ADVERTISEMENT

Public School Advantages

One thing that others have talked about for a long time is that there is an inherent difference between the way public and private schools get kids. And it's that inherent difference that many perceive as the PRIMARY advantage for a school like Loyola or Mt. Carmel vs any public school. Yes, there are many nuances and differences between private and public schools, but a public school cannot see a good eighth-grade football player, call them up, and say "Hey, choose us. We will give you a great football experience."
The two questions that don't get asked enough are:
  • WHY is the experience going to be better at the private school? Why should the kid believe him?
  • WHY aren't the coaches from the kid's districted school making the same call? Why shouldn't the kid believe him?
Of course they can and do make those calls, but unless you think they are just "tricking" these kids into coming, there's something
Something tells me this is something that Robbie Gould understands pretty well as he moves from Rolling Meadows over to Viator.
I realize Viator is making some nice improvements to facilities, but I'm not sure speculation on RG's career moves is the right way to make your point. Rolling Meadows has had far more football success than Viator in the last decade, who has had more losing seasons than winning seasons (ex. COVID).
I also think the value of a few "studs" is something that is sometimes understated here. Yes, a good football culture is necessary for any winning program. But 3-4 stud football players (maybe even just 2 if one plays the all-important position of quarterback) can make the difference between a first-round playoff loss and a quarter-finalist or semi-finalist. Just a few of the right kids can push a program into a different tier of competition. And I would argue that private schools probably have an easier time targeting and getting those kinds of kids with the inherent differences in how they enroll students.
Again, this is the flawed chicken and egg logic tossed around on here. Why are these "studs" just picking up and paying $12k a year to drive to some private school?? Could maybe, just maybe, coaching and culture be the essential ingredient to attract talent, especially when you are disadvantaged from a facilities, cost, and potentially academic standpoint?
I do think great coaching is happening at places like Loyola and Mt. Carmel AND places like Maine South and Rochester. I also think some of the coaches at public schools who aren't in the same category of success as those schools have a very comparable caliber of coaching in their buildings. The frequent pointing to "it's mostly just hard work and better coaching" feels comically oversimplified. It's been brought up multiple times (and as a frequent lurker I'm always hopeful one of the usual private guy supporters will address it - but alas, it is always ignored), but Coach Buzz at Evanston won multiple state titles at Driscoll and then couldn't win a single playoff game over 16 seasons at Evanston. Did he forget how to coach? Did he forget how to build culture? Or is there a much different skill set and factors needed to win at a place like Driscoll vs a place like Evanston?
Yes, I think there probably is. One is a large urban high school where most faculty care nothing about football. The other was a small catholic school that cared exclusively about football. The game in 3A (especially at the time) and the game at 8A are also very different. Troy McAllister won 2 titles and Phillips and was runner-up in another. He has never won 7 games in a season since moving to Sandburg.
Antioch has been frequently targeted by people on this board due to some statements from their coaches... but if we flipped coaching staffs at Loyola and Antioch... do we really think the success of the two programs would invert simply due to better coaching?
Not immediately, and not to the same degree. But using a mediocre team in one of the weakest conferences in the state and the best modern dynasty in Illinois football as your two examples is not very convincing.
Again, I'm not saying the coaches at some of these successful private schools aren't great coaches (they are). But there's some denial that there are unquestionably different rulesets in play, and when leveraged correctly, those definitely can be perceived as advantages for those schools (again, why is Robbie Gould moving? What is so much more enticing about the private school five minutes away from the public school he was at?).
Why do the specifics of Robbie's career move matter so much? Is it possible he will be paid more? The newer facilities? Maybe he is a devout catholic? If Viator has such an inherent advantage, why have they been a below average program for so long?
  • Like
Reactions: Snetsrak61

Public School Advantages

But let's take this example to the extreme, if all football playing boys in a class from a community chose to go to a private school, the local public school is missing an entire class of players. They cannot replace those players, they just have to coach up the other kids. So therefore, they might have zero lineman for a class, or no QB, or no skill position players. Whereas, that just will never be true for private schools. It is a scenario some private school supporters cannot fathom. What do you mean a 7A football school like Mundelein High School with 2,100 students had zero lineman in the class of 2023?
Um, okay. I guess it's interesting to play the what if game. But the what if game is only compelling or worth playing if it is something that could happen in reality. Could it happen? Well, never say never. There's always a first time, but the chances are so slim as to be practically impossible.

