Multiplier/waiver

[doctor_d]

Why not start another thread?

I’ve been a proponent of the multiplier system. It’s certainly better than total separation.

How opposed would CCL/ESCC people be to a change in the waiver requirements?

What if the waiver had nothing to do with regular season results?

The 2A/3A/4A level teams in the CCL typically have a hard time achieving 5 or 6 wins to qualify, but due to the severe level of competition they face, that is not indicative of a lack of success in a particular classification, especially when you’re talking at the lower end of the spectrum in 3A or 2A.

Case study of IC. They won 3A three out of the past 4 times they were assigned there. Byron knocked them out in 2021. They’ve won 4A once, and the other two times they were assigned to 4A, they were eliminated in the quarterfinals.

Since 2016
2016 3A champions 👑
2017 3A champions 👑
2018 4A champions 👑
2019 4A quarterfinalists (lost to champs)
2020 —-COVID—-
2021 3A semifinalists (lost to champs)
2022 3A champions 👑
2023 4A quarterfinalists (lost to runner up)
2024 DNQ at 4-5 with losses to two 8A teams, the 5A champion, a 7A semifinalist and a 5A semifinalist.

Nothing about their resume says that they aren’t championship level (or at the very least contenders) at the 3A or 4A level, but unless they take it upon themselves to petition up they will be 2A for the next two years.

Granted: if they make it.

 

[Snetsrak61]

The waiver system was *okay* in either of its first two iterations. It was 1 PO win in preceding 4 or 6 years. In a perfect world I wouldn't make it results based at all, but any other waiver method would be likely administratively burdensome.

Districts in all its failed glory really ruined two flawed systems in multiplier waiver and especially SF.

So at minimum just go to the 4 or 6 year, 1 PO win method. If you're looking for improvements I also don't think the waiver shouldn't move you down more than one class from prior enrollment (somewhat tricky to define since enrollment is done after qualifications, and what if you just don't qualify... Gotta get "placed" somewhere to implement that 1 class rule).

 

[pjjp]

Doc…..I think you might get some consensus on this one. I’m a private school guy, and I think it’s too easy to get the waiver. I don’t have specific numbers in mind, but it should not be obtained as easily as it currently is.

 

[doctor_d]

Doc…..I think you might get some consensus on this one. I’m a private school guy, and I think it’s too easy to get the waiver. I don’t have specific numbers in mind, but it should not be obtained as easily as it currently is.

Thanks for the reasonable reply. I’m awaiting a full frontal assault from @ramblinman with the fire and brimstone with his perspective.

 

[crusader_of_90]

full frontal assault from @ramblinman

Dear God NO!!!!!!

 

[4Afan]

Dear God NO!!!!!!

I mean, he is a fan of the NIPL

 

[ramblinman]

Thanks for the reasonable reply. I’m awaiting a full frontal assault from @ramblinman with the fire and brimstone with his perspective.

Nah, no full frontal assaults on your specific idea. I stand by my previous assertions that, as long as public schools lose to private schools at any level of the playoffs, the whining will continue regardless of any changes. It's just the nature of the public school beast.

Go ahead and tinker with the waiver this year. The following year, the whining will lead to increasing the multiplier. Then we'll be decreasing the radius, then something else, and so on and so forth.

Has anyone ever thought that maybe private schools aren't getting any better? Perhaps, overall, they are just the same as they have always been, and it's public schools that are slipping in competitiveness. OMG what a concept!

Stop legislating mediocrity. Give me the NIPL.

 

[4Afan]

Nah, no full frontal assaults on your specific idea. I stand by my previous assertions that, as long as public schools lose to private schools at any level of the playoffs, the whining will continue regardless of any changes. It's just the nature of the public school beast.

Go ahead and tinker with the waiver this year. The following year, the whining will lead to increasing the multiplier. Then we'll be decreasing the radius, then something else, and so on and so forth.

Has anyone ever thought that maybe private schools aren't getting any better? Perhaps, overall, they are just the same as they have always been, and it's public schools that are slipping in competitiveness. OMG what a concept!

Stop legislating mediocrity. Give me the NIPL.

Did you feel the same way between Loyola's titles in '93 and '15? And then their success since 2015?

So Loyola has always been the same since 2015 and public schools have suffered? The 2019 team that was 8-4 is the same as this year's team?

