Success of Private Schools
- Thread starter NoJustice
- Start date
If Regina or another private school moved up and won a 2A title, we'd just be reading this thread on the 2A board. If they went up to 3A and won, there would be complaints on the 3A board.
Can you admit that you wouldn't be happy unless private schools won titles very infrequently?
And again, it's not a public vs. private issue. It's a lot more complicated than that, and penalizing only private schools is simplistic and unfair.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? It is not about being scared. Or success or lack there of. The issue is penalize them for what reason? Are schools in the same class that scared of Regina that they force them to move up and play schools bigger than they are?
So far off the point do not know where to start. If Xavier would PREFER to play 4A that is a lot different than FORCING all private schools to play up. Heelan once chose to play up to 4A while being a 3A school BED wise.
Wow. Just wow. On a lighter note. Northwest Missouri State's Josh Baker just signed with Tampa Bay (shameless plug).
This post was edited on 4/1 8:05 PM by NoJustice
I've wondered during this entire post, why the question by those who want multipliers isn't for use with any school, private or otherwise, who has repeated success. There are certainly all kinds of advantages for a Valley, Bettendorf, Waukee, Cedar Falls, and others. Why aren't you all concerned about the disparity or inequity of these programs as it relates to 4A football. Why isn't the success of Harlan and Decorah in 3A in question. Should they be forced up to 4A? And for that matter Solon and Emmettsburg in 2A (I know Solon is in 3A now, but that is due to enrollment not multipliers) Most of the schools who have success repeat it by growing the program to the next level. They do more with the kids that they get to participate. How can North Scott have success year in and out in spite of being in spite of being only 1/3 the size of Valley. There are always going to be disparities and inequities in life. Some choose to overcome them, others choose to blame the system. Not everybody can win a trophy, but that's not why we played the games.
It has nothing to do with penalizing, this is to create more competitive games. Do you really enjoy seeing the same teams in the championship every year? As a player, I loved to play in the close games. I don't necessarily think that it should only impact private schools, but all schools that have had continued dominance. Wouldn't it be more satisfying to compete with bigger schools than to continually beat up on the same schools every year?
Again, you guys choose the term "penalized". And I have never been against a formula for successful public schools either. It would be nice to see one of the larger schools in a class who seem to dominate replace some of the smaller schools in the next class who struggle to compete. So it has a lot to do with the price of tea NoJustice. I firmly believe Regina would be playing in the dome in 2A just like they were before. But I am being told that I would not be happy until they are average at best, and that is not the case.
And if winning championships isn't why we play the game Orsky, then why would it matter if there is a multiplier?
And you are right Pine, I guess I am against the change that has happened recently. I feel it is bad for high school football to see private schools dominate, not beat, but dominate public schools year in and year out. I think it was good for Iowa High School football when a once in a lifetime class comes through to have a shot at the crown or a 2-3 year run. It surprises me how those once in a lifetime classes are being throttled by just another run of the mill private school class. It would be interesting to see how good a team like Bellevue could be if they weren't getting plucked all the time by private schools. I guess I'm just a dinosaur.
And if winning championships isn't why we play the game Orsky, then why would it matter if there is a multiplier?
And you are right Pine, I guess I am against the change that has happened recently. I feel it is bad for high school football to see private schools dominate, not beat, but dominate public schools year in and year out. I think it was good for Iowa High School football when a once in a lifetime class comes through to have a shot at the crown or a 2-3 year run. It surprises me how those once in a lifetime classes are being throttled by just another run of the mill private school class. It would be interesting to see how good a team like Bellevue could be if they weren't getting plucked all the time by private schools. I guess I'm just a dinosaur.
I still like the idea that if you win back-to-back titles you get bumped up the next season. If you truly have the talent to compete at that level you should have no qualms about going against competition that will push you. Heck, I would even be up for if you make the championship game back-to-back.
If you used a multiplier (say 1.65) on Solon they would still be 3A with an adjusted enrollment of 519. Regina would be in 2A, Regina WOULD see more competitive games during the regular season instead of just when they play in late November.
I'll take a 14-13 game over a 55-0 halftime game any Friday night.
If you used a multiplier (say 1.65) on Solon they would still be 3A with an adjusted enrollment of 519. Regina would be in 2A, Regina WOULD see more competitive games during the regular season instead of just when they play in late November.
I'll take a 14-13 game over a 55-0 halftime game any Friday night.
