|
Post by eag on Jul 27, 2017 16:32:11 GMT -6
We have had a split in place for a few years now that was created in order to "create competitive balance" and "level the playing field". It was felt that the issues of imbalance were created by differences in attendance zones and ability to control enrollment. Split opponents felt like this was the wrong direction in which to go, proponents felt that it was the best course. So, has it worked?
Let's look at some objective numbers. Here are average margins of victory in football title games, by division, over the 3 years of the split as compared to over the last 3 years of combined play.
Combined (2009-12) Split (2013-16) 5A 16.25 5A 28.75 D1 9.75 4A 12.5 4A 10.75 D2 18.5 3A 11.8 3A 16.25 D2 18.5 2A 17.8 2A 9.25 D3 23.75 1A 11.8 1A 19 D4 40.5
Only 3 of the 10 divisions have improved, while the others are objectively worsened. The situation is especially worsened in the smaller select divisions, where it seems that possibly the smaller privates may be even less well equipped to deal with powerhouse privates than are public schools.
For further exploration, here are the percentage improvement/worsening of average margin of victory for all playoff football games as compared to pre-split:
2013 75% worse 2014 58% worse 2015 50% worse 2016 92% worse
Objectively, the split is not accomplishing the goals stated by its crafters. It appears evident that the issue of enrollment zones/control is not the sole reason for inordinate success, as it has been identified and eliminated as a factor. While it may be ONE factor in the success of SOME schools, it is objectively clear that is is not the SOLE factor causing imbalances in competitive ability. The imbalances are actually getting worse.
It seems it is time to attempt to actually solve this problem if we are going to try to do so, by attacking the issue directly.
|
|
|
Post by TheFireman89 on Jul 27, 2017 19:37:23 GMT -6
I always preferred the Urban/Rural proposal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 22:14:00 GMT -6
I always preferred the Urban/Rural proposal Ditto, until it was wrecked by the LHSAA
|
|
|
Post by 1stdown on Jul 28, 2017 6:06:44 GMT -6
Always thought rural metro was good step in the right direction...with the right people hashing it out.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 28, 2017 7:07:04 GMT -6
I always preferred the Urban/Rural proposal Ditto, until it was wrecked by the LHSAA Then maybe it's time to try to get a principal from each side to work together to hash this out and bring up to group for a vote. I know that getting 66% to agree is a long shot, but they can try.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2017 7:22:13 GMT -6
Metro /rural is gaining momentum among the coaching staffs. The problem lies with the same group of private school haters who vote. They have proved already that they are willing to lie and collude to get their way. The metro/rural plan to me is a better way to divide schools fairly, but it doesn't solve the core issues of zones and recruiting.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Jul 28, 2017 9:13:43 GMT -6
That assumes that those are the actual issues causing a problem, which he data tends to disprove.
Now, if we took those lopsided scores and examined whether the winners tebddd to be urban schools that were pounding rural ones we would be making progress.
To solve a problem well, you must clearly identify the cause. Not what feels like the cause, or what ticks you off, but the actual cause. This data indicates that being able to 'select' the student body does not result consistently in great success. So, let's look at other factors. Maybe rural/urban is it.
Or, as I've said so many times my fingers are hoarse, let's just attack the actual problem directly. If we do not want teams to dominate a classification, then use a success metric and move them the bleep up! Nothing could be more fair or more direct. I fear the issue with that is that the powers that be do not see a dominant public school as a problem, only a dominant private school.
|
|
|
Post by btown on Jul 28, 2017 9:26:20 GMT -6
That assumes that those are the actual issues causing a problem, which he data tends to disprove. Now, if we took those lopsided scores and examined whether the winners tebddd to be urban schools that were pounding rural ones we would be making progress. To solve a problem well, you must clearly identify the cause. Not what feels like the cause, or what ticks you off, but the actual cause. This data indicates that being able to 'select' the student body does not result consistently in great success. So, let's look at other factors. Maybe rural/urban is it. Or, as I've said so many times my fingers are hoarse, let's just attack the actual problem directly. If we do not want teams to dominate a classification, then use a success metric and move them the bleep up! Nothing could be more fair or more direct. I fear the issue with that is that the powers that be do not see a dominant public school as a problem, only a dominant private school. That is some of the best points that I have seen in a long time. Only question I have, is there a perfect system or is there a better system? I do believe they can come up with a better system. But, in athletics there will always be winners and losers. When it comes to losers there will be a group that will work to get better and a group that will blame their failures on someone or something.
