Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 13:59:48 GMT -6
The reason the split came about was the smaller publics are tired of gettting bet up on by the successful private school programs. This has nothing to do with the academics of the schools it is all about the athletics so lets get that out front to start with. I have children in private and public schools so I am not for one side or the other, I just feel that the simple fix would be stay together ( no split) and as programs show that they are dominate at a level be it C class or 2A every two years move the more domimate programs up a class until you find a class where they can stay competative but dont move them back down in two years because they are at .500. Do this with public and private programs so no one is being singled out. If a 5A program can not compete with a typical 3A or 2A sized private then maybe we will never be able to find a common ground
|
|
|
Post by eag on Apr 21, 2016 14:18:09 GMT -6
I'll just leave this here again:
Indiana High School Athletic Association, Inc.
TEAM SPORTS RECLASSIFICATION – TOURNAMENT SUCCESS FACTOR
a. In team sports, schools shall be subject to reclassification at the conclusion of a reclassification period on a sport-by-sport basis dependent on the school’s tournament series success during the previous reclassification period.
b. A school shall earn the assigned point values for the final level of the tournament series the school achieves during the previous reclassification period as follows:
(1.) Sectional championship – 1 point (2.) Regional championship – 2 points (3.) Semi-State championship – 3 points (4.) State championship – 4 points
c. If a school in any enrollment class achieves a tournament series success point value of six (6) points or greater in a specific sport during the previous reclassification period, such school shall move up to the next available larger enrollment class for the next reclassification period. A change in a school’s enrollment which would otherwise result in a change of the school’s enrollment classes shall not apply to a school which changes classes under this section, unless the enrollment change would result in the school being placed in a enrollment class larger than the enrollment class dictated by this section, and in that circumstance, the school shall be placed in the enrollment class determined by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period.
d. If a school which has participated in a larger enrollment class during the previous reclassification period achieves a tournament series success point value of Four (4) or Five (5) points in a specific sport, such school shall remain in the same enrollment class in that sport for the next reclassification period. The foregoing notwithstanding, if there is a change in the school’s enrollment which would result in the school being placed in a larger enrollment class than the enrollment class dictated by this section, then in that circumstance the school shall be placed in the enrollment class determined by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period.
e. If a school which has participated in a larger enrollment class during the previous reclassification period achieves a tournament series success point value of Three (3) points or less in a specific sport, such school shall be placed in the enrollment class dictated by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period.
f. When setting the number of schools in a particular class, Rule 2-2 of the IHSAA bylaws shall be implemented. Should a school be placed in a class of schools with larger enrollments due to their success, the school with the smallest enrollment in the class shall be moved to the next classification down containing schools with smaller enrollments. Note: Class 6A and Class 5A in football shall always contain 32 teams.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 21, 2016 14:52:43 GMT -6
So if we use the Indiana model:
How about this--
Win District Champ 1 pt Win Quarterfinals 2pts Make Championship game 3pts Win Championship game 4pts
Not sure if this will work, but just a starting point
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 18:58:18 GMT -6
The reason the split came about was the smaller publics are tired of gettting bet up on by the successful private school programs. This has nothing to do with the academics of the schools it is all about the athletics so lets get that out front to start with. I have children in private and public schools so I am not for one side or the other, I just feel that the simple fix would be stay together ( no split) and as programs show that they are dominate at a level be it C class or 2A every two years move the more domimate programs up a class until you find a class where they can stay competative but dont move them back down in two years because they are at .500. Do this with public and private programs so no one is being singled out. If a 5A program can not compete with a typical 3A or 2A sized private then maybe we will never be able to find a common ground To implement a program like this you can not let the principals, coaches, or anyone associated with the schools have a say in the process. There has to be a committee of individuals that will do the right thing for all schools involved. If you let the principals vote it will never change. The good public programs want the better private programs gone so they have an easier schedule, the weaker public programs want the private programs gone so they have a better chance to win. The better private programs don't want to leave because now they have to play each other every game and there are no weak public schools to beat up on only the weaker private schools, and the weaker privates do not want to be in the same position that the weaker publics have been in for years. If you let the individuals associated with the schools vote this will never change.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Apr 22, 2016 10:24:54 GMT -6
I'll just leave this here again: Indiana High School Athletic Association, Inc. TEAM SPORTS RECLASSIFICATION – TOURNAMENT SUCCESS FACTOR a. In team sports, schools shall be subject to reclassification at the conclusion of a reclassification period on a sport-by-sport basis dependent on the school’s tournament series success during the previous reclassification period. b. A school shall earn the assigned point values for the final level of the tournament series the school achieves during the previous reclassification period as follows: (1.) Sectional championship – 1 point (2.) Regional championship – 2 points (3.) Semi-State championship – 3 points (4.) State championship – 4 points c. If a school in any enrollment class achieves a tournament series success point value of six (6) points or greater in a specific sport during the previous reclassification period, such school shall move up to the next available larger enrollment class for the next reclassification period. A change in a school’s enrollment which would otherwise result in a change of the school’s enrollment classes shall not apply to a school which changes classes under this section, unless the enrollment change would result in the school being placed in a enrollment class larger than the enrollment class dictated by this section, and in that circumstance, the school shall be placed in the enrollment class determined by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period. d. If a school which has participated in a larger enrollment class during the previous reclassification period achieves a tournament series success point value of Four (4) or Five (5) points in a specific sport, such school shall remain in the same enrollment class in that sport for the next reclassification period. The foregoing notwithstanding, if there is a change in the school’s enrollment which would result in the school being placed in a larger enrollment class than the enrollment class dictated by this section, then in that circumstance the school shall be placed in the enrollment class determined by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period. e. If a school which has participated in a larger enrollment class during the previous reclassification period achieves a tournament series success point value of Three (3) points or less in a specific sport, such school shall be placed in the enrollment class dictated by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period. f. When setting the number of schools in a particular class, Rule 2-2 of the IHSAA bylaws shall be implemented. Should a school be placed in a class of schools with larger enrollments due to their success, the school with the smallest enrollment in the class shall be moved to the next classification down containing schools with smaller enrollments. Note: Class 6A and Class 5A in football shall always contain 32 teams. Before the LHSAA principals lost their minds and we moved to this new board, I recommended this type of point system with movement up. It was called: Stupid, ic, would not work, unmanageable and just plain dumb. Now, it is a viable option, so I would be supportive of it, IF and only IF it is the standard for all schools. Justice must be blind or it is oppressive. Public and private schools all must be judged by the same stick. If Patterson, Amite and Franklinton win back to back championships, they should move up in class just as if Highland Baptist, Ouachita Christian and St. Michaels would have to move up.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Apr 27, 2016 9:48:27 GMT -6
I'll just leave this here again: Indiana High School Athletic Association, Inc. TEAM SPORTS RECLASSIFICATION – TOURNAMENT SUCCESS FACTOR a. In team sports, schools shall be subject to reclassification at the conclusion of a reclassification period on a sport-by-sport basis dependent on the school’s tournament series success during the previous reclassification period. b. A school shall earn the assigned point values for the final level of the tournament series the school achieves during the previous reclassification period as follows: (1.) Sectional championship – 1 point (2.) Regional championship – 2 points (3.) Semi-State championship – 3 points (4.) State championship – 4 points c. If a school in any enrollment class achieves a tournament series success point value of six (6) points or greater in a specific sport during the previous reclassification period, such school shall move up to the next available larger enrollment class for the next reclassification period. A change in a school’s enrollment which would otherwise result in a change of the school’s enrollment classes shall not apply to a school which changes classes under this section, unless the enrollment change would result in the school being placed in a enrollment class larger than the enrollment class dictated by this section, and in that circumstance, the school shall be placed in the enrollment class determined by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period. d. If a school which has participated in a larger enrollment class during the previous reclassification period achieves a tournament series success point value of Four (4) or Five (5) points in a specific sport, such school shall remain in the same enrollment class in that sport for the next reclassification period. The foregoing notwithstanding, if there is a change in the school’s enrollment which would result in the school being placed in a larger enrollment class than the enrollment class dictated by this section, then in that circumstance the school shall be placed in the enrollment class determined by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period. e. If a school which has participated in a larger enrollment class during the previous reclassification period achieves a tournament series success point value of Three (3) points or less in a specific sport, such school shall be placed in the enrollment class dictated by the school’s enrollment for the next reclassification period. f. When setting the number of schools in a particular class, Rule 2-2 of the IHSAA bylaws shall be implemented. Should a school be placed in a class of schools with larger enrollments due to their success, the school with the smallest enrollment in the class shall be moved to the next classification down containing schools with smaller enrollments. Note: Class 6A and Class 5A in football shall always contain 32 teams. Before the LHSAA principals lost their minds and we moved to this new board, I recommended this type of point system with movement up. It was called: Stupid, ic, would not work, unmanageable and just plain dumb. Now, it is a viable option, so I would be supportive of it, IF and only IF it is the standard for all schools. Justice must be blind or it is oppressive. Public and private schools all must be judged by the same stick. If Patterson, Amite and Franklinton win back to back championships, they should move up in class just as if Highland Baptist, Ouachita Christian and St. Michaels would have to move up. That is exactly the point. This system does only 1 thing-- creates competitive balance with a blind eye towards any other factor. ANY 'advantage' that creates imbalance is treated the same. That is also why, IMO, the split guys want no part of it. It doesn't separate private schools, which it seems is the real goal rather than 'balance'.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Apr 27, 2016 9:57:04 GMT -6