I have to agree with Pinehawk on all accounts. It's not private vs. public. My kids go to public school, and I have never been dissapointed with my decision. When I bought my house I did it with schools in mind. I chose a house based on the schools that I want my kids to be part of. My thought process is no different than a parent choosing a Catholic school. If you compare Cedar Falls and Waterloo. Many people would gladly buy much less house for a lot more money to live in Cedar Falls and go to Cedar Falls schools. Not all schools are equal.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there is a direct correlation between Regina becoming great and City High football losing numbers? In other words, is Regina on this run with mostly City High athletes, or are they pretty well spread out?
Everyone may dream of winning a championship, but for over half of the schools in any class, that isn't going to be a reality. Whether they picture beating Assumption, Solon, Xavier or others isn't going to occur year in and out. When they occasionally do, it will be the penultimate of there season. Doesn't really matter what class you are talking, except for 4A. I and most kids play the game because they love it, not because they are playing for a trophy.
Regina isn't on their run due to City High's low numbers. I am not certain why City has low numbers. Regina typically loses kids heading in to the 9th grade year. This year they lost 16 kids to go from 64 kids in the class to 48.
Gotta tap out of this one. I am so flabbergasted by the crazy logic stated in these most recent posts. Wow. Lets just fix it fir everyone and not keep score. Nobody will feel bad because they cannot compete, nor feel inferior because the same schools dominate.
If I did not know any better I would have guessed those were just jokes. But anymore it should not surprise me.
Beam me up Scotty.
If I did not know any better I would have guessed those were just jokes. But anymore it should not surprise me.
Beam me up Scotty.
Sure sounds like you went overboard and and are overreacting a tad bit. We have about 2 years to go before we will hear from the state. In the meanwhile, I hope Regina gets challenged in 1A. I hope schools like Solon and Decorah can be competitive with Xavier and Assumption. My prediction is 2A will be the most competitive race. Both Kuemper and Waukon were senior dominated teams. 4A- Dowling 3A- Xavier 1A- Regina. IMO Xavier has the capablity of beginning a Regina type run as long as they are in 3A. Now, you can be for or against a multiplier, but is there anyone who thinks my predictions are way off?
And if Regina played up this year, I would have predicted them as the early favorite for 2A.
This post was edited on 4/3 8:24 AM by rkhemp
And if Regina played up this year, I would have predicted them as the early favorite for 2A.
This post was edited on 4/3 8:24 AM by rkhemp
Why do we have separate classes?
- most likely answer is-- to make a "fair", "competitive" balance.(and so the state can make more money)
Why do we separate schools by bed numbers?
- most likely answer -- to pair schools with other schools who will have relatively the same "pool" numbers to pull athletes from. (easiest statistic to pull)
Is it working? Has it always worked? Is it the best way?
Of course if you are from one of the schools that is winning it is working. If not then you see a competitive imbalance. Right now the system is set because it is traditional,easy and is a money maker for the state.
Right now in its current form, the schools (not just catholic) who have a high participation, high parental support and who have good to great coach's will succeed.
Right now if you take two schools roughly the same size you can't say definitively they have equality across the board meaning that they have the same pool of kids to choose from (numbers). You can blame the schools or parents but we have to come to terms with the fact that Iowa is changing and the that we aren't as homogeneous as we once were. That is reflected in many areas of the state.
Should or how could we change things?
A multiplier will only effect the private schools but will that put things back into a competitive balance or will the bedroom communities ,who also enjoy the same factors that have made the private schools successful, have a dominance.
If you just want to make it more competitive for the private schools the multiplier is the way to go.
Changing the bed numbers to reflect participation numbers will benefit some schools by bumping them down but won't effect enough to see much change.
If we make a competitive rules by moving teams based on success we will see better balance but it makes it more difficult to have dominant teams.
Sorry for the long post just felt I needed to contribute to the annual private vs public post
- most likely answer is-- to make a "fair", "competitive" balance.(and so the state can make more money)
Why do we separate schools by bed numbers?
- most likely answer -- to pair schools with other schools who will have relatively the same "pool" numbers to pull athletes from. (easiest statistic to pull)
Is it working? Has it always worked? Is it the best way?
Of course if you are from one of the schools that is winning it is working. If not then you see a competitive imbalance. Right now the system is set because it is traditional,easy and is a money maker for the state.
Right now in its current form, the schools (not just catholic) who have a high participation, high parental support and who have good to great coach's will succeed.
Right now if you take two schools roughly the same size you can't say definitively they have equality across the board meaning that they have the same pool of kids to choose from (numbers). You can blame the schools or parents but we have to come to terms with the fact that Iowa is changing and the that we aren't as homogeneous as we once were. That is reflected in many areas of the state.
Should or how could we change things?
A multiplier will only effect the private schools but will that put things back into a competitive balance or will the bedroom communities ,who also enjoy the same factors that have made the private schools successful, have a dominance.
If you just want to make it more competitive for the private schools the multiplier is the way to go.
Changing the bed numbers to reflect participation numbers will benefit some schools by bumping them down but won't effect enough to see much change.
If we make a competitive rules by moving teams based on success we will see better balance but it makes it more difficult to have dominant teams.
Sorry for the long post just felt I needed to contribute to the annual private vs public post
How do you say it is "equal" when private schools do not take SES? THose kids do count towards the public schools BED #s which can and do impact the level\class they play within. You take 10-20 SES away from some public school counts and they drop a class.
Would you rather have competitive balance or a dominant team?
Would you rather have competitive balance or a dominant team?
I would like to see how taking away SES from the BEDS would impact the level/class they play in. I am sure some schools would drop, but do you think it would make a big enough impact to make it a level playing field?
I don't think the success of private schools is a trend. I think (my opinion only) that the private schools as well as a bunch of public schools have had their recent success and will keep on thriving because of two main reasons:
1. Forward thinking. Looking at it more as a business. This does not only include athletics. They realize in order to be a more attractive option they need to build top programs in all areas of extra-curricular activities. It is common sense. Every parent wants there child have the best opportunity to succeed at whatever they do. Having a top flight program does that and is attractive to both parents and students. Not to mention the money it will bring in when all the grand parents, aunts and uncles show up.
2. Parental involvement. I think if you looked at any successful high school program you will see an enormous amount of parental involvement. Having parents involved accomplishes many things. Participation numbers go up. Kids stay out of trouble more often. Organization. The biggest one - fundraising. When you have highly motivated parents it tends to rub off on the school/community.
The schools that suffer the most are the inner city or poor communities that don't have the parental involvement and/ or lack of outside fundraising.
As stated before, I to believe somewhat that it is the haves vs. have nots. Some of these schools and communities do have, but choose not to do some forward thinking or just do not get involved. And then there are times where you get a run of kids that just are not athletic. Nothing can be done about that. But the schools/ communities who stand by there kids no matter what and don't make excuses will eventually succeed. And all the kids will be better because of it.
I don't think the success of private schools is a trend. I think (my opinion only) that the private schools as well as a bunch of public schools have had their recent success and will keep on thriving because of two main reasons:
1. Forward thinking. Looking at it more as a business. This does not only include athletics. They realize in order to be a more attractive option they need to build top programs in all areas of extra-curricular activities. It is common sense. Every parent wants there child have the best opportunity to succeed at whatever they do. Having a top flight program does that and is attractive to both parents and students. Not to mention the money it will bring in when all the grand parents, aunts and uncles show up.
2. Parental involvement. I think if you looked at any successful high school program you will see an enormous amount of parental involvement. Having parents involved accomplishes many things. Participation numbers go up. Kids stay out of trouble more often. Organization. The biggest one - fundraising. When you have highly motivated parents it tends to rub off on the school/community.
The schools that suffer the most are the inner city or poor communities that don't have the parental involvement and/ or lack of outside fundraising.
As stated before, I to believe somewhat that it is the haves vs. have nots. Some of these schools and communities do have, but choose not to do some forward thinking or just do not get involved. And then there are times where you get a run of kids that just are not athletic. Nothing can be done about that. But the schools/ communities who stand by there kids no matter what and don't make excuses will eventually succeed. And all the kids will be better because of it.
You mean like all the people freaking out because the private schools had a really good year in football?
People really need to face it. Iowa isn't going to add a multiplier that would affect only a handful of the 350+ schools in the state. You can talk about the percentage of private schools having success and how it's disproportionately high all you want. But when you're talking about such a small group of schools, it'd be pretty tough NOT to have "too high" of a percentage of those schools having success.
Thinking off the top of my head, these are schools that jump out as having success in at least one sport in the last 10 years:
Dowling (football, baseball)
Xavier (football)
Heelan (football, boys basketball)
Assumption (baseball, wrestling)
Wahlert (basketball)
Western Christian (boys basketball)
Pella Christian (basketball)
Dyersville Beckman (football, baseball)
Kuemper (baseball, football, basketball)
St. Albert (football)
Regina (football, basketball)
Don Bosco (football, baseball, wrestling)
Newman (baseball)
IMS (baseball)
I might be missing a few, but I think that makes up the majority. Of that group, the success is cyclical in nearly every sport I listed--with a few exceptions (Dowling/Heelan/Regina/CBSA football, Newman/Assumption/Kuemper baseball, Western Christian basketball). And not all of those schools have even won championships recently; they've been very good, but not brought home hardware.
In other words, there have been schools that have had an outstanding group of kids come through and achieve some great things (think Kuemper football, IMS baseball, Pella Christian basketball, etc.) and then fell back to the pack after that group left; granted I'm projecting that for Kuemper this fall (as well as Don Bosco; Hogan was a very gifted player who lifted a team that wasn't all that remarkable without him). Then there are some others that have enjoyed consistent success for years in certain sports.
Tell me, how does that sound all that different from what public schools have done? For every Harlan football or Kee baseball, there are plenty of schools that enjoy brief runs of dominance (lasting 3-4 years).
I am sorry Privateer13, but your last comment really bothers me.
I am just using West Lyon as my example. It is safe to say they have had a great year in boys athletics.
1). Do you any idea the commitment these kids have made to get to that level? The hours upon hours in the gym during the season and the offseason, the time in the weight room, film study, basically the overall commitment to be the best that they could be. The shear effort the coaching staff made to get them here. Volunteering time for open gyms, the weight room, and team camps. Plus all the time put in during the season. The parents made a commitment when these kids were young to support them and their athletic endeavors. Driving them to practice and weekend tournaments. Now because they made this effort (when many others chose not to) they have to move up a class?
2). The basketball team is going to lose 5 starters this year and next year they will be rebuilding. When you lose 5 starters that have been starting for multiple years it is going to be a big learning curve. Because they won 1 state champ do they have to move up? This team was good enough to make state their junior year, unfortunately there were other really good teams in the district and West Lyon got beat fair and square. Hypothetically, lets say they won state 2 years in a row. Now we move them up. So the kids coming after this group is being punished? Where do you draw the line. Newell Fonda was undefeated heading into state - do they move up?
It sounds to me to be the easy way out.
I am just using West Lyon as my example. It is safe to say they have had a great year in boys athletics.
1). Do you any idea the commitment these kids have made to get to that level? The hours upon hours in the gym during the season and the offseason, the time in the weight room, film study, basically the overall commitment to be the best that they could be. The shear effort the coaching staff made to get them here. Volunteering time for open gyms, the weight room, and team camps. Plus all the time put in during the season. The parents made a commitment when these kids were young to support them and their athletic endeavors. Driving them to practice and weekend tournaments. Now because they made this effort (when many others chose not to) they have to move up a class?
2). The basketball team is going to lose 5 starters this year and next year they will be rebuilding. When you lose 5 starters that have been starting for multiple years it is going to be a big learning curve. Because they won 1 state champ do they have to move up? This team was good enough to make state their junior year, unfortunately there were other really good teams in the district and West Lyon got beat fair and square. Hypothetically, lets say they won state 2 years in a row. Now we move them up. So the kids coming after this group is being punished? Where do you draw the line. Newell Fonda was undefeated heading into state - do they move up?
It sounds to me to be the easy way out.
I guess I don't see it as a punishment more of a challenge. If you don't think that the top teams compete well at the next level then so be it.
I don't know how it punishes anyone that would imply that if a team drops a class they are rewarded I don't see that.
I don't know how it punishes anyone that would imply that if a team drops a class they are rewarded I don't see that.
The current model is flawed and could improve. Right now it is based on a cutoff entirely on BEDS. Solon fits in 3A, but they were only a couple bodies from 2A. West Lyon went from one of the largest A schools to one of the smallest 1A schools. Every 2 years schools on the bubble move up and down based on BEDS alone. But other than 5 bodies difference between grades 9, 10, 11, why does West Lyon who finished undefeated deserve to be in A any more than Jesup who finished with 1 win in 1A. Other than that's how it has always been done, what does having a BEDS number of 154 compared to 159 really matter? There is no competive advantage there. Maybe a slight tweak is instore for determing classes.
