Q of the Week: So what's the fix?

[refref01]

There should not be a two year cycle and for privates if they win the class one year they automatically move up the next. MC should have moved to 8A two years ago and not won 3 in a row (in 7A). Same with Naz. If they do not play on the final week the success factor is removed.

Enrollments should be annual based on opening day. I have no clue why that is so hard.

All privates are multiplied. If you don't win a playoff game for three consecutive years you are not multiplied. Marist and Brother Rice moving down in classes is absurd as Marist should have knocked out Loyola and BR beat MC (I know there is an asterisk) and was a dropped pass away from beating LA at LA.

Seeding 1-32 doesn't do anything in regard to who wins just may make for better championship games.

The home team thing is also an issue. The higher seed should play at home.

Seeding should be based more on SOS then wins and losses.

Private schools are getting better because the public schools in certain areas have awful programs and youth football is becoming more of a travel sport then it once was so players are being found earlier......and then there are transfers.

 

[Formicidae13]

I think 1-32 is overhyped as a solution.

There are some cases where it would pay off, such as giving a path to Byron vs Montini in the 3A title game this year. But it also would have turned Joliet Catholic vs Naz into a quarterfinal in 5A instead of the final. Changing to 1-32 just shakes up the pool a little bit and gives a chance at better state final matchup. That shakeup also comes with a chance at some extreme travel distances.

It’s just a big game of Press Your Luck and I don’t think the benefits out weigh the negatives to most schools. 1-16 is already less geographically based than the playoff system for any other IHSA sport, where we consistently see the same Regionals and Sectionals stacked to the brim.

 

[sac'em]

It’s unlikely this issue will ever be “fixed” because people only seem to care about it when it directly impacts them. If it’s not something that affects you year after year, you won’t see solutions—just complaints. Once someone isn’t personally affected by the system anymore, they quickly lose interest. Even on this forum, people only speak up when their team is impacted; otherwise, it’s crickets.
We keep trying to solve this problem after every Thanksgiving weekend, but nothing changes. The IHSA needs to decide how to address this. They can either stick with the current system or create a new policy that can be voted on, with results that are binding for the next 10 years. After that, they can use data from the next decade to make any necessary changes, based on what has been voted on.

 

[brucealmighy]

With all this talk going on, I got a chuckle yesterday during the Illini game when Jordan Anderson got his 1st carry of the year. Announcer says, "Jordan Anderson, from Naperville", and I was like, "Nah, he went to Joliet Catholic".

He had 4 carries prior to that.

 

[brucealmighy]

I have a crazy idea that will never work but throwing it out there. The coordinator’s circle tweets got me thinking. What does that circle look like for the average student at a private school? How does that circle compare for the football roster? Could there be players that travel from a greater distance than the average student? Could there be some sort of formula to multiply based on distance greater than the average student? Again unlikely but throwing out a wild idea.

I think that is what is most frustrating to fans of public schools. Let’s look at Montini. The Broncos have been a great program for two decades. This years team had over 25 kids that grew up playing for the local Bill George team. That means they are likely from Lombard or Villa Park. The average Montini student comes from those communities along with Downers Grove, Glen Ellyn, Oak Brook, Elmhurst, Hinsdale and other neighboring villages. Yet the quarterback is from Elgin. Naz’s QB is from Bolingbrook. Both of those have to travel a significant distance greater than the average student.

 

[ramblinman]

There is no fix short of complete separation. There just isn't.

Why? Because, in general, the public schools and their followers have become conditioned to whining to get their way.

It's basic child development. When a child whines and gets his or her way, s/he becomes conditioned to whine to get her/his way for everything.

In the case of the public/private debate, it's fine for public schools to get bounced from the playoffs by other public schools, but God help the private schools when they are the ones doing the bouncing. When private schools do the bouncing at any level of the playoffs, the public school whining begins.

When, as a result of public school whining, the public school-dominated IHSA instituted the 30 mile radius limiting private school student athletic eligibility, did the whining end? No. When they instituted the multiplier (at first doing so and violating their own due process rules in their haste to self-pacify) impacting private schools only, did the whining end? No. When they instituted the success factor impacting private schools only, did the whining end? No.