|
|
|
Post by 1stdown on Jul 28, 2017 9:27:08 GMT -6
That assumes that those are the actual issues causing a problem, which he data tends to disprove. Now, if we took those lopsided scores and examined whether the winners tebddd to be urban schools that were pounding rural ones we would be making progress. To solve a problem well, you must clearly identify the cause. Not what feels like the cause, or what ticks you off, but the actual cause. This data indicates that being able to 'select' the student body does not result consistently in great success. So, let's look at other factors. Maybe rural/urban is it. Or, as I've said so many times my fingers are hoarse, let's just attack the actual problem directly. If we do not want teams to dominate a classification, then use a success metric and move them the bleep up! Nothing could be more fair or more direct. I fear the issue with that is that the powers that be do not see a dominant public school as a problem, only a dominant private school. Probably cause the only two dominate, or traditionally dominate schools, are the 2 2a schools playing up in highest class...are the ones that come to mind in most people's minds. They are both private.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 28, 2017 9:40:53 GMT -6
That assumes that those are the actual issues causing a problem, which he data tends to disprove. Now, if we took those lopsided scores and examined whether the winners tebddd to be urban schools that were pounding rural ones we would be making progress. To solve a problem well, you must clearly identify the cause. Not what feels like the cause, or what ticks you off, but the actual cause. This data indicates that being able to 'select' the student body does not result consistently in great success. So, let's look at other factors. Maybe rural/urban is it. Or, as I've said so many times my fingers are hoarse, let's just attack the actual problem directly. If we do not want teams to dominate a classification, then use a success metric and move them the bleep up! Nothing could be more fair or more direct. I fear the issue with that is that the powers that be do not see a dominant public school as a problem, only a dominant private school. I believe, and again this is only my opinion, thatthe previous rules were the root cause of the split. The rules allowed two teams to create unbeatable forces, all while playing within those rules, so they had to be changes. John Curtis and Evangel, were able to draw athletes from two of nation's, hell the world's, most athletically rich areas. I am not accusing JC or Evangel of cheating or do anything illegal, but when the rules were created, no one could have saw this coming. I think the current situation was a lazy one and has not produced the best results.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2017 10:02:20 GMT -6
That assumes that those are the actual issues causing a problem, which he data tends to disprove. Now, if we took those lopsided scores and examined whether the winners tebddd to be urban schools that were pounding rural ones we would be making progress. To solve a problem well, you must clearly identify the cause. Not what feels like the cause, or what ticks you off, but the actual cause. This data indicates that being able to 'select' the student body does not result consistently in great success. So, let's look at other factors. Maybe rural/urban is it. Or, as I've said so many times my fingers are hoarse, let's just attack the actual problem directly. If we do not want teams to dominate a classification, then use a success metric and move them the bleep up! Nothing could be more fair or more direct. I fear the issue with that is that the powers that be do not see a dominant public school as a problem, only a dominant private school. I believe, and again this is only my opinion, but the previous rules were the root cause of the split. The rules allowed two teams to create unbeatable forces, all while playing within those rules, so they had to be changes. John Curtis and Evangel, were able to draw athletes from two of nation's, hell the world's, most athletically rich areas. I am not accusing JC or Evangel of cheating or do anything illegal, but when the rules were created, no one could have saw this coming. I think the current situation was a lazy one and has not produced the best results. Post split is worse, it still allows some schools to have advantages over others. Nothing was solved except more trophies are givin out.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 28, 2017 10:08:48 GMT -6
I believe, and again this is only my opinion, but the previous rules were the root cause of the split. The rules allowed two teams to create unbeatable forces, all while playing within those rules, so they had to be changes. John Curtis and Evangel, were able to draw athletes from two of nation's, hell the world's, most athletically rich areas. I am not accusing JC or Evangel of cheating or do anything illegal, but when the rules were created, no one could have saw this coming. I think the current situation was a lazy one and has not produced the best results. Post split is worse, it still allows some schools to have advantages over others. Nothing was solved except more trophies are givin out. How many times did ND meet up with Curtis or Evangel over the last 20 years? I'm pretty sure if they had spent the last 20 years in yal's division, you would have a different perspective.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Jul 28, 2017 10:19:03 GMT -6
That assumes that those are the actual issues causing a problem, which he data tends to disprove. Now, if we took those lopsided scores and examined whether the winners tebddd to be urban schools that were pounding rural ones we would be making progress. To solve a problem well, you must clearly identify the cause. Not what feels like the cause, or what ticks you off, but the actual cause. This data indicates that being able to 'select' the student body does not result consistently in great success. So, let's look at other factors. Maybe rural/urban is it. Or, as I've said so many times my fingers are hoarse, let's just attack the actual problem directly. If we do not want teams to dominate a classification, then use a success metric and move them the bleep up! Nothing could be more fair or more direct. I fear the issue with that is that the powers that be do not see a dominant public school as a problem, only a dominant private school. I believe, and again this is only my opinion, thatthe previous rules were the root cause of the split. The rules allowed two teams to create unbeatable forces, all while playing within those rules, so they had to be changes. John Curtis and Evangel, were able to draw athletes from two of nation's, hell the world's, most athletically rich areas. I am not accusing JC or Evangel of cheating or do anything illegal, but when the rules were created, no one could have saw this coming. I think the current situation was a lazy one and has not produced the best results. I believe you are right in a way, but how is it fair to move Many away from Curtis but leave Archbishop Hannan with them? Many is BETTER equipped to beat Curtis than is Hannan, and BOTH schools are dues paying members of an organization that supposedly is set up to protect them both. Everyone says this is necessary to protect Many and Kinder and Kentwood. Well, what about Hannan and Vandebilt and St Michaels and Sacred Heart? Do we just sacrifice them? If yes, what does that say about the organization? It is definitely not protecting all members equally in that case. It is picking and choosing who to protect and who to exclude, based on a criteria that is now demonstrated to be a non-factor by the data above. In fact, if this split continues ( as I expect it will) in the face of such data, it would be very difficult to conclude that the drafters had the intent to 'level the playing field' or 'create competitive balance'. If that was the goal of those drafters, why are they not wringing their hands over the lack of results and fallng all over themselves to fix it?
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2017 10:21:48 GMT -6
Post split is worse, it still allows some schools to have advantages over others. Nothing was solved except more trophies are givin out. How many times did ND meet up with Curtis or Evangel over the last 20 years? I'm pretty sure if they had spent the last 20 years in yal's division, you would have a different perspective. Forget them for a minute, I agree 100% with you on that. But the split wasn't about 2 schools, if it was they should have voted them out, restricted their zone, or some other sanction. But it affected all of us. It solved nothing about zones or recruiting. How did it help VP high? Guarantees them a playoff game? Some prize. They will never compete with Kinder or Many who have a bigger area to draw from. Cecelia could be the best team in the area and they have zero chance against Karr, Eastin, 35, or Neville. The rules are worse now for ALL of us.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 28, 2017 10:24:23 GMT -6
I believe, and again this is only my opinion, thatthe previous rules were the root cause of the split. The rules allowed two teams to create unbeatable forces, all while playing within those rules, so they had to be changes. John Curtis and Evangel, were able to draw athletes from two of nation's, hell the world's, most athletically rich areas. I am not accusing JC or Evangel of cheating or do anything illegal, but when the rules were created, no one could have saw this coming. I think the current situation was a lazy one and has not produced the best results. I believe you are right in a way, but how is it fair to move Many away from Curtis but leave Archbishop Hannan with them? Many is BETTER equipped to beat Curtis than is Hannan, and BOTH schools are dues paying members of an organization that supposedly is set up to protect them both. Everyone says this is necessary to protect Many and Kinder and Kentwood. Well, what about Hannan and Vandebilt and St Michaels and Sacred Heart? Do we just sacrifice them? If yes, what does that say about the organization? It is definitely not protecting all members equally in that case. It is picking and choosing who to protect and who to exclude, based on a criteria that is now demonstrated to be a non-factor by the data above. In fact, if this split continues ( as I expect it will) in the face of such data, it would be very difficult to conclude that the drafters had the intent to 'level the playing field' or 'create competitive balance'. If that was the goal of those drafters, why are they not wringing their hands over the lack of results and calling all over themselves to fix it? 100% agree.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Jul 28, 2017 10:24:53 GMT -6
