IHSA District vote fails full IHSA Press Release here

[EdgyTim]

Football District Proposal Fails: IHSA Membership Pass 12 Other Proposals

Illinois High School Association (IHSA) member schools approved 12 of 14 amendment proposals that appeared on the all-school ballot during the annual by-law referendum process that ended on December 19, 2023. Full text of the initial 23 proposals, including the 14 that advanced to the all-school...

www.ihsa.org

Illinois High School Association (IHSA) member schools approved 12 of 14 amendment proposals that appeared on the all-school ballot during the annual by-law referendum process that ended on December 19, 2023. Full text of the initial 23 proposals, including the 14 that advanced to the all-school ballot, can be found by clicking here.

A proposal that would have significantly changed football scheduling in the state failed to pass (272-379-76). The only other proposal that did not pass sought to decrease the number of allowable summer contact days between coaches and student-athletes.

"The IHSA Board of Directors has already had discussions about the potential of forming a Football Ad Hoc Committee in 2024 in the event that this district proposal failed to pass," said IHSA Executive Director Craig Anderson. "They want to be proactive in trying to address the issues that are at the root of different football proposals seemingly being brought forth each year. They recognize the myriad issues in IHSA football are unique and can be based on geography, school size, conference affiliation, and the traditional success of a program, which is why no recent proposals have garnered enough support to pass. There is likely no singular answer to these issues, but the Board wants to explore the idea that a large and diverse group from around the state might be able to find some solutions that the high school football community in the state would support."

The 2023 legislative process brought out the highest voting total in over a decade, as 89.2% of the membership participated in the vote. Below is a summary of the proposals and the vote totals. (The numbers in parentheses indicate the total of yes, no, and no opinion votes. For an amendment to pass, yes votes must outnumber no votes.).

Proposal 4 (Passes 578-124-24) Allows coaches to conduct out of season strength and conditioning workouts with limits of no more than 4 days per week and no more than 90 minutes per session outside the season. No coaching of the skills of a sport during any session.

Proposal 5 (Passes 449-233-45): Allows students to meet the residence by-law when their parent/guardian is a full-time staff member at a public school whose attendance boundary they do not reside in if the district has a Board Policy permitting students of employees to attend tuition free.

Proposal 9 (Passes 547-136-43): Modifies the All-Star games participation limit to include all sports as opposed to just basketball, football, soccer and volleyball.

Proposal 11 (Fails 302-407-18): Modifies the number of summer contact days restriction from 25 to 18 days.

Proposal 12 (Passes 566-132-23): Allows coaches to conduct strength and conditioning workouts with limits of no more than 4 days per week and no more than 90 minutes per session during the summer contact days. Conditioning training does not count against the summer contact day count. No coaching of the skills of a sport during any session in order for the session not to count as a summer contact day.

Proposal 14 (Passes 422-136-166): Restricts a Pre-Contest Physical Examination from determining a student’s eligibility for a contest other than in sports that require weigh-ins or sports-specific nail or skin checks.

Proposal 15 (Passes 564-36-118): Modifies the participation under an assumed name to match the language passed two years ago in By-law 3.090.

Proposal 16 (Passes 540-126-54): Eliminates the IHSA Tournament Limitations By-law (5.004).

Proposal 17 (Passes 410-232-85): Creates the opportunity for football teams to conduct a pre-season scrimmage with another school. Specific scrimmage limitations include the following: Use of IHSA Officials, 4 separate 12 play segments, no special teams, 48 total play limits per player, no live contact or thud in practice the day before or after the scrimmage. Scrimmage to be held on Friday or Saturday of IHSA Week 7. Players are eligible to participate in the scrimmage after participating in 8 different days of practice.

Proposal 18 (Fails 272-379-76): Establishes districts in the sport of football to be determined by the IHSA using geography and classification. Eight districts in each class with eight schools in each district. District games in weeks 3 – 9 of the regular season. Top 4 schools in each district qualify for the IHSA Play-offs. Seeding procedures will be similar to current seeding procedures with teams from the same district not to play in the first round.

Proposal 19 (Passes 352-48-321): Eliminates the Boys Gymnastics season and contest limitation by-law.

Proposal 20 (Passes 541-134-48): Eliminate the match limit per tournament language in girls and boys volleyball.

Proposal 22 (Passes 594-18-111): Increase the number of girls’ wrestling team contests from 18 to 25.

