ADVERTISEMENT

Public School Advantages

I don’t think there are very many public programs that have attracted football players to move into their district because of their scoreboard. Just rereading it after typing it out sounds ridiculous.
Of course, I don’t have any data to back up my claim, but neither do you.
I never said that anyone moved to a district because of a scoreboard.
But nice facilities (weight room, field, uniforms, etc.) can certainly help keep kids in the building and/or get them out for football. And yes, one could come up with examples of nice facilities with crappy programs...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave Brody
Why do you look at as punishment. Do you not want to play good competition? Do you really like things handed to you? I don’t understand your logic.
I mean it's basically a punishment. It trails by two years so the success if based on what some 19 and 20 year old alumni did. It also will always fail to frame what an appropriate class is. It's based on the assumption that winning in a certain class must mean you're in the wrong class. Then if you don't win in the new class you go back down? Does it even know what it's trying to accomplish?

Eventually we're gonna see a team go something like 4A-5A-3A is successive 2 year terms with a multiplier-SF-waiver and that's just dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SiuCubFan8
Even in a town like Cary, which isn’t big at all, kids go to 3 high schools based on boundaries. This might be true for smaller towns.
Some schools are 1 school, 5+ towns.

New Trier pulls from Glencoe, Winnetka, Kenilworth, Wilmette, Northfield and parts of unincorporated Cook county (the kids that go to Avoca schools).

The number of Catholic schools that feed into New Trier is down from 5 to 3.
 
Last edited:
There are a few things that are very difficult to measure when in comes to HS Football as well as all sports:
  • Effort - there are indicators -What was 2 December 2024 like at each school - how many working out getting ready for their next season
  • Accountability - are the players accountable to each other - from freshman to seniors. Are the coaches accountable to players
  • Knowledge - do the players study the game - know the playbook, know the rules of the game, review video
 
I mean it's basically a punishment. It trails by two years so the success if based on what some 19 and 20 year old alumni did. It also will always fail to frame what an appropriate class is. It's based on the assumption that winning in a certain class must mean you're in the wrong class. Then if you don't win in the new class you go back down? Does it even know what it's trying to accomplish?

Eventually we're gonna see a team go something like 4A-5A-3A is successive 2 year terms with a multiplier-SF-waiver and that's just dumb.
That isn't punishment. That is the competitive level you are playing at. If you staff is at the level you say they are (this goes for any staff), you shouldn't drop back down to a lower class. If you are a State champion at 5A but can't win a playoff game at 6A one can argue if that staff is really the good?

The only issue I have with success factors is that it is applied to only one type of school. Outside of that, put teams in the right competitive class should not be looked at as punishment.
 
I, for one, don't like things handed to me. My preference would be for ALL schools to be in their most appropriately competitive class. If private schools are forced to be success factored up and public schools are not, then that is discrimination pure and simple and is wrong.
I understand your right vs wrong argument. I just don't agree with the punishment term for competitive balance.
 
But hey, many Chicago Christian fans have applauded their own feeder programs. Although I don't think it's to the extent that some of the publics have done (they just got a new HC so I doubt they developed culture/playbook in one year 😅) They've apparently benefited from it though just by having kids play early and together. I'm guessing that particular faith community is a little more insular than the many Catholic schools, where middle to high school feeders have some strong correlations, but are ultimately pretty fluid.

There is no such thing as a Chicago Christian feeder program.
 
Seen a couple posts from supporters that referenced feeders since their win. I'll try to find and link it.
They don't have a feeder program like "Little Knights" or anything like that. I think what they were saying was that several kids on this years teams played together in programs around Palos Heights like Tinley Park, Orland Park, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: forlouann
If there was success factor for all, would private school supporters be ok if it was tougher for public schools to achieve?
 
  • Like
Reactions: USD24
I'd need more but I wouldn't off the cuff dismiss the idea.
Just spitballing, but something like 3 title games in 3 years vs 2 out of 2.
Revert back to “normal” based off one year rather than possibly two.
Of course, this would require getting rid of the ridiculous two year enrollment cycle thing.
 
They don't have a feeder program like "Little Knights" or anything like that. I think what they were saying was that several kids on this years teams played together in programs around Palos Heights like Tinley Park, Orland Park, etc.

There is no such thing as a feeder program on the Southside. Kids play all over the place.
 
