Ramblins Proposal (kind of)

I also know that success breeds success. I know of good players at such schools as Williamsville and Springfield High who have transferred to Rochester. There are also Springfield area kids playing football and before they enter High School they have already made up their minds to play for SHG. They are the two most successful football programs in Central Illinois.

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:Enrollment is not a flawed system for the public schools,  schools within an enrollment range play each other in the playoffs, its perfectly fair and the way it should be.. your total lack of understanding of how the system works away from the private schools, where recruiting does happen, makes you see things incorrectly.. punishing public schools for being successful is just ignorant when they are drawing from a comparable number of students..

You really need to stop thinking in terms of punishing a school for moving up. All that says to me is that your infatuation with enrollment based classification, and in having the ability to discriminate against the types of schools you dislike within that system, is blinding you to other possibilities. You are looking at any other classification ideas through the lens of the old system.

Answer these questions as if you were creating the very first playoff classification system: How is it punishing a school to classify it into a class with schools that have been similarly competitive during the regular season? Which is more meaningful in determining a state champion, running the playoff table in a field of similarly sized schools, or running the playoff table in a field of similarly competitive schools?

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:why should you guys be bumped into 4A because Reents and Co works their asses off and have built an outstanding program? How is that fair to your kids?

How is it fair to the kids in the bottom 25% of the current 8A field who don't have a realistic shot of winning against the top 25% of the 6A field, much less 7A?   What is it about striving to achieve more evenly balanced classes that produces such a visceral negative reaction from you?

ramblinman wrote:

HHSTigerFan2 wrote:why should you guys be bumped into 4A because Reents and Co works their asses off and have built an outstanding program? How is that fair to your kids?

How is it fair to the kids in the bottom 25% of the current 8A field who don't have a realistic shot of winning against the top 25% of the 6A field, much less 7A?   What is it about striving to achieve more evenly balanced classes that produces such a visceral negative reaction from you?

I don’t think I want to see the IHSA try to make 32 team classes in which the whole thing is competitive throughout, basically because I believe it’s impossible, and the resulting effect would cause bigger issues than we currently face.

Remove CPS and your blowout rate drops dramatically. I'm not against a team getting bumped up a class but how exactly do you determine that?

Simply going 9-0 means nothing. Your strength of schedule means something but that is really tough to measure in closed conferences or if you only play 1 or 2 non-con games. An RPI rating could be used but if you look at my new proposal there are obvious problems relying solely on an RPI or Power Rating. Way too many 20+ seeds winning multiple games and when using a simulation like Massey, that illustrates a flaw with that type of system and seeding based on a RPI type rating.

Doctor D wrote:I don’t think I want to see the IHSA try to make 32 team classes in which the whole thing is competitive throughout, basically because I believe it’s impossible, and the resulting effect would cause bigger issues than we currently face.  

You believe it's impossible, so we shouldn't do it? The exercise here is not to make perfectly competitive classes. I agree; that would be impossible. I do, however, think it is possible to create classes that are more evenly balanced top to bottom than what we have now.

How do you know that the resulting effect would cause bigger issues than we currently face? I agree that there might be some tradeoffs, but I'm not certain that the negative value and frequency of those tradeoffs would be more trouble than they are worth.

dusty7 wrote:Remove CPS and your blowout rate drops dramatically.  I'm not against a team getting bumped up a class but how exactly do you determine that?  

Simply going 9-0 means nothing. Your strength of schedule means something but that is really tough to measure in closed conferences or if you only play 1 or 2 non-con games.  An RPI rating could be used but if you look at my new proposal there are obvious problems relying solely on an RPI or Power Rating.  Way too many 20+ seeds winning multiple games and when using a simulation like Massey, that illustrates a flaw with that type of system and seeding based on a RPI type rating.    

34% of the 248 games were decided by margins of 30 points or more.  Remove the CPL teams (how do you do that, btw?), and the percentage drops to 27%  A drop of seven percentage points from 34% is a 21% drop.  What's your point? What if we could change that 34% to 20% through more appropriate classification? Might that be worth a few new problems with outliers?

How exactly do you determine a team getting bumped?  First of all, there is no bump.  The new system would be the new system that would use success metrics as the primary means of classifying and enrollment and/or the enrollment of your schools defeated, as influencers, not as the basis.  The assumption would be that the schools are where they belong.  But, I know what you are getting at and the problem with that line of thinking is that it is focused on the current system.  Once you move to the new system, what good does it do to focus on the old one?  

