Is it fair to compare Evanston to OPRF?

Similar mix of socioeconomic backgrounds with their student body, but also a large private school in their backyard.

Assume the Kits have talent roaming the halls.

DeanOfSelection said:

Cj Cesario - Chicago Christian

Click to expand...

This 💯

He took a program, from mostly obscurity, and won a state championship in his first season.

sac'em said:

It would be interesting to see how many HFC at public high schools are not employed except for football or are not a teacher/counselor/dean (or any other full-time position in the school) during the day. Do you know of any examples?

Click to expand...

I believe Head Coach Czart (Lockport) is retired from his former full-time job as a math teacher. Not sure how long that has been the case and if he was out of teaching when they won their somewhat recent 8A state title. Also, he may have some other kind of position in the building outside of a regular classroom schedule. I do know he spent many seasons as a head coach, including during his time at LWN, teaching AP Calculus.

RunNorth-South said:

I personally think that the good private schools do have an advantage in terms of acquiring talent

Click to expand...

It wasn't too long ago that JCA and MC both failed to make the playoffs in the same year. Remember when JCA couldn't get past Mascoutah in the quarters a few years back? I can remember a few pretty lean years for Loyola post-Hoerster, and a lot of them pre-Hoerster. Remember when Montini was good, and then they failed to qualify for two straight years, and now they are good again? In recent years, lots of folks were bemoaning IC as one of those private juggernauts of which you speak. In the five playoffs held since 2019, however, they have won it all just once. They were quarterfinal knockouts three times, and they failed to qualify this year. Naz is on a great run, but I'm old enough to remember when they either didn't qualify or were perennial first round playoff knockouts.

The point is that success, and the lack thereof, go in cycles of varying lengths.

RunNorth-South said:

and that the current environment of high school sports is morphing the playing field into a place where those schools are outclassing everyone by such a large margin that it's not even fun for a fandom anymore.

Click to expand...

Was it also not fun for you when Rochester won 5 consecutive titles and went 11-0 in playoff games against private schools during that streak?

Was it not fun for you to watch Althoff spank Le-Win the day after this past Thanksgiving, but watching Le-Win handily win three straight 1A titles from 2019-22 was somehow ok?

Are you as equally turned off by public school extraordinary success as you are by private school extraordinary success?

RunNorth-South said:

Even those that disagree with the first part of my statement (that privates have a talent-acquiring advantage) can at least acknowledge that there are very few schools that can even be on the same field as some of the current private juggernauts

Click to expand...

In much the same way that there are few schools that can be on the same field with public school juggernauts like Rochester, ESL, LWE, Le-Win, Byron, etc.

RunNorth-South said:

I read a lot on the board this year about how talented LWE was relative to everyone else. So I was excited to go to the Loyola-LWE game. The QB on LWE seems like the real deal and is clearly a great player. But I was stunned to see Loyola look so much bigger at every other position on the field. I thought they made LWE look like a JV team

Click to expand...

RunNorth-South said:

I think we had some misinformed posters, personally. And, as anyone looking at these teams stand near each other would have probably guessed, Loyola out-physicaled LWE and didn't get stopped from scoring one time the entire game on offense. LWE had the best dude, but Loyola had a few studs of their own and way more depth of talent and size.

Click to expand...

Are you sure you were at that game? Perhaps your visual point of view was skewed? You make it sound like LWE was totally outclassed physically and talent-wise. Did it not end a three-point game? Was LWE not up by 10 after Q1 and by 3 at halftime? Was this not basically a game of two halves, with LWE winning the first half by 3 and LA winning the second half by 6? How could a JV team do as well as they did against such a bigger and more talented varsity team?

And did not ESL beat the snot out of Loyola earlier in the season? What does that say about LWE relative to ESL in your mind?

RunNorth-South said:

I end my long-winded post by restating that I want a good product. The $5 for a high school game has always been the best deal in town for entertainment. But not if it's an increasing number of blowouts. I've always thought there should be more playing around with some sort of ranking formulas. For perspective, I don't think Rochester winning so many in a row at the lower class made much sense either

Click to expand...

But was it equally as unenjoyable for you as the playoff blowouts that private schools mete out?

RunNorth-South said:

Aim for a competitive balance.

Click to expand...

Totally agree as long as all schools are balanced equally.

RunNorth-South said:

I do think the multiplier makes sense on some level.

Click to expand...

It is flawed and discriminatory. I'd rather see a different approach that treats all schools equally.

RunNorth-South said:

I think a success factor makes sense on some level (for private and public - let's get East St. Louis in the higher classes!).