That isn't punishment. That is the competitive level you are playing at. If you staff is at the level you say they are (this goes for any staff), you shouldn't drop back down to a lower class. If you are a State champion at 5A but can't win a playoff game at 6A one can argue if that staff is really the good?

The only issue I have with success factors is that it is applied to only one type of school. Outside of that, put teams in the right competitive class should not be looked at as punishment.
And this is really the issue.

You can talk about the multiplier, 30 mile radius, recruiting, the advantages and disadvantage of each type of school, you know, everything we argue about on this site, but the root of the problem is creating competitive State Series.

We wouldn't be having this argument if Althoff and Montini had petitioned up to more competitive classes. Similar to what IC did a few years ago when they dropped down to 2A, they petitioned up to 3A, where they should be based on their competition that season.

If they had the awareness of knowing they would dominate each round, they should have moved up. I understand Montini because they had to get through Byron, but if they played 4A, I think they would have been even more dominant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LHSTigers94
Just spitballing, but something like 3 title games in 3 years vs 2 out of 2.
Revert back to “normal” based off one year rather than possibly two.
Of course, this would require getting rid of the ridiculous two year enrollment cycle thing.
Ok, now the obvious question you knew was coming. Why is it different?
 
They don't have a feeder program like "Little Knights" or anything like that. I think what they were saying was that several kids on this years teams played together in programs around Palos Heights like Tinley Park, Orland Park, etc.
Every sort of "feeder program" ranges in its level of formality. If their own fans are claiming it as such though they certainly know more than me.

Even for a time St Joe's tried to treat my Westchester pop warner league as a feeder. Just wasn't a very effective effort and it died out until it broke that relationship.
 
Of course, a nice new scoreboard doesn't = winning, we know that.
But these things do help in bringing in the "right" players, no?
Very little. When I played college baseball we had, arguably, the worst or second worst playing surface in the conference. It wasn't because we didn't do things to maintain it. We tried. Yet in my four years of playing as a starter we won the conference three times. And in my sophomore year we had seven starters on that field who all went on to sign professional contracts. I guess we looked at things differently back then. To me it's always been who is or are the coaches and is this a winning program? AND, can this program and coach help you to get to the next level if that is what you want?

Private schools seem to lack resources and facilities that the publics have. Yet, which one is doing all the winning? We don't have to look and further than this year's results to answer that question.
 
That isn't punishment. That is the competitive level you are playing at. If you staff is at the level you say they are (this goes for any staff), you shouldn't drop back down to a lower class. If you are a State champion at 5A but can't win a playoff game at 6A one can argue if that staff is really the good?

The only issue I have with success factors is that it is applied to only one type of school. Outside of that, put teams in the right competitive class should not be looked at as punishment.
You could argue many things about the hypothetical team who wins 5A and then can't win in 6A. It starts with a, at minimum, baseline assumption that the team is at least 25-50% turned over from the previous one (realistically probably more 50%-90% as a general expectation).

The bottom line is if it's only a retroactive approach to success it looks feels, and acts like a punishment. If it was an attempt to classify teams up and down proactively it could be viewed as non punitive, IMO.
 
You could argue many things about the hypothetical team who wins 5A and then can't win in 6A. It starts with a, at minimum, baseline assumption that the team is at least 25-50% turned over from the previous one (realistically probably more 50%-90% as a general expectation).

The bottom line is if it's only a retroactive approach to success it looks feels, and acts like a punishment. If it was an attempt to classify teams up and down proactively it could be viewed as non punitive, IMO.
The problem is, if you are suggesting team turnover is the reason why you win or lose, you are confirming what most believe. The reason for private success is the ability to get certain kids to play on your team. You can't have it both ways. Moving up a class and can't win a playoff game two years in a row is not indicative of a top notch coaching staff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEHSSTORM1
Some schools are 1 school, 5+ towns.

New Trier pulls from Glencoe, Winnetka, Kenilworth, Wilmette, Northfield and parts of unincorporated Cook county (the kids that go to Avoca schools).

The number of Catholic schools that feed into New Trier is down from 5 to 3.
All of incorporated Glenview east of Harms is part of the New Trier district. There are current New Trier students who live in incorporated Glenview and attended OLPH Catholic School.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRCJR
The problem is, if you are suggesting team turnover is the reason why you win or lose, you are confirming what most believe. The reason for private success is the ability to get certain kids to play on your team. You can't have it both ways. Moving up a class and can't win a playoff game two years in a row is not indicative of a top notch coaching staff.
"not win a playoff game" isn't even the standard. Merely not trophying twice sends a team back down to their natural non-success factor enrollment.