Loyola has 5 total titles, not exactly the top of the heap

I have respect for Loyola, but of all the private schools stop pretending like they're the gold standard long term.

 

[ramblinman]

Did you feel the same way between Loyola's titles in '93 and '15? And then their success since 2015?

So Loyola has always been the same since 2015 and public schools have suffered? The 2019 team that was 8-4 is the same as this year's team?

Where did I say anything about Loyola?

I said "overall." I also said "perhaps." I offered that musing not about one school, but about the overall quality (I know I said competitiveness, but quality/level of football is really what I meant) of private schools and public schools.

This raging public and private debate is happening for one reason and one reason only and that is because public schools can't stand losing to public schools in the playoffs. I would argue that they can't accept ANY playoff losses to private schools. Given that this 2024 chapter of the decades long debate seems to be particularly focused on taking additional steps to make sure that public schools lose fewer playoff games against private schools, I put something out there as food for thought.

I grant that it is unproveable, and I don't know if I believe it or not, but I offered it more as a "what if" to cause people to think as oppose to emotionally rush to judgment based on one year's playoffs. It wasn't all that long ago (2019 and 2021) that we had two consecutive playoffs where public schools won 75% of the titles. What has happened since then relative to the overall quality of football being played by private and public schools? It is likely a combination of the following six things. Private schools have gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse AND public schools have gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse.

Pride is going to cause fans from both sides of the argument to automatically reject the notion that their sides have gotten worse from a quality standpoint, but the entire point of my musing is nobody really knows for sure. Quality is relative. It's extremely difficult to measure.

So, what if? What if what is really happening in this debate is based on emotion and not what is really occurring from an overall quality of football standpoint?

Loyola has 5 total titles, not exactly the top of the heap

Six total titles. For sure not top of the heap but way higher than most, but that has zero to do with what I wrote. Why are you making this about Loyola?

I have respect for Loyola, but of all the private schools stop pretending like they're the gold standard long term.

Where did I ever say, or even imply, that???

 

[corey90]

Why not start another thread?

I’ve been a proponent of the multiplier system. It’s certainly better than total separation.

How opposed would CCL/ESCC people be to a change in the waiver requirements?

What if the waiver had nothing to do with regular season results?

The 2A/3A/4A level teams in the CCL typically have a hard time achieving 5 or 6 wins to qualify, but due to the severe level of competition they face, that is not indicative of a lack of success in a particular classification, especially when you’re talking at the lower end of the spectrum in 3A or 2A.

Case study of IC. They won 3A three out of the past 4 times they were assigned there. Byron knocked them out in 2021. They’ve won 4A once, and the other two times they were assigned to 4A, they were eliminated in the quarterfinals.

Since 2016
2016 3A champions 👑
2017 3A champions 👑
2018 4A champions 👑
2019 4A quarterfinalists (lost to champs)
2020 —-COVID—-
2021 3A semifinalists (lost to champs)
2022 3A champions 👑
2023 4A quarterfinalists (lost to runner up)
2024 DNQ at 4-5 with losses to two 8A teams, the 5A champion, a 7A semifinalist and a 5A semifinalist.

Nothing about their resume says that they aren’t championship level (or at the very least contenders) at the 3A or 4A level, but unless they take it upon themselves to petition up they will be 2A for the next two years.

Granted: if they make it.

I think everyone might over thinking this. Why not just tweak the multiplier for privates and change the success factor to include both Privates and Publics. Seems like this would level the playing field. The current system isn’t that far off. I agree with privates when it comes to the success factor. Publics should also have to move up a class if they win State 2 years in a row.

 

[doctor_d]

I think everyone might over thinking this. Why not just tweak the multiplier for privates and change the success factor to include both Privates and Publics. Seems like this would level the playing field. The current system isn’t that far off. I agree with privates when it comes to the success factor. Publics should also have to move up a class if they win State 2 years in a row.

Sure, but specifically how would you tweak the multiplier? Change the number? Change the waiver requirements? I’m pretty leery about an 8A fan’s take on this subject, because that class has the least impact from the multiplier/waiver issue.

 

[Snetsrak61]

I think everyone might over thinking this. Why not just tweak the multiplier for privates and change the success factor to include both Privates and Publics. Seems like this would level the playing field. The current system isn’t that far off. I agree with privates when it comes to the success factor. Publics should also have to move up a class if they win State 2 years in a row.

The current version of both waiver and SF need to at the very least be scrapped and returned to the old versions. At that point some level of sanity would be back. Expand SF to publics ? I mean might as well, but it's still gonna suck as a measuring tool.

I'll also just refer back to football enrollment and my earlier post there. I don't know if it's a casual effect or just correlative, but it seemed to me to clearly do a good job right-sizing both traditional public and private schools into more competetive/larger classes (with some exceptions of course, but I think basic tweaks you could significantly close gaps - never gonna close all).

 

[doctor_d]

This raging public and private debate is happening for one reason and one reason only and that is because public schools can't stand losing to public schools in the playoffs. I would argue that they can't accept ANY playoff losses to private schools. Given that this 2024 chapter of the decades long debate seems to be particularly focused on taking additional steps to make sure that public schools lose fewer playoff games against private schools, I put something out there as food for thought.

I totally agree that there are people that can’t stomach the idea of publics losing to privates, but I assure you, that is not where I am coming from. My biggest emotional reaction was due to the fact that every single game on Friday was a running clock. One of my favorite days of the year, and every game was a dud. There are other factors to why that happened, but PvP and the waiver is the thing that got the most traction. Casual fans overlook the fact that the 2A, 3A and 4A champs were heavily tested by public schools in earlier rounds.
In light of the recent events, I feel like there could be a groundswell towards separation. I personally would not want to see that, although then you’d get your NIPL.

 

[corey90]

Sure, but specifically how would you tweak the multiplier? Change the number? Change the waiver requirements? I’m pretty leery about an 8A fan’s take on this subject, because that class has the least impact from the multiplier/waiver issue.

Agreed on the 8A. I would think that would be where privates and publics would need to find a happy ground.

 

[Alexander32]

The proposal based on semifinal appearances over the previous five years is the best. It is the best because it measures program strength rather than the strength of one team, and because it is simple.

Multiplier: The 1.65 multiplier is applied to all private schools that have played in at least one semifinal game during the previous five years.

Success Factor: All schools are subject to the success factor based on the following table:
Three semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move one class level above the baseline class
Four semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move two class levels above the baseline class
Five semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move three class levels above the baseline class

The solution is that simple.

Obviously, no team can be placed in a class higher than 8A.

The baseline class is the class that the team would have played in if no success factor had been applied.

The fact that "ramblinman" is opposed to this plan is positive proof that it is a good system. He wants nothing other than separation, and therefore is opposed to any plan having a good chance of preventing separation.

 

[Snetsrak61]

The proposal based on semifinal appearances over the previous five years is the best. It is the best because it measures program strength rather than the strength of one team, and because it is simple.

Multiplier: The 1.65 multiplier is applied to all private schools that have played in at least one semifinal game during the previous five years.

Success Factor: All schools are subject to the success factor based on the following table:
Three semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move one class level above the baseline class
Four semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move two class levels above the baseline class
Five semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move three class levels above the baseline class

The solution is that simple.

Obviously, no team can be placed in a class higher than 8A.

The baseline class is the class that the team would have played in if no success factor had been applied.

The fact that "ramblinman" is opposed to this plan is positive proof that it is a good system. He wants nothing other than separation, and therefore is opposed to any plan having a good chance of preventing separation.

From a private school fan: 1 semi in five years is pretty lax anyways. Even if 1 PO win was deemed too harsh (old standard), wouldn't something like quads make it more equivalent to other sports which I think is/was based on regional or sectional appearances over 5 years?

 

[doctor_d]

From a private school fan: 1 semi in five years is pretty lax anyways. Even if 1 PO win was deemed too harsh (old standard), wouldn't something like quads make it more equivalent to other sports which I think is/was based on regional or sectional appearances over 5 years?

I hope they never go back to quads. Lack of 1-32 seeding in the smaller divisions was a component to the title games all being so bad.

 

[corey90]

The proposal based on semifinal appearances over the previous five years is the best. It is the best because it measures program strength rather than the strength of one team, and because it is simple.

Multiplier: The 1.65 multiplier is applied to all private schools that have played in at least one semifinal game during the previous five years.

Success Factor: All schools are subject to the success factor based on the following table:
Three semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move one class level above the baseline class
Four semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move two class levels above the baseline class
Five semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move three class levels above the baseline class

The solution is that simple.

Obviously, no team can be placed in a class higher than 8A.

The baseline class is the class that the team would have played in if no success factor had been applied.

The fact that "ramblinman" is opposed to this plan is positive proof that it is a good system. He wants nothing other than separation, and therefore is opposed to any plan having a good chance of preventing separation.

Success Factor: All schools are subject to the success factor based on the following table:
Three semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move one class level above the baseline class
Four semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move two class levels above the baseline class
Five semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move three class levels above the baseline class

*I like it except I would change the success factor number of years.
Two semifinals appearance move up one class level.
3 semifinal appearances move up two class levels.
4 semifinal appearances move up 3 classes.
If the team fails to reach semifinals they would drop 1 class the very next year and if fail to reach the semifinals they again will drop 1 class. If they fail again they keep dropping 1 class until they reach original enrollment class.
This would force teams to be more competitive and would limit blowouts imo.

PS: I would be ok if they changed this to State Championship wins instead of Semifinal appearances.
I am saying if a team wins two state championships in a row they move up the very next year etc.

 

[Snetsrak61]

I hope they never go back to quads. Lack of 1-32 seeding in the smaller divisions was a component to the title games all being so bad.

I just meant quarterfinals, not actual quad based seeding.

 

[Alexander32]

I just meant quarterfinals, not actual quad based seeding.

Using quarterfinals would be feasible if the way seeding is done would be improved. However, as seeding is currently done, all too frequently teams that are not particularly good stumble into the quarterfinals based on an easy path, like playing Chicago Public League teams in rounds one and two.

The main objective is preventing relatively powerful programs from having the multiplier waived. The use of the semifinal measure (during the previous five years) will prevent that. For example, it would prevent Marist and St. Ignatius from dropping down to 6A next year, and prevent Brother Rice and Fenwick from dropping down to 5A. It is possible under the current system that even IC Catholic might drop down to 2A (if they make the playoffs); that too would be prevented with the use of the semifinal measure.

EdgyTim seems to think 1-32 seeding, while using the current algorithms for the multiplier and success factor, will solve the problem. He points to the fact that Mt. Carmel and Nazareth will be moving up one class. He is in for a rude awakening. When the teams I've mentioned in the second paragraph move down as much as to two class levels, the complaints will be just as loud.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Using quarterfinals would be feasible if the way seeding is done would be improved. However, as seeding is currently done, all too frequently teams that are not particularly good stumble into the quarterfinals based on an easy path, like playing Chicago Public League teams in rounds one and two.

The main objective is preventing relatively powerful programs from having the multiplier waived. The use of the semifinal measure (during the previous five years) will prevent that. For example, it would prevent Marist and St. Ignatius from dropping down to 6A next year, and prevent Brother Rice and Fenwick from dropping down to 5A. It is possible under the current system that even IC Catholic might drop down to 2A (if they make the playoffs); that too would be prevented with the use of the semifinal measure.

EdgyTim seems to think 1-32 seeding, while using the current algorithms for the multiplier and success factor, will solve the problem. He points to the fact that Mt. Carmel and Nazareth will be moving up one class. He is in for a rude awakening. When the teams I've mentioned in the second paragraph move down as much as to two class levels, the complaints will be just as loud.

If you're comparing got the now system absolutely agree. Hard not to improve. What you're proposing is something to try and middle between the old and current. But I think it still kind of misses mark.

I mean, just to go with a very basic example I'm familiar with, the Naz 2014 6A team had a multiplier applied. And without a multiplier would have been maybe as low as 4A or 5A. But they had made the quarters a couple times by then. They were well on thier way to ascending the ladder with that team and handled 6A fairly easily as it was a very strong team (honestly maybe as good as their 7A title teams that had a generational QB talent). Although 5A was also a tough division that same year, so that strength does flip flop. But still, teams can shoot right past that semi threshold. And sometimes just for the reason you mentioned, they get a tough quarterfinals draw. So it can go both ways.

 

[Alexander32]

Success Factor: All schools are subject to the success factor based on the following table:
Three semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move one class level above the baseline class
Four semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move two class levels above the baseline class
Five semifinal appearances during the previous five years = Move three class levels above the baseline class

*I like it except I would change the success factor number of years.
Two semifinals appearance move up one class level.
3 semifinal appearances move up two class levels.
4 semifinal appearances move up 3 classes.
If the team fails to reach semifinals they would drop 1 class the very next year and if fail to reach the semifinals they again will drop 1 class. If they fail again they keep dropping 1 class until they reach original enrollment class.
This would force teams to be more competitive and would limit blowouts imo.