Post split is worse, it still allows some schools to have advantages over others. Nothing was solved except more trophies are givin out. How many times did ND meet up with Curtis or Evangel over the last 20 years? I'm pretty sure if they had spent the last 20 years in yal's division, you would have a different perspective. They spent the last 20 years in a division with Episcopal, Newman, Menard, Hannan, Sacred Heart. Not one of those can compete with them either, yet you are ok with leaving those schools to deal with them and now in an even smaller pond? It's all good as long as Kinder doesn't have to play them? You cannot change how you stratify dozens of schools just because of 2. You change how you stratify the 2. Edited to add: Kinder this is set up to respond to you but see in your other response that you kind of agree. Not picking at you personally, more attempting to pick apart the points that supporters use in this argument.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 28, 2017 10:30:47 GMT -6
How many times did ND meet up with Curtis or Evangel over the last 20 years? I'm pretty sure if they had spent the last 20 years in yal's division, you would have a different perspective. They spent the last 20 years in a division with Episcopal, Newman, Menard, Hannan, Sacred Heart. Not one of those can compete with them either, yet you are ok with leaving those schools to deal with them and now in an even smaller pond? It's all good as long as Kinder doesn't have to play them? You cannot change how you stratify dozens of schools just because of 2. You change how you stratify the 2. Edited to add: Kinder this is set up to respond to you but see in your other response that you kind of agree. Not picking at you personally, more attempting to pick apart the points that supporters use in this argument. I agree with you. Even with Kinder's success, I am not a fan of the current situation. I see no reason Kinder shouldn't play Newman, ND, etc.
|
|
|
Post by 1stdown on Jul 28, 2017 13:21:15 GMT -6
They spent the last 20 years in a division with Episcopal, Newman, Menard, Hannan, Sacred Heart. Not one of those can compete with them either, yet you are ok with leaving those schools to deal with them and now in an even smaller pond? It's all good as long as Kinder doesn't have to play them? You cannot change how you stratify dozens of schools just because of 2. You change how you stratify the 2. Edited to add: Kinder this is set up to respond to you but see in your other response that you kind of agree. Not picking at you personally, more attempting to pick apart the points that supporters use in this argument. I agree with you. Even with Kinder's success, I am not a fan of the current situation. I see no reason Kinder shouldn't play Newman, ND, etc. Think about this, if there were two 2a public schools playing up in 5a and getting nationally ranked in the top 50 among 5 and 6a schools( which has never happened) and they were forced to play among smaller private schools. And if public schools were the minority in the state, could you see the principles in private schools having a knee jerk reaction? If the shoe was on that foot, would private school principals be worried and trying to come up with something better? Even if Many draws from all of Sabine parish, they will NEVER be good enough to be on MTV and beat Hoover Alabama. Small privates up to 3a should be together with public schools in a rural metro type plan.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2017 13:28:37 GMT -6
I agree with you. Even with Kinder's success, I am not a fan of the current situation. I see no reason Kinder shouldn't play Newman, ND, etc. Think about this, if there were two 2a public schools playing up in 5a and getting nationally ranked in the top 50 among 5 and 6a schools( which has never happened) and they were forced to play among smaller private schools. And if public schools were the minority in the state, could you see the principles in private schools having a knee jerk reaction? If the shoe was on that foot, would private school principals be worried and trying to come up with something better? Even if Many draws from all of Sabine parish, they will NEVER be good enough to be on MTV and beat Hoover Alabama. Small privates up to 3a should be together with public schools in a rural metro type plan. There were plenty of private schools in 2A in the same boat as the publics. No one ever disputed that.
