So when BHRV has a great senior class (2009) you want to punish the next year's team that was pretty average. Same goes for West Lyon in 2010 and 2013. All three of the teams would have competed on that given year not the next year like you are suggesting. YOUR A YEAR LATE!!!! Sorry Privateer, but it is the dumbest suggestion on any topic that I have seen. There are different champions every year in every sport as a whole. You have a few teams such as Solon and Regina that have a 3 or 4 year run. Boyden Hull won the bb title last year with a bunch of seniors. This year they played a bunch of sophs. Having them play Hull Western and Sioux Center this year would have been idiotic!
Success of Private Schools
- Thread starter NoJustice
- Start date
Competitive balance isn't consistent. Every single season is its own independent situation.
Trying to adjust is always going to be retroactive and affect those grades and kids who weren't part of the previous success.
Classes based on enrollment is the most clear cut and unbiased way to do things.
Trying to adjust is always going to be retroactive and affect those grades and kids who weren't part of the previous success.
Classes based on enrollment is the most clear cut and unbiased way to do things.
Originally posted by privateer13:
We are talking competitive balance. Play the scenario out and it makes sense more so than balancing competition by bed numbers. If you want to believe playing a more difficult schedule is a punishment than we have to part ways because we don't have common ground. Again this is just getting a competitive balance. You do know what you sound like when you claim you can compete for a title a higher classes then start whining if someone would suggest that you should?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is your grade school immature view exposing itself.
Your slant in this post is embedded in an immature dynamic of "you claim you can compete for a title at a higher class then start whining if someone would suggest that you should?".
There it is. The basis of all your posts in this thread. Jeolousy. Due to jeolousy of others success, the foundation of who should play up. You successful? You need to play up. That way I have a better chance to be successful by removing my competition because I am jeolous of their success and I deserve it. Why do I deserve it? Because I said so. Not because I worked hard to get it. No. Not because I worked harder than my competition to get it. No. Not because I spent hours and hours mastering my craft. No. Just because I said so.
So with that you are left with no reward to strive for success. Because if you are, others who are jeolous of your success will keep changing the rules until your record can be just like theirs. Mediocre. Or better yet, you can be pushed into a mediocre record and clear the way for ME to win a championship.
Why don't we make it easy on the state and athletic directors not having to change all the classes, districts, and schedules. Just make the best teams play on one leg or tie an arm behind their back. Against really bad teams do both. Level that 'ol playing field for competitiveness sake.
That is an ingredient within a culture void of motivation, void of hard work, void of personal accountability, and a breeding ground for poverty to grow. No incentives in life for success = no striving for success. A culture built on a goal of parity and mediocrity. Every stride of mankind in any way or in any fashion was due to someone being motivated by the spoils you will receive through hard work, sacrifice, diligence, and / or great ideas.
No spoils? No motivation. No motivation? Connect the dots. It is so common sensucal.
Kind of sounds and looks like a familiar but troubling trend in America.
Give a man a fish he is fed for a day. Teach a man to fish he is fed for a lifetime. = Give a team a win they are successful for a day. Teach a team HOW to win they will be successful for a lifetime.
We are talking competitive balance. Play the scenario out and it makes sense more so than balancing competition by bed numbers. If you want to believe playing a more difficult schedule is a punishment than we have to part ways because we don't have common ground. Again this is just getting a competitive balance. You do know what you sound like when you claim you can compete for a title a higher classes then start whining if someone would suggest that you should?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is your grade school immature view exposing itself.
Your slant in this post is embedded in an immature dynamic of "you claim you can compete for a title at a higher class then start whining if someone would suggest that you should?".
There it is. The basis of all your posts in this thread. Jeolousy. Due to jeolousy of others success, the foundation of who should play up. You successful? You need to play up. That way I have a better chance to be successful by removing my competition because I am jeolous of their success and I deserve it. Why do I deserve it? Because I said so. Not because I worked hard to get it. No. Not because I worked harder than my competition to get it. No. Not because I spent hours and hours mastering my craft. No. Just because I said so.
So with that you are left with no reward to strive for success. Because if you are, others who are jeolous of your success will keep changing the rules until your record can be just like theirs. Mediocre. Or better yet, you can be pushed into a mediocre record and clear the way for ME to win a championship.
Why don't we make it easy on the state and athletic directors not having to change all the classes, districts, and schedules. Just make the best teams play on one leg or tie an arm behind their back. Against really bad teams do both. Level that 'ol playing field for competitiveness sake.
That is an ingredient within a culture void of motivation, void of hard work, void of personal accountability, and a breeding ground for poverty to grow. No incentives in life for success = no striving for success. A culture built on a goal of parity and mediocrity. Every stride of mankind in any way or in any fashion was due to someone being motivated by the spoils you will receive through hard work, sacrifice, diligence, and / or great ideas.
No spoils? No motivation. No motivation? Connect the dots. It is so common sensucal.
Kind of sounds and looks like a familiar but troubling trend in America.
Give a man a fish he is fed for a day. Teach a man to fish he is fed for a lifetime. = Give a team a win they are successful for a day. Teach a team HOW to win they will be successful for a lifetime.
The public school situation would be much more complicated. I feel a private school multiplier would be a good start. How about a negative multiplier for schools that can't win football games then? Or not allowing playoff teams to drop a class. I can understand why people would be against this. You think it is "punishment" for good teams to play good teams. I think there are better ways to find where schools fit in a class than just based on BEDS. Xavier and Assumption fit in 4A better than they do 3A. Solon is a better fit in 3A than 2A, but they could easily be 2A. And do we really need to consider the number of girls in a school in determining football classes? Maybe a school has a class of 60 students but 40 of them are girls.
And state championships are only 1 stat to consider. There are also records, district championships, Playoff wins etc. Yo uhear people saying it was only a 1 year case that has everyone all up in arms because how many won the championship. Truthfully, this argument has been around forever, just more debate recently based on the outcomes. And this was before Xavier and Assumption decided to move down.
And state championships are only 1 stat to consider. There are also records, district championships, Playoff wins etc. Yo uhear people saying it was only a 1 year case that has everyone all up in arms because how many won the championship. Truthfully, this argument has been around forever, just more debate recently based on the outcomes. And this was before Xavier and Assumption decided to move down.
And it is hard for anyone to come on here with any opinion for a multiplier when they are called whiners and grade school babies. And then your entire post sounds nothing more than a childish rant No Justice.
I fact of the matter is that the subject has been brought up by coaches and ADs and is picking up steam. It wasn't brought up by some jealous parents on message boards who only want to see their kids win a championship, or want to see Regina fall on their face.
I fact of the matter is that the subject has been brought up by coaches and ADs and is picking up steam. It wasn't brought up by some jealous parents on message boards who only want to see their kids win a championship, or want to see Regina fall on their face.
Rkhemp,
How can you predict success or strength of a team one or two years (which is how far in advance schedules are identified or remain in place once done) into the future with this as the basis of your "fix"? You cannot. A 1a team this year wins back to back state titles. A talented class that were juniors one year and seniors the next was a group of 20 very talented kids. You then schedule that team up the next two years to 2A or 3A the year after these kids graduate according to your "fix".
The cupboard is bare now. The "new" starters get pummeled the next year because everyone was gone. That could easily happen. It is a prevelant dynamic in small class ball. Your fix is flawed because it is impossible to administer and why it is such a ludicrous idea. Too many moving parts on why a team was successful and no way to predict things out one or two years which is required for scheduling. Not to mention possible injuries taking place to muddy your waters as well. Small class ball is impacted much more greatly by key injuries. By definition do not have depth. One or two stud players going down could be replaced by sophs who never have played a varsity game and maybe way less talented. Now what is left gets pummeled.
How can you predict success or strength of a team one or two years (which is how far in advance schedules are identified or remain in place once done) into the future with this as the basis of your "fix"? You cannot. A 1a team this year wins back to back state titles. A talented class that were juniors one year and seniors the next was a group of 20 very talented kids. You then schedule that team up the next two years to 2A or 3A the year after these kids graduate according to your "fix".
The cupboard is bare now. The "new" starters get pummeled the next year because everyone was gone. That could easily happen. It is a prevelant dynamic in small class ball. Your fix is flawed because it is impossible to administer and why it is such a ludicrous idea. Too many moving parts on why a team was successful and no way to predict things out one or two years which is required for scheduling. Not to mention possible injuries taking place to muddy your waters as well. Small class ball is impacted much more greatly by key injuries. By definition do not have depth. One or two stud players going down could be replaced by sophs who never have played a varsity game and maybe way less talented. Now what is left gets pummeled.
Dude. Reread. It was not me calling anyone whiners. I was QUOTING what he said in his post and responding to that post. The logic? Yes. It is immature logic embedded in jealousy. It is what it is.
This post was edited on 4/5 9:59 AM by NoJustice
BTW. I have NO ties to Regina or any other private school. I attended a public school. My kids did as well. As a matter if fact I cannot think of anyone in my extended family that ever attended a private school.
I can however spot a straw dog argument. I can see the forest through the trees that this is about excellence being now apparently something that needs stamped out. When I do, it deserves being exposed.
This post was edited on 4/5 10:08 AM by NoJustice
I can however spot a straw dog argument. I can see the forest through the trees that this is about excellence being now apparently something that needs stamped out. When I do, it deserves being exposed.
This post was edited on 4/5 10:08 AM by NoJustice
It is harder to predict sucess of the public schools as good classes come and go. But, it is much easier to predict how good private schools will be.
I also know the good teams in A would compete with the good teams in 1A, with the exception being Regina. The bad teams in 1A are not much better than the bad teams in A, but they would still get beat by the good teams in A.
And you talk about the American way a lot. I really don't know what you mean by this as everyone's American values seem to differ a ton. To me it is about increasing one's self worth for their community and country, whatever that ability maybe. It's about kids rising to the top. The more they get sucessful, the higher they climb. It is not about the manager of Casey's refusing to become a corp position because he earns employee of the year at his store every year.
I also know the good teams in A would compete with the good teams in 1A, with the exception being Regina. The bad teams in 1A are not much better than the bad teams in A, but they would still get beat by the good teams in A.
And you talk about the American way a lot. I really don't know what you mean by this as everyone's American values seem to differ a ton. To me it is about increasing one's self worth for their community and country, whatever that ability maybe. It's about kids rising to the top. The more they get sucessful, the higher they climb. It is not about the manager of Casey's refusing to become a corp position because he earns employee of the year at his store every year.
That is abundantly clear. More and more seem to not understand it either unfortunately. Educating the youth that parity is the goal to achieve. Not excellence. No rewards or spoils for excellence -- no striving for it.
If there is no reward to climb from a Casey's job to a corporate CEO, meaning no spoils for the hard work, cost of education, and discipline to get there, how many would take that road? If no big difference in income potential, we are all equal and parity in play, where is motivation to take that tough road up?
Get it?
Yes I get it. The private schools have no motivation to play up as they can win championships in the lower classes. I get it. Many states have multipliers and seperate playoffs for private schools as the gap between private schools and public schools are widening. Get it?
I strongly doubt that a coach of high caliber such as Kevin Miller at Solon sits around wondering should I just throw in the towel.Reading his quotes in the paper,he knows they have to compete at a high level.No excuses are acceptable to a person like that.Quite confident that a majority of coaches know what it takes to win.The answer lies in how do we get there and try to stay there.
Define "many" please. Make sure the multipliers and desperate classes would apply to the state of Iowa. An example is Illinois has a multiplier, their multiplier would apply to every school in Iowa so no change would occur.
I see a lot of talking about multipliers and moving schools 'up'.
But, what's your plan for moving schools back 'down'? That part seems to be missing.
Or, will we just eventually have a bunch of 3A and 4A schools and the lower classes will just be filled those schools that haven't had a chance to win a Championship yet?
But, what's your plan for moving schools back 'down'? That part seems to be missing.
Or, will we just eventually have a bunch of 3A and 4A schools and the lower classes will just be filled those schools that haven't had a chance to win a Championship yet?
The following are some states have a form of a multiplier or seperate tournament for non-publics. Minnesota, Georgia, Florida, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Connecticut, Alabama, Tenn, Nevada, Indiana, and Ohio. Wisconsin votes on April 16th to add a multiplier. I am sure there are others I missed and others who will be changing soon.
You might want to do a little more research on those multipliers. Illinois is the easy choice, their multiplier applies to all non boundary schools, not just private schools. All schools in Iowa are non boundary schools so it would apply to all schools in Iowa. Therefore no changes, some of those other states have other requirements that wouldn't apply in Iowa. FYI the states with multipliers have not seen a significant drop in championships won by private schools. Now they are looking at success multipliers. I understand there is a lot of discussion on this by the coaches, a very long time successful coach at a 1A school is very vocal about the situation, I am sure there are many others. I wonder if they talked about a Harlan or Emmetsburg multiplier back in the day. I know they weren't talking about it the 15 years they were piss pounding Regina by 50.
All the multipliers are used for competitive balance. And maybe you should do some research on Iowa schools as all public schools have boundaries. And your point about not seeing a large drop for private school championships only goes to prove that private schools can still win championships at higher classes.
This post was edited on 4/5 6:11 PM by rkhemp
This post was edited on 4/5 6:11 PM by rkhemp
This was a great quote by the IHSA executive director Marty Hickman in 2012. "There still is a lot of animosity between public and private schools. We have done some things and helped to level the playing field. But there is no magic silver bullet. What we have done is better than the alternative, which is doing nothing."
Open enrollment means open boundary. There are a few schools in Iowa that have closed enrollment but they are very few. Iowa's enrollment rules would make them non boundary in Illinois.
Immature grade school? Must have touched a nerve. What would you do to get the best teams in the same class? I would like to see the best teams compete against the best teams period. Who wouldn't want to see Regina Play West Lyon or Assumption vs Dowling. We will see a little of it next year with Xavier and Regina. You seem to think it is a punishment for rewarding winning teams with a challenge maybe we should just let them drop a class if they win a championship so we don't make it hard for them. If you keep moving good programs up the ladder you will have an exceptional class of teams at the top and would make each game more exciting. Sorry if you can't see that. I don't think we will ever see moving schools based on competition ever happen. Doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to those not emotionally involved.
Immature grade school? Must have touched a nerve. What would you do to get the best teams in the same class? I would like to see the best teams compete against the best teams period. Who wouldn't want to see Regina Play West Lyon or Assumption vs Dowling. We will see a little of it next year with Xavier and Regina. You seem to think it is a punishment for rewarding winning teams with a challenge maybe we should just let them drop a class if they win a championship so we don't make it hard for them. If you keep moving good programs up the ladder you will have an exceptional class of teams at the top and would make each game more exciting. Sorry if you can't see that. I don't think we will ever see moving schools based on competition ever happen. Doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to those not emotionally involved.
You don't get it! Kids graduate and sometimes especially in the small schools there is a talent drop. Wapsie Valley deserved a shot at a repeat this year. They were not nearly as talented and they lost in the semi's. Enrollment is the only way to determine classes with public schools. You want to compete. LIFT, RUN, 7 on 7, and get some coaches who can develop players!!
I'm not emotionally attached to this issue. I don't think No Justice is either. In fact, I believe he started this thread by stating, or at least implying that he had changed his mind about this issue to his current position. It's more likely that the people who are advocating the multipliers are emotionally attached to the issue as their teams aren't winning. Let me ask you a question, Burlington is a dog in 7 of their 9 games this year. The closest spread is -17 in those games and most are in the -30's, should they be allowed to move to 3A? In your expressed concerns, 7 of those games won't be competitive. Should BC Moore calculate the statistical models each year so that teams can be classified for best spread ratios? What would be your cutoff? According to the best model of performance in the state, Burlington should be moved down. Since they aren't playing anyone in the top 20 as predicted, how would it ever be fair for them to be in 4A. They have no chance to win a title in this class. Should they even be allowed to play football? Since everyone is playing for the trophy and not just for the fun of playing the game, should we have about 50 classes so that teams would have a chance of playing in and winning a playoff game? Enrollment is the best model for classification as it relates to Iowa IMO. And I truly don't care who wins in the end. It's high school sports, those who want to improve will have to work harder, whether they want to will depend on the kids. I know the parents and SES and # of girls or boys and income in the community, private or public and coaching credentials and weight room facilities and equipment equality and schools with block schedules vs those without and kids that can only lift before or after school instead of during school and successful junior high programs and successful youth league programs and on and on and on all contribute to the inequity, but when does personal accountability come into play. No one is going to level the field in life. Whether your team is successful in high school sports will have very little if any impact on your productivity, excellence, success as an adult. In fact, as I think someone else pointed out on here that kids from successful programs could very well have an entitlement mentality merely because of their repeated success. So in the end does parity in sports associate with success in life? If it doesn't, then it really isn't an issue and multipliers are just pseudo-socialism at best.
This thread misses the point. A football Friday night is the aim, not some perfect post-season bracket. The most value delivered by football is the engagement of the community and school. Playoffs are further fun, but the feel of the fall is really captured by those late August games, those sparkling September nights and the crisp evenings of October.
In approaching playoffs, the IHSAA should recognize that "less is more", but I'm not holding my breath.
Every community and school has an equal opportunity for the fall football Friday nights, regardless of enrollment, private vs. public or past records/history.
In approaching playoffs, the IHSAA should recognize that "less is more", but I'm not holding my breath.
Every community and school has an equal opportunity for the fall football Friday nights, regardless of enrollment, private vs. public or past records/history.
Just not a true statement at all CID. Just your opinion. My kids are open enrolled. We have to fill out papers. The school has to accept us. If my kids had behavior issues, they wouldn't have to let us in. If we lived with in the boundaries of the school they would have no choice. If there were no borders, there would be no need for open enrollment
It's not an opinion. I understand the open enrollment process, I have been involved with it previously. The current arrangement for schools.in Iowa would be considered non boundary if the schools were in Illinois. Certain schools that can refuse OE based on capacity issues (Norwalk is/was one)would not have a multiplier. This wasn't from the top of the Illinois organization but it was from someone who deals with it as part of their job. If they were incorrect than I will apologize and stop repeating it. Until then I guess I will go with that.
No, you don't understand it. Illinois has "Open Enrollment Schools". Yes, the entire school is OE. Iowa has a OE program. This seems to be a big arguing point for you for a long time CID. Please name me a small town Iowa school that dominates because of OE. Please provide me any examples you have of OE being a problem.
Yes Illinois has OE schools and they are subject to the multiplier. Public schools included. Does Martensdale St. Marys baseball count? Does anyone else have examples?
rkhemp: Clearly your whole argument is around Regina. You must have kids, nephews, or grandkids that would have to play them. Maybe the solution is making 4 or 5 new classes so that we can water down the system more and everyone can get a participation patch. No Justice, your posts are spot on. Agree 100%.
Sorry Printit, I am more involved in 2A, but Regina is the easiest example with their accomplishments and is the school of many of the posters here. People can be for a multiplier or against it. No Justice's argument for the reason of the sucess of private schools is because of politics and families fleeing to private schools, neither could be further from the truth. Even CID will tell you Regina's numbers are actually dropping. I am also a supporter of Xavier, but I also don't believe they belong in 3A.
I am pretty confident that there will be changes that come in 2 years, but I sure won't lose any sleep over it if it doesn't happen. You are in the boat that believes if teams like Regina were to be placed in 2A and Xavier, Heelan, and Assumption moved to 4A would be such an injustice and would really water down Iowa high school football that it wouldn't even be worth playing anymore, then so be it. But just like the states that have implemented multipliers, the games play on. Private schools are moved up and they still compete and still win.
I am pretty confident that there will be changes that come in 2 years, but I sure won't lose any sleep over it if it doesn't happen. You are in the boat that believes if teams like Regina were to be placed in 2A and Xavier, Heelan, and Assumption moved to 4A would be such an injustice and would really water down Iowa high school football that it wouldn't even be worth playing anymore, then so be it. But just like the states that have implemented multipliers, the games play on. Private schools are moved up and they still compete and still win.
I know it would be very hard to explain it to you and not worth the time. But I am still waiting to hear an example of small school dominance because of OE.. You see Pine, I am all for being able t choose what is best for my kids. If we chose to send our kids to a private school, a multiplier sure as hell wouldn't stop us. I'm also not blind enough that when it comes to high school football not being able to notice the trend of private school dominance. So besides me sending my 7 year old daughter to a school that is less than 10 mins away. so she can go to school with family, please give me some other evidence that relates to the topic on hand.
This post was edited on 4/6 10:23 PM by rkhemp
This post was edited on 4/6 10:23 PM by rkhemp
Sorry, just seems a little too hypocritical to me. You want to open enroll and have many of the same benefits that you then want to penalize private schools for.
I really think the IAHSAA is going to see through the sour grapes and misplaced frusteration and realize that a multiplier for only private schools misses the mark and wouldn't be fairly applied to the situation at hand.
If OE ends up changing the landscape as much as private schools, then I would be all for a multiplier for that as well. OE seems to have become a marching cry for some of you guys, but I'm still awaiting an example.
This post was edited on 4/6 11:17 PM by rkhemp
This post was edited on 4/6 11:17 PM by rkhemp
Can you please explain how it is easier to predict how good a private school is going to be vs a public school?
I would tend to argue the opposite. For example, Western, Trinity, and Unity are all 9-12 schools. They have kids coming in from multiple elementaries and tend to compete against each other for these kids.
I would tend to argue the opposite. For example, Western, Trinity, and Unity are all 9-12 schools. They have kids coming in from multiple elementaries and tend to compete against each other for these kids.
Can you clarify the example you are looking for? Which classes and whats your definition of dominance and the time frame you are considering?
Similar threads
