GVC new player
- Thread starter EddieVedderPJ20
- Start date
Or asking you to support your post. Just a matter of perspective.
The fact is that you have no idea what you are talking about and you are just making things up. I could throw out wild ideas about the financial conditions DMC, ICA, ACA, or Dowling, but I don't because I am not in their finance meetings and have no idea how they are doing financially. I do know that GV has competent and devoted people running and overseeing their school and they have a lot of experienced people making their decisions. Based on their track record of doing this for many years (Grandview Park Baptist & Grand View Christian) they will be just fine.
I apologize for answering a question with a question but why not GVC? If the families, as you mention, have a desire for Christian education where else are they going to go where the situation is drastically different. ACA is routinely a top 10-15 program in 1A, DMC is typically solid in 2A, and ICA is on the opposite end of the spectrum fielding a more buttom teir team. The grass isn’t much greener on the other sides...
You have no idea what I know. You might be right, or I might be right. The beauty of being an internet tough guy like you are is you can come puff your chest out and and threaten me all you wan, and it makes no difference.
You think GVC is in stellar financial shape and will continue to be so. Great. Of course, if you actually go back and read what I wrote, I didn’t say they weren’t ok right now, did I. No. I merely said their model and fee/tuition structure in today’s private school climate is not conducive to long term success. You may disagree. Good for you! Isn’t the internet great!
You think GVC is in stellar financial shape and will continue to be so. Great. Of course, if you actually go back and read what I wrote, I didn’t say they weren’t ok right now, did I. No. I merely said their model and fee/tuition structure in today’s private school climate is not conducive to long term success. You may disagree. Good for you! Isn’t the internet great!
Here are the facts about GVCS as it relates to what you mentioned.
Tition costs for the 4 Des Moines area Christian schools:
Tuition assistance:
GVCS has a well-defined tuition assistance process that requires financial documentation. You can read about it here: http://www.grandviewchristianschool.org/editoruploads/files/Registration Forms 17-18/Tuition Assistance 2017-2018.pdf
Financial responsibility:
Obviously I don't know the entire financial picture as I don't have access to the books. But I do know that they began the school by purchasing a very modest facility in order to be fiscally responsible--a former elementary school. In spite of the very modest facilities, they continue to experience growth as families continue to send their children there for reasons that I have already mentioned.
Those are the facts, anything else is rumor and the typical unsubstantiated anonymous message board accusation. If you do have further questions about their financial picture, feel free to contact the school administration or any of the school board members who are listed on the web site.
Tition costs for the 4 Des Moines area Christian schools:
- Des Moines Christian $9,000 (18-19)
- Grand View Christian $7,795 (17-18)
- Iowa Christian Academy $7,340 (17-18)
- Ankeny Christian Academy $6,840 (18-19)
Tuition assistance:
GVCS has a well-defined tuition assistance process that requires financial documentation. You can read about it here: http://www.grandviewchristianschool.org/editoruploads/files/Registration Forms 17-18/Tuition Assistance 2017-2018.pdf
Financial responsibility:
Obviously I don't know the entire financial picture as I don't have access to the books. But I do know that they began the school by purchasing a very modest facility in order to be fiscally responsible--a former elementary school. In spite of the very modest facilities, they continue to experience growth as families continue to send their children there for reasons that I have already mentioned.
Those are the facts, anything else is rumor and the typical unsubstantiated anonymous message board accusation. If you do have further questions about their financial picture, feel free to contact the school administration or any of the school board members who are listed on the web site.
Last edited:
I have no questions about their financial picture, but again, I go back to my original point. It's the discounting that goes on. The fact that a third child can go to school there for $1000 less than than the first is mind boggling, and that a 4th and subsequent children go for free, is again, not a way towards financial success.
Look, you like it there. That's great. I am a Christian school proponent. My hope is that GVC succeeds. I just hope they can do it financially, plus not become just a place that the basketball coach is allowed to recruit in high caliber athletes just to win championships. At the end of the day, high school sports should be about the experience, and if that kid that is a lifer at GVC keeps getting recruited over, is that really a good thing? You can't really sit there and tell me 100% of the GVC association is in love with the way the basketball team is put together. To each their own I guess...
Look, you like it there. That's great. I am a Christian school proponent. My hope is that GVC succeeds. I just hope they can do it financially, plus not become just a place that the basketball coach is allowed to recruit in high caliber athletes just to win championships. At the end of the day, high school sports should be about the experience, and if that kid that is a lifer at GVC keeps getting recruited over, is that really a good thing? You can't really sit there and tell me 100% of the GVC association is in love with the way the basketball team is put together. To each their own I guess...
If it’s just about Christian education and not athletics, have all private schools compete at the 4A level during tournaments because to them it’s not about the sports experience so they wouldn’t care about the outcomes in tournaments. Right?
That makes zero sense. There are multiple very small private schools in 1a and quite a few more in 2a. They're in those classes for a reason...number of students. Very few of them are state champions on a consistent basis.
Now if you want to talk about some kind of multiplier or whatever, that's one thing (although as I've posted a couple of other times, research shows that doesn't really do much and sometimes causes more problems than it solves). But this idea that all private schools should play 4a is just silly.
Maybe some of the 1a schools in NW IA should all play 4a because they are so good on a consistent basis. If it's all about academics and not sports it shouldn't matter, right?
Now if you want to talk about some kind of multiplier or whatever, that's one thing (although as I've posted a couple of other times, research shows that doesn't really do much and sometimes causes more problems than it solves). But this idea that all private schools should play 4a is just silly.
Maybe some of the 1a schools in NW IA should all play 4a because they are so good on a consistent basis. If it's all about academics and not sports it shouldn't matter, right?
I'm curious as to what you mean by the research shows it doesn't do much. What else is a multiplier supposed to do but to give the private schools a different beds number to use when classifying schools. And what problems does it cause?
I posted several articles about this on another thread public vs. private, including a research journal article. Don't have them right at hand, maybe I can find them later.
Research article arguing that multipliers don't necessarily solve the problem, aren't fair to a lot of small private schools, and may not even be "legally laudable"...
The impact of the multiplier on delivering competitive balance, however, indicates limited success. For example, in 2002, a multiplier of 1.35 was ratified in Missouri because 33.2% of state champions and 26.9% of semifinalists were private schools despite only 20.3% of all schools designated as private. Three years after the multiplier was enacted, private schools still won 32.3% of championships and 29% of all semifinals (Epstein, 2008). In this case, "the numbers became even more disproportioned" (Epstein, 2008, p.13). In Tennessee, however, the multiplier has resulted in fewer private school championships (Epstein, 2008), but that might be due to the unique nature of the Tennessee classification system where there are only two divisions that are very different in size (e.g., six classes in Division 1 football vs. two classes in Division 2 football). Thus, the multiplier alone may not be the answer to competitive balance unless it is strategically intertwined with a classification system that allows for the most equitable impact on private schools. For states that believe in multipliers, it appears to be an ongoing battle to find the appropriate number that results in competitive balance. Or, as expressed by James (2013), is a multiplier a copout for good performance? James asks; “Is it possible that success begets success, and that the key challenge in athletics is to build a tradition of success rather than legislating success through a gerrymandered multiplier?” (p. 429).