Proposal 23 (Passes 464-82-181): Establishes a Girls Flag Football fall season limitation (Monday of Wk. 6 to Saturday of Wk. 21), a pre-season practice requirement of 9 practices before a contest and a regular season contests limitation of 25 games exclusive of the IHSA State Series.

Below is a summary of member school participation in the amendment process over the past 13 years:

Year	Type of Ballot	Proposals on Ballot	Schools Voting	Percentage Voting
2011-12	online	14	500 of 794	63.0%
2012-13	online	11	464 of 802	57.8%
2013-14	online	11	463 of 808	57.3%
2014-15	online/email	6 (3 rejected)	613 of 810	75.7%
2015-16	online/email	3	597 of 811	73.6%
2016-17	online/email	8	589 of 811	72.6%
2017-18	online/email	6 (1 rejected)	609 of 811	75.1%
2018-19	online/email	11	702 of 818	85.8%
2019-20	online/email	11 (1 rejected)	702 0f 812	86.5%
2020-21	online/email	3	587 of 813	72.2%
2021-22	online/email	7	472 of 815	57.9%
2022-23	online/email	8	513 of 813	63.0%
2023-24	online/email	14 (2 rejected)	727 of 815	89.2%

 

[LakeCtyNewt]

Scrimmages allowed? Hmm

 

[EdgyTim]

Podcast coming shortly with Mike Clark as we discuss this

 

[McCaravan]

And hopefully it won’t be brought up for a vote again. You can’t vote on something so significant with so many unknowns, most notably what the district would even be. This idea needs to be taken out back and buried. Any info what the yay/nay total was?

 

[DadCoachSports]

And hopefully it won’t be brought up for a vote again. You can’t vote on something so significant with so many unknowns, most notably what the district would even be. This idea needs to be taken out back and buried. Any info what the yay/nay total was?

Fails 272-379-76

 

[DadCoachSports]

Reading the wording from the press release it does not sound like Districts are completely dead in the water for the future. Sounds like to me they know their proposal wasnt going to pass as written but they know it has merit if proposed correctly.

 

[crusader_of_90]

Althoff/Mater Dei/Highland will be seeing a lot of each other ... all from the same coaching tree and I can see scrimmages among them.

 

[olderbytheminute]

Districts will never pass.
The selling point in favor is that it makes scheduling "easier".
It doesn't.
We are now down to 500 schools playing football that are eligible for the playoffs.
The district dream was to have 8 8-team districts in each of the 8 classes. The math on that requires 512 schools. Illinois doesn't have that many.
So, that means there are going to be several (using 500 as the total number of schools playing ball) 12 7-team districts, or 6 6-team districts or 12 9-team districts or some combination thereof.
Any combination of the 6-, 7-or 9-team districts creates a massive scheduling problem which is what districts were supposed to avoid.
In a 9-team district, schools have a Week1 game of choice, then 8 weeks of league games in which one of the teams in the district has no game scheduled, including weeks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
In a 7-team district, schools have Week 1 and 2 games of choice, then play seven weeks of district games in which one of the teams in the distict has no game scheduled, including weeks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
In a 6-team district, schools have Week 1 and 2 games of choice, have district games scheduled for weeks 5-9, and none of the teams have games scheduled for weeks 3-4.
That is a scheduling nightmare waiting to happen. Right now, that nightmare is shared by a certain group. of schools in the state, no doubt. The district plan has proposed won't do a thing toward solving the scheduling nightmare. All it would do is shift the scheduling nightmare to a different group of teams.
Plus, who qualifies for the playoffs? The IHSA plan had top four of eight teams qualifying for the postseason. In fact, it had 4 teams qualifying for the playoffs out of each district, erasing the "total wins by opponents" component as a tiebreaker for who qualifies and who doesn't.
So, in a 9-team district, how many teams qualify? In a 7-team district, how many teams qualify? In a 6-team district, how many teams qualify?
I am not considering loss of rivalry games (which stinks), I am not considering ridiculous travel for some schools (which stinks), and I am not considering lopsided districts in which an elite program is paired up with a half-dozen bottom feeders (which stinks).
Strictly on the math for scheduling games and qualifying for the playoffs, the plan that was proposed was doomed.
Basically, district scheduling shuffles the problems so they are dealt to a different set of schools rather than the set we already know have problems.
That's not a solution. It's the same problem, different verse.

 

[colin2229]

I could see a well presented district proposal pass. Start by eliminating the CPS schools from it.

 

[refref01]

I could see a well presented district proposal pass. Start by eliminating the CPS schools from it.

Only way it will pass is if you combine classes.

