doctor_d said:

@Snetsrak61 @Alexander32
You guys both bring up excellent points.
I find it refreshing that an actual discussion can be had on this subject. If either of you were around during the old days, a thread such as this one would have quickly turned toxic and gotten flushed, along with likely a few posters put in time out.

Click to expand...

Not trying to be a Debbie downer but!
This is way over doing it. There is no way a HS level organization is going to be able to control or handle what is being suggested.
You have to make it easy or it’s not going to happen. This is HS not college or the Pros where they have unlimited money resources.
Not saying you aren’t thinking outside the box but it’s not going to work if they have to hire staff to monitor every situation.

I don’t like any system that moves a program like Chicago Christian up after one year of success.

My alma mater actually played in the state finals vs. East St. Louis and lost handily yet even we don’t care about this sh*t. Geez. Season’s over. Time to move onto Illini hoops.

@Snetsrak61 @Alexander32
You guys both bring up excellent points.
I find it refreshing that an actual discussion can be had on this subject. If either of you were around during the old days, a thread such as this one would have quickly turned toxic and gotten flushed, along with likely a few posters put in time out.

Yep Marist reporting 541

I would challenge ANYONE to sit for the entrance exam to become an APPRENTICE CANDIDATE for the electrician trade given by a local. Sections on: math (fractions, decimals, some %, identifying/completing number sequences, a few "word problems"), reading comprehension, mechanical reasoning and paper folding/hole-punching. The latter is a bizarre spatial assessment that is actually part of the Dental Aptitude Test, although to a lesser complexity. Finally, the standard for this multiple-choice battery is up in the 80-85% range to be among the limited admission numbers actually getting into the apprentice program. All the above as reported to me by a test-taker of multiple trials in the very recent past.

Another thought I've thrown out in another thread is some idea of a conference multiplier. In terms of the 1.65 multiplier frankly any CCL/ESCC school who gets 5 wins has almost certainly passed the competetive requirements for that multiplied class (at least for the top 4 divisions). I wouldn't do it as additive, but maybe a conference multiplier acts as a minimum/ alternative multiplier so you can have effectively have two sets of waiver requirements.

No idea exactly how you'd do it and you'd have to word it intentionally, but it isn't lost on me how much of the long standing haves are concentrated there and not to the majority of private schools. It could also be in conjunction with a broad based or narrow Football Enrollment too which I've obviously pushed as favorable "best low Admin" fix.

StL 512

I think your AP example makes intuitive sense. You test a student and enroll that student according to tested aptitude. Great, okay. It could extend to competetive endeavors if it's a single athlete or same team. A tennis player advances through skills working their way through more challenging invitationals as they prove their skill. Cool.

If I'm measuring a 2025 team off the 2024 or earlier roster, I'm no longer fully comparing the same skillset. Obviously it varies from team to team year to year but a baseline is something like 25% of your program's roster and 50% of your varsity roster graduates each year. If you could do something like evaluate 2024 team's skill in weeks 1-7 and then place them after that in season, that would logically fall under a same idea, but 2025 is too late (either because it moves up what isn't there or fails to recognize what is). Obviously you've attempted to make it more long sighted, which is valid too slow class swings, but in principal it's still doing the same thing, just with slower lead times up/down.

Now certainly program / non roster benefits can and DO imbue benefits independent of the roster. Which again I'd be fine with any attempt to measure and multiply on those (even it it is trial by error to find the mix). But admittedly they'd all take more effort to track.

I'm not necessarily focused on blowouts but if I really was I might suggest St Francis who will return many starters might put bigger beat downs than Naz in 5A next year. Not trying to weasel Naz out of anything as I've often said I like them in 6A, but trying to prove a point. It's too lagging if the goal is the competetive balance and reduce blowout thing. Maybe St Francis would move up in your proposal too, I don't know...

Snetsrak61 said:

Re-reading your proposal you're basically just combining multiplier into a single factor multiplier.