But, even if it did happen, so what? In my mind, the market will have spoken. The market is something that private schools must deal with all the time. Public schools, by virtue of the fact that they enroll between 90-95% of school aged kids in their districts, basically operate educational monopolies on no tuition education within those districts. They really don't have to think about the market anywhere near as much as private schools.


I think it is okay talking about it as a loss, because those students who chose to go to a different school cannot be replaced at public school. So they have to coach without those students.

How can you replace someone who was never there in the first place? How can you lose someone who was never there in the first place?

Public School Advantages

This is one of the things I have been talking about all along. Because public high schools do not charge tuition and because they enroll the vast majority of high school aged kids from within their districts, I believe that many in the public school community become conditioned to believing that their schools are entitled to every kid in the district. When that doesn't happen, and 5%-10% decide to go elsewhere, it's looked at as a loss, especially from an athletic perspective. How can you incur a loss of something that you never had in the first place? I can see how a school can feel a loss if an athlete transfers out to a different school. I get that, but even that is often balanced out over time by incoming transfers from other schools. I can't understand the mindset that a school losing something that it never had can cripple a team.
I get that. No one is entitled to an athlete or prospective student. But let's take this example to the extreme, if all football playing boys in a class from a community chose to go to a private school, the local public school is missing an entire class of players. They cannot replace those players, they just have to coach up the other kids. So therefore, they might have zero lineman for a class, or no QB, or no skill position players. Whereas, that just will never be true for private schools. It is a scenario some private school supporters cannot fathom. What do you mean a 7A football school like Mundelein High School with 2,100 students had zero lineman in the class of 2023?

I think it is okay talking about it as a loss, because those students who chose to go to a different school cannot be replaced at public school. So they have to coach without those students.
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander32

Public School Advantages

I don't think arguments are oversimplified that often here, honestly. They're just often taken wrong. Of course there are a multitude of factors, but there's enough examples of public school success story that the origin of the complaints often seem pretty hollow. If you wanna get into why Loyola and Mt Carmel can 3 peat in 7/8A and LWE can be very good but not quite that (or Naz/Sycamore in 5A) I think that's a legit conversation you can have. But peeling back the record of the source of complaints often shows a history that isn't being thwarted by private school success, but even their inability to find success among public schools like them.

Public School Advantages

One thing that others have talked about for a long time is that there is an inherent difference between the way public and private schools get kids. And it's that inherent difference that many perceive as the PRIMARY advantage for a school like Loyola or Mt. Carmel vs any public school. Yes, there are many nuances and differences between private and public schools, but a public school cannot see a good eighth-grade football player, call them up, and say "Hey, choose us. We will give you a great football experience." These phone calls DO happen. I know first-hand that they have happened. I know some posters here will adamantly deny this happens and "proof" will be demanded. But I don't care to engage with anyone who is being willfully ignorant that those calls are happening, and are much easier to make from a private school.

Sure, I can concede that there are probably some public schools making phone calls out of district - but the obstacle of asking a family to move or uproot to be in a school's boundary is a much larger obstacle to overcome than asking a family to drive to a different school in the morning. Something tells me this is something that Robbie Gould understands pretty well as he moves from Rolling Meadows over to Viator. I also think the value of a few "studs" is something that is sometimes understated here. Yes, a good football culture is necessary for any winning program. But 3-4 stud football players (maybe even just 2 if one plays the all-important position of quarterback) can make the difference between a first-round playoff loss and a quarter-finalist or semi-finalist. Just a few of the right kids can push a program into a different tier of competition. And I would argue that private schools probably have an easier time targeting and getting those kinds of kids with the inherent differences in how they enroll students.