Yes, there are problems with your proposal, but I think that they would likely be substantially fixed with changing the weighting you used in your formula.  There will always be outliers and there will always be scenarios that might cause you to scratch your head.  I think, though, if you keep in mind the ultimate goal of creating more evenly balanced classes, then all that really matters is if the juice is worth the squeeze.

ramblinman wrote:

dusty7 wrote:Remove CPS and your blowout rate drops dramatically.  I'm not against a team getting bumped up a class but how exactly do you determine that?  

Simply going 9-0 means nothing. Your strength of schedule means something but that is really tough to measure in closed conferences or if you only play 1 or 2 non-con games.  An RPI rating could be used but if you look at my new proposal there are obvious problems relying solely on an RPI or Power Rating.  Way too many 20+ seeds winning multiple games and when using a simulation like Massey, that illustrates a flaw with that type of system and seeding based on a RPI type rating.    

34% of the 248 games were decided by margins of 30 points or more.  Remove the CPL teams (how do you do that, btw?), and the percentage drops to 27%  A drop of seven percentage points from 34% is a 21% drop.  What's your point?   What if we could change that 34% to 20% through more appropriate classification?  Might that be worth a few new problems with outliers?  

How exactly do you determine a team getting bumped?  First of all, there is no bump.  The new system would be the new system that would use success metrics as the primary means of classifying and enrollment and/or the enrollment of your schools defeated, as influencers, not as the basis.  The assumption would be that the schools are where they belong.  But, I know what you are getting at and the problem with that line of thinking is that it is focused on the current system.  Once you move to the new system, what good does it do to focus on the old one?  

Yes, there are problems with your proposal, but I think that they would likely be substantially fixed with changing the weighting you used in your formula.  There will always be outliers and there will always be scenarios that might cause you to scratch your head.  I think, though, if you keep in mind the ultimate goal of creating more evenly balanced classes, then all that really matters is if the juice is worth the squeeze.

I have no idea how you remove CPS but with your goal being to eliminate lopsided games that is one option. It is a small percentage of games because those are all games in the 1st round. No matter what you do there are going to be blowouts in the 1st round and in many cases the 2nd round as well.

Wasn't the old "football enrollment" the goal of creating classes based on who you played rather than your enrollment? Why was this system scrapped?

Enrollment isn't the only basis for the success of a program but it is one of, if not the biggest influence, in the success in every sport. Yes, you get great small school programs and terrible large school programs. For the large schools, they never get to the postseason so it doesn't bother them what you do to determine playoff classes. But the good small-school programs are being forced to play in a supposedly "more competitive" bracket but that larger school (in some cases much larger) get to be in a "less competitive" bracket because they proved throughout the season that they cannot compete in
the "more competitive" bracket.

I think we all get what you are saying and it makes sense but most will look at it and see it as unfair to the smaller schools. Can some smaller programs compete with programs 2 or 3 classes larger, absolutely? But the more important question is can they compete with the mid to upper-tier programs in those classes and the answer is a few but not on a consistent basis. That is the challenge. One nice thing about the current system is that most schools know what class they will be in August other than a few of the cuspers who are in between classes.

Base the system of classes on a year to year basis, it would create a lot of volatility year to year. Use a 2 year cycle, then you create even more of a mess. For example, let's say Byron who won 3A this year, barely won their Quarter and Semi games, and they are playing in 5A. What if they had a great group of seniors and have a weak junior and sophomore class. They work hard, compete, and get in the playoffs at 5-4, but have to play in 5A, they don't stand a chance and in turn, kids decide that they don't want to play for a team that loses, and their participation numbers go down. This is the biggest issues with bumping teams up. Take the opposite, a team like Lockport this year, they had a weak group of varsity players a few years ago, so they would be playing down a class (or even 2) and then they get a strong group like they have this year. I am all for a success factor because I do not think it will be of much use for public programs given the state of football today.

Also, if you go away from an enrollment-based class system for football, you have to do it for every sport. There has to be some continuity between sports in how the post-season is determined. Maybe we should just use the Regional/Sectional system for football?

dusty7 wrote:I have no idea how you remove CPS but with your goal being to eliminate lopsided games that is one option.  It is a small percentage of games because those are all games in the 1st round.  No matter what you do there are going to be blowouts in the 1st round and in many cases the 2nd round as well.  