Which I still don't love. Naz and St Francis as an example probably have roughly equal opportunity to compete IMO. Comparable enrollment. Same type of school. Same conference. Their enrollment zone even overlaps by a bit. You can probably put a couple other CCLs with them. Relative to each other they all compete under roughly same opportunity. Why should success be a significant factor to move them up or down? And same goes for public schools. Sycamore and (most of?) the Interstate 8 schools are playing under roughly equal opportunity. York and most their WSSC foes are mostly comparable opportunity. Its okay if some teams do more with the opportunity, even if it's on a consistent basis. Thats I think a valuable life lesson in some ways. Opportunity can at best be laid out, but comparable results aren't ever guaranteed.

Are there situations where we match peers up on ability? Absolutely, but I'll still say that these teams graduate 25% (or so) of their program every year. If there's something enrollment/size can't capture I think we do the hard work like Ohio and try and measure the leading factors (like recruitment focus or other factors as applicable).

Click to expand...

"Why should success be a significant factor to move them up or down?"

I guess this is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I will begin my answer by countering your question with my own: Why should a high school offer advanced placement courses to better students? The answer to both questions is that high schools are charged with the responsibility of developing students. Why not keep the students in the regular classes and just allow them to receive their straight A's? The schools could, and some parents might insist on allowing their child to stay in the regular class. However, doing so would not challenge the child and would not improve the development of the student's mind. The same is true of athletes.

So here is the answer to your question, from my perspective.

* In order to challenge and further develop the individual student athletes and the program as a whole.

* To create more competitive playoff brackets. I thought that was one of the things we were trying to do; reduce the number of blowouts.

* In order to encourage athletes in other programs by allowing them the opportunity to experience some success, (but by no means guaranteeing success). Success begets further success, and schools should be encouraging their students to pursue and achieve success by placing them in circumstances where it is possible. High school is not yet the real world, and allowing students a chance to experience success is not immoral.

There are probably more reasons, but since I'm quite sure I am persuading no one, I will stop now.

jwarigaku said:

So first straw man, now you agree, okay whatever.
....
Candy coat it all you like but you’re looking down your nose at the trades.

Click to expand...

I'd seriously suggest that you should go back and re-read everything I've typed and take it literally and at face value. You've created me as an apparent boogeyman and it's beyond silly at this stage.

The "trades are a bad idea and not honorable" strawman question was in zero way similar to any belief I've typed.

My initial comment about tracking kids even talked about the inverse about tracking kids the other way to CP not being better, which I reaffirmed through personal anecdote and belief. In zero way did I state a preference for one. Its been about allowing young adults the time to see through options before closing doors. I feel like you are projecting something on me and it's either because your being unintentionally obtuse or trying to prove a point. Not sure which!

Alexander32 said:

The objective isn't to prevent a school from winning its first state football championship in school history, as I believe was the case with the 2014 Nazareth team. That type of success should be encouraged, as was also the case with this year's Chicago Christian team. The objective is to challenge programs that have demonstrated a recent history of dominance within a particular class. The multiplier is the first step in that process if a private school has demonstrated modest success, and then the success factor comes into play when a school demonstrates extraordinary success. In addition to challenging the program, which may promote further development, another result is that it will likely make the playoffs more competitive within the various classes.

It is difficult to understand why a person would find fault with a multiplier proposal because the proposal would apply the multiplier one year later than their preferred plan. The proposal offered here would have applied the multiplier beginning in 2015, rather than your preferred 2014 season. At that point in time (2014), I would have been trying to improve Nazareth's chances of winning a state championship, not trying to make it more difficult.

Click to expand...

Not to make it a competition or be boastful about it, but Naz didn't need that boost. In fact I'd say most private schools who have made a "first time" run didn't. Chicago Christian is actually right on that edge of where the waiver originally lied. In v1 of the old multiplier waiver they'd be waived. In v2 they'd have just missed being waived this year.

The flip side of course is that if Naz was in that 4A class under your proposal maybe they notch a semis appearance in 11 or 13? In which case they end up in the same spot as they were in 14? But at this point I'm wary of any success based measures. Private school enrollment isn't apples to apples to public school enrollment so we have a multiplier. You compete at enrollment until ihsa decides other metrics are needed.

Anyways yes I get my example was very narrowly applied and you can't have a waiver and avoid all anomoly years like that 2014 Naz team. So it's *fine* I'd just prefer to see post-success factors de-emphasized as much as possible. Not saying it's your motivation, but I'm kind of growing on the opinion that if we give too much leeway on waivers we're gonna accelerate the private/public divide and movement to separation.

