Sounds to me like there shouldn’t be boundaries with any schools. Go where you want to go and build your best team. Open it up for everyone.
Public 106 Private 62
- Thread starter MS4EVER
- Start date
It more or less is already between how things are enforced and the loopholes that exist
While I understand the sentiment behind this, it doesn't always work that way. I can speak from experience that was the case with my family. The Nazareth education was important for my parents, but it wasn't something that extended to K-8 education decisions. In some cases the HS private education (which isn't always catholic) becomes a big part for families who may have decent K-8 schools but poor HS (Westchester public schools, which is a pretty big feeder for Naz, come to mind). Anyways, if it was 1x roster multiplier for catholic feeders and 2x for any other, I think Naz might actually do okay with that. Maybe they'd come in a little higher than 1.65, but maybe it'd finally solve them bordering 5A/6A, and put them firmly in 6A, which I wouldn't mind. Not sure how it would impact other private programs.
So I don't think that would be perfect. But it's definitely an idea. In one of the other (since there's like 5 now) threads on the topic, Ohio has a "multiplier" type rule like this, but it applies to public and privates alike and frankly sounds like a huge admin burden. Not sure schools would want to sign up for that admin lift.
So math is not my forte, but I think JC, MC, PC and Driscoll account for 47? of the 62. Driscoll is gone, I say we kick out JC, MC and PC and move on with our lives.
So its just crazy, a bunch of Chicago area private school fans feel the current system is fair??? LOL, of course they do because they do not understand the smaller classes in the downstate areas..
And if anyone can look at this years 4A class and think its fair, thats all I really need to know to tell me you don't care about the system, just your school maintaining its rules edge..
Beyond football??? I saw the other day that in 1A boys soccer in the last 7 years, 26 of the 28 teams to make it to the state tournament have been open enrollment schools... but again, thats a small school problem that most here don't understand..
And if anyone can look at this years 4A class and think its fair, thats all I really need to know to tell me you don't care about the system, just your school maintaining its rules edge..
Beyond football??? I saw the other day that in 1A boys soccer in the last 7 years, 26 of the 28 teams to make it to the state tournament have been open enrollment schools... but again, thats a small school problem that most here don't understand..
It's up to ME to disprove his allegation?
Certainly, he is allowed to allege with nothing to justify the allegation. It's his right to free speech. Seems to me, though, that his accusation would be given more credence if it was supported by data.
I gave you my data and then gave you multiple opportunities to give me some facts behind your argument. You continue to ignore my questions. How can you argue that recruiting doesn’t give you an advantage? I agreed with you on facilities being better at public schools and “athletic” scholarships not existing at private schools but you haven’t answered how recruiting doesn’t give private schools an advantage. I’ll ask again. Let’s say I’m the University of Iowa and I can only get players from the state of Iowa, and Alabama can recruit from the entire South, how is that not an advantage for Alabama? It’s a simple question.
It’s common sense that private posters will never admit. Blinders. Listen I have absolutely no problem with privates recruiting. They have to recruit to stay open.
I am about leveling the playing field. Use the rankings to put the proper teams in the right class. I am getting the feeling privates don’t like this idea because they don’t get to drop in class to win a easy state championship. MC63 has been calling out some programs about this and he was one of the first to do it. I don’t care weather it’s privates or publics if we use the rankings to decide class for the playoffs we even the playing field while getting to watch some great games that we otherwise would never see. Just saying.
A little different take. Iowa attendees pay no tuition. Alabama attendees pay full tuition.
You gave me data? Where? When? Five Loyola kids playing at three different Patriot League schools is data proving an advantage in your mind? Gimme a break. I thought you were better than that.
In the MVFC, arguably the top FCS conference in the country and way above the Patriot League, Rochester has two alumni at WIU and three at SIU. Normal Community has four spread between ISU and WIU. At least I realize that the stats about Rochester and NCHS aren't definitive proof of anything. All it does is show you that Loyola is not unique relative to the data you provided.
Hell, Gibson City-Melvin-Sibley HS a public high school with an enrollment of 277 according to the ISBE, has two alumni on the University of Illinois roster...the same as Loyola Academy. I could argue this way all day.
In another post of yours in a different thread, you stated, "How many Loyola seniors are going to play college football? I don’t mean just Brooks Bahr at Michigan. I mean those that are going to play FCS football at schools like Colgate or others in the Patriot league or Pioneer league. Every year Loyola has numerous kids going on to play at schools at that level. How many other schools can say they have that many kids going to play at the next level? Public or Private included. Not many." Well, guess what? I found two public schools, with multiple kids playing in a arguably the most competitive FCS conference, and it only took me a few minutes to do so. How many more could I find if I did the kind of data gathering that SHOULD be done in an argument like this?
Come back to me when you want to talk meaningful data and not just poorly supported allegations and opinion.
Does recruiting give Loyola and other private schools an athletic advantage over public schools? Absolutely not. Recruiting (marketing) does not equate to success or lack thereof on the playing field. If it did, then way more private schools would be extraordinarily successful athletically relative to public schools. WAY more. Enrolling kids from within a 30 mile radius who want and can afford a particular private school can only be an athletic advantage for that private school when those kids are athletes and difference makers. Simply because a private school can enroll kids from within that radius does not necessarily equate to athletic success. If it did do that, then schools like Ida Crown Jewish Academy, Cristo Rey St. Martin, and Elgin Academy would be athletic powerhouses relative to local public schools.
My turn to ask you a "simple question." Does charging no tuition give public schools an athletic advantage over private schools? If you answer no, then I have another "simple question" for you. Would no tuition be one of the reasons you can think of that explains why public schools generally enroll between 90 and 100% of the high school age kids who live within their districts?
Last edited:
I have no problem with private schools recruiting either. I do have a big problem equating recruiting with athletic success. That's not blinders; it's freakin' LOGIC, mate. Enrolling and recruiting are two different things. Mincing words? Not at all. It's common sense that private schools don't enroll everyone they recruit. Indeed, they don't enroll the vast majority of kids they recruit.
If anyone is wearing blinders in this regard, it's the public school apologists who are accustomed to their schools enrolling the vast majority of kids within their enrollment boundaries. They just sit back as the default option and almost all the high school kids in their districts enroll. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy. They have NO concept of the barriers that private schools face in terms of maintaining enrollment year after year. They apply their public school experience to these types of arguments, and it simply is not relevant.
Who is arguing against your argument and using private schools dropping as a rationale? Not me.
You and I have both been around here for more years than we both care to count. How often have you seen me advocate for more competitive playoff classifications? I've composed hundreds of posts to that effect over the years. Do not lump me in with whoever you think is against your idea or desire about getting teams in the right class.
Does recruiting give privates an advantage? Absolutely in both academics and athletics. Just look at the entrance exams that schools conducted this week, if a kid does not do well, a school can deny enrollment to that student. This is a huge advantage for privates. Public schools cannot turn away students and have to make all the accommodations possible to mainstream disabled students who reside in their district.
Privates do have an advantage athletically because like academics, they get to pick and choose the athletes they want to attend. The examples you used of Ida Crown, Cristo Rey, and Elgin Academy are terrible examples to try and equate recruiting with success. Those schools have little to no emphasis on athletics, they only offer 3 or 4 sports for both men and women. I would also venture to guess that they are not "actively recruiting" athletes but rather mathletes or families that want to continue with their religious education. I would not think many public students are entering these schools after 8th grade. Schools like Loyola, MC, Naz, Montini, Provi, etc., use sports as a way to sell their school to prospective students, that is why almost all marketing begins with "we have won x number of championships." They have many "first time" Catholic education students and if a Catholic education is why you are choosing to attend these schools, then you probably should have started back in elementary/middle school.
