I would recommend we go old school - If this actually passes - CCL goes independent for football. We'll go back to filling Soldier Field with the Public vs Private game for the City Championship at years end! Will draw more than the Bears !
IHSA - District Proposal - Official Language
- Thread starter DJrodey24
- Start date
Can they go independent just for football? I don't know how the IHSA regulates that with members.
Was doing some research today. People say let everyone in like Indiana. Indiana only has 316 schools that play football. Makes it a lot easier with over 200 less schools.
CPS currently has 82 schools that play football. 57 can qualify for playoffs and 25 cannot. Can the IHSA negotiate that number down to 48? Leave the CPS with 8 Districts with 6 teams per district?
Again how is it dilution of the playoffs? I still don't see your point. The only way there would be "Dilution" of the playoffs would be if there were teams not getting in that should be in. Where is that happening? What purposed district has a 5th place team that would miss out on the playoffs that belongs in? Thats all I am asking? Stop looking at this from the State Champs point of view and look at it from the other teams in the districts. Again I think there are problems with districts but "Dilution" of the playoffs is NOT one of them.
When you have a set number of 4 teams making it, "deserving" teams, based on talent, will miss out. Statistically, it's impossible that the 4th place team in every district will be better than the 5th place team in another. Quick look at 8A in Soucie's mock-up, and District 5 and 8 each have 5 playoff teams from this fall. I didn't go through them all, but some proposed districts should have fewer than 4. It might not be a massive weakening, but that does dilute things.
The flip side that I hadn't thought about, and schools like Antioch won't like this, but many more of the private teams are going to make the playoffs. The CCL teams that beat each other up and go 2-7, 3-6, 4-5, will roll through some of these districts.
Once they do, it may be the final straw for separation vote even though most of the private schools were basically happy to beat up on each other and eliminate a large chunk from playoff contention.
Yea I'm confused as to who is actually going to vote for this thing...
If I'm the public schools, I am basically voting to FLOOD the playoffs with private teams.
If I'm CPS, I'm voting to get thrashed by suburban schools every week.
If I'm CCL/ESCC, I'm voting to break up tradition and rivalries.
Who want's this thing??
What if it the IHSAs primary mandate was to create geographic districts. Just set the overall upper and lower limit bounds they have to follow that are broader than a strict ranked enrollment. Then you qualify for playoffs based on average district size (either top 2 or top 3 in each district auto-qualify) and then you fill in the remaining at large qualifiers by record/playoff points and then classified/seeded by strict enrollment.
Here is the figures if you take Soucie's district bounds and created just a 5% overlap
That would provide the following flexibility to create geographic districts that still adhere to some semblance of enrollment.
Perhaps a little massaging needed in 1A and 7A, but that provides a lot of flexibility. The open slots is 64 less the number of automatically placed schools in each district. Wonder if that's enough to help keep some of these districts more compact ( I think the St Louis metro schools still become a little bit of an issue, but heck, can we just create a carve out exception?)
Here is the figures if you take Soucie's district bounds and created just a 5% overlap
| Low | High | |
| 1A | 0 | 314 |
| 2A | 285 | 406 |
| 3A | 369 | 558 |
| 4A | 505 | 834 |
| 5A | 755 | 1258 |
| 6A | 1139 | 1853 |
| 7A | 1678 | 2277 |
| 8A | 2062 | 8400 |
That would provide the following flexibility to create geographic districts that still adhere to some semblance of enrollment.
| Automatic | Split schools | Total Possible | Open Slots |
57 | 23 | 80 | 7 |
30 | 55 | 85 | 34 |
44 | 54 | 98 | 20 |
47 | 37 | 84 | 17 |
46 | 38 | 84 | 18 |
52 | 44 | 96 | 12 |
37 | 38 | 75 | 27 |
58 | 17 | 75 | 6 |
Perhaps a little massaging needed in 1A and 7A, but that provides a lot of flexibility. The open slots is 64 less the number of automatically placed schools in each district. Wonder if that's enough to help keep some of these districts more compact ( I think the St Louis metro schools still become a little bit of an issue, but heck, can we just create a carve out exception?)
There were enough schools that wanted it last time that it passed.
I don't see the issue with more privates getting into the playoffs, it doesn't mean they will win. If anything it will hurt their winning percentage. A team like Leo makes the playoffs and then gets killed in round one of the 2A playoffs, Niles ND gets in and gets blown out in 6A.
There is no good solution for the CPS, but maybe they have different priorities than you think they do. The vast majority of CPS kids play football because they love the game or the more activities they're in looks better on college applications or because they want stay in shape, etc. Not every CPS kid who goes out for football has dreams of winning a state title or even thinks they will make the playoffs. I think this would be good for the CPS long term. No, they won't be competitive for a while or maybe ever for some schools but at the same time it provides them the opportunity to play games outside of the city and other experiences that schools from the rest of the state get to enjoy. The highlight of a small CPS school's season may be a game day experience at a place like Wilmington or another school that has a good turnout or just playing a game on a schools campus versus a park in Chicago. Even if they're not your fans, actually playing in front of a good crowd may be enjoyable for these kids.
