Xavier Transfers

[RoundMound1]

Good find RoundMound. I'm not as into the "success factor" because I wouldn't want them to punish any school for success. It would be nice to see the participation rates from the Iowa private schools vs. Public schools and use that to find a proper multiplier/reverse multiplier number.

I understand that thought, but I think what you find is that the schools that have sustained excellence (or domination if you will) have inherited advantages similar to private schools and their built in advantages. Besides, to move up a class you would have to either make the state finals two years in a row, or win the state championship and make the semi-finals in consecutive years. If your program is that good, you should move up a class to try your hand at some better competition.

For kicks, here is the list of schools since 2007 that would have moved up a class for 2 years if using the Indiana model. The year given is the year prior to move up, so "2015" means they would move up next year.

Football (didn't count 8-man)
Central Lyon - 2008 2A to 3A
Decorah - 2012 3A to 4A
Gladbrook-Reinbeck - 2015 A to 1A
Heelan - 2008 and 2013 3A to 4A
Kuemper - 2013 2A to 3A
North Fayette - 2015 2A to 3A
North Tama - 2010 A to 1A
Pella - 2015 3A to 4A
Regina - 2011 2A to 3A
Solon - 2007 2A to 3A
Southern Cal - 2008 A to 1A
Spirit Lake - 2012 2A to 3A
St. Albert's - 2007 1A to 2A
West Lyon - 2014 1A to 2A

Basketball
Boyden-Hull - 2013 1A to 2A
Danville - 2010 1A to 2A
Heelan - 2010 3A to 4A
Mt. Pleasant - 2012 3A to 4A
NU High - 2009 1A to 2A
Rock Valley - 2010 1A to 2A
Solon - 2009 2A to 3A
St. Mary's - 2012 1A to 2A
Wahlert - 2015 3A to 4A
Waverly - 2014 3A to 4A
West Fork - 2014 2A to 3A
Western Christian - 2009 2A to 3A

 

[VanderHoops]

Indiana Tournament Success Factor
Here's a look at how the Indiana "Tournament Success Factor" has "worked" in the last 3 years, focusing mostly on one private school..

This seems like a really complicated way to control any school from becoming a dynasty.

It seems like it would really punish any school that happened to have one outstanding class of athletes. A team could dominate for 2 years, then graduate all their studs, only to find themselves inner a higher class with a weak team that consists of all benchwarmers. Rock Valley basketball comes to mind. A couple 6' 9" DI players dominate 1A & win with an all senior line-up. The following year, they lose everyone & would have to play in 2A with a team that averaged a few minutes of garbage time the year before. Fair?

At the end of the day, it's still kids playing a game. Why do adults insist on making it more complicated?

HS football isn't ruined because Regina has built a dominant program.

 

[RoundMound1]

This seems like a really complicated way to control any school from becoming a dynasty.

It seems like it would really punish any school that happened to have one outstanding class of athletes. A team could dominate for 2 years, then graduate all their studs, only to find themselves inner a higher class with a weak team that consists of all benchwarmers. Rock Valley basketball comes to mind. A couple 6' 9" DI players dominate 1A & win with an all senior line-up. The following year, they lose everyone & would have to play in 2A with a team that averaged a few minutes of garbage time the year before. Fair?

At the end of the day, it's still kids playing a game. Why do adults insist on making it more complicated?

HS football isn't ruined because Regina has built a dominant program.

Interestingly enough, Rock Valley was up a class the next year anyways due to higher enrollment.

I hear you, that is definitely the biggest argument against that type of a system. You could also argue that a team that is runner-up for two years in a row shouldn't move up a class because they didn't even win it all in the lower class. I'm just throwing out another idea that other states use (Rhode Island and Delaware use similar models to Indiana's).

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

I understand that thought, but I think what you find is that the schools that have sustained excellence (or domination if you will) have inherited advantages similar to private schools and their built in advantages. Besides, to move up a class you would have to either make the state finals two years in a row, or win the state championship and make the semi-finals in consecutive years. If your program is that good, you should move up a class to try your hand at some better competition.

For kicks, here is the list of schools since 2007 that would have moved up a class for 2 years if using the Indiana model. The year given is the year prior to move up, so "2015" means they would move up next year.

Football (didn't count 8-man)
Central Lyon - 2008 2A to 3A
Decorah - 2012 3A to 4A
Gladbrook-Reinbeck - 2015 A to 1A
Heelan - 2008 and 2013 3A to 4A
Kuemper - 2013 2A to 3A
North Fayette - 2015 2A to 3A
North Tama - 2010 A to 1A
Pella - 2015 3A to 4A
Regina - 2011 2A to 3A
Solon - 2007 2A to 3A
Southern Cal - 2008 A to 1A
Spirit Lake - 2012 2A to 3A
St. Albert's - 2007 1A to 2A
West Lyon - 2014 1A to 2A

Basketball
Boyden-Hull - 2013 1A to 2A
Danville - 2010 1A to 2A
Heelan - 2010 3A to 4A
Mt. Pleasant - 2012 3A to 4A
NU High - 2009 1A to 2A
Rock Valley - 2010 1A to 2A
Solon - 2009 2A to 3A
St. Mary's - 2012 1A to 2A
Wahlert - 2015 3A to 4A
Waverly - 2014 3A to 4A
West Fork - 2014 2A to 3A
Western Christian - 2009 2A to 3A

This is a really interesting list. I don't mind if a team wins 3 or 4 in a row, though. Just as long as the classes are even, and competitive. With 3A basketball (and a little bit 2A too), you are starting to see dominance of these private schools who can keep their enrollment down all while recruiting a bunch of quality kids to the school. If you take out the private school factor (in 3A especially), the classes to me have been very balanced, at the top anyway.

 

[cidhawkeye]

I have, as have others in this thread. You are emotionally involved, which is why you can't see reality.

No you haven't and no one in this thread has. Keep dodging. Just asking for facts.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

No you haven't and no one in this thread has. Keep dodging. Just asking for facts.

No matter what overwhelming evidence is given to you, you refuse to see the other side of the argument. You are completely bias and useless to the conversation.

 

[cidhawkeye]

No matter what overwhelming evidence is given to you, you refuse to see the other side of the argument. You are completely bias and useless to the conversation.

You crack me up with your deflection, there hasn't been any evidence that proves that a straight multiplier works. Continue to avoid providing any proof, you are pretty good at it.

FYI it would be 'You are completely biased' keep up the stellar efforts.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

You crack me up with your deflection, there hasn't been any evidence that proves that a straight multiplier works. Continue to avoid providing any proof, you are pretty good at it.

FYI it would be 'You are completely biased' keep up the stellar efforts.

And the last stage of defeat, resorting to grammar.

If anyone else, maybe one with an actual solution, wants to discuss this topic, I'm game anytime.

 

[cidhawkeye]

And the last stage of defeat, resorting to grammar.

If anyone else, maybe one with an actual solution, wants to discuss this topic, I'm game anytime.

Perhaps supporting your original premise would help the process. So far I have demonstrated far more actual knowledge and discussed both sides of the issues but you falter when asked to present those pesky facts to support your position.

 

[cidhawkeye]

In simpler terms I am still waiting for you to provide any semblance of proof supporting your desire for a multiplier.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

Perhaps supporting your original premise would help the process. So far I have demonstrated far more actual knowledge and discussed both sides of the issues but you falter when asked to present those pesky facts to support your position.

Lol

 

[cidhawkeye]

Lol

I know, knowing how many states have the multiplier you have asked for, knowing whether it has worked or not is a crazy concept for you. Let me know if you choose to present any facts to support your cause.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

I know, knowing how many states have the multiplier you have asked for, knowing whether it has worked or not is a crazy concept for you. Let me know if you choose to present any facts to support your cause.

 

[cidhawkeye]

You don't have anything, I think that has been established.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

You don't have anything, I think that has been established.

You need to learn better debating techniques. Everyone else involved in this convo has looked at both sides and given/taken a little on their position. All you have done in the entire discussion is nit-pick and complain. You never even gave looking at the problem a chance. Once the conversation came up, you immediately thought of your own personal bias, and how the change would effect you personally.

I am interested in conversing with users about the pros and cons of going to a multiplier, reverse multiplier, or separate divisions. Not someone like you who would be personally effected by the change. You've shown, by completely ignoring all evidence to the case, that you are more concerned with what helps you than with what is fair.

 

[cidhawkeye]

You need to learn better debating techniques. Everyone else involved in this convo has looked at both sides and given/taken a little on their position. All you have done in the entire discussion is nit-pick and complain. You never even gave looking at the problem a chance. Once the conversation came up, you immediately thought of your own personal bias, and how the change would effect you personally.

I am interested in conversing with users about the pros and cons of going to a multiplier, reverse multiplier, or separate divisions. Not someone like you who would be personally effected by the change. You've shown, by completely ignoring all evidence to the case, that you are more concerned with what helps you than with what is fair.

Finally a little more than an emoji, I won't personally be impacted by whether there is a multiplier or not, my youngest child will be long gone before any multiplier is put in place. I have looked at and broken down the pro's and cons of multiple forms of multipliers. I have asked one simple question of you which you resist answering. If you could show me your evidence that the multiplier that you are requesting has worked.

If you would like to get into a discussion on other forms of multipliers I would like that, you have shown little to no inclination to present any information about any of those situations. You linked one article that actually wasn't favorable to your 'put a multiplier on all private schools' approach. I have studied the Minnesota multiplier and I am intrigued on how that would work in a more rural state like Iowa, I have studied the success multipliers in multiple states and tried to apply them to the situation that would be similar to Iowa's. I am fairly certain you have done little to none of that research. It is difficult to 'debate' a situation when one of the people involved fails to substantiate their point or presents little to no information to the discussion.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

Finally a little more than an emoji, I won't personally be impacted by whether there is a multiplier or not, my youngest child will be long gone before any multiplier is put in place. I have looked at and broken down the pro's and cons of multiple forms of multipliers. I have asked one simple question of you which you resist answering. If you could show me your evidence that the multiplier that you are requesting has worked.

If you would like to get into a discussion on other forms of multipliers I would like that, you have shown little to no inclination to present any information about any of those situations. You linked one article that actually wasn't favorable to your 'put a multiplier on all private schools' approach. I have studied the Minnesota multiplier and I am intrigued on how that would work in a more rural state like Iowa, I have studied the success multipliers in multiple states and tried to apply them to the situation that would be similar to Iowa's. I am fairly certain you have done little to none of that research. It is difficult to 'debate' a situation when one of the people involved fails to substantiate their point or presents little to no information to the discussion.

I've done plenty of research, and in no way did I suggest that a straight multiplier was the only way to go. I would be thrilled if we just adopted Minnesota's reverse multiplier strategy. I'm not suggesting any specific type of multiplier, I just realize something should be done.

 

[cidhawkeye]

I've done plenty of research, and in no way did I suggest that a straight multiplier was the only way to go. I would be thrilled if we just adopted Minnesota's reverse multiplier strategy. I'm not suggesting any specific type of multiplier, I just realize something should be done.

I like what Minnesota has done. Have you seen any changes in the success levels of private schools there?

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

I like what Minnesota has done. Have you seen any changes in the success levels of private schools there?

I don't care if there is a change in levels of private school success. If Xaiver and Wahlert go on and dominate 4A, and Western Christian wins 3A titles, that would be perfectly fine by me.

 

[cidhawkeye]

I don't care if there is a change in levels of private school success. If Xaiver and Wahlert go on and dominate 4A, and Western Christian wins 3A titles, that would be perfectly fine by me.

I guess I was asking in your tons of research on a state like Minnesota if you had come across any information on whether it had an impact on competitive balance or not.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

I guess I was asking in your tons of research on a state like Minnesota if you had come across any information on whether it had an impact on competitive balance or not.

So, what, do you want me to go through every single state that has a multiplier and lay out for you the success rates? Even in the few states it where it didn't change the percentage of private school championships, it was a success because public schools with 200ish eligible athletes were playing private schools with 200ish eligible athletes. Anyone with any common sense knows there would be a change in Iowa if most private schools were up a class. You'd have to be completely blind to deny that.

Here is a pretty good study on the subject. They give one example of when the private school percentage stayed the same (Missouri) and one where it went down (Tennessee). It also has a cool little table where you can see the number of IHSAA (and other state association) members and the number of private schools. (According to the study, Iowa has 333 public schools and 40 private schools)

http://www.jamsport.org/Johnsonetal2015 JAS PDF.pdf

 

[cidhawkeye]

So, what, do you want me to go through every single state that has a multiplier and lay out for you the success rates? Even in the few states it where it didn't change the percentage of private school championships, it was a success because public schools with 200ish eligible athletes were playing private schools with 200ish eligible athletes. Anyone with any common sense knows there would be a change in Iowa if most private schools were up a class. You'd have to be completely blind to deny that.

Here is a pretty good study on the subject. They give one example of when the private school percentage stayed the same (Missouri) and one where it went down (Tennessee). It also has a cool little table where you can see the number of IHSAA (and other state association) members and the number of private schools. (According to the study, Iowa has 333 public schools and 40 private schools)

http://www.jamsport.org/Johnsonetal2015 JAS PDF.pdf

Sorry I asked about one state that you said you would like to adopt their system and you had done a lot of research on. I figured you would have had some reason or result that would make you happy to adopt it.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

Sorry I asked about one state that you said you would like to adopt their system and you had done a lot of research on. I figured you would have had some reason or result that would make you happy to adopt it.

Is your entire strategy in this to be condescending? Why do you even keep replying if you don't want to have the conversation?

 

[cidhawkeye]

Is your entire strategy in this to be condescending? Why do you even keep replying if you don't want to have the conversation?

It's really difficult not to be condescending when having a discussion with someone like you. You are doing a phenomenal job of trolling and getting me to respond. Several other posters shared some facts about the situation we are discussing and soon realized that you really won't contribute anything of substance to the conversation and have left the conversation. I guess I am a little more stubborn than that. So far in this thread you have been incorrect in your assertion that 'many states have gone to a mutliplier' and quickly changed it to 'half the states have talked about it' you have had some pearls of wisdom such as 'privates win just because they are privates' 'no disadvantages to being a private school'(vote on any bond issues to finance a private school lately?) 'okay with any alternative as long as privates get bumped up' 'privates control their enrollment for athletics' the list could go on, I have asked two questions you have failed to answer provide any facts to support that your quest for a private multiplier, you deflect that one with 'emotion' and 'bias' , you then claim to have done a lot of research on multipliers and like what Minnesota is doing and want it in Iowa(even though it doesn't automatically bump up privates like you said previously) and I ask the second question about what you have found in the research in one state and you into your 'look up all the states' routine. So yes I am condescending to someone like you who brings little to no information to this thread. I will have to tip my hat to you as you are one of the better trolls out there and I am certain Luke likes the traffic and hits that you have caused to the site. I however will need to sit out until people decide to actually discuss the merits of multipliers, success, private, socio economic etc. I can't continue to discuss someone who will just shoot of a "I want this" with no rhyme or reason other than a personal bias against private schools or their success. So good luck to you, next time I will realize your tactics sooner, stop providing facts and just let you be wrong and mind my own business.

 

[NeverReadTheTermsOfService]

It's really difficult not to be condescending when having a discussion with someone like you. You are doing a phenomenal job of trolling and getting me to respond. Several other posters shared some facts about the situation we are discussing and soon realized that you really won't contribute anything of substance to the conversation and have left the conversation. I guess I am a little more stubborn than that. So far in this thread you have been incorrect in your assertion that 'many states have gone to a mutliplier' and quickly changed it to 'half the states have talked about it' you have had some pearls of wisdom such as 'privates win just because they are privates' 'no disadvantages to being a private school'(vote on any bond issues to finance a private school lately?) 'okay with any alternative as long as privates get bumped up' 'privates control their enrollment for athletics' the list could go on, I have asked two questions you have failed to answer provide any facts to support that your quest for a private multiplier, you deflect that one with 'emotion' and 'bias' , you then claim to have done a lot of research on multipliers and like what Minnesota is doing and want it in Iowa(even though it doesn't automatically bump up privates like you said previously) and I ask the second question about what you have found in the research in one state and you into your 'look up all the states' routine. So yes I am condescending to someone like you who brings little to no information to this thread. I will have to tip my hat to you as you are one of the better trolls out there and I am certain Luke likes the traffic and hits that you have caused to the site. I however will need to sit out until people decide to actually discuss the merits of multipliers, success, private, socio economic etc. I can't continue to discuss someone who will just shoot of a "I want this" with no rhyme or reason other than a personal bias against private schools or their success. So good luck to you, next time I will realize your tactics sooner, stop providing facts and just let you be wrong and mind my own business.

My position has been pretty simple actually.

1. Privates schools have a disproportionate number of participating athletes than public schools, because of many different reasons, one being recruiting.

2. Private schools make up a disproportionate number of the state tournament teams, mostly due to these built in advantages.

3. There should be some sort of a multiplier/reverse multiplier, whatever works, to make the playing field more even.

I'm not "trolling" I'm creating discussion. You, admittedly, have a bias because your kid plays for one of the private schools, I'm guessing a successful one that has enjoyed the advantages of beating up on public schools, who have no realistic chance over the long run of being better than a school full of recruited athletes.

Perhaps understandably, since you are personally effected, you get easily offended when the subject comes up (that, and you seem to be an easily offended person, judging by other posts you've made on the boards). So while the rest of us are sharing ideas, you are just taking shots of "That doesn't work! Where has that ever worked! Give me full proof that it works! That's right! You can't! HAHA!"

Your pouting and nitpicking is ruining the conversation, so I'm glad you are excusing yourself from it. Perhaps you should excuse yourself from any online conversation, as it appears you have serious anger issues.