PS: I would be ok if they changed this to State Championship wins instead of Semifinal appearances.
I am saying if a team wins two state championships in a row they move up the very next year etc.

The format described in my initial post, without modifying it, normally will cause a team to drop down one class if they fail to make the semifinal round in the previous year. The five-year period is a rolling period of time, and quite often if a team does not make the semifinals in the previous year, then the number of semifinals they have made in the previous five years will be reduced by one. It is true that will not always happen, but just because a team has missed the semifinal round one time does not mean the program has gotten worse. Byron did not reach the semifinals this year, does that mean their program has gotten worse? No! The goal is to measure program strength, not just to evaluate results from one year.

Changing the criterion from semifinal appearances to championships will allow the most powerful programs to simply rotate championships amongst themselves. It will not keep those teams in class levels at which they are very competitive, but not extraordinarily dominant. It will be best if teams are not constantly changing classes based on one or two years of results. Mt. Carmel, for example, may not consistently win championships at the 8A level, but could reasonably be expected to make the semifinals fairly consistently. It seems best that they not continually be bouncing back and forth between 8A and 7A. If they do not consistently make the 8A semifinals, then they should drop down to 7A.

 

[corey90]

The format described in my initial post, without modifying it, normally will cause a team to drop down one class if they fail to make the semifinal round in the previous year. The five-year period is a rolling period of time, and quite often if a team does not make the semifinals in the previous year, then the number of semifinals they have made in the previous five years will be reduced by one. It is true that will not always happen, but just because a team has missed the semifinal round one time does not mean the program has gotten worse. Byron did not reach the semifinals this year, does that mean their program has gotten worse? No! The goal is to measure program strength, not just to evaluate results from one year.

Changing the criterion from semifinal appearances to championships will allow the most powerful programs to simply rotate championships amongst themselves. It will not keep those teams in class levels at which they are very competitive, but not extraordinarily dominant. It will be best if teams are not constantly changing classes based on one or two years of results. Mt. Carmel, for example, may not consistently win championships at the 8A level, but could reasonably be expected to make the semifinals fairly consistently. It seems best that they not continually be bouncing back and forth between 8A and 7A. If they do not consistently make the 8A semifinals, then they should drop down to 7A.

I get it. I was thinking more in state championships. Using MC if they lose two 8A state championships in a row they drop to 7A. They shouldn’t be penalized forever. I also get that dropping back and forth isn’t good I was saying 2 year. I actually think we’re kinda saying the same thing.

 

[Snetsrak61]

The format described in my initial post, without modifying it, normally will cause a team to drop down one class if they fail to make the semifinal round in the previous year. The five-year period is a rolling period of time, and quite often if a team does not make the semifinals in the previous year, then the number of semifinals they have made in the previous five years will be reduced by one. It is true that will not always happen, but just because a team has missed the semifinal round one time does not mean the program has gotten worse. Byron did not reach the semifinals this year, does that mean their program has gotten worse? No! The goal is to measure program strength, not just to evaluate results from one year.

Changing the criterion from semifinal appearances to championships will allow the most powerful programs to simply rotate championships amongst themselves. It will not keep those teams in class levels at which they are very competitive, but not extraordinarily dominant. It will be best if teams are not constantly changing classes based on one or two years of results. Mt. Carmel, for example, may not consistently win championships at the 8A level, but could reasonably be expected to make the semifinals fairly consistently. It seems best that they not continually be bouncing back and forth between 8A and 7A. If they do not consistently make the 8A semifinals, then they should drop down to 7A.

Re-reading your proposal you're basically just combining multiplier into a single factor multiplier.

Which I still don't love. Naz and St Francis as an example probably have roughly equal opportunity to compete IMO. Comparable enrollment. Same type of school. Same conference. Their enrollment zone even overlaps by a bit. You can probably put a couple other CCLs with them. Relative to each other they all compete under roughly same opportunity. Why should success be a significant factor to move them up or down? And same goes for public schools. Sycamore and (most of?) the Interstate 8 schools are playing under roughly equal opportunity. York and most their WSSC foes are mostly comparable opportunity. Its okay if some teams do more with the opportunity, even if it's on a consistent basis. Thats I think a valuable life lesson in some ways. Opportunity can at best be laid out, but comparable results aren't ever guaranteed.

