Public 106 Private 62

[SouthofI80FootballFan]

If I am reading your first table correctly, the lowest four playoff playoff winning percentages by private schools in games played against public schools come in the smallest four classes.

But, wait, doesn't that data directly contradict and render moot of all the whining we hear about the smaller public schools and the uphill battle they face against private schools? Doesn't that data fly in the face of posters who feel that all 1A through 4A private schools should be bumped up to 5A because the small public schools are behind the 8 ball relative to private schools?

View embedded media

I think there is only 1 poster here who thinks all privates should be bumped up to at least 3A. As I have stated multiple times and I know this is a football-based message board but in the debate of private success vs. public lack of success, you have to look beyond just football, especially in boys and girls soccer and volleyball at the lower classes.

But what has been proven through the data is there are haves and have-nots between both the public and private schools. So the question now, do the private haves hold an advantage over the public haves? One could argue based solely on the data provided by sneksrack61, Driscoll, Mt. Carmel, Rita, IC, JCA, Naz, Provi, SHG, Newman, and Loyola hold some type of advantage (especially over the private have nots) as they have 435 or the 879 wins over privates and usually beat other privates as well. But what is creating that advantage? Why has the success of these programs spanned decades while other privates/publics don't see the sustained success spanning decades? The more we debate this topic the more it becoming more evident that there are some stark economic differences between public and private and private and other private schools.

One issue I have with Sneckraks data is the comparison using the top 14 privates vs. top 36 publics. Of course the publics will win more 1st and 2nd when you have more than 2x the schools in your data set. Was this done to balance the difference in numbers of public and privates?

 

[Snetsrak61]

If I am reading your first table correctly, the lowest four playoff playoff winning percentages by private schools in games played against public schools come in the smallest four classes.

But, wait, doesn't that data directly contradict and render moot of all the whining we hear about the smaller public schools and the uphill battle they face against private schools? Doesn't that data fly in the face of posters who feel that all 1A through 4A private schools should be bumped up to 5A because the small public schools are behind the 8 ball relative to private schools?

View embedded media

Well they're all still losing records except 1A. Just not as extreme.

I think the most interesting part is finding that 47 of 61 private schools do compete at a 0.500 level against public schools. Past the multiplier, any solution should keep that in mind. I guess that was the point of the success factor, but it's design doesn't make sense the way it's done. But any past looking success classification is going to be extremely flawed IMO. And it still makes no sense to have a success factor that only affects privates IMO.

 

[Snetsrak61]

One issue I have with Sneckraks data is the comparison using the top 14 privates vs. top 36 publics. Of course the publics will win more 1st and 2nd when you have more than 2x the schools in your data set. Was this done to balance the difference in numbers of public and privates?

Thats why I put the percentages as well. Particularly look at the far right column, the trophy multiple. Amongst the haves, the Private schools have a distinct success rate among a the top tier publics, though it's difference is less than that of those publics against anyone else. And once you drop down to the next tier the differences start to wash away altogether. Now how I arrived at sampling 36 and 20 was a little bit more art than science, but over smaller sample groups I am willing to admit advantages aren't gonna be seen pro-rata. The private haves unquestionably are over represented in the haves, but that's still a small piece of the overall pie.

And I probably care more about this question coming as a Naz alum, but, when did they become a have instead of a have not? As their school prestige has risen (accross all facets) other privates have stumbled, many even closing down. The private standard of success (athletically or academically) is as much a story about attrition than anything else. Just think its hilarious that bitter fans will end up treating it as analogous to like ncaa recruitment.

 

[ramblinman]

Well they're all still losing records except 1A. Just not as extreme.

Correct. But, we are led to believe by some posters that the smaller public schools have it worse than their larger public school brethren relative to lack of success against private schools. At least in terms of playoff wins and losses, the opposite appears to be true. Imagine that.

I think the most interesting part is finding that 47 of 61 private schools do compete at a 0.500 level against public schools.

So, it really is only a couple of handfuls of private schools that are creating an unlevel playoff situation. Imagine that. Thanks for confirming through data what many of us more level-headed posters suspected all along.

The "solutions" by public school administrators and apologists of 15 mile eligibility radii, not allowing private schools to be classified below 5A, calls for separate private and public classes, etc. are nothing more than vindictive approaches to marginalize way more than the private school haves, and selfish approaches to regularize their own mediocrity in terms of competitiveness.

 

[ramblinman]

And I probably care more about this question coming as a Naz alum, but, when did they become a have instead of a have not? As their school prestige has risen (accross all facets) other privates have stumbled, many even closing down. The private standard of success (athletically or academically) is as much a story about attrition than anything else. Just think its hilarious that bitter fans will end up treating it as analogous to like ncaa recruitment.

All the current private school haves were have nots at some point. And some have nots were haves.

People dont realize there was a time when Carmel went 9-33 in a five year span from 1970-74. The big CCL powers back then were Rita, Rice, and Laurence.

Loyola has had one losing season in the previous 36. Prior to that stretch, it had 6 losing seasons in the previous 15. From 1934-59, Loyola had a grand total of 5 winning seasons. I realize this is ancient history, but it does serve to put things into some perspective and to remind us that the haves are transitory.

More recently, I think it could be argued that Montini, who hasn't had a winning season since 2019, is no longer a have.

 

[LHSTigers94]

If I am reading your first table correctly, the lowest four playoff playoff winning percentages by private schools in games played against public schools come in the smallest four classes.

But, wait, doesn't that data directly contradict and render moot of all the whining we hear about the smaller public schools and the uphill battle they face against private schools? Doesn't that data fly in the face of posters who feel that all 1A through 4A private schools should be bumped up to 5A because the small public schools are behind the 8 ball relative to private schools?

View embedded media

My argument wasn't based on success, it was simply based on how institution attract their students.

Whether a private is eliminated in the first round or win state, All should be competing at 5A and above and let the chips fall.

 

[krock the house]

My argument wasn't based on success, it was simply based on how institution attract their students.

Whether a private is eliminated in the first round or win state, All should be competing at 5A and above and let the chips fall.

Why?

 

[Snetsrak61]

Yea really ill just hammer the attrition point again and again too.

Not just athletically, but institutionally, poorly run private schools close thier doors and fail. Poorly run public schools never will except in rare cases of district consolidation. (no I'm not suggesting they should either).

So it's kind of natural that we can observe that high level private success (again, Athletically and Academically) outpace the high end of results. If some failed, their

All the current private school haves were have nots at some point. And some have nots were haves.

People dont realize there was a time when Carmel went 9-33 in a five year span from 1970-74. The big CCL powers back then were Rita, Rice, and Laurence.