It really isn't an option unless the CPL says it wants to make only certain of its conferences eligible for the playoffs as it has in the past.

dusty7 wrote:Wasn't the old "football enrollment" the goal of creating classes based on who you played rather than your enrollment?  Why was this system scrapped?

Yes, it was based on who you played. I think that enrollment concept could be taken one step further and looked at from a standpoint of both who you played and who you beat. FBE was instituted to address schools like Mac and St. T winning more than their "fair share" of titles way back when and forcing them to play up. Keep in mind that was back when there were 5 and 6 classes. When the IHSA instituted the multiplier, it found a more effective way to punish all private schools, and so it rolled back the FBE (which was applied to all schools).

dusty7 wrote:Enrollment isn't the only basis for the success of a program but it is one of, if not the biggest influence, in the success in every sport.  Yes, you get great small school programs and terrible large school programs. For the large schools, they never get to the postseason so it doesn't bother them what you do to determine playoff classes. But the good small-school programs are being forced to play in a supposedly "more competitive" bracket but that larger school (in some cases much larger) get to be in a "less competitive" bracket because they proved throughout the season that they cannot compete in the "more competitive" bracket.  

And won't it feel so sweet when the good small school beats the average larger school in the playoffs? If the system is working correctly, the larger and smaller schools that you mention will be close to each other competitively. That doesn't necessarily follow that the larger school would have an advantage. I can think of many instances, and I suspect you can too, where the good smaller schools have better coaching, larger varsity squads, and larger overall programs than the average larger school.

dusty7 wrote:I think we all get what you are saying and it makes sense but most will look at it and see it as unfair to the smaller schools. Can some smaller programs compete with programs 2 or 3 classes larger, absolutely?  But the more important question is can they compete with the mid to upper-tier programs in those classes and the answer is a few but not on a consistent basis.

I disagree. Larger does not necessarily mean better or more competitive. Keep in mind that many/most of those mid to upper tier programs that you mention will themselves be placed in a more competitive class. For example, and talking very basically here, take four 9-0 1A schools that would be a seeded 1-4 in 1A. If those four schools move up to 2A, then the top four seeds in 2A are moving to 3A and the bottom four seeds in 3A move down to 2A and the bottom four schools from 2A move down to 1A. It would be likely that the top four 1A schools would play a first round game vs. the four bottom 3A schools that moved down. Will the "most" who will think it is unfair feel the same way after those small schools beat the larger schools? Or would the "most" think it is unfair because the good small schools only beat the average larger ones by two scores instead of five?

dusty7 wrote:Base the system of classes on a year to year basis, it would create a lot of volatility year to year.  Use a 2 year cycle, then you create even more of a mess.  For example, let's say Byron who won 3A this year, barely won their Quarter and Semi games, and they are playing in 5A.  What if they had a great group of seniors and have a weak junior and sophomore class. They work hard, compete, and get in the playoffs at 5-4, but have to play in 5A, they don't stand a chance and in turn, kids decide that they don't want to play for a team that loses, and their participation numbers go down.

Except that Byron got into the playoffs at 9-0. Why would you have a 5-4 team playing up two classes?

dusty7 wrote:Also, if you go away from an enrollment-based class system for football, you have to do it for every sport. There has to be some continuity between sports in how the post-season is determined.  

I disagree. I suspect that there are other state high school athletic associations that have a success metric influenced or based classification system for football and enrollment based classification for other sports. Unlike all other sports, not all schools qualify for football playoffs. That right there says that schools recognize football as being unique.

ramblinman wrote:

I disagree.  Larger does not necessarily mean better or more competitive.  Keep in mind that many/most of those mid to upper tier programs that you mention will themselves be placed in a more competitive class.  For example, and talking very basically here, take four 9-0 1A schools that would be a seeded 1-4 in 1A.  If those four schools move up to 2A, then the top four seeds in 2A are moving to 3A and the bottom four seeds in 3A move down to 2A and the bottom four schools from 2A move down to 1A.  It would be likely that the top four 1A schools would play a first round game vs. the four bottom 3A schools that moved down.  Will the "most" who will think it is unfair feel the same way after those small schools beat the larger schools?  Or would the "most" think it is unfair because the good small schools only beat the average larger ones by two scores instead of five?