So if we use the Indiana model: How about this-- Win District Champ 1 pt Win Quarterfinals 2pts Make Championship game 3pts Win Championship game 4pts Not sure if this will work, but just a starting point State champ- 4 pts State Finalist 3 points Semifinalist 2 points Quarterfinals 1 point Re-evaluate with the classification meetings every 2 years. So, here's what it would look like. 2 Dome appearances in a row- move up. But 1 dome loss and a semi appearance you would stay down. Still allows up-and-coming teams to have their day in the sun. I'd personally re-eval the move-ups yearly with a committee and if they fail to meet a benchmark like winning a playoff game then I'd move them back down, so no school gets 'penalized' for a brief run of glory. Every class of kids would have a shot. Sure, a senior class might be moved up for senior year but it would be almost impossible to do so without either a championship or 2 dome appearances in their career. I think that's far more fair than the current split. Every school of any type will be playing in a fair bracket all the time.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 27, 2016 11:36:26 GMT -6
So if we use the Indiana model: How about this-- Win District Champ 1 pt Win Quarterfinals 2pts Make Championship game 3pts Win Championship game 4pts Not sure if this will work, but just a starting point State champ- 4 pts State Finalist 3 points Semifinalist 2 points Quarterfinals 1 point Re-evaluate with the classification meetings every 2 years. So, here's what it would look like. 2 Dome appearances in a row- move up. But 1 dome loss and a semi appearance you would stay down. Still allows up-and-coming teams to have their day in the sun. I'd personally re-eval the move-ups yearly with a committee and if they fail to meet a benchmark like winning a playoff game then I'd move them back down, so no school gets 'penalized' for a brief run of glory. Every class of kids would have a shot. Sure, a senior class might be moved up for senior year but it would be almost impossible to do so without either a championship or 2 dome appearances in their career. I think that's far more fair than the current split. Every school of any type will be playing in a fair bracket all the time. I like this, only if we can get a principal from both public and private to propose it together. This may be the only way for both sides to even look at it. The public principals don't trust anything from the private schools and vice-versa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2016 12:49:20 GMT -6
State champ- 4 pts State Finalist 3 points Semifinalist 2 points Quarterfinals 1 point Re-evaluate with the classification meetings every 2 years. So, here's what it would look like. 2 Dome appearances in a row- move up. But 1 dome loss and a semi appearance you would stay down. Still allows up-and-coming teams to have their day in the sun. I'd personally re-eval the move-ups yearly with a committee and if they fail to meet a benchmark like winning a playoff game then I'd move them back down, so no school gets 'penalized' for a brief run of glory. Every class of kids would have a shot. Sure, a senior class might be moved up for senior year but it would be almost impossible to do so without either a championship or 2 dome appearances in their career. I think that's far more fair than the current split. Every school of any type will be playing in a fair bracket all the time. I like this, only if we can get a principal from both public and private to propose it together. This may be the only way for both sides to even look at it. The public principals don't trust anything from the private schools and vice-versa. We've progressed way past this. Its not about championships (as many select school folks would like you to believe) Its about how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Apr 27, 2016 12:57:03 GMT -6
I like this, only if we can get a principal from both public and private to propose it together. This may be the only way for both sides to even look at it. The public principals don't trust anything from the private schools and vice-versa. We've progressed way past this. Its not about championships (as many select school folks would like you to believe) Its about how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment. So, it isn't about competitive balance? I thought that your issue was that 'how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment' had an effect on the competitive aspect, that it gave schools a competitive advantage over other schools. Are you saying that the issue is simply private schools themselves? You just don't like the elite private school people and wish not to associate with them? Because that is a different thing altogether.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2016 12:59:14 GMT -6
We've progressed way past this. Its not about championships (as many select school folks would like you to believe) Its about how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment. So, it isn't about competitive balance? I thought that your issue was that 'how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment' had an effect on the competitive aspect, that it gave schools a competitive advantage over other schools. Are you saying that the issue is simply private schools themselves? You just don't like the elite private school people and wish not to associate with them? Because that is a different thing altogether. Nope, didnt say that at all. It is 100% about competitive balance, which is GREATLY influenced by how schools attain, deny, and retain students. What I DIDNT say was it was about championships. You did
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Apr 27, 2016 13:11:39 GMT -6
It is now and always has been about winning championships. if it were not then schools would be split permanently and not allowed to play each other at all. The fact that select schools are still placed in districts with non-select schools and forced to play during the regular season, but only split for playoffs (when championships are on the line) is all the proof you need. No rational person can view it any other way. Of course, bob will dispute this. No one ever claimed he was a rational person, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2016 13:21:39 GMT -6
I like this, only if we can get a principal from both public and private to propose it together. This may be the only way for both sides to even look at it. The public principals don't trust anything from the private schools and vice-versa. We've progressed way past this. Its not about championships (as many select school folks would like you to believe) Its about how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment. You are right bigbob. Its not about championships its about EN-TITLE-MENTS. Every man a king, and every little Johnny and Jane a winner. Maybe the public schools can fire Bonine and dig up Huey P. Long for the LHSAA leader.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 27, 2016 13:25:14 GMT -6
So, it isn't about competitive balance? I thought that your issue was that 'how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment' had an effect on the competitive aspect, that it gave schools a competitive advantage over other schools. Are you saying that the issue is simply private schools themselves? You just don't like the elite private school people and wish not to associate with them? Because that is a different thing altogether. Nope, didnt say that at all. It is 100% about competitive balance, which is GREATLY influenced by how schools attain, deny, and retain students. What I DIDNT say was it was about championships. You did He didn't say it was about championships, he was demonstrating how this would work to get to competitive balance.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Apr 27, 2016 16:04:40 GMT -6
So, it isn't about competitive balance? I thought that your issue was that 'how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment' had an effect on the competitive aspect, that it gave schools a competitive advantage over other schools. Are you saying that the issue is simply private schools themselves? You just don't like the elite private school people and wish not to associate with them? Because that is a different thing altogether. Nope, didnt say that at all. It is 100% about competitive balance, which is GREATLY influenced by how schools attain, deny, and retain students. What I DIDNT say was it was about championships. You did How do you demonstrate an imbalance? BTW, I am the last guy to say it is about championships. I think the emphasis on such is ruining the sports experience. Success, defined as a good quality program with good W/L records, etc-- sure. But actual championships? Nah.I doubt I ever said that the goal was for someone to win more championships, except as in describing the reason some desire a split.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 28, 2016 12:05:16 GMT -6
So, it isn't about competitive balance? I thought that your issue was that 'how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment' had an effect on the competitive aspect, that it gave schools a competitive advantage over other schools. Are you saying that the issue is simply private schools themselves? You just don't like the elite private school people and wish not to associate with them? Because that is a different thing altogether. Nope, didnt say that at all. It is 100% about competitive balance, which is GREATLY influenced by how schools attain, deny, and retain students. What I DIDNT say was it was about championships. You did Bob Won't this do exactly what you have been saying you want "competitive balance"? Or are you telling us that the only thing you will accept is to "split" all major sports?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2016 12:19:39 GMT -6
Nope, didnt say that at all. It is 100% about competitive balance, which is GREATLY influenced by how schools attain, deny, and retain students. What I DIDNT say was it was about championships. You did Bob Won't this do exactly what you have been saying you want "competitive balance"? Or are you telling us that the only thing you will accept is to "split" all major sports? Not sure what Bob's answer is, but I think it's the only thing the majority of public schools will accept. It's what they voted on, and what they want. I think they are willing to compromise and let the privates continue to play publics in district. What I think most really want is a full split, whether it's to separate associations, or totally separate under LHSAA doesn't really matter.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 28, 2016 12:26:27 GMT -6
Bob Won't this do exactly what you have been saying you want "competitive balance"? Or are you telling us that the only thing you will accept is to "split" all major sports? Not sure what Bob's answer is, but I think it's the only thing the majority of public schools will accept. It's what they voted on, and what they want. I think they are willing to compromise and let the privates continue to play publics in district. What I think most really want is a full split, whether it's to separate associations, or totally separate under LHSAA doesn't really matter. I'm afraid you're right, which is sad. If there is a total split, either different associations or under the LHSAA umbrella, there will be some longtime rivals and good games that won't be played or seen anymore. If you're right, I wish the principals would just vote that this what they want so we (everyone) can do what they think is right for their school.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Apr 28, 2016 12:41:41 GMT -6
Bob Won't this do exactly what you have been saying you want "competitive balance"? Or are you telling us that the only thing you will accept is to "split" all major sports? Not sure what Bob's answer is, but I think it's the only thing the majority of public schools will accept. It's what they voted on, and what they want. I think they are willing to compromise and let the privates continue to play publics in district. What I think most really want is a full split, whether it's to separate associations, or totally separate under LHSAA doesn't really matter. Reaux, why do you think this is the case? Why is splitting ALL privates more important than creating competitive balance within divisions?
|
|
|
Post by Raven on Apr 28, 2016 14:04:26 GMT -6
Not sure what Bob's answer is, but I think it's the only thing the majority of public schools will accept. It's what they voted on, and what they want. I think they are willing to compromise and let the privates continue to play publics in district. What I think most really want is a full split, whether it's to separate associations, or totally separate under LHSAA doesn't really matter. Reaux, why do you think this is the case? Why is splitting ALL privates more important than creating competitive balance within divisions? On its most basic level, what this all boils down to is form of class warfare. The private schools are seen as the "haves" while the public schools see themselves as the "have nots". It's socialism in action. Most split supporters don't recognize it or won't admit it, but it's there for anyone to see. Especially when people like bob have described private schools or more than one occasion as "the elites", it shows exactly how most of them feel. Instead of redistribution of wealth, the LHSAA is now practicing the redistribution of championships.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 28, 2016 14:07:15 GMT -6
So, it isn't about competitive balance? I thought that your issue was that 'how schools attain, deny, and retain enrollment' had an effect on the competitive aspect, that it gave schools a competitive advantage over other schools. Are you saying that the issue is simply private schools themselves? You just don't like the elite private school people and wish not to associate with them? Because that is a different thing altogether. Nope, didnt say that at all. It is 100% about competitive balance, which is GREATLY influenced by how schools attain, deny, and retain students. What I DIDNT say was it was about championships. You did Bob Do you remember saying this in another thread?: "Now, with that being said, do I believe that the "split" as it has become known, is the absolute best solution? NO, NO, NO!!! However, it, for the first time, has show the anger of the schools that have been beat on for the last 40 years by an evermore growing population of schools that refuse to live by the spirit and intent of the rules. When I say this, I absolutely include a segment of the non-select population as well! We MUST come up with a simple, concise, common sense approach, that indentifies, and seperates schools that refuse to live by the intent of fair competition. IMO, we are making this way to complicated. There is always a simplistic approach that works best. I do believe we will find it, but until then, this discourse and "battle" as it were, is both healthy and necessary!" I do believe that the plan we have been discussing is exactly what you are talking about. If not please tell us specifically what you don't like about this plan.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Apr 28, 2016 15:28:57 GMT -6
Reaux, why do you think this is the case? Why is splitting ALL privates more important than creating competitive balance within divisions? On its most basic level, what this all boils down to is form of class warfare. The private schools are seen as the "haves" while the public schools see themselves as the "have nots". It's socialism in action. Most split supporters don't recognize it or won't admit it, but it's there for anyone to see. Especially when people like bob have described private schools or more than one occasion as "the elites", it shows exactly how most of them feel. Instead of redistribution of wealth, the LHSAA is now practicing the redistribution of championships. this speaks to bigger questions like who exactly is running our schools and what are they teaching the kids? how did we get to a point where our educators' views (and actions) are so different than the people who support them via their taxes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2016 6:32:27 GMT -6
Nope, didnt say that at all. It is 100% about competitive balance, which is GREATLY influenced by how schools attain, deny, and retain students. What I DIDNT say was it was about championships. You did Bob Do you remember saying this in another thread?: "Now, with that being said, do I believe that the "split" as it has become known, is the absolute best solution? NO, NO, NO!!! However, it, for the first time, has show the anger of the schools that have been beat on for the last 40 years by an evermore growing population of schools that refuse to live by the spirit and intent of the rules. When I say this, I absolutely include a segment of the non-select population as well! We MUST come up with a simple, concise, common sense approach, that indentifies, and seperates schools that refuse to live by the intent of fair competition. IMO, we are making this way to complicated. There is always a simplistic approach that works best. I do believe we will find it, but until then, this discourse and "battle" as it were, is both healthy and necessary!" I do believe that the plan we have been discussing is exactly what you are talking about. If not please tell us specifically what you don't like about this plan. As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone, your plan doesnt work. Ever Lets now adjust the playoff system and move on.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 29, 2016 7:44:23 GMT -6