I've been defending districts, but overall I'm indifferent towards them. If passed there will be changes and everyone hates change but I don't see it effecting the overall quality of product when it comes time for the playoffs.
The majority of the schools represented on this board are typically annual contenders and that wouldn't change if districts pass. There will likely be more blowouts in the regular season and no offense, but no one outside of the CCL/ESCC cares about your rivalries.
As I've said previously there are ~500 schools that will vote on this and the people discussing it here represent maybe 30 of those schools.
Do some of the more stable suburban conferences not care about their rivalries? Or they're just figuring they'll stay 60% intact and be good with it?
Just gonna speak for Naz and totally as a fan, but them possibly being in a 5A conference with St Francis would at least be something. But take it a step further and if both schools made a "I'll opt up if you opt up" agreement maybe they'd get placed together in better 6A district? But it's total freaking chance.
Perhaps the other Hail Mary effort for escc/ccl alliance is make a case for a smaller district proposal like 6 teams. That leaves 4 games for OOC which they could basically do their scheduling alliance with of 4 team groups they do today. With many of those schools schools then cake walking districts and having a nice balance to their schedule. Obviously the current version is gonna be voted on either way, but if it goes similar to last time where it passes and then goes through a possible re-vote it's clear something like it probably needs to stand in and someone should offer up alternative solutions that address the underlying issue.
I think it depends on the conference and the rivalries. Some will be kept in tact due to geographic location keeping them in the same districts, but others could be scheduled during the first two weeks of non district games. Also, some rivalries have dissipated over the years due to conferences dissolving or realigning over the years, which is one big reason why a number of schools will vote for this so AD's don't have to worry about constantly changing conferences.
Using your example of Naz, they have St. Francis in their district in Soucie's mock up and could schedule IC and Fenwick in their out of district games or rotate rivals in those week 1 and 2 games.
I don't see your proposal for opting up a class or opting out of districts being a feasible solution, especially on a short time frame. Per Soucie's article this will go to a vote in the next couple of weeks and we'll know the results around Christmas. From there the IHSA will need to build the districts based on enrollments, who's playing 11 man football, multipliers, success factor, schools petitioning up, etc. and I don't see there being enough time in between for amendments to what was voted on, at least not for 2024.
Again, no offense, but the IHSA isn't going change district sizes and move everything around just to cater to one conference.
If it passes, year 1 would be chaotic and messy, but that's where amendments could start to come in to clean it up. Start adjusting districts like promotion and relegation. If you finish in the top 2 of district 6 in 5A for two years in a row you move up to district 5 and if you're in the bottom 2 for two consecutive years you go down to district 7. Start here and go towards the districts having a hierarchy so that districts 1-3 in 5A are the top teams and most competitive. But, if you do that then adjustments would need to be made on who gets into the playoffs.
No offense taken.
But it's not about catering. It's about those schools having the leverage to come to the table as a unified front, with improvements, if the stability of the entire IHSA proposal looks as weak and unstable as it did last time. 24 teams and find other member schools with similar goals, willing to join them to create a unified 40+ school block. Then the unified block who have proposed the initial rules then can decide if the accommodations are worthwhile and if you have a compromise to represent a sigmificant block voting for a system that is stake enough to pass AND not be repealed.
Or those schools bank on it never being a system strong enough to actually withstand appeal and understand the current system will basically remain stable save for a challenge every few years. I think that's the likely stance and outcome, but not the only possible one.
Where there is a will there is a way. If this proposal barely passes again, schools will find a way to make sure it's repealed in time once actual districts come out and scare a fragile majority again.
TLDR: Private schools have mostly taken a back seat in all this because they are a huge minority. But they at this point are well adept at the process of negotiating among themselves on a unified goal - however imperfect. They just have to decide if it's worth trying to stake out a leadership position and seek others outside their immediate group to join. Because you don't need a ton on a razor thin issue to be a deciding voice and vote block. A bunch of public schools can theoretically do the same, they just don't have the history and experience in most cases to come together around a common goal like that at 24 large.
Last edited:
I don't either! Makes for better competition, but I think a lot of the usual complainers don't appreciate that that will be the outcome of districts. These are the same people who think "winning %" across publics or privates in the playoffs is actually a meaningful statistic, which it is not, and despite winning % going down I don't that that's going to placate them...
I also don't really agree that Leo or ND get killed in R1... It's kind of impossible to tell how good Leo is (or could be) when they have to play St. Francis, Larry, B-Mac, etc. week in and week out. Who knows if they come alive with a 2A schedule. Same goes for ND - nothing to suggest they get smoked in R1, their schedule is chock full of deep playoff teams.
