SF 10 Syc 0 F

[ramblinman]

While creative, his proposal is DOA. It’s just another scheme the public’s have to make up to prevent the privates from winning. And if the plan doesn’t work after implementation, they’ll come up with something else to ensure a public gets a trophy.

Tired. Old. Argument.

Exactly right.

Just more proof how loath public most school fans are to lose to private schools in the playoffs. It sticks in their craw, and they can't let it go.

Instead of getting better like some public schools have done over the years (it CAN be and HAS been done), they would rather give in to expediency and mediocrity by discriminating against a group of schools that experience more success than they do. Basically, they don't want to do the work. It's like C students resenting A students and pushing for grade inflation so that they can be A students without having to put in the work.

 

[SiuCubFan8]

Exactly right.

Just more proof how loath public most school fans are to lose to private schools in the playoffs. It sticks in their craw, and they can't let it go.

Instead of getting better like some public schools have done over the years (it CAN be and HAS been done), they would rather give in to expediency and mediocrity by discriminating against a group of schools that experience more success than they do. Basically, they don't want to do the work. It's like C students resenting A students and pushing for grade inflation so that they can be A students without having to put in the work.

I just like now how it switched from privates to one conference now when two other privates, not in said conference, are in final 4.

 

[Alexander32]

Exactly right.

Just more proof how loath public most school fans are to lose to private schools in the playoffs. It sticks in their craw, and they can't let it go.

Instead of getting better like some public schools have done over the years (it CAN be and HAS been done), they would rather give in to expediency and mediocrity by discriminating against a group of schools that experience more success than they do. Basically, they don't want to do the work. It's like C students resenting A students and pushing for grade inflation so that they can be A students without having to put in the work.

Your explanation might have more credibility except for the fact, as I explained to you last year, I'm not a public-school fan. My views are based on where the evidence leads me with the ultimate objectives of being fair and trying to save the private schools' integration into the IHSA playoffs. My daughter taught at St. Francis for 13 years and I have attended more St. Francis games than the games of any other high school over the last 20 years. Second place would go to Nazareth Academy because I worked in La Grange Park and it was therefore convenient, plus the fact one of my co-worker/friend's kids played for the Roadrunners (so we would sometimes attend a game together).

My daughter currently teaches at a Lutheran elementary/middle school in Batavia, where my wife and I subsidize the cost of our three granddaughters' attendance. [Since my daughter teaches part-time, they do not attend for free.] Clearly, I have nothing against private schools. Nevertheless, having attended Lyons Township my freshman and sophomore years, and Maine East my junior and senior years, I am also familiar with the public-school experience. Having been a fan of Illinois high school football for many years, I am probably as close as you are going to get to an unbiased observer of the public/private debate.

Turning briefly to the comment of SiuCubFan8, the playoff success of the Chicagoland Christian Conference (as currently comprised) is not even close to the success of the CCL/ESCC, and therefore the evidence indicates no new arrangement is needed. I could not tell you the last time Chicago Christian made the semifinals, if ever. In the case of Althoff, they are an independent (which precludes the same remedy) and I don't think they have won a state football championship in at least 20 years.

Finally, as I have mentioned numerous times in the past, and I have proposed in the past, if a success factor for individual schools is to be used (which, of course, it currently is for private schools), then a similar success factor should be applied to public schools as well. The plan I've proposed in this thread would eliminate the need for a separate success factor to be applied to CCL/ESCC schools.

I do find it amusing, though, that the second someone proposes a plan that might make it more difficult for a private school to win a state football championship, the private school supporters turn into the same whiners and complainers they accuse the fans of Antioch and Sycamore to be. To those particular private-school supporters, I say, "just get better".

 

[jwarigaku]

Your explanation might have more credibility except for the fact, as I explained to you last year, I'm not a public-school fan. My views are based on where the evidence leads me with the ultimate objectives of being fair and trying to save the private schools' integration into the IHSA playoffs. My daughter taught at St. Francis for 13 years and I have attended more St. Francis games than the games of any other high school over the last 20 years. Second place would go to Nazareth Academy because I worked in La Grange Park and it was therefore convenient, plus the fact one of my co-worker/friend's kids played for the Roadrunners (so we would sometimes attend a game together).

