This is the same thinking I've always had. I don't honor not challenging one's self especially after seeing the results enough times to have a pretty good idea of how future endeavors will turn out. I think where you may be not understanding my POV is because outside of Rochester there is no reason for public programs to move up. Plus I don't like the rationale behind it.
This is different from the open enrollment schools, which Jwar seems incapable of understanding. In the case of open enrollment people like ramblinman and others have argued that the multiplier shouldn't be applied to all open enrollment schools because they don't dominate, while on the other side of the ledger people argue that it's too low because once in the playoffs schools like IC, Montini, Naz etc completely destroy their public counterparts and really resemble top class public programs. Although an extremely flawed idea the success factors addresses both sides of that argument by only applying to the dominant programs. There was a thread in which @JCHILLTOPPERS explained why the SF and request up are bad ideas and I fully agreed and for the same reasons.
But the issue that people like Jwar and ramblinman fail to grasp is that there is a difference between open and closed enrollment in the same way there is a difference in enrollments in general. So they see Naz with all their 8Aness and are fine with them crushing 28 other public schools of 700 year after year after year using their open enrollment advantage.
The only actual solution to both of these problems is a separation of open enrollment and closed enrollment. Then we wouldn't need any SF or multipliers for either group of schools. We would also get some pretty darn good matchups that we are being robbed of; imagine Loyola v Naz. I think we all agree that is a fair matchup. LWE v Herrin, not so much.
You must pride yourself on being wrong as much as possible.
