SF 10 Syc 0 F
- By Alexander32
- Edgy's Lost His Mind Free Football Board
- 68 Replies
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.Apologies for forgetting your explanation from a year ago that you are an unbiased observer.
If your saving the private schools' integration in the playoffs results in limiting overall private school success in those playoffs, thanks but no thanks.
Your solution, such as it is, is highly discriminatory against one conference. There are around a couple of dozen football playing private schools outside of the CCL/ESCC. What about them? You want to exempt them from your efforts to save them because they haven't been as successful? Can you possibly be any more discriminatory?
What about a school like Leo that gets to the playoffs once in a blue moon? If Leo were to manage qualifying for the playoffs, do you think it's "being fair" to force them to play playoff games against larger CCL/ESCC schools through the quarters? Is it their dumb luck to be in a conference that you arbitrarily decide needs saving? Why shouldn't Leo have the benefit of playing opening round games against schools their own size, regardless of them being private or public?
It's not about private schools winning state championships. If that were the case, then why punish CCL/ESCC schools like Leo, Marmion, Viator, St. Pat's, etc. that have never tasted that level of success? Methinks you are not as neutral as you claim to be.
We have been getting better. Isn't that why you are trying to save us?
I was under no illusion that you, and many others that share your views, would agree with my proposal. Consequently, I will address just a few of your thoughts.
I do not see how my proposal is any more discriminatory than a success factor that applies only to private schools. The private schools that are not in the CCL/ESCC would still be susceptible to the existing success factor. My proposal eliminates the existing success factor for CCL/ESCC schools and, in effect, applies a different success factor to them.
In your fourth paragraph you write, "If Leo were to manage qualifying for the playoffs, do you think it's 'being fair' to force them to play playoff games against larger CCL/ESCC schools through the quarters?" Under my plan Leo would no longer have to "manage qualifying for the playoffs". Leo, and all CCL/ESCC teams, would be in the playoffs every year. Furthermore, they would find themselves playing less formidable opponents in the playoffs than teams like St. Rita, St. Laurence and Notre Dame that the CCL/ESCC forces them to play in the regular season. Leo not only failed to defeat any of those three teams this year, they did not score a single point against those three teams. I believe my proposal is considerably more fair than the manner in which the CCL/ESCC treats its smaller members on a regular basis. I suppose they had their reasons, but I truly do not understand why IC Catholic and Montini chose to join the CCL/ESCC. St. Francis is at least somewhat larger.
Here is what the Group C bracket might have looked like this year under my proposal. The winner would have then been slotted into the IHSA semifinals against a team like, perhaps, Oak Lawn Richards.
1 - DePaul (6-3)
8 - De La Salle (1-6)
4 - St. Viator (4-5)
5 - Marian Catholic (2-7)
3 - IC Catholic (4-5)
6 - St. Patrick (2-7)
2 - Marmion (5-4)
7 - Leo (1-8)
In reality, DePaul would likely have received a first-round bye since De La Salle was no longer playing football at the end of the season. With an opportunity to play meaningful postseason games every year, I think Leo would find my proposal more agreeable than their present situation. I think the other Group C teams would feel much the same way. Unfortunately, it is those schools' "dumb luck" to be members of a conference that does not care about them.
It is also important to remember my proposal is self-correcting. Although I think DePaul could compete effectively against Richards, if that proved not to be the case, then after several years Group C would be slotted into the 5A semifinals. If they were not competitive at that level for several more years, they would then be slotted at 4A, etc. The same principle would also be applied to groups A and B.
Again, I'm not operating under the misconception that the CCL/ESCC faithful can be persuaded, I just wanted to clear up some of the realities related to the proposal.
