ADVERTISEMENT

Soucie's Take and Breakdown on District look

I'll take it. Road games up the road from me.

That said the ESCC is tougher.
Weird looking district for Naz but offers some tests and some sure W's too.

Can't complain about my 8A district although I don't see how we escspe the Naperville/Aurora district. But seeing the two Glenbards and Downers Groves isn't bad.
 
This just looks terrible with some of the cps teams. 99% of cps won’t stand a chance. There’s gotta be a way to do this without having montini playing little village and phoenix military.
 
All.... What I see for power teams that benefit greatly with this district formula will be the importance of scheduling their one or two non con games. If you are stuck in what is now a weak district it is quite important to play a team(s) that will test yours. One good aspect of this proposal is after two years a school could go to a different district. Ratsy
 
All.... What I see for power teams that benefit greatly with this district formula will be the importance of scheduling their one or two non con games. If you are stuck in what is now a weak district it is quite important to play a team(s) that will test yours. One good aspect of this proposal is after two years a school could go to a different district. Ratsy
Scheduling tough non-cons early in the schedule then "playing down" in a weaker schedule the rest of the season due to a softer district/conference can negate the effect of the former. I would wonder if the schedule openings for non-cons across the state could be sprinkled in later in the season some way? Altho just an anecdotal case, H-F schedules tough non-cons earlier, hits LWE not long after in recent seasons, then seem to lose their edge as they play out their assigned string of lower tier opposition. Come playoffs, it can be difficult to then play 4 quarters in a more competitive game.
 
Scheduling tough non-cons early in the schedule then "playing down" in a weaker schedule the rest of the season due to a softer district/conference can negate the effect of the former. I would wonder if the schedule openings for non-cons across the state could be sprinkled in later in the season some way? Altho just an anecdotal case, H-F schedules tough non-cons earlier, hits LWE not long after in recent seasons, then seem to lose their edge as they play out their assigned string of lower tier opposition. Come playoffs, it can be difficult to then play 4 quarters in a more competitive game.

All.... Yes that is true. The real benefit is a team will have time to correct any apparent weakness they might have by playing those teams. Unfortunately that could be hard to distinguish since weeks 1 and 2 mistakes are common with new varsity players and getting into ones normal playing rhythm. I suppose bookend non cons might be an idea or if it is logistically possible finish the regular season with out of district games.

While all of this is interesting if it gets far enough for a membership vote I don't think it will pass. Conference jumping is happening but those schools are number wise in the minority. Ratsy
 
Weird looking district for Naz but offers some tests and some sure W's too.

Can't complain about my 8A district although I don't see how we escspe the Naperville/Aurora district. But seeing the two Glenbards and Downers Groves isn't bad.

I think this would change depending on where you start working on the districts. Would it not?

Regardless I’d like to reconfigure District 4 and 5. To fit my desires!!

My preferred 9 team district!! East Aurora, West Aurora, Metea Valley, York, Glenbard East, Waubonsie Valley, Neuqua, Oswego, Oswego East.

3 to 4 very winnable games and 2 or 3 tough ones as well.

Bones.... I’m Taking York, and Glenbard East, and trading you Naper Central and Naper North in return ;)
 
Class 6A District 6 (St. Laurence, Hinsdale South, Lemont, Richards and Providence) would be a load annually.
 
All.... Yes that is true. The real benefit is a team will have time to correct any apparent weakness they might have by playing those teams. Unfortunately that could be hard to distinguish since weeks 1 and 2 mistakes are common with new varsity players and getting into ones normal playing rhythm. I suppose bookend non cons might be an idea or if it is logistically possible finish the regular season with out of district games.

While all of this is interesting if it gets far enough for a membership vote I don't think it will pass. Conference jumping is happening but those schools are number wise in the minority. Ratsy
But with the noncon games being irrelevant for playoff purposes there is no incentive to go all out to win those. Not that teams wouldn't care, but I could see key players resting injuries and game plans being really vanilla especially late in the season. Early season non-con games as you said would be subject to the typical issues.
 
I think this would change depending on where you start working on the districts. Would it not?

Regardless I’d like to reconfigure District 4 and 5. To fit my desires!!