I don't understand the apparent shot at coaching staffs here. The reality is a two year run could be "one really strong class". That's inherently true of any type of school regardless of how they get their students (public or private).

If it's meant to be on transfers/recruiting which seems to be the clear implication, you could totally do that. "Your sports recruitment efforts are clear and a clear effort to compete at a number higher than your enrollment (already multiplied) and so you will play at a higher classification" isn't a particularly difficult logical claim to convincingly argue and not that much harder to implement a metric around if you wanted. Then teams would be measured in a way that is fairly transparent and doesn't presume success equaled unfair competetive grounds (two years later).

"You did too well because you had a two year run". Clearly not the same message. It's basically outright presuming success wasn't fair or even. It sends kind of a perserve message about success and sportsmanship. It's a very far cry from something like Premier league promotion/relegation which is a recognition of success. It's very clearly about people being unhappy about any sort of sustained success and crying "unfair".

It isn't even comparable to something like a chess Elo ranking where the same competitor retains a talent score that matches them up to opponents according to talent level. It's just a lame attempt to punish teams who are "too successful" despite following a set criteria of competetive balance.

There's plenty of success based classifications in sports/games and this success factor isn't like one I can think of in merit, intent, or functional design.

Argue the classification criteria all you want, but once those are set and schools comply, don't move them up or down on a two year trailing success cycle that stops being relevant the second it's in effect. Just make sure the rules and criteria are being followed and applied and the best should win.
 
Ok, now the obvious question you knew was coming. Why is it different?
Same reasons there is a multiplier.

Again, I'm just coming up with ideas, and I’m just wondering if there’s anything that could come out of proposal space that might not be awful.

I’ve always been a proponent of SF for all, but obviously publics aren’t gonna go it at the current status.
 
I am reading some of these "advantages" like money, facilities, video score boards, etc. Obviously these are not "advantages" because none of it seems to equal winning. Bringing in the right players does equal winning.
Have we ever agreed before this 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hernandez03
And this is really the issue.

You can talk about the multiplier, 30 mile radius, recruiting, the advantages and disadvantage of each type of school, you know, everything we argue about on this site, but the root of the problem is creating competitive State Series.

We wouldn't be having this argument if Althoff and Montini had petitioned up to more competitive classes. Similar to what IC did a few years ago when they dropped down to 2A, they petitioned up to 3A, where they should be based on their competition that season.

If they had the awareness of knowing they would dominate each round, they should have moved up. I understand Montini because they had to get through Byron, but if they played 4A, I think they would have been even more dominant.
The problem is they do have the awareness however, we want things as easy as possible. We don't have the will to compete, we have the will to win regardless of how it happens.
"not win a playoff game" isn't even the standard. Merely not trophying twice sends a team back down to their natural non-success factor enrollment.

I don't understand the apparent shot at coaching staffs here. The reality is a two year run could be "one really strong class". That's inherently true of any type of school regardless of how they get their students (public or private).

If it's meant to be on transfers/recruiting which seems to be the clear implication, you could totally do that. "Your sports recruitment efforts are clear and a clear effort to compete at a number higher than your enrollment (already multiplied) and so you will play at a higher classification" isn't a particularly difficult logical claim to convincingly argue and not that much harder to implement a metric around if you wanted. Then teams would be measured in a way that is fairly transparent and doesn't presume success equaled unfair competetive grounds (two years later).

"You did too well because you had a two year run". Clearly not the same message. It's basically outright presuming success wasn't fair or even. It sends kind of a perserve message about success and sportsmanship. It's a very far cry from something like Premier league promotion/relegation which is a recognition of success. It's very clearly about people being unhappy about any sort of sustained success and crying "unfair".

It isn't even comparable to something like a chess Elo ranking where the same competitor retains a talent score that matches them up to opponents according to talent level. It's just a lame attempt to punish teams who are "too successful" despite following a set criteria of competetive balance.

There's plenty of success based classifications in sports/games and this success factor isn't like one I can think of in merit, intent, or functional design.

Argue the classification criteria all you want, but once those are set and schools comply, don't move them up or down on a two year trailing success cycle that stops being relevant the second it's in effect. Just make sure the rules and criteria are being followed and applied and the best should win.
there is no shot at coaching from my end. That is what is used when publics speak to the disparity of players in one program vs the other. They are often told that it’s not the players, it’s coaching.
 
The problem is they do have the awareness however, we want things as easy as possible. We don't have the will to compete, we have the will to win regardless of how it happens.

there is no shot at coaching from my end. That is what is used when publics speak to the disparity of players in one program vs the other. They are often told that it’s not the players, it’s coaching.
I know it would never happen, but I’d love to see a coach like Racki take over a program like Momence or Dwight and see how he did after 6-7 years. Or better yet, a program like Plainfield Central.
 
I know it would never happen, but I’d love to see a coach like Racki take over a program like Momence or Dwight and see how he did after 6-7 years. Or better yet, a program like Plainfield Central.
Y'all said they’d have to take a pay cut and that the new pension sucks and no one in their right mind would come or feel the need to stay anymore! Can’t have it both ways is the saying…right!
 
Y'all said they’d have to take a pay cut and that the new pension sucks and no one in their right mind would come or feel the need to stay anymore! Can’t have it both ways is the saying…right!
I don’t even know what you are referring to. I was just taking what I consider the best coach in the CCL and imagining what kind of impact he would have if given time at a rural public school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander32
Ok... If I live in Plainfield and attend St. Mary's Plainfield for grade school and want to continue my Catholic education where do I attend high school then?
Seems like you have a bunch of choices.
 
I know it would never happen, but I’d love to see a coach like Racki take over a program like Momence or Dwight and see how he did after 6-7 years. Or better yet, a program like Plainfield Central.
We did see something like this at Evanston. Also at West Chicago. Not rural, but not good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PowerI66
The problem is they do have the awareness however, we want things as easy as possible. We don't have the will to compete, we have the will to win regardless of how it happens.

there is no shot at coaching from my end. That is what is used when publics speak to the disparity of players in one program vs the other. They are often told that it’s not the players, it’s coaching.
Oh it was definitely a shot, just one you apparently feel justified making because of other perceived shots made.

But it's asinine. Even coaches who don't have to move between classifications will have relatively up or down years. Let's not ponder coaching ability under the hypothetical of a team who moves up and fails to replicate success (since that already happens year over year to great coaches even when there isn't a classification move)
 
Seen a couple posts from supporters that referenced feeders since their win. I'll try to find and link it.
I think most of that conversation was referencing their two "feeder schools", which are affiliated with the high school. If I recall, the poster said most kids that show up have played football at various pop warner programs, etc.

Which I guess begs the question, what constitutes a "feeder" program? IMO, it's one that directs the majority of kids to a HS and has some level of communications or strategic continuity with the HS.

If the St. Cajetan's football team is sending players to Mt Carmel, St. Rita, Marist, Brother Rice, and St. Laurence and running an offense completely independent of all 5, I don't really think it's a feeder for any.

On the flip side, if 90% of the Park Ridge Falcons players are attending Maine South and the higher age group teams are running schemes loosely based on Inserra, it's a feeder, to Maine South. It is NOT a feeder to Notre Dame, even if a few guys attend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snetsrak61
I think most of that conversation was referencing their two "feeder schools", which are affiliated with the high school. If I recall, the poster said most kids that show up have played football at various pop warner programs, etc.

Which I guess begs the question, what constitutes a "feeder" program? IMO, it's one that directs the majority of kids to a HS and has some level of communications or strategic continuity with the HS.

If the St. Cajetan's football team is sending players to Mt Carmel, St. Rita, Marist, Brother Rice, and St. Laurence and running an offense completely independent of all 5, I don't really think it's a feeder for any.

On the flip side, if 90% of the Park Ridge Falcons players are attending Maine South and the higher age group teams are running schemes loosely based on Inserra, it's a feeder, to Maine South. It is NOT a feeder to Notre Dame, even if a few guys attend.
And maybe I conflated the feeder school with "youth football". And like I said outright, they just got a new coach so they certainly aren't running a feeder to the level like you're saying about scheme implementation. The Maine South / Park Ridge is the prime example. But even York has had long standing "feeder football" programs. I believe the York coaches before Fitzgerald just weren't doing much with it. It was it's own thing. But the kids in those programs grew up playing together in middle school and onto York.

But if there's even like 60% continuity of the local youth leagues where those feeder schools flow into the HS that does probably constitute, very loosely a "feeder program". Even if the coach at CC there never tries to do top-down coaching with scheme and stuff, that's a pretty great setup and a possible asset to the school.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT