What is the Likelihood of the Sucess Factor for 2015?
- Thread starter DeanOfSelection
- Start date
I wonder when the publics are going to start turning on their own.
Some 4A schools can't be happy that Rochester has now won 5 in a row.
Some 4A schools can't be happy that Rochester has now won 5 in a row.
Not gonna happen.
There's a long standing axiom in Illinois high school athletics that holds that extraordinary playoff success by public schools is fine but extraordinary playoff success by private schools can only be explained by all private schools having some sort of unfair advantage.
I've never known about "......but extraordinary playoff success by private schools can only be explained by all private schools having some sort of unfair advantage". Is that true? An axiom by definition is a statement universally accepted as true. Therefore, I would conclude universally means and includes both sets of people on both sides of the public/private debate accept this statement as true. And what exactly is this "some sort of unfair advantage"? Details and specifics would be valuable to know by all.
I heard/saw the phrase "unfair advantage" used far more in the past by both sets of people on both sides of the debate than I do today in all my readings, experiences and travels. Whereas nowadays I hear the phrase "unequal difference" used far more by people on both sides of the debate.
Therefore, can extraordinary playoff success by some private schools be possibly and better explained by some sort of "unequal difference"? If so, then why are schools that are of "unequal difference" competing against one another in the same playoffs for the same single prize?
I predict this thread gets to 75 posts now, 175 if HHS starts his usual tomfoolery.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
guerin:
You raise a prescient subject. I tend to think the public schools will succumb to cannibalizing their own to serve their own narrow interests. As long as Rochester remains in 4A and SHG and Montini are artificially raised into classes not befitting their enrollments due to their success, in the coming years, they will indeed turn on their own.
The people behind this "success factor" are not uneducated, but they are fourth-rate strategists. Their goal is to aggregate as many Catholic schools into 6, 7 and 8A and allow small 1 and 2A Catholic schools into on static class below, which will leave 3, 4 and 5A open to their advancement, or so they think. The fact they seek to exempt these three classes for their own drive reveals the selfishness of their motives. As far as the reprobate IHSA, this organization has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of 3, 4 and 5A schools. The sole reasons members of edgy nation are aware of Washington, Illinois is, first: It is the place of origin of the success factor; and second: It is also known for being dismissed from the playoffs, often early, at the hands of JCA. To your point, even with Catholic schools re-moved from the middle classes, Washington must contend with public schools. Administrators in the schools which complain can continue their railing at MCHS and SHG, but will their elevation, they will exact vengeance within a very limited scope at public schools soon enough.
Axiom, corollary, widely held notion, whatever. Unfair advantage, unequal difference, unlevel playing field, whatever. You can wordsmith and argue semantics all you want.
The reality is that public schools have a prohibitive majority of the voting membership in the IHSA. Their representatives constitute a substantial majority of the members of the IHSA board of directors. There have been IHSA rules/policies that have singled out private schools for different treatment BECAUSE they are private schools and BECAUSE public schools have voted those rules and policies into place. Why? For no other reason than for the extraordinary playoff success of a relative handful of private schools. Note that there are no corresponding rules singling out public schools, even though there are similar examples of extraordinary playoff success experienced by a relative handful of public schools (Rochester being just one of them).
This is nothing short of hypocrisy and blatant discrimination.
Give me the NIPL!
Ramblin:
How could we format the NIPL? How could we do playoffs? If this district thing goes through really need to explore this.
How could we format the NIPL? How could we do playoffs? If this district thing goes through really need to explore this.
Yeah, imagine a 7A district with MC, SR, Pat's, Whitney Young, Dunbar, Lincoln Park, Mather, Steinmetz, and Eisenhower. Fun stuff, huh?
As for formatting, all depends on who joins the NIPL.
If all private schools in the northeast quadrant of the state were to join, that would be around 40-45 football playing schools. That doesn't include any of the Rockford area private schools. I think you could easily have three playoff classes with 8 schools in each class playing three rounds. Free of IHSA rules and regs, the NIPL could have playoff classes based on level of competition, not just enrollment, or maybe a voluntary open class for the top tier programs and two other classes based on enrollment. Free of IHSA lack of imagination, the NIPL might even offer a separate playoff class for 8 man football (which might induce non-football playing private schools like Illiana Christian, U High, Northridge Prep, etc. to offer football). Free of IHSA restrictions, the NIPL could feature a regular season consisting of 11 games...or 10 games plus a pre-season scrimmage. Free of an IHSA dominated by small public school members located outside the Chicago area, the NIPL could offer title games at Chicago area venues like Toyota Park, North Central College, Ryan Field, etc, as opposed to the cavernous Memorial Stadium in Champaign.