My preferred 9 team district!! East Aurora, West Aurora, Metea Valley, York, Glenbard East, Waubonsie Valley, Neuqua, Oswego, Oswego East.

3 to 4 very winnable games and 2 or 3 tough ones as well.

Bones.... I’m Taking York, and Glenbard East, and trading you Naper Central and Naper North in return ;)
No can do. But you can have GBN and GBW.
 
How I'd revise 8A and 7A

(Keeps some more traditional rivalries together and eliminates the Southern Illinois travel problem)

CLASS 8A (68 total teams)

District 1 (8): Barrington, Carpentersville (Dundee-Crown), Gurnee (Warren), Huntley, Lincolnshire (Stevenson), McHenry, Waukegan, Zion-Benton

District 2 (9): Evanston, Glenview (Glenbrook South), Oak Park (River Forest), Park Ridge (Maine South), Skokie (Niles West), Wilmette (Loyola), Winnetka (New Trier), Franklin Park (Leyden), Niles (Notre Dame)

District 3 (8): Bartlett, Elgin, Hoffman Estates (Conant), Palatine, Palatine (Fremd), Roselle (Lake Park), South Elgin, St. Charles (East)

District 4 (9): Bolingbrook, Downers Grove (North), Downers Grove (South), Elmhurst (York), Glen Ellyn (Glenbard West), Lombard (Glenbard East), Carol Stream (Glenbard North), Hinsdale (Central), Lisle (Benet)

District 5 (9): Aurora (Metea Valley), Aurora (Waubonsie Valley), Aurora (East), Aurora (West), Naperville (Central), Naperville (Neuqua Valley), Naperville (North), Oswego, Oswego (East)

District 6 (8): Chicago (Brother Rice), Chicago (Mount Carmel), Chicago (St. Rita), Chicago (Marist), Chicago (Curie), Chicago (Simeon), Chicago (Lane), Chicago (Taft)

District 7 (8): Chicago Heights (Bloom), Homewood-Flossmoor, Orland Park (Sandburg), Palos Hills (Stagg) Hillside (Proviso West), Maywood (Proviso East), LaGrange (Lyons), Berwyn-Cicero (Morton)

District 8 (9): Minooka, Plainfield (East), Plainfield (North), Plainfield (South), Joliet (Central), Joliet (West), Lockport, New Lenox (Lincoln-Way Central), Frankfort (Lincoln-Way East)

CLASS 7A (68 total teams)

District 1 (9): Algonquin (Jacobs), Cary-Grove, Fox Lake (Grant), Machesney Park (Harlem), Rockford (Auburn), Rockford (East), Rockton (Hononegah), Round Lake, Moline

District 2 (8): Arlington Heights (Hersey), Buffalo Grove, Highland Park, Lake Zurich, Libertyville, Mundelein, Mundelein (Carmel), Northbrook (Glenbrook North)

District 3 (9): Des Plaines (Maine West), Elk Grove Village, Hoffman Estates, Mount Prospect, Park Ridge (Maine East), Rolling Meadows, Schaumburg, Skokie (Niles North), Streamwood

District 4 (8): Aurora (Marmion), Batavia, DeKalb, Elgin (Larkin), Geneva, St. Charles (North), Yorkville, Plainfield (Central)

District 5 (8): Addison (Trail), LaGrange Park (Nazareth), Oak Park (Fenwick), Villa Park (Willowbrook), Wheaton (North), Wheaton (Warrenville South), West Chicago, Romeoville

District 6 (9): Chicago (Hubbard), Chicago (Kelly), Chicago (Lincoln Park), Chicago (Schurz), Chicago (St. Patrick), Chicago (Von Steuben), Burbank (Reavis), Summit (Argo), Blue Island (Eisenhower)

District 7 (8): Harvey (Thornton), Lansing (T.F. South), New Lenox (Lincoln-Way West), South Holland (Thornwood), Tinley Park (Andrew), Bradley-Bourbonnais, Normal (Community), Pekin

District 8 (9): Alton, Collinsville, East St. Louis, Granite City, Belleville (East), Belleville (West), Edwardsville, O’Fallon, Quincy
 
@Souc Great work!

It's crazy to think we are 2A nowadays.

