All.... Umm.... ehhh...
1. You didn't quantify what year. Your statement was inaccurate since they have several big boys playing this year.
2. What narrative would that be and what truth do I know? Ratsy
Q: Who are the Top Programs of this Decade?
- Thread starter EdgyTim
- Start date
All.... Umm.... ehhh...
1. You didn't quantify what year. Your statement was inaccurate since they have several big boys playing this year.
2. What narrative would that be and what truth do I know? Ratsy
The truth is you would like to see Rochester move up so they can lose. No one hear thinks that Rochester will dominate 5A or above. Both ESL and Naz has done well in 6A and 7A. Its a huge difference. The success factor has made things more competitive which was the purpose.
According to the IHSA, the last seven Rochester state title games saw their O line averaging 235, 242, 245, 234, 237, 231, and 254. The D line averaged 242, 242, 242, 231, 222, 197, and 263.
You were saying?
All.... A little humility for Rocket fans would be nice.... The Ihsa's latest discriminatory policy you speak of had nothing to do with competitiveness. Just more manipulation from that governing body to slow down private schools and appease the whining public school collective that have majority numbers. Ratsy
Yet the same punished private schools are winning in the higher classes. maybe they actually got it correct.
8A last few years
Loyola OL: 244, 265, 263
Loyola DL: 218, 247, 242
Rice OL: 268
Rice DL: 222
LWE OL: 246
LWE DL: 230
6A this year
CG OL: 224
CG DL: 223
CM OL: 245
CM DL: 238
All.... There are MANY schools private and public spread out among the eight classes that could have some success if they were bumped up in a higher class. Just because they can manage to do that to some extent doesn't mean the school should be kicked up. But the sf in addition to the multiplier is nothing but an attempt to keep titles and winning postseason games as low as possible as it applies to the privates. An obvious and punitive measure. It's absurd that a school of 650 kids has to play schools twice their size or more with the intent to limit said success. Let's see how this looks like ten years from now. As in all of life there are anomalies including sports. Ratsy
Last edited:
IHSA was very clear that the success factor was a further step to tier the open enrollment districts based on their success. And based on the fact that no school has been given the success factor and then been outclassed in their new class shows it is working at least within some level as intended.
How do spreading out privates over all classes lower their chances of winning titles? You are not making sense.
Nice.
I have seen Loyola and their weights are legit. I have seen Rochester and their weights are not legit. During their 7 Championships there wasn't one team that I thought could compete in 7A mainly because of size.
So if I am getting this correct, Rochester which has a student population of 774 (44% female) compared to Montini's 635 (of which 47% are female) are both being treated fairly by Rochester being in 4A and Montini next year going to 6A. This is because Montini is a non boundary school and has big linemen whereas Rochester doesn't have big linemen.
According to Max preps, Montini's 63 man roster this year had 6 kids over 250 lbs and half of those kids are not starters and some only play on one side of the ball. Rochester's 116 man roster had 7 kids over 250 lbs and I don't know how many start or if they play both ways. Montini's achilles heel has always been the lack of size in the offensive and defensive lines,but that shouldn't upset the viewpoint of the vocal publichigh school backers who allege they don't don't have any big kids playing football. That just doesn't measure up with not only Montini but a lot of other private high schools in Illinois.
Looking at it objectively and not thru the IHSA headlights or viewpoint of public school backers I smell an odor which smacks of an anti private school bias.
According to Max preps, Montini's 63 man roster this year had 6 kids over 250 lbs and half of those kids are not starters and some only play on one side of the ball. Rochester's 116 man roster had 7 kids over 250 lbs and I don't know how many start or if they play both ways. Montini's achilles heel has always been the lack of size in the offensive and defensive lines,but that shouldn't upset the viewpoint of the vocal publichigh school backers who allege they don't don't have any big kids playing football. That just doesn't measure up with not only Montini but a lot of other private high schools in Illinois.
Looking at it objectively and not thru the IHSA headlights or viewpoint of public school backers I smell an odor which smacks of an anti private school bias.
So objectively you are saying that because of enrollment only, Rochester and Montini are the same. Based on that logic, based on the fact that every team in the NFL have a 53 man roster, all teams are equal! Same with college football. Every team get 85 scholarships so how can anyone think that one team is better than the other. Alabama and Illinois should be valued the same.
5A was the only large class in which everyone pretty much knew Montini and JC would meet in the championship. It's hard for me to believe that you would compare Montini to Rochester with a serious tone. I don't buy it.
In comparison to this year's teams in 5A-8A championship, Rochester's D line would be on the larger side and the O line on the smaller side.
In Edgy's pick em pool, two people picked JCA to win 5A. Edgy picked against them in the first round. Cmon, everyone did not know that they would be in the championship.
Really? So who came within 20 points of JC during the championship run? I guess beating teams by 20 or more is considered competitive. I get it. For the record not one of those teams had a chance in you know what to beat JC regardless of Edgy "safe" pick. I read all year people saying "if" they make the playoff, they had a strong chance to make a run. The minute they separated JC and Montini, it was game on. Please be real and honest here.
You said that everyone knew JC was going to be in the championship. I am just showing you the evidence that virtually no one on this site picked them to get there
My "everyone" is a different group compared to this board so in that case I should have been more specific or not mention the word everyone. Bottom line, round 1 through the semis were not competitive period. Not one game. We can't ignore that fact no matter how bad some would like to paint a different picture.
Last edited:
It is not the size of the kids, it is the size of the schools district in which they draw from.
As we all know the best tam doesn't always win. Size doesn't always guarantee you a good football player ,I'll take a guy 6/1 6/2. 215/220 any day over the jumbo lineman .
Rochester has won 7 state titles and yet in your opinion they are to be considered the "sisters of the poor" and shouldn't be success factored due to their being a boundary school. I don't buy that as you don't buy the Montini comparison. This isn't apples to oranges as much as you would like to think so. IMO this is an apples to apples comparison based upon student enrollment and probable football enrollment. Probably all of this will be moot once the districts are laid out. But it looks to me like both Rochester and Montini will be in good shape going forward if Soucie's prediction of districts is accurate. In the meantime we can agree to disagree with no hard feelings.
Not if they are similar athletes. I've seen plenty of 6/2 220 lb kids who are not good football players
You could be correct,but I've seen kids 6/4 275 lbs that have a hard time tying their shoes
We can agree to disagree but my assessment of Rochester has nothing to do with what type of school they are. That’s irrelevant to me. I look at the Team only. I could care less what type of building they are housed in. That’s were we differ. I like playing the best competition available. Whether the team is 2a by classification or 8a don’t determine how good or bad a team is. I am saying Rochester can’t compete on the same level regardless of how many championships they win in 4a. Just like not all private schools can compete at a high level.
I agree. My point is, in football, I'll take the big athlete over the small athlete every time. And most people seem to agree. That is why, overall, football is a big mans game.
LSHTiger94: Seems like the district concept is not going to be very competitive for many teams. Do you agree?
Absolutely and I dislike it for that reason. I wish things can be different. I am not a fan but, I also understand that a majority of the schools don't like competition.
That probably is the crux of where we are at with districts. I know that many schools like ESL, LWE, and many others thrive on that competition. It is a shame that other schools who like to get trophies playing lesser competition are dictating to others what high school football should be about.
I'm actually still updating every year. Haven't gotten around to finishing for 2018 but I'm keeping records...
Size, size, size...3A example. The 2016 Wilmington team that was the second best team in 3A after IC could have been much better. Why? The Wildcat senior class lost its fresh/soph starting tackles to career ending medical issues after their soph years. That would have been a 285 pound right tackle and a 280 left tackle (and the left tackle played guard on the basketball team). They were replaced by a 265 RT who was 3/4 string as a freshman, and a jr 240 LT who was all-state as a senior...The right guard was 250.
That might not have been a good pass-blocking group, but they sure could run block...
I'm actually still updating every year. Haven't gotten around to finishing for 2018 but I'm keeping records...
Give us the goods my man! What's the decade look like? How has the all time ranking shifted with the results of the recent years?
Similar threads
