colin2229 said:

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

Click to expand...

corey90 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Snetsrak61 said:

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!

Click to expand...

mc140 said:

So who has St. Laurence's rise from the bottom hurt the most?

Click to expand...

Snetsrak61 said:

Vibes?

Partially inspired by football enrollment and partially by other proposals I've seen to classify CCL/ESCC as a unique conference. Which I kind of understood, but there's also a few other conferences putting out a lot of good ball. And some putting out some week ball. It feels like there's some good evidence that teams play up/down according to their regular season schedule... At least a theory. But straight Football enrollment would also do some of that.

Click to expand...

corey90 said:

I get it but. How would that be fair? Just saying.

Click to expand...

Snetsrak61 said:

I think a best case scenario would be a formula that divides 10% of conferences, multiplies 10% and leave 80% alone.

Click to expand...

corey90 said:

Conference multipler would be like the Wild Wild West. I mean you’re going to multiply each and every conference. No way. IMO

Click to expand...

Topiary said:

Way to represent the CCL - good guy

Who is Mike Uremovich? Five things to know about Ball State football's new head coach

Who is Mike Uremovich? Here are five things to know about the new head coach of Ball State football:

www.thestarpress.com

Click to expand...

doctor_d said:

I kinda like the multiplier tied to playoff results from past 5 years. Whether that’s quarters or semis…. Of course it’s not perfect. It’s hard to predict future success, so the past is probably all we’ve got. My one problem is that it doesn’t take into account teams that just miss the playoffs like my IC example in the original post. The conference multiplier is interesting too.
I don’t want the computers involved. Calpreps had Montini as a home underdog vs Wilmington. As a die hard Wilmo fan, I knew that was way off base. Wilmo would have had to have been fully healthy (which they weren’t) and play a perfect game just to be in it.

Click to expand...

IceConGuy said:

How about instead of a multiplier, the private schools take the enrollment of the school district they are located in? Not sure how that would work for the schools that are in the city. If they can't win x playoff games in y years, they are lowered 1 class from the publics enrollment. I'm sure the 1A-5A people would love this. The small privates not so much. BTW, a lot of innuendos going on the last week. Not sure how the 6A-8A public, private, or both would feel. There would be no actual math. Math hurts peoples brains.

Click to expand...

doctor_d said:

I don’t understand this reply to my post. When you quote a message and reply, it’s generally understood that you are replying directly to that message.
Nothing about what you posted has anything to do with what you replied to.
You are a complicated guy 😆

Click to expand...

corey90 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Snetsrak61 said:

I'm like just a guy who likes excel and I'm pretty sure they can contract me every year to do it with data they already post on their website. I'll charge them 2,400 bucks per sport (annual 5% raise).

Find someone with real database skills and direct access to the IHSA data and they could probably beat my price. Chat GPT might be able to do it free.

Click to expand...

corey90 said:

Yup
I just think if any changes happen it’s going to have to easy and fair. I am not saying your not on to something but the IHSA isn’t going to change things that will require more monitoring. Especially individual conferences. It may make sense but who will be able monitor each conference?

Click to expand...

PRokie said:

I do not like win margin on any level. This causes programs that can run up the score to do so. It also minimizes #2/#3 playing time which in many cases hinders their ability to perform when needed or lack of experience the next year. I’ve seen this effect here at MS. I hated “Maine Southing” kids. Except for New Trier
Never take the gas off on that one!

Click to expand...

Snetsrak61 said:

Gotcha. While I don't have a specific proposal at this time on how you would do a conference multiplier I realistically would make it on all measurable things (and not something subjective like Massey or Max Prep rankings that are a black box). Generally speaking it'd really more of a psuedo Football enrollment with the SF/waiver element applied on that. But it's also a dream/bored musings.

But yea, If you want real change, open and objective is best (one of many failings of districts was it's lack of transparency to implement).

Click to expand...

Snetsrak61 said:

The ones that qualified I included. Or do you mean just the entire list?

Two-Year Cycle Enrollments and Classifications

Click to expand...

corey90 said:

Mostly was referring to CCL conference multiplier comment.

Click to expand...

RockSoup said:

Yes. Of course. This thread and day, which used to be annual must-see TV a half decade ago, has just become filled with implausible numbers’ reporting.

The last real number publicly reported by any school was Brother Rice’s 177 5 years ago. Every school learned their lesson. No one on this board knows the sealed envelope number hand-delivered by horse and buggy to the Arch Diocese. I only watch the ISBE reporting numbers in September for reality.

Click to expand...