The document analyzes the impact of an enrollment multiplier applied by the IHSA to non-boundary schools five years after it was implemented. It finds that in the bracketed team sports, there was on average a 5.2% increase in championships and finalist appearances by non-boundary schools. However, in non-bracketed sports there was a 2.3% decrease for non-boundary schools. Overall, the data suggests the multiplier has failed at its goal of leveling the playing field between boundary and non-boundary schools in most sports over the past five years.

1. The IHSA Multiplier 5 years later;
On December 28 2005 member schools of the IHSA voted to apply a 1.65 enrollment
multiplier to all non‐boundaried member schools.
The following is a report of the impact of the multiplier done by myself this past
June. My motivation to do this was out of my own curiosity since we have been
affected by this multiplier at U‐High/Chicago. My intention is to open
communication with the IHSA on the subject and to take the emotion of the matter
out of the equation by looking at the facts as they have played out over the past
number of years. I am meeting on Friday August 27 to speak directly with Marty
Hickman to share this report with him before this is made public out of respect for
the IHSA. It is my ultimate goal to make the IHSA an even better organization for its
777 member schools and over 380,000 student‐athletes who compete in
educationally based athletics. (NFHS 08‐09)
According to Wikipedia a “level playing field” is a concept of fairness, not that each
player has an equal chance to succeed, but that they all play by the same set of rules.
One example they use is as follows; when playing football every team is allowed to
let the same amount of people participate in the game and on the field.
The IHSA advanced legislation to impose an enrollment multiplier some 5 years ago
out of concern that boundaried schools were not being given an equal chance to
succeed against non‐boundaried schools. Since they are not able to recruit students
to attend their school outside their established school boundary the non‐boundaried
schools have a built in unfair advantage. The multiplier to the 146 non‐boundaried
schools was the IHSA’s answer to this unfair advantage.
The following charts the success for the 5 years prior to the multiplier 2000‐2005
(fall) and compares this to the success of the teams from 2005‐2006 through 2009‐
2010. My research of the bracketed team sports includes the teams that made it to
the State Championship game/match, or the top two teams in the state in a given
year.
The following bracketed sports are compared for the 2 ‐ 5 year period’s pre and post
implementation of the multiplier from 2000‐2010.
Bracketed Team Sport Pre‐multiplier 2000‐ Post Multiplier 2005‐
2005 2010
# Champions & finalist # Champions & finalist
/ % Non‐boundaried / % Non‐boundaried
Baseball 20/6 30% 36/7 19%

2. Boys basketball 19/2 10.5% 32/5 15.6
1 vacated title
Girls Basketball 19/5 26.3 % 32/9 28.1 %
1 vacated title
Football 1A 10/0 0% 10/0 0%
Football 2A 10/1 10% 10/1 10%
Football 3A 10/2 20% 10/0 0%
Football 4A 10/5 50% 10/7 70%
Football 5A 10/7 70% 10/7 70%
Football 6A 10/4 40% 10/5 50%
Football 7A 8/0 0% 10/2 20%
Football 8A 8/0 0% 10/2 20%
Boys Soccer 20/8 40% 24/12 50%
Girls Soccer 20/6 30% 24/19 79.1 %
Girls Softball 20/1 5% 28/1 3.5 %
Girls Volleyball 20/10 50% 32/8 25%
Average in the Boundaried 74.55 Boundaried 69.32
bracketed team sports Non‐boundaried 25.45 Non‐boundaried 30.68
5.2 % increase in the
number of non‐
boundaried teams
since the multiplier
Non‐Bracketed Team #Champions & # Champions &
Sports Finalists / % non‐ finalists / % non‐
boundaried boundaried
Boys Cross‐Country 20/1 5% 26/2 7.6%

