PRINTIT: For the record, you have mentioned MO co-ed schools do not have a multiplier. MO does have a multiplier for all private schools, 1.35. For all boys or girls schools, they multiply by 2 since they only have one sex. Then they take that number and multiply if by 1.35 since they are private.
Success of Private Schools
- Thread starter NoJustice
- Start date
What I meant it is harder to predict sustained sucess of public schools vs private schools IMO. You probably can predict what classes in your school are great classes and have the ability to to go all the way. There are private schools that don't need a special class come through, they reload every year. I know about as much about the returners at public schools as I do about private schools, but I can say with confidence Xavier, Heelan, Assumption, Regina, Don Bosco are all going to have very good years regardless who they have coming back or coming up.
Illinois "boundary":
Revise By-law 2.160
2.160 CLASSIFICATION
Guidelines and regulations for classification of non-boundaried schools are applied to all non-boundaried
schools. A non-boundaried school is defined as any private school, charter school, lab school, magnet
school, residential school, and any public school in multi-high school district that does not accept students
from a fixed portion of the district. In addition, any public high school in a multi-high school district that has fixed boundaries, but allows individual students to move from another high school in that district for any purpose shall be considered a "semi" non-boundary school. Such student movements can include special academies or programs at other district high schools or adjustments for No Child Left Behind. If the multi-high school district has residence boundaries,
but allows a student living in one boundary area to go to a high school in another residence area, the entire multi-school district shall be considered to be a "semi" non-boundary school and classified in the same way as non-boundary schools.
Rationale
1. The purpose of the by-law is to attempt to make competition equal between schools with
boundaries and school which have the advantage of being non-boundaried. Once a multi-school
district allows movement of students from one school to another school with changing residence,
that district becomes a non-boundary school in practice.
2. Large school districts that have multiple high schools within a district have a competitive
advantage if students are allowed to move from one high school to another without changing
residence.
3. While many students may be choosing to go to a school outside of their residence boundary for
academic purposes, such practice opens the door for students to enroll at school with a superior
athletic program in that given area.
4. If a student's residence location shows that the student should attend school A, but they are
allowed to attend school B without changing residence, then both school A and school B have toconsidered schools without boundaries in the same multi-high school district.
There has to be somebody working on a master's degree or doctorate that can study this as their dissertation.
Why are certain programs consistently good? it would be a fun study. Take the top 10-15 programs over the past 20 years and figure out what makes them tick. What similarities do they have, etc?
Why are certain programs consistently good? it would be a fun study. Take the top 10-15 programs over the past 20 years and figure out what makes them tick. What similarities do they have, etc?
Martensdale-St. Marys baseball. Ethan Westphal (All-State as a soph at Lenox, 2x All-State after OE to MSTM), Dillon Coates (2x All-State after OE from Indianola), Jake and Josh Defenbaugh (both multi-year starters after OE from I-35), J.D. Nielsen (All-State after OE from I think Winterset, can't remember for sure). All of those guys were absolutely critical in MSTM's march to three-straight state baseball titles.
Don Bosco hadn't had much success at all in football until Hogan came along. Now that he's gone, I'd bet they take a pretty big step back.
As for you other examples, one could always just as easily predict that Valley, Ankeny (before the split), Southeast Polk, Bettendorf, Iowa City High, Harlan, Decorah, Solon, Clear Lake, Emmetsburg, West Branch, Aplington-Parkersburg, Dike-New Hartford, Wapsie Valley, West Lyon.....notice how long the public school list gets compared to the private schools?.....would have plenty of good players waiting in the wings.
According to the IHSAA's football stat book (which included everything through the 2012 season), only three of the state's top 24 programs in winning percentage since 1972 were private schools. Dowling was fourth in win%, while Heelan was ninth and CBSA was 23rd. So, 21 of the 24 winningest programs in state history are public schools; all 24 schools had a .701 win% or better and at least 276 wins since 1972 (so we're talking about some serious sustained success). Tell us again how it's so easy to predict sustained success for private schools and so exceptionally difficult for public schools. I f'n dare you.