9-0 doesn't mean a damn thing.  It is about the strength of the schedule and how do you measure that?

This years finals, 10/16 teams had a loss with 4 of those having 2 losses.   In 1A, the #1 seed lost 51-12 to a 13 seed but you are saying bump that team, who couldn't beat a #13 seed in 1A up to 3A? In 2A, Pana was 9-0 and got beat by Nashville, a #6 seed 42-19, and they should be bumped up  classes? They can't even compete in their class and now bump them up for the sake of making 2A more competitive? Also, look at teams in 5A, 6A, and 7A, that play very difficult schedules, Nazareth and Marmion would have been in 4A. Yeah, that Nazareth vs. Stillman Valley will be very close or Marmion vs. Murphysboro, that will be a nail biter as well.  I think you may be losing sight that you are losing the top 4 teams in each class, who could compete with those teams (Rochester, SHG, JCA, and Richmond Burton) but there are not many 4A's that could compete with Naz or Marmion.  Hell, imagine if Loyola had a rough year, didn't petition up, and played in 6A? Wouldn't be challenged until ESL and Cary Grove.  

You think a lot of states don't use enrollment? Take the time and research how other states classify their football playoffs.  I'd be interested to see how they do it and it would improve our system.

Alos, how do you suggest we measure Strength of Schedule?

I have many problems with all this, but the biggest one is how to determine team “rankings” and classification without using enrollment.

dusty7 wrote:9-0 doesn't mean a damn thing.  It is about the strength of the schedule and how do you measure that?

Well, the IHSA already does its seeding based on record and opponents wins, right?  So that's one way.  If 9-0 doesn't mean squat, then take regular season records out of the formula.  Just go by straight SOS factors.  An additional SOS factor to be considered could be enrollment.  Wins against schools that are playoff qualifiers count for a certain number of SOS factor points.  Losses against non playoff qualifiers result in deductions of SOS factor points depending on the size of the non-playoff qualifier.  You could even vary the SOS factor points awarded based on if the wins over playoff qualifiers were against schools that are larger or smaller.  I think if you put your mind to it, there would be several other ways to measure SOS.

dusty7 wrote:You think a lot of states don't use enrollment? Take the time and research how other states classify their football playoffs.  I'd be interested to see how they do it and it would improve our system.

I didn't say that I thought a lot of states don't use enrollment.  What I said was that I thought that there likely are states that use enrollment to classify all sports except football and use a different classification system for football.  That was in response to your statement that we would have to change the classification for all sports if we change it for football.

As for your Pana example, I don't know for sure that they would be bumped up from 2A to 3A.  Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.  Remember, I said that the example I was providing was very basic.  Even if Pana would be bumped up, who's to say that they wouldn't have gotten just as far in 3A as they got in 2A this year (a quarterfinal loss)?  Pana had no problems playing and beating Carlinville, Southwestern, and Greenville (all 3A playoff qualifiers) during the regular season.  One of those three advanced to the second round of 3A this year.

Doctor D wrote:I have many problems with all this, but the biggest one is how to determine team “rankings” and classification without using enrollment.  

I hear you, and I think that enrollment probably would have to be used as one of several classification factors.

http://calpreps.com/2021/ratings/Illinois_all.htm

Here are the Calpreps state rankings, regardless of class. Throwing enrollment out the window, some 8A first round matchups would include Byron vs Nequa Valley and Wilmington @ Maine South. These may not be the exact same rankings as week 9, but you get the point.

ramblinman wrote:

Doctor D wrote:I have many problems with all this, but the biggest one is how to determine team “rankings” and classification without using enrollment.  

I hear you, and I think that enrollment probably would have to be used as one of several classification factors.

If there is a formula that can *accurately* measure strength of schedule, along with record and enrollment to come up with a realistic power ranking, then I’d be very interested to see the results.
I don’t trust what Calpreps came up with, and Massey isn’t much better.

I don't mean 9-0 doesn't mean anything but more often than not the best team in the bracket is not always a 9-0 team.

Michigan uses a points system and you get a certain number of points for beating schools in different classes but their classes are set up based on enrollment. You get 80 points for class 8A, 70 for 7A, and on down. This is used for SOS purposes, is it the best, no but it also is not any better than our system.

Finding SOS would be a difficult task due to the wide area, range in population, and economic differences across the state. I know this is getting into the North/South debate but the quality off football in the burbs is simply better than down south, especially so when you get south of I-I-70. The quality of opponents in the North vs. the South can be very different and there is no true way to identify the difference when teams are 300 miles away from each other.

I think the IHSA should put more emphasis on the DEFEATED OPPONENTS WINS rather than the opponent's wins. Defeated opponent's wins is a better metric to measure the quality of a team. Lots of teams get 5 or 6 wins but they do so by beating mediocre teams.

dusty7 wrote:I think the IHSA should put more emphasis on the DEFEATED OPPONENTS WINS rather than the opponent's wins.  Defeated opponent's wins is a better metric to measure the quality of a team.  Lots of teams get 5 or 6 wins but they do so by beating mediocre teams.

I like it! This is what I meant when I said you can come up with various ways to determine SOS if you put your mind to it.

Took a look at Florida and how they determine their classes.

They use enrollment on a 2 year cycle but have a Rural designation for some schools in 1A. For these school they can have up to 600 kids whole the non rural designation is only up to 380. I kind of like that idea for Illinois but the opposite. Attach an Urban designation to schools like IC to play in at least 3A so we don't get a situation like this year where they would have been 2A or even 1A.

dusty7 wrote:Took a look at Florida and how they determine their classes.  

They use enrollment on a 2 year cycle but have a Rural designation for some schools in 1A.  For these school they can have up to 600 kids whole the non rural designation is only up to 380.  I kind of like that idea for Illinois but the opposite.  Attach an Urban designation to schools like IC to play in at least 3A so we don't get a situation like this year where they would have been 2A or even 1A.  

Schools like IC? At least 3A? The same IC that couldn't get past the semis the last two playoffs (3A and 4A) where they lost to rural schools? The same IC that hasn't won a title since 2017?

I'm not saying that IC doesn't belong competitively in a class or two above their actual enrollment. All I am saying is that moving schools up because they are extraordinarily successful should apply to ALL schools that are extraordinarily successful...not just private schools and not just urban ones.

[quote="ramblinman"]

dusty7 wrote:Took a look at Florida and how they determine their classes.  

They use enrollment on a 2 year cycle but have a Rural designation for some schools in 1A.  For these school they can have up to 600 kids whole the non rural designation is only up to 380.  I kind of like that idea for Illinois but the opposite.  Attach an Urban designation to schools like IC to play in at least 3A so we don't get a situation like this year where they would have been 2A or even 1A.  

Schools like IC?  At least 3A?  The same IC that couldn't get past the semis the last two playoffs (3A and 4A) where they lost to rural schools?  The same IC that hasn't won a title since 2017?  

I'm not saying that IC doesn't belong competitively in a class or two above their actual enrollment.  All I am saying is that moving schools up because they are extraordinarily successful should apply to ALL schools that are extraordinarily successful...not just private schools and not just urban ones.[/quot.

It has nothing to do with success. They pull from a very large population of over 100,000 where as other privates such as BMD or QND do pull from population so 10,000 and probably even less. The demographics of the area private schools pull from should be taken into account in what class they play in. I just thought the Rural Designation was a unique idea. I don't know how familiar you are with Florida but there is a huge difference between the coastal towns and the towns 20+ miles inland .

And how many other high schools (both public and private) does QND compete with, realistically, for the limited students in its 30 mile radius?  A handful.  Maybe two handfuls including those schools in the far reaches of that radius.  IC, OTOH, competes with dozens.  

If it has nothing to do with success, then why move a school up if it is unsuccessful?

ramblinman wrote:And how many other high schools (both public and private) does QND compete with, realistically, for the limited students in its 30 mile radius?  A handful.  Maybe two handfuls including those schools in the far reaches of that radius.  IC, OTOH, competes with dozens.  

If it has nothing to do with success, then why move a school up if it is unsuccessful?

I'm not saying you do move them up but be realistic here Ramblin....IC would have be the largest 1A school this year had they not petitioned up to 3A. As you have been saying, they were placed in a class where there were competitive. If they were in 1A, I highly doubt anyone would have been able to hang with them, maybe Carrolton and LW, but other than those two, it would have been a bloodbath. Like Florida, you could even attach a Rural tag to some times and they play down a class.

