouts. Rather, I am trying to suggest a system that MINIMIZES the frequency of playoff blowouts. The current system is seeded and bracketed in such a way so as to practically ensure early round blowouts. I'm not saying we should eliminate seeding and bracketing. Rather, I'm saying we should change the way the classes are composed. If we are going to seed and bracket based on competitive level, then the classes should be composed in the same fashion.

Really? You think Champaign Central would go a few rounds in 8A? I see no purpose in dropping a marginal school with 4000 kids down into a class with schools of 1000 so the 4000 can win. That championship doesnt mean much.

If Champaign Central were one of the top 32 teams in Illinois, why wouldn't they be able to go a few rounds in the top class? AGAIN, it's not about creating classes so the marginal large schools can win. Stop saying that. It's about finding the best competitive fit for all schools.

 

[doctor_d]

Lots of interesting ideas in this thread.
I personally think I'd like to see the following rules...

1.5 multiplier and 30 mile radius for open enrollment schools
1.0 multiplier for publics

Take that number as baseline, then use "football enrollment" for playoff classification

Reverse success factor aka waiver to eliminate the multiplier for open enrollment schools that haven't qualified in 2 or 3 year period.

 

[mullin17]

There are rumblings that Marian of the Heights is considering a move to the Southland Conference.

 

[Cross Bones]

I don't know about stonelizard's format, but I'm not suggesting that a pubilc school of 350 would ever be playing in the highest class. However, I am talking about schools like Bradley, Montini, MC, ESL, GBW, etc. playing in such a class. I am talking about devising a system that attempts to identify and classify schools by competitive level, not by the 32 largest schools, and the next 32 largest, and the next all the way down to the smallest.

If classes are not enrollment based then what would stop a school of 350 from being in "the top class"? This is the problem you are running into, you want it to not be about enrollment and then to be about enrollment because you know it would be absurd for it not to be about enrollment.

Why would Bradley be in the top class, what standard are you using? I understand youre talking about devising a system, but I'm saying that system can't be devised reasonably.

And, AGAIN, it isn't about dropping schools down to give them a chance to win. It's about moving schools up AND down in an effort to even out the competitive level in each class.

Same reason I dont like the SF... in order to move someone "up" you have to drop someone who doesnt deserve to be dropped.

It's frustrating to argue with you, Bones.

Thanks

On the one hand, you are very smart, and you have the capacity to argue intellectually,

Thanks

Unfortunately, capacity does not equal reality (just like Chicago Christian's capacity to recruit from far and wide does not make it an athletic powerhouse). You argue like a teenager. Seriously. You either go for the cheap sound bite type of pithy comment, or you search for the most extreme example that will likely never happen in a gajillion freaking years, and you can't get past it.

I do believe it is reality. No one is arguing that Chicago Christian is a powerhouse, just like no one is arguing that Morton is a powerhouse despite approaching 10K in enrollment. Pithy--I like that one, I never heard the word that fits perfectly what I try to do, thanks again.

As for the examples I give, I try to give a wide swath to imagine; some at the extremes (because I really cannot see how theyre ruled out under this system) and some not unlikely at all like the few I mention a little lower.

The provisions limiting how many classes a school is moved up or down would be a in place specifically to avoid the one in a gajillion situations that seem to be such a deal breaker for you. How would classification decisions be made? Again, that's putting the cart before the horse. In a previous post in this thread, I provided a very general idea of what factors might be used to help determine competitive level. Why should I argue those with you when you don't think the current system is flawed enough to warrant a new approach?

Yes, you list some things to take into account, enrollment being one of them. The problem here is that you talk of moving teams up and down in class, but the classes cant even be defined because you dont have a system to define them. Where are you moving Montini from and to where? That is the horse, not the cart.

And I do think the system is flawed enough to warrant a change. The change is a split because I agree with you. Enrollment is an awful way to classify open enrollment schools in comparison to boundried schools. Public schools in 5A have ZERO chance of winning in 8A, Montini on the other hand... Naz? JCA? SHG?

This is what I mean about pithy comment. If it would make you feel better, I agree to keep your 1A through 8A nomenclature in the new system.