I do think great coaching is happening at places like Loyola and Mt. Carmel AND places like Maine South and Rochester. I also think some of the coaches at public schools who aren't in the same category of success as those schools have a very comparable caliber of coaching in their buildings. The frequent pointing to "it's mostly just hard work and better coaching" feels comically oversimplified. It's been brought up multiple times (and as a frequent lurker I'm always hopeful one of the usual private guy supporters will address it - but alas, it is always ignored), but Coach Buzz at Evanston won multiple state titles at Driscoll and then couldn't win a single playoff game over 16 seasons at Evanston. Did he forget how to coach? Did he forget how to build culture? Or is there a much different skill set and factors needed to win at a place like Driscoll vs a place like Evanston? Antioch has been frequently targeted by people on this board due to some statements from their coaches... but if we flipped coaching staffs at Loyola and Antioch... do we really think the success of the two programs would invert simply due to better coaching?

Again, I'm not saying the coaches at some of these successful private schools aren't great coaches (they are). But there's some denial that there are unquestionably different rulesets in play, and when leveraged correctly, those definitely can be perceived as advantages for those schools (again, why is Robbie Gould moving? What is so much more enticing about the private school five minutes away from the public school he was at?). I say this as someone who wouldn't want to see a separate private league, but think it is worth having some conversations about how to square these differences in a way that leads to more competitive play. I have always been a fan of some of the formulas that would apply to ALL schools that have been shared in the past on this board (and steal some of the good ideas that other states already deploy) so that competition would be a bit better across all classes.

Private Schools 7 - Public Schools 1. That’s a wrap!

Yeah but what about 3-4 vs 4-3 vs 3-3-5 stack?
That mostly depends on personnel. Run a 3-man front if you got a NG that can handle 2-gap play. Then decide if you are heavy in LBs or DBs. 4-man front is nice if you want to stop the run first and not have to blitz for a pass rush. Most HS coaches run what ever they know with little regard for personnel.

Public School Advantages

"I do agree that individual choice is totally situational and it can vary from kid to kid in a family. Loyola's running back is a Glenview kid who had a brother start on a quarterfinalist team for GBS. He decided to go to Loyola. It paid off with 3 state championships. Two kids from the same family with different choices. Both, I think, really liked their choices.

What makes the advantage debate so contentious is that this is a zero sum game. The fact that the RB went to Loyola takes a phenomenal football player away from GBS who they make struggle to replace. This hurts GBS. If that is 2-3 kids in the same class, that can cripple a public school team."

This is one of the things I have been talking about all along. Because public high schools do not charge tuition and because they enroll the vast majority of high school aged kids from within their districts, I believe that many in the public school community become conditioned to believing that their schools are entitled to every kid in the district. When that doesn't happen, and 5%-10% decide to go elsewhere, it's looked at as a loss, especially from an athletic perspective. How can you incur a loss of something that you never had in the first place? I can see how a school can feel a loss if an athlete transfers out to a different school. I get that, but even that is often balanced out over time by incoming transfers from other schools. I can't understand the mindset that a school losing something that it never had can cripple a team.

A Tradition Unlike Any Other

What's the deal with Christ the King? I don't think they existed (or at least didn't play football) back when I was in school. Are they related/the same as "Cristo Rey"?
Same order running it and same work-study afternoon concept except based in Austin and marketed to AA youth. I do wonder if the work study offerings are taking a hit with downsizing, automation and Illinois exodus. Lake County's CR/CTK school Cristo Rey San Martin doesn't have as large a catalog of the big corporate campuses to assign students to as it did in the early 2000s; they did build a picturesque soccer field about a year ago at Belvidere and Green Bay Road.

NIU to the Mountain West

I don't like the current environment and the inevitable changes to come either and the entire tradition of the sport is being erased, but the reality is that the Big Ten and SEC have complete control of the future of this sport. They aren't giving it up or sharing it with anyone. Oregon and Texas snuck into the free world just before the Berlin Wall was constructed.

Miami, Clemson, and FSU, ASU, and Colorado (plus VT, GT, UNC, etc) are programs that got stuck in East Berlin but are desperately searching for the tiny crack to get to the free world.

Even ND will be squeezed at some point this decade to pick one of the big 2 leagues to join. Vanderbilt and Northwestern are lucky to be on the right side of this, but the reality is the 40-48 programs that end up getting Golden Tickets to the Big Two aren't going to consider knocking down the Berlin Wall. They are going to build it higher to keep Kansas State, Iowa State, and Wake Forest from diluting their revenue pool. They may even try to throw Rutgers and some others back over the wall.

It is bad for the game, but it is the sad reality of where this is headed. And programs won't like it when blue bloods end up regularly finishing around .500 because the leagues have too many "name brands." Oklahoma was Oklahoma and Nebraska was Nebraska back in the day because there were a few good teams in each league and the rest was cannon fodder. In the new environment, all of the brand names will be concentrated into two leagues so each league will have 16-20 brand names and only 4-8 teams as cannon fodder.

That's too many losses to go around to keep all the blue bloods recognized as true blue bloods. It is going to get real interesting as brands start to lose their mystique while simultaneously closing the door on any chance for additional cannon fodder to enter one of the prized big two leagues.
I generally agree with what you've said. I think that my proposal helps accomplish that. It keeps things fairly separated in that top 60 where even tier 2 is gonna get most of the benefit they have today, (that's a lot of TV money to still spread to feature regular season matchups) but you're gonna make those last twenty or so teams into the SEC/BIGTen affiliation basically earn their keep. The true blue bloods should be able to keep themselves in the top 56 each year. But if any of the bottom feeders push back because of the possibility they get relegated out of relevance... That will be the fight I guess.

If they completely shut out into a 60 team super league I think they may becomes too insular... Maybe keeping that sliver of connection through promotion helps though... We'll see though.

Private Schools 7 - Public Schools 1. That’s a wrap!

I agree with most of the premise, however, I will say that there is some level of accountability. The problem is that the decision makers on the school board or in the district office hold the wrong people accountable. They often go after the teachers or building administrators for the results of the poor decisions made above them. The public needs to hold school board members more accountable. School board members need to hold district admin more accountable.

Correcting failures in the system does not involve a broad solution. Each individual entity (school district) must determine what issues impact them the most and work to solve those issues. No one has the perfect solution.

If I were to start researching potential solutions for improving academic outcomes in a school district, these are the areas I would focus on, along with additional supporting facts that highlight their importance:
1. Address Educational Funding Inequities
Ensure underfunded school districts receive adequate resources to meet the needs of their students.
In Illinois, districts serving the highest percentages of low-income students receive approximately 22% less state and local funding per student than wealthier districts, according to the Education Law Center.
Many schools operate in unsafe, hazardous conditions with little to no support for effective learning. Funding reforms are critical to create safe, well-equipped environments where students can thrive.

2. Prioritize Teacher Support
Offer competitive salaries and benefits to attract and retain high-quality educators, reducing the risk of teacher shortages.
The Learning Policy Institute reports that districts with higher teacher salaries experience lower turnover rates and attract more qualified applicants, directly improving student outcomes.
Lower student-to-teacher ratios in struggling districts to improve individualized attention.
Shift the narrative to stop blaming public schools and teachers for broader societal issues they cannot control.

3. Focus on Future-Ready Education: CTE and STEM
Eliminate over-reliance on rote memorization and emphasize critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, STEM jobs are expected to grow by 8% from 2019 to 2029, faster than non-STEM jobs, with median wages nearly double the national average.
Expand Career and Technical Education (CTE) and STEM programs to prepare students for evolving industries and global competitiveness.

4. Revamp Early Childhood Education
Adopt models inspired by Asian countries emphasizing discipline, routine, teamwork, and play-based learning in Pre-K through 1st grade.
Countries like Japan and South Korea have some of the highest literacy and math proficiency rates globally, attributed to early emphasis on discipline, structure, and collaborative learning.
Promote multilingual development in the early years.
Encourage self-sustaining classrooms where children take on responsibilities such as helping with daily activities, meal preparation, and cleanup.

5. Invest in Community and Parental Engagement
Foster partnerships between schools, families, and the community to support student success.
Research from the Harvard Family Research Project shows that students with engaged parents are 2.6 times more likely to graduate from high school and attend college.
Create programs that encourage parents to take an active role in their child’s education and school activities.

6. Reform Disciplinary Policies
Revise outdated and ineffective disciplinary practices to focus on restorative approaches that foster accountability and growth rather than punitive, menial consequences.
Schools that implement restorative justice practices have seen a 44% reduction in suspension rates, improving student behavior and school climate.

7. Increase Accountability for Truancy
Implement strategies to hold parents accountable for ensuring regular attendance while addressing underlying barriers to student engagement.
Chronic absenteeism affects nearly 8 million U.S. students annually, with long-term effects on academic achievement and graduation rates. Parent accountability programs in some states have reduced truancy rates by as much as 25%.

8. Reinforce the Value of Public Education
Help society recognize that the U.S. public education system has been a cornerstone of the nation’s rise to global prominence. It has fostered widespread literacy, innovation, and economic growth, creating a workforce and citizenry capable of sustaining democracy and global leadership.
Yeah but what about 3-4 vs 4-3 vs 3-3-5 stack?
  • Like
Reactions: HRCJR

Public School Advantages

[No issue with your post whatsoever and no dog in the fight in this particular exchange]

But hijacking a few very valid points made here as it relates to my prior comments on "culture", "recruiting", "getting" players, etc. If you are going to convince me to pay money to go to a school with potentially worse facilities, infrastructure, and academic outcomes and options, and I'm not making my decision based on religion... there had better be a compelling reason for me to do so.

And for many football players, the culture, focus, and emphasis on quality coaching and football success is that reason. And it is a flywheel that attracts other football players. It is a "muscle" that has been developed by the Catholic schools that are currently thriving, and one that has atrophied at those that are not. For some who feel it is unfair, they will say the school went out and "got" a player. For others, it's a concerted institutional effort to overcome the disadvantages quoted above and still succeed, by creating a "quality" in their program that is difficult to replicate when the rest of the school is not necessarily aligned.

Whether or not it is a "good" thing is up for debate. A regular student might have a much richer experience at Glenbrook South than Notre Dame.

And just to reiterate, I take no issue with your post and agree that neither public or private education is inherently superior, both are necessary, and an individual choice is totally situational.
This is a great response. Thank you for that. I do agree that the thriving catholic schools are also the schools that make football (and many other sports) are priority and many people argue (mostly accurately) that this is a necessity to stay open. This reminds of D3 schools that must put a huge emphasis on sports in order to stay open.

I do agree that individual choice is totally situational and it can vary from kid to kid in a family. Loyola's running back is a Glenview kid who had a brother start on a quarterfinalist team for GBS. He decided to go to Loyola. It paid off with 3 state championships. Two kids from the same family with different choices. Both, I think, really liked their choices.

What makes the advantage debate so contentious is that this is a zero sum game. The fact that the RB went to Loyola takes a phenomenal football player away from GBS who they make struggle to replace. This hurts GBS. If that is 2-3 kids in the same class, that can cripple a public school team.

I am not here because I am anti private schools, I definitely get defensive when people generalize and make broad statements about public schools. Especially because situations are so different depending on the school, the community, the family, the kid.
  • Like
Reactions: HotBeer

NIU to the Mountain West

I don't like the current environment and the inevitable changes to come either and the entire tradition of the sport is being erased, but the reality is that the Big Ten and SEC have complete control of the future of this sport. They aren't giving it up or sharing it with anyone. Oregon and Texas snuck into the free world just before the Berlin Wall was constructed.
unfortunately, I agree with everything you posted.

That's why, just spitballing as fans, for a relegation/promotion type plan to actually happen, would take a SEC/Big10 "premier" league of 40 teams. That's basically those 2 conferences now, with another handful of the top other schools added. Could easily figure out a schedule/playoff system based off four 10 team divisions. All the big money and most of '5 star' prospects would be there. The relegation aspect of it keeps the "Purdue" types on their toes, and adds a whole other marketing angle for ESPN/Fox/etc to play. Imagine a "champions" level league with playoffs that promote schools up to premier. Would draw much higher ratings (and $$$) than all the random bowls.