Short of complete separation,  whatever pacifier they come up with this time will not stop the whining.

Give me the NIPL!

 

[HSFootballfan_007]

Another thought would be that once you win a state title at a class you are bumped to the next one and can't go back down. If you are able to win 5A you go to 6A and that is the lowest you can play. If you win 6A you have to play 7A, and so on

 

[Cross Bones]

I have a crazy idea that will never work but throwing it out there. The coordinator’s circle tweets got me thinking. What does that circle look like for the average student at a private school? How does that circle compare for the football roster? Could there be players that travel from a greater distance than the average student? Could there be some sort of formula to multiply based on distance greater than the average student? Again unlikely but throwing out a wild idea.

I think that is what is most frustrating to fans of public schools. Let’s look at Montini. The Broncos have been a great program for two decades. This years team had over 25 kids that grew up playing for the local Bill George team. That means they are likely from Lombard or Villa Park. The average Montini student comes from those communities along with Downers Grove, Glen Ellyn, Oak Brook, Elmhurst, Hinsdale and other neighboring villages. Yet the quarterback is from Elgin. Naz’s QB is from Bolingbrook. Both of those have to travel a significant distance greater than the average student.

Bolingbrook got the best QBs in all the land...just never at The Brook 😢 but hey we have 3300 kids that don't play football.

 

[Wassup13]

True 1 to 32 seeding for each bracket using Massey for the seeding takes care of most of this and keeps it simple.

 

[Wassup13]

I’m not in favor of that so much but I would like to see a team that is the higher seed stay home until otherwise. In the regular season you’ve earned that right.

Can't win on the road, you don't deserve hardware.

 

[LHSTigers94]

There is no fix short of complete separation. There just isn't.

Why? Because, in general, the public schools and their followers have become conditioned to whining to get their way.

It's basic child development. When a child whines and gets his or her way, s/he becomes conditioned to whine to get her/his way for everything.

In the case of the public/private debate, it's fine for public schools to get bounced from the playoffs by other public schools, but God help the private schools when they are the ones doing the bouncing. When private schools do the bouncing at any level of the playoffs, the public school whining begins.

When, as a result of public school whining, the public school-dominated IHSA instituted the 30 mile radius limiting private school student athletic eligibility, did the whining end? No. When they instituted the multiplier (at first doing so and violating their own due process rules in their haste to self-pacify) impacting private schools only, did the whining end? No. When they instituted the success factor impacting private schools only, did the whining end? No.

Short of complete separation,  whatever pacifier they come up with this time will not stop the whining.

Give me the NIPL!

You like to talk about the publics whining however, you don't highlight that private whining that created the multiplier waiver that created the current mess. What do you think the results will be if Montini, Naz, JC had to play LA, MC, St Rita every year for a championship? Due you think there would be no whining and teams would just play? The same feeling Naz will have about having to play LA for the championship is the same exact feeling Lewin felt about playing Althoff this year.

There are valid concerns that should be address. To dismiss it as whining is a little hypocritical. (Not specifically you but the private supporter group).

 

[sporthog9er]

The crux of this entire argument, in my opinion, is about the talent of athletes. And that's something that tends to be taboo and nobody wants to discuss in detail because we're talking about kids.

I tend to stay out of this private vs public debate because in all honesty, I just don't care.

In my eyes, it all boils down to the talent of kids you get in the building. I see it both ways in this private/public argument.

I agree with privates saying "You need to just get better. Coach better. Change what you do then to match us". There is a lot of truth to that.

I also agree on the other side that well...you can get better coaching. You can fundraise, get more resources, get in the community/youth levels more....but NONE of that matters if you don't get talented athletes to come to your school. No amount of money or high level coaching will ever be able to match the elite programs if you simply don't get good players.

Then I agree with the privates train of thought that IF you do all those things- get better coaches/coach better, increase resources, youth engagement, etc etc...then those "good" players should start heading your away.

Except that doesn't always happen. And it's not something you can always COUNT on happening.

Anyways, just my 2 cents. And FWIW, I'm in the camp of just wanting vouchers and everyone just goes where they want. Just be done with it.

 

[guerinfbfan]

1-32 seeding in all classification

2.0 multiplier for non-boundaried & private schools

No waivers

Enrollment numbers should be current. I don't see why the IHSA can't get current school year enrollment figures? Aren't school districts reporting their numbers to the state board of education?

 

[Alexander32]

Pretty simple question this week........so what's the fix in your opinion? How do we fix the current IHSA state playoff format and system? Do we separate public from private? Add stricter guard rails in place?

My feeling? Can we TRY seeding 1-32 in all classes to start with....then also look at the whole impact of multipliers/success factors? Personally...after seeing literally daily debate on this subject for well over 30 plus years.....can we finally just put public/private to a member wide vote and just accept the results and live with them/move on?

EdgyTim:

If you posed the question above merely to generate activity on the message board, then you have succeeded. However, if you genuinely want to improve the currently existing playoff format and greatly reduce (not eliminate) the number of complaints, then I implore you to read the thread titled "A Proposal for High School Football Playoffs". It is currently found at the very end of page 2 on this message board, and I'm sure it will soon be moving to page 3.

I encourage you to take the 20 minutes required to read the entire thread. Skimming through the proposed brackets is fine, but reading the entire narrative (including the questions, comments, and answers) is necessary to gain a thorough understanding of the proposal. Please think about the proposal. Then, if you would, please provide a written critique of the proposal (either in this thread or the thread containing the proposal) explaining why you think it will or will not work. By reading the comments in that thread related to the proposal, you will see it was generally well received. The main sticking point was whether or not the exact same success factor proposed for the private schools should also be applied to the public schools. I am not opposed to that, but would appreciate reading your views on the matter.

I will admit my nature is to solve problems, not merely to endlessly talk about them. If you do not think the proposal I'm referring to can significantly improve the current situation, then I must reluctantly agree with "ramblinman". At that point separate playoffs would seem to be the only course forward.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful you will read the entire proposal and provide a written response to it on this message board. If your response is positive, then I hope you will see fit to forward it to one or more IHSA members for their review. If it meets with their approval, hopefully they will submit it to the entire IHSA membership for approval.

Thank you, in advance, for any time you may spend reading this open letter, reading the proposal, and then writing any response you choose to make.

Respectfully,
Pierre Garesche
Wheaton, Illinois

 

[johnndoe]

So no, absolutely not, I don't want to see a split. I'm happy MC is moving to 8A, I'd love to see them play LWE and Maine South who will have the two top QBs in the State next year, while MC and LA reload at that position. It will be an awesome game. As Edgy suggested, start with seeding, FACTOR IN STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE, make sure that the #1 seed in the second largest conference isn't a school from the third tier of competitiveness in the CPS while the 2 two defending State Champion is seeded 19th. Baby steps....splitting the Private/Publics would be a monster step.

1. Are we so certain both QBs mentioned above will stay home and not appear on a FL all-star team? This offered to me from the lips of a varsity FB parent from one of the 2 schools.
2. If a public-private playoff split would occur, I would assume the number of classes for each would match the proportion of these school types in the state that play 11-man football. Anyone have that breakdown, by the way?
3. I have no dog in this public-private controversy fight, content to acknowledge the advantage(s) each may have. However, the base, fundamental DIFFERENCE between boundary and 30-mile radius boundary is real, and hard to dismiss.

 

[Coalertown44]

Combine Morris, Coal City and Wilmington into one school district and I won't complain about anything LOL

 

[guerinfbfan]

I believe 51 private/non boundary schools played IHSA 11 man football. 29 qualified for the playoffs.

If they did split, you're going to get 2 classes for playoff purposes IMO

 

[Maj2023]

Chicago Christian is an anomaly. I’m glad they won. It’s a once in a generation team for them.

Think about this again using Montini, Naz, JCA and Althoff as your examples. Even throw in IC even though they didn’t make it. How many teams in 1a-5a have that kind of talent and depth?

Look at 1A Althoff for example: week 9 they played 6A kaneland (playoff team) and beat them. That is the advantage of being able to recruit multiple D1 talent players overcoming enrollment size. CC good for them and they could of played in 4A and done well as most teams at that level don’t exclusively platoon players

 

[IHSAfan207]

We need to define what are we looking to solve?

The whole purpose of the current format is to eliminate one team from winning numerous state championships in the same class.

The current format solves this.

Althoff, Chicago Christian, Montini, DePaul, Naz and Mt Carmel will all be in higher classes next year. Is this not enough?

If not, what do we need to fix? What else is the problem?

Good post, for me there are 4 main issues to address for better class placement and competitive balance.

1. All classes ranked 1-32

2. Make multipliers permanent, actual multiplier number goes to committee reviewed every 8 years, adjustments made as necessary.

3. SF should be for ALL schools, win a Chamionship twice in a class in a 4 year period move up a class. This should supercede conference rules, meaning ESL could and would be in 8A by now.

4. Finally IMHO is the biggest issue: Multiplier waivers, isn't IC dropping to 2A more or less just replacing CC in 2A? These waivers should be extremely hard to get and only drop one class at a time. I also think Publics should be part of any class drop rule. For example no advancement past first round for 4 consecutive playoff appearances, no quarters appearances in 6 consecutive playoff appearances etc...

Enrollment is starting point, but we see its not the end all be all. And with today's technology same year enrollment numbers should not be difficult to get. So end 2 year windows. I don't think any of the above mention would be impossible to implement and would go a long way keeping the best but like teams competing against each other. Would it end clocked games, no, but I would put my money it would help reduce them. Teams like Chicago Bulls Nobel would eventually compete in 2A or 3A where they might get a win or two.

 

[stonedlizard]

Would have to first agree on what's trying to be solved for...opportunities or outcomes? better representation across the state? equal representation between publics and privates? closer championship game scores? reduce the 'dynasties' within a class? reduce 'dynasties' all-together? Hard for folks to align on a solution when they can't align on the problem.

Few updated facts for the board to consider (and correcting for a taxonomy issue in prior thread/summary):

• Since 2000 (and inclusive of this year's playoffs) 184 total champions have been crowned across all classes, but only 80 unique schools have won of championship
• 39 schools (~49%) have won multiple championships and are collectively responsible for 143 (~78%) of all titles over that same time frame;
  • 24 schools (~30%) have won 3+ and are responsible for 113 (~61%)
  • 15 schools (~19%) have won 4+ and are responsible for 86 (~47%)
• The private vs public split of each of these cohorts varies:
  • Of the 39 schools with multiple titles, 27 (~69%) are public
  • Of the 24 schools with 3+ titles, 14 (~58%) are public
  • Of the 15 schools with 4+ titles, 10 (~67%) are private
• 3 of the 5 public schools (~60%) with 4+ titles have won their title in solely 1 class and only 1 (Maine South) in the highest classification
• 2 of the 10 private schools (20%) with 4+ titles have won their title in solely 1 class and only 1 (Loyola) in the highest classification
  • On average, the other 8 schools have won ~67% of their titles in a single class
• Only 11 schools have won 3+ consecutive titles and in 10 (excluding Driscoll) cases that streak has been completed in solely 1 class
  • Only 1 school (IC; excluding Driscoll) has won 2 consecutive titles with a third in a higher class

Taken together this presents a pretty clear set of observations:

• Strong programs, for both private and public schools, account for vast majority of championships
• Across these programs there is a clear 'tiering' based on number of championships won; with a healthy lean towards publics overall and privates towards the top-most tier
• Sustained success is often at a program level, the 'super-class' is largely an outlier, and when there has been policies that move teams to higher classifications based on sustained success, it's generally worked to curb multi-year title runs

All the noise stems largely from classification and seeding ineffectiveness for ~24 schools. Multipliers & success notions have been largely effective, but applied inconsistently and only address a subset of the schools. Simply building off the lessons learned from the past few success factor adjustments, and applying them to public and privates would go far.

But give me the fluid, self-correcting, power points driven classification system!

 

[jwarigaku]

Combine Morris, Coal City and Wilmington into one school district and I won't complain about anything LOL

This is probably the best idea I’ve seen. It addresses adding breath to every aspect of the HS experience, it sheds the duplication of multiple district executive employees hence lowering the salary base and Taxes, and it removes the obstacles small districts can face in hosting enrichment and AP classes! Tip of the hat to Coalertown!