Loyola has had one losing season in the previous 36. Prior to that stretch, it had 6 losing seasons in the previous 15. From 1934-59, Loyola had a grand total of 5 winning seasons.

I realize this is ancient history, but it does serve to put things into some perspective and to remind us that the haves are transitory.

More recently, I think it could be argued that Montini, who hasn't had a winning season since 2019, is no longer a have.

See I think 3-4 years is pretty short sighted. Part of the reason I don't like the SF with its 2 year lookback. But at the same time, too long of a lookback wouldnt be able to act fast enough.

In some form, if success is to act as a classification adjustment it would probably be better to do it at a conference level. If you play in the CCL Blue or Green or DuPage Valley or Fox Valley, and go 5-4 , that means something, as does going 9-0 in those conferences. And that's regardless of what some 20 year olds alumni from one school did 2 years ago. If you're in a top 20% conference maybe you're Classification should get a multipler. And maybe let in some 4-5 schools from there. And if you're in a bottom 20% conference, don't let in the 5-4s, but also let them drop down a class for those that qualify.

As much as possible, IMO, the goal should be to put teams into more stable tiers that set their competition level.

As some states like Ohio, who looks at where schools' students feed from, or Iowa, who has just introduced socioeconomic factors, most metrics we could look at for more predictice/stable markers of success will require a lot more work than just enrollment or looking at recent historical success.

I'd be down for new ideas on how to align classes, but it will require buy in and work from all IHSA member schools. Unless of course the only goal is to push aside and consolidate the privates. That would be unfortunate and lead to a lot less fun matchups IMO.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Why?

Obviously to guarantee 4 public titles every year. There's no other real reason. And not sure if it was this thread or another where it was shown that such a plan would push some "normal" 6A qualifiers down to 4A.

But it will be thrilling I'm sure when the same dozen or so publics dominate their respective 1-4A division every year and no one will ever try and fix that competitive imbalance.

 

[ramblinman]

My argument wasn't based on success, it was simply based on how institution attract their students.

Whether a private is eliminated in the first round or win state, All should be competing at 5A and above and let the chips fall.

Your fellow public school apologist Alexander 32 says, "What I do not know, with certainty, is whether or not the different rules provide the Catholic schools with an advantage." And he's a mathematician/statistician!

Can YOU prove it?

If you can't, and if success has nothing to do with your idea to classify all private schools no lower than 5A, then what kind of data driven or meaningful rationale can you offer for your proposal?

Another poster is positing that your only possible rationale is to guarantee four public school champions in 1A-4A each year. I can see no other possible rationale. Do you refute that position? If so, please explain your rationale.

 

[LHSTigers94]

Obviously to guarantee 4 public titles every year. There's no other real reason. And not sure if it was this thread or another where it was shown that such a plan would push some "normal" 6A qualifiers down to 4A.

But it will be thrilling I'm sure when the same dozen or so publics dominate their respective 1-4A division every year and no one will ever try and fix that competitive imbalance.

I could care less about what type of school wins a title. I enjoyed the Naz/ Peoria game.

Go visit a rural town for a week and report back on your thoughts. It is not the same!

 

[Snetsrak61]

I could care less about what type of school wins a title. I enjoyed the Naz/ Peoria game.

Go visit a rural town for a week and report back on your thoughts. It is not the same!

I know this is shocking but I've been to a small town. For normal people, when their student athletes make the playoffs or make a deep run, they're just excited for the school and kids.

Others just have an axe to grind.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Maybe we should carve out a couple public only classes, but my gut is that it probably shouldn't be more than three and it needs to be at least somewhat distributed across the bottom 6 classes otherwise you're likely to create worse and worse cutoff cliffs.

Edit- otherwise you create a bit of a dull situation for the high level small performers in those classes. If those high performing privates leave they're faced with less challenges and a forced choice to way overshoot their enrollment to gain a competetive balance or accept a significantly decreased competition level, which doesn't seem very fun, IMO.

 

[LHSTigers94]

Your fellow public school apologist Alexander 32 says, "What I do not know, with certainty, is whether or not the different rules provide the Catholic schools with an advantage." And he's a mathematician/statistician!

Can YOU prove it?

If you can't, and if success has nothing to do with your idea to classify all private schools no lower than 5A, then what kind of data driven or meaningful rationale can you offer for your proposal?

Another poster is positing that your only possible rationale is to guarantee four public school champions in 1A-4A each year. I can see no other possible rationale. Do you refute that position? If so, please explain your rationale.

Its the same reason, 200 public kids compared to 1000 public kids are in a different class. Rural kids make up a majority of 1-4A. Those type of teams should play each other period. It's 500 plus teams play football every year and there are only 8 championships. So your theory is 4 championships (really two as publics schools typically win at least 2 of the 4) is driving the discussion versus the true make up of the teams. I am simply stating that the only way rural towns have to compete with larger metro type areas is if a private school in a metro area enrollment is not multiplied or by design low enough to be 3A or 4A after being multiplied.

 

[LHSTigers94]

Maybe we should carve out a couple public only classes, but my gut is that it probably shouldn't be more than three and it needs to be at least somewhat distributed across the bottom 6 classes otherwise you're likely to create worse and worse cutoff cliffs.

I can agree with 1-3A starting privates at 4A if we are negotiating. Rochester proximity to Springfield puts them in a different type of public versus the rest of 4A which is why they have so much success. Clearly Rochester can compete in 5A and some would argue 6A as well. Most 4A schools can't say the same.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Its the same reason, 200 public kids compared to 1000 public kids are in a different class. Rural kids make up a majority of 1-4A. Those type of teams should play each other period. It's 500 plus teams play football every year and there are only 8 championships. So your theory is 4 championships (really two as publics schools typically win at least 2 of the 4) is driving the discussion versus the true make up of the teams. I am simply stating that the only way rural towns have to compete with larger metro type areas is if a private school in a metro area enrollment is not multiplied or by design low enough to be 3A or 4A after being multiplied.

We're gonna run into some definition issues here I suspect. I'll look back at my spreadsheet, but the rate of private-public games wasn't that much lower in the low classes.

A few of these smaller private schools are Chicago metro, but I think more are from small metro areas, but still generally pulling from "urban" density. But still at a less dense population rate than an IC does.

So obviously the 30 mile radius isn't equal but at the same time, an IC or Naz probably has a dozen other privates directly in their own 30 mile radius, plus a handfuls who don't fall directly sit in their radius, but who's radii do overlap partially. So the smaller metro private draws from less potential students, but also probably had less competition for recruitment of students.

All that to say, if it's a metro/rural issue you could probably write a objectively applied classification standard that just looks at that density and amount of public/private competition and adjust the classification for that, rather than classification bans.

Even of those 14 "haves" (one who is closed so 13) private schools, there's a handful who are pulling from a much different population/competition pool that the others.

 

[Alexander32]

Thats why I put the percentages as well. Particularly look at the far right column, the trophy multiple. Amongst the haves, the Private schools have a distinct success rate among a the top tier publics, though it's difference is less than that of those publics against anyone else. And once you drop down to the next tier the differences start to wash away altogether. Now how I arrived at sampling 36 and 20 was a little bit more art than science, but over smaller sample groups I am willing to admit advantages aren't gonna be seen pro-rata. The private haves unquestionably are over represented in the haves, but that's still a small piece of the overall pie.

And I probably care more about this question coming as a Naz alum, but, when did they become a have instead of a have not? As their school prestige has risen (accross all facets) other privates have stumbled, many even closing down. The private standard of success (athletically or academically) is as much a story about attrition than anything else. Just think its hilarious that bitter fans will end up treating it as analogous to like ncaa recruitment.

Gosh, there is a lot to respond to since my last post, which was submitted not that long ago. I will try to be more brief here than I was in that last post of mine.

First, many thanks to Snetsrak61 for testing the accuracy of the data coming from Antioch. It was a task I happily avoided, but in some ways was necessary. It removes one possible criticism of the whole analysis.

In response to DrMac210, the proposition that public schools and private schools are equal, on average, in football strength was not offered by me as a fact. It was offered as a hypothesis to be tested through statistical methodology. If the hypothesis could not be disproved, then there would be no need for a multiplier. It was disproved with a 100% degree of certainty, and therefore a multiplier is justified. The hypothesis also does not suggest every game of the more than 1,200 games contained in the set of outcomes was a 50/50 proposition, only that the mean probability of all the games was 50/50, or very nearly so.

Snetsrak61's review of the data indicates the private schools won 65% of the games since 2001 rather than the 69% figure submitted in the Antioch tweet. This would change the result of the statistical analysis, but not in any meaningful sense. The hypothesis that private-school football teams and public-school football teams are equal in strength would still be disproved. The probability of private schools winning 65% of more than 1,200 games, if the true mean likelihood of winning the games was 50%, is less than one chance in a billion. The reason this last statement remains unchanged from my earlier statement deserves an explanation.

I used a conservative approach in calculating the less than 1 / 1,000,000,000 probability. I began by using a 20-outcome binomial distribution. I did so because that was the largest binomial distribution offered in the statistics book I consulted (Statistics and Probability, A Basis for Decision Making, Blakeslee & Chinn). Since it was a 20-outcome distribution, the results moved in 5% increments (1/20 = 5%). When evaluating a 69% success rate (winning percentage), I had to choose between 14 wins and 6 losses (70%), and 13 wins and 7 losses (65%). Since 69% is less than 70%, and I didn't want to overstate my case, I used the 65% success rate for my calculations. That success rate is consistent with Snetsrak61's finding that the private schools won at a percentage of 65%, and therefore my earlier calculations and conclusion are still valid.

Ramblinman has found fault, as only he would, with the fact that playoff games were used for the analysis. It is my understanding this discussion was about playoff teams, and assigning those teams to class levels for bracketing purposes. This particular discussion was not about how teams qualify for the playoffs. Consequently, looking only at playoff teams is appropriate.

Snetsrak61 has concluded the private-school football strength tends to be concentrated in about 14 schools. I agree with that. More importantly, the IHSA seems to agree with that. That is why their multiplier rule is waived if a private school has not won three playoff games within a two-year window of time. If that success criterion is not met, the private school is treated in accordance with the same enrollment rules as a public school. The success factor is even more exclusive. That is only applied to private schools if they have played in the championship game both years of a two-year window. Few schools will have the success factor applied to them next year. Sacred Heart-Griffin is the only one that comes to my mind.

Snetsrak61 thinks the success factor should also be applied to public schools. I agree, that has been my opinion for a long time. Sustained success is not achieved solely by private schools. This is one of the few areas where I take issue with the IHSA rules.

 

[Snetsrak61]

I can agree with 1-3A starting privates at 4A if we are negotiating. Rochester proximity to Springfield puts them in a different type of public versus the rest of 4A which is why they have so much success. Clearly Rochester can compete in 5A and some would argue 6A as well. Most 4A schools can't say the same.

I'd say just go 1A, 3A, and maybe 5A.

If you're a 2A or 4A public who doesn't want to compete against the increased number of bumped up privates who would then be consolidated in your class, then you have the otption of electing refuge in a public only class above your natural ranking.

I don't think those classes would be that exciting. The haves would either eventually decide to opt up or would run over whats left. But that's going to be a likely natural consequence of any attempt to consolidate the private schools.

 

[LHSTigers94]

We're gonna run into some definition issues here I suspect. I'll look back at my spreadsheet, but the rate of private-public games wasn't that much lower in the low classes.

A few of these smaller private schools are Chicago metro, but I think more are from small metro areas, but still generally pulling from "urban" density. But still at a less dense population rate than an IC does.

So obviously the 30 mile radius isn't equal but at the same time, an IC or Naz probably has a dozen other privates directly in their own 30 mile radius, plus a handfuls who don't fall directly sit in their radius, but who's radii do overlap partially. So the smaller metro private draws from less potential students, but also probably had less competition for recruitment of students.

All that to say, if it's a metro/rural issue you could probably write a objectively applied classification standard that just looks at that density and amount of public/private competition and adjust the classification for that, rather than classification bans.

Even of those 14 "haves" (one who is closed so 13) private schools, there's a handful who are pretty

I'm not opposed to a carve out versus a ban. That is a good idea I could get on board with.

 

[LHSTigers94]

I'd say just go 1A, 3A, and maybe 5A.

If you're a 2A or 4A public who doesn't want to compete against the increased number of bumped up privates who would then be consolidated in your class, then you have the otption of electing refuge in a public only class above your natural ranking.

I don't think those classes would be that exciting. The haves would either eventually decide to opt up or would run over whats left. But that's going to be a likely natural consequence of any attempt to consolidate the private schools.

Correct. There is no perfect scenario and only one school can win regardless. This is why "championships" aren't the goal. If like schools compete and one is significantly better than the other, so be it.

If IC wins 5A, Naz 6A, MC 7A and LA 8A, I would have absolutely no issue with this outcome any given year or every year. To me they would have earned it and there shouldn't be any excuses.