And you brought up the hard work done by the players of West Lyon. I don't think any body is going to win it all without great work ethic. But you have to have the horses. When West Lyon has down years, is it because the parents and kids there are not as dedicated, or is it because the talent pool isn't as good. I am not saying Lawton Bronson isn't working hard in the weight room, but if they spent more time there and went to more camps, could they have beat you guys?
I have read on this board from people from West Lyon this year that they would have beaten Regina. So you are saying you would have won the title in 1A, but it would have been a travesty to have been bumped to 1A?
This post was edited on 4/4 9:39 AM by rkhemp
And you brought up the hard work done by the players of West Lyon. I don't think any body is going to win it all without great work ethic. But you have to have the horses. When West Lyon has down years, is it because the parents and kids there are not as dedicated, or is it because the talent pool isn't as good. I am not saying Lawton Bronson isn't working hard in the weight room, but if they spent more time there and went to more camps, could they have beat you guys?
I have read on this board from people from West Lyon this year that they would have beaten Regina. So you are saying you would have won the title in 1A, but it would have been a travesty to have been bumped to 1A?
This post was edited on 4/4 9:39 AM by rkhemp
I'm not one that would push for any change. This discussion is judging the entire value of a football season on who won the championship. Realistically if that is barometer for the basis for change then there is no end in sight, there will only be one champion per class. This year there were a lot of Catholic schools, so be it.
If I were told I had to make a change to improve the competitive balance, it would be to count low SES kids as 1/4 or even lower on the beds count. That would treat private and public the same, Solon same ball park as Xavier. It also wouldn't penalize a school for success. But it would give schools like Waterloo East a chance to be a little more competitive because they would be 3A. (They're pretty bad though, and it may be even worse to get throttled by Decorah or Manchester WD). There would be very few schools that would be effected, which is fine, the goal isn't to make it easy for any school, just a little more balance.
If I were told I had to make a change to improve the competitive balance, it would be to count low SES kids as 1/4 or even lower on the beds count. That would treat private and public the same, Solon same ball park as Xavier. It also wouldn't penalize a school for success. But it would give schools like Waterloo East a chance to be a little more competitive because they would be 3A. (They're pretty bad though, and it may be even worse to get throttled by Decorah or Manchester WD). There would be very few schools that would be effected, which is fine, the goal isn't to make it easy for any school, just a little more balance.
I would agree most want a competitive balance how we get or even if we should is the argument I am not sure the state cares other than a lot of voices complaining about the privates
I doubt anything subtative will happen.
Privateer to
I doubt anything subtative will happen.
Privateer to
This is ridiculous. Call it what you want, but moving up a class is almost always more difficult. So, because a program has some success, you're suggesting that the state make winning a little tougher for them in the future? That's sounds an awful lot like punishing a school for daring to be good at something, and making it easier for the less successful programs. That's not the kind of message I think the state should be sending.
If this were a professional sports league, I'd probably be more willing to consider your plan. But these are high school sports. Talent, at nearly every school (public or private), ebbs and flows. Telling Kuemper they've got to move up because they won a title isn't fair to them, especially when they were likely a one-shot Johnny in the first place (TONS of seniors last year). Only a handful of schools have been consistently at or near the top for the last decade or more. Most of them enjoy a few years of great success before falling back. I would bet that Regina's streak comes to an end this year, and I think they might take a significant step back after Cook and Co. graduate.
You can't realistically base classifications on talent or recent success, because the odds are far too high that a great team will lose most of its horses from year to year. Asking a Kuemper/Regina/etc. to compete up a class when they might not have as good of a team the following year isn't fair at all. There have been schools that chose to play up a class; that's always an option. If a school wants to take on that challenge, they're more than welcome to. But they should be forced into facing tougher competition simply because they earned a lot of success in the class they're already in.
I'm not talking just about state champions. I am talking about evening out the classes. I was just suggesting tweaking it so let's say there would be some flexibility between largest say 10% of one class and hte smallest say 10% of the other class. That would make the classes more competetive IMO. For example, Maq Valley would be able to compete for a district title in 1A just as easily as they wil lin A. Sure, their path to the dome wil be much easier now not having to go through Regina, but I doubt you would hear a lot of people from Delhi complain if there was a new formula to keep them in 1A. It's not about punishing state champions or preventing certain schools from winning championships. It's about having better games on Friday nights and allowing more of the "Haves" to play more of the "Haves" and more of the "Have Nots" play more of the "Have Nots" . But i can completely understand the argument coming from the "Haves" who enjoy playing more of the "Have Nots".
So Xavier's 8 state championships in a row in girls soccer is one heck of a long cycle, do you think they would be competitive if they jumped up a class? Remember, they play the big schools during the regular season and then drop for their state run... Same with basketball, track, xc, etc.
Heck, I spent my entire high school career (in every sport) competing for the "have nots". The only sport my school was any good at was basketball, and even then, we never made it to state or anything. So trust me, I'm not someone who's afraid to see my alma mater stop winning titles. I just don't see how bumping Regina/etc. up a class is going to change much of anything.
But looking at the 2013-14 BEDS numbers, your plan wouldn't change all that much.
The bottom 10 percent of 4A was where Xavier, Assumption and Wahlert were already at, because they are 3A-sized schools that chose to compete in 4A. So go ahead and keep them in 4A, if we're operating under your plan, and drop say Hoover, Davenport North and Lewis Central. That seems to work out just fine for almost everyone (save for Wahlert, since they haven't been very good in 4A).
But look at 3A. The schools that are consistently at or near the top, are actually quite a ways down the enrollment list. Heelan, Harlan, Solon, Clear Lake and Decorah are nowhere near being in the largest 10 percent. Schools like Newton, Norwalk, Boone and Denison-Schleiswig are at the top of 3A enrollment. And most of them aren't that good. Same seems to hold true at the top of 2A; pretty much none best schools lie inside the top 10 percent.
In 1A, Regina would get bumped up, but then things likely go back to the way they were when Regina was in 2A. Meaning that St. Albert is the dominant figure once again. Emmettsburg, Dike and St. Edmond would all still stay in 1A, too.
There is no perfect way to do this. The system we have in place does about as well as any other system could do in achieving a level playing field. And even going with your more flexible plan, there will always be schools that are just one or two bodies away from that 10 percent cutoff. And a very big chunk of the state's premier programs aren't among their class' biggest schools.
Every year you have teams on top or bottom of a class. 2009 We, BHRV would have been better off playing Harlan than Solon in the final. Sometimes moving up is an advantage. West Lyon in 2010 was one of the smallest 1A teams. 2013 WL team was one of the largest A schools. Could have they competed at the 1-A/2-A and probably the 3-A level? We punish teams because the coaches and kids had a little more talent and worked a harder than others? Many times it comes to health especially in football, but even in basketball. Sorry, one of the dumbest suggestions since I've been on here. Punish the teams because they have more talent and have worked harder. I'd love to be on that committee who determines who should go up.
Right now, there are kids at Regina in Elementary and Junior High that go to the games every Friday night, looking up to those high school kids playing and seeing how hard they work to be their best. And, people want to penalize those young kids because of the success that the current high school players are accomplishing?
It just wouldn't be right or fair.
It just wouldn't be right or fair.
Some people on this site just don't get it.If a program is successful there has to be an underlying reason for that to happen.A team that wins is totally denying another from from that same outcome . Therefore the only solution is to waterdown a product to achieve total parity.I look forward to a day when West high soccer, Xavier girls soccer,Regina football,Western Christian hoops will be mediocre each an every game.Only then can I FEEL good about all teams all the time.
Very sound reasoning regarding the ebb and flow of competition, especially considering we have had a new champion in every class the last 3 years except for Regina. The current state of high school football appears to be highly competitive and balanced (* private schools in bold below).
2013
4A Dowling vs. X
3A Heelan vs. Washington
2A Kuemper vs. Waukon
1A Regina vs. St. Edmund
A West Lyon vs. BGM
8M Don Boscoe vs. Exira
2012
4A Ankeny vs. X
3A Decorah vs. Heelan
2A Spirit Lake vs. Mediapolis
1A Regina vs. St. Albert
A Wapsie vs. Hinton
8M MMC vs. Don Boscoe
2011
4A Valley vs. Bett
3A Union vs. Decorah
2A Regina vs. Spirit Lake
1A St. Ansgar vs. St. Albert
A Lisbon vs. W Hancock
8M Fremont-Mills vs. Murray
Granted, the private schools won nearly every class last year, but new champions will emerge next year. IMO 2013 will be an outlier and the private schools will not be as strong next year. For instance, Xavier is an interesting case and there has been a great deal of discussion about Xavier's move down. In 2013 Xavier's beds were only 530, but they had the largest roster (90) and the most seniors (40) and the most D1 athletes (3) on their roster of any other Iowa program. With the departure of talent, IMO they will not even advance far in the play-offs at the 3A level and will struggle against 1A Regina.
Now, speaking of Regina...why isn't it ever mentioned on these boards that their greatest competitive advantage is their coaching staff. Marv Cook is a former all-pro tight end, playing seven seasons total with 3 teams (Patriots, Bears, Rams) and had a Hall-of-Fame career with the University of Iowa. Defensive coordinator Jason Dumont, offensive coordinator Ed Hinkel, Alex Kanellis and Jake Reisen all played for the Hawkeyes. Defensive line coach Mike Brinkman played at UNI. Kevin Stout, who a defensive coach that works with the secondary was on state championship teams at West Branch before playing college ball. Assistant Tom Nosbish has been a varsity head coach. Regina's winning ways attract higher participation and creates sustainable program success. All that said, you would think they would move themselves up a level in search of greater competition.
Lastly, it's a shame that Valley's enrollment numbers aren't mentioned more as being an unfair competitive advantage. Can you image playing Valley if you are North Scott, Hoover or Lewis Central? Valley has Beds of 2,140, three-times the size of those other schools and twice as large as Dowling. When Valley won the 4A championship in 2011, they had a roster of 81 with 45 being seniors (huge, athletic, highly talented seniors).
This post was edited on 4/4 4:20 PM by RedAgentRadar
2013
4A Dowling vs. X
3A Heelan vs. Washington
2A Kuemper vs. Waukon
1A Regina vs. St. Edmund
A West Lyon vs. BGM
8M Don Boscoe vs. Exira
2012
4A Ankeny vs. X
3A Decorah vs. Heelan
2A Spirit Lake vs. Mediapolis
1A Regina vs. St. Albert
A Wapsie vs. Hinton
8M MMC vs. Don Boscoe
2011
4A Valley vs. Bett
3A Union vs. Decorah
2A Regina vs. Spirit Lake
1A St. Ansgar vs. St. Albert
A Lisbon vs. W Hancock
8M Fremont-Mills vs. Murray
Granted, the private schools won nearly every class last year, but new champions will emerge next year. IMO 2013 will be an outlier and the private schools will not be as strong next year. For instance, Xavier is an interesting case and there has been a great deal of discussion about Xavier's move down. In 2013 Xavier's beds were only 530, but they had the largest roster (90) and the most seniors (40) and the most D1 athletes (3) on their roster of any other Iowa program. With the departure of talent, IMO they will not even advance far in the play-offs at the 3A level and will struggle against 1A Regina.
Now, speaking of Regina...why isn't it ever mentioned on these boards that their greatest competitive advantage is their coaching staff. Marv Cook is a former all-pro tight end, playing seven seasons total with 3 teams (Patriots, Bears, Rams) and had a Hall-of-Fame career with the University of Iowa. Defensive coordinator Jason Dumont, offensive coordinator Ed Hinkel, Alex Kanellis and Jake Reisen all played for the Hawkeyes. Defensive line coach Mike Brinkman played at UNI. Kevin Stout, who a defensive coach that works with the secondary was on state championship teams at West Branch before playing college ball. Assistant Tom Nosbish has been a varsity head coach. Regina's winning ways attract higher participation and creates sustainable program success. All that said, you would think they would move themselves up a level in search of greater competition.
Lastly, it's a shame that Valley's enrollment numbers aren't mentioned more as being an unfair competitive advantage. Can you image playing Valley if you are North Scott, Hoover or Lewis Central? Valley has Beds of 2,140, three-times the size of those other schools and twice as large as Dowling. When Valley won the 4A championship in 2011, they had a roster of 81 with 45 being seniors (huge, athletic, highly talented seniors).
This post was edited on 4/4 4:20 PM by RedAgentRadar
Agree with the statement. You can take out Regina and put a whole bunch of other schools in there and it would be the same thing.
We are talking competitive balance. Play the scenario out and it makes sense more so than balancing competition by bed numbers. If you want to believe playing a more difficult schedule is a punishment than we have to part ways because we don't have common ground. Again this is just getting a competitive balance.
You do know what you sound like when you claim you can compete for a title a higher classes then start whining if someone would suggest that you should?
You do know what you sound like when you claim you can compete for a title a higher classes then start whining if someone would suggest that you should?
Similar threads