When you have the ability to pick and choose who attends your school, that is an advantage. Obviously, those who choose to attend still need to pay (well some of them) and if they can afford it, good for them, but the school still has the ability to turn the student away. Publics cannot.
Last edited:
He basically said “The Loch Ness Monster does not exist.”
You followed by demanding he prove that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist.
If you think The Loch Ness Monster does exist it is up to you to show the evidence, not up to him to prove a negative.
In this case, Programs other than ESL with 5+ players playing at a high collegiate level = The Loch Ness Monster.
He says it does not exist. The default is not that it does exist and he needs to go through every program in the state to prove his point. If you believe it does exist it is up to you to find one or two programs to disprove his point.
This is not difficult to understand.
Typical public school mentality. You think that private schools "get to pick and choose the athletes they want to attend" and, prest-o change-o, those kids just magically enroll. You take into account NO competition. It's quite understandable why you don't take competition into account, since public schools have the monopoly on free education in their districts. I understand you are who you are, but I have always found that it helps to put myself in others' shoes when I argue with them.
The examples I used are actually the perfect examples. It's folks like you who argue about the so called private school advantage. It's folks like you who want to separate private schools from public schools (I do too, but for different reasons than you) because of that so called advantage. Schools like the ones I mentioned would also be separated regardless of their lack of athletic success.
Your final shot about how just some of the kids who choose to attend private schools pay tuition is quintessential public school claptrap. You are hopeless and helpless.
Last edited:
Actually, no.
What he actually said was that Loyola had five alumni playing in three different Patriot League schools. He went on to say, "Every year Loyola has numerous kids going on to play at schools at that level. How many other schools can say they have that many kids going to play at the next level? Public or Private included. Not many." Then you vomited the following, " I think his point is you cannot find another program with 5-6 players at a high collegiate level, aside from ESL."
Although I completely disagree with your premise that the one who alleges is not the one who needs to back it up with data and that it is incumbent on the one defending against the allegation to show evidence to disprove that allegation, I humored myself and searched the 2022 rosters of a few Missouri Valley Football Conference schools. The football played in that FCS conference is at a much higher level than the one cited by eagles2k3.
What I found was that Rochester High School, a public school that plays with what the bus drops off and a school that is 41% the size of Loyola, has five players on the rosters of SIU and WIU. Imagine that.
So, do your following words still apply? "If you believe it does exist it is up to you to find one or two programs to disprove his point." If so, then his argument has been disproved.
My take on this is that many of the Loyola (and others from top High Schools) football players who could play at the MV or OV level do not want to go to those schools because they can get a far superior education at others. Many can go to the Patriot League or to the Ivy League schools. Some will choose NESCAC colleges, MIT Carnegie Mellon, Case Western, Villanova, Georgetown, U of C, Washington U, John Carroll U, Dayton, etc.
I wish one of the private schools would publish a spreadsheet of what it costs to run a private school. Better yet what it costs a parent pays for tuition, books, uniforms, transportation buses, lunch, lab fees, ipads, software, mandatory fund raising, fees to take extra courses before or after school. Then extra extracurricular fees and mandatory fund raising.
The number one recruiting tool of private schools is the education. That's what keeps the doors open. Faith-driven mission and extracurriculars are of course important, but not the main driver. Winning half a dozen straight state titles didn't keep Driscoll's doors open and Naz was turning away kids (and thus could be very selective) long before they had state titles to their name.
Naz is actually very fortunate in this regard. They are in a position to turn away many students whereas for many private schools trying to keep the doors open, they turn away very few. Not having the ability turn away students is certainly a "burden" of public schools, but at the end of the day the inherent advantages/disadvantages at either public or private aren't so universal. Both publics and privates alike have access to certain advantages or deal with disadvantages, but not every school, public or private, prioritizes all components the same. Maybe there are more accurate ways to measure how schools attempt to utilize their resources in a way that doesn't broadly treat all publics or private as the same (because they aren't), and leads to more competitive parity. And maybe it's worth exploring rather than just go for separation.