 

[Alexander32]

Would have to first agree on what's trying to be solved for...opportunities or outcomes? better representation across the state? equal representation between publics and privates? closer championship game scores? reduce the 'dynasties' within a class? reduce 'dynasties' all-together? Hard for folks to align on a solution when they can't align on the problem.

Few updated facts for the board to consider (and correcting for a taxonomy issue in prior thread/summary):

• Since 2000 (and inclusive of this year's playoffs) 184 total champions have been crowned across all classes, but only 80 unique schools have won of championship
• 39 schools (~49%) have won multiple championships and are collectively responsible for 143 (~78%) of all titles over that same time frame;
  • 24 schools (~30%) have won 3+ and are responsible for 113 (~61%)
  • 15 schools (~19%) have won 4+ and are responsible for 86 (~47%)
• The private vs public split of each of these cohorts varies:
  • Of the 39 schools with multiple titles, 27 (~69%) are public
  • Of the 24 schools with 3+ titles, 14 (~58%) are public
  • Of the 15 schools with 4+ titles, 10 (~67%) are private
• 3 of the 5 public schools (~60%) with 4+ titles have won their title in solely 1 class and only 1 (Maine South) in the highest classification
• 2 of the 10 private schools (20%) with 4+ titles have won their title in solely 1 class and only 1 (Loyola) in the highest classification
  • On average, the other 8 schools have won ~67% of their titles in a single class
• Only 11 schools have won 3+ consecutive titles and in 10 (excluding Driscoll) cases that streak has been completed in solely 1 class
  • Only 1 school (IC; excluding Driscoll) has won 2 consecutive titles with a third in a higher class

Taken together this presents a pretty clear set of observations:

• Strong programs, for both private and public schools, account for vast majority of championships
• Across these programs there is a clear 'tiering' based on number of championships won; with a healthy lean towards publics overall and privates towards the top-most tier
• Sustained success is often at a program level, the 'super-class' is largely an outlier, and when there has been policies that move teams to higher classifications based on sustained success, it's generally worked to curb multi-year title runs

All the noise stems largely from classification and seeding ineffectiveness for ~24 schools. Multipliers & success notions have been largely effective, but applied inconsistently and only address a subset of the schools. Simply building off the lessons learned from the past few success factor adjustments, and applying them to public and privates would go far.

But give me the fluid, self-correcting, power points driven classification system!

Here is a simple success factor table to use for both private and public high schools. It is based on the number of times a school has played in the semifinal round of the last five playoffs; and it indicates the number of class levels the school will play above its baseline class level.

Five semifinal appearances = Play three levels above the baseline class
Four semifinal appearances = Play two levels above the baseline class
Three semifinal appearances = Play one level above the baseline class

No success factor is applied to schools that have made two or fewer semifinal appearances during the last five playoffs. Problem solved!!!

 

[ramblinman]

Here is a simple success factor table to use for both private and public high schools. It is based on the number of times a school has played in the semifinal round of the last five playoffs; and it indicates the number of class levels the school will play above its baseline class level.

Five semifinal appearances = Play three levels above the baseline class
Four semifinal appearances = Play two levels above the baseline class
Three semifinal appearances = Play one level above the baseline class

No success factor is applied to schools that have made two or fewer semifinal appearances during the last five playoffs. Problem solved!!!

At first I thought I liked it. I especially liked how it didn't discriminate against private schools only. I started to like it less when I thought about those possibilities where a school that has never won a title, or even played in a title game, gets success factored up because they won between three and five quarterfinal games in a five year span. Seems to me like it needs some tweaking

 

[SiuCubFan8]

At first I thought I liked it. I especially liked how it didn't discriminate against private schools only. I started to like it less when I thought about those possibilities where a school that has never won a title, or even played in a title game, gets success factored up because they won between three and five quarterfinal games in a five year span. Seems to me like it needs some tweaking

I have a hard time making teams play up that haven't played in the championship game.

 

[kwamizee]

Something has to change. That’s for sure.

I’m leaning towards separation. 5 in Public, 3 in Private might work.

Weight limit, or body mass limit on officials.

1-32 seeding.

How will 49 teams fill 3 classes?

Even with separation the same teams will win state year in year out and there will be a series of new complaints.