Would a Conference containing a mix of both Public & Private Schools work?
- Thread starter Voodoo Tatum 21
- Start date
Don't try talking coaching to public school apologists. For them, it's all about decks of cards and how many face cards the private schools steal from them. There was one guy in the PC thread who said that PC was so good a couple of years ago that anyone could have coached them to a title.
I don't deny it is an open question, perhaps even a difficult one in terms of how you'd classify competitively without enrollment. But that means you can't pretend enrollment is a perfect classification method "that works just fine" for publics either.
Morton East has 3,500 students, they are 1-6 and have loss to public schools with half their enrollment by more than 20 points. Since 2010, they are 14-40. There are numbers of public schools across the state, regardless of their enrollment who don't field teams in the same competitive class as other public schools with the same enrollment.
Realize that our "enrollment" based classification in football is somewhat arbitrary anyway. We don't really classify on pure "enrollment". We multiple some privates enrollment, count some single sex schools as double, and force some up a class, but at the end of the day we're taking 256 teams, sorting them from largest enrollment to smallest and then dividing into 8 groups. That means some years Glenbard West may win 7A, some years 8A, but it doesn't mean they're in one class any given year because it would be competitively unfair to the rest of the other class.
In that case I'd like to point you to the seminal work by the National Center for Education Statistics, "Public and Private High Schools: How Do They Differ?"
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=55
Except when it doesn't work "just fine."
The following are a few round 1 games from the past couple of years between boundaried public schools. Remember, these are playoff games and none of them are what most knowledgeable fans would consider to be between elite programs:
Deerfield 49, Kenwood 6
Oak Forest 51, Quincy 14
S Elgin 62, Evanston 10
Herrin 52, Richland County 8
Carlinville 52, Roxana 12
Mt Carmel (the public one) 48, Anna Jonesboro 7
The point is that while you think that enrollment works just fine, the reality is that there is a tremendous competitive discrepancy within just about every class and within like entities. This happens year in and year out.
My point exactly. Enrollment alone doesn't work for competitive classification, period. We just notice it more when it's a known private of lesser enrollment beating a larger public school.
In any given year, the most competitive 5A nonboundaried public school qualifier could handily beat the least competitive 8A nonboundaried public school qualifier 10 out of 10 times. Anyone who thinks that is not the case is simply not paying attention.
To be honest I think you're descrobing what a private school could do. Public schools have union contracts that they have to abide to. No unions are going to negotiate for a head coach lacrosse contract paying that much. Most of the time coaches are teachers that get paid a stipend. They would never pay a guy just to coach football/lacrosse a full salary.
Enrollment does work just fine for publics. I fail to see how it doesnt.
You cant use Morton as an example because Morton is not in the playoffs, they have no classification. They fail to beat enough schools to qualify, but if they did beat enough schools to qualify then that would be the proof that they are in the right class. The idea isnt to get bad teams into classes where they can win, that idea is absurd. The idea is to get schools with similar potential classified together.
Your point about the open enrollment schools proves my point. The problem is when you try to classify open enrollment schools together, by enrollment, with closed boundary schools. Now as far as cutoffs, I suppose you could make an argument for classifying before the season and taking the # of schools needed in each class even if theres some 4-5 schools in and some 6-3 schools out or keep it as is. I am not completely for or opposed to either.
By having separate playoffs we can eliminate the multiplier, hell we dont even have to double single gender enrollments if the privates dont want to, knock your socks off. Like I said, good luck finding a system that works without having the private guys complaining.
And now for why the "competitive class" idea won't work... Because no one has even come close to pushing an idea thats even close to working or reasonable. For example, since I know The Brook the best, would they have been in your top class in 2015? Why or why not? And what 32 teams are in it?
And your argument is that Evanston should play a school of 500 so that they can win? Make sense of that...
Using only first round blowouts as a data point is potentially misguided and misleading. There are blowouts every year in early rounds.
What is needed to be looked at is when one particular team in a playoff class is blowing out everyone. I'm talking 2012 AC, 2015 Mac, etc where nobody came close the whole run.
Now to be sure, I wouldnt mind if all the top open enrollment schools were put in the top class... LA, MC, Rice, Montini, Naz, Marist, SHG, JCA, Benet, Fenwick, SR, PC, Simeon, Phillips, BMac, Althoff, ND, St Pats... but then we push all these large publics down too and the idea isnt objective.
I'd be 100% in for this if it also means the top end competitive public school can be included as well. My ultimate goal is competitiveness RGOC (remember those Edgy ranking days?)
@Cross Bones , I aim to keep this civil, so please take this question as an honest one and nothing else, but how can you say "enrollment does work just fine for publics" given @ramblinman 's response? I'll accept your Morton rebuttal, but would appreciate addressing his.
Outside of that, I think we've just agreed to the same thing. Classifying open enrollment schools (ie private) against public schools based on enrollment alone is a failed proposition. I, and this is where we apparently differ, have also argued that classifying closed enrollment schools (ie public) amongst each other solely on enrollment doesn't lead to any more of a competitive balance. I'd love to find an improved alternative that doesn't include separation.
Lastly, this thread was an early season attempt at classifying just that - an "open" class given a "promotion rule". https://edgytim.forums.rivals.com/threads/the-ihsa-hunger-games.10058/#post-94934
I did address ramblinman's post although I didnt quote it.
What ramblinman is proposing as a problem is ACTUALLY what a lot of the private guys are falsely complaining about in the multiplier. Blowouts happen, even between equally matched teams at times. theres no way around that. However, the goal isnt to avoid a blowout, the goal is to pit two like schools against each other. With open enrollment schools you can easily do that by enrollment. What you two are suggesting is we take a school of 3500 kids that may not be that good, and letting them play a school of 300 that may be having their best season ever... all so the school of 3500 can have a chance to win.
And that doesnt make sense.
The reason I am against this idea of an open class is because there is simply ZERO reason for a small school public to do it. None at all. And actually doing it punishes them. Perhaps its a difficult thing to grasp for some Open Enrollment supporters because youre accustomed to small schools like Montini being able to compete with and beat the best large public schools, but theres a reason the small public schools dont even try it.
They didn't kick you out, simply classifying teams based on how they get their kids..
But what you seem to fail to comprehend is that if they totally separated them based on "how they get their kids" No one (private) would stay in that organization (IHSA). If you have a separate classes for publics and privates, the privates will leave and form their own league, it is as simple as that. It doesnt hurt the CCL Blue, they will continue to roll on and get stronger, but it kills the Champaign St. Thomas More's of the world. Having separate leagues will just further water down state championships and further the everyone gets a trophy mentality that exists today. If aything the IHSA needs to reduece the number of classes in football and basketball, go back to six and two repsectively
It doesn't make sense because of the assumption you are making that I am suggesting what I am suggesting "all so that the school of 3500 can have a chance to win." That simply is not true.
My suggestion is not about giving the school of 3500 a chance to win, although if that were to be a secondary byproduct of my suggestion, then so be it. My suggestion is about classifying similarly competitive schools so that the playoffs become more competitive and meaningful. What I suggest is no different than what you said in terms of pitting two like schools against each other, except that your definition of like schools is enrollment, and mine is competitive level.
If a playoff qualifying school of 350 is on par competitively with a playoff qualifying school of 3500, I see little wrong conceptually with them facing each other in the playoffs. It's not going to happen all that often, but if it does, then it does. Plus, you could avoid that situation by having a provision that limits how many classes up or down a school can move from their "normal" enrollment based class.
You take the position that playoff blowouts are inevitable. My position is different. I say that playoff football should seek to minimize blowouts caused by mismatches. Classification should not group together similarly sized schools because that is going to create larger competitive discrepancies within each class than if you were to group together similarly competitive schools regardless of enrollment.
Look, the PRIMARY reason why we see blowouts in the playoffs is because we have a classification by enrollment system that, because of the competitively based seeding/bracketing that takes place within it, is designed to match up teams that are on opposite ends of the large competitive array of schools within each class. If the classes were composed based on level of competition, then you would still see teams on each end of the competitive array matching up in the early rounds due to the seeding/bracketing, but the size of that array would be much smaller than it is now, thereby limiting the potential for gross mismatches.
As it stands right now, the semifinalist teams in 5A can defeat the bottom 25-30% of 8A playoff teams. There have been many, many instances where a champion of a class could have also won the title in the class above it. I say there is something wrong with a system that creates those types of situations.
Bottom line: You favor classifications based on enrollment with their inevitable blowouts. I favor classifications based on competitive levels where a title would mean a whole lot more than it does now.
Last edited:
Bones I know you are smarter than this. You are not strictly a linear thinker outside of this topic!
I think one of the hurdles to overcome in this model is the question of "Who/How" would the decision get made on who is competitive enough to jump up classes or into an open class?
Average of the various state polls?
Coaches?
IHSA board?
A mix of the above?
Relevant: http://www.dailynews.com/sports/201...-cif-southern-section-vote?source=most_viewed
For those not inclined to read it. California's CIF Southern Section - home to schools like Corona Centennial, Mission Viejo, Mater Dei - moved to playoff divisions based on "Power Points", a combination of results from past two years, current year record, strength of schedule, and playoff performance.
Per a separate USToday article (http://usatodayhss.com/2016/cif-sou...offs-division-1-could-be-among-best-in-nation) the Division 1 (most power points) could be amongst best in the nation. This is the type of prestige that @ramblinman and I are talking about.
Separately, California uses an "Open Division" - something I've been dreaming about in IL for years - to allow schools that want to compete amongst the best, regardless of enrollment. Below is an excerpt from a public school girls basketball coach on what that open division allows...
"So, in an effort to stop the speculation of whether the small-school power could knock out the opponent with an enrollment five times its size, or whether public schools can still remain a strong presence against a growing number of elite private schools, the Southern Section decided to create its own version of March Madness by establishing an Open Division playoff.
"The Open Division is Murderer's Row, as they say," said Serra girls coach McKinsey Hadley, whose team won the Division IV state title last season.
"It's a monster. But it will give us a chance to show people we can compete with most teams."
"I think anybody who's competitive wants to play the best. It's kind of like the NCAA tournament where if you get selected to the open division, it's an honor. And you're going to be high on the board to go to the state tournament just if you make it into the Open Division.""
Simply put, you can't tell me "it won't work, don't bother trying, bla bla bla" is a valid argument.
For those not inclined to read it. California's CIF Southern Section - home to schools like Corona Centennial, Mission Viejo, Mater Dei - moved to playoff divisions based on "Power Points", a combination of results from past two years, current year record, strength of schedule, and playoff performance.
Per a separate USToday article (http://usatodayhss.com/2016/cif-sou...offs-division-1-could-be-among-best-in-nation) the Division 1 (most power points) could be amongst best in the nation. This is the type of prestige that @ramblinman and I are talking about.
Separately, California uses an "Open Division" - something I've been dreaming about in IL for years - to allow schools that want to compete amongst the best, regardless of enrollment. Below is an excerpt from a public school girls basketball coach on what that open division allows...
"So, in an effort to stop the speculation of whether the small-school power could knock out the opponent with an enrollment five times its size, or whether public schools can still remain a strong presence against a growing number of elite private schools, the Southern Section decided to create its own version of March Madness by establishing an Open Division playoff.
"The Open Division is Murderer's Row, as they say," said Serra girls coach McKinsey Hadley, whose team won the Division IV state title last season.
"It's a monster. But it will give us a chance to show people we can compete with most teams."
"I think anybody who's competitive wants to play the best. It's kind of like the NCAA tournament where if you get selected to the open division, it's an honor. And you're going to be high on the board to go to the state tournament just if you make it into the Open Division.""
Simply put, you can't tell me "it won't work, don't bother trying, bla bla bla" is a valid argument.
California does it based on results from past 2 years, strength of schedule, playoff performance from past two years and current year record. The point is it doesn't have to perfectly predict the top 25 teams in order, it just has to get ~the top 25 playing against each other.
I mocked this up last year and just used the USA Today IL Massey ratings and felt it worked perfectly for this type of use case.
Another relevant article http://www.kusi.com/story/33088921/are-the-dynasty-days-over regarding the impact of the shift in California. Some notable quotes...
Question 1: Has the new CIF division realignment and Open Division rules killed the prospect of future dynasties?
CIFSDS Commissioner, Jerry Schniepp:
"It will obviously be much more difficult for a program to build a dynasty if your measuring tool is only championships won, and I think high school sports should be about a lot more than winning championships. As far as winning is concerned, I think the measuring stick has shifted and teams that qualify for the Open Division consistently are highly successful programs."
Question 3: Is the creation of the Open Division a success?
John Carroll, Former Oceanside Head Coach:
"There are hard opinions on each of the questions throughout the County. Done right, it is definitely a better system, but nothing is, or ever will be, perfect. I applaud the CIF for changing the system and being willing to evaluate as experience dictates."
Troy Starr/Former Helix High Coach:
"Yes, it takes the privates who have a huge advantage if their administrations are sports oriented and puts them with other privates and top public schools. The best schools need to play one another."
Question 4: Has the creation of all these additional divisions, "devalued" CIF titles?
John Carroll/ Former Oceanside Head Coach:
"The chance to build programs and interest by having teams not used to success suddenly in the finals or winning divisional championships could build more good programs and success for schools working their way up. Nothing breeds success, like success. More teams having success is good for all."
John Shacklett/Former Morse Head Coach:
"Maybe, but the benefits for schools not used to winning far outweigh any concerns about where or not a title was "watered down." 40 years from a CIF title is still going to be a CIF title and guys and gals will still be bragging about it at their class reunion. What's the harm in that?"
CIF Commissioner Jerry Schneipp:
"Since the change to competitive divisions, more than 60 schools have won their 1st championship in a sport in the last 3 years. 16 schools won their 1st-ever championship in any sport in the last 3 years. We've had amazing matchups in the Open Division in all sports including Saints/Helix in football last year which were clearly the best 2 teams... a matchup that never would have happened before the change. Christian football, a school with less than 400 kids won back to back DIII championships. The Bishop’s School has won boys & girls water polo and girls basketball Open Division Championships against schools with 3000 kids. La Jolla Country Day girls’ basketball and Foothills Boy's basketball are small schools that had the chance to prove they were the best teams in the section and won Open titles. In other divisions, out of numerous great stories, San Diego High baseball in 2015, El Cajon Valley Boys basketball in 2015 and Calexico softball in 2016 had great seasons and a chance to compete and win championships. There are examples like these in every sport."
Call me too optimistic, but it seems clear that there's potential to make a similar system work for Illinois...
Question 1: Has the new CIF division realignment and Open Division rules killed the prospect of future dynasties?
CIFSDS Commissioner, Jerry Schniepp:
"It will obviously be much more difficult for a program to build a dynasty if your measuring tool is only championships won, and I think high school sports should be about a lot more than winning championships. As far as winning is concerned, I think the measuring stick has shifted and teams that qualify for the Open Division consistently are highly successful programs."
Question 3: Is the creation of the Open Division a success?
John Carroll, Former Oceanside Head Coach:
"There are hard opinions on each of the questions throughout the County. Done right, it is definitely a better system, but nothing is, or ever will be, perfect. I applaud the CIF for changing the system and being willing to evaluate as experience dictates."
Troy Starr/Former Helix High Coach:
"Yes, it takes the privates who have a huge advantage if their administrations are sports oriented and puts them with other privates and top public schools. The best schools need to play one another."
Question 4: Has the creation of all these additional divisions, "devalued" CIF titles?
John Carroll/ Former Oceanside Head Coach:
"The chance to build programs and interest by having teams not used to success suddenly in the finals or winning divisional championships could build more good programs and success for schools working their way up. Nothing breeds success, like success. More teams having success is good for all."
John Shacklett/Former Morse Head Coach:
"Maybe, but the benefits for schools not used to winning far outweigh any concerns about where or not a title was "watered down." 40 years from a CIF title is still going to be a CIF title and guys and gals will still be bragging about it at their class reunion. What's the harm in that?"
CIF Commissioner Jerry Schneipp:
"Since the change to competitive divisions, more than 60 schools have won their 1st championship in a sport in the last 3 years. 16 schools won their 1st-ever championship in any sport in the last 3 years. We've had amazing matchups in the Open Division in all sports including Saints/Helix in football last year which were clearly the best 2 teams... a matchup that never would have happened before the change. Christian football, a school with less than 400 kids won back to back DIII championships. The Bishop’s School has won boys & girls water polo and girls basketball Open Division Championships against schools with 3000 kids. La Jolla Country Day girls’ basketball and Foothills Boy's basketball are small schools that had the chance to prove they were the best teams in the section and won Open titles. In other divisions, out of numerous great stories, San Diego High baseball in 2015, El Cajon Valley Boys basketball in 2015 and Calexico softball in 2016 had great seasons and a chance to compete and win championships. There are examples like these in every sport."
Call me too optimistic, but it seems clear that there's potential to make a similar system work for Illinois...
No question it would involve a formula of differently weighted factors, including current enrollment, record, record vs. playoff teams, previous year playoff results, etc. It could well require tweaking in the first few years.
The hurdle of which you speak is putting the cart before the horse. There are people like Bones who can't fathom/imagine anything other than the current system.
I think you first have to convince folks that the current system is so badly flawed that testing another system is a worthwhile endeavor. Once you gain that agreement, you then create the new system inputs that will turn the concept into reality. Any other way, and you'll have change-resistant people start to put up their road blocks telling you that the factors you are selecting are wrong or the weighting you are assigning each factor is off before they buy into the need for a change.
ram,
I highlighted this(for you, from your computer board written by your fingertips) because this is exactly what is happening now. with the likes of naz and montinis moving up or down the last few years. but, you have been dead set against it. you said it was just the publics trying to punish the privates because of success. well instead of calling it success let us call it competitiveness.
now we all feel better.
I'm dead set against the success factor on top of a multiplier because it is discriminatory in that it is applicable to non-boundaried (read: private) schools only.
I'm all for a system that treats all schools the same and classifies them according to their level of competitiveness, not according to what type or size school they are.
If Montini belongs among the 32 most competitive qualifiers (and most years they do), then I have no problem with them in 8A...as long as ALL schools are classified according to competitive level. I'd much rather for 8A to contain schools like ESL, Bradley, MC (in a typical year), Cary Grove, Prairie Ridge, Batavia, GBW, etc. than schools like Curie, Joliet West, Plainfield South, West Aurora, Leyden, etc.
Last edited:
BS. Kids these days get the exposure needed by attending summer camps at various colleges. This is where they pick up the offers. And Loyola is more likely to schedule a crap public school than Bosco. Get real. Phillips cranks out plenty of D1 players, and they play weak competition. Nice try.
Last edited:
How's that
BTW... if we somehow get past a potentially tough first round, it could be LA NN in round 2
agreed! but, football(sports) enrollment is very key. as I have always stated, it was made a little more competitive by the 1.5% and a little more by the sf.
for this to actually work(open class) which years ago I brought this up. you would really need to have coaches the likes of esl who truly believe they can beat anybody and move yourselves up into the class. and to date we have 1school that truly believes they can beat anyone any time.
and if they(schools)(competitively) really cared that much about it. they would schedule 9 challenging games no matter the outcome.
this how it would have to work.
by week 4-5 after ratings, you would find your most competitive schools for any given division. week 6 would start that open class playoff, and then find out your champions(last man standing)
each knocked out team will still play in their division playoff. for final ratings next season.
we always say/hear this conference, is better than this conference etc. but in reality each team in that conference has 4winnable games every year 2 crossover games and 3blowout games. so to get 5-4, 6-3, 7-2 and make the playoffs is very easy nowadays.
take Loyola, you play mc, rita, rice, pc, all of the other games you play are against teams you should beat plus now that your good, you do not even take the conference games as probable anymore. maybe in any given year a 1loss.
so honestly, where do they go to find a competitive game?
are they good games in conference sure, nonetheless still blowouts.
they should be in a class of their own that travels and plays against the best state schools around. plus you are privately funded so travel expense are really no problem for that school. and allot the private schools are in that situation, they can travel to competitive games if they wanted they have the funds. BUT, they all want a piece of the state championship pie. just so they can say our school has won x# championships and recruit..
you cannot build a super dynasty and expect no push back. it only makes those arguments fall on deaf ears. then you get me's and the we's all want to be part of that. then you go back to watered down sports.
basically, you need only the support of a few charter members, a set of balls, and the dream of beginning. it is not going to be easy at first. but you need to build programs willing to want to play the best of the best each and every week. tier1, tier2, tier3,& tier4. if cannot make the top 50schools you do not belong in tier1, if you cannot compete with top 100schools no tier2. etc etc. and then at the end, those close to each tier can play bottom of next tier for competitive drop or pull up. no matter what size you are.
Then open up the whole damn thing.. if a kid that should go to Kankakee HS doesn't want to go there and play football, give him the option of playing at Herscher, Mac or Bradley... and then if you want to apply the success factor to all schools, that's fine
Sounds great this would enact the school voucher system. I believe Rauner is in favor of this set up. It treats everyone equally and gives tax payers access to their fair share of funding towards their child's education of their choice. For the first time ever HHS and I find common ground!
Where do all these private schools hide their money for athletic use only? Don't you think some of the departments in the schools would like to get their hands on that stash? New science lab, new theatre, band uniforms, increase the pay for teachers. Too many people think that the private schools are there for purely athletic purposes.
I have only gone to private Catholic schools for my education and every time I traveled to suburban public high schools I was extremely jealous of the facilities. Based on my view of education I think it is the Catholic schools that provide the platform for strong athletic programs. The faith-based curriculum and culture that is within those schools emphasize hard work, responsibility, discipline, and respect. If you have that, you should be able to get good results on the fields, courts, pools, track, and water. Also, you learn that a 90% on a test is not an A, it is B.
Actually, I think classification by enrollment only is the culprit, not the key. I could see a system where enrollment is one of several weighted factors used to determine classification. But, enrollment alone is what we have now, and I contend it is not working well at all.
Dublin Ireland
Whoa there. Although I would like to see how LA would stack up against tough opponents from other states, I disagree with your contention that they SHOULD do that. Maybe they don't want to do that. Maybe all that travel and national limelight is not who they want to be. Look, I know why you are saying what you are saying, but Loyola's current success is temporary because all success is temporary at this level. Don't believe me? Just ask JCA and MC this year. Even THE STREAK at MS has come to an end. I remember back in the 70s when everyone in the CCL wanted MC to be their homecoming opponent because they were an easy W. My point is that folks shouldn't reach conclusions or find solutions with respect to schools because of their temporary athletic success ...or lack thereof. I think it should be allowed to run its course.
Is Loyola a super dynasty? Time will tell, I suppose. My contention is that one title and two runner up finishes in five years does not equate to a super dynasty.
But, let's talk about super dynasties anyway. Did you push back with Rochester when they won five straight titles recently? How about MS with their three straight? How about ESL with six titles and two runner up finishes in a 12 year period? How about WWS with four titles and two runner up finishes in an eight year period followed shortly thereafter by three titles and two runner up finishes in a six year period?
Or do you only push back when they are private school dynasties?
Last edited:
Allow us to cut through the Gordian Knot
A public school of 350 has ZERO chance of winning a class with the highest enrollment public schools. It could be their class of a century and they would still have ZERO chance of winning. Maybe they have a team that can be competitive against the bottom the largest class, but then how is that right? Really imagine this, in 2015 you're Tri-Valley enrollment of 325 and 9-0 and due to @stonedlizard and @ramblinman's "competitive playoff format" you get a 5-4 Bolingbrook with 3500 kids fresh off of a win vs Homewood-Flossmoor. This cannot make sense to you. And it would make equally less sense to drop The Beloved down to a class with Tri-Valley just so they can have a chance to win after an awful regular season.
Why would we have provisions that limit going up classes? What is going "up" in class when the classes are defined by "competitiveness" and not enrollment? How do you decide who gets to be in the "Super Awesome" class and who gets to be in the "Crappy" class?
Last week Bradley spanked Lincoln Way East. Earlier in the year LWE spanked Bolingbrook. Bradley beat Bolingbrook by going for the 2pt conversion with a minute left in the game. Blowouts happen, even between equally matched schools. Its not avoidable. A mismatch is when you have public schools with vastly different enrollments. Yes, some programs are awful even if they have a large enrollment. The same way a BMW and a Renault are both foreign cars, but one is awful while the other is the ultimate driving machine. We can't compare Renaults to bicycles in order to make the car look better.
2012
week 7 Oct 5 7:30 L 6 13 H Orland Park (Sandburg) 7-3 3406.00
week 10 Oct 26 7:00 W 39 7 A Orland Park (Sandburg) 7-3 3406.00
2006
week 9 L 7 17 5-5 *Orland Park (Sandburg) 3771.00
week 10 W 40 0 5-5 Orland Park (Sandburg) 3771.00
Twice we faced the a team 2x in the season losing the 1st time and blowing them out the 2nd time. How is the blowout due to non-competitive playoffs? Blowouts happen.
in the greatest season in IL football history, 2011, we got to play DGS in the qtrs. A DGS fresh off of tremendous beating of Rice. A DGS who we had played 5x the previous 4 seasons including a playoff game with no margin of victory being greater than 7 points. The 2011 game was 47-3 in the 3rd qtr. Now I am sure we both know that anecdotes are not data. However, I think we can agree that blowouts even in later rounds of playoffs are common enough that it is data.
I see no purpose in dropping a marginal school with 4000 kids down into a class with schools of 1000 so the 4000 can win. That championship doesnt mean much.
A public school of 350 has ZERO chance of winning a class with the highest enrollment public schools. It could be their class of a century and they would still have ZERO chance of winning. Maybe they have a team that can be competitive against the bottom the largest class, but then how is that right? Really imagine this, in 2015 you're Tri-Valley enrollment of 325 and 9-0 and due to @stonedlizard and @ramblinman's "competitive playoff format" you get a 5-4 Bolingbrook with 3500 kids fresh off of a win vs Homewood-Flossmoor. This cannot make sense to you. And it would make equally less sense to drop The Beloved down to a class with Tri-Valley just so they can have a chance to win after an awful regular season.
Why would we have provisions that limit going up classes? What is going "up" in class when the classes are defined by "competitiveness" and not enrollment? How do you decide who gets to be in the "Super Awesome" class and who gets to be in the "Crappy" class?
Last week Bradley spanked Lincoln Way East. Earlier in the year LWE spanked Bolingbrook. Bradley beat Bolingbrook by going for the 2pt conversion with a minute left in the game. Blowouts happen, even between equally matched schools. Its not avoidable. A mismatch is when you have public schools with vastly different enrollments. Yes, some programs are awful even if they have a large enrollment. The same way a BMW and a Renault are both foreign cars, but one is awful while the other is the ultimate driving machine. We can't compare Renaults to bicycles in order to make the car look better.
Here's a some real life scenarios that refute your point from some recent Bolingbrook seasons
2012
week 7 Oct 5 7:30 L 6 13 H Orland Park (Sandburg) 7-3 3406.00
week 10 Oct 26 7:00 W 39 7 A Orland Park (Sandburg) 7-3 3406.00
2006
week 9 L 7 17 5-5 *Orland Park (Sandburg) 3771.00
week 10 W 40 0 5-5 Orland Park (Sandburg) 3771.00
Twice we faced the a team 2x in the season losing the 1st time and blowing them out the 2nd time. How is the blowout due to non-competitive playoffs? Blowouts happen.
in the greatest season in IL football history, 2011, we got to play DGS in the qtrs. A DGS fresh off of tremendous beating of Rice. A DGS who we had played 5x the previous 4 seasons including a playoff game with no margin of victory being greater than 7 points. The 2011 game was 47-3 in the 3rd qtr. Now I am sure we both know that anecdotes are not data. However, I think we can agree that blowouts even in later rounds of playoffs are common enough that it is data.
Really? You think Champaign Central would go a few rounds in 8A?
I see no purpose in dropping a marginal school with 4000 kids down into a class with schools of 1000 so the 4000 can win. That championship doesnt mean much.