 

[stonedlizard]

Christmas came early! Rational minds prevail!

 

[ramblinman]

I could see a well presented district proposal pass. Start by eliminating the CPS schools from it.

What is your rationale for that?

With the exception of a handful of high achieving private city schools like MC, Rice, Ignatius, that likely voted no because they don't want to be forced to play a schedule loaded with mostly weak teams (or have those teams forfeit games against them), I don't see how the CPS schools had much to do with the proposal's failure to pass. I think the biggest reason the proposal failed statewide is because there was no meat behind it in the form of what districts would look like, followed closely by the timing of it coinciding with the next football season. It was simply too short of a run-up. There are other reasons it failed like the goofy large school districts that encompass schools in the Quad Cities and St Louis metro areas and schools in the far west and southwest suburban Chicago areas.

I just don't think that eliminating CPS schools from the equation is going to help all that much in getting this thing passed.

 

[colin2229]

What is your rationale for that?

With the exception of a handful of high achieving private city schools like MC, Rice, Ignatius, that likely voted no because they don't want to be forced to play a schedule loaded with mostly weak teams (or have those teams forfeit games against them), I don't see how the CPS schools had much to do with the proposal's failure to pass. I think the biggest reason the proposal failed statewide is because there was no meat behind it in the form of what districts would look like, followed closely by the timing of it coinciding with the next football season. It was simply too short of a run-up. There are other reasons it failed like the goofy large school districts that encompass schools in the Quad Cities and St Louis metro areas and schools in the far west and southwest suburban Chicago areas.

I just don't think that eliminating CPS schools from the equation is going to help all that much in getting this thing passed.

CPS schools would never make the playoffs. I would think a majority of CPS schools voted down the proposal.

 

[ramblinman]

CPS schools would never make the playoffs. I would think a majority of CPS schools voted down the proposal.

You're probably right, but I'm still unclear about what you are really getting at.

Are you suggesting that all CPS schools should be ineligible for the playoffs and create districts all over the state that include all schools except CPS schools? Or are you saying allow CPS to create their own districts while maintaining their playoff eligibility?

 

[mc140]

CPS schools would never make the playoffs. I would think a majority of CPS schools voted down the proposal.

CPS isn't the only conference filled with teams that will never make the playoffs in a district format.

 

[olderbytheminute]

CPS schools would never make the playoffs. I would think a majority of CPS schools voted down the proposal.

I believe you are painting the Chicago Public League football situation with too wide of a brush.
This past fall, 56 teams in the CPL began play in August with an opportunity to qualify for the IHSA playoffs. In the end, 22 did.
Now, let's pretend there is a district format rather than conferences.
It's pretty clear that the key objective of districts is to group teams of similar size that are near each other in an eight-team district.
The plan was for 8-team districts with the top four finishers in the league standings qualifying for the postseason. The teams were to play two non-league games in weeks 1 and 2 that have no affect on the standings at all. Then, seven weeks of league play and the top four teams make the IHSA playoffs.
Now, let's say. there are 55 teams in the CPL eligible for the playoffs, as many of the schools are not eligible.
Those teams are going to be grouped into different classes based on size. But they also will be grouped together for the most part because they are all really close to each other.
So, it's very conceivable that the 55 teams could be divided into let's say 10 separate districts, obviously in different classes.
Let's say 5 of the districts have 6 CPL teams and two non-CPL teams from the Chicago area. And let's say the other 5 districts have 5 CPL teams and three non-CPL teams from the Chicago area.
In a district with 5 CPL teams, at least one has to make the playoffs. In a district with 6 CPL teams, at least two have to make the playoffs.
That would come out to 15 CPL teams making the playoffs regardless of how good or bad the teams are. 15 is not 22, but it's also not zero.
A district with 6 CPL teams plus Mt. Carmel and St. Rita would still qualify two teams for the playoffs. CPL teams could lose their two non-conferences weeks 1 and 2 that don't matter, and obviously lose to the Catholic League powers. Then, the six teams would basically be playing a 6-team round-robin to determine which two teams could play in the IHSA playoffs.
So, really, I don't see the CPL being wiped out from the playoffs in district play. I can easily see Mt. Carmel and St. Rita, in this make-believe scenario, being really ticked off but we've always known that in a shift to district play, there would be winners and losers off the field.
Personally, I think districts make zero sense and will never happen here.
What I could see happen would be the formation of football-only conferences, such as what the East Suburban Catholic and Chicago Catholic League have done.
I think that's the future as you can put let's just say, Batavia and Rockford Boylan and Lincoln-Way West in the same conference for football. It's only a depressing road trip for varsity play once every two years and no other school sports are affected.

 

[colin2229]

You're probably right, but I'm still unclear about what you are really getting at.

Are you suggesting that all CPS schools should be ineligible for the playoffs and create districts all over the state that include all schools except CPS schools? Or are you saying allow CPS to create their own districts while maintaining their playoff eligibility?

I think districts would have a better chance of passing if the CPS had their own districts and the top four made the IHSA playoffs.

Otherwise, any non-CPS school that gets paired up with CPS schools will vote no as will CPS schools.

The amount of forfeits pairing up CPS and non-CPS in a district would significant.

 

[ramblinman]

I think districts would have a better chance of passing if the CPS had their own districts and the top four made the IHSA playoffs.

Otherwise, any non-CPS school that gets paired up with CPS schools will vote no as will CPS schools.

The amount of forfeits pairing up CPS and non-CPS in a district would significant.

Gotcha.

I think, though, that your idea is easier said than done. Specifically, what would happen to schools like Taft, Curie, and Lane, the only three 8A schools in CPS? Or 7A with just Lincoln Park, Young, and Kenwood? What would happen at the other end of the enrollment spectrum where you have only 6 CPS schools with 1A enrollment?

There are no easy answers to the district problem, which is why I think it simply won't work.

 

[Quags57]

I think districts would have a better chance of passing if the CPS had their own districts and the top four made the IHSA playoffs.

Otherwise, any non-CPS school that gets paired up with CPS schools will vote no as will CPS schools.

The amount of forfeits pairing up CPS and non-CPS in a district would significant.

Since the IHSA strives for "regional reprensentation", what you are saying is that the IHSA should gerrymander out any private schools or suburban public schools from a district that includes CPS teams.

So, if that's the case, tell me the value then of a district?

 

[colin2229]

Gotcha.

I think, though, that your idea is easier said than done. Specifically, what would happen to schools like Taft, Curie, and Lane, the only three 8A schools in CPS? Or 7A with just Lincoln Park, Young, and Kenwood? What would happen at the other end of the enrollment spectrum where you have only 6 CPS schools with 1A enrollment?

There are no easy answers to the district problem, which is why I think it simply won't work.

Valid points...No easy solutions indeed. Lets hope districts never happen.

I just think a better thought out district proposal will have a good chance at getting the necessary votes. If I'm the group that brought forth the proposal this year I'm spending the next several months putting our heads together and coming up with a detailed proposal as opposed to what they brought to the table this year. That proposal needs to address the CPS as one of the main issues.

 

[colin2229]

Since the IHSA strives for "regional representation", what you are saying is that the IHSA should gerrymander out any private schools or suburban public schools from a district that includes CPS teams.

So, if that's the case, tell me the value then of a district?

If the CPS is mixed in with the rest of the IHSA schools the regular season product will be damaged. Long term, I think there would be less and less CPS schools fielding programs. I could see schools leaving the IHSA because they are paired up with several CPS schools in a district (Mt. Carmel, St. Rita, etc). There would be a increase in forfeits. What about the lower levels? One school has (4) levels while the other only has (2).

Same values of a district that the people pushing for it would still exsist. You just have the CPS schools in their own district.

You just can't have a district like the one proposed below:

Mt Carmel
Fenwick
Whitney Young
Proviso East
Juarez
Kelly
Lincoln Park
Schurz
Von Steuben

 

[ramblinman]

That proposal needs to address the CPS as one of the main issues.

How is that done tactfully?

If the proposers are really smart, they will get their ducks in a row first and involve some CPS schools in the proposal or gain the endorsement of the proposal by the entire league before the proposal sees the light of day.

I have to say that, in recent months, I've been seeing multiple posts along the lines of "if the CPS schools weren't in the playoffs, they would be much better." While I certainly understand the sentiment, you can't just wish or legislate these schools away. They are member schools. If the CPS wanted to have all their schools eligible for the playoffs, I don't think that anyone could or should stop them.

 

[colin2229]

How is that done tactfully?

If the proposers are really smart, they will get their ducks in a row first and involve some CPS schools in the proposal or gain the endorsement of the proposal by the entire league before proposal sees the light of day.

I have to say that, in recent months, I've been seeing multiple posts along the lines of "if the CPS schools weren't in the playoffs, they would be much better." While I certainly understand the sentiment, you can't just wish or legislate these schools away. They are member schools. If the CPS wanted to have all their schools eligible for the playoffs, I don't think that anyone could or should stop them.

