QUOTE
Print | E-mail | Comment (1 comment(s)) | Rate | Text Size
A closer look at IHSAA changes
By Adam Parkhouse
Home Cookin'
Published: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:10 AM CDT
The IHSAA Executive Committee had a busy session earlier this week, approving a couple changes that will fairly dramatically impact the landscape of high school sports.
Not all of these changes are for the better, though. Some don’t go far enough and I remain perplexed as to why the committee continues to be against something it rejected.
We’ll call these changes, or lack thereof, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
The Good
*
In football, the committee voted to approve adding a sixth class. Basically, this only affects Class 5A, which will be divided in half.
The top 32 schools in terms of enrollment will form the new Class 6A, while the bottom 32 will remain in Class 5A.
According to 2010-11 enrollment numbers, Michigan City, La Porte and Chesterton will remain in Class 5A. Other Duneland Conference members Lake Central, Portage, Crown Point, Merrillville and Valparaiso would move up to Class 6A.
I’m going to go ahead and call this a good thing for our local boys. Here’s a fact: Since 1995, when the consolidation formed Michigan City High School, 15 of 16 Class 5A state crowns have been won by teams who will move up to Class 6A with this new system. Warren Central has won five, Penn has won four, Ben Davis three and Fishers, Center Grove and Carmel have each won one.
Only Bloomington South, the 1998 champ, would be in the new Class 5A.
Another fact: The disparity between the bottom enrollment in Class 5A before the change and the top is far, far greater than the disparity in any other class. Has this created an unlevel playing field? Well, the state champ stats would certainly indicate that.
The one drawback is, by dividing the class in half, you’re going to lose a tournament game somewhere along the line. Not sure what the new format will be for sectionals just yet, but that’s probably where the game gets dropped.
Overall, I’m in favor of this move.
The Bad
The committee also voted to incorporate a “Tournament Success Factor.” I’ve also seen it called a “Tradition Factor,” but it may as well be called “Public Schools are Tired of Private Schools Winning Everything Factor.”
Here’s how it will work: Over a period of two years in all team sports, each team in the state will accumulate a point value based on tournament success. Teams are awarded four points for a state title, three points for a semi-state title, two points for a regional title and one point for a sectional title. If a team piles up six points in two years, they move up a class.
Unless, you know, you’re already in the top class. So, yeah.
What does this mean? A state championship followed by a regional title moves you up. So, for a program like Marquette volleyball, all those state championships would have had to take place in higher classes, aside from the first two, of course, had this system been in place then.
Look, you can call this whatever you want, but it’s clearly targeted at private schools. There have been several ideas floated over the years as to how to level the playing field between private and public schools, and this is apparently what they settled on.
I’m not a huge fan, but if this is going to be the system, I think the sample size should be four years, not two. That was the original proposal, apparently, but the committee voted in a two-year evaluation period. Punishing a team for getting good for a couple years seems out of bounds to me. Doing so for success over a four-year span would be an easier pill to swallow.
The Ugly
As part of the football proposal, there was verbiage about a seeding system. Basically, it stated each sectional would have the top two slots seeded.
If you’ve read my column in the past, you know I’m a proponent of seeding sectionals. I’m perfectly fine with allowing all teams into the postseason, but it really grinds me when a team that goes 8-1 has to travel to play at a 2-7 school.
Even worse is when a 9-0 team and 8-1 squad meet in the first round while two schools with three combined wins play elsewhere in the same sectional.
The goal of any tournament should be to get the best possible matchup in the championship. The current system doesn’t allow for that, so seeding the top two was better than nothing.
Except the committee voted it down.
Why? I do not know. It baffles my mind. It would be easy to do and would vastly improve the state tournament.
There are too many hard-headed, old-fashioned people in positions of power in this state who cling to silly traditions (the blind draw) while callously casting aside others (single-class basketball). Pick a lane, already.
So, there it is. Some good, some bad, some ugly. No matter what, change is coming to Indiana high school sports.
For better or worse.
Contact Sports Editor Adam Parkhouse at aparkhouse@thenewsdispatch.com or 874-7211, Ext. 461. Follow him on Twitter @LPCSportsGuy.