 

[iamgroot]

It was offered as a hypothesis to be tested through statistical methodology. If the hypothesis could not be disproved, then there would be no need for a multiplier. It was disproved with a 100% degree of certainty, and therefore a multiplier is justified.

For a "mathematician"/"statistician", you leapt to 100% certain rather quickly, especially since the the original hypothesis used such vagaries as on average and equal. You didn't really define what equal meant, to what precision the data would be measured, etc. It was a disingenuous test and just like all the other posters, you found data to match what you wanted to say, only you used your "credentials" to lend more authority to your conclusions.

Further, you might consider shortening your posts, as they tend to be repetitive statements within the same post, which means people stop reading.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Gosh, there is a lot to respond to since my last post, which was submitted not that long ago. I will try to be more brief here than I was in that last post of mine.

First, many thanks to Snetsrak61 for testing the accuracy of the data coming from Antioch. It was a task I happily avoided, but in some ways was necessary. It removes one possible criticism of the whole analysis.

In response to DrMac210, the proposition that public schools and private schools are equal, on average, in football strength was not offered by me as a fact. It was offered as a hypothesis to be tested through statistical methodology. If the hypothesis could not be disproved, then there would be no need for a multiplier. It was disproved with a 100% degree of certainty, and therefore a multiplier is justified. The hypothesis also does not suggest every game of the more than 1,200 games contained in the set of outcomes was a 50/50 proposition, only that the mean probability of all the games was 50/50, or very nearly so.

Snetsrak61's review of the data indicates the private schools won 65% of the games since 2001 rather than the 69% figure submitted in the Antioch tweet. This would change the result of the statistical analysis, but not in any meaningful sense. The hypothesis that private-school football teams and public-school football teams are equal in strength would still be disproved. The probability of private schools winning 65% of more than 1,200 games, if the true mean likelihood of winning the games was 50%, is less than one chance in a billion. The reason this last statement remains unchanged from my earlier statement deserves an explanation.

I used a conservative approach in calculating the less than 1 / 1,000,000,000 probability. I began by using a 20-outcome binomial distribution. I did so because that was the largest binomial distribution offered in the statistics book I consulted (Statistics and Probability, A Basis for Decision Making, Blakeslee & Chinn). Since it was a 20-outcome distribution, the results moved in 5% increments (1/20 = 5%). When evaluating a 69% success rate (winning percentage), I had to choose between 14 wins and 6 losses (70%), and 13 wins and 7 losses (65%). Since 69% is less than 70%, and I didn't want to overstate my case, I used the 65% success rate for my calculations. That success rate is consistent with Snetsrak61's finding that the private schools won at a percentage of 65%, and therefore my earlier calculations and conclusion are still valid.

Ramblinman has found fault, as only he would, with the fact that playoff games were used for the analysis. It is my understanding this discussion was about playoff teams, and assigning those teams to class levels for bracketing purposes. This particular discussion was not about how teams qualify for the playoffs. Consequently, looking only at playoff teams is appropriate.

Snetsrak61 has concluded the private-school football strength tends to be concentrated in about 14 schools. I agree with that. More importantly, the IHSA seems to agree with that. That is why their multiplier rule is waived if a private school has not won three playoff games within a two-year window of time. If that success criterion is not met, the private school is treated in accordance with the same enrollment rules as a public school. The success factor is even more exclusive. That is only applied to private schools if they have played in the championship game both years of a two-year window. Few schools will have the success factor applied to them next year. Sacred Heart-Griffin is the only one that comes to my mind.

Snetsrak61 thinks the success factor should also be applied to public schools. I agree, that has been my opinion for a long time. Sustained success is not achieved solely by private schools. This is one of the few areas where I take issue with the IHSA rules.

The only thing I'll mention is while the correlation is obviously strong, I could make stronger and stronger ones that aren't causal differences. Obviously correlation doesn't prove causation.

Right off the top, I can say it's not private schools, but catholic schools and my correlation becomes stronger. So now the non denominational and Christian schools now become exempt. And if I search for other unique identifiers I could probably find additional identifiers that have nothing to do with how schools get their enrollment, which is ultimately the crux of the multipler and success factor rules in place.

Just because correlation exists doesn't mean that tells a whole story. Proving causal relationships is obviously much harder.

 

[ramblinman]

Ramblinman has found fault, as only he would, with the fact that playoff games were used for the analysis. It is my understanding this discussion was about playoff teams, and assigning those teams to class levels for bracketing purposes. This particular discussion was not about how teams qualify for the playoffs. Consequently, looking only at playoff teams is appropriate.

"on average, the private schools have stronger football programs than the public schools."

Are those not your words?

I read those words and I thought you were speaking in general terms. I did not for one second think you were referring to playoff qualifiers exclusively because you didn't say private school qualifiers are stronger on average than public school qualifiers. Silly me for taking your words at face value.

Did I take your words out of context? Maybe, maybe not. Only you know what you meant when you wrote them. To be honest, I felt your missive went back and forth between talking about conferences and private school strength in general and talking about playoffs.

 

[SouthofI80FootballFan]

The only thing I'll mention is while the correlation is obviously strong, I could make stronger and stronger ones that aren't causal differences. Obviously correlation doesn't prove causation.

Right off the top, I can say it's not private schools, but catholic schools and my correlation becomes stronger. So now the non denominational and Christian schools now become exempt. And if I search for other unique identifiers I could probably find additional identifiers that have nothing to do with how schools get their enrollment, which is ultimately the crux of the multipler and success factor rules in place.

Just because correlation exists doesn't mean that tells a whole story. Proving causal relationships is obviously much harder.

The process for how the IHSA determines the playoff classes based on enrollment needs to be changed. Football is the only sport where you have no clue what class you will be in during the postseason until the postseason starts. They should place schools into the same 4 classes they do for all other sports/activities, and for football, divide each class into 2 divisions, A and AA. Seed 1-64 based on RPI, top 32 in class AA, bottom 32 in class A. If you are a multiplied private, you play in the AA division, non-multiplied you play in the A division. A school can petition up doing so places them into the next class not the next division. No success factor for either public or private.

For example, you are classified into 3A as a multiplied private school, you would play in either the class 3AA division with the opportunity to petition up to 4A or 4AA, depending on your RPI seed. If you are a 3A, non-multiplied, you would be placed into 3A.

 

[ramblinman]

Its the same reason, 200 public kids compared to 1000 public kids are in a different class. Rural kids make up a majority of 1-4A. Those type of teams should play each other period...I am simply stating that the only way rural towns have to compete with larger metro type areas is if a private school in a metro area enrollment is not multiplied or by design low enough to be 3A or 4A after being multiplied.