Are there situations where we match peers up on ability? Absolutely, but I'll still say that these teams graduate 25% (or so) of their program every year. If there's something enrollment/size can't capture I think we do the hard work like Ohio and try and measure the leading factors (like recruitment focus or other factors as applicable).

 

[Alexander32]

If you're comparing got the now system absolutely agree. Hard not to improve. What you're proposing is something to try and middle between the old and current. But I think it still kind of misses mark.

I mean, just to go with a very basic example I'm familiar with, the Naz 2014 6A team had a multiplier applied. And without a multiplier would have been maybe as low as 4A or 5A. But they had made the quarters a couple times by then. They were well on thier way to ascending the ladder with that team and handled 6A fairly easily as it was a very strong team (honestly maybe as good as their 7A title teams that had a generational QB talent). Although 5A was also a tough division that same year, so that strength does flip flop. But still, teams can shoot right past that semi threshold. And sometimes just for the reason you mentioned, they get a tough quarterfinals draw. So it can go both ways.

The objective isn't to prevent a school from winning its first state football championship in school history, as I believe was the case with the 2014 Nazareth team. That type of success should be encouraged, as was also the case with this year's Chicago Christian team. The objective is to challenge programs that have demonstrated a recent history of dominance within a particular class. The multiplier is the first step in that process if a private school has demonstrated modest success, and then the success factor comes into play when a school demonstrates extraordinary success. In addition to challenging the program, which may promote further development, another result is that it will likely make the playoffs more competitive within the various classes.

It is difficult to understand why a person would find fault with a multiplier proposal because the proposal would apply the multiplier one year later than their preferred plan. The proposal offered here would have applied the multiplier beginning in 2015, rather than your preferred 2014 season. At that point in time (2014), I would have been trying to improve Nazareth's chances of winning a state championship, not trying to make it more difficult.

 

[Snetsrak61]

The objective isn't to prevent a school from winning its first state football championship in school history, as I believe was the case with the 2014 Nazareth team. That type of success should be encouraged, as was also the case with this year's Chicago Christian team. The objective is to challenge programs that have demonstrated a recent history of dominance within a particular class. The multiplier is the first step in that process if a private school has demonstrated modest success, and then the success factor comes into play when a school demonstrates extraordinary success. In addition to challenging the program, which may promote further development, another result is that it will likely make the playoffs more competitive within the various classes.

It is difficult to understand why a person would find fault with a multiplier proposal because the proposal would apply the multiplier one year later than their preferred plan. The proposal offered here would have applied the multiplier beginning in 2015, rather than your preferred 2014 season. At that point in time (2014), I would have been trying to improve Nazareth's chances of winning a state championship, not trying to make it more difficult.

Not to make it a competition or be boastful about it, but Naz didn't need that boost. In fact I'd say most private schools who have made a "first time" run didn't. Chicago Christian is actually right on that edge of where the waiver originally lied. In v1 of the old multiplier waiver they'd be waived. In v2 they'd have just missed being waived this year.

The flip side of course is that if Naz was in that 4A class under your proposal maybe they notch a semis appearance in 11 or 13? In which case they end up in the same spot as they were in 14? But at this point I'm wary of any success based measures. Private school enrollment isn't apples to apples to public school enrollment so we have a multiplier. You compete at enrollment until ihsa decides other metrics are needed.

Anyways yes I get my example was very narrowly applied and you can't have a waiver and avoid all anomoly years like that 2014 Naz team. So it's *fine* I'd just prefer to see post-success factors de-emphasized as much as possible. Not saying it's your motivation, but I'm kind of growing on the opinion that if we give too much leeway on waivers we're gonna accelerate the private/public divide and movement to separation.

On SF I disagree with it in principal, but if it helps keep ihsa together, whatever. But it does need a better design implementation, such as your proposal.

 

[Alexander32]

Re-reading your proposal you're basically just combining multiplier into a single factor multiplier.

Which I still don't love. Naz and St Francis as an example probably have roughly equal opportunity to compete IMO. Comparable enrollment. Same type of school. Same conference. Their enrollment zone even overlaps by a bit. You can probably put a couple other CCLs with them. Relative to each other they all compete under roughly same opportunity. Why should success be a significant factor to move them up or down? And same goes for public schools. Sycamore and (most of?) the Interstate 8 schools are playing under roughly equal opportunity. York and most their WSSC foes are mostly comparable opportunity. Its okay if some teams do more with the opportunity, even if it's on a consistent basis. Thats I think a valuable life lesson in some ways. Opportunity can at best be laid out, but comparable results aren't ever guaranteed.

