A
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The lag time on this has to be lethal...Let's say the Hancock Central 7th grader I mentioned in another thread a month ago who won the 7A state championship by himself in track remains just as good in high school...As a result, their 1A football program becomes state championship quality...Instead of allowing the community the opportunity to win back to back 1A titles, they get jacked up to 5A because they have this all world stud who is going to Michigan or Ohio State or USC for football (or LSU or Oregon for track) and get murdered by some average 5A program with 10 kids going to play D3. Patently unfair.
Even worse in basketball...the 1A hoops program that gets a 7footer who could take them to glory for the first time in school history gets suddenly thrown into 3A or 4A...Have you ever watched a rural 1A hoops program play a 4A hoops program?
This concept is as bad or worse than the success factors on private schools...
ignoring the specific sports they mentioned in the article, I hate it. It does a couple things that are unconscionable to me; 1. It said enrollment plays no role in classification 2. It uses Max Preps rankings as a metric.
Cant think of two worse things to do when classifying HS sports.
I am not a huge fan of the concept, but the sky isn't falling either.
There are plenty of schools that have been 1A that have competed quite nicely against 4A schools in hoops the past few seasons. Some private, some public.
I know you said rural, but if I had a 7-footer on my team, I would certainly get my schedule beefed up. You do the kid a great disservice by playing just smaller schools.
Although I think Rochester really needs to contemplate using that request up button I have zero urge to see them play LWE. Up year for the Rockets and down year for East I'm taking the Griffins 10 out of 10 times. And it wouldn't prove much.Not wild about Max Preps, but I do like the idea of doing something different.
The current IHSA system is badly flawed, especially when it comes to football. We need a better one. Enrollment alone is a crappy determinant of playoff classes.
I think our playoff system is just fine for most public schools. We'd still have to figure out what to do with the likes of Phillips, Simeon, IMSA and the like.
Regarding the '74 vs '16,'17 comparison, was it not the case that back in '74, only conference champs plus a small number of undefeated or 8-1 teams qualified in a smaller playoff? That surely has a bearing on this large disparity between % of 30+ point blow-outs in Round 1?Each year, I document the number of first round playoff blowouts. Most of them involve a public school embarrassing another public school. Last year, I documented that 10% of the 1974 first round playoff games were decided by margins of 30 pts or more, compared with 41% of the first round games in both 2016 and 2017 being decided by a similar minimum margin.
Regarding the '74 vs '16,'17 comparison, was it not the case that back in '74, only conference champs plus a small number of undefeated or 8-1 teams qualified in a smaller playoff? That surely has a bearing on this large disparity between % of 30+ point blow-outs in Round 1?
Because the listed schools get their enrollments differently than the others. That's not a gut feeling, it's just a fact.Other than a gut feeling, what makes you think that?
Each year, I document the number of first round playoff blowouts. Most of them involve a public school embarrassing another public school. Last year, I documented that 10% of the 1974 first round playoff games were decided by margins of 30 pts or more, compared with 41% of the first round games in both 2016 and 2017 being decided by a similar minimum margin.
So, if you think the system is fine for most public schools, define what you mean by "fine." That the experience is generally positive for most public schools? Is it fine for those that don't make the playoffs? Is it fine for those that get embarrassed in the first round?
I just don't understand your thirst to have public schools of a few hundred play public schools of a few thousand. It makes no sense.
It's not hyperbole. We've been back and forth on this and one thing remains constant and that is your inability to show how small schools don't play large schools when you remove enrollment as the classifying mechanism.Why can't you argue a point without resorting to hyperbole?
It's not hyperbole. We've been back and forth on this and one thing remains constant and that is your inability to show how small schools don't play large schools when you remove enrollment as the classifying mechanism.
Worst part about the whole thing is that you're arguing against what you're arguing for all at the same time. When you remove enrollment what you are doing is saying you want small schools to play large ones otherwise there is no reason to remove enrollment. Then you argue that removing the enrollment will not result in the very purpose of doing it in the 1st place.
But by all means, here is my 100th request for you to finally unveil how you would achieve this goal of not classifying by enrollment and still classifying by enrollment.
It's just an all around bad idea.
Allow me to draw on another no sports example to hopefully highlight my point. A couple years ago there was a presidential candidate that said he had a healthcare plan that would cover more people than the current plan, cover more issues than the current plan, and cost less than the current plan. Some people clapped and cheered and really expected that nonsense to come to fruition.What I have talked about for a long time, and what others like Stoned Lizard have talked about, are classifications that are influenced by multiple factors including enrollment. Never, EVER have I said that I would remove enrollment from the classification equation.
What I have said is that most schools would likely remain right where they are currently, and that the majority of schools that would move would do so one class up or down from their base enrollment classification. A relative handful would move two classes. Under no circumstances would a school of a few hundred be playing a school of a few thousand in the playoffs, and therein lies your hyperbole which you prefer to use rather than to have a civil discussion.
