ADVERTISEMENT

Catholic school guys - question

Don’t tell him that football enrollment, which placed you in a classification the average of your opponent enrollment, was in effect for most of JC’s “lower class” championships.

Only the 2018 title can be questioned in that regard. So even removing that one, JC still beats MC in total titles.

Let us also leave out the 99 and 00 seasons in which JC won 4a and MC 5A both years. And JC beat MC both years, and quite handily in 2000. And there was no “opt up,” success factor, or multiplier option those years. But rest assured, if there was, MC would have 2 fewer state titles.

You're too sophisticated to think that a team that wins a regular season victory over another team will necessarily win a post season rematch. C'mon.

Regarding your first point, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I think ou need some punctuation.

In any event regarding any of these or other points, you and Montini should be in 6a at least. Anything less than that deserves an asterisk. Also, if Mt Carmel winds up being downsized to 5a (for more than one season), I'll cancel my donations -- as will many others.
 
Also, if Mt Carmel winds up being downsized to 5a (for more than one season), I'll cancel my donations -- as will many others.
Why? Because MC might not get a trophy playing with the big boys?

{poke-poke} :p
 
You're too sophisticated to think that a team that wins a regular season victory over another team will necessarily win a post season rematch. C'mon.

Regarding your first point, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I think ou need some punctuation.

In any event regarding any of these or other points, you and Montini should be in 6a at least. Anything less than that deserves an asterisk. Also, if Mt Carmel winds up being downsized to 5a (for more than one season), I'll cancel my donations -- as will many others.
Let me spell it out for you. Your weak argument Has been that championships should not count if they are in a class below where the team played in the regular season. For the last decade that has been true of JC. Prior to that, football enrollment was the rule of the day and your enrollment was the greater of your actual enrollment or the average enrollment of your 9 opponents, throwing out the high and the low. So when football enrollment was in effect, JC was always playing in the class that was representative of the average of their regular season opponents, which means you really would have no problem at all with 13 of 14 JC titles.

in the last decade, JC has only won one title. Therefore, only that title meets your definition requiring an asterisk.

Faced with that uncomfortable technicality toward your tedious argument, your poor theory needed a corollary because it was not appropriately marginalizing JC’s titles like you had intended. NOW your problem in your last post is no longer “playing less sophisticated schools than you did during the regular season” which has been your claim for years on this board. The problem you have is now with 5A in general, which we all knew all along. But you didn’t want to say that until you got backed into that corner.

Also, I am surprised a guy as forward thinking and cosmopolitan as you would tie your contributions to an academic institution to the classification one singular athletic program of theirs finds itself in. Seems very unlike MC63.
 
Last edited:
Let me spell it out for you. Your weak argument Has been that championships should not count if they are in a class below where the team played in the regular season. For the last decade that has been true of JC. Prior to that, football enrollment was the rule of the day and your enrollment was the greater of your actual enrollment or the average enrollment of your 9 opponents, throwing out the high and the low. So when football enrollment was in effect, JC was always playing in the class that was representative of the average of their regular season opponents, which means you really would have no problem at all with 13 of 14 JC titles.

in the last decade, JC has only won one title. Therefore, only that title meets your definition requiring an asterisk.

Faced with that uncomfortable technicality toward your tedious argument, your poor theory needed a corollary because it was not appropriately marginalizing JC’s titles like you had intended. NOW your problem in your last post is no longer “playing less sophisticated schools than you did during the regular season” which has been your claim for years on this board. The problem you have is now with 5A in general, which we all knew all along. But you didn’t want to say that until you got backed into that corner.

Also, I am surprised a guy as forward thinking and cosmopolitan as you would tie your contributions to an academic institution to the classification one singular athletic program of theirs finds itself in. Seems very unlike MC63.

Let me clarify something. I don't think that teams like your should be playing 5a .. if you do and you win a championship, it pales in comparison to all those you won playing teams of your own caliber.

BTW, the contributions would be renewed upon whatever actions were necessary to move back up. To be honest with you, I don't know all the ins and outs of the IHSA .. I can't imagine anything more boring.
 
Let me clarify something. I don't think that teams like your should be playing 5a .. if you do and you win a championship, it pales in comparison to all those you won playing teams of your own caliber.

BTW, the contributions would be renewed upon whatever actions were necessary to move back up. To be honest with you, I don't know all the ins and outs of the IHSA .. I can't imagine anything more boring.

I completely disagree but can respect your position. I’m impressed that you seem to only have an issue with JC’s most recent state title out of all 14 of theirs, as the others were in a classification at the average of those they played all season long.

And while I understand why you may be saying “show me more” after JC won 5A in 2018, that is completely ignoring the context of the program at the time. They had missed the playoffs in consecutive years. Maybe you say “well that is because they were playing 7a and 8a school.” Ok fair enough, but they had been in 5A from 2009 to 2015 and not once won a title and only twice even made it to the state final. It is clear they belong pretty squarely in 5A in the late 2010s.

And all their titles prior to their 2018 one were in a class where they belonged given the existence of football enrollment and placing them in a class with the average enrollment of their regular season opponents. It seems as if your initial angst is with programs that dominated 5A after football enrollment went away and that is Montini 4 times and SHG 2 times. naz and JC have one 5A title each in that time. But it seems as if the real issue you have is with Montini rolling off 4 titles and SHG 2 in that 2009 to 2014 stretch.

And I would really stop posting the issues with that now because Naz is now up in 7a, JC is still not re-establishes as a powerhouse program so their classification is not an issue, Montini has won a title at 6a since their 5A dominance and much of their 5A dominance was when they played a smaller SCC schedule, and SHG had a nice 2 year run and never really plays an overwhelming conference schedule, so their two 5A titles seem appropriate. Just my thoughts. I think I understand what you are saying though I disagree. And given all the facts just listed, there just doesn’t seem to be much reason for you to continue saying “you shouldn’t be in 5A” or schools are cleaning up against “less sophisticated programs.” Unless JC, Rita, Montini, or SHG replicates a string of dominance like Montini and SHG did a few years ago, it seems that nobody is placed inappropriately long term. In fact as long as those programs join Hillcrest, sycamore, Laurence, Rochester, etc in 5A, whoever wins it will have more than earned it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IgorStL and Gene K.
The missing "y" is actually a consonant in this case. That letter can be either. You're welcome.

As a Y can stand alone, it is either in this case since you just need to grab the individual letter. What you do with it once you purchase is your business, not mine. You're welcome.
 
In many of the games played over the previous seasons, half the teams were larger than their opponents, thus none of those results are fair.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene K.
I completely disagree but can respect your position. I’m impressed that you seem to only have an issue with JC’s most recent state title out of all 14 of theirs, as the others were in a classification at the average of those they played all season long.

And while I understand why you may be saying “show me more” after JC won 5A in 2018, that is completely ignoring the context of the program at the time. They had missed the playoffs in consecutive years. Maybe you say “well that is because they were playing 7a and 8a school.” Ok fair enough, but they had been in 5A from 2009 to 2015 and not once won a title and only twice even made it to the state final. It is clear they belong pretty squarely in 5A in the late 2010s.

And all their titles prior to their 2018 one were in a class where they belonged given the existence of football enrollment and placing them in a class with the average enrollment of their regular season opponents. It seems as if your initial angst is with programs that dominated 5A after football enrollment went away and that is Montini 4 times and SHG 2 times. naz and JC have one 5A title each in that time. But it seems as if the real issue you have is with Montini rolling off 4 titles and SHG 2 in that 2009 to 2014 stretch.

And I would really stop posting the issues with that now because Naz is now up in 7a, JC is still not re-establishes as a powerhouse program so their classification is not an issue, Montini has won a title at 6a since their 5A dominance and much of their 5A dominance was when they played a smaller SCC schedule, and SHG had a nice 2 year run and never really plays an overwhelming conference schedule, so their two 5A titles seem appropriate. Just my thoughts. I think I understand what you are saying though I disagree. And given all the facts just listed, there just doesn’t seem to be much reason for you to continue saying “you shouldn’t be in 5A” or schools are cleaning up against “less sophisticated programs.” Unless JC, Rita, Montini, or SHG replicates a string of dominance like Montini and SHG did a few years ago, it seems that nobody is placed inappropriately long term. In fact as long as those programs join Hillcrest, sycamore, Laurence, Rochester, etc in 5A, whoever wins it will have more than earned it.