|
|
|
Post by 1stdown on Jul 28, 2017 13:52:09 GMT -6
There were plenty of private schools in 2A in the same boat as the publics. No one ever disputed that. I knew I could get you to look at that one! Lol. I agree, the smaller ones were thrown to the wolves, but there needs to be an "equalizer" of sorts, because the next possible powerhouse schools will be the charter schools. And they are in the urban areas so rural metro will protect the rural schools.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Jul 28, 2017 15:17:20 GMT -6
I agree with you. Even with Kinder's success, I am not a fan of the current situation. I see no reason Kinder shouldn't play Newman, ND, etc. Think about this, if there were two 2a public schools playing up in 5a and getting nationally ranked in the top 50 among 5 and 6a schools( which has never happened) and they were forced to play among smaller private schools. And if public schools were the minority in the state, could you see the principles in private schools having a knee jerk reaction? If the shoe was on that foot, would private school principals be worried and trying to come up with something better? Even if Many draws from all of Sabine parish, they will NEVER be good enough to be on MTV and beat Hoover Alabama. Small privates up to 3a should be together with public schools in a rural metro type plan. Here's where I see the problem The schools themselves should not be 'coming up" with anything! The schools should articulate probelms to the Exec Committee. The EC should craft legislation to help solve problems with an eye on the organization as a whole. This idea of "it doesn't matter who it hurts or that it isn't working, because it helps MY SCHOOL" should never be allowed. The model of having legislation come up from the broad floor is not how any association or business works. It is insane.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2017 20:01:18 GMT -6
We'll duke it out Friday. I forget who all owes me a beer but I'm sure I'll have to buy a few as well.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2017 20:13:03 GMT -6
Post split is worse, it still allows some schools to have advantages over others. Nothing was solved except more trophies are givin out. How many times did ND meet up with Curtis or Evangel over the last 20 years? I'm pretty sure if they had spent the last 20 years in yal's division, you would have a different perspective. Evangel twice, Curtis zero. But we faced Redemptorist quite a few times that beat Curtis. We also met up with Lutcher and Amite (both publics) both had D1,Athletes out the Wazoo and well coached. They beat us more times than not but no one pleaded to have them removed. It's still no excuse for what the LHSAA did with E and JC. But every class has revolving teams that stand out.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 31, 2017 8:59:37 GMT -6
How many times did ND meet up with Curtis or Evangel over the last 20 years? I'm pretty sure if they had spent the last 20 years in yal's division, you would have a different perspective. Evangel twice, Curtis zero. But we faced Redemptorist quite a few times that beat Curtis. We also met up with Lutcher and Amite (both publics) both had D1,Athletes out the Wazoo and well coached. They beat us more times than not but no one pleaded to have them removed. It's still no excuse for what the LHSAA did with E and JC. But every class has revolving teams that stand out. You're right about every classification having teams that stand out, but none of those teams were anywhere near as dominant as JC and Evangel were in 2A.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 31, 2017 9:15:12 GMT -6
Evangel twice, Curtis zero. But we faced Redemptorist quite a few times that beat Curtis. We also met up with Lutcher and Amite (both publics) both had D1,Athletes out the Wazoo and well coached. They beat us more times than not but no one pleaded to have them removed. It's still no excuse for what the LHSAA did with E and JC. But every class has revolving teams that stand out. You're right about every classification having teams that stand out, but none of those teams were anywhere near as dominant as JC and Evangel were in 2A. For the umteenth time I agree, no argument. But as it is now, 95+% of 2A public schools have the same chance against Many as they did against JC and E, ZERO.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 31, 2017 9:20:59 GMT -6
You're right about every classification having teams that stand out, but none of those teams were anywhere near as dominant as JC and Evangel were in 2A. For the umteenth time I agree, no argument. But as it is now, 95+% of 2A public schools have the same chance against Many as they did against JC and E, ZERO. Not True. If that were the case Many would have four state championships in the last 4 years, instead of one. Three of the last four years they have been beaten by other 2A teams. No 2A stood a chance against either JC or Evangel in the playoffs..