It doesn't matter. I tell you one thing, and you prefer to believe what you want. You are like a teenager. In one ear and out the other.
I don't want to see Moroa vs HF in the playoffs. I don't even want to see Rochester vs HF in the playoffs.
I know you and @stonedlizard kept saying it wouldn't happen, but the how never materialized. Or maybe he didn't claim it wouldn't happen, I can't recall. However, I specifically asked how you would get Naz up into the top class (where they would still be competitive) and not public schools of the same size which you claimed you could do without a private multiplier.
We were talking about ramblinman's playoff proposal. This calpreps ranking does exactly what I have been saying would happen under their plan however; Highland (4A), Lena-Winslow (1A), Byron (3A), Rochester (4A), Gibson City (2A), Washington (5A), Forreston (1A), and Dunlap (5A) in the top 32.Actually looks like it would do exactly what you’re asking for re Naz Bones. See link below.
http://calpreps.com/2018/ratings/Illinois_all.htm
No worse than a system that consistently produces 41% of first round playoff games decided by margins of 30 pts or more.
How do you know its bad without giving it a try. Looks like Florida doesn't like their current system either. At least they have the stones to try something new.
We were talking about ramblinman's playoff proposal. This calpreps ranking does exactly what I have been saying would happen under their plan however; Highland (4A), Lena-Winslow (1A), Byron (3A), Rochester (4A), Gibson City (2A), Washington (5A), Forreston (1A), and Dunlap (5A) in the top 32.
What I have talked about for a long time, and what others like Stoned Lizard have talked about, are classifications that are influenced by multiple factors including enrollment. Never, EVER have I said that I would remove enrollment from the classification equation.
What I have said is that most schools would likely remain right where they are currently, and that the majority of schools that would move would do so one class up or down from their base enrollment classification. A relative handful would move two classes. Under no circumstances would a school of a few hundred be playing a school of a few thousand in the playoffs, and therein lies your hyperbole which you prefer to use rather than to have a civil discussion.
I'll use two schools, neighbors in fact, which should show some light on how unfair this concept could likely end up...Wilmington & Joliet Central.
I mentioned basketball in a previous post...Steelmen kill the Wildcats, no questions asked, 99+ out of 100 times.
But, what about wrestling? Wilmo is likely the favorite. But should Wilmo be 3A in wrestling? Probably not.
Track? JC
Baseball? Probably pretty equal.
But what about football? Despite having about 3000 more kids, I'm kind of thinking the Wildcats demoralize the Steelmen and pound the rock right through them...I assume the Steelmen will have some faster kids, so there will be less likelihood of untouched 80 yard TD runs, but the damage will be done by the Cats...But in no way should this mean JC should be 3A and Wilmo 8A...Wilmo being a top program should not be penalized by feeding them to LWE and Loyola...
But Montini, SHG, Naz, IC, and the like should be penalized for success. I love the discrimination.
Again we're discussing @ramblinman playoff proposition. I am not qualified to speak for him so maybe he'll explain why in his system Naz would be in the top class and not Gibson City. He hasn't explained it to me so maybe you'll have better luck.So what you’re saying is you’re okay with a school of 790 kids playing a school with 3,000++ as long as it’s a private vs public like Naz vs Neuqua or Da Brook.
You read his post a lot differently than I did.
Again we're discussing @ramblinman playoff proposition. I am not qualified to speak for him so maybe he'll explain why in his system Naz would be in the top class and not Gibson City. He hasn't explained it to me so maybe you'll have better luck.
And I don't think Neuqua and The Brook are in the top class in his system, they'd probably be in the "ehh they're okay" playoff class.
Yet you apparently want Naz, a school that lost a first round 5A game in 2016 to a team that finished at 6-5, to play four classes above Rochester.
Your idea of fairness is perverse.
No, my idea of fairness is to group schools that get their enrollments in completely different ways in different playoffs. You somehow think that is unfair too. But I listened to your system and wanted to see how it would work. You don't think it would work which is why you only speak of it in vague terms. You know it will fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.I have never crunched the numbers, and I never will. I'm talking about a concept. So, I don't know that Naz would be in the top class, but I kind of doubt it.
You want me to crunch those numbers, but I have neither the expertise nor the time to go through all the trial and error with multiple scenarios to arrive at a reasonable end product.
Keep in mind that Naz is a school with an actual enrollment of 760 -- six students smaller than Rochester. If Naz were in its actual size class, it would be 4A under the current system. Same class as Rochester, with its seven 4A titles since 2010. Yet you apparently want Naz, a school that lost a first round 5A game in 2016 to a team that finished at 6-5, to play four classes above Rochester.
Your idea of fairness is perverse.
Ramblin,
I far from agree with what Bones is peddling, but let’s be clear that Naz has not lost a first round game when qualifying for the playoff since 1999. The last year they didn’t qualify for the playoffs was 2012 and that was a points issue.
So let me get this straight, you want to base this playoff system on competitiveness somehow, but want to keep the most talented program in the state (per @jwarigaku ) in the "they might be good" class?