1A
Fulton 38, Aurora Christian 13
Fulton 28, Rockford Christian 0
Forreston 44, Chicago Hope Academy16

2A
Rockridge 27, Bloomington Central Catholic 18
Wilmington 41, Chicago Christian 7

And that's just this year.

2021
1A
Le-Win 54, Aurora Christian 7

4A
Genoa-Kingston 27, St. Francis 3

I know could find examples pretty much and each every year where multiple small rural public schools beat private schools from metro areas in the playoffs.

In doing some research on this for the past several years of 1A-4A playoffs, and with the notable recurring exceptions of St T and IC in 2A and 3A, I just could not find all that many examples of private schools from urban areas beating up on small rural public schools. Your premise, as quoted above, is incorrect. Show me where I'm wrong about that.

It CAN be done. It HAS been done.

 

[gw86]

TL/DR - 1.65 multiplier with yearly sliding scale based on success. Not against success scale being applied to public’s.

I’ve debated whether to jump into these posts for a while, mainly because I didn’t have a solution to add. I’m not saying I have one, but I have an idea. After reading all the back and forth, it’s pretty clear this is more of an issue between the “haves” private/open enrollment vs. mostly the middle class public’s. My thoughts are I don’t want separation, I do feel the current system isn’t the best, and not everyone is going to be happy no matter what changes are made.

I’m a Sterling fan, so because I’m most familiar with 5a I’m going to give examples based off this class being most familiar with it. I’ll preface with Sterling has been eliminated by both private/open enrollment and public schools in the last few years. I do not feel confident in any of the years that Sterling was eliminated by a private that they would have won state. Their best chances were when they got beat by Sycamore/public in ‘16 and Phillips/I don’t know what you’d call that team of all stars in ‘17.

For examples sake, I’ll share how I would feel if I was a Sycamore fan this year to explain why I don’t feel the current system is the best. Sycamore has probably been the most consistent 5a public in recent years. Just knocking on the door but can’t bust it down. They have one of if not their best teams this year. They run into Naz in the semis. Most of the year, the talk has been how young Naz is, they might be a year or two a way, but they still could be dangerous if they get in at 5-4 in 5a. In my make believe scenario as a Sycamore fan, you bet I’m going to be a little salty if you tell me possibly my best team still isn’t going to get it done by losing to a private that will likely only get better the next couple years. Sycamore easily could have been beaten by Peoria the next week, I get that. But when you’re a mid-size public, being good but young and a year or two away probably means a 2nd round or maybe quarterfinal exit if things come together at the end of the year. Not likely going to result in a state championship. To be clear even though it sounds like I’m saying it, I’m not saying Naz should have been 6a. But I am questioning whether they’re classified correctly if they’re still able to win state with what they had. I’m also sharing how the public/private resentment forms. Who knows, maybe the Sycamore program took that loss as they just need to get better and there’s no resentment.

Now as far as the solution. I’m not talking about factoring in any prior year results. This would be a point forward change. Currently we have the 1.65 multiplier in place with waivers. The waivers allow for some pretty sudden swings in classes. I know some people don’t think 1.65 is enough, and others think it’s too much. Let’s keep it to start.

As there are plenty of “have not” privates, I do agree 1.65 is not a one size fits all. But instead of minimal success in a 2 year cycle suddenly eliminating it, I don’t understand how the IHSA can’t figure out a sliding formula. You don’t make the playoffs, or make the playoffs and lose first round, it drops the multiplier drops by .1. Next year your enrollment is the prior year’s enrollment x 1.55. No playoffs/playoff wins the next year, it’s 1.45. You make the playoffs and win one or two games, you stay the same. You make it to the semis and the next year you go up .1. Let’s say making state is .15 and winning state is .2. I’m also good with this being applied to public schools. Once you’re at 1.0, you can’t drop down any further. But you adjust that multiplier number every year based on the prior year’s enrollment, and I have to think over time things will average out.

Now, as I give my example I’m not directing this at any one school. I’m strictly keeping with 5a as it’s simply the easiest for me to remember rough class cut lines the last few years. Let’s say a school with a steady 600 actual enrollment is 990 multiplied at 1.65, likely 5a. Win one title, you’re at 1110 when multiplied by 1.85 the next year. Win 2, you’re 1230 year 3 with a 2.05. Likely still a larger 5a. Win 3, 1350 at 2.25. At that point, you’re 6a, and maybe classified more correctly in 6a if you just won 3 in a row. It would take quite a bit of continued success to come close to 7a, but you could get there eventually.

Now the tricky part is if you have minimal success in 6a. You keep winning one or two games, you’re stuck in 6a with the 2.25 multiplier. It’d likely take 2 years of no playoff wins to drop back to 5a. I think that’s where the dilemma of what a school’s correct classification comes into play. Are you being “punished” for prior success only making it to the quarters in 6a and not winning a 5a championship? Or are you more accurately classified in 6a as you’re good enough to be one of the last 64 teams in the state playing in a quarterfinal? Strictly playing in the quarters won’t increase your multiplier for the following year, but it’s definitely not lowering it. I’m guessing some would say definitely, it’s punishment and we should be winning state in 5a. Others would say that’s where the school would more accurately be classified. All of a sudden you have success in 6a and win one 4 years later and it goes up .2. 1470 at a 2.45 multiplier isn’t going to move you up to 7a, but it will put you that much further from 5a.

If you actually continued to read but missed it, I’m on board with this being applied the same way to public schools. As with my example, it would be point forward and they would start out at 1.0. If a public school wins a championship, it’s the same rules. They’re at 1.2 the next year, 1.4 after 2 championships, and so on.

Just my thoughts. I’m sure there are holes, but is anyone going to be entirely happy regardless of changes/staying the same? This would apply to all sports as well.

 

[Snetsrak61]

The process for how the IHSA determines the playoff classes based on enrollment needs to be changed. Football is the only sport where you have no clue what class you will be in during the postseason until the postseason starts. They should place schools into the same 4 classes they do for all other sports/activities, and for football, divide each class into 2 divisions, A and AA. Seed 1-64 based on RPI, top 32 in class AA, bottom 32 in class A. If you are a multiplied private, you play in the AA division, non-multiplied you play in the A division. A school can petition up doing so places them into the next class not the next division. No success factor for either public or private.

For example, you are classified into 3A as a multiplied private school, you would play in either the class 3AA division with the opportunity to petition up to 4A or 4AA, depending on your RPI seed. If you are a 3A, non-multiplied, you would be placed into 3A.