In addition to the difficulty associated with pinpointing the correct number to ensure competitive balance, a multiplier appears to be a blunt instrument that impacts many private schools that are not athletically successful (James, 2013). This means that a private school with little athletic success would still be subjected to the multiplier, and perhaps be moved to a higher and more competitive class where it would be "legislated into David and Goliath matches it never wanted to play" (Epstein, 2008, p. 8). These issues, in turn, open up state associations to legal action by private schools like the one seen in Illinois where a multiplier of 1.65 was used. Among the issues in the De La Salle v. Illinois High School Association (2005) case were private schools’ right to participate in and host state tournaments, loss of students' educational and personal development associated with participation in interscholastic athletics, equal treatment in general, and loss of potential benefits that accrue from a successful showing in the state tournament. As a result of a settlement agreement, Illinois waived the multiplier for private schools who have not met certain success criteria. Epstein (2008) noted the legal challenges awaiting implementation of multipliers: "As more and more states consider multipliers, the chances of constitutional challenges to the multiplier down the road increase. It is not clear that the most frequently articulated goal of multiplier supporters, to create a system where state high school athletic wins and championships are in proportion to the percentage of students attending public and private schools, is even a legally laudable one." (p. 21)
http://www.jamsport.org/Johnsonetal2015 JAS PDF.pdf
The impact of the multiplier on delivering competitive balance, however, indicates limited success. For example, in 2002, a multiplier of 1.35 was ratified in Missouri because 33.2% of state champions and 26.9% of semifinalists were private schools despite only 20.3% of all schools designated as private. Three years after the multiplier was enacted, private schools still won 32.3% of championships and 29% of all semifinals (Epstein, 2008). In this case, "the numbers became even more disproportioned" (Epstein, 2008, p.13). In Tennessee, however, the multiplier has resulted in fewer private school championships (Epstein, 2008), but that might be due to the unique nature of the Tennessee classification system where there are only two divisions that are very different in size (e.g., six classes in Division 1 football vs. two classes in Division 2 football). Thus, the multiplier alone may not be the answer to competitive balance unless it is strategically intertwined with a classification system that allows for the most equitable impact on private schools. For states that believe in multipliers, it appears to be an ongoing battle to find the appropriate number that results in competitive balance. Or, as expressed by James (2013), is a multiplier a copout for good performance? James asks; “Is it possible that success begets success, and that the key challenge in athletics is to build a tradition of success rather than legislating success through a gerrymandered multiplier?” (p. 429).
In addition to the difficulty associated with pinpointing the correct number to ensure competitive balance, a multiplier appears to be a blunt instrument that impacts many private schools that are not athletically successful (James, 2013). This means that a private school with little athletic success would still be subjected to the multiplier, and perhaps be moved to a higher and more competitive class where it would be "legislated into David and Goliath matches it never wanted to play" (Epstein, 2008, p. 8). These issues, in turn, open up state associations to legal action by private schools like the one seen in Illinois where a multiplier of 1.65 was used. Among the issues in the De La Salle v. Illinois High School Association (2005) case were private schools’ right to participate in and host state tournaments, loss of students' educational and personal development associated with participation in interscholastic athletics, equal treatment in general, and loss of potential benefits that accrue from a successful showing in the state tournament. As a result of a settlement agreement, Illinois waived the multiplier for private schools who have not met certain success criteria. Epstein (2008) noted the legal challenges awaiting implementation of multipliers: "As more and more states consider multipliers, the chances of constitutional challenges to the multiplier down the road increase. It is not clear that the most frequently articulated goal of multiplier supporters, to create a system where state high school athletic wins and championships are in proportion to the percentage of students attending public and private schools, is even a legally laudable one." (p. 21)
http://www.jamsport.org/Johnsonetal2015 JAS PDF.pdf
How various states are addressing the issue and how successful their attempts have been...
https://www.nfhs.org/articles/state-associations-continue-quest-for-competitive-balance-of-schools/
https://www.nfhs.org/articles/state-associations-continue-quest-for-competitive-balance-of-schools/
Based on the fact (that I didn't know) that only private schools can take exchange students for more than one year, I'd say they only have one year of eligibility in Iowa and the United States for any sports. No school jumping, state jumping etc... Come here 1 and done.
With a 90day sitting period, 1 year of eligibility would be pretty useless to any exchange student wanting to experience a sport.
Foreign Exchange student does not have a 90 day sit out period as long as they are a true “Foreign Exchange” and go through the Exchange program
For what it is worth.... Peter Jok as a foreign exchange student had to change schools after 2 years. He wanted to go to Davenport Assumption for his last 2 years of high school, but Joe Barrer who was coach at the time declined to opportunity because he had loyalty to the kids and players already in his program.
Whether you are for or against the whole transfer situations. It says a lot about a coach who willingly accepts kids into the program simply because they are "better" and thus leaves other previously committed kids in the program in the dust.
If I am a parent with a kid who loves to play basketball that would be something I consider a negative when looking at where to send my kid. Loyalty is important to me, so showing some of that to a program is important in my eyes. Some of this transfer stuff is like the one-and-done issues in the NCAA. That's not commitment.
As a coach, I like to work with kids and watch them develop. Seeing Trent Fitzpatrick at Assumption and TJ Vesey at Davenport North grow from my critiques of what they were poor at as freshman to being key contributors as leaders now with vast improvements in the previously weak areas is much more personally satisfying than if I brought in a stud transfer who already developed himself.
