OUTSTANDING work from poster NIUAlum2002 and here is a separate recap of his work all in one story.
NIUAlum2002 IHSA District scheduling counter proposal
NIUAlum2002 IHSA District scheduling counter proposal
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.
You're complaining about a potential crossover?In these 4A districts, there are current 3A schools of PBL and Peotone with enrollments under 500 that are currently 3A that might be competing against Peoria Richwoods (1225 students, 5A). Thats just crazy, and why have it like that?
Public District #3 (8 Schools…Top 4 advance to IHSA Playoffs)-Plano-Sandwich-Coal City-Manteno-Wilmington-Reed-Custer-Peotone-Herscher
Public District #4 (8 Schools…Top 4 advance to IHSA Playoffs)-Mendota-Pontiac-Fairbury Prairie-Central-Paxton Buckley-Loda-Chillicothe Illinois Valley Central-Dunlap-Metamora-Morton
Public District #5 (8 Schools…Top 4 advance to IHSA Playoffs)-Peoria Notre Dame-Peoria Manual-Peoria-Peoria Richwoods-East Peoria-Bartonville Limestone-Canton-Clinton
You're complaining about a potential crossover?
Great work! Definitely better than what has been previously proposed. Keeps rivalries somewhat intact and competitive balance in these districts are 100% better. If DHS2018 is against this then there is definitely something good about this proposal. DHS2018 complaining about a small school playing a big school is laughable as he routinely supports success factors, multipliers etc. for private schools. I definitely smell a hypocrite when the shoe is on the other foot. Keep it coming boys!
I think you need to look at some of the current mismatched enrollments going on now at all the levels of classes from 8A down,lake forest Hs plays schools with 2000 more kids than they have for yrs,example!so from 500 or 600 to play a school with 1200 is a decent match.So as they say Cmon man!!!That proposal would have ZERO chance of passing because of what I mentioned, use that type of system and keep schools in their correct enrollment classification, then it looks much better.
I think you need to look at some of the current mismatched enrollments going on now at all the levels of classes from 8A down,lake forest Hs plays schools with 2000 more kids than they have for yrs,example!so from 500 or 600 to play a school with 1200 is a decent match.So as they say Cmon man!!!
Just to get it out of the way now, but, DHS2018 is HHS/BBCHS reborn.
Carry on.
Posted the quoted text below in the other thread about district fix suggestions:
"That was a lot of work you did, and I appreciate the effort. But, once you do something that big, people are gonna nitpick away. Here are my main nitpicks after just a brief scan of it:
1. You dropped down three 8A programs (Edwardsville, O'Fallon, and Belleville East) into 7A. While that solves the 8A district travel problem for those three schools (and the Joliet area 8A schools), that's a pretty big exception to the rule you just made there for the sake of convenience.
2. You bumped Boylan up to 7A. Why? Same convenient reason for dropping down those 8A programs?"
This part is new:
Basically, niualum is ignoring enrollment numbers in the name so as to create districts that are not ridiculous in terms of geography. I'm not saying that is a hugely bad thing, because I have long believed that enrollment alone does not necessarily equate to competitive level. However, I do think that it opens his proposal up to criticism from those smaller schools that he bumped up a class or two into districts with schools that contain a majority of schools that are larger and from smaller schools that are in districts with a majority of smaller schools that contain schools that were dropped down a class.
Do we trust the IHSA not play favorites in doing this? .[/QUOTE said:Check out any of the basketball sectional assignment you will see geography has only a passing importance in creation of sectionals.
OUTSTANDING work from poster NIUAlum2002 and here is a separate recap of his work all in one story.
NIUAlum2002 IHSA District scheduling counter proposal
I cannot like this enough. Great work and to me makes a lot of sense.
You're complaining jiabout a potential crossover?
In these 4A districts, there are current 3A schools of PBL and Peotone with enrollments under 500 that are currently 3A that might be competing against Peoria Richwoods (1225 students, 5A). Thats just crazy, and why have it like that?
Public District #3 (8 Schools…Top 4 advance to IHSA Playoffs)-Plano-Sandwich-Coal City-Manteno-Wilmington-Reed-Custer-Peotone-Herscher
Public District #4 (8 Schools…Top 4 advance to IHSA Playoffs)-Mendota-Pontiac-Fairbury Prairie-Central-Paxton Buckley-Loda-Chillicothe Illinois Valley Central-Dunlap-Metamora-Morton
Public District #5 (8 Schools…Top 4 advance to IHSA Playoffs)-Peoria Notre Dame-Peoria Manual-Peoria-Peoria Richwoods-East Peoria-Bartonville Limestone-Canton-Clinton
Great work! Definitely better than what has been previously proposed. Keeps rivalries somewhat intact and competitive balance in these districts are 100% better. If DHS2018 is against this then there is definitely something good about this proposal. DHS2018 complaining about a small school playing a big school is laughable as he routinely supports success factors, multipliers etc. for private schools. I definitely smell a hypocrite when the shoe is on the other foot. Keep it coming boys!
That proposal would have ZERO chance of passing because of what I mentioned, use that type of system and keep schools in their correct enrollment classification, then it looks much better.
Posted the quoted text below in the other thread about district fix suggestions:
"That was a lot of work you did, and I appreciate the effort. But, once you do something that big, people are gonna nitpick away. Here are my main nitpicks after just a brief scan of it:
1. You dropped down three 8A programs (Edwardsville, O'Fallon, and Belleville East) into 7A. While that solves the 8A district travel problem for those three schools (and the Joliet area 8A schools), that's a pretty big exception to the rule you just made there for the sake of convenience.
2. You bumped Boylan up to 7A. Why? Same convenient reason for dropping down those 8A programs?"
This part is new:
Basically, niualum is ignoring enrollment numbers in the name so as to create districts that are not ridiculous in terms of geography. I'm not saying that is a hugely bad thing, because I have long believed that enrollment alone does not necessarily equate to competitive level. However, I do think that it opens his proposal up to criticism from those smaller schools that he bumped up a class or two into districts with schools that contain a majority of schools that are larger and from smaller schools that are in districts with a majority of smaller schools that contain schools that were dropped down a class.
I am with you for a little bit here. what I hope they would eventually get to is:
after discovering which schools do not belong in 8a,7a,6a etc move them down into a proper class according to competitiveness only. and then district according to general area.
so in reality 8a would be the most competitive class, 7a and so on.
because right now we have garbage in garbage out. and from year to year we have schools that could walk through any class and playing not at competitive level field.
so, I think these next two years very key.
for gaining competitive classes. before districts are put into place.
Nitpick: Maine East is listed in both 7A (District 5) and 6A (District 4).
A specific example that highlights a general problem is the MSL schools. They were basically split into 8A and 6A. Prospect was the only East school in 8A since they are the largest East school. They aren't 8A by enrollment. If we are moving schools out of their enrollment, why not move Meadows up since they've been the best program? How would the changes through the years as program strength changes?
Is this heading towards a state wide promotion/relegation type system? Maybe you have caps based on enrollment and some other factors.
This is really thinking outside the box. It's more of a top down approach (IHSA choosing) to doing conferences rather than the current bottom up approach. Do we trust the IHSA not play favorites in doing this? Or maybe we stick with the current system and the IHSA just has to step in to solve a few of the major problems (such as pressure a handful of schools to play the DVC school).
Proposed 4A District 3 is current I-8 schools, four of which are 4A (Plano, Sandwich, Coal City, Manteno) and four 3A (R/C, Wilmington, Peotone, Herscher).
Proposed 4A District 4 has one 3A (Paxton-B-L 481), four 4A (Pontiac, Prairie Central, Chilicothe IVC, Mendota 555), and two 5A schools (Morton 923, Metamora 980), and a 6A (Dunlap 1304). Who did PBL piss off?
Proposed 4A District 5 has three 4A (Canton 700, Peoria Manuel 613, Clinton 581 ), two 5A (Bartonville Limestone 1009, East Peoria 983), and three 6A (Peoria 1357, Peoria Notre Dame 1280.4, Peoria Richwoods 1225).
Is football in the Kankakee area that much better than the Peoria area that 3A schools should be thrown in with 6A schools for the 4A playoffs?
Meanwhile, Paxton's 3A cohorts in the current SVC who have abandoned the I-8 in the last few years, Seneca, remains in 3A, and the Dwight coop gets dropped to 2A?
Think about it, a contiguous conference core for 3A could be Peotone, Wilmington, Herscher, R/C, Dwight coop, Seneca...they all boundary each other & were I-8...If you pushed CC & Manteno down to 3A, all 8 schools would line up...
Parts of NIU's theory works, some just crashes & burns. It is an interesting concept, though, in the idea of sliding some schools up & down and not having all the districts have 8 teams...
Posted the quoted text below in the other thread about district fix suggestions:
"That was a lot of work you did, and I appreciate the effort. But, once you do something that big, people are gonna nitpick away. Here are my main nitpicks after just a brief scan of it:
1. You dropped down three 8A programs (Edwardsville, O'Fallon, and Belleville East) into 7A. While that solves the 8A district travel problem for those three schools (and the Joliet area 8A schools), that's a pretty big exception to the rule you just made there for the sake of convenience.
2. You bumped Boylan up to 7A. Why? Same convenient reason for dropping down those 8A programs?"
This part is new:
Basically, niualum is ignoring enrollment numbers in the name so as to create districts that are not ridiculous in terms of geography. I'm not saying that is a hugely bad thing, because I have long believed that enrollment alone does not necessarily equate to competitive level. However, I do think that it opens his proposal up to criticism from those smaller schools that he bumped up a class or two into districts with schools that contain a majority of schools that are larger and from smaller schools that are in districts with a majority of smaller schools that contain schools that were dropped down a class.
Unless I am reading it wrong, NIUAlum forgot all the South Suburban Red teams except Evergreen Park.
HAHAHA! I am confident the Hilltoppers will be fine moving forward.. But as an alum, I appreciate your concern.The rivers in Joliet will flood due to tears if this happens! No way JCA wants to play schools like Nazareth in the playoffs.
Effectively addressing all the trade-offs between enrollment, geography, competitiveness, and scheduling is an impossible task. And then one must add the consideration of process. The niualum2002 proposal introduces some enrollment flexibility in order to reduce travel times. It also seems to improve competitiveness compared to a system of rigid districting. A great deal of thought and work went into producing the proposal and the end result is a better product than rigidly produced districts. However, it is the product of one mind and includes a considerable amount of subjectivity (even though the guiding principles have been provided for the sake of transparency). Given the impossibility of addressing every trade-off to the satisfaction of every stakeholder, I believe the IHSA and its members will have a difficult time accepting a system such as this because of the amount of flexibility and subjectivity that is involved. Nevertheless, the proposal does a wonderful job of advancing the discussion by highlighting the various trade-offs and offering possible solutions in different areas. Well done!
exactly why would JCA care. they used to thump us 5 years ago. Very comparable enrollmentsHAHAHA! I am confident the Hilltoppers will be fine moving forward.. But as an alum, I appreciate your concern.
All.... If I understand correctly no multiplier or success tax. This plan is DOA. There is no way the publics would agree to end those discriminatory policies. They would be screaming to the high "heavens" an banging on the Ihsa's door to get those manipulative plans put back in.