I just thought the that Rural distinction was unique and could potentially create a more competitive balance but I guess using private schools for an example was a bad move since the rules are always designed to punish the privates.

dusty7 wrote:

ramblinman wrote:And how many other high schools (both public and private) does QND compete with, realistically, for the limited students in its 30 mile radius?  A handful.  Maybe two handfuls including those schools in the far reaches of that radius.  IC, OTOH, competes with dozens.  

If it has nothing to do with success, then why move a school up if it is unsuccessful?

I'm not saying you do move them up but be realistic here Ramblin....IC would have be the largest 1A school this year had they not petitioned up to 3A.  As you have been saying, they were placed in a class where there were competitive.  If they were in 1A, I highly doubt anyone would have been able to hang with them, maybe Carrolton and LW, but other than those two, it would have been a bloodbath.  Like Florida, you could even attach a Rural tag to some times and they play down a class.  

I just thought the that Rural distinction was unique and could potentially create a more competitive balance but I guess using private schools for an example was a bad move since the rules are always designed to punish the privates.

I am realistic in that I am not arguing that IC belongs in 1A or 2A. Would it have been a bloodbath if they had been in 1A? Sure it would have. But it was also a bloodbath that most of L-W's 1A and Wilmington,s 2A playoff opponents took. Those bloodbaths and their titles were won despite them being rural schools which you seem to feel is some sort of disadvantage. Didn't Lena kick the snot out of urban ACC and didn't Wilmo do the same to urban Julian?

With respect to the rural vs urban distinction, I can think of a bunch of rural schools with much bigger squads and better coaching than many (most?) urban schools of a similar enrollment. I bet you can too.

ramblinman wrote:

dusty7 wrote:

ramblinman wrote:And how many other high schools (both public and private) does QND compete with, realistically, for the limited students in its 30 mile radius?  A handful.  Maybe two handfuls including those schools in the far reaches of that radius.  IC, OTOH, competes with dozens.  

If it has nothing to do with success, then why move a school up if it is unsuccessful?

I'm not saying you do move them up but be realistic here Ramblin....IC would have be the largest 1A school this year had they not petitioned up to 3A.  As you have been saying, they were placed in a class where there were competitive.  If they were in 1A, I highly doubt anyone would have been able to hang with them, maybe Carrolton and LW, but other than those two, it would have been a bloodbath.  Like Florida, you could even attach a Rural tag to some times and they play down a class.  

I just thought the that Rural distinction was unique and could potentially create a more competitive balance but I guess using private schools for an example was a bad move since the rules are always designed to punish the privates.

I am realistic in that I am not arguing that IC belongs in 1A or 2A.  Would it have been a bloodbath if they had been in 1A?  Sure it would have.  But it was also a bloodbath that most of L-W's 1A and Wilmington,s 2A playoff opponents took.  Those bloodbaths and their titles were won despite them being rural schools which you seem to feel is some sort of disadvantage.  Didn't Lena kick the snot out of urban ACC and didn't Wilmo do the same to urban Julian?

With respect to the rural vs urban distinction, I can think of a bunch of rural schools with much bigger squads and better coaching than many (most?) urban schools of a similar enrollment.  I bet you can too.  

It is not something that would apply universally, it would only come into play in a few situations to ensure schools are playing in the correct competitive level.

To a degree, Wilmington had the benefit of playing mostly 3A-4A competition all year, then becoming one of the largest 2A schools.  Now they very well could have made a run and won 3A, but the road to get there would have been significantly more difficult.  
Whether you measure by simply enrollment or some other metric or combination, Wilmington had a strength of schedule advantage to most, if not all, of the other 2A teams.  
This is not the end all, but it’s another thing that many of the other successful programs have in common.   The good small/mid suburban private teams and Rochester come to mind.  

Speaking of IC, I applaud them for petitioning up, but I’m not going to feel too sorry for them.  They actually won 4A in 2018, not 2017.  In 2019 they lost to Richmond-Burton but provided the Rockets their only challenge of the season.  2018 was the same year they put a running clock on the 5A champs in week 2.  This past year they inexplicably were upset by one point to the team that won the title game the following week 35-7.  As you’ve stated, it’s pretty clear that 3A or 4A is the proper competitive class for them under the current circumstances.