I don't hate it. I don't love that a subjective 32 v 33 rating becomes hugely consequential in post season play. I also wouldn't love the inevitable comparisons of A v AA and attempts to diminish A seasons.

But broadly I think dividing into groups of 4 based on size and then divide by 2 on other factors is an interesting theory.

 

[Alexander32]

"on average, the private schools have stronger football programs than the public schools."

Are those not your words?

I read those words and I thought you were speaking in general terms. I did not for one second think you were referring to playoff qualifiers exclusively because you didn't say private school qualifiers are stronger on average than public school qualifiers. Silly me for taking your words at face value.

Did I take your words out of context? Maybe, maybe not. Only you know what you meant when you wrote them. To be honest, I felt your missive went back and forth between talking about conferences and private school strength in general and talking about playoffs.

Yes, I was relying on context to indicate I was referring to playoff qualifiers. The very first post of this thread referred to playoff results. The vast majority of posts in the thread related to classification assignments for playoff teams. The data I used for the analysis clearly related exclusively to playoff teams involved in playoff games. And yet, you find fault that I did not explicitly state I was referring to playoff teams. Iamgroot has already expressed his view that my posts are way too long, but you say I do not take the time to define my terms clearly enough. One way or the other that is a battle I will not win. If you did not for one second think I might be referring exclusively to playoff qualifiers, then it is questionable whether you were reading the missive in good faith. That would be my biggest criticism of you. I do not think you engage in discussions in good faith. You spend so much time trying to find small, little, irrelevant flaws in what others are saying that you frequently seem to miss the entire point of what they are trying to say. If anything, I suspect the discrepancy in football strength between private schools and public schools is even greater if one looked at all schools rather than just playoff qualifiers. But, no, I don't intend to prove it because, among other things, it is not relevant to the discussion being had in this thread. You know that... but couldn't resist raising the point.

What do I mean about you missing the point? In your 11:01 a.m. post today you referred to me as a public school apologist. I'm not sure what brought you to that conclusion. If one has read my posts in good faith over the years, I think they would find them about as balanced in relation to the private/public discussions as anyone contributing to this board. I am a fan of high school football. I enjoy the game... the diversity of styles that are played. I do not have any one team that I root for, at least not nearly to the degree most posters on this board seem to root for teams. I have watched more Catholic school games over the years than public school games by a wide margin. That was mostly due to circumstances. Having worked in La Grange Park for 28 years, I attended quite a few Nazareth games. One of my co-workers, a Joliet Catholic graduate, helped with the Nazareth team for several years causing me to watch even more of their games. My daughter taught at St. Francis in Wheaton for 12 years, until recently. I consistently attended at least one game each year and, yes, rooted for the team. The last couple of seasons, and I'm not even sure why other than convenience, I've taken to attending some Wheaton Academy games. The point is, I have nothing against private schools. My daughter currently teaches at a private (Lutheran) middle school in Batavia. My wife and I pay for our three granddaughters to attend a private elementary school. I have never called for a separate playoff for the private high school football teams. I have never called for more stringent classification rules than what already exist. I see no need to change the radius rule pertaining to private schools. Yes, I have said I can understand the disappointment of some public-school supporters given the disparity in playoff results. I can understand why they might have some concerns, but I do not agree the rules need changing. I believe the schools, public and private, have a reasonable opportunity to compete for championships. Yes, in general I believe private-school football programs are stronger than public-school programs. That is just my own personal interpretation of the facts I see. I'm not concerned by the disparity and there are certainly many exceptions to the general rule. There are some public high schools enjoying extraordinary success (Lena-Winslow) and some private schools experiencing disappointing failure (Walther Christian). I could explain the many reasons why I'm not overly concerned, but I can sense Iamgroot's eyes starting to roll. I will simply say I think you have come to some erroneous conclusions.

 

[Snetsrak61]

TL/DR - 1.65 multiplier with yearly sliding scale based on success. Not against success scale being applied to public’s.

I’ve debated whether to jump into these posts for a while, mainly because I didn’t have a solution to add. I’m not saying I have one, but I have an idea. After reading all the back and forth, it’s pretty clear this is more of an issue between the “haves” private/open enrollment vs. mostly the middle class public’s. My thoughts are I don’t want separation, I do feel the current system isn’t the best, and not everyone is going to be happy no matter what changes are made.

I’m a Sterling fan, so because I’m most familiar with 5a I’m going to give examples based off this class being most familiar with it. I’ll preface with Sterling has been eliminated by both private/open enrollment and public schools in the last few years. I do not feel confident in any of the years that Sterling was eliminated by a private that they would have won state. Their best chances were when they got beat by Sycamore/public in ‘16 and Phillips/I don’t know what you’d call that team of all stars in ‘17.

For examples sake, I’ll share how I would feel if I was a Sycamore fan this year to explain why I don’t feel the current system is the best. Sycamore has probably been the most consistent 5a public in recent years. Just knocking on the door but can’t bust it down. They have one of if not their best teams this year. They run into Naz in the semis. Most of the year, the talk has been how young Naz is, they might be a year or two a way, but they still could be dangerous if they get in at 5-4 in 5a. In my make believe scenario as a Sycamore fan, you bet I’m going to be a little salty if you tell me possibly my best team still isn’t going to get it done by losing to a private that will likely only get better the next couple years. Sycamore easily could have been beaten by Peoria the next week, I get that. But when you’re a mid-size public, being good but young and a year or two away probably means a 2nd round or maybe quarterfinal exit if things come together at the end of the year. Not likely going to result in a state championship. To be clear even though it sounds like I’m saying it, I’m not saying Naz should have been 6a. But I am questioning whether they’re classified correctly if they’re still able to win state with what they had. I’m also sharing how the public/private resentment forms. Who knows, maybe the Sycamore program took that loss as they just need to get better and there’s no resentment.

Now as far as the solution. I’m not talking about factoring in any prior year results. This would be a point forward change. Currently we have the 1.65 multiplier in place with waivers. The waivers allow for some pretty sudden swings in classes. I know some people don’t think 1.65 is enough, and others think it’s too much. Let’s keep it to start.