Hmmm...
This post was edited on 12/3 12:06 PM by ramblinman
The winds of change are blowing. Success factor, separate classes for private schools, districts, etc. Those winds will not stop blowing until mediocrity is fully enshrined as an IHSA hallmark.
The writing is on the wall. Best to be proactive and make your own change than to do nothing and have things changed for you.
I'm sure if a private school or two would prefer to stay in the IHSA and be even more of a minority, they would be welcome to do that.
Pick your poison.
This post was edited on 12/3 1:00 PM by ramblinman
Only way to end the incessant whining about recruiting is to hit the EXIT. High school ball is going national. The CCL should say "adios" to the IHSA, and start playing more regionally (OH, IN, WI, MI, MN). With eight classes the state championship is diluted.
The reality seems very simple. There are two different sets of rules by which schools fill their enrolments: within district boundaries and without district boundaries-- I don't think anyone disputes this. I don't believe the issue is "blaming" the non-boundary schools for recruiting students to their schools. In fact, they must to keep their doors open. And in so doing, why wouldn't some schools and some coaches be proactive in trying to convince the best athletes to attend? The public schools do it as well when there is competition with a private school. One of the constant disputes I have seen on this site over the years is the disagreement that this even happens. Of course it does. The even bigger dispute arises over the question, "Does this give those non-boundary schools an advantage when it comes to certain sports (mainly football)?" I don't see how anyone could look at this objectively and conclude that it doesn't. All you have to do is check the IHSA record books and see this is so.
Ramblinman, the IHSA has not created policies simply BECAUSE they are private schools, as you state. The IHSA has created those policies in a misguided attempt to blunt said advantage. Since that is not working, they have come up with a second attempt with the 'success factor'. If the rules aren't the same, they aren't the same! The only way to to solve the disputes is to either make the enrolment rules the same (which they shouldn't and can't) or remove the issue by separating the schools. Anything else may make the results closer, but there still exists different rules.
I have enjoyed this debate for the last almost 40 years. It's what makes sports great! We can agree to disagree forever. I sincerely appreciate the thoughts and points made without the vitriol and name calling.
Ramblinman, the IHSA has not created policies simply BECAUSE they are private schools, as you state. The IHSA has created those policies in a misguided attempt to blunt said advantage. Since that is not working, they have come up with a second attempt with the 'success factor'. If the rules aren't the same, they aren't the same! The only way to to solve the disputes is to either make the enrolment rules the same (which they shouldn't and can't) or remove the issue by separating the schools. Anything else may make the results closer, but there still exists different rules.
I have enjoyed this debate for the last almost 40 years. It's what makes sports great! We can agree to disagree forever. I sincerely appreciate the thoughts and points made without the vitriol and name calling.
Any success factor applied to any school/team is just dumb, stupid, unfair, irrelevant , last year's news, inappropriate and simply wrong. Every new season and every years' team in every sport is new, different, unique and with such identities. What happened or whatever the performance or whatever the qualities in previous years or seasons is totally irrelevant to a new seasons. It's simply crazy and wrong.
The multiplier is too one-size-fits-all, arbitrary, general, unfair and unwarranted for many schools/teams. Who or what is to say that some schools should be multiplied by something other than 1.65 such as 2.0, 1.5, 1.25, .75, etc.
No multiplier, no success factor, no black magic or manipulation of enrollments. Separation is the only and best solution without any discrimination, favoritism or anti-anything towards any type or kind of school.
Everybody recognizes the unequal difference between schools with an enrollment of 500, 1500, 2500, etc and they address it by having separate enrollment classes. Everybody recognizes the unequal difference between boundary schools that cannot recruit and non-boundary schools that can recruit. They should and need to address this unequal difference with separate classes as well. That's the right, fair and best solution for all schools regardless of type, size, location, demographics, etc without any discrimination or favoritism for any school(s). There's the ultimate level playing field for all without any exception.
The multiplier is too one-size-fits-all, arbitrary, general, unfair and unwarranted for many schools/teams. Who or what is to say that some schools should be multiplied by something other than 1.65 such as 2.0, 1.5, 1.25, .75, etc.
No multiplier, no success factor, no black magic or manipulation of enrollments. Separation is the only and best solution without any discrimination, favoritism or anti-anything towards any type or kind of school.
Everybody recognizes the unequal difference between schools with an enrollment of 500, 1500, 2500, etc and they address it by having separate enrollment classes. Everybody recognizes the unequal difference between boundary schools that cannot recruit and non-boundary schools that can recruit. They should and need to address this unequal difference with separate classes as well. That's the right, fair and best solution for all schools regardless of type, size, location, demographics, etc without any discrimination or favoritism for any school(s). There's the ultimate level playing field for all without any exception.
Speak for yourself. I, for one, do not recognize the unequal athletic difference between schools that have boundaries and between those that don't. Perhaps I might feel differently if people like you were comprehensive in their concern for unequal differences. Perhaps I might feel differently if there were no examples of extraordinary athletic success on the part of boundaried schools. Perhaps I might feel differently if all private schools were extraordinarily successful in athletics.
What about the unequal difference between schools that charge tuition and those that don't relative to how tuition impacts a private school's ability to attract the sort of students that you think results in some sort of unequal difference or advantage over boundaried schools? What about the unequal difference between boundaried public schools that have no private school competition for student athletes and enroll 100% of the high school aged kids in their districts and those boundaried public schools that have a dozen or more such competitors? What about the unequal difference between similarly sized schools like New Trier and Waukegan in terms of extraordinary athletic success? Why is it okay for Rochester to achieve extraordinary athletic success in football but not okay for Montini?
What sort of unequal difference exists between boundaried Wheaton Warrenville South and non-boundaried St. Laurence such that WWS knocked St. Laurence out of the playoffs by scores of 41-0 and 61-6? What sort of unequal difference exists between boundaried Mendota and non-boundaried Rockford Christian such that a 5-4 Mendota defeated a 9-0 Rockford Christian by a first round playoff score of 39-15 a few years ago?
This post was edited on 12/4 10:33 AM by ramblinman
What advantage? I deny the advantage that you think is so obvious.
Is there a DIFFERENCE between boundaried and non-boundaried schools ? Sure. There are also differences between large schools and small schools, urban and rural schools, rich and poor schools, etc.
What you nor anyone else has ever been able to prove is an empirical correlation between non-boundaried schools and extraordinary athletic success.
As for the IHSA not creating policies because they are private schools, all I can tell you is to get your head out of the sand. Answer me this one simple question: Why is it okay for Rochester to win five straight titles, but it is not okay for Montini to win four straight?
This post was edited on 12/4 10:48 AM by ramblinman
Why do some people claim that boundary schools do not recruit, and are limited to who the bus drops off. I know families that have moved due to the public schools being a sports match. I know kids who have moved in with families to get into the district. I have not personally witnessed any coaches/school employee doing any recruiting but have witnessed parents recruiting for their schools.
This post was edited on 12/4 10:53 AM by Thedoctor50
This post was edited on 12/4 10:53 AM by Thedoctor50
How about the absurd advantage public schools have in terms of the near-unlimited funding they receive?
Loyola can't even put up lights on their field - but a half mile away, New Trier can not only put up lights but they do it at taxpayer expense.
Over in Crystal Lake, the school board, paid for by the taxpayers mind you, argues that they are not subject to even local zoning laws when they built their new stadium which towers over the people who are expected to pay for it.
This post was edited on 12/4 12:00 PM by ignazio
Loyola can't even put up lights on their field - but a half mile away, New Trier can not only put up lights but they do it at taxpayer expense.
Over in Crystal Lake, the school board, paid for by the taxpayers mind you, argues that they are not subject to even local zoning laws when they built their new stadium which towers over the people who are expected to pay for it.
This post was edited on 12/4 12:00 PM by ignazio
What are you all afraid or fearful of with separation, Ramblinman? Are you afraid that separation will eliminate the blatant descrimination on non-boundaried schools that you percieve/accuse the IHSA of that you feast and thrive on? Are you afraid that your pure conjecture and speculation of IL HS football deteriorating to the depths of mediocrity will never truly materialize or come to fruition, or change much from today due to separation? Are you afraid of private schools' tuitions going through the roof due to separation? Are you afraid of private schools' recruiting becoming more or less difficult, competitive, nasty, or ugly? Are you afraid that more or less of the better athletes will go to private schools with separation? Are you afraid that it is not your custom-designed utopian situation like you dream about similar to this NIPL? Are you afraid that a private and public school can still and will have extraordinary playoff success with separation? Are you afraid that good public schools will still beat mediocre public schools soundly in the playoffs with separation? Are you afraid that good private schools will still beat mediocre private schools soundly in the playoffs with separation? Are you afraid that IL HS football will simply implode, destroy or morph itself into something so ugly, bad, distasteful or awful in your own imagination due to separation?
You misunderstand me. I want separation, and I've wanted it for years. But I don't want it for the same reasons you and others do.
I want it precisely because of you and others like you who take 2+2 and come up with 5 as it relates to your unproven theory surrounding why some private schools experience extraordinary athletic success. I want it because I am sick and tired of fighting this battle year in and year out. I want it because I think the benefits of separation outweigh the drawbacks of continued membership in an organization hell bent on mediocrity and discrimination.
Furthermore, I don't want just separate classes for boundaried and non-boundaried schools within the IHSA. I want a completely separate athletic association for private schools.
Ramblin,
I totally agree with you that they should separate. When it comes to administration the public schools want mediocrity compared to the privates. I really would have never thought that untill we got our new AD at our private school. He came from the public school system and he seems to be pushing the mediocrity thinking in the school, the everybody gets a trophy thinking. It will be the end to our success.
I totally agree with you that they should separate. When it comes to administration the public schools want mediocrity compared to the privates. I really would have never thought that untill we got our new AD at our private school. He came from the public school system and he seems to be pushing the mediocrity thinking in the school, the everybody gets a trophy thinking. It will be the end to our success.
ramblinman posted on 12/4/2014...
You misunderstand me. I want separation, and I've wanted it for years. But I don't want it for the same reasons you and others do.
I want it precisely because of you and others like you who take 2+2 and come up with 5 as it relates to your unproven theory surrounding why some private schools experience extraordinary athletic success. I want it because I am sick and tired of fighting this battle year in and year out. I want it because I think the benefits of separation outweigh the drawbacks of continued membership in an organization hell bent on mediocrity and discrimination.
Furthermore, I don't want just separate classes for boundaried and non-boundaried schools within the IHSA. I want a completely separate athletic association for private schools.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am not even sure what 'empirical correlation' means, but I certainly don't believe you are objective. I do admire your passion. It is spirited. I pulled my head out of the sand to offer this: according to the "Evil Empire's" website, there are 779 schools in the state of which 120 are considered private. That's roughly 15%. Going back just the last fifteen years, ramblin', private schools have won approx 38% of the state championships in football, and 56% of the state championships in girls volleyball. I am not going to take the time to research wrestling, girls basketball, softball, and baseball but I am confident we would find much of the same. I may be mistaken. It would stand to reason that if 15% of all schools are private, the number of state titles won should be in the neighborhood of 15%, give or take. That there is such disproportion indicates there is an advantage. I have no knock on private schools following the rules. My kids all go to private schools. The beef is with the IHSA. But please don't continue to insult the intelligence of those who don't see things as you do. It would be most fair---not mediocre- to have separate playoffs.
If you and I had a house building competition, and you could only use your neighbors and the tools in your garage, but I was able to head out and grab an outstanding contractor, a master carpenter, a Division 1 roofer, would that be fair to you? I should win, maybe not all the time, but I would have an advantage.
You misunderstand me. I want separation, and I've wanted it for years. But I don't want it for the same reasons you and others do.
I want it precisely because of you and others like you who take 2+2 and come up with 5 as it relates to your unproven theory surrounding why some private schools experience extraordinary athletic success. I want it because I am sick and tired of fighting this battle year in and year out. I want it because I think the benefits of separation outweigh the drawbacks of continued membership in an organization hell bent on mediocrity and discrimination.
Furthermore, I don't want just separate classes for boundaried and non-boundaried schools within the IHSA. I want a completely separate athletic association for private schools.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I am not even sure what 'empirical correlation' means, but I certainly don't believe you are objective. I do admire your passion. It is spirited. I pulled my head out of the sand to offer this: according to the "Evil Empire's" website, there are 779 schools in the state of which 120 are considered private. That's roughly 15%. Going back just the last fifteen years, ramblin', private schools have won approx 38% of the state championships in football, and 56% of the state championships in girls volleyball. I am not going to take the time to research wrestling, girls basketball, softball, and baseball but I am confident we would find much of the same. I may be mistaken. It would stand to reason that if 15% of all schools are private, the number of state titles won should be in the neighborhood of 15%, give or take. That there is such disproportion indicates there is an advantage. I have no knock on private schools following the rules. My kids all go to private schools. The beef is with the IHSA. But please don't continue to insult the intelligence of those who don't see things as you do. It would be most fair---not mediocre- to have separate playoffs.
If you and I had a house building competition, and you could only use your neighbors and the tools in your garage, but I was able to head out and grab an outstanding contractor, a master carpenter, a Division 1 roofer, would that be fair to you? I should win, maybe not all the time, but I would have an advantage.
You aren't alone in not understanding what empirical correlation means. In the context of this discussion, it means proving scientifically that there is a quantifiable connection between non-boundaried schools and extraordinary athletic success. You aren't alone because the public school bureaucrats who run the IHSA don't know what it means either. Or maybe they know what it means but they ignore it because they know that using any sort of scientific method to prove an inherent athletic advantage to schools being non-boundaried is an impossibility.
Your method of attempting to identify an advantage by comparing the percentage of overall football and girls volleyball titles won by private schools to the percentage of private school members of the IHSA is flawed as a means of trying to prove your point. There is no proving your point. First of all, you can't just cherry pick two sports. If you can do that, then I will pick boys cross country, a sport in which ONE title out of 112 possible titles was won by a private school. Care to do the percentage division on that one, Joe? Wanna bet that it is less than 15%? Like a crap load less? How about boys bowling? Private schools have NEVER won a boys bowling title, despite your reasoning that they should win 15% of those titles. Do you see private schools whining for a level bowling alley? According to your reasoning, shouldn't they? Shouldn't it "stand to reason" that private schools win roughly 15% of the titles?
There are dozens of private high schools that have NOT won a football title. Why not? You are saying that they have an advantage and should be kept separate. Why separate them if they aren't winning any titles at all?
Your claim that since private schools represent 15% of the membership that "it stands to reason" that they should win roughly 15% of the titles is also flawed. Follow this link: http://ihsa.org/SportsActivities/BoysFootball/RecordsHistory.aspx It will take you to a page where you can look up all the state titles and regional, sectional and supersectional titles won by every single IHSA school. Go find Winnetka New Trier. Compare New Trier to Waukegan (they'll be on the same page so it will be easy). New Trier and Waukegan are similar in that both are very large and very old schools. They are very dissimilar in terms of their athletic success. New Trier has won more titles BY FAR than any other school. The next most successful school is Hinsdale Central and HC has won more titles BY FAR than the next most successful school. Why is that, Joe? Why do you feel the need to separate or multiply or bump ALL private schools for the success of a relative handful if you don't feel the same way about New Trier or Hinsdale Central?
Why is it that good coaching, high expectations, great work ethic, community support, above average talent, etc. are perfectly acceptable as reasons to explain extraordinary success at schools like New Trier, Hinsdale Central, Rochester, etc., but when private school like Montini or Mt. Carmel experiences similar success, the only possible reason is the fact that they are non-boundaried and therefore MUST enroll more than their fair share of above average talent?
If you answer just ONE of my questions in this post, answer the following: Why is it okay that Rochester wins five straight football titles, but it isn't okay for Montini to win four straight?
This post was edited on 12/5 8:36 AM by ramblinman
Ramblin why don't you expend your energy and wisdom on organizing and formatting your new football league...no explanation is needed as to why the NIPL is necesary...or who is right or wrong within the current model...just pick up the ball and run with it. Please be sure to include ALL of the private schools in your new league...especially the downstate and western regions...don't want anyone to feel left out...and as always...implement ASAP.
This post was edited on 12/4 9:13 PM by 25sparky
This post was edited on 12/4 9:13 PM by 25sparky
Great Ramblinman....we both agree and want separation as the end result because it's the best and fairest way to go for all. I have no problems or issues as to our differences in our reasons. I too admire your passion and all the time and energy you have spent to form your position and wish you would put that passion to work and do whatever you can do to make separation happen. I'm pulling and rooting for you to be successful in this endeavor if you choose to take on this challenge....or perhaps you already have. So as Sparky posted and encouraged you....please go for it!.....but without any discriminations. My best wishes and best of luck to you.
I have no unproven theory as to why some private schools experience extraordinary athletic success other than a guess that they have great passion, energy, knowledge, experience, know-how, commitment, support, means.....and the priority, want to and desire to do so in any athletic endeavor they choose to. I suspect some public schools that experience extraordinary athletic success use or apply the same formula in some shape or form as well. One can only affect what one can control. Non-boundary schools have much more control or say....and therefore....affect over their content and quantity of their student body and/or enrollment than boundary schools thru or under a different set of rules. But both do indeed have their own unique set of challenges, limitations, etc. I don't use the terms nor see it simply as advantage or disadvantage, however, I use and see it as differences and leave it just as that because that is what it truly is and no more....without any bias or discrimination.
The only suggestions going forward for what it is worth.....if any......is to balance your passion and position with the appropriate realism, practicality and humility your ideas, solutions and positions should have without the arrogance to successfully sell them to others and so they will want to buy into them. They are much more attractive and palatable when packaged as such.
This post was edited on 12/5 3:23 AM by OldLeaf
I have no unproven theory as to why some private schools experience extraordinary athletic success other than a guess that they have great passion, energy, knowledge, experience, know-how, commitment, support, means.....and the priority, want to and desire to do so in any athletic endeavor they choose to. I suspect some public schools that experience extraordinary athletic success use or apply the same formula in some shape or form as well. One can only affect what one can control. Non-boundary schools have much more control or say....and therefore....affect over their content and quantity of their student body and/or enrollment than boundary schools thru or under a different set of rules. But both do indeed have their own unique set of challenges, limitations, etc. I don't use the terms nor see it simply as advantage or disadvantage, however, I use and see it as differences and leave it just as that because that is what it truly is and no more....without any bias or discrimination.
The only suggestions going forward for what it is worth.....if any......is to balance your passion and position with the appropriate realism, practicality and humility your ideas, solutions and positions should have without the arrogance to successfully sell them to others and so they will want to buy into them. They are much more attractive and palatable when packaged as such.
This post was edited on 12/5 3:23 AM by OldLeaf
ASAP? These things take TIME, sparky. YEARS I would say. We're talking organizing a bunch of independent schools who are accustomed to operating independently, explaining the concept, acquiring buy in, drawing up legal documents (engaging attorneys) such as articles of incorporation and by-laws, registering with the state, hiring staff, opening an office, and basically doing all the things that the IHSA does (minus the hypocrisy and discrimination) to make things run. YEARS.
As for the southern and western schools, I'm afraid they are probably sticking with you in the IHSA for the same reasons why the district idea will fail for now. Just like it's unrealistic to expect Edwardsville and Joliet West to compete in the same district, so is it unreasonable to expect a NIPL division containing schools like Mater Dei, Bloomington Central, Althoff, QND, Mac and Chicago Christian to work...or a NIPL division containing schools like Alleman, Rockford Lutheran, Rockford Christian, St. Ed's and St. Bede to work or a NIPL division containing schools like SHG, PND, JCA, Montini, St. Francis, Marmion, Naz, Fenwick, St. Viator...hey, wait a minute! I sorta like that last one!
A statewide private school association where private schools and public schools never play each other in the regular season just won't work. Too high a percentage of private schools concentrated in the northeast Illinois quadrant and too few geographic outliers of widely varying sizes to make it work well for everyone. Sorry, pal. Looks like you are stuck with the likes of Mater Dei, St. T, SHG, Althoff, Metro East Lutheran, Alleman, QND, PND, Aquin, etc.
This post was edited on 12/5 8:40 AM by ramblinman
I appreciate the comments about my passion. Regarding putting that passion to work making the NIPL happen, well, that's WAY easier said than done, as I explained in my post above to sparky who wants things done yesterday. I'm not an educator. Nor am I an attorney (although that may surprise some given my tendency towards verbosity, my love of a good argument, and my frequent use of parenthetical phrases). Nor do I have any practical experience in high school athletics beyond playing in them four decades ago and doing a little lower level coaching in them a couple of decades after that. I'm just a fan.
Trust me when I tell you I am not the guy to move this forward on anything other than a conceptual level.
Yes, I agree. So sad. But the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
However, if you could see your way to having public schools playing private schools during the regular season, without any whining or field leveling conditions, then we might be able work something out.
