I'm speaking to you at the moment, you shouldn't bring others into the discussion. And again, I'm the guy who thinks separation is a bad idea.
Yesterday's blowouts...wake up IHSA!
- Thread starter Ogre5530
- Start date
Given you admit that most private schools do not want to split, it would appear to me that your accusations (even to them) are spurious OR that private schools are winning in this relationship (getting the better of the other members). Your accusations and the facts of the matter simply don't jive.
So my desire for separation is elitist? Well, I don't think it's any secret around here regarding my preference for private schools over public schools. If that is elitist, so be it.
Do I think that a separate association is ideal? Hell no. I would just as soon remain in the IHSA. BUT, if the IHSA were to separate out private schools into their own playoff divisions, I fail to see how wanting to be able to govern our own playoffs is elitist. I fail to see how wanting to rescind all those discriminatory policies is elitist.
Last edited:
Which accusations are spurious, Bones? Be specific. I want to deal with your charge, but can't if you don't identify which ones are spurious.
You have ALWAYS been a public school apologist. You think that makes you the voice of reason?
The separation isn't, it's that I view a lot of what you say about the public vs. private debate is how dare the publics think they can compete with the privates. That you almost think it's a privilege for the publics to even compete with the privates. I could be way off base, but as a guy who has read your thoughts for a number of years - that is the way it comes across.
Full disclosure: I'm a pure independent on this. I agree with the multiplier, and I agree with the success factor, but I certainly think the latter should apply to public schools as well. I think 1-32 in the lower classes would be a logistical nightmare for not only the IHSA, but for (and more importantly) the schools involved. I also think that no matter what wold happen, a good portion of this board will complain regardless.
I do not feel that way at all. I have full RESPECT for a program like Geneseo, for example, that competes very well against private schools. What I have ZERO respect for are whiners who would rather use their majority position to tear down others than do the right things needed to build themselves up.
When you look at the actual data and think that coaching and hard work is the difference it already implies an arrogance.
My question for you, stripes, is since you agree with the multiplier it means you recognize the advantage of open enrollment; how do you quantify that difference? Where does 1.65 come from? Seeing that you recognize there is certainly an issue, and the IHSA has tried to level the field with no success, why do you think a split will not work?
Or, you could have simply stated that "No, I dont have anything close to resembling that type of statement, Bones"
How many public v public games do you attend in a season?
Which if all things were equal would be easy to do. Except, all things aren't equal, and you seem reluctant to believe that.
I never called for seperation
Read my posts never have I said
that. What I said was stop the recruiting or allow publics to recruit or limit the Area privates can recruit athletes. I don't want separation, I want a level playing field that's all. Recruiting allows for a distinct advantage for privat schools.
Good questions, and I appreciate you asking me despite the post you quoted not being directed at you. I was beginning to think you needed a minimum number of posts to be replied to.....
First and foremost, let's recognize who the multiplier is for: it's for JCA, Naz, Montini, etc... It isn't for Loyola, Mt. Carmel, or Rita. I think if you were to ask coaches Sharp, Racki, and Andriano they would welcome being bumped up to give their teams more competition in the playoffs. The Montini coaches don't strike me as a group that is afraid to take on anybody.
As for the number 1.65 - I dunno, maybe a dartboard. Is there a difference in class placement if they went 1.45 or 1.85???
I disagree with your premise that it has not worked. Especially with the 1-32 change this year. I thought the 7A game was as exciting as you could hope for, and that whole playoff bracket was fun. As for 8A, sure the outcome wasn't ideal, but I would suggest: a. Marist proved to they deserved to be there, and b. Loyola is just that damn good.
As for 1-32 in the other classes, I've read complaints from this board about public school spending for admin salaries, and bemoaning about teachers striking - but chartering a bus for players and fans from Evergreen Park to Rochester is a great way to spend money???
I think he was referring to my using the phrase, 'cool story bro.' Which, admittedly, was pretty condescending of me.
lol not at all, I tend to pick my spots.
But I disagree, the multiplier is as much for MC, Loyola, and Rita as it is for Montini, Naz, JCA, and SHG etc. Before the multiplier it was 6A being dominated by the Carmels, PC, and Rita. It was the multiplier that put them in 7 & 8A where they have been almost as successful. I would argue that no one has been as consistently successful as Loyola, theyve been in the semi's at least almost every year, 3 recent championship games and one championship. Put them in 7A and they're possibly doing Driscoll or Montini #'s.
As for those schools wanting to be bumped up, I doubt it because the option is open. As a matter of fact the Montini offensive coordinator used to post if you remember, and one summer in a back and forth I posted the link to the request up form and gave him the deadlines to turning it in. We know how that worked out. To be sure, if I recall correctly the only football schools to request up have been East St Louis and Immaculate Conception. The Montini coaches will play anyone for non-conference though, I will grant them that. Ive been to some Montini non-con games. But as for going to the Blue or 7A/8A I'd have to say they don't want that (I don't even like the request up option).
As for the actual multiplier the fact that the advantage can't be realistically quantified is the point. I have come up with a multiplier of 4.0 based on comparing JCA and SHG to the public schools in their cities and the # of recruits in the rivals database, but even though that is probably as scientific as it CAN get, its still unscientific. Plus a 4.0 multiplier probably makes a large class of privates, Stevenson and us... not fun. The 7A championship game was great, no argument there. Still a MC C team nearly knocked off a GBW A team. But I think the championship game showed what the playoffs COULD be. Meanwhile we were robbed of a Naz v Montini possible championship in favor of the two debacles we got. From what I understand the C-M v HS game was great, that could have been your 6A.
I still haven't, to this day, heard an argument against the split.
1.65 was used because that is what Missouri and I think it was Arkansas used when those states implemented the multiplier (this was not an original concept by the IHSA). It effectively guarantees that a school will be bumped a class.
If the belief is that the private schools are the only thing in the way of public school playoff nirvana, and magically all of the competitive balance, seeding, scheduling, etc., issues go away, and every school in the state is winning the titles they feel they are entitled to, well, I also have a bridge for sale.
Ultimately, I think separation is inevitable - not necessarily because the problems aren't solvable (because they are), but because of the current level of toxicity that exists and that has been driven by the ineffective way the issue has been managed from the start by the IHSA and the parties involved - including the private schools who should step up and be more proactive in addressing the issue.
If the belief is that the private schools are the only thing in the way of public school playoff nirvana, and magically all of the competitive balance, seeding, scheduling, etc., issues go away, and every school in the state is winning the titles they feel they are entitled to, well, I also have a bridge for sale.
Ultimately, I think separation is inevitable - not necessarily because the problems aren't solvable (because they are), but because of the current level of toxicity that exists and that has been driven by the ineffective way the issue has been managed from the start by the IHSA and the parties involved - including the private schools who should step up and be more proactive in addressing the issue.
I could be wrong, but I had always thought it was Jim Quaid from Gordon Tech who pushed the Success Factor in the IHSA. The non competitive privates wanted a cure.
http://www.ihsa.org/NewsMedia/Annou...anges-Adds-Success-Advancement-Component.aspx
http://www.ihsa.org/NewsMedia/Annou...anges-Adds-Success-Advancement-Component.aspx
Your girls track assistant has found away to get kids to move and transfer to LWE. Get him on the football staff.
You are absolutely correct - I completely forgot about the great work that went into the SF; I was too focused on those schools that the multiplier/SF was designed to impact.
How many of the 8 classes did both the public and private schools win this year? I thought it was 4. Why all the fuss?
I still think things can be improved by just going to 6 classes, 1-32.
But the IHSA will not want to cut in their $$$.
I want the public and private schools to stay together. If there is separation, the level of play will suffer overall compared to the top football states.
If the IHSA would put a further squeeze on the private schools, I would support a Midwest private school league with the surrounding states.
Wassup
I still think things can be improved by just going to 6 classes, 1-32.
But the IHSA will not want to cut in their $$$.
I want the public and private schools to stay together. If there is separation, the level of play will suffer overall compared to the top football states.
If the IHSA would put a further squeeze on the private schools, I would support a Midwest private school league with the surrounding states.
Wassup
Last edited:
First there was football enrollment for schools who dared to play tough regular seasons, then the Multilier, now success factor, soon another multiplier ... And then CPS blows up that model.
A state title just is not in the cards for everyone. Half time snacks might make up for that.
A state title just is not in the cards for everyone. Half time snacks might make up for that.
I'm picking my spots as well, as
Agree to disagree. I understand where they would be with classifications minus the multiplier, but I just doubt the grand "IHSA conspiracy" (<--not aimed at you) wouldn't want to help the downstate schools more than the Chicago area. And again, I don't think guys like Lenti, Cog, Badke, or Holecek (sp??) wouldn't want to play the toughest of competition. I just don't.Bones said:
I will say I don't remember that. If it was on the pay side, that would probably be why - I'm pretty cheap. I will say I saw Coach A give a kid a run down because he wasn't stretching right, so I'm not too sure I buy an assistant coach speaking for him. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - certainly nobody has ever said that when I was in my stripes - but I just can't see these guys wanting the easy way out.Bones said:
And this is why the 'get better' notion is garbage. I hate giving out personal info, but the school I went to was a traditional, regional power. Now because of demographic changes it's taken a bit of a hit. It's not about the publics or the privates, it's about the have and the have nots.Bones said:
It ruins competition, and football is not the only sport the IHSA offers.Bones said:
Did you ever write that check to Naz your mouth wrote? Or are you just busy calling out other people for not having testicular fortitude?
Fill in the blank...
"The district for a private school is _______"
Keep in mind there's a wide range of district sizes, shapes, etc. 'Just like the publics' means nothing.
That's crap. 30 miles is the issue.
If you live in Frankfort you go to LWE
If you live in Orlandpark you go to Sandburg. Private athletes use the same boundaries as publics. All kids who attend privates and do not play sports can be recruited at the 30 mile radius. That spell it out for you? This will allow privates to still get those students for academic tuitions.
If I said yes, would you ever know differently? Way to address the topic... I would try to obfuscate too, if I were you.
you've still not laid out what a private school district looks like
besides if you're gonna lay out separate athlete/non-athlete rules (kinda laughable as probably 70-80% of private school students play some sport) I do have a flurry of follow up questions, but first you have to lay out what a district looks like.
besides if you're gonna lay out separate athlete/non-athlete rules (kinda laughable as probably 70-80% of private school students play some sport) I do have a flurry of follow up questions, but first you have to lay out what a district looks like.
Ramblinman
Your what you are. Smug ass. Let's see without sitting down and going through every year for the past 10 years which I do not have the time to do nor is it needed. All one has to do is goggle it and see that the private schools have won state about 30 percent. My point is how does this happen with privates only having about 1/3 the amount of schools vs public schools? Bingo recruiting uneven playing field. Goggle it you will also see several other states dealing with the same issue. Privates recruiting and publics not same story. Open your blind eyes.
I don't know. IMO the crux of it is that championships are exposure, they help keep the doors open. This is why, I think, some don't care if they win these trophies against similar competition or not. I mean ramblinman voted in my thread that JCA was like a 1A team.
He sure seemed okay with saying what they would do
But its not about haves and have nots. I think we would both consider WWS a "have" with a coach who has a championship track record and a program with the support of the community... they were 1-8. Schools like Glenbrook South are certainly "haves" just not on the football field. I agree, the notion of 'get better' is garbage in that particular context. Crete vs Hinsdale South (a team who played GBW pretty damn close) was as good as youre going to generally get in 6A. That game was the competition.
To me, what ruins competition is super teams that 90% of the class who all happen to be closed boundary have no hope against.
I tried to "goggle" it and a pop up window told me I was today's lucky visitor. Are you trying to give my computer a virus or malware?
I don't think we are too far off with what we are both saying. Probably a fair chance I'm full of it. Good discussion, enjoy your week and holiday!
You can't call people out for lack of conviction when you don't put forth that same conviction yourself. Unless someone from Naz wants to verify, of course.