My point is not your enrollment, as such, but the stature of your competition. Any ESCC or CCL team (above the level of St. Joseph or DePaul Prep, for example) should be no lower than 6a, and probably at least 7a.
 
In many of the games played over the previous seasons, half the teams were larger than their opponents, thus none of those results are fair.
Let’s not forget the half of the teams that were smaller than their opponents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ignazio
My point is not your enrollment, as such, but the stature of your competition. Any ESCC or CCL team (above the level of St. Joseph or DePaul Prep, for example) should be no lower than 6a, and probably at least 7a.
That is a fair enough thought. Though from 2008 to 2017 JC was almost exclusively in 5A and won zero titles. It is very hard to say their stature should place them in a higher class when they were not able to win a single championship in that decade.

If you want to rail on Montini winning 4in a row and then SHG 2 in a row then at least there is something to back up that the “stature of competition” may not have been rigorous enough in the playoffs.

It is almost impossible to win the argument that a team shouldn’t be in 5A when, in that span, they were never able to win 5A.


When I see Montini guys or JC guys mentioning championships, rarely is it in a way trying to compare number of titles or compare to stature of programs that have had success in larger classes. Your knee jerk reaction to attack and minimize a championship at even the word championship just seems beneath a program like MC. Especially when those being called out are not attacking MC or their accomplishments. Just my thoughts that it would be best to retire your theory to board history unless someone explicitly attacks MC’s accomplishments and history. Then feel free to take the gloves off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene K.
That is a fair enough thought. Though from 2008 to 2017 JC was almost exclusively in 5A and won zero titles. It is very hard to say their stature should place them in a higher class when they were not able to win a single championship in that decade.

If you want to rail on Montini winning 4in a row and then SHG 2 in a row then at least there is something to back up that the “stature of competition” may not have been rigorous enough in the playoffs.

It is almost impossible to win the argument that a team shouldn’t be in 5A when, in that span, they were never able to win 5A.


When I see Montini guys or JC guys mentioning championships, rarely is it in a way trying to compare number of titles or compare to stature of programs that have had success in larger classes. Your knee jerk reaction to attack and minimize a championship at even the word championship just seems beneath a program like MC. Especially when those being called out are not attacking MC or their accomplishments. Just my thoughts that it would be best to retire your theory to board history unless someone explicitly attacks MC’s accomplishments and history. Then feel free to take the gloves off.

Interesting points. However, even though JCA didn't win 5a, doesn't mean they didn't compete well or fairly well against ESCC competition (which appears to be above 5a)

My reaction to "championships' isn't knee-jerk. Over the years, numerous posters here have taken shots at my school and its program and the former coach. It is very troubling, too, when some school's program is touted as number one in the state when they never played a schedule (season or post-season) as consistently challenging as ours.

Finally, while I speak only for myself and not my school, I would rather lose the 8a or 7a title than compete in 5a a second year - that includes winning the trophy.. I'm not sure about 6a.

Hillman - I don't agree with you here, but I respect you. You're the only poster with an opposing point of view to mine that doesn't act like a smarmy teenager. Eirog, MCHS alum and Ignazio flaunt their immaturity and their inability to be clever in their responses. I believe the third guy is about 20, while the other two claim to be in their 50s.

I've said everything i need to say. I'm willing to drop the conversation. How 'bout you?
 
Interesting points. However, even though JCA didn't win 5a, doesn't mean they didn't compete well or fairly well against ESCC competition (which appears to be above 5a)

My reaction to "championships' isn't knee-jerk. Over the years, numerous posters here have taken shots at my school and its program and the former coach. It is very troubling, too, when some school's program is touted as number one in the state when they never played a schedule (season or post-season) as consistently challenging as ours.

Finally, while I speak only for myself and not my school, I would rather lose the 8a or 7a title than compete in 5a a second year - that includes winning the trophy.. I'm not sure about 6a.

Hillman - I don't agree with you here, but I respect you. You're the only poster with an opposing point of view to mine that doesn't act like a smarmy teenager. Eirog, MCHS alum and Ignazio flaunt their immaturity and their inability to be clever in their responses. I believe the third guy is about 20, while the other two claim to be in their 50s.

I've said everything i need to say. I'm willing to drop the conversation. How 'bout you?

I am good to drop it. Not angry. Just hoping it can stay dropped unless someone comes and tells you MC’s 12 titles are tarnished for any reason and, if they do, target the attack at those specific schools. And a 5A school being ranked Ahead of an 8a school would not be sufficient reason to put all 5A schools on blast.

And remember, MC was in 6A not too long ago. So I wouldn’t go down that route questioning 6A titles. Again, just my thoughts. That’s all I have on the topic.
 
My point is not your enrollment, as such, but the stature of your competition. Any ESCC or CCL team (above the level of St. Joseph or DePaul Prep, for example) should be no lower than 6a, and probably at least 7a.
That is a fair enough thought. Though from 2008 to 2017 JC was almost exclusively in 5A and won zero titles. It is very hard to say their stature should place them in a higher class when they were not able to win a single championship in that decade.
MC63 That's actually kind of a good argument that I would never poke-fun at you for. Don't mistake my poking fun at you as taking jabs at Mt Carmel. I truly have the highest respect for MC. I have consistently voted Mt. Carmel as the best team in the state in all of Bone's 2019 polls.

My only counter to your current argument would be exactly what JCHillmen posted (quoted above also). For the recent past (before 2019) JCA was not doing so well in the ESCC or in 5A with the exception of the 2018 post season run.

Then the only question remaining would be: why didn't JCA opt-up for 2019 after winning in 2018? I'm pretty sure that the coach saw that he was losing all/most of his talent after a 2018 post season run and was looking at fielding a 2019 team of almost exclusively sophomores and juniors. That coupled with not having much success in the decade prior to 2018. Well I can't see a 2nd/3rd year head coach deciding that would be a good time to consider a voluntary opt-up in class.

EDIT: MC63 said [ I believe the third guy is about 20, while the other two claim to be in their 50s. ] Hopefully you you don't really think I am lying about being 56 years old. I wish that were the case, I would gladly shave 20 years off my body and not be dealing with some medical issues or an early retirement. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm going to show my rural view here...Rice has no girls. But Mother McAuley is on the other side of the stadium. St. Xavier is next door. What is the point of a boys only school where the girls only school is across the yard to the east, and the university to the south? Is it common to build the "all-boys" school and the "all-girls" school on the same campus? Would it be so incredibly difficult to consolidate Rice & McAuley if things got to that point?
There was a few like rice and mcauley. Just a philosophy of having all boys or all girls learning environment.
 
MC63 That's actually kind of a good argument that I would never poke-fun at you for. Don't mistake my poking fun at you as taking jabs at Mt Carmel. I truly have the highest respect for MC. I have consistently voted Mt. Carmel as the best team in the state in all of Bone's 2019 polls.

My only counter to your current argument would be exactly what JCHillmen posted (quoted above also). For the recent past (before 2019) JCA was not doing so well in the ESCC or in 5A with the exception of the 2018 post season run.

Then the only question remaining would be: why didn't JCA opt-up for 2019 after winning in 2018? I'm pretty sure that the coach saw that he was losing all/most of his talent after a 2018 post season run and was looking at fielding a 2019 team of almost exclusively sophomores and juniors. That coupled with not having much success in the decade prior to 2018. Well I can't see a 2nd/3rd year head coach deciding that would be a good time to consider a voluntary opt-up in class.

EDIT: MC63 said [ I believe the third guy is about 20, while the other two claim to be in their 50s. ] Hopefully you you don't really think I am lying about being 56 years old. I wish that were the case, I would gladly shave 20 years off my body and not be dealing with some medical issues or an early retirement. :)

I didn't mention you or your age in the post. (Take care of your feet and your teeth. Seriously.)

BTW, I believe that the core of this stream -- where should you be classified in the post season deserves further conversation, although not the childish shots what you'd get from those three,
 
There was a few like rice and mcauley. Just a philosophy of having all boys or all girls learning environment.
Those schools were built in the 50s, and co-ed Catholic high schools were extremely rare in Chicago. I can only think of a few, and they were parish-based.
 
Those schools were built in the 50s, and co-ed Catholic high schools were extremely rare in Chicago. I can only think of a few, and they were parish-based.

What were the coed schools in Chicago in the 50's?
 
I'm going to show my rural view here...Rice has no girls. But Mother McAuley is on the other side of the stadium. St. Xavier is next door. What is the point of a boys only school where the girls only school is across the yard to the east, and the university to the south? Is it common to build the "all-boys" school and the "all-girls" school on the same campus? Would it be so incredibly difficult to consolidate Rice & McAuley if things got to that point?

Several adjacent formerly single gender schools in the Chicago area have already done as you suggest. Laurence/Peace, St. Joe/Imacculate Heart of Mary, and Holy Cross/Mother Guerin

These schools were built back in the day when religious congregations of priests, brothers, and nuns were building single gender schools with the hope that some of their alumni would feel the call to join those congregations. Also, you had these celibate (for the most part) priests, brothers, and nuns who went through their formal religious formation at single gender seminaries, monasteries, and convents, naturally express their preference to teach kids of the same gender. I could definitely see priests saying, "We'll leave the education of girls to the nuns," and nuns saying, "We'll leave the education of boys to priests and brothers."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: IgorStL
What were the coed schools in Chicago in the 50's?

St. Gregory, St. Benedict, St. Francis de Sales, St. Elizabeth, Little Flower, Cathedral, St. Joseph (Hermitage), St. Sebastian, St. Willibrord, St. Michael (Old Town)

I'm sure there were others, but these are off the top of my head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USD24
St. Rita has announced their new President.

Dr. James Quaid has held leadership positions in the Chicago Catholic League, the East Suburban Catholic Conference and the IHSA. He is a Hall of Fame inductee at Fenwick High School and both the Catholic and East Suburban Leagues. He also received a Recognition for Excellence by the Illinois State Board of Education. He has held leadership roles at Fenwick High School, DePaul College Prep and Marmion Academy. During his 39 years in education, he has been a teacher, coach, Dean of Students, Principal, President, Associate Superintendent of Schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gene K.
St. Gregory, St. Benedict, St. Francis de Sales, St. Elizabeth, Little Flower, Cathedral, St. Joseph (Hermitage), St. Sebastian, St. Willibrord, St. Michael (Old Town)

I'm sure there were others, but these are off the top of my head.
I’m pretty sure that St.Michaels segregated the boys and girls in opposite sides of the building.
 
St. Gregory, St. Benedict, St. Francis de Sales, St. Elizabeth, Little Flower, Cathedral, St. Joseph (Hermitage), St. Sebastian, St. Willibrord, St. Michael (Old Town)

I'm sure there were others, but these are off the top of my head.

Interesting that most of those schools are now closed. Are any of those currently open as a high school other than DeSales?[
 
I'm actually learning something here...yikes!

There was a few like rice and mcauley. Just a philosophy of having all boys or all girls learning environment.
Those schools were built in the 50s, and co-ed Catholic high schools were extremely rare in Chicago. I can only think of a few, and they were parish-based.

So, I can understand the solely boys or girls classroom learning environment. I might not agree with it, but I'm not Catholic...Do the neighboring single sex schools have joint social schedules? Do they, for example, share Homecoming? Dances?
 
I'm actually learning something here...yikes!




So, I can understand the solely boys or girls classroom learning environment. I might not agree with it, but I'm not Catholic...Do the neighboring single sex schools have joint social schedules? Do they, for example, share Homecoming? Dances?


I cant speak for Rice and MacAuley, but back in the 80s, Joliet Catholic and St Francis Academy had joint social schedules. Homecoming, Prom, all the dances were together. Things like plays, band and some other extra-curricular activities were also shared.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PanthersWildcats86
ADVERTISEMENT