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.
Seemingly, a 64-team field per class would need to include one of:the 64 team classes is intriguing
I prefer option 2Seemingly, a 64-team field per class would need to include one of:
- only 8 regular season games
- starting the season earlier or ending it later
- playing 1st 2 playoff rounds in the same week.
If the two best 400-meter sprinters are at neighboring schools, only one should go downstate.
If the two best 152-lbs wrestlers are at nearby schools, one should be eliminated in the regional.
Because . . . that would be fair?
Actually, at Sectionals, more than the #1 makes it downstate. For track I think top 2 or 4 and qualifying standards make it and in wrestling top 2, 3, or 4 make it. So your answer is:
Yes, it is fair. Are there instances where a team or individual doesn’t make it downstate and they are clearly better that another team from another area of the state who did? Sure. But that happens in all sports, every year so trying to fix that would not be a feasible task.
I actually like the idea of districts. All this conference shuffling and non-conference scheduling is b/s.
All.... We will see. Ratsy
http://www.ihsa.org/documents/adv minutes/17-18/18-fb-minutes.pdf
No private schools and no non-boundaried schools represented on that committee.
Same old same old.
If the two best 400-meter sprinters are at neighboring schools, only one should go downstate.
If the two best 152-lbs wrestlers are at nearby schools, one should be eliminated in the regional.
Because . . . that would be fair?
Non-conference games that don't count aren't exciting at all. So essentially what we'd have is a 7 game season against the same schools forever, then turn around and play them again in the playoffs?
And this doesn't help those reshuffling schools make the playoffs so I can't see how they'd be happy with it either. Other than my school likely playing a completely different schedule due to districts outside of maybe a couple schools nothing about this idea is appealing to me.
I can see how it may be for some.
But I wonder what they do with the private schools? Are they multiplied into conferences of larger publics? Maybe JCA, JC, JW, Lockport, Provi, LW(E,C,W) could be a thing?
I am not disputing that the possible matchups would be otherwise compelling, but the fact that they are turned into exhibition games take all of the luster away for me.Actually, for some smaller schools the non-conference games could be the MOST exciting...The attempt at districting on the Souc's post gives me a prime example of how districts could ruin historic rivalries...Gilman/Onarga's Iroquois West (280+ kids), consolidated in the early/mid 80's, is about 20 minutes south of Kankakee. It's current conference includes: Clifton Central (low 330's), immediately bordering the north of them; Paxton Buckley Loda (3A), immediately bordering south of them; Watseka (4A coop with St. Anne) immediately east of them; and Momence (upper 330's)...Iroquois West is one of the biggest 1A schools on the list, and in many years would be one of the smallest in 2A. It has played possible opposing district schools in non-conference games. But I'm guessing that if they are in different districts, Iroquois West kids would look forward to a non-conference game against Clifton Central way more than a "district" game against Jacksonville Routt, almost 2 hours (?) away...
Meanwhile, districts could force some logical games to occur...which could be the biggest games on some schools schedules. One obvious example: the 4A district including McNamara with the I-8 schools. Manteno & Herscher at some point were conference members with almost every school in the proposed district...
I think about the comparison to d3 football playoffs system, there are very few at large bids so it basically means that conference games are the only ones that matter (unless you come from a tough conference that has a chance to get two teams in) and those games are still exciting. I look at a conference like the Iowa Conference who most years will only get their conference champ into the playoffs and all of those non conference games are still fun to watch especially when they are good match ups. It would be cool if they could come up with a way to reward a team for a tough non conference schedule, maybe even as a tie breaker for seeding, but even without it I still think the non con games will be fun to watch.
No doubt, I didn't say it's a great system, I wish that certain conferences didn't get AQs, I am just saying that non conference games are still worth watching in D3, because the comment was made that non conference games that don't mean anything are a waste of time. So to clarify, I never said it was a good system.And I'll counter that system any day of the week. I'd take the top 2-3 WIAC (Wisconsin public D3 schools) every season compared to several non WIAC champions...and you'll be hard pressed to get too many arguments from even those outside of the WIAC. Big inbalance of level of competition and the WIAC schools are punished in many years because they need to allow in multiple Cupcake conference champions.
And I'll counter that system any day of the week. I'd take the top 2-3 WIAC (Wisconsin public D3 schools) every season compared to several non WIAC champions...and you'll be hard pressed to get too many arguments from even those outside of the WIAC. Big inbalance of level of competition and the WIAC schools are punished in many years because they need to allow in multiple Cupcake conference champions.
And I'll counter that system any day of the week. I'd take the top 2-3 WIAC (Wisconsin public D3 schools) every season compared to several non WIAC champions...and you'll be hard pressed to get too many arguments from even those outside of the WIAC. Big inbalance of level of competition and the WIAC schools are punished in many years because they need to allow in multiple Cupcake conference champions.
The WIAC is an outlier in D3 in the sense that all their schools are substantially larger than the typical D3 school. The smallest WIAC school (River Falls) has an undergraduate enrollment of 5,500, and the largest (Oshkosh) has 12,000 undergrads. However, the median undergraduate enrollment in D3 is 1,748.
From an IHSA enrollment classification perspective, this is the equivalent of 8A schools playing against 3A and 4A schools.
Not to mention public school tuition rates versus almost all private school tuition rates.... which matters since there is no athletic scholarship money inclvolved. They really should be playing d2 like the Minnesota d2 schools.
And like UW Parkside.
The WIAC is an outlier in D3 in the sense that all their schools are substantially larger than the typical D3 school. The smallest WIAC school (River Falls) has an undergraduate enrollment of 5,500, and the largest (Oshkosh) has 12,000 undergrads. However, the median undergraduate enrollment in D3 is 1,748.
From an IHSA enrollment classification perspective, this is the equivalent of 8A schools playing against 3A and 4A schools.
That's a good question. It really depends where resources are allocated.Does a larger overall enrollment create the ability to fund a football program?
Enrollment really plays no factor in college football.
Agree it doesn't make much difference in Division I. Disagree as it pertains to Division III.
Division III is primarily comprised by small schools, roughly half of which have enrollments of under 1700 students. Here are the undergrad enrollments of last year's D3 football semifinalists:
Oshkosh: 12,060
Brockport: 7,128
Mary Hardin Baylor: 3,278
Mt Union: 2,095
Here are the 2016 semifinalists:
Oshkosh: 12,060
Mary Hardin Baylor: 3,278
John Carroll: 3,028
Mt Union: 2,095
Here's 2015:
Whitewater: 10,522
St. Thomas: 6,199
Mt Union: 2,095
Linfield: 1,632
See any enrollment trending going on here relative to the D3 enrollment mean of 1,748?
Where are you getting your figures? Per the NCAA site, the average enrollment of D3 schools is 4,084. Based on this number, the smaller school are doing better than the larger schools when it comes to playoff success.
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2018DIII_FactsandFigures_20170906.pdf