Bob Do you remember saying this in another thread?: "Now, with that being said, do I believe that the "split" as it has become known, is the absolute best solution? NO, NO, NO!!! However, it, for the first time, has show the anger of the schools that have been beat on for the last 40 years by an evermore growing population of schools that refuse to live by the spirit and intent of the rules. When I say this, I absolutely include a segment of the non-select population as well! We MUST come up with a simple, concise, common sense approach, that indentifies, and seperates schools that refuse to live by the intent of fair competition. IMO, we are making this way to complicated. There is always a simplistic approach that works best. I do believe we will find it, but until then, this discourse and "battle" as it were, is both healthy and necessary!" I do believe that the plan we have been discussing is exactly what you are talking about. If not please tell us specifically what you don't like about this plan. As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone, your plan doesnt work. Ever Lets now adjust the playoff system and move on. Bob This plan, the Indiana Plan or a variation of it, does level the playing field. If a competitive balance is not what the split supporters are trying to get, then what is? It sounds like you won't accept anything that brings the association back together. "As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone" if this is all your are concerned about then a total split is the only thing that will make you happy.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Apr 29, 2016 8:03:07 GMT -6
As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone, your plan doesnt work. Ever Lets now adjust the playoff system and move on. Bob This plan, the Indiana Plan or a variation of it, does level the playing field. If a competitive balance is not what the split supporters are trying to get, then what is? It sounds like you won't accept anything that brings the association back together. "As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone" if this is all your are concerned about then a total split is the only thing that will make you happy. You must realize, that some people are willing to set the house on fire and then shoot at the firemen trying to put the fire out and save the house. Another way to look at it, "Sometimes you have to wreck the truck, to collect the insurance, to pay the truck note." Larry the Cable Guy. "The roof, The roof, the roof is on fire, we don't need no water let the, CENSORED Burn!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by eag on Apr 29, 2016 9:36:33 GMT -6
As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone, your plan doesnt work. Ever Lets now adjust the playoff system and move on. Bob This plan, the Indiana Plan or a variation of it, does level the playing field. If a competitive balance is not what the split supporters are trying to get, then what is? It sounds like you won't accept anything that brings the association back together. "As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone" if this is all your are concerned about then a total split is the only thing that will make you happy. What I'm gathering from Bigbob is that if a school can deny enrollment or recruit outside a zone, then they need to be split. Unless the out of zone students are M&M transfers. Or unless they come from non-football schools and feed into the nearby football schools. The advantage held by those schools isn't an issue. And it is much more important to split off schools that are Private that COULD create a factory, even if the don't have the desire or the practical ability to do it, than to actually assess a school individually. His quote " As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone, your plan doesnt work. Ever" tells all. In his mind, the plan whereby a school that creates an inordinate amount of success because of the enrollment advantage being moved to an appropriate level doesn't solve the issue, but moving a private school with a sub .500 program while leaving in place a public school with advantages that may be present does solve the problem. The only reasonable conclusion is that 1) he simply doesn't want to associate with private schools or 2) he is affiliated with a public school that has some sort of program advantage that will allow it it be a perennial power if certain privates were removed, and he doesn't want that threatened. And he will say there are no such public programs. OK, then it shouldn't be an issue then. If there are no such programs, there will be none caught up in the reclassing. That's the beauty - it catches all the ones that need moving and none of the rest.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Apr 29, 2016 13:26:58 GMT -6
Bob Do you remember saying this in another thread?: "Now, with that being said, do I believe that the "split" as it has become known, is the absolute best solution? NO, NO, NO!!! However, it, for the first time, has show the anger of the schools that have been beat on for the last 40 years by an evermore growing population of schools that refuse to live by the spirit and intent of the rules. When I say this, I absolutely include a segment of the non-select population as well! We MUST come up with a simple, concise, common sense approach, that indentifies, and seperates schools that refuse to live by the intent of fair competition. IMO, we are making this way to complicated. There is always a simplistic approach that works best. I do believe we will find it, but until then, this discourse and "battle" as it were, is both healthy and necessary!" I do believe that the plan we have been discussing is exactly what you are talking about. If not please tell us specifically what you don't like about this plan. As long as any school can deny enrollment and openly recruit student body outside of a normal, geographic zone, your plan doesnt work. Ever Lets now adjust the playoff system and move on. Bob If you have evidence of a school "openly recruiting" then turn that school in to the LHSAA, or let the school you support know so they can.
|
|