Are there situations where we match peers up on ability? Absolutely, but I'll still say that these teams graduate 25% (or so) of their program every year. If there's something enrollment/size can't capture I think we do the hard work like Ohio and try and measure the leading factors (like recruitment focus or other factors as applicable).

"Why should success be a significant factor to move them up or down?"

I guess this is where we have a fundamental disagreement. I will begin my answer by countering your question with my own: Why should a high school offer advanced placement courses to better students? The answer to both questions is that high schools are charged with the responsibility of developing students. Why not keep the students in the regular classes and just allow them to receive their straight A's? The schools could, and some parents might insist on allowing their child to stay in the regular class. However, doing so would not challenge the child and would not improve the development of the student's mind. The same is true of athletes.

So here is the answer to your question, from my perspective.

* In order to challenge and further develop the individual student athletes and the program as a whole.

* To create more competitive playoff brackets. I thought that was one of the things we were trying to do; reduce the number of blowouts.

* In order to encourage athletes in other programs by allowing them the opportunity to experience some success, (but by no means guaranteeing success). Success begets further success, and schools should be encouraging their students to pursue and achieve success by placing them in circumstances where it is possible. High school is not yet the real world, and allowing students a chance to experience success is not immoral.

There are probably more reasons, but since I'm quite sure I am persuading no one, I will stop now.

 

[Snetsrak61]

I think your AP example makes intuitive sense. You test a student and enroll that student according to tested aptitude. Great, okay. It could extend to competetive endeavors if it's a single athlete or same team. A tennis player advances through skills working their way through more challenging invitationals as they prove their skill. Cool.

If I'm measuring a 2025 team off the 2024 or earlier roster, I'm no longer fully comparing the same skillset. Obviously it varies from team to team year to year but a baseline is something like 25% of your program's roster and 50% of your varsity roster graduates each year. If you could do something like evaluate 2024 team's skill in weeks 1-7 and then place them after that in season, that would logically fall under a same idea, but 2025 is too late (either because it moves up what isn't there or fails to recognize what is). Obviously you've attempted to make it more long sighted, which is valid too slow class swings, but in principal it's still doing the same thing, just with slower lead times up/down.

Now certainly program / non roster benefits can and DO imbue benefits independent of the roster. Which again I'd be fine with any attempt to measure and multiply on those (even it it is trial by error to find the mix). But admittedly they'd all take more effort to track.

I'm not necessarily focused on blowouts but if I really was I might suggest St Francis who will return many starters might put bigger beat downs than Naz in 5A next year. Not trying to weasel Naz out of anything as I've often said I like them in 6A, but trying to prove a point. It's too lagging if the goal is the competetive balance and reduce blowout thing. Maybe St Francis would move up in your proposal too, I don't know...

 

[Snetsrak61]

Another thought I've thrown out in another thread is some idea of a conference multiplier. In terms of the 1.65 multiplier frankly any CCL/ESCC school who gets 5 wins has almost certainly passed the competetive requirements for that multiplied class (at least for the top 4 divisions). I wouldn't do it as additive, but maybe a conference multiplier acts as a minimum/ alternative multiplier so you can have effectively have two sets of waiver requirements.

No idea exactly how you'd do it and you'd have to word it intentionally, but it isn't lost on me how much of the long standing haves are concentrated there and not to the majority of private schools. It could also be in conjunction with a broad based or narrow Football Enrollment too which I've obviously pushed as favorable "best low Admin" fix.

 

[doctor_d]

@Snetsrak61 @Alexander32
You guys both bring up excellent points.
I find it refreshing that an actual discussion can be had on this subject. If either of you were around during the old days, a thread such as this one would have quickly turned toxic and gotten flushed, along with likely a few posters put in time out.

 

[colin2229]

I don’t like any system that moves a program like Chicago Christian up after one year of success.

 

[corey90]

@Snetsrak61 @Alexander32
You guys both bring up excellent points.
I find it refreshing that an actual discussion can be had on this subject. If either of you were around during the old days, a thread such as this one would have quickly turned toxic and gotten flushed, along with likely a few posters put in time out.

