Districts.....and more
IHSA 14 Proposals Advance
- Thread starter sporthog_9er
- Start date
I believe that's correct. Useless two weeks that don't mean anything besides playing time and getting better. Star player gets injured in week 1 or 2 when games don't matter? Watch out
All of it means nothing until we see who’s in each district.
Round 1 and 2 won't determined who makes playoffs, but they will determine seeding when you get there. Pretty big incentive to schedule some cupcakes here
generally 90% of proposals pass. The leg committee knows how to count vote.
5, 11, and 18 are the only ones I can see even being close. I think 11 passes, 5 fails and 18 is a coin flop (leaning to fail but I think it is within 20 votes either way)
Hard to say without knowing actual districts, but based on the preliminary/hypothetical districts that have been posted here before, the playoffs get even more watered down (Blowouts!)
Top 4 from each district make playoffs, regardless of talent relative to overall teams in the state. So if there is a "tough" district using current standards (5 or 6 "perennial" playoff teams), and another that is weak (2 or 3 teams), the districts have removed a couple solid schools and replaced them with weaker teams.
For example, I guarantee that there will be posts here about the 6th place team in district "X" being better than the 3rd place team in district "Y".
Maybe I'm wrong, but I know lots of school are sensitive here to anything which makes it easier to transfer. And there were several examples of abuse in the past.
Can see examples of schools brining in a parent as an "assistant coach" or "parking supervisor" and then bringing in a phenom athletes who happens their offseason
Why is there a proposal allowing coaches to conduct offseason weight/conditioning workouts. Hasn't every football/basketball/baseball team been doing this....like forever? Was there just never anything on the books formally allowing it? Seems odd
Of the 99.9% of you that are smarter than me (probably even higher than that), could someone explain how 4 and 12 are different? Also, how does Prop 14 work? That one seems fishy to me.
Did someone (soucie?) do a mock up what he thought districts would be a few weeks ago?
The way I read it - 4 is "off-season", meaning during the school year, but out of season for the sport; while 12 is specific to Summer.
I believe a point of confusion for some is "contact day", especially when football is the primary sport we think of. In this context, "contact" is not necessarily kids physically making contact with each other - Contact meaning coaches in contact with the athletes conducting sport specific drills and skills. What is interesting is there is no mention of a ball being used, which is what I was told makes a drill or skill sport specific.
I don't get it either. Twitter is full of posts from many programs conducting out of season weight training and conditioning.
I'm in favor of doing anything that means student-athletes are with their HS coaches, and not their AAU/Daddy Ball coaches. That's the real separation that needs to happen.
Prop 4 is for off season (winter/spring) training/weightlifting session. Instead of an "open weight room" for everyone, it would be a "football" lifting session. Off season workouts are considered "open" for all students, not just those participating in that sport.
Prop 12 is for the same training/weightlifting sessions but they don't count as a contact day for summer days (25 or 18 if passed). This is so coaches can practice a 2-3 days a week but still have lifting 4 days a week without losing an additional day or 2 for just lifting.
I could be wrong, but I read it to mean the coach of the team, instead of the conditioning staff, could conduct the workouts.
Prop 14 and 15 were submitted by the very left wing principal of Lakeview High School, who has no involvement or history in sports. IMO, the goal is to make it difficult to prevent boys from participating in girls sports in the future.
Ridiculous in my opinion, and I think said principal should put more effort in fixing the dismal athletic program at Lakeview than lobbing politically-motivated IHSA proposals.
All of those "soft, weak programs which never succeed in the playoffs." still have teenage student-athletes on them that want to play the game, maybe not at the highest absolute level, but just play the game, build the camaraderie, and create lifelong memories. We need to stop thinking that CCL/ESCC and a few high end public schools rule the land. Every member of the IHSA is an equal member. Votes count the same no matter who they come from. Some on here have a hard time with this thought process, but that is what the schools signed up for. Don't like it? Then leave the IHSA. Over 90% of high school football players will not be playing beyond high school. Some of you on here think we are talking about professional athletes and how the IHSA will destroy society as we know it if the Districts Proposal passes.
Agreed. Give me a 3:30 Thursday afternoon Harlan vs. Ag. Science matchup any day in front of 12 people. Kids that need football way more than football will ever need them.
They would matter for playoff seeding. Which is why there will still be scheduling issues.
And some of us here, all of us from successful programs prefer to be successful due to decisions we’ve made rather than the decisions made for us. The current district plan would cause schools south of 80 to travel further for games for nine weeks out of the year. This means fans will have further to travel, and potentially not make the trip. We see a lot of multi class conferences such as the Sangamo with classes 1-3 and the CS Eight with 4-6. The schools made these decisions in order to cut down on travel expenses and increase fan participation. This means a school like U-High, a small 4A school will play Glenwood, a larger 6A school. Ironically, U-High went 7-2 this year before getting beat in the playoffs. But they still made the choice for themselves to compete at a higher level.
Districts will force a school such as Rochester to travel across the state to play Macomb, an inferior program, simply because mediocre programs want districts. Rochester left its previous conference due to excessive travel and inferior competition. Taylorville
And Lincoln left the CS8 several years ago because they could not compete. Lincoln returned this year and promptly was out scored 113 to 14 by Rochester in the regular season and playoff matchups. Taylorville’s district would include Rochester, and create the same problem, which forced Taylorville to secede from the CS8 several years ago.
Next, I would like to hear about the benefits of East St. Louis, traveling to Danville for a matchup. Both of these schools are in communities with high poverty rates. This is a six hour 20 minute round-trip in a car, that round-trip gets longer in a bus.
Next I would like you to discuss the seven hour round-trip from Edwardsville to Frankfurt Lincoln Way, East. Again, that is by car. That round-trip gets a lot longer by bus. And let’s not make all of this about schools south of 80. The schools north of 80 must travel to the southern schools as well.
Yes, this is about the kids. And putting them on the road nine weeks out of the year with the potential long road trips is not conducive to success. Now, I can see support for doing the playoffs as a 1–32 set up, if simply, because it guarantees a true champion and fewer schools will be traveling such distances as the playoffs proceed. otherwise, districts, dilute the quality of the season and encourage mediocrity.
Take any proposal and cherry pick 10-12 schools that will be negatively affected by the decision, and we can just eliminate HS football altogether. We can/are doing it with the current format. Remember, there are well over 500 schools that play football. If the proposal negatively affects 20-30% of schools, then there is a stronger argument against it. I see this as having a negative affect on less than 5% of member schools, and, it seems as if the decision makers at the member schools are really interested to see how this goes.
Yeah, the Edwardsville situation is not ideal. Neither is the competitive balance between some of the teams in the possible districts. Remember, the IHSA did not release their version of districts to the public so we have no idea what they really would have been. Only Soucie's prediction of districts was made public.
Not sure why you think teams will travel all 9 weeks. Should be either 4 or 5 away games depending on the non-conf. schedule.
If the IHSA is concerned about travel for some of the schools, I'm sure there is a way to address it and make it the least restrictive as possible.
I would like to ask, why would
Your comment negates the fact one team or another will travel. Yes, Edwardsville will travel over 7 hours (by car) roundtrip for a game against LWE. But also Lockport would do the same for the following week to Edwardsville. I am using the same argument against districts as others have used against seeding ALL classes 1-32. That said every school would travel under the proposed districting plan. Whereas initially only 1/4 of the schools would travel in the 1st round, 1/8th in the 2nd round, 1/16th in the 3rd round, and 1/32nd in the 4th round.
Now let's address the obvious bias it gives towards the Chicagoland schools. I am perfectly fine with those schools playing each other. They have natural rivalries within their region which should be preserved. However, making a change which will negatively affect ALL schools south of Joliet is not cherry picking. I merely gave some details on how it will affect successful programs in 3 different classes and socioeconomic backgrounds. Those proposed districts are from the 2019 IHSA released proposal, not an insider's prediction. This proposal is available on this site with a simple search (IHSA Proposed Districts). I did not utilize 4A South District C (8) on purpose because it throws a HUGE (use your Trump voice) wrench into the mix. Althoff Catholic (1A) was in that district. So what is to be done when a school has a significant drop in enrollment, as often occurs in the private schools? It also has Breese Mater Dei (2A). And missing from the 4A districts were Burbank St. Laurence, this year's 4A runner up. They would be placed in the 5A North District (D). Aurora Central Catholic (enrollment 420 this year, 573 of the year the IHSa last presented a proposal) would sit in the 5A North District A (9).
So while mediocre and underperforming programs have a desire to continue their acceptance of average and participation trophy level achievement, the communities which endeavor for better are the ones carrying their burden.
Missouri Class 6 District #2 is why you don’t want districts….
Districts only benefit poor teams & hurt the strong teams imo.
Illinois playoff system is awesome, could just improve the seeding. Would hate to see it go.
Districts only benefit poor teams & hurt the strong teams imo.
Illinois playoff system is awesome, could just improve the seeding. Would hate to see it go.
The harsh reality is Districts will happen for at least one year. In the end, semi's and championships will look similar to the current format however there will be a lot of different teams finally make the playoffs in this district format.
So the IHSA should stay with the current format because the strong teams deserve it?
or they should stay with the current format because the poor teams might have some successes under the new format?
I would think the broad interest of high school sports is to create opportunities for all high school students to participate in athletics. Not to make sure only the strong survive and that the poor football schools and poor football kids should just realize that the strong football schools and rich football schools should make all decisions.
That's what I think is getting lost in all of this district talk. There is a very small percentage of schools represented on this board and all are only looking out for their school rather than the entire state consisting of schools of all sizes and competitive levels.
Define "strong".
Outside of an outlier 3-6 CCL team that could probably win a few playoff games, I think +/- the best 256 teams make the playoffs in the current system. I realize the CPS schools screw that up a little, but that will happen in districts too.
What my gut doesn't like about districts, is that before a single game has been played, you have a group of 8 teams, and 4 make the playoffs. Could have a strong district, that goes 16-0 in their 2 non-district games, then round robin each other, and 4 make the playoffs. Another district goes 0-16, then round robin each other, and 4 make the playoffs. All of us will "know" the 5th and maybe even 6th team from the one district are better teams than ones making the playoffs from the weaker district. How is that creating opportunities? Keeping the 230th best team (picking a random number) out of the playoffs, to "create an opportunity" for the 270th, is wrong.
The example that keeps sticking in my head, as a biased Sterling supporter, is the district they were in for 2019 proposal (5A South C). Six of the 8 teams were "perennial" playoff teams, with success of winning games in the playoffs. Why should 2 of them have no chance of making the playoffs, so that a 3-6 team from a crappy district make the playoffs? That's not "creating opportunities".