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 31, 2017 9:26:46 GMT -6
For the umteenth time I agree, no argument. But as it is now, 95+% of 2A public schools have the same chance against Many as they did against JC and E, ZERO. Not True. If that were the case Many would have four state championships in the last 4 years, instead of one. Three of the last four years they have been beaten by other 2A teams. No 2A stood a chance against either JC or Evangel in 2A. That's why I said 95% and not 100% as for as titles it will be between 3-5 teams every year, and those 3-5,teams will likely have advantages with zones over the rest.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 31, 2017 9:36:38 GMT -6
Not True. If that were the case Many would have four state championships in the last 4 years, instead of one. Three of the last four years they have been beaten by other 2A teams. No 2A stood a chance against either JC or Evangel in 2A. That's why I said 95% and not 100% as for as titles it will be between 3-5 teams every year, and those 3-5,teams will likely have advantages with zones over the rest. Considering the split has been instituted for 4 years and there are "3-5" teams vying for a championship, how can you say that it is anywhere close to as bad when there was only one team and one team only that stood any sort of a chance. Kinder, Many, Sterlington, Mangham and even Welsh have had a great run of athletes, but like 95% of public school runs, it won't last forever. If the split would have been instituted 20 years ago, there were plenty of times that we would have been taking 3 or 4 win teams to Iota or South Cameron, or Haynesville to get spanked in the first round. Public school strings run out and fluctuate over time.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 31, 2017 9:47:54 GMT -6
That's why I said 95% and not 100% as for as titles it will be between 3-5 teams every year, and those 3-5,teams will likely have advantages with zones over the rest. Considering the split has been instituted for 4 years and there are "3-5" teams vying for a championship, how can you say that it is anywhere close to as bad when there was only one team and one team only that stood any sort of a chance. Kinder, Many, Sterlington, Mangham and even Welsh have had a great run of athletes, but like 95% of public school runs, it won't last forever. If the split would have been instituted 20 years ago, there were plenty of times that we would have been taking 3 or 4 win teams to Iota or South Cameron, or Haynesville to get spanked in the first round. Public school strings run out and fluctuate over time. They use to, but We are in a new era, with new rules (or lack of them) also competition has been removed, which leaves a handful of teams that benefit the most and they will reign. But You will have a revolving few new suspects in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 31, 2017 9:53:20 GMT -6
Considering the split has been instituted for 4 years and there are "3-5" teams vying for a championship, how can you say that it is anywhere close to as bad when there was only one team and one team only that stood any sort of a chance. Kinder, Many, Sterlington, Mangham and even Welsh have had a great run of athletes, but like 95% of public school runs, it won't last forever. If the split would have been instituted 20 years ago, there were plenty of times that we would have been taking 3 or 4 win teams to Iota or South Cameron, or Haynesville to get spanked in the first round. Public school strings run out and fluctuate over time. They use to, but We are in a new era, with new rules (or lack of them) also competition has been removed, which leaves a handful of teams that benefit the most and they will reign. But You will have a revolving few new suspects in the mix. Right, but you still can't compare the success of a handful of schools to the dominance of one. The year before last, Welsh (a 3 seed) lost to a 19th seed in the second round. in 2015 Many was a 2 seed and an odds on favorite to make it back to the dome, but lost in the second round to Welsh. The gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" isn't as big as some are trying to make it and not nearly as bad as when the second best team had literally 0 chance to beat the best.
|
|