The idea/inference that the catholic or private education mission can't start at age 14 without it being the result of athletic recruitmenting is certainly over simplistic. Simply put, the educational competitiveness of HS and college admissions play a huge role in families seeking those educational opportunities.
Because the rules are different, I think private schools should only compete in 5A through 8A. If they find success in either of those classes, so be it. I don't think anyone should move up in class due to success.
It varies greatly and that doesn't necessarily align with athletics.
Bishop Mac tuition is $7.5k
Latin tuition is $42k
Loyola Academy is $12k.
St. Francis is $14k.
Aurora Christian 1
Chicago Hope Academy 2
Rockford Lutheran 2
Peru St Bede 1
Jacksonville Routt 2
Ottawa Marquette 2
The above are the six private schools that qualified in 1A this year. The number after their names are the rounds in which they were eliminated. Do I have it right that you want all these schools to be in 5A?
And does your focus on private schools mean that the non-boundaried public schools can have qualifiers in 1A-4A? If yes, why? If no, then be prepared for most of the 5A schools to be non-boundaried schools and having tons of smaller 4A boundaried public schools (like R-B, for example) bumped to 3A because of your tinkering.
Last edited:
Loyola's tuition this year is $18,350. https://www.goramblers.org/admissions/tuition--financial-aid
Also, your tuition for Mac is way off. Yes, it's what wikipedia says. After that amount in wikipedia, the data source is footnoted as follows:
- "Tuition/Financial Aid - Bishop McNamara High School". Archived from the original on 2008-11-20. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
Last edited:
Each high school is different. Many have similarities, but they are all different in some way or another. Private schools are different from public schools, but private schools are also different from other private schools, and public schools are different from other public schools. They have different organizational models, different resources and different demographics. In many cases they emphasize different aspects of the educational experience. These differences result in different outcomes. For instance, Lena-Winslow, a 1A public school with an enrollment of 249 students is 30 points better in football than Morton (Berwyn-Cicero), an 8A public school with an enrollment of 8,170 students. The 30 points is based on the Massey Ratings matchup tool.
Separating private schools from public schools for football playoffs is not going to eliminate many of the differences, nor is it going to prevent certain schools from having extraordinary playoff success, such as Lena-Winslow, Rochester and Lincoln-Way East. We can look at the results and see that private schools as a whole win state championships at a rate three times greater than public schools (proportionate to the number of schools in each category). Thus, the multiplier was introduced to modify enrollments.
We can look at results and see that Lena-Winslow has won four of the last five 1A championships. If the success factor were applied to public schools, they would be competing in 2A next year. These two tools, the multiplier and success factor, are sufficient to allow private schools and public schools to compete in the same playoff system. They do not guarantee equal outcomes, nor should they. But they do allow the many different schools a reasonable opportunity to compete effectively in the playoffs. Look at how well York, Lake Zurich and Lemont did this past season.
As inferred above, I do believe the success factor should be applied to both public and private schools. And, I also think it would be a better measure of sustained success if it looked at a five year period of time rather than just a two year period of time. Still, even at two years, it does mitigate the most extreme degrees of success.
My wish would be that the current system not be torn asunder. If it is, we are likely to regret what has been done.
Separating private schools from public schools for football playoffs is not going to eliminate many of the differences, nor is it going to prevent certain schools from having extraordinary playoff success, such as Lena-Winslow, Rochester and Lincoln-Way East. We can look at the results and see that private schools as a whole win state championships at a rate three times greater than public schools (proportionate to the number of schools in each category). Thus, the multiplier was introduced to modify enrollments.
We can look at results and see that Lena-Winslow has won four of the last five 1A championships. If the success factor were applied to public schools, they would be competing in 2A next year. These two tools, the multiplier and success factor, are sufficient to allow private schools and public schools to compete in the same playoff system. They do not guarantee equal outcomes, nor should they. But they do allow the many different schools a reasonable opportunity to compete effectively in the playoffs. Look at how well York, Lake Zurich and Lemont did this past season.
