Make the Playoffs Great Again
- Thread starter stonedlizard
- Start date
This is one of my criticisms of this competitive classification. The classes are defined as worse as you go down instead of enrollment which is neither better nor worse. It cheapens the classes under 8A.
Thats why in previous threads I called them the terrible class while 8A being the super duper class.
In this discussion board you are correct. Not sure it plays out that way in the halls and locker rooms.
Well sure. If you line the games up the kids will play. I think that goes with any format.
Assume, for a moment, you like the end result in terms of the more evenly distributed competitive levels within each class. Is the stigma worth puking the entire concept over or is the positive produced by the end result greater than the negative of the stigma?
I am opposed to the concept for the same reason I would oppose a heavy weight boxer fighting in the feather weight class. Sure the boxer may be a poor boxer but thats no reason to fight people 100 lbs lighter.
That said, I dont know if less blowouts would make the deterioration of classes better to me. I just dont know. I am not opposed to blowouts. When we get blown out we need to get better... Unless it was against a team like IMG
If you schedule IMG and get blown out, you need to get better. That is assuming at some point, you thought you were good enough to play them.
Apples and oranges when comparing boxing weight classes and high school football classifications by school size.
Schools don't play the games, TEAMS do. Boxers are the competitors in a boxing match, just like TEAMS are the competitors in a football game.
Stonedlizard's concept tries to classify TEAMS, not schools, according to their appropriate competitive level.
I think this is a very good idea. It has obviously taken a lot of work.
However, never in 100 years do I think the IHSA would consider it.
Their stated priority is representation, not competitiveness.
However, never in 100 years do I think the IHSA would consider it.
Their stated priority is representation, not competitiveness.
Assuming you thought you were good enough to be competitive with them.
Couple things. You could just have been mistaken. What if you just needed a game?
Yes, but you cant separate the team from the school lol
Itd be like saying weight doesnt fight, boxers do. In this analogy weight = enrollment
Theres a reason they classify by weight and not skill.
Google search and no team just need a game that bad. Know what you are getting into.
Is it no different than a CPS not named Phillips, Simeon, or Curie I suppose playing outside the conference? Except this game comes with exposure. Or in the example of Gorman, they actually play in the state series and are an IMG type team.
Are you suggesting if approached East Side wouldnt play an IMG or Gorman? Do you think that game would be competitive?
ESL will play them IF we have a team that can compete. As you know public schools don't have the tools every however there are times in which you can compete. So if it was this year, absolutely and we wouldn't get blew out however two years ago, no way would we be interested.
Chicago Public schools are a bad example because they use those games to fund their program. They are not concerned with winning or safety as long as they get a few thousand to fund the program.
Now that I just read MC lost another player to IMG, ESL will never play them or any team like them. We can't support this type of High School football.
This here is the crux of the issue and debate between us.
You want to classify according to the attributes of schools regardless of the competitive level of the teams associated with those schools. You want the schools to fall into these nice, neat silos based on school size. The problem is, it looks nice and neat on the outside, but the inside is a hot mess. There are big discrepancies of competitive levels from best to worst among the 32 teams within each of those silos. Even if you created silos based on size AND type of school (boundaried and non-boundaried), you would STILL have huge competitive discrepancies within each of those silos.
You say you can't separate the team from the school. To the extent that the team cannot exist without the school, that is correct. However, classifying schools for the playoffs according to a non-football SCHOOL attribute, while ignoring the fact that TEAMS played the games that resulted in them qualifying for those playoffs, is effectively guaranteeing playoff mismatches in the name of expediency.
Last edited:
@ramblinman yes that is the crux of the argument because I maintain that the attributes of the school is the most equitable way to classify the teams.
For the life of me I could never understand The Brook having a poor year like 2015 and then someone suggesting since we werent that good that we should play in a class that has schools 1/3 the size so we would have a chance. Say we get down there into 5A and play a Rochester, well we're supposed to win! We would have the athletes to match up and then some. How do I explain to a great team from a school of 1000 that they have to play a school 3x their size with a handful of D1 players because we happen to have a down year for whatever reason.
I think Joliet Central highlights the point for me. They won 2 games this year in their new conference. They were getting beaten to death before this year by conference opponents. I think their was a stigma that JC would have been awful regardless of the class. Now that calls into question.
It goes back to the boxing question which I think is a legit analogy. Should a heavyweight be able to fight smaller but better fighters because he is an uncompetitive heavyweight?
For the life of me I could never understand The Brook having a poor year like 2015 and then someone suggesting since we werent that good that we should play in a class that has schools 1/3 the size so we would have a chance. Say we get down there into 5A and play a Rochester, well we're supposed to win! We would have the athletes to match up and then some. How do I explain to a great team from a school of 1000 that they have to play a school 3x their size with a handful of D1 players because we happen to have a down year for whatever reason.
I think Joliet Central highlights the point for me. They won 2 games this year in their new conference. They were getting beaten to death before this year by conference opponents. I think their was a stigma that JC would have been awful regardless of the class. Now that calls into question.
It goes back to the boxing question which I think is a legit analogy. Should a heavyweight be able to fight smaller but better fighters because he is an uncompetitive heavyweight?
Again, boxers are in the ring. Teams, not schools, are on the football field.
Apples and oranges.
Majority of your points in that thread were making up hypothetical situations because no one had proposed a system to classify teams beyond enrollment that could prove your hypothetical wrong. Can we move past that now? As proven in this thread, there would likely be a "floor" for certain teams who play predominantly 6A-8A regular seasons schedules. Your Brook is not going to end up in 5A.
Your boxing analogy also makes no sense and @ramblinman already laid out perfect reasoning which you choose to ignore. Schools don't play football, teams do. Let's classify teams not schools.
Would be interested in an actual opinion on the system and why you don't think it works better than what we currently have instead of hypotheticals and confuscation.
Last edited:
While this is true, I think some overall upper, lower, and middle bounds based on enrollment could have merit.
3 classes. 1, 2, and 3. 1A, 1B, 3
2C. 2A, 2B, 2C. 3A, and 3B. Maybe 1A and 2A are even closed enrollment only (what better way to guarantee passage but to guarantee the majority their 2 championships!).
Rhonda Rousey over pretty much anyone on this board. And I'm willing to bet there aren't a lot of 135 pounders typing away behind the keyboards
Similar threads
