One idea for leveling the playing field

[paxregis]

Check out this article from Des Moines Register:

Iowa high school sports: Should poverty be used as a measurement of fairness in determining opponents?

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...dan-sabers-dmps-des-moines-public/1619000001/

 

[ISUChip]

School district administrators lobbying for it, while a recent coach and a current coach are against it. Left hand, meet right hand.

 

[Reasoned]

Let's be honest, there's no good way to "level the playing field" when it comes to parity in athletics and FB is rather unique because it requires a greater number of athletes and competent coaching in order to be successful. These successful programs often have similar genes (i.e., supportive coaches, administrators and most importantly parents) which when working in concert result in wins. Typically districts with higher socioeconomic metrics are made up of families with professionally successful and highly motivated (sometimes referred to as overachieving) parents who demand the same of their children. I don't think separating the haves from the have nots (in the quest for athletic competitiveness) is nearly as important as focusing on how to help these schools become competitive not just in athletics but in what really matters. It all begins in the home.

 

[wolverine55]

Overall, I can't say I like this, but it's hard for me to make a definitive decision without seeing some sort of "roughdraft" that would show what schools end up in which classes. And, while I'm all for exploring ideas to achieve competitive balance, schools are always going to have issues/demographics/whatever you want to call it that provide obstacles.

 

[makelovenotwar]

Wolverine, I agree with you. But dang, the data on the Des Moines public schools records against the suburbs is brutal.

I think most of these problems could be solved by a small 5A of top 16 or so teams based upon enrollment and some kind of a multiplier. The real issues are in 4A and 3A with the largest 3A and 4A schools being so much larger and so much wealthier. Pull those really big 4A schools off into 5A and then resenter 3A.

 

[C-Town Card]

The whole thing is very interesting and would be a great study to tackle. As stated in the article, there are other states around that use multipliers/reverse multipliers. The trick would be to get it done without making the whole process a farce. I have long advocated for a multiplier for private schools. Some years the multiplier would have moved the school up, some years not. Illinois uses (or used) a success adjustment that applies to private schools winning at the state level in consecutive years.

I think the socioeconomic factor does have an influence, but as @Reasoned stated, there is a lot that goes into it. I am interested to see where all of this heads.

 

[PNation]

Personally I think there is a need for something like this to happen, however I'm not exactly sure how you go about this in an efficient way. Free an reduced lunch numbers seems like a logical choice, but I don't think that this is an entirely effective method because there are different levels of "need" among students and schools. Two schools could both have a 45% free and reduced rate and be completely different schools when it comes to clientele. However I will say it could be a place to start, because it is pretty easy to look at Des Moines Public with a free and reduced rate of 75% and can see why they struggle to compete with schools like Ankeny and Waukee with rates around 15%.

I will say I found it interesting that only 5 Iowa public schools have a free and reduced rate of below 10%
Gilbert
North Polk
Pleasant Valley
Solon
Treynor

 

[cidhawkeye]

Illinois uses a multiplier for all non boundary schools, not just private schools.

 

[Reasoned]

Illinois uses a multiplier for all non boundary schools, not just private schools.

Using a multiplier (never have understood the IL 1.65x quantification) could have some impact at the lower classes but in the two largest classes only Xavier and Dowling (and they can't bump up) are affected (not sure about Assumption). However, if memory serves me all three of those schools, as recent as 4 or 5 years ago, competed in 4A.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Illinois uses a multiplier for all non boundary schools, not just private schools.

And all Iowa schools are technically “non-boundary” schools, due to open enrollment.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Using a multiplier (never have understood the IL 1.65x quantification) could have some impact at the lower classes but in the two largest classes only Xavier and Dowling (and they can't bump up) are affected (not sure about Assumption). However, if memory serves me all three of those schools, as recent as 4 or 5 years ago, competed in 4A.

Dowling still competes in 4A, of course. Xavier and Assumption (and Wahlert!) played a 4A schedule thanks to the late, lamented MVC/MAC football structure prior to 2014. I could go into detail (again) about why east-side districts happened, but my recollection is it was mainly Assumption’s desire to get out of the MAC that brought the whole east-side conference structure tumbling down (Xavier, for example, was willing to stay in the MVC as long as membership/scheduling didn’t change, but the MAC schools were hosed schedule-wise if Assumption dropped out and they couldn’t get some non-con games with MVC members).

That said, if Wahlert had continued playing a 4A schedule the past five years, that probably would have gotten pretty ugly. There’s no telling how much lower their participation numbers might have gotten in that scenario.

 

[Reasoned]

Dowling still competes in 4A, of course. Xavier and Assumption (and Wahlert!) played a 4A schedule thanks to the late, lamented MVC/MAC football structure prior to 2014. I could go into detail (again) about why east-side districts happened, but my recollection is it was mainly Assumption’s desire to get out of the MAC that brought the whole east-side conference structure tumbling down (Xavier, for example, was willing to stay in the MVC as long as membership/scheduling didn’t change, but the MAC schools were hosed schedule-wise if Assumption dropped out and they couldn’t get some non-con games with MVC members).

That said, if Wahlert had continued playing a 4A schedule the past five years, that probably would have gotten pretty ugly. There’s no telling how much lower their participation numbers might have gotten in that scenario.

Yes, you're correct about Assumption's desire to opt out of the MAC to play similar sized schools. It would be interesting to hear now (with several years experience with district play) what their assessment is of that decision. Although they're not having to play through Bett & PV they have much further distances to travel (save Burlington) and the gate take has to be much less. Personally, I think the current district format based on enrollment (as opposed to conference) determining class has been a positive. Especially since the IHSAA has allowed (at least 4A schools with their 4 open weeks) the ability to schedule rival or unique (cross border) games.

 

[BigHawk]

As much as it pains me to say this, we need to look at what South Dakota did
Small state with a lot of football divisions. Their largest class has eight schools in it. They all play each other, and then paired for an eight team playoff.
Let's face it, Dowling, Valley, Cedar Falls, Ankeny Centennial, Bett. ...are really the only challengers for the title every year. From my experience, that probably won't change anytime soon.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

For football, I think the current option is when re-districting happens, have all 5 Metro schools in the same district plus one other outlier (Ames, Ottumwa, Marshalltown, Indianola, etc)

That would at least give these schools a bit more of a chance to make the playoffs, instead of just being district fodder for the likes of Valley, Waukee, Dowling etc.

Des Moines North
Des Moines East
Des Moines Hoover
Des Moines Roosevelt
Des Moines Lincoln
Ottumwa (exp)

Would this not at least be a start in the right direction?

You're welcome, btw.....

 

[Reasoned]

For football, I think the current option is when re-districting happens, have all 5 Metro schools in the same district plus one other outlier (Ames, Ottumwa, Marshalltown, Indianola, etc)

That would at least give these schools a bit more of a chance to make the playoffs, instead of just being district fodder for the likes of Valley, Waukee, Dowling etc.

Des Moines North
Des Moines East
Des Moines Hoover
Des Moines Roosevelt
Des Moines Lincoln
Ottumwa (exp)

Would this not at least be a start in the right direction?

You're welcome, btw.....

One issue with this proposal is with the automatic playoff birth as district winner, you have the potential of an underperforming school taking a spot.

 

[KidSilverhair]

One issue with this proposal is with the automatic playoff birth as district winner, you have the potential of an underperforming school taking a spot.

You mean like a 6-3 district champion (meaning they went 1-3 outside their district) that finished 18th in RPI taking a playoff spot, keeping two other teams with higher RPIs out? Like Carroll did in 3A last year? Yeah, that already happens.

 

[Reasoned]

You mean like a 6-3 district champion (meaning they went 1-3 outside their district) that finished 18th in RPI taking a playoff spot, keeping two other teams with higher RPIs out? Like Carroll did in 3A last year? Yeah, that already happens.

Well I suppose 6-3 is a better case than 1-8 making it, as happened before district playoff format.

 

[ISUChip]

You mean like a 6-3 district champion (meaning they went 1-3 outside their district) that finished 18th in RPI taking a playoff spot, keeping two other teams with higher RPIs out? Like Carroll did in 3A last year? Yeah, that already happens.

Carroll only knocked one team out -- #16 Washington (6-3, 4-1).

#17 Denison-Schleswig (5-4, 2-3) didn't get bumped. They were already out because they were outside the top 16.

 

[ISUChip]

Well I suppose 6-3 is a better case than 1-8 making it, as happened before district playoff format.

That happened what, once, because there were 5 teams in that 4A district and they were still taking 4 from each (32-team era).

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

One issue with this proposal is with the automatic playoff birth as district winner, you have the potential of an underperforming school taking a spot.

Is that really an issue though?.........

Besides this argument being the CFP argument about well if you're gonna have 4 what about the 5th and 6th place team and if you go to 8 teams, then what about the 9th and 10th teams etc. etc...........this is about trying to build confidence in the metro schools.

At least with this, they'd have a shot of competing in the playoffs and it would generate more interest and give incentive to kids to play and compete.

 

[Reasoned]

That happened what, once, because there were 5 teams in that 4A district and they were still taking 4 from each (32-team era).

Not sure if it was the only time but once was enough. There's absolutely no reason to have 32 out of 48 teams making the playoffs...at least in FB.

 

[Reasoned]

Is that really an issue though?.........

Besides this argument being the CFP argument about well if you're gonna have 4 what about the 5th and 6th place team and if you go to 8 teams, then what about the 9th and 10th teams etc. etc...........this is about trying to build confidence in the metro schools.

At least with this, they'd have a shot of competing in the playoffs and it would generate more interest and give incentive to kids to play and compete.

They'd have a shot at making the playoffs, not necessarily "competing" in them. Look, I think the issue is with trying to get these schools programs to a competitive level on a consistent basis. The same sort of thing is going on with the three Davenport metro schools vs Bett, PV, North Scott & Assumption (to some degree).

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

They'd have a shot at making the playoffs, not necessarily "competing" in them. Look, I think the issue is with trying to get these schools programs to a competitive level on a consistent basis. The same sort of thing is going on with the three Davenport metro schools vs Bett, PV, North Scott & Assumption (to some degree).

Doesn't matter that they wouldn't be competitive right away. The point is to grow/rebuild interest.


Btw, Fort Dodge goes through the same thing every time they make the playoffs too, considering they can never get past the 1st round.........Nobody is crying for schools like them.

 

[KidSilverhair]

You mean like a 6-3 district champion (meaning they went 1-3 outside their district) that finished 18th in RPI taking a playoff spot, preventing two other teams with higher RPIs out? Like Carroll did in 3A last year? Yeah, that already happens.

Carroll only knocked one team out -- #16 Washington (6-3, 4-1).

#17 Denison-Schleswig (5-4, 2-3) didn't get bumped. They were already out because they were outside the top 16.

You are correct, sir.

 

[Hwkfn1]

The state needs to stop treating every class like 4a. 4a should have its own separate rules when it comes to playoff. Make it 32 teams in the other classes and 16 for 4a.

 

[GOPANTHERS23]

The state needs to stop treating every class like 4a. 4a should have its own separate rules when it comes to playoff. Make it 32 teams in the other classes and 16 for 4a.

God no! That 32 team crap is garbage. Enough win the participation trophies. Earn it. Class a and 1a when u do that teams rht r 3-6 make the playoffs and then a team 9-0 has to play them 1st round and risk a injury for a game that is pointless. I hve seen it first hand screw over a team that had dome written all over them but had 3 kids get hurt and next round was screwed. In small class depth is a issue. Definitely against 32 teams getting in

 

[cidhawkeye]

God no! That 32 team crap is garbage. Enough win the participation trophies. Earn it. Class a and 1a when u do that teams rht r 3-6 make the playoffs and then a team 9-0 has to play them 1st round and risk a injury for a game that is pointless. I hve seen it first hand screw over a team that had dome written all over them but had 3 kids get hurt and next round was screwed. In small class depth is a issue. Definitely against 32 teams getting in

As well as making them play on a crazy short schedule to get the games in.

 

[PNation]

There is a little bit of truth to both sides

In 4A there are always going to be fewer deserving playoff teams then the smaller classes, partly because of having fewer teams partly because of a greater disparity between the haves and have nots in 4A.

Looking at last year I would say that in 4A there were around 20 teams who you could say could of been in the playoffs last year without watering down the field too much.

In 2A and 3A that number is closer to 25

1A and A a few more especially 1A

8 man that number is possibly 32

The thing is I don't think you can have a set number because the number of deserving teams changes year to year and I am not sure how it would look, but maybe it could be possible to have a set standard to make the playoffs based upon record and RPI including a strength based upon what class of team you play?

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

There is a little bit of truth to both sides

In 4A there are always going to be fewer deserving playoff teams then the smaller classes, partly because of having fewer teams partly because of a greater disparity between the haves and have nots in 4A.

Looking at last year I would say that in 4A there were around 20 teams who you could say could of been in the playoffs last year without watering down the field too much.

In 2A and 3A that number is closer to 25

1A and A a few more especially 1A

8 man that number is possibly 32

The thing is I don't think you can have a set number because the number of deserving teams changes year to year and I am not sure how it would look, but maybe it could be possible to have a set standard to make the playoffs based upon record and RPI including a strength based upon what class of team you play?

There is a way. It's called a 24-team playoff.

FCS makes the first round bye work......NFL makes the first round bye work.

"No nah NAWW we can't do that because blah blah blah...."

Actually you can, and you're going to because I said so.

Enjoy!

 

[ISUChip]

There is a way. It's called a 24-team playoff.

That's a five-round postseason, and back to the Wed/Mon/Fri schedule that everybody just loved.

 

[KidSilverhair]

I still think you might be able to make a five-round playoff work, if you turned Week 9 into the first round of playoffs and had the non-qualifiers play each other for their ninth game.

Although I guess this was actually the system many years ago, and everybody hated it.

The other notion would be to hold championships on Thanksgiving week. That way only two teams per class have any kind of short turnaround. The problem there, of course, is UNI won't let the IHSAA use the Dome that week, so the championships would have to be outdoors somewhere.

 

[Reasoned]

The other notion would be to hold championships on Thanksgiving week. That way only two teams per class have any kind of short turnaround. The problem there, of course, is UNI won't let the IHSAA use the Dome that week, so the championships would have to be outdoors somewhere.

Above is what IL does (though I'd rarely advise doing anything IL does). Having 32 teams making the PO's when there 60+ teams in a class (like IL) seems fine, but 32 when there's 42?...um sorry that's a little too inclusive to justify an additional week.

 

[Hwkfn1]

I still think you might be able to make a five-round playoff work, if you turned Week 9 into the first round of playoffs and had the non-qualifiers play each other for their ninth game.

Although I guess this was actually the system many years ago, and everybody hated it.

The other notion would be to hold championships on Thanksgiving week. That way only two teams per class have any kind of short turnaround. The problem there, of course, is UNI won't let the IHSAA use the Dome that week, so the championships would have to be outdoors somewhere.

I believe the idea being pushed is turning week 9 into the first round. Then, teams who do not make it can decide to play week 9.

 

[ISUChip]

I still think you might be able to make a five-round playoff work, if you turned Week 9 into the first round of playoffs and had the non-qualifiers play each other for their ninth game.

Although I guess this was actually the system many years ago, and everybody hated it.

Ah, the good old days when you scheduled a week 9 game and then had to cancel it when one of the teams made the playoffs -- because the playoffs started on Wednesday of week 9.

 

[troutstamp1]

God no! That 32 team crap is garbage. Enough win the participation trophies. Earn it. Class a and 1a when u do that teams rht r 3-6 make the playoffs and then a team 9-0 has to play them 1st round and risk a injury for a game that is pointless. I hve seen it first hand screw over a team that had dome written all over them but had 3 kids get hurt and next round was screwed. In small class depth is a issue. Definitely against 32 teams getting in[/QUOTE

The only reason that happened in the past with 32 teams was because they automatically took 4 teams from each district so yes that 4th place team could have a poor record. The new proposal of 32 teams witch by the way was passed by over 96% of schools and administrators is to go back to 32 teams with the difference being only district champions are automatic and all the rest are at large teams. So a very tough district may get multiple teams and another district only 1 and then the majority of your postseason teams are the ones that are worthy.

 

[ISUChip]

32-team cutoff, using 2018 data:

4A: #32 Waterloo West (3-6)
3A: #32 Fairfield (4-5)
2A: #32 Sioux Center (3-6)
1A: #32 Pocahontas Area (4-5)
A: #32 Belle Plaine (4-5)
8P: #32 Janesville (5-5)

The 16 added teams in each class, by record:
4A: 5-4 (remaining 5), 4-5 (remaining 5), 3-6 (all 5), 2-7 (1 of 6)
3A: 6-3 (remaining 3), 5-4 (7 of 10), 4-5 (6 of 9)
2A: 7-2 (remaining 2), 6-3 (remaining 2), 5-4 (remaining 6), 4-5 (3 of 5), 3-6 (3 of 13)
1A: 6-3 (remaining 1), 5-4 (all 11), 4-5 (4 of 5)
A: 7-2 (remaining 2), 6-3 (all 5), 5-4 (5 of 7), 4-5 (4 of 12)
8P: 7-2 (remaining 2), 6-3 (all 6), 5-4 (7 of 8), 5-5 (1 of 2)

Totals:
7-2 - all 6
6-3 - all 17
5-4 - 41
5-5 - 1
4-5 - 22
3-6 - 8
2-7 - 1

 

[KidSilverhair]

Yeah, I don’t think 4 wins should be an automatic trip to the playoffs. I think 16 is working pretty well - for the most part - but there’s always going to be the occasional deserving team left out.

It’s kind of like the college football playoff. They have 4, but people are clamoring for 8. Once they get to 8 (and they will, and probably should), people will cry about #9 and #10 and say there needs to be 16. Get to 16, and #18 and #20 are complaining, saying “make it 32 or 64!”

For college specifically, but also in general, I think there’s a point where there isn’t a logical reason for someone to reach the playoffs. In the NCAA, can you honestly make the point that a team ranked 33rd, or 17th, or even 9th, actually has an argument to be the “best” team in the country? Now, could they upset one or two others and actually win the whole thing? Maybe. But that doesn’t make them “best,” it makes them “tournament champions,” which isn’t the same thing.

 

[ISUChip]

Only 5 teams in the top 16 of their respective class RPI didn't get in last year. 3 of those were #16 at-large teams who got bumped by a district champion (two #18s and a #19).

The other two were a #12 and a #14 who got bumped by district champions (#17 and #18).

And, the biggest "flaw" has already been addressed, in which that #12 team would now be included and the #15 tri-champ goes back to the at-large pool and wouldn't get in.

If the subjective "deserving team" definition is based on record...
*All 52 undefeated and 1-loss teams got in
*30 of the 36 2-loss teams got in (4 of those other 6 were #16 or #17)
*10 6-3 teams got in; 6 of them were district champs, one had a #8 RPI, and the other 3 were in 4A

That's 92 of the 96 spots filled by teams 6-3 or better. The other 4 spots were to a 5-4 district champ, two 5-4 4A teams, and one 4-5 4A team.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

That's a five-round postseason, and back to the Wed/Mon/Fri schedule that everybody just loved.

Did I say that's what would happen?......No.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I still think you might be able to make a five-round playoff work, if you turned Week 9 into the first round of playoffs and had the non-qualifiers play each other for their ninth game.

Although I guess this was actually the system many years ago, and everybody hated it.

The other notion would be to hold championships on Thanksgiving week. That way only two teams per class have any kind of short turnaround. The problem there, of course, is UNI won't let the IHSAA use the Dome that week, so the championships would have to be outdoors somewhere.

Well then we'll just have to get rid of Thanksgiving then.

Plenty of time for the playoffs, that way.