I know quite a bit about CPS kids and their priorities - I was one. I have fond memories of playing at suburban schools despite getting our asses kicked. But for us, that was the first two games of the season, and then we went on to win a bunch of games. You're out of touch if you think a meaningful number of CPS kids (or kids anywhere - they aren't that different) are playing football for a little exercise or college apps - it's not that type of game. The diversity of experience and challenge of competition you alluded to are great things in a vacuum, but it's a lot harder to get kids to come out for football after an 1-8 season than it is after an 8-1 season. A bunch of those in a row and you start to worry about program feasibility in a district with as much choice and lack of feeders as CPS.
Let me caveat that I'm not saying this is a universal effect of districts, so maybe your right and the overall perspective in the CPL office isn't that negative. But for regions like Soucie's projected 5A-D2 and 5A-D5, those are death warrants for the CPS schools in those regions IMO.
Same here, I think it improves the quality of the playoffs at the expense of the regular season. And I think the regular season is far more important for the athletes themselves.
Yea and that's bad! The regular season is the main event, we shouldn't be worried about the playoffs at its expense. I think lots of schools care about rivalries, but two non-cons is enough to solve for that.
Beyond regular season blowouts, I'd honestly be concerned about an increase in forfeits too. On some of those really imbalanced CPS / Catholic potential divisions, I could see some lower CPS schools seeing 4-5 productive games and 1-2 that maybe aren't worth their time.
"We have to pass it to see what's in it!"
Yes it did pass last time and when people saw what it looked like it was repealed by a large margin. When the dust clears no one wants to be the Chihuahua in the junk yard.
It was posted that it passed by about 13-15 votes then lost by about 130 when people saw what it looked like. a swing of about just under 150.
Not sure they'll have the time for that this time around, honestly. Last time was 2018 and it passed, but was repealed once districts were revealed in 2019. Districts were to go into effect in 2021 but this time around it would go into effect for 2024.
Even it were tight turnaround, I assume a well place lawsuit can always put something on ice long enough to buy time.
I kind of think the CPS isn't going want their teams all taking 70-0 beatings every week. If they take a pass then the IHSA has to do a do over. The CCL/ESCC could join them along with all the schools who have established conferences. I'd also add the schools who round trips to games will be measured in hours not minutes. Add in the teams with signed contracts for games outside of first two weeks. Does the IHSA have the money to pay the bonds for forfeiting those games. There were a lot of reasons why it would have taken a couple of years for this to be implemented last time. There is a good chance the IHSA themselves could ask for one year delay.
While definitely true, if a lawsuit over high school football districts were the result that is just sad.
The thing is, it wouldn't be 70-0 every week. If you look at the districts with CPS schools most of them have multiple CPS schools, some are 3-5 teams per district so those teams would still get wins against the other CPS teams. Some would be able to compete with the lesser public/private teams within their district as well.
So they would lose 70-0 only 4-5 times a season only?
I think it's sad that a team like Moline, who has an established conference, is being told your conference is disbanded and in your District you will have several games are over 540 miles round trip.
So then they could go 5-4 and make the playoffs.
Districts effects 500+ schools, travel issues would effect 5% or less.
Sounds like some CCL/ESCC/7A/8A powerhouse supporters think the IHSA has an electoral college where their votes should count more than other schools who aren't as good/recognizable/big. Lets have the vote, see where it goes, see the system, then make our judgements. To single out the same schools over and over again is not going to do anything to change other people's minds. Schools should vote based on their interest and desire for districts, not anyone else's opinion of it.
Sir, I'm going to need you to take your logical thinking elsewhere.
Eh some of these travel times alone are gonna have me sympathetic to any party who wants to use litigation to at least slow down the implementation.
The proposal is sponsored by 4 conferences making up 37 teams. I actually applaud that they want to take leadership on an issue. Merely pointing out that any 24+ team alliance that wants to form a counter proposal and leading proposal that is ammeanable to the first 37 and helps deter deflections has some strength. The ESCC/CCL alliance is just a natural one as a similar size group would need to patch together at least 2-3 conferences to give a strong negotiating position. They just happen to have experience working together and a lot of common goals. Those numbers, unified, suddenly could make or break next repeal effort.
All 100% speculative obviously. But a suggestion.
All 100% speculative obviously. But a suggestion.
As an (unscientific) experiment, here are my CPS playoff teams next year under Soucie's Districts. Not saying the is good or bad at all, just illustrative.
8A - None
7A (1) - Kenwood has an outside shot in D6
6A (5) - Simeon in D5 + Amundsen, Payton, and two others from all-CPS D4
5A (4) - Bulls for D3, Perspectives + one other in D4, MP in D5
4A (6) - Three from D2 - (this would be an absolute joke for ICCP to be in this division vs all CPS schools), Phillips, Clark, Hyde Park in D4,
3A (3) - 2 from D2, 1 from D3,
2A (1?) - There's a chance one beats out Westmont for the last slot in D1
1A - None
So at the end of the day you have about 20 CPS in the playoffs - not materially different than you do now, but definitely more of a "cap".
I think the CPS schools that would be the loudest critics to this would be Lane, WY, Taft - teams that place high in the Red standings but now are buried in deep in 8A/7A districts. Again, not saying that isn't fair, just an observation. Qualitatively, I think most CPS schools in districts with 4+ non-CPS teams can't really expect much playoff success if they cant finish 4th in the district.
8A - None
7A (1) - Kenwood has an outside shot in D6
6A (5) - Simeon in D5 + Amundsen, Payton, and two others from all-CPS D4
5A (4) - Bulls for D3, Perspectives + one other in D4, MP in D5
4A (6) - Three from D2 - (this would be an absolute joke for ICCP to be in this division vs all CPS schools), Phillips, Clark, Hyde Park in D4,
3A (3) - 2 from D2, 1 from D3,
2A (1?) - There's a chance one beats out Westmont for the last slot in D1
1A - None
So at the end of the day you have about 20 CPS in the playoffs - not materially different than you do now, but definitely more of a "cap".
I think the CPS schools that would be the loudest critics to this would be Lane, WY, Taft - teams that place high in the Red standings but now are buried in deep in 8A/7A districts. Again, not saying that isn't fair, just an observation. Qualitatively, I think most CPS schools in districts with 4+ non-CPS teams can't really expect much playoff success if they cant finish 4th in the district.
Ironically the whole conference shuffling issue that is a major reason for districts is a huge reason for the current escc/ccl amagalation. They basically did a district idea for themselves. Maybe they have suggestions from lived experience they'd want to share (probably not, but maybe)
There's a cap now, being that only a certain amount of CPS schools are eligible for the playoffs and in those divisions only the top 2 or 4 are eligible.
It's funny how everyone talks about how districts are biased against CPS schools and they won't be able to compete. There has been complaining about so much, but I have yet to hear any outcry from the CPS backers saying they don't want districts because they cannot compete.
✅ Understand struggles of conference shuffling
✅ Comfortable with unruly travel times
✅ Takes directives from higher powers well
The catholic schools are a natural fit for districts, they just gotta get in there and get their spin on it!
The District idea is not to fix anything wrong with football. Its that conferences are being broken up and rivalries are being lost because schools are struggling in football and are looking elsewhere to try to be competitive. Therefore a large number of student-athletes male/female are all effected negatively. All the "other" sports are having to deal with a football problem. AD's are looking at this problem and believing the answer is to take football out of the equation. So the guys who are voting on this are not worried about the same things football coaches and fans are worried about. This is why I believe this thing has a great chance to pass. Just my 2 cents.
Right, hence why I said "more of a cap". Today, more than 20 CPS schools routinely make the playoffs. This year 26 did. The districts Soucie proposed only added the top 3 teams from each blue division to reach numbers, so presumably some CPS schools will continue to be excluded. Under the qualification mechanics of districts, I don't think you can reasonably expect more than 20, so effectively more of a cap.
Who is saying that? You quoted my post - I have certainly never said that and went out of my way in the above post to say I don't think districts are unfair and am not making a value judgement on my projected playoff teams.
It's factual that some of the weakest CPS school will crumble under a district arrangement if left in primarily suburban divisions, but I'm not going to make an argument that that is biased or unfair.
wouldn't it make sense to see the system before we have the vote?
Edwardsville says no bueno.
www.theintelligencer.com
Edwardsville with 'significant concerns' about district football
For EHS, there would be approximately 1,250 miles separating it from its seven district...
Per Soucie's article here's why there won't be proposed districts by the IHSA prior to the vote.
"The IHSA doesn’t plan to submit any kind of projection for what the system might look like, according to Knox, and has not done internal preparations for what the system would be if it does pass. This is largely due to unknown variables such as program participation, possible adjustments to schools’ cooperative enrollments and defections to the 8-man ranks.
“A rough draft isn’t something we’ll do, because it could probably end up being like 75 percent accurate. There’s a lot of questions that we don’t have answers to right now,” Knox said.
“If the voting membership decides that this is what they want, we will come up with a system based on what the proposal outlines. If this passes, and if it does it will be right around Christmas time, and if people want answers immediately, it needs to be understood it is going to take us awhile to let the dust settle and figure out where we are going.”
That's old. A lot of those schools listed are closed,consolidated & dropped to 8 man
Does ESLs conference ban from petitioning up end if their conference doesn't exist for football?