Public School Advantages

This is a wildly inappropriate response on so many levels. First of all, you admit right away that you and your kids went to 16 years of private schools. Which is great. But that means you have literally zero experience with public schools. So it almost invalidates the rest of your points by trying to act like you have insight into public school parents.

I never tried to act that way at all. I was simply positing possibilities. Reread what I wrote, because it seems to me like you have reading comprehension issues. I went out of my way not to sound authoritative. I specifically tried to use words and phrases like like "could it be, ,"I imagine," etc. Besides, I admit that what I wrote were assumptions. Indeed, most of them were phrased in the form of questions designed to be closer to offering food for thought than a definitive essay. You don't have to agree with them, but I can't help it if you failed to understand how they were expressed.

Then you go on to completely make up unfound opinions about public school parents. I can assure you that no public school parents are having nagging thoughts about not valuing their kids education because they did not pay a private tuition. Especially in the suburbs of Chicago where the public schools often score higher than the private schools.

Again, it was food for thought. Questions that I posed. As for unfounded opinions, welcome to a message board. Go somewhere else if unfounded opinions offend you or turn you off. Is not your assurance that no public school parents are having nagging thoughts about not valuing their kids' education nothing more than an unfounded opinion? If not, then go for it. Show me the data supporting your assurance (opinion).


You accuse public school supporters as having an "inferiority complex", as "lashing out", as needing to "cope", or as having an "aversion to any type of organized religion".

It was NOT an accusation. Read it AGAIN.

I too can make broad generalizations and make claims with little to no evidence.

Go for it. I'm a private school fan and I'm used to generalizations about them.

In the beginning you said " I like to imagine what I could have done with all the tuition money if I had my kids belly up and go to the public education trough" and that makes me wonder is it in fact YOUR resentment and your nagging thoughts that maybe instead of paying thousands of dollars for the same education as a public school do you feel that you did not value your kid's childhood enough to give them more experiences?

Good one. Phrased as a question. Well played.

Now I'm not actually accusing you of this because it would be unfair to you and it would even more unfair to generalize and accuse large swaths of private education parents of this as well.

I know you weren't accusing me because you posited it in the form of a question. Just as I did in my post that you failed to comprehend.

Also why do you feel the need to insult the public education by using terms like "belly up to the public education trough"?

Did you like that? Pretty graphic, huh? Is it me feeling a need to insult public education? I wouldn't call it a need. More like a desire to tweak its nose. Would you rather I had painted a picture of puppies all jockeying each other for access to the public school teat? Much cuter, huh?

Do you actually feel superior to the public education clientele?

No.

If it is a money thing as you mentioned, does it make you feel good to insult the education?

No.

Often times public schools have significantly more supports (such as math labs, writing labs, IA's, support classes) and broader range of classes (such as more AP classes and Dual credit classes). Not sure why you feel the need to tear down public education on a forum designed to talk about athletics.

Again, this reading comprehension thing seems to be a challenge for you. I don't feel the need to tear down public education at all. I do, however, feel the need to call out many public school apologists for their double standards, their whining, and for generally just being pains in the neck.

Public School Advantages

In there district you are absolutely correct. The youth programs are in there district yes they will talk to those kids. They will most likely attend their school. A handful will go private for various reasons. I understand the private recruiting and the need to bring in kids. I also understand when coaches from private schools attend these youth games they are recruiting them to come play for them. It’s totally legal and I have no problem with it. You can look at my posts and I don’t whine about losing to a private. It happens and the next year maybe not. The issue at hand is trying to come up with a system that allows both Privates and publics to be competitive and fair.
We have a decent system in place already but it doesn't sound like you like the results since too many Catholic's win. There are a handful of catholic schools that win a lot and handful of publics that have win a lot, like in most sports.


Most of the the other schools private or public are never gonna win anything no matter how much tinkering is done. Success isn't fair, so the next best thing is to be given a chance. A chance that everyone has at the start of a football season.
  • Like
Reactions: Gene K.

Public School Advantages

Completely agree the investment was worth it. Best part was that going from Jesuit HS to Jesuit College with well earned scholarships made college tuition less than Ignatius. He also said he was extremely well prepared for college, especially when it came to writing. Something many of his college classmates struggled with. Some who may have not had grammar, and clear and concise writing beaten into them (mostly figuratively).

My dad said never total up the tuition payments you have made. Just enjoy the fruits of money well spent.
Couldn't agree with you more. Both my wife and I received 16 years of Catholic education. Our five kids all received 12 years of Catholic education before deciding on attending large state universities for college. Their Catholic education more than prepared them for success in college. All of our kids played varsity sports and none of our choices regarding education had anything to do with athletics. I will always believe it was money well spent!

NIU to the Mountain West

In my idea of NCAA promotion relegation there is a premier league that is without conference affiliation, but is the promotion spot from a very broad "SEC" and "BigTen". So every school will eventually funnels through those affiliation which are broadly regional N/S. All other conference names for football become mere branding and licensing agreements.

Top 12 premier league. 11 game round Robin regular season with 1 non-league "rivalry" game permitted.

Top 4 playoff for championship.

Bottom 4 auto relegated and placed in either "Big Ten" or "SEC" first according to historical ties and second on N/S alignment.

Big Ten and SEC 24 teams each split into 2 12 team divisions arranged E/W. 11 game round Robin regular season with 1 rivalry game permitted. Division A #1 v Division B #2 and Division B #1 v Division A #2 for 4 NYE Bowl games to dictate promotion. Bottom team in each division auto relegated.

Thats 60 teams. Tier 3 is split into 8 regional divisions with 2:1 relationship to each of the 4 Tier 2 divisions where a 1 v 1 non NYE bowl matchup wins promotion. That's probably an additional 64-80 teams.

Remaining 120-136 ish teams sorted into direct 1:1 feeder tiers to tier 3 divisions for a direct 1 up 1 down auto promotion/relegation. You could do 2 or 3 more tiers depending how much crossover play you want. But they play in smaller divisions with truncated division schedule with cross league and cross division games rounding out regular season play.

Top half teams not eligible for promotion bowl game can play exhibition bowl games - those are unaffiliated play, but permitted.

TV contracts revenue shsre and NIL salary caps move up/down commiserate with each league annually. Bottom 2-4 tiers will basically be scholarship only levels and eventually players/teams will seemlessly move from basically amateur play to pro in Premier.

Call me nuts, but it would be a very compelling college landscape. And Big Ten and SEC can't just continue to canabilize like they have been. Eventually they canabilize too much and become too big and need to chart new path which may be full separation, but maybe if we're lucky is releation/promotion. Historical conferences for all sports but football return to normalcy.
I don't like the current environment and the inevitable changes to come either and the entire tradition of the sport is being erased, but the reality is that the Big Ten and SEC have complete control of the future of this sport. They aren't giving it up or sharing it with anyone. Oregon and Texas snuck into the free world just before the Berlin Wall was constructed.

Miami, Clemson, and FSU, ASU, and Colorado (plus VT, GT, UNC, etc) are programs that got stuck in East Berlin but are desperately searching for the tiny crack to get to the free world.

Even ND will be squeezed at some point this decade to pick one of the big 2 leagues to join. Vanderbilt and Northwestern are lucky to be on the right side of this, but the reality is the 40-48 programs that end up getting Golden Tickets to the Big Two aren't going to consider knocking down the Berlin Wall. They are going to build it higher to keep Kansas State, Iowa State, and Wake Forest from diluting their revenue pool. They may even try to throw Rutgers and some others back over the wall.

It is bad for the game, but it is the sad reality of where this is headed. And programs won't like it when blue bloods end up regularly finishing around .500 because the leagues have too many "name brands." Oklahoma was Oklahoma and Nebraska was Nebraska back in the day because there were a few good teams in each league and the rest was cannon fodder. In the new environment, all of the brand names will be concentrated into two leagues so each league will have 16-20 brand names and only 4-8 teams as cannon fodder.

That's too many losses to go around to keep all the blue bloods recognized as true blue bloods. It is going to get real interesting as brands start to lose their mystique while simultaneously closing the door on any chance for additional cannon fodder to enter one of the prized big two leagues.
  • Like
Reactions: Snetsrak61

Public School Advantages

Especially in the suburbs of Chicago where the public schools often score higher than the private schools.

Often times public schools have significantly more supports (such as math labs, writing labs, IA's, support classes) and broader range of classes (such as more AP classes and Dual credit classes). Not sure why you feel the need to tear down public education on a forum designed to talk about athletics.
[No issue with your post whatsoever and no dog in the fight in this particular exchange]

But hijacking a few very valid points made here as it relates to my prior comments on "culture", "recruiting", "getting" players, etc. If you are going to convince me to pay money to go to a school with potentially worse facilities, infrastructure, and academic outcomes and options, and I'm not making my decision based on religion... there had better be a compelling reason for me to do so.

And for many football players, the culture, focus, and emphasis on quality coaching and football success is that reason. And it is a flywheel that attracts other football players. It is a "muscle" that has been developed by the Catholic schools that are currently thriving, and one that has atrophied at those that are not. For some who feel it is unfair, they will say the school went out and "got" a player. For others, it's a concerted institutional effort to overcome the disadvantages quoted above and still succeed, by creating a "quality" in their program that is difficult to replicate when the rest of the school is not necessarily aligned.

Whether or not it is a "good" thing is up for debate. A regular student might have a much richer experience at Glenbrook South than Notre Dame.

And just to reiterate, I take no issue with your post and agree that neither public or private education is inherently superior, both are necessary, and an individual choice is totally situational.

NIU to the Mountain West

Granted, my promotion/relegation experience is 100% from watching 'Welcome to Wrexham', and following the team a little, but it would be an awesome concept for fans.

Just for fun, let's say the levels were by conference
SEC
Big10
Big12
ACC
etc, etc

Imagine the drama knowing that Auburn had to beat Alabama two weeks ago to avoid being relegated to the Big10.
Based on standings: Auburn, Kentucky, and MS St would have dropped to the Big10, and Oregon, Indiana, and Penn St would be in the SEC next year.
In my idea of NCAA promotion relegation there is a premier league that is without conference affiliation, but is the promotion spot from a very broad "SEC" and "BigTen". So every school will eventually funnels through those affiliation which are broadly regional N/S. All other conference names for football become mere branding and licensing agreements.

Top 12 premier league. 11 game round Robin regular season with 1 non-league "rivalry" game permitted.

Top 4 playoff for championship.

Bottom 4 auto relegated and placed in either "Big Ten" or "SEC" first according to historical ties and second on N/S alignment.

Big Ten and SEC 24 teams each split into 2 12 team divisions arranged E/W. 11 game round Robin regular season with 1 rivalry game permitted. Division A #1 v Division B #2 and Division B #1 v Division A #2 for 4 NYE Bowl games to dictate promotion. Bottom team in each division auto relegated.

Thats 60 teams. Tier 3 is split into 8 regional divisions with 2:1 relationship to each of the 4 Tier 2 divisions where a 1 v 1 non NYE bowl matchup wins promotion. That's probably an additional 64-80 teams.

Remaining 120-136 ish teams sorted into direct 1:1 feeder tiers to tier 3 divisions for a direct 1 up 1 down auto promotion/relegation. You could do 2 or 3 more tiers depending how much crossover play you want. But they play in smaller divisions with truncated division schedule with cross league and cross division games rounding out regular season play.

Top half teams not eligible for promotion bowl game can play exhibition bowl games - those are unaffiliated play, but permitted.

TV contracts revenue shsre and NIL salary caps move up/down commiserate with each league annually. Bottom 2-4 tiers will basically be scholarship only levels and eventually players/teams will seemlessly move from basically amateur play to pro in Premier.

Call me nuts, but it would be a very compelling college landscape. And Big Ten and SEC can't just continue to canabilize like they have been. Eventually they canabilize too much and become too big and need to chart new path which may be full separation, but maybe if we're lucky is releation/promotion. Historical conferences for all sports but football return to normalcy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT