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.

 

[Snetsrak61]

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.

Well going from 5 to 6 to 8 classes isn't helpful towards keeping trophies rare.

But we also shouldn't immediately react to a string of trophies as something that has to be designed against. It's probably happening too frequently now, but I don't think we should reflexively race against any dynasty run as something in need of correction. Sometimes a program just raises up and is historic for some period of time and that isn't necessarily a "wrong".

 

[mc140]

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.

If Buzz got to play in 3a or 4a with those athletes at Evanston, they might of had some success.

 

[RunNorth-South]

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.

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. 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 (which Snetsrak61 does seem to allude to agreeing with on some level in the statement above).

I saw it every week in the prediction threads - anyone who might predict that someone might beat a Mt. Carmel or Loyola was usually dismissed by multiple posters as "no, this game won't be close. Three scores at least." And... that was pretty much always true. 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. Call me an overreactor to a short time frame (that might be a fair statement... for now) but I am genuinely concerned the gap exists and is getting larger.

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

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?

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. 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 (I also thought the Loyola guys standing on LWE's sideline who weren't even getting playing time made LWE look like a JV team). Where was all this talent advantage of LWE I had read about? 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.

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. 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). 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. (Again, to compare to basketball, coaches hope to get 1-2 good players in each class... a class without 1-2 good players means you're going to have a rough year or two while you hope the next class has some good players - this is even more imperative in football where you need multiple good players, linemen in particular, in each class to compete at the highest level).

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.

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 (but we know they can't play 8A after the thrashing they got from Loyola). Aim for a competitive balance. Which is a hard thing to define... I think it's one of those "you know it when you see it" kind of things. I do think the multiplier makes sense on some level. I think a success factor makes sense on some level (for private and public - let's get East St. Louis in the higher classes!). I'm sure there are some other tweaks that people smarter than me could think of in addition to those two factors.

 

[sac'em]

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.

 

[HotBeer]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.

 

[kwamizee]

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

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.

 

[HotBeer]

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.

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.

 

[Snetsrak61]

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.

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]

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

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

 

[sac'em]

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.

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?

 

[kwamizee]

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?

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.

 

[Alexander32]

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.

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.

 

[Snetsrak61]

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

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).

 

[HRCJR]

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.

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.

 

[sac'em]

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.

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?

 

[HotBeer]

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.

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.

 

[ramblinman]

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

Aim for a competitive balance.

Totally agree as long as all schools are balanced equally.

I do think the multiplier makes sense on some level.

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

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

Agreed.

 

[johnndoe]

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?

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.

 

[USD24]

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.

I'm pretty sure Jaws teaches a full schedule at JCA. (Health & PE). JCA does not offer a lifting class. At least he did a few years ago when my youngest was still a student there. I would say JCA cares a little bit about the performance of their football team.

 

[SouthofI80FootballFan]

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.

Maybe up north but south of I-80, this is absolutely no true.

Most HFC's are full time teachers or have admin positions at the school. However, most schools will not allow an admin (AD, Principal, Dean, etc.) to coach. I know of coaches who teach 6 and even 7 periods a day and have really good programs, perennial powerhouses, and even state champions. Not all are PE teachers either, some are even teach AP US History, College Level Math, and Dual Credit English.

Their stipends are probably a little above $5,000 but it varies from one district to the next.

If a school is paying $100,000 to a HFC, then their priorities are not about education, its about winning games. If you want to see a disadvantage of a public school, they cannot pay the HFC beyond what is stated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and as I said, its usually around $5000 or so. So they can't offer former NFL players, former college coaches, etc., large sums of money.

On a side note, I've seen people talk about private school coaches going to public schools and not having the same success. Are there any public school coaches that went to a private school and had more success?

 

[PowerI66]

On a side note, I've seen people talk about private school coaches going to public schools and not having the same success. Are there any public school coaches that went to a private school and had more success?

Fitzgerald at Marist always jumps to mind

 

[USD24]

Maybe up north but south of I-80, this is absolutely no true.

Most HFC's are full time teachers or have admin positions at the school. However, most schools will not allow an admin (AD, Principal, Dean, etc.) to coach. I know of coaches who teach 6 and even 7 periods a day and have really good programs, perennial powerhouses, and even state champions. Not all are PE teachers either, some are even teach AP US History, College Level Math, and Dual Credit English.

Their stipends are probably a little above $5,000 but it varies from one district to the next.

If a school is paying $100,000 to a HFC, then their priorities are not about education, its about winning games. If you want to see a disadvantage of a public school, they cannot pay the HFC beyond what is stated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and as I said, its usually around $5000 or so. So they can't offer former NFL players, former college coaches, etc., large sums of money.

On a side note, I've seen people talk about private school coaches going to public schools and not having the same success. Are there any public school coaches that went to a private school and had more success?

Dan Sharp was 24-18 with 3 playoff appearances in 4 seasons at Minooka before he left for JCA. At JCA, he was 199-51 with 6 titles in 20 years.