Soucie Districts

[Snetsrak61]

One of the reasons districts was proposed was due to scheduling issues. There are teams that can't find two OOC games let alone 4. It happens every year when we're a month away from the season starting and teams still have week 2 openings.

That is due to varying conference sizes. Closed conferences can't schedule any OOC games some have room for 1-3 OOC games, but trying to balance that can be a pain, which is why districts were proposed.

A lot of the OOC issues are caused by playoff juggling too though. A district proposal still opens up a potential stable playoff route.

Also, like I said, realistically it shouldnt be too hard to form a scheduling alliance with 3 other teams to fill easy OOC assignments. It'd be way more stable than 8+ team conferences are and still make scheduling a breeze.

Granted for some schools that's still gonna cause issues, but if you pick up 3 converts you can lose a defector. And really it probably becomes about deflection as we know an initial proposal can pass - just not a stand up to a repeal necessarily.

 

[MS4EVER]

@MS4EVER What are your thoughts on this proposed district?

Assuming there is no NIPL, and if districts are here to stay, I'm kinda okay with it given the crazy geography of some of the other districts. Love the idea of LA playing MS, ETHS, GBS and NT every year. Ambivalent about NW. Not all that wild about Taft and Leyden, TBH, but it is what it is.

Agree with everything you said!! I would prefer Hollywood vs. Swagger to be week 5 or 6 though. Need time to heal before the playoffs! 🤣

 

[JCHillmen]

But with week 1 and 2 mattering for playoff seeding, there will still be issues.

I thought week 1 and 2 in a district model did not factor into playoff qualifying? Has this changed?

One of the only perks of districts the last go around was that it would free up schools to swing big and schedule tough week 1 and 2 games with no risk of it hurting your playoff chances.

That was the only consolation in a schedule that would otherwise have incredibly lopsided regular season games. If that has changed and they want to factor those games in somehow, this is an even worse proposal than the one 5 years ago.

 

[4Afan]

I thought week 1 and 2 in a district model did not factor into playoff qualifying? Has this changed?

One of the only perks of districts the last go around was that it would free up schools to swing big and schedule tough week 1 and 2 games with no risk of it hurting your playoff chances.

That was the only consolation in a schedule that would otherwise have incredibly lopsided regular season games. If that has changed and they want to factor those games in somehow, this is an even worse proposal than the one 5 years ago.

week 1 and 2 only factor into playoff seeding and not qualifying, so teams can still swing big. If a school goes 7-0 in district and 0-2 out of district they would be seeded as a 7-2 team and not a 7-0 team. The top 4 from each district would make the playoffs regardless of record.

 

[mc140]

I thought week 1 and 2 in a district model did not factor into playoff qualifying? Has this changed?

One of the only perks of districts the last go around was that it would free up schools to swing big and schedule tough week 1 and 2 games with no risk of it hurting your playoff chances.

That was the only consolation in a schedule that would otherwise have incredibly lopsided regular season games. If that has changed and they want to factor those games in somehow, this is an even worse proposal than the one 5 years ago.

The IHSA version seeding matters but not to make the playoffs.

 

[cornerrat]

All.... Schedule heavy or schedule light in W1 and W2. SHG has CBC and Mascoutah W1 and W2 in the new two division CS8.

Keep them or do something different. If one is confident about making one of those four spots schedule potential non districts games against possible postseason opponents. An early glimpse . Win or lose second time around games can really be a blast and tricky. Mascoutah is 5A but CBC is out of Missouri. A week one Cyclone /Hilltopper game coud be fun.

On the flip side there are some people who worry about injuries in those two heading into the district schedule which could effect the thought process on who to play. Ratsy

 

[JCHillmen]

week 1 and 2 only factor into playoff seeding and not qualifying, so teams can still swing big. If a school goes 7-0 in district and 0-2 out of district they would be seeded as a 7-2 team and not a 7-0 team. The top 4 from each district would make the playoffs regardless of record.

Thanks.

Hoping for no districts. But if they do go with it, it is pretty dumb they would use record as a way to seed teams. So theoretically, you can go 6-1 in district and lose to your rival and finish second in the district. But go 2-0 against weak nonconference and you finish 8-1. That would potentially place you ahead of your rival who beat you head to head and went undefeated in district but went 0-2 against tough nonconference to finish 7-2 and below the team they beat.

If they do go districts, it would make more sense to see.....
District 1 First Place vs District 8 Fourth Place
D2 Second place vs D7 Third Place

D3 First Place vs D6 Fourth Place
D4 Second Place vs D5 Third Place

and so on.....

I am sure the IHSA will say they need to seed them to determine home/away. But if you're going to go districts, it would make sense to go full district model and not try to cling to the last vestige of the old seeding system. But the IHSA often does nonsensical things. Hoping this loses the vote for sure.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Thanks.

Hoping for no districts. But if they do go with it, it is pretty dumb they would use record as a way to seed teams. So theoretically, you can go 6-1 in district and lose to your rival and finish second in the district. But go 2-0 against weak nonconference and you finish 8-1. That would potentially place you ahead of your rival who beat you head to head and went undefeated in district but went 0-2 against tough nonconference to finish 7-2 and below the team they beat.

If they do go districts, it would make more sense to see.....
District 1 First Place vs District 8 Fourth Place
D2 Second place vs D7 Third Place

D3 First Place vs D6 Fourth Place
D4 Second Place vs D5 Third Place

and so on.....

I am sure the IHSA will say they need to seed them to determine home/away. But if you're going to go districts, it would make sense to go full district model and not try to cling to the last vestige of the old seeding system. But the IHSA often does nonsensical things. Hoping this loses the vote for sure.

Your idea on seeding is a good one. The proposal does actually state that district opponents can't face off in Round 1, but I don't believe offers up guidance on how to resolve it if that happens. Presumably you can get some daisy-chain affect where having to move one round opponents messes up all the normal seeding. But the proposal says to seed similar to how they seed today. So on IHSAs list of it passes is going to be outlining concise and transparent seeding rules...

 

[4Afan]

Hoping for no districts. But if they do go with it, it is pretty dumb they would use record as a way to seed teams. So theoretically, you can go 6-1 in district and lose to your rival and finish second in the district. But go 2-0 against weak nonconference and you finish 8-1. That would potentially place you ahead of your rival who beat you head to head and went undefeated in district but went 0-2 against tough nonconference to finish 7-2 and below the team they beat.

Records is how they seed teams now, so it's no different. Say JCA beats Provi and JCA finishes 7-2 and Provi finishes 8-1 then Provi would still be rated higher regardless of the head to head loss because they had a better record.

If they do go districts, it would make more sense to see.....
District 1 First Place vs District 8 Fourth Place
D2 Second place vs D7 Third Place

D3 First Place vs D6 Fourth Place
D4 Second Place vs D5 Third Place

and so on.....

I think that was how the original model in 2018 was to take place but wouldn't have factored in weeks 1 and 2 for making the playoffs, essentially making weeks 1 and 2 glorified scrimmages.

This model, if it passes, won't change the playoff model much, other than what was previously mentioned that district opponents cannot face each other in round 1.

 

[JCHillmen]

Your idea on seeding is a good one. The proposal does actually state that district opponents can't face off in Round 1, but I don't believe offers up guidance on how to resolve it if that happens. Presumably you can get some daisy-chain affect where having to move one round opponents messes up all the normal seeding. But the proposal says to seed similar to how they seed today. So on IHSAs list of it passes is going to be outlining concise and transparent seeding rules...

Added benefit of the D1-1 vs D8-4 seeding is that you would not run into a rematch from your own district in the first TWO rounds. So you wouldn't see any rematches until at least the quarterfinals.

Regardless, since the district model is going to have you play 7 regular season games against teams from your classification and there would be no cross-classification regular season games the last 7 weeks means you are going to see a lot more rematches no matter how you seed it.

This will accelerate the public private debate. Imagine Antioch losing one district game to a private school in the regular season and then getting thumped again in the postseason by the same team. There will be some teams that go otherwise undefeated but get running clocked by the same team twice.

 

[JCHillmen]

Records is how they seed teams now, so it's no different. Say JCA beats Provi and JCA finishes 7-2 and Provi finishes 8-1 then Provi would still be rated higher regardless of the head to head loss because they had a better record.


I think that was how the original model in 2018 was to take place but wouldn't have factored in weeks 1 and 2 for making the playoffs, essentially making weeks 1 and 2 glorified scrimmages.

This model, if it passes, won't change the playoff model much, other than what was previously mentioned that district opponents cannot face each other in round 1.

True. But the difference is that now if you win your district and beat your rival to win your district, what the heck is the point of districts if that won't get you seeded ahead of your rival? It feels like they would be "half" adopting the district model.

Don't get me wrong, it's a bad model. But if you're going to do the model, then do the model.

 

[Snetsrak61]

This will accelerate the public private debate. Imagine Antioch losing one district game to a private school in the regular season and then getting thumped again in the postseason by the same team. There will be some teams that go otherwise undefeated but get running clocked by the same team twice.

I think it being a pretext to do this and force the separation issues isn't the craziest conspiracy theory (a little maybe, but not like bat-s**t)

 

[4Afan]

True. But the difference is that now if you win your district and beat your rival to win your district, what the heck is the point of districts if that won't get you seeded ahead of your rival? It feels like they would be "half" adopting the district model.

Don't get me wrong, it's a bad model. But if you're going to do the model, then do the model.

I'm not sure what you're saying. In this model there will be 7 district games and 2 non district games. If you go 6-1 in your district and 1-1 out of district to finish 7-2 you will be seeded as such just as they do now. It's literally the same setup when it comes to the playoffs, you finish 7-2 and your rival finishes 8-1 they're getting seeded higher in the playoffs regardless if you win your district or if they do.

 

[JCHillmen]

I'm not sure what you're saying. In this model there will be 7 district games and 2 non district games. If you go 6-1 in your district and 1-1 out of district to finish 7-2 you will be seeded as such just as they do now. It's literally the same setup when it comes to the playoffs, you finish 7-2 and your rival finishes 8-1 they're getting seeded higher in the playoffs regardless if you win your district or if they do.

Either way is not great. But if you're going to make districts matter, I think it makes more sense to have the pre-prescribed seeding matrix based on what place you were in your district and make weeks 1 and 2 totally unconnected to seeding. I think that will encourage the best non-district matchups early in the season.

And let's be honest. The only universally derided part of the IHSA postseason currently is the totally objective win-loss seeding system. So now we are going to reimagine the playoffs. OK. But the only thing we are going to hold onto is the only piece of the current playoff model that basically everyone acknowledges is not done well? Don't hang on to our bad seeding system just because it's always been done. If this is a fresh start, what better opportunity will we have to get rid of our bad seeding system?

 

[Snetsrak61]

I'm not sure what you're saying. In this model there will be 7 district games and 2 non district games. If you go 6-1 in your district and 1-1 out of district to finish 7-2 you will be seeded as such just as they do now. It's literally the same setup when it comes to the playoffs, you finish 7-2 and your rival finishes 8-1 they're getting seeded higher in the playoffs regardless if you win your district or if they do.

I think the hypothetical is a 6-1 district team who plays two tough non cons and finishes 6-3 being passed in seeding by a 5-2 district team they beat, playing 2 cupcakes and finishing 7-2 (or any similar variation)

Obviously similar circumstances could happen in conference play, but feels like it defeats one purpose of districts.

 

[4Afan]

Either way is not great. But if you're going to make districts matter, I think it makes more sense to have the pre-prescribed seeding matrix based on what place you were in your district and make weeks 1 and 2 totally unconnected to seeding. I think that will encourage the best non-district matchups early in the season.

Your suggestion was how the first district proposal would have been. I think the opposite, if weeks 1 and 2 have zero factor on seeding then what's the point of even playing the games if they mean nothing? Sure, you'll have teams who want to schedule rivals but the majority would schedule nobody's or not play their starters in fear of injury knowing even if they lose those games they mean absolutely nothing in terms of making the playoffs or for seeding. They would become glorified scrimmages.

 

[mc140]

Your suggestion was how the first district proposal would have been. I think the opposite, if weeks 1 and 2 have zero factor on seeding then what's the point of even playing the games if they mean nothing? Sure, you'll have teams who want to schedule rivals but the majority would schedule nobody's or not play their starters in fear of injury knowing even if they lose those games they mean absolutely nothing in terms of making the playoffs or for seeding. They would become glorified scrimmages.

Teams in other states play them normally. Not many chose the ICCP route.

 

[JCHillmen]

Your suggestion was how the first district proposal would have been. I think the opposite, if weeks 1 and 2 have zero factor on seeding then what's the point of even playing the games if they mean nothing? Sure, you'll have teams who want to schedule rivals but the majority would schedule nobody's or not play their starters in fear of injury knowing even if they lose those games they mean absolutely nothing in terms of making the playoffs or for seeding. They would become glorified scrimmages.

Honestly, does them having an impact on seeding make any difference? At least when the seeding system is so whacked and often places teams from weak conferences/districts well above teams from stronger conferences/districts.

If the seeding system is always seeding teams inappropriately, why do we want to keep that? That's the only part of the current postseason that I believe 90 percent plus of the constituents would be ok getting rid of.

Either use the district model and generically seed or use a maxpreps type algorithm.

 

[lurker74]

I'm not sure what you're saying. In this model there will be 7 district games and 2 non district games. If you go 6-1 in your district and 1-1 out of district to finish 7-2 you will be seeded as such just as they do now. It's literally the same setup when it comes to the playoffs, you finish 7-2 and your rival finishes 8-1 they're getting seeded higher in the playoffs regardless if you win your district or if they do.

Where it's weird, is that the 2 non-district games count for playoff seeding, but not district standings. So another hypothetical:

Team A goes 2-0 to start, then 3-4 in district and places 5th.
Team B goes 0-2 to start, then 4-3 in district to place 4th.
Team B makes the playoffs at 4-5, team A goes 5-4 and misses playoffs.

It's already a short season, I don't like the idea of 20%+ of it not counting in determining playoff teams.

 

[Quags57]

So, reading all this, what I can determine is:

1. Trust the IHSA, they will come up with a a district proposal that works for everyone because we all know how good they are at geography.
2. Trust the IHSA, they will get to 512 teams. Well maybe we will just have 7 teams in a district. Or 6.
3. Trust the IHSA, they may or may not have a playoff formula for districts. First two games count, well sort of...but... Where you finish in the district counts...well sort of...if you are in the top 4 I guess. But what if there is a 3-way tie for 4th. What's the tiebraker if every team beat each other?
4. Trust the IHSA. Where you can vote for a major vote proposal that will change the landscape of a sport with no details.

Voting in favor of this, is like jumping out an airplane with a parachute on your back and hoping that some moron actually packed a parachute.

 

[cigaros]

Rochester could literally field their JV and still 40 point most of their district.

 

[mchsalumni]

Brutal. JCA's district would consist of

JCA could go years without losing a game in that district.

Decades. Montini too.

 

[ignazio]

What happens when enrollments fluctuate? Or multipliers are imposed or waived from year to year?

 

[HotBeer]

Decades. Montini too.

Agreed on Montini, but JCA?

Morgan Park has beaten Fenwick and Viator in the last couple years - is JCA really consistently that much better than them? Dominant program no doubt, but they've lost to a whole host of CCL teams over the last 5 or so years (Ignatious, Benet, Pats, ND, Marist, Rita, ICCP, Franny, Naz, etc.).

Not throwing shade, I see them dominating that division but MP v JCA every single year isn't going to turn into a decades-long win-streak IMO.

 

[cigaros]

What happens when enrollments fluctuate? Or multipliers are imposed or waived from year to year?

They literally do not know. Those supportive of districts cannot answer how their 2019 version had Althoff Catholic and Mater Dei in 4A. This year they were in 1A and 2A. st. Rita would have been 5A in 2019. Today they are 7A. Districts punish schools rather than help them.

 

[ramblinman]

This will accelerate the public private debate. Imagine Antioch losing one district game to a private school in the regular season and then getting thumped again in the postseason by the same team. There will be some teams that go otherwise undefeated but get running clocked by the same team twice.

What the public school whiners hate the most is being knocked out of the playoffs by private schools regardless of what round it is in. Now imagine the whining when private schools beat public schools in the regular season district games, every year, and keep them from qualifying! Hoo boy! That, more than the crazy travel in some districts, will be what kills the district concept should it ever come to fruition.

 

[Snetsrak61]

What happens when enrollments fluctuate? Or multipliers are imposed or waived from year to year?

There's gonna be a massive district shuffle every 2 years. If you're within 4-6 spots of the edge in 3A to 6A, I'm sure you're at risk of moving classess. If you have 1 team in your district near the classification edge, you're at risk of having your districts shuffled every 2 years. If a geographic fit enters your classification, you're at risk of having your district shuffled. Other than maybe 8A or 1A I bet there would be very little stability. And even those classes could still see some.

In one of the threads I suggested a 5% allowable overage to overlap each class and then a mandate for geographic districts. Would at least control for minor enrollment changes for edge schools. Still have to contend with multiple and SF shaking things up. And of course - is there a way to consider district parity...

Long list of possible issues IHSA will get to sort through with somewhat limiting rules and yet limited guidance as well.

Edit - The other simple change is less emphasis on exact 8 team districts. If 7 and 9 (with ihsa scheduled crossovers) are allowable, they could target to keep about 20% of districts at odd numbers and then when there's a little class shuffling, move around pairs of schools or take districts from 9 to 8 when they lose a school to class shifts. You'd still have lots of shufflimg, but particularly on public side could likely keep groups of 3-4 together more easily.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Agreed on Montini, but JCA?

Morgan Park has beaten Fenwick and Viator in the last couple years - is JCA really consistently that much better than them? Dominant program no doubt, but they've lost to a whole host of CCL teams over the last 5 or so years (Ignatious, Benet, Pats, ND, Marist, Rita, ICCP, Franny, Naz, etc.).

Not throwing shade, I see them dominating that division but MP v JCA every single year isn't going to turn into a decades-long win-streak IMO.

Off the top of my head not sure which "version" of Fenwick they beat. Fenwick has had a couple strong years and some meh years. Been a bit since Viator had a real strong team. Only 5 playoff qualifiers in past 15 years and I think always at 5-4. Not sure of when they last beat JCA.

Of course JCA had a little bit of a few down years. If they avoid those years, I doubt MP will give them much trouble. But maybe a respective up and down year and fluky night could do trick.

 

[Wittymoniker1]

No disrespect to those who shared their thoughts on this thread, but I'm hoping it gets flushed when (being optimistic here) districts is a "no" vote in a couple of weeks.

 

[Snetsrak61]

No disrespect to those who shared their thoughts on this thread, but I'm hoping it gets flushed when (being optimistic here) districts is a "no" vote in a couple of weeks.

I mean, we may want to keep it around for 4 years from now when it come up on the ballot for a third time 😂

 

[4Afan]

They literally do not know. Those supportive of districts cannot answer how their 2019 version had Althoff Catholic and Mater Dei in 4A. This year they were in 1A and 2A. st. Rita would have been 5A in 2019. Today they are 7A. Districts punish schools rather than help them.

It's really not hard. 2019 was pre COVID. After COVID all multipliers and success factors reset so that's why Althoff was 1A. St. Rita I'm not 100% sure on and I'm sure the CCL/ESCC crowd can confirm but the 2019 year was literally the only year St. Rita has ever played in 5A and I think they petitioned up after COVID.

 

[Wittymoniker1]

I mean, we may want to keep it around for 4 years from now when it come up on the ballot for a third time 😂

A very good point, indeed. Now, let's NOT do this!

 

[4Afan]

So, reading all this, what I can determine is:

1. Trust the IHSA, they will come up with a a district proposal that works for everyone because we all know how good they are at geography.
2. Trust the IHSA, they will get to 512 teams. Well maybe we will just have 7 teams in a district. Or 6.
3. Trust the IHSA, they may or may not have a playoff formula for districts. First two games count, well sort of...but... Where you finish in the district counts...well sort of...if you are in the top 4 I guess. But what if there is a 3-way tie for 4th. What's the tiebraker if every team beat each other?
4. Trust the IHSA. Where you can vote for a major vote proposal that will change the landscape of a sport with no details.

Voting in favor of this, is like jumping out an airplane with a parachute on your back and hoping that some moron actually packed a parachute.

1. No solution will ever please everyone
2. Who says their going to force the issue to get to 512? That's what works best but how many schools will be playing football first of all before any districts can be formed.
3. This isn't difficult to comprehend. If it makes it easier to understand switch the word district with conference and maybe it will make sense to you. The first two games count towards playoff seeding but not district standings. This is exactly how conferences work now. Your non conference games count towards the playoffs but not your standing within your conference. I would need to go back and listen to the podcast with Soucie, but I believe he said the first tie breaker in a 3 way tie for 4th was least amount of points allowed against the other two opponents.
4. It's laid out in Soucie's article and quoted from the IHSA why they won't do any preliminary districts and here is that section of the article, again.

"The IHSA doesn’t plan to submit any kind of projection for what the system might look like, according to Knox, and has not done internal preparations for what the system would be if it does pass. This is largely due to unknown variables such as program participation, possible adjustments to schools’ cooperative enrollments and defections to the 8-man ranks.

“A rough draft isn’t something we’ll do, because it could probably end up being like 75 percent accurate. There’s a lot of questions that we don’t have answers to right now,” Knox said.

“If the voting membership decides that this is what they want, we will come up with a system based on what the proposal outlines. If this passes, and if it does it will be right around Christmas time, and if people want answers immediately, it needs to be understood it is going to take us awhile to let the dust settle and figure out where we are going.”

 

[Snetsrak61]

Of course conferences are only for 1 automatic qualifier and not top 4. So more opportunity for weird qualifying results (though not all bad necessarily - dependent on SOS of OOC games it could help ensure at times that the better lower record team is in.)

 

[Quags57]

1. No solution will ever please everyone
2. Who says their going to force the issue to get to 512? That's what works best but how many schools will be playing football first of all before any districts can be formed.
3. This isn't difficult to comprehend. If it makes it easier to understand switch the word district with conference and maybe it will make sense to you. The first two games count towards playoff seeding but not district standings. This is exactly how conferences work now. Your non conference games count towards the playoffs but not your standing within your conference. I would need to go back and listen to the podcast with Soucie, but I believe he said the first tie breaker in a 3 way tie for 4th was least amount of points allowed against the other two opponents.
4. It's laid out in Soucie's article and quoted from the IHSA why they won't do any preliminary districts and here is that section of the article, again.

"The IHSA doesn’t plan to submit any kind of projection for what the system might look like, according to Knox, and has not done internal preparations for what the system would be if it does pass. This is largely due to unknown variables such as program participation, possible adjustments to schools’ cooperative enrollments and defections to the 8-man ranks.

“A rough draft isn’t something we’ll do, because it could probably end up being like 75 percent accurate. There’s a lot of questions that we don’t have answers to right now,” Knox said.

“If the voting membership decides that this is what they want, we will come up with a system based on what the proposal outlines. If this passes, and if it does it will be right around Christmas time, and if people want answers immediately, it needs to be understood it is going to take us awhile to let the dust settle and figure out where we are going.”

I know what Knox said to Soucie. And thankfully, Steve did alot of work on this. But what if he didn't.

That is the whole point here. You have a proposal, with no explanation on how it will be implemented. It's like your school district asking for a tax increase with no clear intention of how to spend the money and a response "Trust us" on it.

And you can't just interchange the words "District" and "Conference". It makes no sense. In a conference, there are rules and agreements to play games at all levels that a school fields a team. Do you think Edwardsville is going to send a JV or freshman team up North to Joliet to play a Saturday game? Or a Joliet team send theirs to Edwardsville or Belleville?

So, that now leaves an AD scrambling to schedule his JV and freshman teams.

You are willing to trust the IHSA to sprinkle magic dust on this and make it all better. I'm not that gullible.

 

[mc140]

Ads will end up with more work if this gets approved. Lower level games will be more of a nightmare than they already are in some conferences.

 

[ramblinman]

Could districts be something that could contribute to the rise of the NIPL? Would schools like Carmel Catholic or MC, for example, find that they have ZERO in common (other than geography) with most of the schools in their districts, and would that result in them getting excited by the NIPL?

 

[stripes13]

Could districts be something that could contribute to the rise of the NIPL? Would schools like Carmel Catholic or MC, for example, find that they have ZERO in common (other than geography) with most of the schools in their districts, and would that result in them getting excited by the NIPL?

I hope it leads to MC playing a more national schedule in their noncons.

EDIT: Changed my wording, because I didn't want it to sound like I was taking a shot.

 

[4Afan]

Could districts be something that could contribute to the rise of the NIPL? Would schools like Carmel Catholic or MC, for example, find that they have ZERO in common (other than geography) with most of the schools in their districts, and would that result in them getting excited by the NIPL?

Question for you or anyone else in the know regarding NIPL. How would this work exactly and are there enough participants? Also, how would this effect other sports?

Currently there are 24 schools in the CCL/ESCC, and I'm not certain on how many other private schools outside of the Chicagoland area. How would postseason work given the varying size of the schools? Two separate private champs? What if the majority of schools are in favor of NIPL but some school prefer the current setup?

 

[JCHillmen]

Question for you or anyone else in the know regarding NIPL. How would this work exactly and are there enough participants? Also, how would this effect other sports?

Currently there are 24 schools in the CCL/ESCC, and I'm not certain on how many other private schools outside of the Chicagoland area. How would postseason work given the varying size of the schools? Two separate private champs? What if the majority of schools are in favor of NIPL but some school prefer the current setup?

Biggest issue with the NIPL is classification and travel.

There are 24 CCL/ESCC schools. Over a dozen other Chicagoland private schools, mostly smaller. Plus a fair number of schools dotting the state (SHG, Ottawa Marquette, Peru St. Bede, Boylan, Quincy ND, Peoria ND, Althoff, Alleman, etc.

Then there is the question of including lab schools or not as well as open enrollment CPS.

But classification is the biggest issue. 2 classes likely not enough to satisfy the constituents as schools of about 400 do not want to be lumped in with Marist. Realistically, you would need 3 classes to satisfy enough constituents. And would the outlying non Chicagoland schools want to join given the postseason travel requirements? And would they still play IHSA schools in the regular season, which would ease the scheduling burden and thus allow more of those downstate schools to choose the private postseason.

Other big elephant in the room is MC and LA. They are recruiting at and performing at levels above their CCL/ESCC peers right now. Their enrollment combined with football success over the last decade leaves them as just different that the rest. Even Marist, BR, and Rita aren't on a level playing surface with them. MC and LA likely prefer playing 8A public schools to playing Brother Rice and St. Rita in an annual semifinal before playing each other every year in a NIPL title game.

But if the rest of the privates break off, would the publics really still want to include the two most dominant large school private schools in their 8A playoff? I believe Texas uses this model with the biggest private schools playing with the publics. Not sure that would be well received here. But I don't think the NIPL offers MC or LA what they need.

And other sports are a whole other question. Who knows if other sports would break away or if the majority of private schools even have an appetite for breaking away in all other sports. This is all conjecture until the IHSA membership forces a hand to be played and the answers to those questions would depend on how uncomfortable the IHSA decisions make private schools.