Jump to content


Is the mulitplier affecting things?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
8 replies to this topic

#1 gusdog

gusdog

    Elite Member

  • Super Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,265 posts

Posted 20 November 2006 - 06:34 PM

Saw this thread, and had a few thoughts.

http://www.illinoishighschoolsports.com/fo...read.php?t=7540

Assuming the numbers are correct, it would seem that the multiplier is working, at least to a certain extent.

If over 19% of the schools are private schools, then it would not be considered a material statistical anomaly that 21% of the schools involved in the state finals this year are private schools.  Especially when you consider that the tournament is single elimination.

If you consider that there only 554 football-playing schools, then the percentage of private schools playing football is probably greater than 19%.

Of course, I am assuming all the figure quoted there are accurate, which may not be the case.

Anyway, I think that the finals look to be a pretty accurate extrapolation of the general population, which tells me that the multiplier is having the effect desired by those who voted it in.

The bad news:  We are probably stuck with it.

The good news:  They probably won't monkey with it, at least for awhile.

Thoughts?

#2 ChicagoCyclone

ChicagoCyclone

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 November 2006 - 07:00 PM

Is the net effect of the multiplier to artificially "level the playing field" by making private schools compete against public schools with greater enrollment, supposedly offsetting the "recruiting" factor?

If so, I don't really have too much of a problem with it. There's much more prestige in defeating larger, well-known football schools. Not that a state championship at any level is somehow less valuable, but there'd be something slightly missing from winning a championship if, in the end, you knew you weren't playing schools who were true competition.

The eight-class system often leaves me wondering how the Cycs would stack up in head-to-head competition against all the 6, 7, and 8A schools.

gocycs.gif

Posted Image


#3 TornadoFan

TornadoFan

    Silver Member

  • Super Member
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 20 November 2006 - 10:50 PM

Mark my words.....Cream ALWAYS rises to the top. Multiply it and you end up with more cream!!

Dont sweat the small stuff. Just keep doing what you are doing.  :goodjob:

Hal

#4 cornerrat

cornerrat

    Forum V.I.P.

  • Super Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,034 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 November 2006 - 08:35 AM

QUOTE (ChicagoCyclone @ Nov 21 2006, 12:00 AM)
Is the net effect of the multiplier to artificially "level the playing field" by making private schools compete against public schools with greater enrollment, supposedly offsetting the "recruiting" factor?

If so, I don't really have too much of a problem with it. There's much more prestige in defeating larger, well-known football schools. Not that a state championship at any level is somehow less valuable, but there'd be something slightly missing from winning a championship if, in the end, you knew you weren't playing schools who were true competition.

The eight-class system often leaves me wondering how the Cycs would stack up in head-to-head competition against all the 6, 7, and 8A schools.

gocycs.gif

All.... "Level the playing field" thats a bunch of you know what. Its an attempt to push up an bunch Catholic schools together year after year so they knock each other off hoping this will allow the publics to go deeper in the playoffs or even get the big trophy. Ratsy

#5 gusdog

gusdog

    Elite Member

  • Super Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,265 posts

Posted 21 November 2006 - 09:54 AM

QUOTE (cornerrat @ Nov 21 2006, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE (ChicagoCyclone @ Nov 21 2006, 12:00 AM)
Is the net effect of the multiplier to artificially "level the playing field" by making private schools compete against public schools with greater enrollment, supposedly offsetting the "recruiting" factor?

If so, I don't really have too much of a problem with it. There's much more prestige in defeating larger, well-known football schools. Not that a state championship at any level is somehow less valuable, but there'd be something slightly missing from winning a championship if, in the end, you knew you weren't playing schools who were true competition.

The eight-class system often leaves me wondering how the Cycs would stack up in head-to-head competition against all the 6, 7, and 8A schools.

gocycs.gif

All.... "Level the playing field" thats a bunch of you know what. Its an attempt to push up an bunch Catholic schools together year after year so they knock each other off hoping this will allow the publics to go deeper in the playoffs or even get the big trophy. Ratsy

Ratsy calls it. . .

Since public schools usually dominate basketball, I wonder why we don't see a multiplier in that sport?

Answer - Such a proposal wouldn't garner votes, but then again, you don't hear the private schools whining about it either.

Essentially, the quorum of membership is public schools, and so they can hold court on rules.  The private schools are members only in name.

In football, they just give the private schools the finger because they can.

The only recourse of the private schools is to beat their butts each and every time they can.

#6 ChicagoCyclone

ChicagoCyclone

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 November 2006 - 12:37 PM

Essentially, then, the multiplier is an acknowledgement by the IHSA that private schools have some sort of advantage over public schools that they must take action to correct. Have they specifically stated what that advantage is?

I've overheard some grumblings on other forums about there being no limit to the distance from which a private school attendee must live. Is this the case, and is this the advantage of the private schools that the multiplier is supposed to correct?

Does anyone know, in specific terms, what the IHSA stated in its ruling that eventually led to the application of the multiplier? Without some sort of statistical evidence, having not to do with football scores or records but analysis of athletic ability of those who chose to attend private versus public institutions, to back up a strong inductive argument, or absolute deductive logic that led to the decision, I can't see how this would ever pass.

Who were the lawyers who argued on behalf of private institutions?

Posted Image


#7 gusdog

gusdog

    Elite Member

  • Super Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,265 posts

Posted 21 November 2006 - 01:13 PM

QUOTE (ChicagoCyclone @ Nov 21 2006, 05:37 PM)
Essentially, then, the multiplier is an acknowledgement by the IHSA that private schools have some sort of advantage over public schools that they must take action to correct. Have they specifically stated what that advantage is?

I've overheard some grumblings on other forums about there being no limit to the distance from which a private school attendee must live. Is this the case, and is this the advantage of the private schools that the multiplier is supposed to correct?

Does anyone know, in specific terms, what the IHSA stated in its ruling that eventually led to the application of the multiplier? Without some sort of statistical evidence, having not to do with football scores or records but analysis of athletic ability of those who chose to attend private versus public institutions, to back up a strong inductive argument, or absolute deductive logic that led to the decision, I can't see how this would ever pass.

Who were the lawyers who argued on behalf of private institutions?

Bingo...you got it, in a nutshell.  No limits on district.

A group of private schools (I'm pretty sure SHG was one of those schools) did protest, and I believe that they filed suit, but a settlement was reached, resulting in the 1.65 multilier in place for football.

#8 ChicagoCyclone

ChicagoCyclone

    Silver Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 November 2006 - 01:41 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the motivation for private schools not to limit the distace from which a kid travels to attend exists because the crop of potential students of the faith it is based on are spread thinner and wider than the pool of kids who attend public schools.

See what I'm getting at here?

The rule that originally was there to keep the institution from faltering due to lack of attendance now seems to be biting the football team in the butt Does SHG keep records of the locations from which its student body is derived?

Most of the kids I knew who were from outside Springfield when I went to SHG weren't even athletes. They simply went there because their town didn't have a Catholic school for them to attend. Unless, for some reason (based on solid evidence) the IHSA believes that private schools have perverted this rule in order to use it as a recruiting too, and they are willing to openly state this belief, they have no legitimate right to have a multiplier.

Posted Image


#9 captain'00

captain'00

    Forum V.I.P.

  • Super Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,647 posts

Posted 21 November 2006 - 01:51 PM

and shg was the lead school in the suit b/c jca didnt want to have anything to do w/ it.

the question here is...how does one come to assume that just because you can pull from a larger area, you have more football talent at your school?  (as was posted before, this multiplier does not apply to basketball.)  even w/ our 30 mile radius for a boundy, we still have fewer students total than most, if not all, of the other schools in our conference.  we get penalized, fine.  i don't agree w/ the decision, but like tornadofan said, the cream will always rise to the top.

gocycs.gif




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users