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Alexander32 said:

You mention De LaSalle, St. Patrick, Niles Notre Dame, Leo, St. Viator, Marian Catholic, Marmion, Marian Central Catholic, Aurora Central Catholic and St. Edwards as private schools that are not likely to win a state football championship. What you do not mention is that circumstance is exactly why none of those schools have the multiplier or success factor applied to them. They are treated exactly the same as the vast majority of public schools. It is only those private schools that have managed to exploit their unique circumstances into extraordinary success that have the success factor applied to them. And, "RunNorth-South" made it clear he believes the success factor should be applied to public schools as well.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's all well and good - my point was not made for or against the success factor. It was in response to the comment "If the kid chooses to go to the private school, he can play for state trophies." Which is obviously a gross generalization.

And if those schools are not having success enough to get multiplied, why don't they go "get" some "Dudes" or some "Jimmies and Joes" so they can have success?

And of course, the answer is because "getting" players actually means the arduous, holistic, institution-wide effort of cultivating a winning football culture that kids want to be a part of, which is easier said than done and the entire point I have been making in this thread.

2023 Chicago Bears Coach of the Week for Week 2, Adam Chavez, West Chicago.

Sounds like there could be underlying reasons for the dismissal. Every reference to a meeting with someone is resulting in a disagreement. Maybe he was just an a$$hat and no one wants to deal with a .500 a$$hat.

I bet Uncle Junior wouldn’t complain about the off season lifting. Probably why Tony never had the makings of a varsity athlete- he didn’t lift in the off season.

And another public school advantage- no lifting in the off season.

HRCJR said:

How much do you think coaches at Private Schools get paid? Everyone that I know has what I would refer to as a "regular job" if not employed by the school.

Click to expand...

I'm only speaking of Head Coaches.
My GUESS: Big program HFC: starting at $100k plus benefits w/ Advancement Office or Admin title position.
I do not want to speculate on specific head coaches, but I do know of 3 that did not have a teaching position or another "full-time" position within the school and was paid at least $100k with other benefits. (No other outside job)
Its hard to say because the private schools do not report how much they pay their peeps. You can look up any public school teacher and get that info (transparency ).
What do you think JL gets at MC?

sac'em said:

Another point:
Many Private school Head Football Coaches do not teach during the day. They are able to work the recruiting office, break film down, make visits, prep for practice, etc.
Nearly all public school head coaches work in the building as a teacher. So, they don't get the opportunity to market their program all day to recruits. They don't get to intently watch film throughout the whole day. I don't know exactly what J. Lynch does during the school day, but I can almost guarantee that R. Zovnar has to take care of other responsibilities besides the football program.
On one side you have the HFC as the full-time job, and the other it has to be the part-time job. IMO, I think that's what makes RZ's accomplishments (and other consistent high performing public school coaches) at a public school so astounding.

Click to expand...

How much do you think coaches at Private Schools get paid? Everyone that I know has what I would refer to as a "regular job" if not employed by the school.

Boone Thoregson- Geneva

He won’t win but Nate Eimer at West Aurora should be considered.

kwamizee said:

Extra curriculars including football really shouldn't be that far down the list since they provide another arena for education. Football involves a bunch of people with different skillsets during the week and on game day.

Medicine, photography, communications, Music ie are all involved

Click to expand...

There's a difference between prioritizing having those - and performing at some minimum stable environment - and exceling at them. Big difference in institutional commitment between those options (public or private).

HotBeer said:

While it's obviously the slant of this board, I personally don't think the IHSA should be doing anything based on how "fun it is for the fandom" - their duty is to all high school athletes. Remember that the kids getting blown out by Mt. Carmel in the state quarterfinals represent a tiny percentage of the players in this state - it's a very "niche" problem.



I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here... why are these DUDES going to private schools??? If you say "It's not coaching, it's not culture, it's DUDES", but then we can't point to any other reason why the DUDES are going there... It's probably coaching and culture. It doesn't mean that those coaches are wizards that can mold any bunch of random kids into a state champion, but it means that kids are attracted to the programs that choose to run themselves in the most professional and competitive of manners.

You have a fair point here, a winning tradition is a huge advantage. I would just posit that it's built on the back of what I mentioned above. But it's also not accurate to base an entire thesis on private schools around the two best teams in the state.

Loyola's facilities are meaningfully behind NT, GBS, GBN. You're right that Mt Carmel looks pretty good in comparison to the surrounding CPS schools.

Lol... you should tell this to DeLasalle, Pats, ND, Leo, Viator, Marian, Marmion, other Marian, ACC, St. Eds... should I keep going? They are missing out, some one should tell them they can play for state trophies!!

It isn't a counter argument! It is the ANSWER to the never-answered question of why these schools "get talent"! I sound like a broken record, but "it's not coaching, culture, tradition, etc., they just get talent" doesn't make sense if you can't explain WHY they get talent! Even your point I bolded above, that is a cultural element of the school. It's also a cultural element of say, Maine South, which contributed to their many dominant years. (a relatively outdated example but one I am familiar with).

I'm not saying this is "fair" per se - you may believe that public schools, based on their mission, are unable to build the winning ecosystem to encourage the best athletes in their district to play football at a youth level and desire to attend their school. The best ones have, for a time. It also doesn't mean that every public school has the inherent potential to win state championships if they did something a different way - they don't. Other factors are at play (some of which you referenced) that effect both publics and privates and will probably similarly prevent Westmont, Payton, and Christ the King from ever winning state, to use three very different examples.

Click to expand...

You mention De LaSalle, St. Patrick, Niles Notre Dame, Leo, St. Viator, Marian Catholic, Marmion, Marian Central Catholic, Aurora Central Catholic and St. Edwards as private schools that are not likely to win a state football championship. What you do not mention is that circumstance is exactly why none of those schools have the multiplier or success factor applied to them. They are treated exactly the same as the vast majority of public schools. It is only those private schools that have managed to exploit their unique circumstances into extraordinary success that have the success factor applied to them. And, "RunNorth-South" made it clear he believes the success factor should be applied to public schools as well.

sac'em said:

It would be interesting to see how many HFC at public high schools are not employed except for football or are not a teacher/counselor/dean (or any other full-time position in the school) during the day. Do you know of any examples?

Click to expand...

There isn't a HC that should take a job without having a job in the building, public or private. You can't come into the building at 3pm anywhere and be successful.

"Inheriting" problems at 3pm is far idle.

There are HC that aren't in the building but that is typically rare.

kwamizee said:

Any school that cares about the performance of their football team does not have their HC in a classroom all day. If they are in a class, it is often one that contributes to his football team ie PE lifting class, assistant AD, Dean.

Bad programs more often than not will have their HC teach 4-5+ classes.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how many HFC at public high schools are not employed except for football or are not a teacher/counselor/dean (or any other full-time position in the school) during the day. Do you know of any examples?

Snetsrak61 said:

As they probably shouldn't. For any school, public or private football or any sport performance should be way down the list of priorities.

Click to expand...

Extra curriculars including football really shouldn't be that far down the list since they provide another arena for education. Football involves a bunch of people with different skillsets during the week and on game day.

Medicine, photography, communications, Music ie are all involved

AlwaysABulldog said:

Any frontrunners? Is this considered a good job?

Click to expand...

No idea on front runners. I hope its considered a good job, especially because my son has one more year on the team. I think there are a lot of positives and probably a few challenges. Fingers crossed it will be a strong hire.

SiuCubFan8 said:

I agree, they should go to the SICA.

Click to expand...

Travel partner with the DeKalb Barbs back to the U8 when they ditch the DVC-SWSC collab.

HotBeer said:

A great point, and a great opportunity to remind ourselves: The broader state of Illinois cares far less than this board about the performance of any football team. There are plenty of parents and educators who could care less if they win the state football championship. And that is absolutely fine. For many schools having the HC teach 5 classes might be a no-brainer.

Click to expand...

As they probably shouldn't. For any school, public or private football or any sport performance should be way down the list of priorities.

kwamizee said:

Any school that cares about the performance of their football team does not have their HC in a classroom all day. If they are in a class, it is often one that contributes to his football team ie PE lifting class, assistant AD, Dean.

Bad programs more often than not will have their HC teach 4-5+ classes.

Click to expand...

A great point, and a great opportunity to remind ourselves: The broader state of Illinois cares far less than this board about the performance of any football team. There are plenty of parents and educators who could care less if they win the state football championship. And that is absolutely fine. For many schools having the HC teach 5 classes might be a no-brainer.

sac'em said:

Another point:
Many Private school Head Football Coaches do not teach during the day. They are able to work the recruiting office, break film down, make visits, prep for practice, etc.
Nearly all public school head coaches work in the building as a teacher. So, they don't get the opportunity to market their program all day to recruits. They don't get to intently watch film throughout the whole day. I don't know exactly what J. Lynch does during the school day, but I can almost guarantee that R. Zovnar has to take care of other responsibilities besides the football program.
On one side you have the HFC as the full-time job, and the other it has to be the part-time job. IMO, I think that's what makes RZ's accomplishments (and other consistent high performing public school coaches) at a public school so astounding

Click to expand...

Any school that cares about the performance of their football team does not have their HC in a classroom all day. If they are in a class, it is often one that contributes to his football team ie PE lifting class, assistant AD, Dean.

Bad programs more often than not will have their HC teach 4-5+ classes.

RunNorth-South said:

That is the conversation I think we might need to start having. I personally think that the good private schools do have an advantage in terms of acquiring talent, and that the current environment of high school sports is morphing the playing field into a place where those schools are outclassing everyone by such a large margin that it's not even fun for a fandom anymore.

Click to expand...

While it's obviously the slant of this board, I personally don't think the IHSA should be doing anything based on how "fun it is for the fandom" - their duty is to all high school athletes. Remember that the kids getting blown out by Mt. Carmel in the state quarterfinals represent a tiny percentage of the players in this state - it's a very "niche" problem.

RunNorth-South said:

And the few public schools that are usually pointed to as examples of why private school success is clearly just the result of "good coaching and hard work" - Maine South and Lincoln Way East - weren't honestly as close as the scores for the games they played against Loyola.

Click to expand...

RunNorth-South said:

Ehhh... I don't think those questions don't get asked enough. I don't think there's any "tricking" going on either. As someone who is a fan of all high school sports, I want to think about basketball for a moment. Coaching matters there too. But there is far greater admission from basketball fans that 1-2 "dudes" raise your ceiling by A LOT. Yes, good coaches get the most out of their guys, but unless you have some dudes you're not going to get too far come playoff time. I think the same is true in football more often than we let on. Talent is the number one factor that gets teams to win deep in the playoffs (where the coaching becomes pretty comparable and every team has a strong baseline of coaching). And winning begets winning. Which means winning draws more talent. And I think one difference between basketball and football is that depth of talent matters a lot more on football teams (due to bigger rosters). Having size and strength and speed far down your roster makes your team unquestionably better.

Yes, football coaches that run great programs develop entire teams. But a football coach that doesn't have some dudes and doesn't have depth of size and talent can only do so much.

Click to expand...

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here... why are these DUDES going to private schools??? If you say "It's not coaching, it's not culture, it's DUDES", but then we can't point to any other reason why the DUDES are going there... It's probably coaching and culture. It doesn't mean that those coaches are wizards that can mold any bunch of random kids into a state champion, but it means that kids are attracted to the programs that choose to run themselves in the most professional and competitive of manners.

RunNorth-South said:

So back to the phone calls - yes, both sides make them. But, again, having seen the reaction myself, the kid being courted by a team that is routinely making the semis and championship games has his eyes light up because he knows he can go to a place where being surrounded by depth of talent is more or less guaranteed.

Click to expand...

You have a fair point here, a winning tradition is a huge advantage. I would just posit that it's built on the back of what I mentioned above. But it's also not accurate to base an entire thesis on private schools around the two best teams in the state.

RunNorth-South said:

The facilities and academics and all of that other stuff don't matter in that moment (and those factors feel exaggerated by some - Loyola and Mt. Carmel, for example, have facilities and programming that are close enough to any public school that it's a negligible "con" in the decision-making process).

Click to expand...

Loyola's facilities are meaningfully behind NT, GBS, GBN. You're right that Mt Carmel looks pretty good in comparison to the surrounding CPS schools.

RunNorth-South said:

If the kid chooses to go to the private school, he can play for state trophies. He doesn't have to hope to have a few other stud football players in his class in his neighborhood.

Click to expand...

Lol... you should tell this to DeLasalle, Pats, ND, Leo, Viator, Marian, Marmion, other Marian, ACC, St. Eds... should I keep going? They are missing out, some one should tell them they can play for state trophies!!

RunNorth-South said:

I know the counter argument is that the trophies are proof of the "better coaching" - but come on, let's sometimes call a spade a spade. Or at least acknowledge there's more to it than just "good coaching and good culture." Private schools don't win at a proportionally much higher clip relative to how many there are in the state because of coaching alone. There's more talent. It's the "Jimmy's and the Joe's" as someone stated above. And if there's not explicitly more talent, the different rules of acquiring it make it so that it's easier to avoid a down year. Many of the public schools are dealing with pretty drastically changing demographics. Check the school report cards - there are growing Hispanic populations in almost all large suburban high schools. This is not a sleight, but that demographic often leads to less football playing population in the school. And this demographic change has led even more of the more stereotypical football-playing population to consider private schools where all of the boys still play football (and where you're more guaranteed to always have a "good class"). I think the combination of some of these factors set up some of these private schools for a sustained period of time where they dominate nearly everyone but each other.

Click to expand...

It isn't a counter argument! It is the ANSWER to the never-answered question of why these schools "get talent"! I sound like a broken record, but "it's not coaching, culture, tradition, etc., they just get talent" doesn't make sense if you can't explain WHY they get talent! Even your point I bolded above, that is a cultural element of the school. It's also a cultural element of say, Maine South, which contributed to their many dominant years. (a relatively outdated example but one I am familiar with).

I'm not saying this is "fair" per se - you may believe that public schools, based on their mission, are unable to build the winning ecosystem to encourage the best athletes in their district to play football at a youth level and desire to attend their school. The best ones have, for a time. It also doesn't mean that every public school has the inherent potential to win state championships if they did something a different way - they don't. Other factors are at play (some of which you referenced) that effect both publics and privates and will probably similarly prevent Westmont, Payton, and Christ the King from ever winning state, to use three very different examples.