A closer look at IHSAA changes
By Adam Parkhouse
Home Cookin'
Published: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:10 AM CDT
The IHSAA Executive Committee had a busy session earlier this week, approving a couple changes that will fairly dramatically impact the landscape of high school sports.
Not all of these changes are for the better, though. Some don’t go far enough and I remain perplexed as to why the committee continues to be against something it rejected.
We’ll call these changes, or lack thereof, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
The Good
*
In football, the committee voted to approve adding a sixth class. Basically, this only affects Class 5A, which will be divided in half.
The top 32 schools in terms of enrollment will form the new Class 6A, while the bottom 32 will remain in Class 5A.
According to 2010-11 enrollment numbers, Michigan City, La Porte and Chesterton will remain in Class 5A. Other Duneland Conference members Lake Central, Portage, Crown Point, Merrillville and Valparaiso would move up to Class 6A.
I’m going to go ahead and call this a good thing for our local boys. Here’s a fact: Since 1995, when the consolidation formed Michigan City High School, 15 of 16 Class 5A state crowns have been won by teams who will move up to Class 6A with this new system. Warren Central has won five, Penn has won four, Ben Davis three and Fishers, Center Grove and Carmel have each won one.
Only Bloomington South, the 1998 champ, would be in the new Class 5A.
Another fact: The disparity between the bottom enrollment in Class 5A before the change and the top is far, far greater than the disparity in any other class. Has this created an unlevel playing field? Well, the state champ stats would certainly indicate that.
The one drawback is, by dividing the class in half, you’re going to lose a tournament game somewhere along the line. Not sure what the new format will be for sectionals just yet, but that’s probably where the game gets dropped.
Overall, I’m in favor of this move.
The Bad
The committee also voted to incorporate a “Tournament Success Factor.” I’ve also seen it called a “Tradition Factor,” but it may as well be called “Public Schools are Tired of Private Schools Winning Everything Factor.”
Here’s how it will work: Over a period of two years in all team sports, each team in the state will accumulate a point value based on tournament success. Teams are awarded four points for a state title, three points for a semi-state title, two points for a regional title and one point for a sectional title. If a team piles up six points in two years, they move up a class.
Unless, you know, you’re already in the top class. So, yeah.
What does this mean? A state championship followed by a regional title moves you up. So, for a program like Marquette volleyball, all those state championships would have had to take place in higher classes, aside from the first two, of course, had this system been in place then.
Look, you can call this whatever you want, but it’s clearly targeted at private schools. There have been several ideas floated over the years as to how to level the playing field between private and public schools, and this is apparently what they settled on.
I’m not a huge fan, but if this is going to be the system, I think the sample size should be four years, not two. That was the original proposal, apparently, but the committee voted in a two-year evaluation period. Punishing a team for getting good for a couple years seems out of bounds to me. Doing so for success over a four-year span would be an easier pill to swallow.
The Ugly
As part of the football proposal, there was verbiage about a seeding system. Basically, it stated each sectional would have the top two slots seeded.
If you’ve read my column in the past, you know I’m a proponent of seeding sectionals. I’m perfectly fine with allowing all teams into the postseason, but it really grinds me when a team that goes 8-1 has to travel to play at a 2-7 school.
Even worse is when a 9-0 team and 8-1 squad meet in the first round while two schools with three combined wins play elsewhere in the same sectional.
The goal of any tournament should be to get the best possible matchup in the championship. The current system doesn’t allow for that, so seeding the top two was better than nothing.
Except the committee voted it down.
Why? I do not know. It baffles my mind. It would be easy to do and would vastly improve the state tournament.
There are too many hard-headed, old-fashioned people in positions of power in this state who cling to silly traditions (the blind draw) while callously casting aside others (single-class basketball). Pick a lane, already.
So, there it is. Some good, some bad, some ugly. No matter what, change is coming to Indiana high school sports.
For better or worse.
Contact Sports Editor Adam Parkhouse at aparkhouse@thenewsdispatch.com or 874-7211, Ext. 461. Follow him on Twitter @LPCSportsGuy.