As there are plenty of “have not” privates, I do agree 1.65 is not a one size fits all. But instead of minimal success in a 2 year cycle suddenly eliminating it, I don’t understand how the IHSA can’t figure out a sliding formula. You don’t make the playoffs, or make the playoffs and lose first round, it drops the multiplier drops by .1. Next year your enrollment is the prior year’s enrollment x 1.55. No playoffs/playoff wins the next year, it’s 1.45. You make the playoffs and win one or two games, you stay the same. You make it to the semis and the next year you go up .1. Let’s say making state is .15 and winning state is .2. I’m also good with this being applied to public schools. Once you’re at 1.0, you can’t drop down any further. But you adjust that multiplier number every year based on the prior year’s enrollment, and I have to think over time things will average out.

Now, as I give my example I’m not directing this at any one school. I’m strictly keeping with 5a as it’s simply the easiest for me to remember rough class cut lines the last few years. Let’s say a school with a steady 600 actual enrollment is 990 multiplied at 1.65, likely 5a. Win one title, you’re at 1110 when multiplied by 1.85 the next year. Win 2, you’re 1230 year 3 with a 2.05. Likely still a larger 5a. Win 3, 1350 at 2.25. At that point, you’re 6a, and maybe classified more correctly in 6a if you just won 3 in a row. It would take quite a bit of continued success to come close to 7a, but you could get there eventually.

Now the tricky part is if you have minimal success in 6a. You keep winning one or two games, you’re stuck in 6a with the 2.25 multiplier. It’d likely take 2 years of no playoff wins to drop back to 5a. I think that’s where the dilemma of what a school’s correct classification comes into play. Are you being “punished” for prior success only making it to the quarters in 6a and not winning a 5a championship? Or are you more accurately classified in 6a as you’re good enough to be one of the last 64 teams in the state playing in a quarterfinal? Strictly playing in the quarters won’t increase your multiplier for the following year, but it’s definitely not lowering it. I’m guessing some would say definitely, it’s punishment and we should be winning state in 5a. Others would say that’s where the school would more accurately be classified. All of a sudden you have success in 6a and win one 4 years later and it goes up .2. 1470 at a 2.45 multiplier isn’t going to move you up to 7a, but it will put you that much further from 5a.

If you actually continued to read but missed it, I’m on board with this being applied the same way to public schools. As with my example, it would be point forward and they would start out at 1.0. If a public school wins a championship, it’s the same rules. They’re at 1.2 the next year, 1.4 after 2 championships, and so on.

Just my thoughts. I’m sure there are holes, but is anyone going to be entirely happy regardless of changes/staying the same? This would apply to all sports as well.

Yes, I've often contemplated more of a sliding scale, but your post highlights the poor logic and problems of any success factor, which assumes at the outset that strong performance is indicative of wrong placement, and only does that to one type of school. Then you get the yo-yo-ing of classifications. I'd be happy for Naz to be in 6 or 7 if I thought it would provide a more stable home. But say they wanted to be like ESL and opt up to 7A. Suddenly a 2 year hot steak puts them in 8A. It will have been presumed the 7A placement was wrong, even if they had put themselves there. I find it a bit annoying, but also unfortunate for kids who are presumed to be such and such talented because of something that happens when they're frosh/soph? Doesn't sit well. At least not when it is the only factor. Maybe if it was just one of many it would sound more palatable. But I'd still much prefer a more stable classification. Obviously in any class system you end up with the edge teams who can fall or raise a class, but perhaps there's tools that could create stability of classification over longer enrollment periods.

 

[ramblinman]

Yes, I was relying on context to indicate I was referring to playoff qualifiers. The very first post of this thread referred to playoff results. The vast majority of posts in the thread related to classification assignments for playoff teams. The data I used for the analysis clearly related exclusively to playoff teams involved in playoff games. And yet, you find fault that I did not explicitly state I was referring to playoff teams. Iamgroot has already expressed his view that my posts are way too long, but you say I do not take the time to define my terms clearly enough. One way or the other that is a battle I will not win. If you did not for one second think I might be referring exclusively to playoff qualifiers, then it is questionable whether you were reading the missive in good faith. That would be my biggest criticism of you. I do not think you engage in discussions in good faith. You spend so much time trying to find small, little, irrelevant flaws in what others are saying that you frequently seem to miss the entire point of what they are trying to say. If anything, I suspect the discrepancy in football strength between private schools and public schools is even greater if one looked at all schools rather than just playoff qualifiers. But, no, I don't intend to prove it because, among other things, it is not relevant to the discussion being had in this thread. You know that... but couldn't resist raising the point.

What do I mean about you missing the point? In your 11:01 a.m. post today you referred to me as a public school apologist. I'm not sure what brought you to that conclusion. If one has read my posts in good faith over the years, I think they would find them about as balanced in relation to the private/public discussions as anyone contributing to this board. I am a fan of high school football. I enjoy the game... the diversity of styles that are played. I do not have any one team that I root for, at least not nearly to the degree most posters on this board seem to root for teams. I have watched more Catholic school games over the years than public school games by a wide margin. That was mostly due to circumstances. Having worked in La Grange Park for 28 years, I attended quite a few Nazareth games. One of my co-workers, a Joliet Catholic graduate, helped with the Nazareth team for several years causing me to watch even more of their games. My daughter taught at St. Francis in Wheaton for 12 years, until recently. I consistently attended at least one game each year and, yes, rooted for the team. The last couple of seasons, and I'm not even sure why other than convenience, I've taken to attending some Wheaton Academy games. The point is, I have nothing against private schools. My daughter currently teaches at a private (Lutheran) middle school in Batavia. My wife and I pay for our three granddaughters to attend a private elementary school. I have never called for a separate playoff for the private high school football teams. I have never called for more stringent classification rules than what already exist. I see no need to change the radius rule pertaining to private schools. Yes, I have said I can understand the disappointment of some public-school supporters given the disparity in playoff results. I can understand why they might have some concerns, but I do not agree the rules need changing. I believe the schools, public and private, have a reasonable opportunity to compete for championships. Yes, in general I believe private-school football programs are stronger than public-school programs. That is just my own personal interpretation of the facts I see. I'm not concerned by the disparity and there are certainly many exceptions to the general rule. There are some public high schools enjoying extraordinary success (Lena-Winslow) and some private schools experiencing disappointing failure (Walther Christian). I could explain the many reasons why I'm not overly concerned, but I can sense Iamgroot's eyes starting to roll. I will simply say I think you have come to some erroneous conclusions.

I stand corrected on your context point and about claiming you to be a public school apologist.

Regarding my finding fault with irrelevant flaws, etc, I don't deny that I find fault. I daresay I've gotten good at it here over the years. It's debatable whether or not the flaws I find are irrelevant or not.

What I'm usually doing here is finding fault with generalities and with people who want to enact regulations or systems that negatively impact all private schools when it's pretty darn clear that most private schools are not extraordinarily successful. That's not irrelevant in my book. If it is in yours, then you are welcome to your opinion.

 

[LHSTigers94]

1A
Fulton 38, Aurora Christian 13
Fulton 28, Rockford Christian 0
Forreston 44, Chicago Hope Academy16

2A
Rockridge 27, Bloomington Central Catholic 18
Wilmington 41, Chicago Christian 7

And that's just this year.

2021
1A
Le-Win 54, Aurora Christian 7

4A
Genoa-Kingston 27, St. Francis 3

I know could find examples pretty much and each every year where multiple small rural public schools beat private schools from metro areas in the playoffs.

In doing some research on this for the past several years of 1A-4A playoffs, and with the notable recurring exceptions of St T and IC in 2A and 3A, I just could not find all that many examples of private schools from urban areas beating up on small rural public schools. Your premise, as quoted above, is incorrect. Show me where I'm wrong about that.

It CAN be done. It HAS been done.

My premise never stated who would win. I simply stated that they are not “like” teams and should not compete against each other. That’s it. Classes were created to put “like” teams together for the sake of competition. This is the thought. Highlighting results favorable or unfavorable has absolutely nothing to do with grouping “like” teams.

Rural teams whether successful or not should not have to face metro teams in the playoffs. The outcome isn’t relevant.

 

[DadCoachSports]

Here are things I would like Public and Privates to admit...I will say these because I have coached in Private Schools, Played in Public Schools and have kids attending Public Schools.

1. Private schools do recruit Athletes not just student athletes.
1A. Public schools recruit athletes.
2. Public schools do in most cases have better facilities.
3. Private schools though maybe not through the school do offer athletes athletic scholarships.
4. Public schools are a better draw for coaches in general because of salary and retirement benefits.
5. Private schools do have an advantage drawing athletes from a 30 mile radius.
6. This debate will not end....not everyone will be a Champion....kids do not care as much as the adults on this message board.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Rural teams whether successful or not should not have to face metro teams in the playoffs. The outcome isn’t relevant.

Man I know there are plenty of rural and urban cultural differences but sports should be able to bring different communities together under sportsmanship and under the banner of the entire state.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Here are things I would like Public and Privates to admit...I will say these because I have coached in Private Schools, Played in Public Schools and have kids attending Public Schools.

1. Private schools do recruit Athletes not just student athletes.
1A. Public schools recruit athletes.
2. Public schools do in most cases have better facilities.
3. Private schools though maybe not through the school do offer athletes athletic scholarships.
4. Public schools are a better draw for coaches in general because of salary and retirement benefits.
5. Private schools do have an advantage drawing athletes from a 30 mile radius.
6. This debate will not end....not everyone will be a Champion....kids do not care as much as the adults on this message board.

I'll +1 #6 a million times, that's for sure.

 

[ramblinman]

Classes were created to put “like” teams together for the sake of competition.

This is where your argument goes up in flames.

Classes were created to crown a champion. The idea was to group similarly competitive schools together and the system they used to classify was enrollment based. It wasn't rich or poor. It wasn't rural or urban. It wasn't private or public. It was enrollment. Period.

 

[Snetsrak61]

Private rural and urban schools in Class 1A and 2A. I considered Decautar, Belleville, and Champaign as urban, and any school in a Chicago collar county as Chi-Metro

Type               W    L      W%
Rural              72    51    59%
Chi-Metro          24    33    42%
Urban (non Chi)    33    15    69%
All Urban          57    48    54%

3A isn't until where this flips - largely due to IC (though they did rack up a couple wins in 2A as well)

 

[ramblinman]

Here are things I would like Public and Privates to admit...I will say these because I have coached in Private Schools, Played in Public Schools and have kids attending Public Schools.

1. Private schools do recruit Athletes not just student athletes.
1A. Public schools recruit athletes.
2. Public schools do in most cases have better facilities.
3. Private schools though maybe not through the school do offer athletes athletic scholarships.
4. Public schools are a better draw for coaches in general because of salary and retirement benefits.
5. Private schools do have an advantage drawing athletes from a 30 mile radius.
6. This debate will not end....not everyone will be a Champion....kids do not care as much as the adults on this message board.

I disagree with all but #6.

Why?

Because you generalizing. When you say private schools do this or public schools do that, the implication is they all do this or that, and that simply is not the case. If you don't qualify those generalities with limiting adjectives like some, most, a few, many, several, etc., then your statements are simply not accurate.

I especially disagree with the 30 mile advantage generality. The ability to enroll athletically eligible students from within a 30 mile radius does not automatically translate into an advantage for all private schools.

 

[LHSTigers94]

This is where your argument goes up in flames.

Classes were created to crown a champion. The idea was to group similarly competitive schools together and the system they used to classify was enrollment based. It wasn't rich or poor. It wasn't rural or urban. It wasn't private or public. It was enrollment. Period.

So why adjust private enrollment? It works for public schools so my arguement is fine. Original thought is private should be 5A or higher. I accept the multiplier but I don’t accept adjusting for lack of success. Similarly I don’t like the success factor. I think all privates 5A or higher eliminates both.

 

[Snetsrak61]

I disagree with all but #6.

Why?

Because you generalizing. When you say private schools do this or public schools do that, the implication is they all do this or that, and that simply is not the case. If you don't qualify those generalities with limiting adjectives like some, most, a few, many, several, etc., then your statements are simply not accurate.

I especially disagree with the 30 mile advantage generality. The ability to enroll athletically eligible students from within a 30 mile radius does not automatically translate into an advantage for all private schools.

I think the problem is that every advantage is just opportunity. Whether private or public, the question really ought to be less whether you take advantage of an opportunity, but whether you have roughly equal access to those.

Some have hyped up an attempt to classify schools more directly based on strength, like a power rnaking/RPO, but I don't know that strictly speaking that should be the goal (least of which being its very difficult to do objectively and transparently in a way that people will agree with most of the time)

 

[DadCoachSports]

I disagree with all but #6.

Why?

Because you generalizing. When you say private schools do this or public schools do that, the implication is they all do this or that, and that simply is not the case. If you don't qualify those generalities with limiting adjectives like some, most, a few, many, several, etc., then your statements are simply not accurate.

I especially disagree with the 30 mile advantage generality. The ability to enroll athletically eligible students from within a 30 mile radius does not automatically translate into an advantage for all private schools.

@ramblinman so what is your issue with #2 and #4 did I not use enough adjectives for you?

And please tell me a private school that has not benefited from the 30 mile radius?

Or do you need me to specify with...what successful private school that has not benefited from the 30 mile radius.