My daughter currently teaches at a Lutheran elementary/middle school in Batavia, where my wife and I subsidize the cost of our three granddaughters' attendance. [Since my daughter teaches part-time, they do not attend for free.] Clearly, I have nothing against private schools. Nevertheless, having attended Lyons Township my freshman and sophomore years, and Maine East my junior and senior years, I am also familiar with the public-school experience. Having been a fan of Illinois high school football for many years, I am probably as close as you are going to get to an unbiased observer of the public/private debate.

Turning briefly to the comment of SiuCubFan8, the playoff success of the Chicagoland Christian Conference (as currently comprised) is not even close to the success of the CCL/ESCC, and therefore the evidence indicates no new arrangement is needed. I could not tell you the last time Chicago Christian made the semifinals, if ever. In the case of Althoff, they are an independent (which precludes the same remedy) and I don't think they have won a state football championship in at least 20 years.

Finally, as I have mentioned numerous times in the past, and I have proposed in the past, if a success factor for individual schools is to be used (which, of course, it currently is for private schools), then a similar success factor should be applied to public schools as well. The plan I've proposed in this thread would eliminate the need for a separate success factor to be applied to CCL/ESCC schools.

I do find it amusing, though, that the second someone proposes a plan that might make it more difficult for a private school to win a state football championship, the private school supporters turn into the same whiners and complainers they accuse the fans of Antioch and Sycamore to be. To those particular private-school supporters, I say, "just get better".

Alexander,

I too have been on both sides of the public/private education/sports equation for my boys and must say I completely disagree with you because I’m a fan of merit being rewarded. Both sets of programs had success in multiple states with similar debate about separation of public/private schools. To equate this to a business competitive landscape, should the best manufacturer or provider of a service etc… be subject to an additional tax because they provide a better product? I am a fan of everyone being treated equally, but the outcomes measurements should be based on providing the best product or service.

 

[PowerI66]

Alexander,

I too have been on both sides of the public/private education/sports equation for my boys and must say I completely disagree with you because I’m a fan of merit being rewarded. Both sets of programs had success in multiple states with similar debate about separation of public/private schools. To equate this to a business competitive landscape, should the best manufacturer or provider of a service etc… be subject to an additional tax because they provide a better product? I am a fan of everyone being treated equally, but the outcomes measurements should be based on providing the best product or service.

Before I say what I'm going to say, I'm at peace with public/private thing. It is what it is. However, this analogy doesn't work unless you acknowledge the advantages and disadvantages of each side. For example, business A only gets to use local resources, but business B gets to use resources from surrounding areas. Business A gets taxed at a lower rate than business B. You get the idea.

 

[Green Knights 17]

I'm glad you asked. I would separate them only until the semifinal round.

1) All CCL/ESCC teams make the playoffs regardless of record.
2) Divide the 24 teams into three groups of eight teams each. This can be done based on student enrollment or team ability.
3) Each group of eight teams plays three rounds of playoffs among themselves to produce one winner.
4) The winner of Group A advances to the semifinals of the IHSA 8A playoffs.
5) The winner of Group B advances to the semifinals of the IHSA 7A playoffs.
6) The winner of Group C advances to the semifinal round of the IHSA 6A playoffs.
7) The other 24 teams (three quadrants of eight teams) in those three class levels will be teams that are not in the CCL/ESCC.
8) Any CCL/ESCC playoff group (A, B or C) that does not win a state championship for five consecutive years will drop down one class level for the playoffs the following year.

If CCL/ESCC member schools do not like the new arrangement, then, as they like to say, they should "just get better".

We are in the age where everyone gets a trophy, so let’s make sure all the public schools get to the semi final first before having to play any competition. Great idea.

 

[Green Knights 17]

Before I say what I'm going to say, I'm at peace with public/private thing. It is what it is. However, this analogy doesn't work unless you acknowledge the advantages and disadvantages of each side. For example, business A only gets to use local resources, but business B gets to use resources from surrounding areas. Business A gets taxed at a lower rate than business B. You get the idea.

Private schools might pull from multiple towns, but you are still talking small enrollments for most of them. Private school coaches are probably making half the money a public school coach is getting. Nothing is fair in life, end of the day, compete and find a way.

 

[jwarigaku]

Before I say what I'm going to say, I'm at peace with public/private thing. It is what it is. However, this analogy doesn't work unless you acknowledge the advantages and disadvantages of each side. For example, business A only gets to use local resources, but business B gets to use resources from surrounding areas. Business A gets taxed at a lower rate than business B. You get the idea.

Yes but business A gets the resources for Free! While business B has to find someone willing to pay the tax for business A and business B!

 

[corey90]

Yes but business A gets the resources for Free! While business B has to find someone willing to pay the tax for business A and business B!

Trust me nothing is free. 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

[PowerI66]

Private schools might pull from multiple towns, but you are still talking small enrollments for most of them. Private school coaches are probably making half the money a public school coach is getting. Nothing is fair in life, end of the day, compete and find a way.

I think you would be very surprised about paydays. Also, in a lot of districts half the amount of money a public school coach is making is well below the poverty line

 

[PowerI66]

Yes but business A gets the resources for Free! While business B has to find someone willing to pay the tax for business A and business B!

Like I said, pros and cons. One thing is for sure, transfers don't matter anymore as long as you dot your i's

 

[CoachPap]

One issue I see is that some of these schools do not schedule tough enough opponents early in the year. A school that routinely wins their conference should be trying to schedule some of the CCL / ESCC schools for their non cons early in the year.

As of right now for next year, I think there are 5 or 6 CCL / ESCC schools looking for games Week 1 and 2. Play them early so your kids know what the level of competition is. Some schools do a really good job of scheduling tougher non cons, but there are opportunities to understand the competition better come playoff time.

 

[CoachPap]

Also, having been on both sides of the public vs private as a coach. The biggest difference (and also the biggest indicator of both private and public school consistent success) is the coaching staffs. Many private schools only have 1 or 2 internal staff members as coaches. They get to hire external coaches that stay with the program and might be a little better overall as coaches. Public schools are often saddled with the requirement to give the math teacher and science teacher a coaching job. Sometimes those guys are great, but too often, they are there to collect the extra stipend.

The public schools that have the most consistent success have been lead by a great head coach with consistent and quality assistants. (Batavia, LWE, Maine South, ESL, etc)

 

[Alexander32]

Alexander,

I too have been on both sides of the public/private education/sports equation for my boys and must say I completely disagree with you because I’m a fan of merit being rewarded. Both sets of programs had success in multiple states with similar debate about separation of public/private schools. To equate this to a business competitive landscape, should the best manufacturer or provider of a service etc… be subject to an additional tax because they provide a better product? I am a fan of everyone being treated equally, but the outcomes measurements should be based on providing the best product or service.

Truthfully, it sounds like you and I would agree on many things in life. Still, there is something to be said about Aristotle's golden mean; that is, the pursuit of a proper balance with respect to every issue in life. That is why in economic matters (or the business example you gave above) most countries have adopted antitrust laws. There is a general understanding that power, including economic power, tends to concentrate over a period of time if no exterior force restrains it. When monopolies develop, often because originally a company had a better product, the company with the monopoly is frequently able to drive competitors from the market place and competition is actually reduced.

Anyway, sorry for the tedious explanation. When it comes to football, my goal is not to promote equal outcomes but, rather, to promote excellence through the promotion of a more competitive environment. I won't go into an explanation of all the mechanisms the NFL uses to promote a competitive environment, in part because you may be more knowledgeable about them than I am. However, I will say that if any one high school conference dominates the playoffs to an extreme degree, it can drive other football programs from the scene (i.e. Rock Island Alleman) or make it impossible for other programs to compete (i.e. De La Salle, Walther Christian, Maine East) and in a broad sense reduce the pursuit for football excellence in Illinois. The number of programs will get smaller, the number of players (and therefore the size of rosters) gets smaller, and many programs adopt 8-man football in an effort to survive.

Anyway, it is okay that we disagree, and I certainly do not propose to tell you what to think. It seems we are both committed to the pursuit of excellence and we both would be saddened if 30 years down the road football had largely become a thing of the past. It seems, in our own way, we both would like to see a vibrant high school football landscape.

 

[ramblinman]

Your explanation might have more credibility except for the fact, as I explained to you last year, I'm not a public-school fan.

Apologies for forgetting your explanation from a year ago that you are an unbiased observer.

My views are based on where the evidence leads me with the ultimate objectives of being fair and trying to save the private schools' integration into the IHSA playoffs.

If your saving the private schools' integration in the playoffs results in limiting overall private school success in those playoffs, thanks but no thanks.

Your solution, such as it is, is highly discriminatory against one conference. There are around a couple of dozen football playing private schools outside of the CCL/ESCC. What about them? You want to exempt them from your efforts to save them because they haven't been as successful? Can you possibly be any more discriminatory?