Whether you are for or against the whole transfer situations. It says a lot about a coach who willingly accepts kids into the program simply because they are "better" and thus leaves other previously committed kids in the program in the dust.
If I am a parent with a kid who loves to play basketball that would be something I consider a negative when looking at where to send my kid. Loyalty is important to me, so showing some of that to a program is important in my eyes. Some of this transfer stuff is like the one-and-done issues in the NCAA. That's not commitment.
As a coach, I like to work with kids and watch them develop. Seeing Trent Fitzpatrick at Assumption and TJ Vesey at Davenport North grow from my critiques of what they were poor at as freshman to being key contributors as leaders now with vast improvements in the previously weak areas is much more personally satisfying than if I brought in a stud transfer who already developed himself.
You must not have seen him play because he is no where close to being developed yet. Is he a great athlete with a lot of potential? Yes obviously look at his offers. Is he dominating games in 1A basketball right now? Not even close. Going into postseason he's the 4th leading scorer on their team. A developed high major player would be scoring 30+ every game at this level.
Maxstabs, I get what you are saying and there is definitely something to be said for that. But keep in mind two things:
- This is 1A, and sometimes in small schools it's difficult to even field a competitive team. It's not like you have a large pool of already-talented players who have come up through the "system" so that you can just say no to anyone who wants to transfer in.
- More importantly in this case, approximately 50% of the students at GVCS are "transfers" in the sense that they are new students, so there are transfers in every aspect of the school. If the coach said no to taking on any transfers then should the choir do the same? The band? The drama department?
Fourth leading scorer, yet has only played a little under half the games...plus leads the team in blocks....
Who would I rather go to Des Moines Christian? The elite transfer or the average kid that wants a Christian education and also wants to play basketball? I'd rather see the latter go to any of the Christian schools in Des Moines. As to the former? I couldn't care less where they actually go, I just get tired of not calling it what it is. The kid is at GVC to play basketball and get seen by D1 scouts, and maybe get a Christian education...
Not sure how much 1A hoops attracts D1 scouts. Not a good competition level to wate a trip in season. The AAU circuit is where that is done.
I would disagree a little. Yes, 4A schools might see scouts more, but if there is a known kid and any level the scouts will find them based on reputation. Remember, the GVC coach was college assistant coach a few years back. Also, how do you know players from GVC are not on the AAU circuit. I bet most of the GVC players will be playing some AAU this summer. GVC has one of the best true PG in the state and has played for KH. And one of the best places where college coach are watching players is at State and GVC has a great change of being there again if not winning it again this year. Also, the GVC coach has been at state 3 times since 2010 (2 with GVC, last two yrs, and one with DMC)...great exposure at State...Roy Williams came to our State tourney when he was recruiting Barnes...
Last edited:
I would assume the GVC players play AAU. I didn't mean for it to sound disparaging, I apologize if it did. I was attempting to say that going to GVC is where one would go to be discovered at the high major level. That going there has more than basketball attached to it. As far as Roy being there to see Barnes, that is another level altogether.
As for the new player from TN, from the news story WHO TV did on him, all he want is to go to college and basketball is a way to do that. If he does not go to the D1 schools, he could always go NAIA way and get a great college education while getting some or all paid for. Maybe Central...GVC coaching staff has connection...also there is a Hawkeye connection too
Last edited:
Central is D3 so they don't have basketball scholarships. They are able to get creative with financial aid
4th leading scorer in terms of average, not total points. DeMeulenaere is at 23.3, Nyaw 14.2, Montes 11.6, Samake 11. And the guys he's passed in rebounding are all guards.
And, we'll play them for a 3rd time this year on Tuesday.
Because it’s not a fact! How did Sigourney high school have a D1 prospect from the Czech Republic, foreign exchange student (Vaclov Bujenic....not sure about spelling) in I think 2012 2013 play two years, basically winning a SICL championship on his own...go to DMAC a year and turn pro in Europe? Get someone to pay his state tuition is how! Then 2 years later they just happen to get another very talented player from the same country? How many small public schools just by chance get two foreign exchange students who are excellent basketball players? At Sigourney? Yeah...those public schools are pure as the wind driven snow! Only after multiple complaints did the second kid not get to play a second year! And they haven’t had one since. How odd.