No, it doesnt sound good, but essentially its what it is. If you take the perceived best 32 teams, that is the class of really good teams. What remains when we get to the 8th class? All the schools losing 0-60. Except blowouts will happen there too.

In the playoff system that you are defending, Bradley doesn't even get classified in the same class with LWE and the Brook!

Why would The Brook be in a class with teams they are not competitive with? Remember LWE beat the brakes off of them.

Besides, playoffs are different from the regular season. The way the playoffs are currently designed is that similarly sized schools are put in the same class, and then they are seeded and bracketed in an attempt to have the most competitive teams play the least competitive in each round. ALL I am talking about is to compose the classes in such as way that the competitive discrepancy between the most competitive school and the least competitive school in each class is made as small as it can be.

The playoffs are set up to reward the schools with the best regular season to end up in the championship game (in 8A and 7A).

In 2006, Sandburg was 4-4 going into that week 9 game with a 7-1 Brook. It was a situation where Bolingbrook was fighting only for a higher seed, and Sandburg was fighting to qualify for the playoffs. Who knows the backstories taking place in a situation like that. Is it possible in your world that Sandburg might have been just a tad more motivated to win that game than Bolingbrook? Maybe Ivlow decided to rest his better or banged up players. Maybe the players he did play slacked off or lacked focus. When it came time for the playoffs, and when both teams were in a do or die situation, the #4 seed Raiders blew out the #13 seed Eagles in round one.

The problem is that theres no way to say that Sandburg was not on a competitive level. Imagine a system that says a school is not on a competitive level with a team it already beat. Do you want to defend that? Think about all the criticism you lob at the DSR, imagine having to defend saying a team cant compete with a team it beat already.

There have even been blowouts in title games. I get that, and I'm not trying to build a system to avoid all blowouts. Rather, I am trying to suggest a system that MINIMIZES the frequency of playoff blowouts. The current system is seeded and bracketed in such a way so as to practically ensure early round blowouts. I'm not saying we should eliminate seeding and bracketing. Rather, I'm saying we should change the way the classes are composed. If we are going to seed and bracket based on competitive level, then the classes should be composed in the same fashion.

And I am saying it is impossible to do that and maintain the integrity of the playoffs.

If Champaign Central were one of the top 32 teams in Illinois, why wouldn't they be able to go a few rounds in the top class? AGAIN, it's not about creating classes so the marginal large schools can win. Stop saying that. It's about finding the best competitive fit for all schools.

You said the 5A semifinalists would beat the bottom 30% of 8A. I dont think last year that Champaign Central beats us (one of the bottom 8A teams). (This year, yeah probably) And again, how are we determining that they are or arent a top 32?

 

[anon_4vszfu35bv677]

So 127 replies and thousands of views to say essentially


No.

 

[ramblinman]

If classes are not enrollment based then what would stop a school of 350 from being in "the top class"? This is the problem you are running into, you want it to not be about enrollment and then to be about enrollment because you know it would be absurd for it not to be about enrollment.

I want it to be about competitive level. Right now, it's based on enrollment and nothing else. I am fine with a classification system that would include enrollment as one of several factors influencing classification. There would be a formula that includes inputs such as enrollment, overall record, record against playoff qualifiers, playoff points, etc. and those inputs would be weighted and crunched to arrive at classification. I'm not going to go any farther than to say that determining competitive level would be based on a formula because determining exactly what that formula would be would require data crunching that I am neither qualified nor have the time to do.

I understand youre talking about devising a system, but I'm saying that system can't be devised reasonably.

I know you are saying that it can't be, but you really don't know that it can't be. I'm saying it can be, but I really don't know that it can be. Neither of us would know for sure until we get there. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, you list some things to take into account, enrollment being one of them. The problem here is that you talk of moving teams up and down in class, but the classes cant even be defined because you dont have a system to define them. Where are you moving Montini from and to where? That is the horse, not the cart.

I'm conceptually talking about a new system. Getting all caught up in saying that I am moving Montini up from where to where is getting way down in the weeds. Suffice it to say that if a team like Montini is among the top 32 teams in the state, then I would think you would love to see them play in the most competitive class. So would I. Why can't you just be happy with that? Instead you are focused on a level of detail that is not the horse but is truly the cart. And, the difference between you and me is that you want Montini to be in the top class with other private schools, and I want them there with ALL schools.

And I do think the system is flawed enough to warrant a change. The change is a split because I agree with you. Enrollment is an awful way to classify open enrollment schools in comparison to boundried schools. Public schools in 5A have ZERO chance of winning in 8A, Montini on the other hand... Naz? JCA? SHG?

If enrollment is used to influence classification in the system I suggest, It's highly unlikely that 5A public schools would ever be in the top competitive class in the system I am suggesting. Again, you go to such extremes to prove whatever point you think you have, and it makes you look bad.

Let's say that there's a split and the private schools get placed in their own division. Do you move open enrollment publics in with them as well? Let's say you do, just for the sake of discussion, thereby creating two divisions. One is boundaried publics, and the other is nonboundaried publics and privates.

If you think that you can have classes within your boundaried division be classified by enrollment only and all your competitive mismatch problems will be solved, you are sorely kidding yourself. In your largest division, you will always have boundaried schools like HF, LWE, Palatine, Stevenson, etc playing first round games against boundaried schools like Taft, Leyden, Bloom, Plalnfield South, etc.

You are mentally stuck on wanting to classify by one means (enrollment) and bracket your classes by another (record/competitive level), and it just doesn't work well at all. If you divide boundaried from nonboundaried, the classifications will still be flawed for the very same reason as the current system is flawed.

You are also mentally stuck on the boundaried vs nonboundaried thing. For the sake of argument, let's say the privates leave the IHSA. What do you do with the nonboundaried public schools? Do you still stick them in their own division? If not, why not?

You said the 5A semifinalists would beat the bottom 30% of 8A. I dont think last year that Champaign Central beats us (one of the bottom 8A teams). (This year, yeah probably) And again, how are we determining that they are or arent a top 32?

You are picking the weakest of the 2015 5A semifinalists (St. Laurence, Naz, CC and LWW) from last year to use as your example. No surprise there. Regardless, I do think that Central could have beaten a good number of 8A qualifiers last year. Could they beat the 9 weakest? Maybe not. But I could see them beating the likes of Curie, PF South, West Aurora, etc. I could also see a 2015 semifinalist team like Naz or LWW beating MORE than 30% of last year's 8A field. Could I imagine a formula that would put last year's Naz or LWW squads in the top 32 or 64 (instead of a 5A class of the 129th through 160th largest qualifying schools)? You betcha.

 

[go dogz]

Actually, I think classification by enrollment only is the culprit, not the key. I could see a system where enrollment is one of several weighted factors used to determine classification. But, enrollment alone is what we have now, and I contend it is not working well at all.
Dublin Ireland
Whoa there. Although I would like to see how LA would stack up against tough opponents from other states, I disagree with your contention that they SHOULD do that. Maybe they don't want to do that. Maybe all that travel and national limelight is not who they want to be. Look, I know why you are saying what you are saying, but Loyola's current success is temporary because all success is temporary at this level. Don't believe me? Just ask JCA and MC this year. Even THE STREAK at MS has come to an end. I remember back in the 70s when everyone in the CCL wanted MC to be their homecoming opponent because they were an easy W.
Is Loyola a super dynasty? Time will tell, I suppose. My contention is that one title and two runner up finishes in five years does not equate to a super dynasty.
But, let's talk about super dynasties anyway. Did you push back with Rochester when they won five straight titles recently? How about MS with their three straight? How about ESL with six titles and two runner up finishes in a 12 year period? How about WWS with four titles and two runner up finishes in an eight year period followed shortly thereafter by three titles and two runner up finishes in a six year period?

My point is that folks shouldn't reach conclusions or find solutions with respect to schools because of their temporary athletic success ...or lack thereof. I think it should be allowed to run its course.
that is my point:
while you are good you play into the top tier(s). when the cycle ends you will lose down. only way it works. and yes, right now the current way we are classified(enrollment) more of the private schools would be in the top tier. but, the tier groupings would also separate quickly the schools while/riding those cycles.
all schools would be involved so yes, Rochester, shg, esl, any school that is on their run would be forwarded to the top tier.(by winning their way in) and next year if you cannot play with the best. you would be dropped down accordingly into the lower tier(s).


now I am going to get way off topic
take the next step into this.
create 4 quads: north, south, east, west
each has it's own tier groupings, yes tier1, tier2, tier3, tier4
the top tier1 schools will playing top tier1 schools, tier2 schools play tier2 etc.
by week 6/7/8(the schools are playing ranked tier teams for ranking in each tier).
you would then find the top athletes from each area.
you can then have your 4 top ranked tier1 schools play last 4weeks other state ranked teams.

after graduation: can either go to college(no scholarships) or get drafted by a professional club and placed into midmajor or major by the club.

because to the next step for these players:
midmajor a (2)year. once you get to this grouping these players can be classified as professional ranks( carry a $35,000 -$45000) salary contract. playing/developing for their pro team. and can be moved into majors when developed.
major (2)year basically like farm system ( $50,000 - $100,00 contracts) and draft eligible into the pros.
but, at this point these players will know what it takes to play pro, or go back to school. and they have the dollars to be able to pay for a degree.
because we force way to many kids into college just to play for a university. most do not take the advantage of getting a degree anyway. and we lose ALLOT of talented players because they do not have what it takes to be in university anyway. currently they get rolled back into community colleges until they can get a grade to be entered into a university. many many nfl players now have not been able to play and graduate. most nowadays come way of 2yr colleges that are in reality football factories. until they can declare into the draft.
you would always be able to walkon/tryout into the midmajor or major groups just like they do in most professional farm systems.
now we need the means of breaking down a billion industry and dollars into creating a new industry. the nfl should want farm clubs for evaluating/grooming top players of the future.
this will ultimately lower tuition cost for all students because the universities will no have to create club med settings as schools. no need for million dollar facilities/stadiums etc.,
10 million dollar salaries coaches and staffs.

 

[Cross Bones]

I want it to be about competitive level. Right now, it's based on enrollment and nothing else. I am fine with a classification system that would include enrollment as one of several factors influencing classification. There would be a formula that includes inputs such as enrollment, overall record, record against playoff qualifiers, playoff points, etc. and those inputs would be weighted and crunched to arrive at classification. I'm not going to go any farther than to say that determining competitive level would be based on a formula because determining exactly what that formula would be would require data crunching that I am neither qualified nor have the time to do.



I know you are saying that it can't be, but you really don't know that it can't be. I'm saying it can be, but I really don't know that it can be. Neither of us would know for sure until we get there. Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.



I'm conceptually talking about a new system. Getting all caught up in saying that I am moving Montini up from where to where is getting way down in the weeds. Suffice it to say that if a team like Montini is among the top 32 teams in the state, then I would think you would love to see them play in the most competitive class. So would I. Why can't you just be happy with that? Instead you are focused on a level of detail that is not the horse but is truly the cart. And, the difference between you and me is that you want Montini to be in the top class with other private schools, and I want them there with ALL schools.



If enrollment is used to influence classification in the system I suggest, It's highly unlikely that 5A public schools would ever be in the top competitive class in the system I am suggesting. Again, you go to such extremes to prove whatever point you think you have, and it makes you look bad.

Let's say that there's a split and the private schools get placed in their own division. Do you move open enrollment publics in with them as well? Let's say you do, just for the sake of discussion, thereby creating two divisions. One is boundaried publics, and the other is nonboundaried publics and privates.

If you think that you can have classes within your boundaried division be classified by enrollment only and all your competitive mismatch problems will be solved, you are sorely kidding yourself. In your largest division, you will always have boundaried schools like HF, LWE, Palatine, Stevenson, etc playing first round games against boundaried schools like Taft, Leyden, Bloom, Plalnfield South, etc.

You are mentally stuck on wanting to classify by one means (enrollment) and bracket your classes by another (record/competitive level), and it just doesn't work well at all. If you divide boundaried from nonboundaried, the classifications will still be flawed for the very same reason as the current system is flawed.

You are also mentally stuck on the boundaried vs nonboundaried thing. For the sake of argument, let's say the privates leave the IHSA. What do you do with the nonboundaried public schools? Do you still stick them in their own division? If not, why not?



You are picking the weakest of the 2015 5A semifinalists (St. Laurence, Naz, CC and LWW) from last year to use as your example. No surprise there. Regardless, I do think that Central could have beaten a good number of 8A qualifiers last year. Could they beat the 9 weakest? Maybe not. But I could see them beating the likes of Curie, PF South, West Aurora, etc. I could also see a 2015 semifinalist team like Naz or LWW beating MORE than 30% of last year's 8A field. Could I imagine a formula that would put last year's Naz or LWW squads in the top 32 or 64 (instead of a 5A class of the 97th through 128th largest qualifying schools)? You betcha.

Not to make an argumentum ad populum, but as far as I know every state uses enrollment to classify. Some have some modifiers for private schools and success. You maintain that 5A public schools will not end up in the top class, but somehow Montini would. For example, last year LWW had an enrollment of 1287 while Montini had a multiplied enrollment of 1193. Forget that you are against a multiplier, how do you propose you get Montini into the top class that somehow doesnt allow LWW into the top class? This just doesnt make a bit of sense.

If you are placing different rules on private schools than you are public schools you are conceding the argument.

Seeding? I am fine with how schools are seeded now. Everyone knows the system and it's objective. We don't need subjective people playing politics with it. Sure that means every now and then you get a 9-0 Whitney Young, but so what? Someone will get a 8-1 Glenbrook school or the equivalent. Same thing.

Yes, the open boundried public schools are an issue and I havent decided what I would do with them yet. They may need their own class. Or maybe just leave them multiplied. Maybe they go with other open enrollment schools since they will have a competitive level classification system.

 

[ramblinman]

Not to make an argumentum ad populum, but as far as I know every state uses enrollment to classify. Some have some modifiers for private schools and success. You maintain that 5A public schools will not end up in the top class, but somehow Montini would. For example, last year LWW had an enrollment of 1287 while Montini had a multiplied enrollment of 1193. Forget that you are against a multiplier, how do you propose you get Montini into the top class that somehow doesnt allow LWW into the top class? This just doesnt make a bit of sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to make sense. Come on Bones, are you REALLY stuck on this?

Yes, I did say that Montini would be in the most competitive class if they are among the top 32 schools in the state. I also said that it would be rare for 5A sized schools to play in that top class. And it would be! Lastly I talked about last year's LWW and Naz squads playing in classes with the top 32 OR 64 teams in the state... as opposed to your way which has them in a class with the 129th through 160th largest playoff qualifiers in the state. Does it really matter whether they are in the top class or second from the top class? The bottom line is that even you know that all three schools were among the top 64 teams in the state last year. Why are you so insistent that they compete with similarly sized, but much weaker, opponents? What's so right about that?

If you are placing different rules on private schools than you are public schools you are conceding the argument.

Unlike you, I want to treat all schools equally. I want all schools to be subject to the same rules.

Seeding? I am fine with how schools are seeded now. Everyone knows the system and it's objective. We don't need subjective people playing politics with it. Sure that means every now and then you get a 9-0 Whitney Young, but so what? Someone will get a 8-1 Glenbrook school or the equivalent. Same thing..

I am fine with how schools are seeded as well. I'm not fine with the schools that are being seeded.

 

[g8rphan19]

Ramblinman - kind of ironic you mention you want all schools to be to be treated equal yet all schools cant recruit a 30 mile radius of their school. Also works for you since your 30 mile radius includes most of chicago

 

[ramblinman]

Ramblinman - kind of ironic you mention you want all schools to be to be treated equal yet all schools cant recruit a 30 mile radius of their school. Also works for you since your 30 mile radius includes most of chicago

It also includes a healthy swath of Lake Michigan. Why should a private school like St Joe get to have more prospects in their radius than Loyola? I think our radius should be like 50 miles at least because we are only about 4 miles from Lake Michigan, and we are not able to enroll any of the fish that reside there. It's not Loyola's fault that we are geographically challenged. Fair is fair, don't you think?

 

[4Anorth]

Im sure JCA and Providence would like that since a lot of their radius includes corn,soybeans and intermodals

 

[Cross Bones]

It doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to make sense. Come on Bones, are you REALLY stuck on this?

Yes, I did say that Montini would be in the most competitive class if they are among the top 32 schools in the state. I also said that it would be rare for 5A sized schools to play in that top class. And it would be! Lastly I talked about last year's LWW and Naz squads playing in classes with the top 32 OR 64 teams in the state... as opposed to your way which has them in a class with the 129th through 160th largest playoff qualifiers in the state. Does it really matter whether they are in the top class or second from the top class? The bottom line is that even you know that all three schools were among the top 64 teams in the state last year. Why are you so insistent that they compete with similarly sized, but much weaker, opponents? What's so right about that?



Unlike you, I want to treat all schools equally. I want all schools to be subject to the same rules.



I am fine with how schools are seeded as well. I'm not fine with the schools that are being seeded.

What this boils down to is you appear to think that teams have a big sign on them that says, "One of the top 32 teams in the state" and that somehow Montini would have one of those signs while a 5A sized public would not. Frankly, this is not possible if we are using an objective method.

How did you determine that LWW was one of the top 64 teams in the state? Also, what number were they? I am interested in knowing. Once you tell me that, you should be able to use that methodology to create your 8 classes and then we can really discuss and critique this "competitive classification"

Why would I be against LWW being in the "top class" because teams like that for LWW dont come along too often, and to be forced to play H-F who in down years would field teams like that makes absolutely no sense. Thats not a competitive class, it's a punishment to small schools.

It also includes a healthy swath of Lake Michigan. Why should a private school like St Joe get to have more prospects in their radius than Loyola? I think our radius should be like 50 miles at least because we are only about 4 miles from Lake Michigan, and we are not able to enroll any of the fish that reside there. It's not Loyola's fault that we are geographically challenged. Fair is fair, don't you think?

I agree, that's not fair for Loyola. But that has nothing to do with how Loyola relates to Glenbrook North. Maybe when the playoffs are split, you can find a way to put St. Joes into a more difficult class than Loyola.

 

[ramblinman]

What this boils down to is you appear to think that teams have a big sign on them that says, "One of the top 32 teams in the state" and that somehow Montini would have one of those signs while a 5A sized public would not. Frankly, this is not possible if we are using an objective method.

How did you determine that LWW was one of the top 64 teams in the state? Also, what number were they? I am interested in knowing. Once you tell me that, you should be able to use that methodology to create your 8 classes and then we can really discuss and critique this "competitive classification"

Why would I be against LWW being in the "top class" because teams like that for LWW dont come along too often, and to be forced to play H-F who in down years would field teams like that makes absolutely no sense. Thats not a competitive class, it's a punishment to small schools.



I agree, that's not fair for Loyola. But that has nothing to do with how Loyola relates to Glenbrook North. Maybe when the playoffs are split, you can find a way to put St. Joes into a more difficult class than Loyola.

What you view as a punishment to play up, I view as an honor. I just like my competitive position vs your watered down, everyone-gets-a-trophy position.

I keep telling you that there would be an objective formula employed, but I think you think that I am pushing for classifications to be made by Carnac the Magnificent.

Furthermore, you keep voicing concern for once in a lifetime teams. How many of those does a program like Rochester get?

 

[ramblinman]

I agree, that's not fair for Loyola. But that has nothing to do with how Loyola relates to Glenbrook North.

You're right. It's very difficult for LA and its annual tuition of $15,700 to relate to zero tuition at Glenbrook North.

 

[Cross Bones]

What you view as a punishment to play up, I view as an honor. I just like my competitive position vs your watered down, everyone-gets-a-trophy position.

I keep telling you that there would be an objective formula employed, but I think you think that I am pushing for classifications to be made by Carnac the Magnificent.

Furthermore, you keep voicing concern for once in a lifetime teams. How many of those does a program like Rochester get?

So let me get this straight, the multiplier and Success Factor is a punishment and your making downstate Washington play Stevenson is an honor?

Look we already have a formula at our disposal... your top 32 teams include: West Aurora, Sterling, Rolling Meadows, a 4-5 Naperville Central, IC...

Your 2nd highest class includes: Tri Valley, Herscher, a 2-7 WWS, a 2-7 Lake Park, Newman Catholic, Morris, Wilmington, OPRF...

Man, please, this would be the worst playoff format ever created. Seriously, go to calpreps and see what happens when you seed them by how a formula rates them. You would successfully kill high school football in Illinois.

 

[Cross Bones]

You're right. It's very difficult for LA and its annual tuition of $15,700 to relate to zero tuition at Glenbrook North.

https://www.homesnacks.net/richest-places-in-illinois-126055/

16K in the cities listed here?

 

[ramblinman]

So let me get this straight, the multiplier and Success Factor is a punishment and your making downstate Washington play Stevenson is an honor?

Look we already have a formula at our disposal... your top 32 teams include: West Aurora, Sterling, Rolling Meadows, a 4-5 Naperville Central, IC...

Your 2nd highest class includes: Tri Valley, Herscher, a 2-7 WWS, a 2-7 Lake Park, Newman Catholic, Morris, Wilmington, OPRF...

Man, please, this would be the worst playoff format ever created. Seriously, go to calpreps and see what happens when you seed them by how a formula rates them. You would successfully kill high school football in Illinois.

Multipliers and success factors are punishing successful private because they do not apply to all schools. Apply competitive classification criteria to all schools and, yes, it would be an honor to play up.

I have no idea about Washington. Would an objective classification methodology, influenced by enrollment and other inputs, place both teams in the same competitive level? If so, why shouldn't they play each other?

 

[ramblinman]

https://www.homesnacks.net/richest-places-in-illinois-126055/

16K in the cities listed here?

Homesnacks? No thanks. I'm trying to drop a few pounds.

 

[Cross Bones]

Multipliers and success factors are punishing successful private because they do not apply to all schools. Apply competitive classification criteria to all schools and, yes, it would be an honor to play up.

I have no idea about Washington. Would an objective classification methodology, influenced by enrollment and other inputs, place both teams in the same competitive level? If so, why shouldn't they play each other?

Two schools I pulled out of my....er....posterior.

But Tri Valley and their 330 kids vs OPRF and their 3242? You up for that? Hey, the formula says these are in the 2nd group of 32.

 

[ramblinman]

Two schools I pulled out of my....er....posterior.

But Tri Valley and their 330 kids vs OPRF and their 3242? You up for that? Hey, the formula says these are in the 2nd group of 32.

What formula? Certainly not the one I am conceptualizing. The one I am conceptualizing would allow for enrollment to influence classification and would never produce such a result. But, of course, you know that because I have told you that multiple times in this thread. Why you continue to ignore it is baffling.

 

[Cross Bones]

What formula? Certainly not the one I am conceptualizing. The one I am conceptualizing would allow for enrollment to influence classification and would never produce such a result. But, of course, you know that because I have told you that multiple times in this thread. Why you continue to ignore it is baffling.

Calpreps has a formula, and since you refuse to devise yours I used theirs to see what we would come up with when using an objective formula.

Because I am attempting to see how the formula you keep describing that uses enrollment, but doesnt use enrollment puts Montini and their 658 students in the highest class but not Johnsburg and their 670. It just doesnt make sense unless you change the rules for open enrollment schools which you say you arent.

 

[ramblinman]

Calpreps has a formula, and since you refuse to devise yours I used theirs to see what we would come up with when using an objective formula.

Because I am attempting to see how the formula you keep describing that uses enrollment, but doesnt use enrollment puts Montini and their 658 students in the highest class but not Johnsburg and their 670. It just doesnt make sense unless you change the rules for open enrollment schools which you say you arent.

You are a hoot. Refuse to devise? More like CAN'T devise for solid reasons which I have previously explained.

Tri Valley? Johnsburg? What's next, Varna River Valley Co-op?