2019 IHSA Proposed Districts

This version states in the top right "THIS VERSION INCLUDES ALL CPS TEAMS". Makes me think there is a version that doesn't include CPS teams and I'm very curious what that looks like. Anyone have it???

I don't have the solution and I don't think there is a perfect one. The CPS needs their own districts which guarantee's representation in the IHSA playoffs. If they don't go this route they will get thrown in with the rest of the districts and will have very little representation.

 

[ramblinman]

2019 IHSA Proposed Districts

This version states in the top right "THIS VERSION INCLUDES ALL CPS TEAMS". Makes me think there is a version that doesn't include CPS teams and I'm very curious what that looks like. Anyone have it???

I don't have the solution and I don't think there is a perfect one. The CPS needs their own districts which guarantee's representation in the IHSA playoffs. If they don't go this route they will get thrown in with the rest of the districts and will have very little representation.

I think it was likely worded that way because, by CPS choice, not all CPS teams are eligible for the playoffs, not because there were two different versions.

 

[Coach Percy]

Lol if we are gonna do districts let's do them for all sports......I'm sure CPS will concede football if we knew we could beat up on those schools in basketball, track, etc..... I can guarantee yall won't be happy about that

 

[Quags57]

If the CPS is mixed in with the rest of the IHSA schools the regular season product will be damaged. Long term, I think there would be less and less CPS schools fielding programs. I could see schools leaving the IHSA because they are paired up with several CPS schools in a district (Mt. Carmel, St. Rita, etc). There would be a increase in forfeits. What about the lower levels? One school has (4) levels while the other only has (2).

Same values of a district that the people pushing for it would still exsist. You just have the CPS schools in their own district.

You just can't have a district like the one proposed below:

Mt Carmel
Fenwick
Whitney Young
Proviso East
Juarez
Kelly
Lincoln Park
Schurz
Von Steuben

So, you get a choice. Gerrymandering or kick the CPS schools out.

And if you choose either, what's the point of districts?

 

[4Afan]

Reslly nice article that offers insight from those who voted and why from mostly small schools in an area of the state that doesn't have much of a following here.

District article

 

[doctor_d]

2019 IHSA Proposed Districts

I really disliked this model because it completely eliminated 3A.

 

[JCHillmen]

Lol if we are gonna do districts let's do them for all sports......I'm sure CPS will concede football if we knew we could beat up on those schools in basketball, track, etc..... I can guarantee yall won't be happy about that

CoachPercy,

Always appreciate your CPL insight. My perception with basketball, and there is a good chance I am wrong, is that in the last few decades, perhaps the top few CPL teams are state contenders, but by and large, the mid tier suburban teams tend to knock off the mid tier CPL teams in sectionals at a good clip.

In looking at the Dec 13 AP rankings, I only see a few CPL schools ranked out of 40 total ranked teams. Curie number 2 in 4A and Manley in 1A. And that seems to bear out over the years. Aside from the Simeon run, CPL seems to have a mathematically appropriate proportional run of success in the state basketball series.

And in reviewing results, I don't believe a CPL school has placed in at least the top 2 in any class in boys track since at least the year 2000.

So in my uneducated opinion (just looking at rankings and previous years results) it seems to me CPL schools are usually at a competitive disadvantage in most sports and seem to be quite competitive but certainly not dominant across the board in basketball.

Always rooting for those schools. But that is the perception I have of their competitive level across various IHSA sports. Willing to listen and hear how I may be wrong on that.

 

[Coach Percy]

Lol CPS schools cannibal themselves......if you look at the results of the Regionals and Sectionals.....most times the top CPS schools are matched up with each other......let's talk about keeping these same districts for all sports and then seeding teams instead of keeping it regional and then see where we land. Basically what I am saying is no system is perfect and if CPS isn't complaining, stop trying to tell us what is best for us.....WE DON'T WANT YOUR OPINION OR HELP!

 

[ramblinman]

You just can't have a district like the one proposed below:

Mt Carmel
Fenwick
Whitney Young
Proviso East
Juarez
Kelly
Lincoln Park
Schurz
Von Steuben

Nor can you have an 8A one like this:
Taft
Lane
Curie

Or a 7A one like this:
Young
Kenwood
Lincoln Park

Or a 1A one like this:
Du Sable
Orr
Richards
CMA Bronzeville
Fenger
Harlan