3. Girls Cross‐Country 20/4 20% 24/4 16.6 %
Boys Golf 20/10 50% 24/12 50%
Girls Golf 10/0 0% 19/7 36.8 %
Boys Track and Field 20/4 20% 24/0 0%
Girls Track and Field 20/3 15% 24/3 12.5 %
Boys Wrestling 20/11 55% 24/6 25%
5 Year averages Boundaried 76.5% Boundaried 78.8 %
Non‐Bounded 23.5% Non‐Boundaried 21.2
Decrease in non‐
boundaried 2.3 %
The IHSA has expanded the number of classes in 4 sports from 2 classes to 4 classes
in baseball, boys and girl’s basketball and volleyball for the past three school years.
The sports of boy’s golf, boys and girls cross‐country, boys and girls track and field,
boys and girls soccer and wrestling increased from 2 classes to three in the past 3
years. The increase in the number of champions/finalists is due to this increase in
the number of offerings within the sports.
Also note that girls and boys tennis, girls and boys swimming, girls badminton and
boys volleyball have one class of state competition.
Summary of the results:
Over the past 5 years since the multiplier was instituted there is a 5.2 % average
higher percentage of non‐boundaried teams winning championships or being state
finalists in the bracketed sports. IF leveling the playing field was defined as
“reducing the number/percentage of non‐boundaried teams success on the state
level” then the multiplier has failed to accomplish its goal during the first 5 years.
The only three bracketed team sports that could argue they meet the goal of
reducing the success of non‐boundaried schools would be Baseball, Football 3A and
Girls Volleyball. 10 of the 15 bracketed team sports have seen an increase in the
success of non‐boundaried schools during this 5‐year period in part due to an
increase in the number of opportunities provided by the IHSA.
In the non‐bracketed sports there is a decrease in the success by non‐boundaried
schools over the same 5‐year period by 2.3 %.

4. A look back to the 1990’s
For sake of comparison I thought it worthwhile to expand the comparison to include
the decade of the 1990’s and examine the trend in comparison to the first decade of
the 21st century.
Bracketed Sport 1990‐1999 2000‐2010
# state champions and # state champions and
finalists/ % non‐ finalists/% non‐
boundaried schools boundaried schools
Baseball 40/7 17.5% 56/13 23.2%
Boys Basketball 40/11 27.5 % 51/7 13.7%
Girls basketball 40/4 10% 51/14 27.4 %
Football 1A 20/5 25% 20/0 0%
Football 2A 20/0 0% 20/2 10%
Football 3A 20/4 20% 20/2 10%
Football 4A 20/9 45% 20/12 60%
Football 5A 20/11 55% 20/14 70%
Football 6A 20/2 10% 20/9 45%
Football 7A 0/0 Started 2001 18/2 11%
Football 8A 0/0 Started 2001 18/2 11%
Boys Soccer 26/4 15.3% 44/20 45.4%
Girls Soccer 20/0 0% 44/15 34%
Girls Softball 40/4 10% 58/2 3%
Girls Volleyball 40/16 40% 52/18 34.6%
15 bracketed sports 366/77 21.0% 512/132 25.7%

5. 10 year average 4.6 % increase in non‐
boundaried teams
success over the past
decade
Non‐Bracketed Team 1990‐1999 2000‐2010
Sports
# of champions and # champions and
finalists / % non‐ finalists / % non‐
boundaried boundaried
Boys Cross‐Country 40/4 10% 46/3 6%
Girls Cross‐Country 40/2 5% 44/8 18%
Boys Golf 40/15 37.5 % 46/24 52.1 %
Girls Golf 20/4 20% 29/11 37.9%
Boys Track and Field 46/8 17.3% 44/4 9%
Girls Track and Field 40/8 20% 44/6 13.6 %
Boys Wrestling 42/13 30.9% 44/ 17 38.6 %
7 non‐bracketed sports 268/54 20.1% 297/73 24.5 %
4.4% increase in non‐
boundaried teams
success from 1990’s
I am quite certain “non‐boundaried schools” did not exist as defined by the IHSA
back in the 1990’s. The first language used by the IHSA was “private”. In the decade
of 2000 the IHSA language was changed to include all schools without enrollment
boundaries or “non‐boundaried schools” including many public schools.
36­year history of IHSA Football success
The source of this multiplier came to the IHSA via the Football Advisory Committee
so I thought it would be interesting to examine the 36‐year history of that sport as a
whole. According to IHSA Historian Bob Pruter and Ray Schmidt high school
football in Illinois can trace its roots to the late 19th century meaning for nearly 90
years there was not a statewide champions crowned. Many “mythical self
proclaimed” football champions but never a statewide “on the field champion.” The

