ADVERTISEMENT

ESCC/CCL Merger Facts

redmen85

Well-Known Member
Dec 17, 2014
702
464
63
New name: ESCC/CCL or CCL/ESCC
6 Divisions of 4 schools-based on male enrollment and w/l record over the last 2 seasons
Giving up the automatic playoff qualifier.
 
New name: ESCC/CCL or CCL/ESCC

lB5wmMp.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: BataviaDogs1
To clarify:

6 divisions of 4

70% success factor (weighted formula)
15% male enrollment
15% football participation
(Can someone confirm that’s 100%?)

2018 and 2017 records taken into account so divisions won’t be determined until after the season.
 
I’d like to see teams move up or down between the divisions based on success. Any talk of that?
 
If it's really 70% weighted based on record that seems like it will cause a lot of movement every few years.

And so location is not a factor at all either then?
 
To clarify:

6 divisions of 4

70% success factor (weighted formula)
15% male enrollment
15% football participation
(Can someone confirm that’s 100%?)

2018 and 2017 records taken into account so divisions won’t be determined until after the season.

Those crafty SOB’s at Loyola are playing 4 dimensional chess...
 
So 3 conference games, 2 non conference games and 4 crossovers? How do the crossovers work?
 
So 3 conference games, 2 non conference games and 4 crossovers? How do the crossovers work?

No word on that. I would prefer subjectivity on the crossovers to try and pair rivals or intriguing matchups outside the division.

I believe CCL now does a blind draw for crossovers and then rotates.

Rotation won’t really work if there’s potential for change every two years?

My head hurts - why didn’t they just go 3 divisions of 8 and then it’s only the non-cons that need to be determined. They are certainly doing everything they can to keep everyone happy.

The new CCL/ESCC: Fair & Balanced
 
  • Like
Reactions: eireog
No word on that. I would prefer subjectivity on the crossovers to try and pair rivals or intriguing matchups outside the division.

I believe CCL now does a blind draw for crossovers and then rotates.

Rotation won’t really work if there’s potential for change every two years?

My head hurts - why didn’t they just go 3 divisions of 8 and then it’s only the non-cons that need to be determined. They are certainly doing everything they can to keep everyone happy.

The new CCL/ESCC: Fair & Balanced

Should have and easily could have done 8 team groupings based purely on enrollment. They are all private so no “recruiting” advantage and if you are big and still suck at football... too bad, your fault/problem!

8 biggest 8 smallest and 8 in middle
 
Should have and easily could have done 8 team groupings based purely on enrollment. They are all private so no “recruiting” advantage and if you are big and still suck at football... too bad, your fault/problem!

8 biggest 8 smallest and 8 in middle

Agree. The only school that really gets screwed with that structure is Ignatius (who has more boys than all but LA, Marist and ND) but surely their revenge would be had down the road when everyone is working for them.
 
Should have and easily could have done 8 team groupings based purely on enrollment. They are all private so no “recruiting” advantage and if you are big and still suck at football... too bad, your fault/problem!

8 biggest 8 smallest and 8 in middle
Not saying I personally agree with the approach, but I believe the flexibility of the smaller divisions and readjustment after two years is something the member schools wanted.
 
There’s really only 1 question that truly matters regarding this merger: how will it affect the Prep Bowl?
 
Not saying I personally agree with the approach, but I believe the flexibility of the smaller divisions and readjustment after two years is something the member schools wanted.

Only the schools that aren’t good and looking for any easy route they can find to find wins. Kansas is at the bottom of the Big 12 should they get to go be a better team in the MAC?

Maybe the real problem is that we are trying to lump all of these schools into one conference just because they are all Catholic.... fact is Leo doesn’t belong in the same conference at all as Loyola... heck with divisions.
 
Only the schools that aren’t good and looking for any easy route they can find to find wins. Kansas is at the bottom of the Big 12 should they get to go be a better team in the MAC?

Maybe the real problem is that we are trying to lump all of these schools into one conference just because they are all Catholic.... fact is Leo doesn’t belong in the same conference at all as Loyola... heck with divisions.
As I said, I'm not saying I agree with the approach. I believe that is the rationale behind the high number of divisions.
 
High number of divisions means you don't spend the majority of your season beating up on each other.
Like it or not-It seems to be well thought out-In my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeanOfSelection
How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

...a fish.
 
No word on that. I would prefer subjectivity on the crossovers to try and pair rivals or intriguing matchups outside the division.

I believe CCL now does a blind draw for crossovers and then rotates.

Rotation won’t really work if there’s potential for change every two years?

My head hurts - why didn’t they just go 3 divisions of 8 and then it’s only the non-cons that need to be determined. They are certainly doing everything they can to keep everyone happy.

The new CCL/ESCC: Fair & Balanced
4 crossover games maybe be a set up wheras 3 of the games should be guaranteed wins for the strong divison + 2 cupcake non conference wins = 5 wins and playoff eligible
 
How about these? ‍♂️

1-Loyola Marist Br.Rice Mt.Carmel
2-Providence St.Rita Montini Marmion
3-De La Salle St.Laurence Fenwick St.Ignatius
4-Nazareth Benet Notre Dame Joliet Catholic
5-St.Patrick Carmel St.Viator Marian Central
6-Leo St.Joseph DePaul Marian Catholic
Hope Academy (Out)

Marmion looks out of place but they did come into the league with Montini a few years ago.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT