Everyone should live by the multiplier... (RRSTAR article)

Thoughts?

http://www.rrstar.com/sports/20181108/everybody-should-live-by-multiplier

I think that most small school communities who have had the same kids for years (in most cases) see a lot of private schools as club teams assembled to win state championships (I know not all are). Especially when you factor in Lena's experiences with Aurora Christian in wrestling (no team at all to state champs in 2 years using leftover mercenaries from Montini), I can see where he's coming from.

It is ridiculous that you can be in a 3A championship and play in 1A not very long afterward without really much dip in enrollment.

Do away with the waiver and the success factor penalty, especially since the latter only applies to the 20% or so schools which are private.

Very interesting timing of these comments by that Le-Win coach. If his team beats AC in this quarterfinal, then that will totally render as moot his pregame whining about AC and private schools. He will look like a fool, and people like me will say that AC belongs in 1A because they couldn't even make it to the semis, much less the finals, much less win the 1A title. If AC beats his team, then he will likely whine that "I told you so," and his school community, eager to place blame on an expedient external scapegoat rather than look inward, will gobble up his anti-private school claptrap. To others, he will look like he was already whining about a loss that he knew was going to happen.

Ric Arand is a heck of a good coach. I don't think he has ever had a losing season and only has missed the playoffs once. With that being said, I don't feel sorry for him as he has 2 D-1 players (one of which is FBS) on his 1a football team.

So it's not exactly David vs. Goliath here...

ramblinman wrote:Very interesting timing of these comments by that Le-Win coach. If his team beats AC in this quarterfinal, then that  will totally render as moot his pregame whining about AC and private schools. He will look like a fool, and people like me will say that AC belongs in 1A because they couldn't even make it to the semis, much less the finals, much less win the 1A title. If AC beats his team, then he will likely whine that "I told you so," and his school community, eager to place blame on an expedient external scapegoat rather than look inward, will gobble up his anti-private school claptrap. To others, he will look like he was already whining about a loss that he knew was going to happen.

Why are they interesting? A reporter probably asked him a question and he answered it. You're trying to make it sound like he went out of his way to make these comments.

What “everyone”?

Define that term in this discussion.

If I say “everyone should live by the success formula”, I mean everyone as it is defined in a dictionary.

Head Idiot wrote:Why are they interesting?  A reporter probably asked him a question and he answered it.  You're trying to make it sound like he went out of his way to make these comments.  

Reporter: "Coach, what do you think about Aurora Christian playing in 1A and not in a higher class?"

Coach: See his answer in the RR Star.

Reporter: "Coach, what do you know about your next opponent?"

Coach: "They are one dimensional and predictable because their QB has such a weak arm that he couldn't throw a ball through a wet paper bag if he tried."

Simply because you are asked a question doesn't mean that you are obliged to reply without a filter. I completely understand that this goes against your grain.

ramblinman wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:Why are they interesting?  A reporter probably asked him a question and he answered it.  You're trying to make it sound like he went out of his way to make these comments.  

Reporter:  "Coach, what do you think about Aurora Christian playing in 1A and not in a higher class?"

Coach:  See his answer in the RR Star.

Reporter:  "Coach, what do you know about your next opponent?"

Coach:  "They are one dimensional and predictable because their QB has such a weak arm that he couldn't throw a ball through a wet paper bag if he tried."

Simply because you are asked a question doesn't mean that you are obliged to reply without a filter.  I completely understand that this goes against your grain.

\"f\"ing off.

If this wasn’t one of your precious Chicagoland Catholic schools, you wouldn’t give 2 shits what he said.

Head Idiot wrote:If this wasn’t one of your precious Chicagoland Catholic schools, you wouldn’t give 2 shits what he said.

You are wrong on three counts.

1. Aurora Christian is not a Catholic school.
2. Aurora Christian is not precious to me.
3. I would give a shit regardless of whether he was referring to AC or any private school.

Have a nice day.

ramblinman wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:If this wasn’t one of your precious Chicagoland Catholic schools, you wouldn’t give 2 shits what he said.

You are wrong on three counts.

1.  Aurora Christian is not a Catholic school.
2.  Aurora Christian is not precious to me.
3.  I would give a shit regardless of whether he was referring to AC or any private school.

Have a nice day.

I will. You too.

How about a Success Factor for ALL teams with an addendum for lack of success for ALL teams to be able to drop a class?

newcom-- there you go again making too much sense. My only addendum is to say either the multiplier or the success factor, but not both. My preference would be only the success factor just as you described.

As a society we should not accept or reward mediocrity and we should not punish success but that seems to be the way things are going.

How about just using the schools enrollment and basing their class on that? If you aren't good then you are simply not good. You should never be rewarded for being bad at something.

I think a success factor or a lack of success factor is bad. If a school wants better competition they can petition to play up, if not why should they be punished for being good at something? It's just like the smart kids in school. Some of them want to take weighted classes to help prepare them for college.

With a lack of success factor, what would stop a 3A/4A school who knows they have a few weak athletic groups coming up from tanking in order to drop down to 2A/3A in order to get to the playoffs or win a championship? It like the kids who take the lower level classes and get straight As but complain when they aren't in the top of the class because they didn't challenge themselves.

As for the multiplier, get rid of the multiplier but add in population density within radius of the school to set the schools enrolllment. IC draws from 100,000 people while Breese Mater Dei dras from 10,000 people.

dusty, I was with you up until the population thing. BMD is the only private school option in their area. Unlike BMD, IC's recruitment area is shared with numerous other private schools (Montini, Timothy Christian, Fenwick, Trinity, Benet, Wheaton St Francis, Nazareth, St Joseph, etc. Are you going to bump up a school like St Joseph in Westchester simply because they are in a high density population area? Playing as an unmultiplied school, St Joe lost the only playoff game they ever played.

ramblinman wrote:dusty, I was with you up until the population thing.  BMD is the only private school option in their area.  Unlike BMD, IC's recruitment area is shared with numerous other private schools (Montini, Timothy Christian, Fenwick, Trinity, Benet, Wheaton St Francis, Nazareth, St Joseph, etc.   Are you going to bump up a school like St Joseph in Westchester simply because they are in a high density population area?  Playing as an unmultiplied school, St Joe lost the only playoff game they ever played.

That is an issue but I think it is a bit negated due to the ability to recruit. St. Joseph Westchester played as an unmultiplied school is the same as them playing as a multiplied school and losing in the first round. They still found a way to get to the playoffs. Maybe if they did a better job of selling their school's athletic and academic programs they would get more quality student athletes to attend their school and be more competitive. Montini, Nazareth, and IC don't seem to have a problem getting athletes to go to their schools and they are drawing from the same population.

Let's draw names out of a hat for the 8 classes

You are basing your argument on private schools' ABILITY to recruit. If the ability to recruit equated to athletic success, then ALL private schools would be successful.

Those private schools that do a good job of recruiting typically do have success. I never said all are successful but those that aren't need to do a better job of recruiting kids to attend their school.

Just because a team isn't good at something doesn't mean the rules should change to accommodate those aren't good. Kids on my bball team struggle with free throws should I petition to move the line closer to the basket? No, I need to coach the kids up and they need to work at getting better at free throws. If a weak private school has the ability to recruit and athletes don't attend that school then they need to work harder to get students to enroll.

Changing the system to accommodate a few doesn't make sense to me.

You are the one advocating to change the system and base it on population. You seem to think that only a few private schools aren't successful and that it's okay to lump them all together. I couldn't disagree more.

All I'm saying is that a private school who isn't good at a sport needs to work harder in order to get students to attend that school. Why allow them to play down a class just becuase kids don't want to go to their school.

Just another public vs private debate.   Message board posters will never agree which is what makes it fun.

Either way, a success factor or lack of success factor is a terrible idea in my opinion.

I believe every Successful public or private school in some form or another are recruiting, being it through club play, travel teams etc...
If you do not think this is happening I have some land in the Gulf Coast I can sell you at a very discounted price.

newcom wrote:I believe every Successful public or private school in some form or another are recruiting, being it through club play, travel teams etc...
If you do not think this is happening I have some land in the Gulf Coast I can sell you at a very discounted price.

I don't know about that. There's several teams in the area that were still playing last weekend that aren't recruiting- Argenta Oreana, Tuscola, Taylorville, Central A&M. Heck, I think that even Maroa's been mostly lifelong Maroa kids for a while now.

A few points...

I certainly agree that if there is a rule in place to reclassify teams based on overwhelming success in the recent past, it should apply to all.

Success in the recent past is likely the best recruiting tool.

Not all private schools are created equal. Some have a much higher ceiling than others (and their similary sized public counterparts). Population density is a main factor in that.

The current multiplier/waiver/success factor deal seems to be working fairly well. Even if there turns out to be 4 or 5 private champs, I don’t foresee any of them breezing through their respective class unchallenged.