This post was edited on 4/8 4:46 AM by tm3308
This post was edited on 4/8 4:58 AM by tm3308
So we have the MsM example in baseball. Is there an example in football? And you can go back to 1972 if that helps your argument. If you go back far enough we will be able to get the results when Springville and Linn-Mar were rivals. I can notice the changes, actually anyone can notice the changes. The game of football has evolved and the state of Iowa has changed. Don Bosco has been pretty good since joining 8 man, I am confident they will be just fine going fwd.
You would think you would have a longer list of good public schools vs private schools since public schools account for about 91% of each class. I am pretty confident in my assertion. As some on here pointed out, " all schools private and public have the same opportunity to win it all next year. Just whoever works harder." I will use the schools you mentioned and what schools will go further in the playoffs or win head to head when possible. I will take Dowling over Valley. I will take Heelan over Harlan. I will take Xavier over Solon. I will take Assumption over Decorah. I will take Regina over West Branch. I will take Kuemper over Boyden-Hull. If you are anyone on this board would like a friendly wager, I would give you a 2 game lead against the 6 I have taken.
That is basically the best of the 9% vs the best of the 91%.
This post was edited on 4/8 8:21 AM by rkhemp
You would think you would have a longer list of good public schools vs private schools since public schools account for about 91% of each class. I am pretty confident in my assertion. As some on here pointed out, " all schools private and public have the same opportunity to win it all next year. Just whoever works harder." I will use the schools you mentioned and what schools will go further in the playoffs or win head to head when possible. I will take Dowling over Valley. I will take Heelan over Harlan. I will take Xavier over Solon. I will take Assumption over Decorah. I will take Regina over West Branch. I will take Kuemper over Boyden-Hull. If you are anyone on this board would like a friendly wager, I would give you a 2 game lead against the 6 I have taken.
That is basically the best of the 9% vs the best of the 91%.
This post was edited on 4/8 8:21 AM by rkhemp
Who is to say it's an 'evolution' and not just a 'cycle'? tm makes a pretty strong point that longer term, it's clear that the public schools have enjoyed a majority of success.
It's way too soon for the IAHSAA to even consider making substantial changes to the organization of classes based solely on the results of the past few years.
It's way too soon for the IAHSAA to even consider making substantial changes to the organization of classes based solely on the results of the past few years.
The further you go back, the more it evens out. Several of the states started using multipliers around 2002. I think data from 2002 through 2015 would give you the best accurate info. And the rates of private school sucess in Iowa is actually much higher than the rates of sucess of the private schools in the states with multipliers I looked at.
I don't know of any schools that have used a lot of open enrollment in football. But then again, the only reason I know about Martensdale's baseball team doing that is because I played and coached against them (they are in the same conference as my alma mater). If I didn't have that familiarity with their program, I probably wouldn't have known about it.
Now on to the bolded. I'd give you most of those matchups. I totally disagree on Kuemper being very good, though; that team was loaded with seniors and that's not a program that's got the kind of track record that Dowling, Heelan, etc. have. I fully believe they just had a great class come through and put together a great year, but now it's over. And I think, in most years, Decorah would be able to handle Assumption. Dowling might beat Valley this year, but those two programs have gone back and forth for years. Good luck selling people on the idea of Valley being a perennial underdog to anyone in the state.
One year hardly makes for a good sample size, anyway, just like this year's championships don't signal the end of public schools winning titles. There will be plenty of years where public schools win the majority of titles. Don't believe me? 2012 saw 5 public schools win championships in football. So did 2011. 2010 had 4 public school champions. 2009 had 5. 2008 had 5. So did 2007. Starting to notice a pattern here? Going back to 2000, private school have won 20 football titles out of a possible 90. Of those 20, Regina and Dowling have 8. In only two seasons (2004 and 2013) did private schools win more than two championships. I'm really not seeing the dominance here.
I am pretty sure I have to spell things out more when speaking with you TM. I was talking about the rates BEFORE those states went to multipliers. As in Iowa private schools currently enjoy more sucess now as a percentage than what those state's private schools did BEFORE they went mulitiplier.
So here is my wager with you or any one else, take my bet of the previous 6 school scenerio where I spot you 2 games, and the loser will not be able to post on the private vs public school debate threads again.
So here is my wager with you or any one else, take my bet of the previous 6 school scenerio where I spot you 2 games, and the loser will not be able to post on the private vs public school debate threads again.
Thinking about other sports, the numbers don't support the idea that private schools own the stage, either. There are a handful of teams that are always good in the other three major sports, but not much more than that.
Baseball: Assumption, Kuepmer, Newman and Beckman
Basketball: Western Christian, Heelan,
Wrestling: Don Bosco, Assumption,
In baseball, there have been 13 state titles (out of a possible 48) won by private schools since 2002. Of those, 6 were won by Assumption and Newman (both had 3), 2 were by Beckman, and no other school had more than 1. Meanwhile, Valley won 4 straight and Martensdale won 3 straight. None of the private schools strung together 3 or more in a row.
In basketball, private schools have won titles 10 times since 2002, with Western Christian winning 4, Heelan winning 3, Wahlert winning 2 and Unity Christian winning 1. Again, where's the dominance?
In wrestling, private schools have won 9 out of a possible 36 team championships in the traditional tournament. Don Bosco won 6 of those titles, while Assumption had 2 and Columbus had 1. Don Bosco has absolutely been a dominant program, but it's also in the most talent-rich area of the state for wrestling. 17 titles since 2002 have been won by schools from the Cedar Falls/Waterloo/Waverly area, led by Don Bosco's 6 titles and Waverly-Shell Rock's 5. You can't hardly bump into a guy on the street in that area who wasn't a great high school wrestler. The dual tournament has had 11 private school champions, with 7 being won by Don Bosco.
Do private schools win a higher percentage of titles than they should, relative to the percentage they represent within the total school population? Yes. They make up roughly 9% of all schools, and they've won anywhere between 20 and 25 percent of the championships in the four major sports since 2002. But by that same logic, Valley wins way more than they should, since they represent a very minute portion of all public schools, yet they've racked up a ton of titles in football and baseball.
Baseball: Assumption, Kuepmer, Newman and Beckman
Basketball: Western Christian, Heelan,
Wrestling: Don Bosco, Assumption,
In baseball, there have been 13 state titles (out of a possible 48) won by private schools since 2002. Of those, 6 were won by Assumption and Newman (both had 3), 2 were by Beckman, and no other school had more than 1. Meanwhile, Valley won 4 straight and Martensdale won 3 straight. None of the private schools strung together 3 or more in a row.
In basketball, private schools have won titles 10 times since 2002, with Western Christian winning 4, Heelan winning 3, Wahlert winning 2 and Unity Christian winning 1. Again, where's the dominance?
In wrestling, private schools have won 9 out of a possible 36 team championships in the traditional tournament. Don Bosco won 6 of those titles, while Assumption had 2 and Columbus had 1. Don Bosco has absolutely been a dominant program, but it's also in the most talent-rich area of the state for wrestling. 17 titles since 2002 have been won by schools from the Cedar Falls/Waterloo/Waverly area, led by Don Bosco's 6 titles and Waverly-Shell Rock's 5. You can't hardly bump into a guy on the street in that area who wasn't a great high school wrestler. The dual tournament has had 11 private school champions, with 7 being won by Don Bosco.
Do private schools win a higher percentage of titles than they should, relative to the percentage they represent within the total school population? Yes. They make up roughly 9% of all schools, and they've won anywhere between 20 and 25 percent of the championships in the four major sports since 2002. But by that same logic, Valley wins way more than they should, since they represent a very minute portion of all public schools, yet they've racked up a ton of titles in football and baseball.
Anybody else get that he was referring to the success of other states' private schools BEFORE those states implemented a multiplier? Didn't think so. In any case, I don't care if Illinois or Missouri implemented multipliers when their private schools weren't even as successful as Iowa's have been. That's not the point at all. The point is that the numbers say there isn't a good reason to implement a multiplier/create a separate class/etc. in Iowa. Public schools still win the overwhelming majority of championships in the major sports, even when looking at the last decade or so, which is when private schools started having more success.
And I'm not taking a bet like that with stakes like that. One year is a pitiful sample size. Or do I have to find a way to spell that out even more clearly? Going back and looking at the 6 years prior to this one, private schools won SEVEN football championships. Public schools have always had a very firm grasp on the the hardware, even in recent years. One year where private schools had an unusual amount of success doesn't change that. I'd wager that over the next 5 years, Don Bosco and Kuemper both fall back to the pack; they aren't dynasty-esque programs. Xavier, Dowling and Heelan will still be strong, and Regina probably will, too. Jury's out on Assumption, IMO. Did they ever even make it to the Dome while competing in 4A? They've always been solid, but nowhere near elite.
As I said before, I feel the big need for it is in football. There is nothing saying that it couldn't be added just for football. Not saying it wouldn't help out in the other sports too but I am on board for a multiplier in just football. So what say you, take me up on my bet?
I've been a lurker on here and just read the posts. I have an idea that is slightly different. I believe it was brought up before it's not public vs private (I tend to disagree on this). It's the have's vs the have not's. Well if that is the case why don't we choose to have a subtraction vs a"penalization/multiplier".
Poverty is the biggest issue in sports with trying to even the playing field. More $ = more opportunities to be successful. I don't think that's even up for debate. So with that being said, why can't we have schools with a big poverty issue get a reduction in beds counts. This should appease both sides.
Let's take the free and reduced lunches and use that as our criteria. We take that number of students and count them as .5 in our beds counts. I think we achieve what we want here without the "penalization" of the multiplier.
Thoughts?
This post was edited on 4/8 2:28 PM by tigerlynx
Poverty is the biggest issue in sports with trying to even the playing field. More $ = more opportunities to be successful. I don't think that's even up for debate. So with that being said, why can't we have schools with a big poverty issue get a reduction in beds counts. This should appease both sides.
Let's take the free and reduced lunches and use that as our criteria. We take that number of students and count them as .5 in our beds counts. I think we achieve what we want here without the "penalization" of the multiplier.
Thoughts?
This post was edited on 4/8 2:28 PM by tigerlynx
So you've got rumors of change (as if that's something new). Private schools have won 12 football championships in the last seven years, five of which came this past fall in an EXTREMELY unusual year. They typically win one or two titles a year in football. Those numbers are not outrageous in any way at all. The association is not going to implement a multiplier because of one weird year, when the numbers in every other year suggest that there's no real problem.
Missouri had 36.4% of their championships won by private schools the year before their multiplier. It plummeted to 35.8% the first year of the multiplier. They are now gathering to vote on seperate classes altogether due to the success of the multiplier.
What is the rate in Iowa that you came up with rh?
This post was edited on 4/8 3:52 PM by cidhawkeye
What is the rate in Iowa that you came up with rh?
This post was edited on 4/8 3:52 PM by cidhawkeye
The winds of change are near. What I said is the majority of schools are ready for change, I stick by that. I also said I would be surprised if there were no changes. I still stick by that. And if the association runs itself like a true association and listens to both sides, change will happen. This has been brought up for many years, but after last year is the first time that the association said they would look into it and they needed "more data." If they come back with your talking points about records since 1972 like they have done before, then no change will come.
The winds of change are blowing and I think there will be some modification. I have never argued that point. I do enjoy listening to some of the coaches who are the most vocal in support of the change, seems they don't like the sun shining on some other dogs rump. They might be better served by diversifying how they run their program and getting better.
What was the % that you came up with for championships rh?
What was the % that you came up with for championships rh?
Well, over the last 5 years it has been 33%, over the last 10 it has been 30%. If you don't want to count last year, from 2012-2003 it was 23%. Now I believe private schools make up about 9% of football schools in Iowa but I haven't counted them up. So that would be a championship rate of 23-14% higher than the percent of private schools. That is a larger difference than most the states I read about. Their diff was in the 10% range.
I also don't feel just looking at state championships should be the only factor. I think making it to the dome, dirstrict titles, post season and regular season records, should all play a factor here as well. For example, during the last 5 years private schools have finished runner-up 9 times. Not too shabby in my book.
This post was edited on 4/8 5:20 PM by rkhemp
I also don't feel just looking at state championships should be the only factor. I think making it to the dome, dirstrict titles, post season and regular season records, should all play a factor here as well. For example, during the last 5 years private schools have finished runner-up 9 times. Not too shabby in my book.
This post was edited on 4/8 5:20 PM by rkhemp
I read one proposal turned down by Kansas was to classify based on 4 factors: 75% Enrollment, 10% Economic, 10% Human Resources Factor, and 5% Performance.
In 2011 Oklahoma started basing their classification on enrollment, geographic location, free and reduced lunch data, rapid changes to school enrollments, and a tournamnet sucess factor.
Each state is unique. I couldn't say what method is the best and they all are probably flawed by in my opinion the most flawed is basing classification soley on enrollment numbers.
Agreed. Something needs to be done. I also heard the state for the first time ever has asked for coaches opinions on the "multiplier" and nothing would happen this district go round but they are willing to listen. I hope they take the past 10 years of data and make a sound decision.
If they come back with the data from your suggested 2002 starting point, change won't be coming, either.
Going back to and including 2002, there have been 435 state championships won in boys sports in the state. Of those championships, private schools have won 127 of them. That comes out to roughly 29 percent. And like I said, the numbers aren't even that much in favor of private schools in the major sports. Soccer, tennis and cross country are the only sports where private schools even approach having won 50 percent of the titles since 2002. Here's the sport-by-sport breakdown over the last 12 years (rounding up or down to the nearest whole percent):
Football: 18/72 (25%)
Basketball: 10/48 (21%)
Wrestling: 11/36 dual tournament (31%), 9/36 traditional tournament (25%)
Baseball: 13/48 (27%)
Track: 7/48 (15%)
Cross Country: 16/36 (44%)
Soccer: 17/29 (59%)
Swimming: 2/12 (17%)
Tennis: 10/24 (42%)
Golf: 14/48 (29%)
If any sports could use a multiplier, it sure isn't one of the ones that people actually give a crap about, at least based on the number of titles won in the timeframe that YOU suggested. But I'll throw you a bone. Here are the breakdowns for the last 10, 5 and 3 years.
10 Years
Football: 21/60 (35%)
Cross Country: 13/40 (33%)
Basketball: 10/40 (25%)
Wrestling: 19/60 (32%) (dual and traditional combined)
Swimming: 0/10 (0%)
Track: 6/40 (15%)
Tennis: 10/20 (50%)
Golf: 13/40 (33%)
Soccer: 15/25 (60%
Baseball: 12/40 (30%)
10-year totals: 119/375 (32%)
5 Years
Football: 10/30 (33%)
Cross Country: 6/20 (30%)
Basketball: 5/20 (25%)
Wrestling: 9/30 (30%)
Swimming 0/5 (0%)
Track: 3/20 (15%)
Tennis: 5/10 (50%)
Golf: 10/20 (50%)
Soccer: 10/15 (67%)
Baseball: 6/20 (30%)
5-year totals: 64/190 (34%)
3 Years
Football: 7/18 (39%)
Cross Country: 4/12 (33%)
Basketball: 2/12 (17%)
Wrestling: 5/18 (28%)
Swimming: 0/3 (0%)
Track: 1/12 (8%)
Tennis: 3/6 (50%)
Golf: 5/15 (33%)
Soccer: 7/12 (54%)
Baseball: 4/12 (33%)
3-year totals: 38/120 (32%)
You keep talking about the differential between the percentage of private schools in the entire population and the percentage of championships won by private schools and how it's out of whack. There are 25 private schools that are slated to play football this year (I'm counting schools like Marquette and Wahlert as one, since I believe they share for football?); I counted 24 private schools that played last year. There are 340 total schools playing football this fall. So 8 percent of the football schools in the state are private, and 92 percent are public.
To have championships doled out proportionately, private schools could only win 1 football championship every other year (1/12). Which would basically eliminate the possibility of a strong private school program altogether. By daring to win two titles in a given year, private schools would account for 33% of the championships despite owning just 8% of the population. So, by your logic, having TWO championship-caliber private schools would represent a problem. That's just all sorts of ridiculous.
But, if we're going to go by proportions, then what about schools like Valley? Valley has won three titles in the last 10 years. So a school that represents just 2% of Class 4A has racked up 30% of the football championships in the last 10 years. Something smells fishy there; we need to correct this problem (hint: heavy sarcasm).
And when comparing Iowa's private school/title percentage differential to those of states like Illinois and Missouri, it's important to know how many private schools there are in those states. In Missouri, 70 of 592 member schools of the athletic association are private (http://www.stltoday.com/sports/high-school/public-private-separation-could-get-another-look/article_8ee6c1f6-53fd-11e3-8fbc-001a4bcf6878.html), which is roughly 12 percent. In Illinois, 17% of the athletic association members are private (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_High_School_Association#Private_school_multiplier). I don't have the exact number of schools, but it's pretty safe to assume that there are way more high schools in Illinois than there are in Iowa.
When you're dealing with such greater numbers, it's a lot easier for the proportion of championships won by private schools to be where they "should" be. It's next to impossible when you're dealing with as few schools as Iowa is, because even just a couple schools can throw everything off.
And your logic of counting any single public school as 2% instead of 92% is weak at best. And again, I don't believe championships should be the only factor. And if you go back to 2002 in football, that percentage is 3 times higher than the percentage of private schools. So back to you, maybe sombody could spell out to you why Valley does well, but if it is too hard for you I will agree to add a 2.5 multiplier to them
This post was edited on 4/8 8:25 PM by rkhemp
This post was edited on 4/8 8:25 PM by rkhemp
That was my point. The idea that championships/success has to be proportional is ludicrous, especially when we're talking about such a small number of schools. But that hasn't stopped you from asserting that there's a problem because private schools have won a disproportionate amount of championships (even though the public schools still hold an overwhelming majority over the last decade).
I'm well aware of why Valley does well. Apparently, clearly stating that I was being sarcastic doesn't convey that I was being facetious. No wonder the facts don't seem to get through to you. Bro.
This post was edited on 4/8 9:42 PM by tm3308
There really isn't anymore I can add. I posted my thoughts on the subject. Been countered mainly with sarcasm and childish attacks. You would reallythink you could have more of an honest debate with the private school community but I guess not. Xavier and Assumption deciding to play 3A will really help the multiplier crowd, so I would like to thank them in advance and I will be rooting heavily for them in the fall. When change does occur, it will be fun to see all the people whine about it.
rh I feel that I have been pretty factual and pretty intellectually honest in our discussion. Multiple people have presented multiple sets of facts. I have found that Arkansas has 6% private schools and 40% championships won, presented facts about the Illinois multiplier and it goes on. Perhaps a new cause would be lobbying for Valley to be mandated to field two equal football teams to level the playing field. You asked for a football success story with OE contributing. I either missed or am still waiting for your criteria on that situation. Fairly certain I can find some schools, just let me know what to look for. I appreciate your passion for the subject and your desire to engage in a healthy discussion. I agree something will change, there are too many public school coaches who are bent out of shape about what is going on. In my opinion their vitirol is misplaced and could be directed instead at improving their program. Do private schools have advantages? You bet, they are also saddled with disadvantages. We each make a choice on how we want our children educated.
CID, your discussions have been honest. And I don't have any criteria for OE advantage, just waiting to hear if there has been an example in football. I am more than willing to hear both sides, but most the other posters points are Very weak and responses immature. If you want to call people like me whiners, I just want you to know you will be calling some of the most respected coaches in the state whiners, and not just the ones who lose to private schools.
rh, Are you looking for teams that have championships or multiple championships with OE kids, or perennial, Dome, quarters type of teams? And I have at least a couple of respected coaches across the state that I have already called a whiner in conversations with them.
Similar threads