6. offering of the state series began in 1974 and coincided with the Chicago Catholic
League joining the IHSA for the 75‐76 school year.
IHSA Football # of champions and
finalists since
inception / % no‐
boundaried
Football 1A 1974 72/ 5 6.9%
Football 2A 1974 72/ 15 20.8%
Football 3A 1974 72/ 15 20.8%
Football 4A 1974 72/ 31 43%
Football 5A 1974 72/ 35 48.6 %
Football 6A 1980 60/ 17 28.3 %
Football 7A 2001 18/2 11%
Football 8A 2001 18/2 11%
Summary of football 456/ 122 26.7%
36 year history of IHSA
competition
Decade of the 90’s 120/31 25.8 %
Decade of the 2000 156/43 27.5 %
Average of 90/2000 276/ 74 26.65 equals
the 36 year average
The trend in football success by non‐boundaried schools remains the same over the
past 20 years in comparison to all 36 years.
The 36 year success rate of football in comparison to the average over all success
rate of 15 bracketed sports for the past 20 years is 26.7% in football to 23.8 in all 15
sports 2.9 % higher success rate in football.

7.
Summary
The implementation of the IHSA enrollment multiplier has resulted in an even
higher ratio of success by non‐boundaried schools in the 15 bracketed team sports
in comparison to the 5 years prior to the multiplier and in comparison to the entire
decade of the 90’s.
In football the ratio of success over the past 36 years is just 2.9% above the 20‐year
average in all 15 bracketed team sports. The myth/perception is that the sport of
football is most dominated by non‐boundaried schools. This indeed does not prove
to be factual. The fact that football is such a high profile sport and that the IHSA
crowns more state champions in this sport makes the arguments front and center in
the minds of many people.
Over the past 5 years 2 different “waivers to the multiplier” have been approved to
allow marginally successful schools to be exempt from the multiplier. In most cases
the problem arises when schools are “multiplied” up one class and the team is not
very competitive even in their lower class. This creates an poorly contested game
between unequal opponents.
I am considering proposing a change in the IHSA by‐laws to eliminate the
enrollment multiplier out of the fundamental principle of democratic fairness.
Educationally based athletics is unique to the United States of America, we need to
value that experience and give each person the unique opportunity presented to
them to fully participate in a sport if they choose as equal participants.
The concept of placing a higher value of one student over another student is
fundamentally wrong. A student at a non‐boundaried school is the same as a student
at a boundaried school. The experience of athletics is the same for students at many
different types of schools, we should never allow students to be treated differently
based on their family choice of education.
I believe the IHSA is an organization that provides the structure to compete with
students from all over the great state of Illinois. Who wins a particular contest is
outside the control of the organization. An attempt to control rates of success by
particular types of schools is out the purview of the IHSA and in my opinion needs
to change.
Thanks for allowing me to share this information with you, I plan to be a part of the
solution to the problem not being part of the problem.
In that regard I want to share some thoughts on what I think should be considered
in dealing with the issues we face in High School athletics today.

8. • In my opinion it would be wise for the IHSA to consider opening a Chicago‐
based satellite office. 1 or 2 Compliance Officers would be responsible to visit
schools and meet with AD’s and coaches to do a better job of “policing” those
schools who do not comply with existing by‐laws. I think schools are not
being held accountable for their lack of compliance. Having someone on‐site
will help deter some of the problem. Also the AD’s at the CPS Schools need to
have a resource close by to help them in regards to all IHSA matters.
• I favor an IHSA that has some more teeth behind serious infractions. By doing
this it sends a positive message to the majority of the schools that are fully
compliant with both the “spirit” and “letter” of the law.
• Consider changing the transfer rules especially in boy’s basketball in the
Chicagoland area. I would favor a much tighter by‐law for the second
transfer at the very least. I would also favor a tighter by‐law for varsity
transfers than kids who have never played varsity in any sport.
• The AAU coaches need to know that they cannot run the CPS basketball
circuit and have kids follow their coach to a specific school. I think AAU
coaches need to be registered by the IHSA, identified and held accountable
for their actions. The AAU has very little control over their own and this
negatively affects basketball in Illinois, I know this is a tall order but
something needs to change in regards to the off‐season basketball programs
at some schools. Having a compliance officer could help build a better
relationship between the IHSA and AAU and stop some of the circus type
atmosphere that can exist occasionally.
• I feel strongly that having all the schools in the state compete for an IHSA
State Championship, I value having all the different types of schools compete
is the best approach to interscholastic athletics. Splitting teams into public
and private etc…….state championships is not the way to go.
• I thank you for reading this document and I look forward to meeting with
you tomorrow.
David Ribbens
Director of Athletics
University of Chicago Laboratory Schools