As inferred above, I do believe the success factor should be applied to both public and private schools. And, I also think it would be a better measure of sustained success if it looked at a five year period of time rather than just a two year period of time. Still, even at two years, it does mitigate the most extreme degrees of success.
My wish would be that the current system not be torn asunder. If it is, we are likely to regret what has been done.
Last edited:
yes I think they should start competing in 5A. I am not concern with anyone's success or lack there of. Non boundary school should start at 5A as well. They are the same.
If you aren't concerned for anyone's success or lack thereof, then what's your rationale for having all non-boundaried schools start in 5A?
Last edited:
By my count, 23 non-boundaried 1A-4A qualifiers this year would be bumped up to 5A under your stroke of genius. There were roughly 10 non-boundaried schools in 5A this year. Anyway you slice it, a substantial majority of 5A qualifiers under your plan would be non-boundaried schools. The 23 smallest 5A public schools would have to be bumped down to 4A to fill the void you created. The remaining smallest 4A schools to 3A, and so on down the line.
Good luck with that. I can hear the whining now. LOL
Good luck with that. I can hear the whining now. LOL
Last edited:
I'd really prefer no success rule rather than drag successful public schools up too. I've thought about lengthening the time as well, but you just make it very slow moving of a measure (both punishing schools long after they were good or not pushing up schools quickly as factors change)
Just very tough to make a backwards looking success factor that is both helpful for competitive balance and uses objective inputs.
Let's figure out what the actual causal factors are and try and write rules using those rather than just punishing success.
There you go. You have disproved his argument. The rules of logic are satisfied.
Also, it was not “vomiting” anything. It’s a direct quote from the Saturday, 412PM post from the OP.
Last edited:
If I understand the mathematical implication of this...
5a would then be the 32 smallest non-boundaries schools. The 33rd smallest would need to be 6A, which necessitated the smallest boundary 6A school (Maple Park at 1303) would have to go down to 4A? (you can't just bump them down to 5a as that would displace another non boundary who'd have to be bumped up, restarting the cycle)
Does that also make ESL a 4a under that criteria and now their conference won't let them petition up more than 5a? Which also mean we have to bump another 6A to 4A (Antioch at 1335).
Would be a little odd (not to mention the weaker 2/3A non boundaries are gonna get clobbered badly by the natural 5A non-boundaried).
Your convoluted logic.
I much prefer the time honored judicial convention in this country of the burden of proof falling on the accuser and not the accused. If I am accused, then the presumption is that I am innocent of the accusation until the accuser can provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary. It should not be up to me to prove my innocence.
Last edited:
The competitive advantage from open recruitment is eliminated once you have about 800 to 900 students in the building. All things are competitively fair. Competitive advantage is directly tied to winning.
Wouldn't be odd at all if you were truly unconcerned with success or the lack thereof.
Tell that to Coach Z at LWE who was quoted about how close his school (which is 42% larger than LA) came despite the zip code disparity after his school's 8A title game loss to LA.
Last edited:
Your right we have both been around long enough to know and I certainly am not going to argue about recruiting. Privates do because they have to and publics can’t. We can disagree about a recruiting advantage that is something publics and privates will never be in agreement.
Loyola tuition for the 2022–23 year is $18,350
St. Ignatius the tuition cost for the 2022-2023 academic year is $20,250.00
MC SR Marist are all just under $14,000 w/o fees. I guess not having a rowing team saves a lot of money....
Last edited:
It's not a recruiting advantage. Recruitment does not directly result in enrollment. LA can recruit all the kids they want within their 30 mile radius, but every single one of those kids can choose to go elsewhere, and over 9 out of ten times, they choose a public school. In some cases, they choose a different private school like NDCP, CCHS, St. Pat's, St. Viator, St. Ignatius, DePaul Prep, etc. If you want to call it an enrollment advantage, have at it.
Similar threads