How close was Guerin to the border of district to as opposed to St.Joseph? They're a bit more west than we are, but we are a little bit further north. Either way I'd think we could eventually rebuild and compete in District 1 or District 2 of 2A.
 
I find District 1 in 5a interesting. The Woodstock schools would probably put up a fit about Marian being in it. For awhile Marian tried to get into the FVC and there were a couple of schools who never wanted to see that happen. One of them was Woodstock, and with them being a charter member of the conference, it was understood that the other schools would never do that to Woodstock, so Marian pretty much never had a chance to get in to the FVC. Second, Aurora Central Catholic used to be apart of the old SCC and pretty much got beat down on every year by the Driscoll, Montini, Marian, St Franics, and Marmion year in and year out. ACC was apart of the mass exodus that left the most recent SCC (which consisted of 2 divisions to help even out the competition) so that they get away from having schools like I recently said off of the schedule. I would be curious to see how they would feel about this, with Marian back on the schedule. ACC has gotten better since leaving the ACC and I think they can be competitive to be the 4th best team in this district, but you have to think there chances of winning a district championship is mostly a dream, with Marian, Boylan, and Burlington Central usually fighting it out to be the top team in the district. It would be cool to see the Boylan vs Marian match up again, I believe back in the day they used to match up often.
 
In regards to the teams in these districts, I am wondering if the initial proposal from a few years ago may be the way to go. In Souce's districts, SR is in with all 7A schools. In the proposal from a few years ago, I thought there were 5/6/7A schools a part of one potential district. It'll be interesting to see what the IHSA does, if this gets approved.

Does anyone--in the know--have any information on timelines for this process. Is there a presentation on this? Does it come out of a committee at first, then to be voted on? If so, when?
 
From what I understand, it has to go through committee. And then to a group vote, if this is happening we'll probably know about it around the conclusion of the 2018 season or shortly thereafter.

I've heard a few other things, from people in the know, that are of interest to this. Apparently the CPL is pliable in terms of whether or not all of their teams get into this format. If that's true, and say for example, just the top 25 or so teams from the CPL are allowed to enter the field to give us a clean 512, and eight districts in each class with eight teams in each district a lot of these become A LOT cleaner. I haven't drawn one to reflect this change, because I don't know what it officially does include and does not and as we all know it is very significant what happens on the break lines. Very important teams reside at 64/65 128/129 etc.....

While I'd love to see the geographic "solution" suggests by practiceplan, I can't see them dropping schools down a class. I could however, see where they might move them up one if they agreed to it in lieu of the beast mode travel situation. But it is also unlikely in my eyes.

A hybrid plan that would include districts of say teams from 7A/8A for example, has major problems in regards to how you would make up playoff fields. I know a way it could be done. But it is somewhat complicated for someone to follow who may or may not spend his days scrambling through spreadsheets on playoff pairings night.

I've gotten a LOT of feedback from a lot of people over the past few days and with that, I think this could get through. I did have someone tell me that they probably weren't going to put out a mock because they wanted to have people vote for the concept rather than being concerned with having a team or two they did not like in their district. I get that, but I think it is a really worthwhile conversation to have with the information (sort of) laid out there to see exactly what we might be dealing with rather than random hypothetical situations.

I'm gonna crawl back in my hole now, thanks for the feedback guys!
 
From what I understand, it has to go through committee. And then to a group vote, if this is happening we'll probably know about it around the conclusion of the 2018 season or shortly thereafter.

I've heard a few other things, from people in the know, that are of interest to this. Apparently the CPL is pliable in terms of whether or not all of their teams get into this format. If that's true, and say for example, just the top 25 or so teams from the CPL are allowed to enter the field to give us a clean 512, and eight districts in each class with eight teams in each district a lot of these become A LOT cleaner. I haven't drawn one to reflect this change, because I don't know what it officially does include and does not and as we all know it is very significant what happens on the break lines. Very important teams reside at 64/65 128/129 etc.....

While I'd love to see the geographic "solution" suggests by practiceplan, I can't see them dropping schools down a class. I could however, see where they might move them up one if they agreed to it in lieu of the beast mode travel situation. But it is also unlikely in my eyes.

A hybrid plan that would include districts of say teams from 7A/8A for example, has major problems in regards to how you would make up playoff fields. I know a way it could be done. But it is somewhat complicated for someone to follow who may or may not spend his days scrambling through spreadsheets on playoff pairings night.

I've gotten a LOT of feedback from a lot of people over the past few days and with that, I think this could get through. I did have someone tell me that they probably weren't going to put out a mock because they wanted to have people vote for the concept rather than being concerned with having a team or two they did not like in their district. I get that, but I think it is a really worthwhile conversation to have with the information (sort of) laid out there to see exactly what we might be dealing with rather than random hypothetical situations.

I'm gonna crawl back in my hole now, thanks for the feedback guys!
Loved looking at it! Thanks for all of your hard work!
 
From what I understand, it has to go through committee. And then to a group vote, if this is happening we'll probably know about it around the conclusion of the 2018 season or shortly thereafter.

I've heard a few other things, from people in the know, that are of interest to this. Apparently the CPL is pliable in terms of whether or not all of their teams get into this format. If that's true, and say for example, just the top 25 or so teams from the CPL are allowed to enter the field to give us a clean 512, and eight districts in each class with eight teams in each district a lot of these become A LOT cleaner. I haven't drawn one to reflect this change, because I don't know what it officially does include and does not and as we all know it is very significant what happens on the break lines. Very important teams reside at 64/65 128/129 etc.....

While I'd love to see the geographic "solution" suggests by practiceplan, I can't see them dropping schools down a class. I could however, see where they might move them up one if they agreed to it in lieu of the beast mode travel situation. But it is also unlikely in my eyes.

A hybrid plan that would include districts of say teams from 7A/8A for example, has major problems in regards to how you would make up playoff fields. I know a way it could be done. But it is somewhat complicated for someone to follow who may or may not spend his days scrambling through spreadsheets on playoff pairings night.

I've gotten a LOT of feedback from a lot of people over the past few days and with that, I think this could get through. I did have someone tell me that they probably weren't going to put out a mock because they wanted to have people vote for the concept rather than being concerned with having a team or two they did not like in their district. I get that, but I think it is a really worthwhile conversation to have with the information (sort of) laid out there to see exactly what we might be dealing with rather than random hypothetical situations.

I'm gonna crawl back in my hole now, thanks for the feedback guys!

A solution to the geography problem would be to use the system the Texas does due the size of the state. They have 5A and 5A II and what they do is all the large schools play each other in the district with the top 4 moving on, the 4 teams are split by enrollment and assigned either field with no consideration being given to the size of the other schools in the playoffs.
 
Pennsylvania keeps leagues and blends into districts come playoff time. Dependent on district there are various metrics used to seed teams within the district and classification. Because there are areas with low numbers of large and small schools there are a different number of teams that qualify for district play in different classes in each district. From district play it goes onto eastern and western regional play and east meets west in the title game.

Seeding uses a combination of strength of schedule(playing and winning or losing to teams in larger or smaller classification in the regular season) and opponents win/lose index to opponents played. Wins and losses are therefore only 55% of the qualifying index and if you are a large school that prefers to play small schools your index is reduced by the factoring equation. The system works well and the teams that appear to be the higher seed generally win.
 
Thanks for all the hard work Soucie! It will be interesting to see what is decided going forward. I really think 7A and 8A is going to be the trickiest of all the districts to determine in that there are no great solutions other than to choose whether enrollment or geography is more important. Going strictly by enrollment will yield districts very similar to what you drew up...going by geography and essentially treating 7A and 8A as one class will solve some of the travel issues but create possible enrollment inequity with regards to matchups.

I think it is a tough sell to the larger enrollment schools to vote on the plan without knowing what the districts will look like...the smaller schools most likely can figure out districts a bit easier due to there being a less concentrated amount of schools outside of the Chicagoland area. However, larger schools might opt for the devil they know which is the current conference alignment than change to a complete unknown under this proposal if the districts aren't announced prior to voting.
 
Given the geography of this state and the dispersal of a 7A and 8A schools within it, the biggest single issue working against reasonable (from a travel perspective) districts is having eight classes and insisting that the districts be class specific. This is precisely the reason for all the travel concerns. If there were six classes, that problem is solved relatively simply.

I would be very interested to learn the number of football playing schools back in 2000, which was the first year the IHSA went from six to eight classes, and the number of football playing schools right now. Since 2000, I strongly suspect there has been a net loss in the number of football playing schools what with the increase in co-ops, schools that have dropped football altogether, schools that have moved to 8-man football, and schools that have closed.

Football participation numbers have been trending down for some time now and there is no realistic end in sight to that downward trend. At what point will fewer football playing schools cause the IHSA to reduce the number of classes?
 
Last edited:
But with the noncon games being irrelevant for playoff purposes there is no incentive to go all out to win those. Not that teams wouldn't care, but I could see key players resting injuries and game plans being really vanilla especially late in the season. Early season non-con games as you said would be subject to the typical issues.

All.... Not necessarily. I would go out of my way (since under this formula everyone needs non con games) attempting to get potential postseason teams that the Cyclones might meet up with. Travel is not an issue. I'm sure an NLP or St. Laurence (and others) would jump at a game home or away like that where both teams learn about themselves. Ratsy
 
From what I understand, it has to go through committee. And then to a group vote, if this is happening we'll probably know about it around the conclusion of the 2018 season or shortly thereafter.

I've heard a few other things, from people in the know, that are of interest to this. Apparently the CPL is pliable in terms of whether or not all of their teams get into this format. If that's true, and say for example, just the top 25 or so teams from the CPL are allowed to enter the field to give us a clean 512, and eight districts in each class with eight teams in each district a lot of these become A LOT cleaner. I haven't drawn one to reflect this change, because I don't know what it officially does include and does not and as we all know it is very significant what happens on the break lines. Very important teams reside at 64/65 128/129 etc.....

While I'd love to see the geographic "solution" suggests by practiceplan, I can't see them dropping schools down a class. I could however, see where they might move them up one if they agreed to it in lieu of the beast mode travel situation. But it is also unlikely in my eyes.

A hybrid plan that would include districts of say teams from 7A/8A for example, has major problems in regards to how you would make up playoff fields. I know a way it could be done. But it is somewhat complicated for someone to follow who may or may not spend his days scrambling through spreadsheets on playoff pairings night.

I've gotten a LOT of feedback from a lot of people over the past few days and with that, I think this could get through. I did have someone tell me that they probably weren't going to put out a mock because they wanted to have people vote for the concept rather than being concerned with having a team or two they did not like in their district. I get that, but I think it is a really worthwhile conversation to have with the information (sort of) laid out there to see exactly what we might be dealing with rather than random hypothetical situations.

I'm gonna crawl back in my hole now, thanks for the feedback guys!

Thanks for your thoroughness and for not punting on the tough calls.
 
I would be very interested to learn the number of football playing schools back in 2000, which was the first year the IHSA went from six to eight classes, and the number of football playing schools right now. Since 2000, I strongly suspect there has been a net loss in the number of football playing schools what with the increase in co-ops, schools that have dropped football altogether, schools that have moved to 8-man football, and schools that have closed.

Football participation numbers have been trending down for some time now and there is no realistic end in sight to that downward trend. At what point will fewer football playing schools cause the IHSA to reduce the number of classes?

From the IHSA Football Quick Facts page on the website:

17 - 552
16 - 575
15 - 554
14 - 575
13 - 576
12 - 577
11 - 563
10 - 547
09 - 549
08 - 550
07 - 560
06 - 554
05 - 550
04 - 549
03 - 556
02 - 550
01 - 545
00 - 545
99 - 545
98 - 543
97 - 544
96 - 544
95 - 541
94 - 543
93 - 544
92 - 548
91 - 550
90 - 552
89 - 560
88 - 567

74 - 529

So, the high number of schools is: 577
low number last 30 years is: 541
first years of playoffs in '74: 529

I'm trying to figure out the 20 school swings the last couple of years...Is it perhaps smaller rural schools dropping / consolidating / co-oping while CPS schools add charters etc.?

I'm as interested in finding the movement of the enrollment breakdown in classes
 
From the IHSA Football Quick Facts page on the website:

17 - 552
16 - 575
15 - 554
14 - 575
13 - 576
12 - 577
11 - 563
10 - 547
09 - 549
08 - 550
07 - 560
06 - 554
05 - 550
04 - 549
03 - 556
02 - 550
01 - 545
00 - 545
99 - 545
98 - 543
97 - 544
96 - 544
95 - 541
94 - 543
93 - 544
92 - 548
91 - 550
90 - 552
89 - 560
88 - 567

74 - 529

So, the high number of schools is: 577
low number last 30 years is: 541
first years of playoffs in '74: 529

I'm trying to figure out the 20 school swings the last couple of years...Is it perhaps smaller rural schools dropping / consolidating / co-oping while CPS schools add charters etc.?

I'm as interested in finding the movement of the enrollment breakdown in classes

Thanks for the info. I'm surprised by it and would have thought it would be substantially less than 15-18 years ago given the reasons I explained earlier. Only thing I can think of are the couple of dozen new charter schools in the last ten years or so are propping up the numbers.

Those 20 school swings in the last several years are mystifying. Also, did it really grow by 30 schools from 2010 to 2012?

Kinda makes me doubt the numbers.

Lastly, if those numbers were the beginning of the season, there were probably close to ten CPS schools that forfeited most or all of the season last year. If that's the case, then the 2017 ending season number is really 542, which would be the second lowest number in 30 years.

According to National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), there were 509 schools and 45,587 students playing football in Illinois in 2000. In 2016 (the most recent year available), there were 544 schools and 42,682 students. Interesting how the NFHS, to which the IHSA belongs, has different data for football than what the IHSA has on its own website.
 
Maybe districts are the right thing to do to keep the conference jumping from happening but I still think its going to be tough to keep schools happy.

I know this idea would probably not be to popular either, but hear me out.

First we drop one regular season game and add one additional playoff game. So bringing the playoff field to a total of 512! To determine who the 512 schools are you use records and playoff points like IHSA does now. I really don't think that the schools with the worse records and least amount of playoff points would really care if they don't make the playoffs. If they want a 9th game they can possibly schedule a game with another team that won't make the playoffs right towards the end of the regular season!

So would this have a possibility of working, or am I way off in left field here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: woody6
Maybe districts are the right thing to do to keep the conference jumping from happening but I still think its going to be tough to keep schools happy.

I know this idea would probably not be to popular either, but hear me out.

First we drop one regular season game and add one additional playoff game. So bringing the playoff field to a total of 512! To determine who the 512 schools are you use records and playoff points like IHSA does now. I really don't think that the schools with the worse records and least amount of playoff points would really care if they don't make the playoffs. If they want a 9th game they can possibly schedule a game with another team that won't make the playoffs right towards the end of the regular season!

So would this have a possibility of working, or am I way off in left field here?

One of the things that has made football unique and special relative to other Illinois high school sports is the fact that football playoffs are limited almost exclusively to schools with winning records. That said, 2016 and 2017 witnessed 41% of first round playoff games decided by margins of 30 pts or more. Compare that with 1974, when the playoffs began and qualifying for the playoffs was much more selective, with just 10% of first round games being decided by 30 pts or more.

The prospect of 8-0 and 7-1 teams playing 1-7 and 2-6 teams in a 512-team playoff field would substantially increase the frequency of playoff blowouts and would make those blowouts even more lopsided than they are now. No thanks.

Last fall when I posted my annual playoff blowout rant, another poster wrote something along the lines of losing a baseball game by 10 runs or more causes you to leave the game with a bruised ego. He went on to say that if you lose a football game by 40 pts or more, you leave the game with far more bruises than just your ego. Again, no thanks.

Also, what happens in your scenario if/when the number of football playing schools falls below 512? I suspect that day will come in the next 3-5 years.
 
Last edited:
I won't argue about the blowout, bruised ego, and general bruises in playoff games because I believe there a lot of different opinions on that part of it! With the less than 512 playoff field, that is more than 40 schools either closing or dropping football. That could very well happen! If it does maybe the better record teams could get a buy in the first round like they do in the other sports.
 
Class 6A District 6 (St. Laurence, Hinsdale South, Lemont, Richards and Providence) would be a load annually.

I like this 6a district 6 a lot.. very good test year in and year out for the dogs. and still a very good path to 5/6wins each year for all involved. just gotta play
 
ADVERTISEMENT