 

[stonedlizard]

If the mindset is "it's an honor" to qualify for the higher classes, and most teams are basing success on years they can qualify for the higher classes, would the Tri-Valley's, Johnsburg's, etc think negatively of it?

Don't most college basketball teams look at qualifying for march madness as an honor?

 

[doctor_d]

Ahhh, just go back to football enrollment for all with a multiplier for open enrollment schools.
Add a waiver for open enrollments that aren't very successful.
Keep success factor for ALL school types, although with this system you probably would have enough competitive balance that the success factor wouldn't come into play.

 

[Cross Bones]

If the mindset is "it's an honor" to qualify for the higher classes, and most teams are basing success on years they can qualify for the higher classes, would the Tri-Valley's, Johnsburg's, etc think negatively of it?

Don't most college basketball teams look at qualifying for march madness as an honor?

Schools have been capable of playing up for years now. I even linked the request up form for a coach of one of the teams. So far no one except East St. Louis has seen it as an honor to "play up" so the coaches disagree with you.

And it would be stupid for Tri Valley or Johnsburg to want to be in a class with Loyola or H-F, come on now. These are arguments I shouldnt have to make.

 

[Cross Bones]

You are a hoot. Refuse to devise? More like CAN'T devise for solid reasons which I have previously explained.

Tri Valley? Johnsburg? What's next, Varna River Valley Co-op?

You cannot devise the formula because there is no way to do it using the standards you outlined. That is the point. Granted I understand its not easy coming up with a math formula, but you would have to weight open enrollment schools in order to move them up without moving up boundaried schools of the same size. There is no way around it.

And I dont like seeing you squirm around this undeniable fact. It would serve your position better to just admit you would have to keep OE schools weighted understanding that you concede the argument, but feel the playoff would be better.

 

[stonedlizard]

Schools have been capable of playing up for years now. I even linked the request up form for a coach of one of the teams. So far no one except East St. Louis has seen it as an honor to "play up" so the coaches disagree with you.

And it would be stupid for Tri Valley or Johnsburg to want to be in a class with Loyola or H-F, come on now. These are arguments I shouldnt have to make.

Can't compare playing up under a competitive equity based class system vs playing up under the current. Some years, in the current system, the higher class may be the weaker class and playing up can be a way to escape the competition.

You're failing to acknowledge the basic tenant of the proposed system, classes aren't based on size, they're based on how good a team is. If Tri-Valley becomes a proven powerhouse, then yes put them in a class with loyola.

I know you're in favor of the theory just not of the opinion that it's possible. May not be worth discussing further if the hang up is the actual how and not the why.

 

[stonedlizard]

Ahhh, just go back to football enrollment for all with a multiplier for open enrollment schools.
Add a waiver for open enrollments that aren't very successful.
Keep success factor for ALL school types, although with this system you probably would have enough competitive balance that the success factor wouldn't come into play.

I think the success factor can be looking at as a way to establish classes based on competitive equity. Just needs to be applied to all schools . That and back to football enrollment would likely go a long way.

 

[Cross Bones]

Can't compare playing up under a competitive equity based class system vs playing up under the current. Some years, in the current system, the higher class may be the weaker class and playing up can be a way to escape the competition.

You're failing to acknowledge the basic tenant of the proposed system, classes aren't based on size, they're based on how good a team is. If Tri-Valley becomes a proven powerhouse, then yes put them in a class with loyola.

I know you're in favor of the theory just not of the opinion that it's possible. May not be worth discussing further if the hang up is the actual how and not the why.

How would Tri Valley show they are on a competitive level with Loyola?

 

[stonedlizard]

How would Tri Valley show they are on a competitive level with Loyola?

That's THE question @Cross Bones and I fully admit it is THE question if this were to work. You down to see if we can figure it out or do you want to avoid trying?

 

[Cross Bones]

That's THE question @Cross Bones and I fully admit it is THE question if this were to work. You down to see if we can figure it out or do you want to avoid trying?

We know the answer. Tri Valley or Loyola (or similar teams) would have to play each other. But they don't play each other. Do you know why?