|
Post by carookie on Dec 22, 2021 11:14:50 GMT -6
Question about these promotion/relegation or "success factor" systems. What about the largest classifications? I have never agreed with promotion/relegation or success factors in HS settings for a few reasons, this being one of them. The others are the fact that the team promoted is usually NOT going to be team that had the success. Those guys have graduated. What I find most curious is that in Louisiana-the schools that would be most targeted for such a system voluntarily chose to play up. John Curtis Christian plays in the top class. Evangel Christian Academy played in the top class when they were elite (they have fallen on harder times now but still play up to 4A) and the new kid on the block Lafayette Christian Academy is playing up after winning 4 out of the last 5 titles in the lower private division. Agree wholeheartedly. I hate when states do this, but I especially hate when they do it based on a small (one or two year) sample size. If you want to look at a large sample size, say six plus years, then to me that shows that a school does have a tradition of being better and not just a good class that won some games. That being written, states that practice competitive equity don't seem to care if their methods punish one group of kids for success. They seem to care more about every school getting a trophy at some time, and allowing more big schools to drop down the ladder and get into the playoffs in a weaker division- the more big schools in the playoffs the more $$.
|
|
|
Post by redandwhite on Dec 24, 2021 12:58:17 GMT -6
Minnesota MSHSL is all public and private schools. No multiplier. Several private and public schools do opt up in football and hockey. In football we have 6 classes plus 9-man. This year one private school (smallest 11 man class) won a title. The rest were all public schools. There is also a formula for enrollment that uses Free/Reduced Lunch numbers as a multiplier for reducing the "Official" enrollment and allowing for schools to play down in classification.
|
|