On SF I disagree with it in principal, but if it helps keep ihsa together, whatever. But it does need a better design implementation, such as your proposal.

Snetsrak61 said:

Absolutely a valid, worthwhile, and economically viable option for someone entering workforce.

Like many fields though, that economic advantage isn't necessarily resolute. It is in some ways time specific to now because labor WAS de-emphasized (or college track over-emphasized) to where supply was/is too low. That can always inadvertently be overcorrected too though if supply shoots up and demand stays same that economic benefit can shrink.

Probably more so than anytime in history the workforce is gonna need to be flexible to stay ahead. Compared to 100 or even 50 years ago people will move professions throughout their life more than they did before (not for all professions). Education should prepare them and give them broad skills to deal with that. Some trades will probably be stable (plumbing is probably plumbing forever) but a lot of vocational skills will be more tech based and industry specific to specific points and market demands and need to fluctuate over 40 year of a career.

Click to expand...

So first straw man, now you agree, okay whatever.

I have all the letters after my name, probably more than I should, but my cousins in Connecticut, both tool and die guys 56 and 54, have had great success from the 80s going forward. They started in a mom and pop shop, eventually purchased it, and grew it into a large shop serving Sikorsky helicopter with a top line in excess of $100MM/year. They bootstrapped the company with $100k each(saved by the time they where 25) and now employee more than 100 people and are begging for trades graduates. They pay kids from the local Vocational High school in Milford $30/hr part time to learn the craft and start their journeyman’s work at 16(4hrs of school/day + 4hrs work/day contact learning).

Candy coat it all you like but you’re looking down your nose at the trades. I went the college route and was blessed with good advise and direction, but still spent way to much money and time playing and researching in college in the Chemistry, Physics, and Biological sciences and then capped it off with an MBA. I make a good living and have been able to take care of my kids and others, and will never say anything is wrong with helping kids redirect to areas where they can succeed rather than pushing them to the current trendy next big thing. I won’t even start on how I feel about majors that can’t earn a living after college other than to say we need art history, fine arts, history etc but the students that study those topics need to be at the top of those fields and I think they should go to college for free because they are the best of the best regardless of their ability to pay.

Enjoy the rest of your day! I have a Christmas party to attend and then a kick off at 8 pm eastern

Snetsrak61 said:

If you're comparing got the now system absolutely agree. Hard not to improve. What you're proposing is something to try and middle between the old and current. But I think it still kind of misses mark.

I mean, just to go with a very basic example I'm familiar with, the Naz 2014 6A team had a multiplier applied. And without a multiplier would have been maybe as low as 4A or 5A. But they had made the quarters a couple times by then. They were well on thier way to ascending the ladder with that team and handled 6A fairly easily as it was a very strong team (honestly maybe as good as their 7A title teams that had a generational QB talent). Although 5A was also a tough division that same year, so that strength does flip flop. But still, teams can shoot right past that semi threshold. And sometimes just for the reason you mentioned, they get a tough quarterfinals draw. So it can go both ways.

Click to expand...

The objective isn't to prevent a school from winning its first state football championship in school history, as I believe was the case with the 2014 Nazareth team. That type of success should be encouraged, as was also the case with this year's Chicago Christian team. The objective is to challenge programs that have demonstrated a recent history of dominance within a particular class. The multiplier is the first step in that process if a private school has demonstrated modest success, and then the success factor comes into play when a school demonstrates extraordinary success. In addition to challenging the program, which may promote further development, another result is that it will likely make the playoffs more competitive within the various classes.

It is difficult to understand why a person would find fault with a multiplier proposal because the proposal would apply the multiplier one year later than their preferred plan. The proposal offered here would have applied the multiplier beginning in 2015, rather than your preferred 2014 season. At that point in time (2014), I would have been trying to improve Nazareth's chances of winning a state championship, not trying to make it more difficult.

Alexander32 said:

The format described in my initial post, without modifying it, normally will cause a team to drop down one class if they fail to make the semifinal round in the previous year. The five-year period is a rolling period of time, and quite often if a team does not make the semifinals in the previous year, then the number of semifinals they have made in the previous five years will be reduced by one. It is true that will not always happen, but just because a team has missed the semifinal round one time does not mean the program has gotten worse. Byron did not reach the semifinals this year, does that mean their program has gotten worse? No! The goal is to measure program strength, not just to evaluate results from one year.

Changing the criterion from semifinal appearances to championships will allow the most powerful programs to simply rotate championships amongst themselves. It will not keep those teams in class levels at which they are very competitive, but not extraordinarily dominant. It will be best if teams are not constantly changing classes based on one or two years of results. Mt. Carmel, for example, may not consistently win championships at the 8A level, but could reasonably be expected to make the semifinals fairly consistently. It seems best that they not continually be bouncing back and forth between 8A and 7A. If they do not consistently make the 8A semifinals, then they should drop down to 7A.

Click to expand...

Re-reading your proposal you're basically just combining multiplier into a single factor multiplier.

Which I still don't love. Naz and St Francis as an example probably have roughly equal opportunity to compete IMO. Comparable enrollment. Same type of school. Same conference. Their enrollment zone even overlaps by a bit. You can probably put a couple other CCLs with them. Relative to each other they all compete under roughly same opportunity. Why should success be a significant factor to move them up or down? And same goes for public schools. Sycamore and (most of?) the Interstate 8 schools are playing under roughly equal opportunity. York and most their WSSC foes are mostly comparable opportunity. Its okay if some teams do more with the opportunity, even if it's on a consistent basis. Thats I think a valuable life lesson in some ways. Opportunity can at best be laid out, but comparable results aren't ever guaranteed.

Are there situations where we match peers up on ability? Absolutely, but I'll still say that these teams graduate 25% (or so) of their program every year. If there's something enrollment/size can't capture I think we do the hard work like Ohio and try and measure the leading factors (like recruitment focus or other factors as applicable).

corey90 said:

😂
You do understand Buckeyes fans.

Click to expand...

Got no choice, my Masters is from tOSU.

UlbKA91 said:

Vrabel and Freeman are waiting out a Ryan Day bounce from the 1st Rd of the CFP.

Click to expand...

😂
You do understand Buckeyes fans.

McCaravan said:

I gave you a lay up to say "Yes I am, and don't call me Shirley" and you missed it! 😀

Click to expand...

Good to see Rita continue to climb, the Hopkins effect at work! I heard Marist 540 and MMc 265. How did the football classes shape up?

Alexander32 said:

The format described in my initial post, without modifying it, normally will cause a team to drop down one class if they fail to make the semifinal round in the previous year. The five-year period is a rolling period of time, and quite often if a team does not make the semifinals in the previous year, then the number of semifinals they have made in the previous five years will be reduced by one. It is true that will not always happen, but just because a team has missed the semifinal round one time does not mean the program has gotten worse. Byron did not reach the semifinals this year, does that mean their program has gotten worse? No! The goal is to measure program strength, not just to evaluate results from one year.

Changing the criterion from semifinal appearances to championships will allow the most powerful programs to simply rotate championships amongst themselves. It will not keep those teams in class levels at which they are very competitive, but not extraordinarily dominant. It will be best if teams are not constantly changing classes based on one or two years of results. Mt. Carmel, for example, may not consistently win championships at the 8A level, but could reasonably be expected to make the semifinals fairly consistently. It seems best that they not continually be bouncing back and forth between 8A and 7A. If they do not consistently make the 8A semifinals, then they should drop down to 7A.

Click to expand...

I get it. I was thinking more in state championships. Using MC if they lose two 8A state championships in a row they drop to 7A. They shouldn’t be penalized forever. I also get that dropping back and forth isn’t good I was saying 2 year. I actually think we’re kinda saying the same thing.

Vrabel and Freeman are waiting out a Ryan Day bounce from the 1st Rd of the CFP.

corey90 said:

Success Factor: All schools are subject to the success factor based on the following table:
Three semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move one class level above the baseline class
Four semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move two class levels above the baseline class
Five semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move three class levels above the baseline class

*I like it except I would change the success factor number of years.
Two semifinals appearance move up one class level.
3 semifinal appearances move up two class levels.
4 semifinal appearances move up 3 classes.
If the team fails to reach semifinals they would drop 1 class the very next year and if fail to reach the semifinals they again will drop 1 class. If they fail again they keep dropping 1 class until they reach original enrollment class.
This would force teams to be more competitive and would limit blowouts imo.

PS: I would be ok if they changed this to State Championship wins instead of Semifinal appearances.
I am saying if a team wins two state championships in a row they move up the very next year etc.

Click to expand...

The format described in my initial post, without modifying it, normally will cause a team to drop down one class if they fail to make the semifinal round in the previous year. The five-year period is a rolling period of time, and quite often if a team does not make the semifinals in the previous year, then the number of semifinals they have made in the previous five years will be reduced by one. It is true that will not always happen, but just because a team has missed the semifinal round one time does not mean the program has gotten worse. Byron did not reach the semifinals this year, does that mean their program has gotten worse? No! The goal is to measure program strength, not just to evaluate results from one year.

Changing the criterion from semifinal appearances to championships will allow the most powerful programs to simply rotate championships amongst themselves. It will not keep those teams in class levels at which they are very competitive, but not extraordinarily dominant. It will be best if teams are not constantly changing classes based on one or two years of results. Mt. Carmel, for example, may not consistently win championships at the 8A level, but could reasonably be expected to make the semifinals fairly consistently. It seems best that they not continually be bouncing back and forth between 8A and 7A. If they do not consistently make the 8A semifinals, then they should drop down to 7A.

Alexander32 said:

Using quarterfinals would be feasible if the way seeding is done would be improved. However, as seeding is currently done, all too frequently teams that are not particularly good stumble into the quarterfinals based on an easy path, like playing Chicago Public League teams in rounds one and two.

The main objective is preventing relatively powerful programs from having the multiplier waived. The use of the semifinal measure (during the previous five years) will prevent that. For example, it would prevent Marist and St. Ignatius from dropping down to 6A next year, and prevent Brother Rice and Fenwick from dropping down to 5A. It is possible under the current system that even IC Catholic might drop down to 2A (if they make the playoffs); that too would be prevented with the use of the semifinal measure.

EdgyTim seems to think 1-32 seeding, while using the current algorithms for the multiplier and success factor, will solve the problem. He points to the fact that Mt. Carmel and Nazareth will be moving up one class. He is in for a rude awakening. When the teams I've mentioned in the second paragraph move down as much as to two class levels, the complaints will be just as loud.

Click to expand...

If you're comparing got the now system absolutely agree. Hard not to improve. What you're proposing is something to try and middle between the old and current. But I think it still kind of misses mark.

I mean, just to go with a very basic example I'm familiar with, the Naz 2014 6A team had a multiplier applied. And without a multiplier would have been maybe as low as 4A or 5A. But they had made the quarters a couple times by then. They were well on thier way to ascending the ladder with that team and handled 6A fairly easily as it was a very strong team (honestly maybe as good as their 7A title teams that had a generational QB talent). Although 5A was also a tough division that same year, so that strength does flip flop. But still, teams can shoot right past that semi threshold. And sometimes just for the reason you mentioned, they get a tough quarterfinals draw. So it can go both ways.

Along the lines of the above:
Login to view embedded media
Then:
Login to view embedded media
And finally:
Login to view embedded media

Competitive games with more Publics than Privates.

Snetsrak61 said:

I just meant quarterfinals, not actual quad based seeding.

Click to expand...

Using quarterfinals would be feasible if the way seeding is done would be improved. However, as seeding is currently done, all too frequently teams that are not particularly good stumble into the quarterfinals based on an easy path, like playing Chicago Public League teams in rounds one and two.

The main objective is preventing relatively powerful programs from having the multiplier waived. The use of the semifinal measure (during the previous five years) will prevent that. For example, it would prevent Marist and St. Ignatius from dropping down to 6A next year, and prevent Brother Rice and Fenwick from dropping down to 5A. It is possible under the current system that even IC Catholic might drop down to 2A (if they make the playoffs); that too would be prevented with the use of the semifinal measure.

EdgyTim seems to think 1-32 seeding, while using the current algorithms for the multiplier and success factor, will solve the problem. He points to the fact that Mt. Carmel and Nazareth will be moving up one class. He is in for a rude awakening. When the teams I've mentioned in the second paragraph move down as much as to two class levels, the complaints will be just as loud.