Not trying to be a Debbie downer but!
This is way over doing it. There is no way a HS level organization is going to be able to control or handle what is being suggested.
You have to make it easy or it’s not going to happen. This is HS not college or the Pros where they have unlimited money resources.
Not saying you aren’t thinking outside the box but it’s not going to work if they have to hire staff to monitor every situation.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Not trying to be a Debbie downer but!
This is way over doing it. There is no way a HS level organization is going to be able to control or handle what is being suggested.
You have to make it easy or it’s not going to happen. This is HS not college or the Pros where they have unlimited money resources.
Not saying you aren’t thinking outside the box but it’s not going to work if they have to hire staff to monitor every situation.

What specifically? Any win based metric (waiver/SF) is pretty easy to administer.

I have proposed other metrics that you could do, but will usually preface each time it is a lift. But at least one state has (Ohio). So it CAN be done.

 

[corey90]

What specifically? Any win based metric (waiver/SF) is pretty easy to administer.

I have proposed other metrics that you could do, but will usually preface each time it is a lift. But at least one state has (Ohio). So it CAN be done.

Mostly was referring to CCL conference multiplier comment.

 

[Snetsrak61]

I don’t like any system that moves a program like Chicago Christian up after one year of success.

Depends on POV. In it's original iteration multiplier was the baseline for private schools. Only recently that it flipped and now it acts more like a mini success factor where unmultiplied feels like baseline.

Although its far from perfect (and I'm not sure how it's even measurable), I view multiplier as baseline. And it's probably particularly tougher on small private schools than mid to large ones (minimum scale just matters). But it does a decent job correcting for the fact that enrollment number is not apples to apples when you are open for all verse being selective enrollment. Of course it still fails to capture everything else that matters, but I don't think it's an invalid baseline adjustment for a selective enrollment school.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Mostly was referring to CCL conference multiplier comment.

Gotcha. While I don't have a specific proposal at this time on how you would do a conference multiplier I realistically would make it on all measurable things (and not something subjective like Massey or Max Prep rankings that are a black box). Generally speaking it'd really more of a psuedo Football enrollment with the SF/waiver element applied on that. But it's also a dream/bored musings.

But yea, If you want real change, open and objective is best (one of many failings of districts was it's lack of transparency to implement).

 

[corey90]

Gotcha. While I don't have a specific proposal at this time on how you would do a conference multiplier I realistically would make it on all measurable things (and not something subjective like Massey or Max Prep rankings that are a black box). Generally speaking it'd really more of a psuedo Football enrollment with the SF/waiver element applied on that. But it's also a dream/bored musings.

But yea, If you want real change, open and objective is best (one of many failings of districts was it's lack of transparency to implement).

Yup
I just think if any changes happen it’s going to have to easy and fair. I am not saying your not on to something but the IHSA isn’t going to change things that will require more monitoring. Especially individual conferences. It may make sense but who will be able monitor each conference?

 

[Snetsrak61]

Yup
I just think if any changes happen it’s going to have to easy and fair. I am not saying your not on to something but the IHSA isn’t going to change things that will require more monitoring. Especially individual conferences. It may make sense but who will be able monitor each conference?

I'm like just a guy who likes excel and I'm pretty sure they can contract me every year to do it with data they already post on their website. I'll charge them 2,400 bucks per sport (annual 5% raise).

Find someone with real database skills and direct access to the IHSA data and they could probably beat my price. Chat GPT might be able to do it free.

 

[corey90]

I'm like just a guy who likes excel and I'm pretty sure they can contract me every year to do it with data they already post on their website. I'll charge them 2,400 bucks per sport (annual 5% raise).

Find someone with real database skills and direct access to the IHSA data and they could probably beat my price. Chat GPT might be able to do it free.

😂
Love it. You’re probably the guy who builds spreadsheets 5 deep that gives totals for recipes and such. Love those guys. Glad I was the guy who told them what I needed and they built it for me. Hahahaha

 

[doctor_d]

Not trying to be a Debbie downer but!
This is way over doing it. There is no way a HS level organization is going to be able to control or handle what is being suggested.
You have to make it easy or it’s not going to happen. This is HS not college or the Pros where they have unlimited money resources.
Not saying you aren’t thinking outside the box but it’s not going to work if they have to hire staff to monitor every situation.

I don’t understand this reply to my post. When you quote a message and reply, it’s generally understood that you are replying directly to that message.
Nothing about what you posted has anything to do with what you replied to.
You are a complicated guy 😆