What about a school like Leo that gets to the playoffs once in a blue moon? If Leo were to manage qualifying for the playoffs, do you think it's "being fair" to force them to play playoff games against larger CCL/ESCC schools through the quarters? Is it their dumb luck to be in a conference that you arbitrarily decide needs saving? Why shouldn't Leo have the benefit of playing opening round games against schools their own size, regardless of them being private or public?

I do find it amusing, though, that the second someone proposes a plan that might make it more difficult for a private school to win a state football championship, the private school supporters turn into the same whiners and complainers they accuse the fans of Antioch and Sycamore to be.

It's not about private schools winning state championships. If that were the case, then why punish CCL/ESCC schools like Leo, Marmion, Viator, St. Pat's, etc. that have never tasted that level of success? Methinks you are not as neutral as you claim to be.

To those particular private-school supporters, I say, "just get better".

We have been getting better. Isn't that why you are trying to save us?

 

[USD24]

I think you would be very surprised about paydays. Also, in a lot of districts half the amount of money a public school coach is making is well below the poverty line

Huh? If a coach is teaching and coaching in a public school and has been there in upwards of 10-15 years, which most have, they are making well above the poverty line, with plenty making 100k+.

 

[PowerI66]

Huh? If a coach is teaching and coaching in a public school and has been there in upwards of 10-15 years, which most have, they are making well above the poverty line, with plenty making 100k+.

If a coach is making 60k, like they would be in your example for PSD202, then half of that would be 30k. Plainfield is an average to below average paying district. Many districts around the state pay even less than that. The higher paying districts are predominantly in the West and NW suburbs

 

[tuccs]

Ahhh finally!

The three things I love about November are
1. Naz winning Titles
2. Thanksgiving Leftovers
3. Drinking the tears of public school fans

As of right now we still have a shot this year to take 1-5a then 7a and 8a….wouldn’t that be something!

 

[GoBlers]

CCL/ESCC schools represent roughly 5% of IHSA membership. They represent 40% of the semifinalists in the five classes they compete in. Figure it out; 40 is 8 times more than 5.

Sucks to suck

 

[Alexander32]

Apologies for forgetting your explanation from a year ago that you are an unbiased observer.



If your saving the private schools' integration in the playoffs results in limiting overall private school success in those playoffs, thanks but no thanks.

Your solution, such as it is, is highly discriminatory against one conference. There are around a couple of dozen football playing private schools outside of the CCL/ESCC. What about them? You want to exempt them from your efforts to save them because they haven't been as successful? Can you possibly be any more discriminatory?

What about a school like Leo that gets to the playoffs once in a blue moon? If Leo were to manage qualifying for the playoffs, do you think it's "being fair" to force them to play playoff games against larger CCL/ESCC schools through the quarters? Is it their dumb luck to be in a conference that you arbitrarily decide needs saving? Why shouldn't Leo have the benefit of playing opening round games against schools their own size, regardless of them being private or public?




It's not about private schools winning state championships. If that were the case, then why punish CCL/ESCC schools like Leo, Marmion, Viator, St. Pat's, etc. that have never tasted that level of success? Methinks you are not as neutral as you claim to be.



We have been getting better. Isn't that why you are trying to save us?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.

I was under no illusion that you, and many others that share your views, would agree with my proposal. Consequently, I will address just a few of your thoughts.

I do not see how my proposal is any more discriminatory than a success factor that applies only to private schools. The private schools that are not in the CCL/ESCC would still be susceptible to the existing success factor. My proposal eliminates the existing success factor for CCL/ESCC schools and, in effect, applies a different success factor to them.

In your fourth paragraph you write, "If Leo were to manage qualifying for the playoffs, do you think it's 'being fair' to force them to play playoff games against larger CCL/ESCC schools through the quarters?" Under my plan Leo would no longer have to "manage qualifying for the playoffs". Leo, and all CCL/ESCC teams, would be in the playoffs every year. Furthermore, they would find themselves playing less formidable opponents in the playoffs than teams like St. Rita, St. Laurence and Notre Dame that the CCL/ESCC forces them to play in the regular season. Leo not only failed to defeat any of those three teams this year, they did not score a single point against those three teams. I believe my proposal is considerably more fair than the manner in which the CCL/ESCC treats its smaller members on a regular basis. I suppose they had their reasons, but I truly do not understand why IC Catholic and Montini chose to join the CCL/ESCC. St. Francis is at least somewhat larger.

Here is what the Group C bracket might have looked like this year under my proposal. The winner would have then been slotted into the IHSA semifinals against a team like, perhaps, Oak Lawn Richards.

1 - DePaul (6-3)
8 - De La Salle (1-6)

4 - St. Viator (4-5)
5 - Marian Catholic (2-7)

3 - IC Catholic (4-5)
6 - St. Patrick (2-7)

2 - Marmion (5-4)
7 - Leo (1-8)

In reality, DePaul would likely have received a first-round bye since De La Salle was no longer playing football at the end of the season. With an opportunity to play meaningful postseason games every year, I think Leo would find my proposal more agreeable than their present situation. I think the other Group C teams would feel much the same way. Unfortunately, it is those schools' "dumb luck" to be members of a conference that does not care about them.

It is also important to remember my proposal is self-correcting. Although I think DePaul could compete effectively against Richards, if that proved not to be the case, then after several years Group C would be slotted into the 5A semifinals. If they were not competitive at that level for several more years, they would then be slotted at 4A, etc. The same principle would also be applied to groups A and B.

Again, I'm not operating under the misconception that the CCL/ESCC faithful can be persuaded, I just wanted to clear up some of the realities related to the proposal.

 

[Alexander32]

Sucks to suck

I can tell you're a deep thinker.

 

[GoBlers]

I can tell you're a deep thinker.

keep complaining, the CCL will keep winning.

 

[ramblinman]

I do not see how my proposal is any more discriminatory than a success factor that applies only to private schools.

True dat. But, discrimination is discrimination.

In your fourth paragraph you write, "If Leo were to manage qualifying for the playoffs, do you think it's 'being fair' to force them to play playoff games against larger CCL/ESCC schools through the quarters?" Under my plan Leo would no longer have to "manage qualifying for the playoffs". Leo, and all CCL/ESCC teams, would be in the playoffs every year.

The IHSA playoffs? If so, how is that fair for all the other public and private schools that don't qualify for the IHSA playoffs?

Here is what the Group C bracket might have looked like this year under my proposal. The winner would have then been slotted into the IHSA semifinals against a team like, perhaps, Oak Lawn Richards.

So, perhaps, 6A! Should one of the smaller schools in the group below make it through, you have saved a semifinal spot for them in 6A. Seriously?

1 - DePaul (6-3)
8 - De La Salle (1-6)

4 - St. Viator (4-5)
5 - Marian Catholic (2-7)

3 - IC Catholic (4-5)
6 - St. Patrick (2-7)

2 - Marmion (5-4)
7 - Leo (1-8)

In reality, DePaul would likely have received a first-round bye since De La Salle was no longer playing football at the end of the season. With an opportunity to play meaningful postseason games every year, I think Leo would find my proposal more agreeable than their present situation.

Not if you reward them for winning their group by slotting them in 6A.

It is also important to remember my proposal is self-correcting. Although I think DePaul could compete effectively against Richards, if that proved not to be the case, then after several years Group C would be slotted into the 5A semifinals.

I'm sure Leo, with their doubled enrollment of 386, would be ever so grateful for your magnanimity.

 

[niualum2002]

Here’s an interesting thought. Does the multiplier for Private Schools potentially help them win more titles inadvertently?

Case in point 7 out of 8 private schools still alive in classes 1A-8A.

Without the multiplier no private schools would be in 8A, Loyola only in 7A, Marist in 6A since St. Ignatius didn’t qualify and Brother Rice and Mt. Carmel and maybe Fenwick in 5A?

Everyone else would be 1A-4A.

Anyways I may be missing a few schools but just found that interesting.

 

[ramblinman]

Here’s an interesting thought. Does the multiplier for Private Schools potentially help them win more titles inadvertently?

Case in point 7 out of 8 private schools still alive in classes 1A-8A.

Without the multiplier no private schools would be in 8A, Loyola only in 7A, Marist in 6A since St. Ignatius didn’t qualify and Brother Rice and Mt. Carmel and maybe Fenwick in 5A?

Everyone else would be 1A-4A.

Anyways I may be missing a few schools but just found that interesting.

Class expansion has certainly helped do what you suggest. Going from 5 to 6 to 8 classes has created three more classes for private schools to win.