Public School Advantages

[kwamizee]

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.

 

[ramblinman]

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.

 

[Beltbuckletogoalpost]

[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.

 

[ramblinman]

"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.

 

[RunNorth-South]

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.

 

[Snetsrak61]

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.

 

[Beltbuckletogoalpost]

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.

 

[Snetsrak61]

What do you mean they had zero lineman in class of 2023? Zero starters?

 

[ramblinman]

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?

 

[HotBeer]

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?

 

[PowerI66]

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.

Jimmy's and Joe's, not x's and o's

 

[HotBeer]

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?

What do you mean it will never be true for private schools? For private schools, there is no "class of football playing boys from the community" to bank on to begin with! It happens to private schools all the time! What do you think happened to Guerin, or Holy Cross, or Weber, or Driscoll, or St. Joe, or Seton, or Mendel, or St. Mel? Have you seen any of those football teams running around lately?

 

[HotBeer]

Jimmy's and Joe's, not x's and o's

I promise you Buzz has more athletes at Evanston than he did at Driscoll. But in the context of Troy, it's a fair point.

 

[corey90]

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.

I don’t dislike the catholic schools. I was just trying to make things better. I root for 8A so none of the changes affect them. It’s more for the smaller schools. Like I said the system should be designed to make winning a championship difficult not collecting trophies every year. Private or public.