All right, I am done with this. Arguing with you is pointless. You continue to ignore my larger point while taking smaller ones out of context to forward your agenda. I thought you might have wanted to have a legitimate conversation on fairness in high school basketball at all levels, but you don't appear to want to go down that road. Probably because it doesn't fit your agenda. You have convinced yourself that all private schools are just athlete factories and nothing anyone says will dissuade you from that idea. Your implication that any school would deny students in order to control their enrollment and stay a class down athletically is so incredibly asinine. I would say it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard on this topic but you already have a couple other doozies in this thread to compete with it. Seriously, educate yourself on how private schools in Iowa actually function then maybe we can have a discussion. I doubt that will ever happen.
Xavier Transfers
- Thread starter Hawksince73
- Start date
Dude, are you serious? Lol. You must be naive if you don't think athletics is a reason schools keep their enrollment down. You have to be blind to the world, and never had a conversation with any coaches or athletic directors.
Nobody ever said private schools are just athlete factories. Private schools are great schools, and we have some fantastic ones here in Iowa. But everybody knows they have a major advantage, and once again, you'd have to turn a blind eye to realize it. I know you don't want to accept it as truth, because you have ties to a private school, but it is just that. Truth. Maybe it's a hard truth to handle, especially for someone with ties to a private school, but it's the truth. And hopefully the powers that be can separate themselves from any bias they have, look at the problem in depth, and come up with a solution.
Honestly, if I were to go to a school like Xavier, who is towards the top of 3A just on numbers, not even taking into consideration the private school thing. And I'm playing all these 4A schools during conference play, and rivaling with the Cedar Rapids and Dubuque schools. Why would I even want to drop to 3A during postseason play and beat up on smaller public schools? Blowing through districts by 35 points doesn't sound as fun to me as being able to knock out a rival school.
That was a great game the year that Xavier made the finals, one of the best games I ever saw. What did you think of it Never reads?
Since Xavier has been back in 3A they have been exclusively knocked out by Wahlert, and in both years it was widely recognized as the real championship game. So if you're trying to make that argument, it would sure help if they weren't unbeaten in the postseason against public schools since they've dropped back down (and spoiler alert before you check: so is Wahlert in that time.)
Here are the top 5 teams in 3A for the last five years according to BCMoore rankings...Private schools are in bold, and lets note out of the 64 teams in 3A, I think there are about 4 private schools that compete (maybe only 3 when Xavier was 4A), but you can correct me if I'm wrong on that.
2016 (this year): 1. Wahlert 2. Xavier 3. Pella 4. WSR 5. Harlan
2015: 1. Wahlert 2. Xavier 3. Pella 4. WSR 5. LeMars
2014: 1. Wahlert 2. Harlan 3. Xavier 4. WSR 5. DCG
2013 (Xavier in 4A): 1. Assumption 2. MOC 3. Heelan 4. WSR 5. Harlan
2012 (Xavier in 4A): 1. Assumption 2. MOC 3. Mt. Pleasant 4. Epworth 5. Heelan
Since you've made it a point to just turn your back to any solutions, I want to ask you this. Why do you think private schools are so much more successful than public schools in Iowa and around the country? And what do you propose the state do to fix the problem? Or are you in the position of, "My school benefits from the unfairness, so they should do nothing about it."
I don't have anyone at Xavier or in 3A, I thought you said we were keeping the discussion to those things. That being said, your one sided emotion based posting filled with bias makes it almost impossible to have a legitimate conversation. Have I admitted both advantages and disadvantages? Yes, have you? No, you have not, you make completely unfounded claims that schools keep kids out to protect their BEDS count, the 'coaches and administrators' you speak of that claim this I find difficult to believe and either made up or come out of the mouths of someone who can't run a program that can compete with Xavier. My solution? Get better, hire better coaches, use OE like a majority of public schools do. I am sure there are plenty of 'apartments' or 'uncles' to live in or with. Start with closing OE and then look at privates and what they do. Your lack of knowledge on this subject, the funding of private schools and your head in the sand approach to how publics do things is impressive. Start proposing legitimate solutions, look at things from both sides and then maybe a conversation could occur. Not real confident in your ability to do so.
In my opinion, private schools recruiting is a dumb argument. Of course they recruit, they have to! Public schools don't have to recruit because they have boundaries, all kids inside that boundary go to that public school. Pretty easy concept to understand actually.
However, private schools have some big advantages over public schools. The kids that go to private school are kids that are invested in their education and student life. A very high majority of those kids and their families are very involved. There are few low income or special education kids in the private school. The demographic of public schools is very different.
Public schools have a high percentage of kids that could care less about extra curricular events at school, athletics, or otherwise. They don't have the option of denying kids with special needs or kids needing special education. Yet all of those kids count towards the BEDS for public schools. Private schools have a very small percentage of those kids counting against their BEDS. This is the biggest problem with the public vs private argument. It isn't recruiting, harder working athletes, controlling enrollment, luck, or God in my opinion. It is the advantage created by the demographics of public and private schools. Public schools have no choice in their demographic, private schools do. Those kids that aren't involved in school or could care less about athletics aren't applying to private schools, they are in the public schools!
This is why many states have started proposing the multiplier rule. Not sure what the best solution is for Iowa, but denying there is an inherent advantage to the private school demographic is naive. About as naive is to believe that all the private schools recruit and that is why they are successful.
However, private schools have some big advantages over public schools. The kids that go to private school are kids that are invested in their education and student life. A very high majority of those kids and their families are very involved. There are few low income or special education kids in the private school. The demographic of public schools is very different.
Public schools have a high percentage of kids that could care less about extra curricular events at school, athletics, or otherwise. They don't have the option of denying kids with special needs or kids needing special education. Yet all of those kids count towards the BEDS for public schools. Private schools have a very small percentage of those kids counting against their BEDS. This is the biggest problem with the public vs private argument. It isn't recruiting, harder working athletes, controlling enrollment, luck, or God in my opinion. It is the advantage created by the demographics of public and private schools. Public schools have no choice in their demographic, private schools do. Those kids that aren't involved in school or could care less about athletics aren't applying to private schools, they are in the public schools!
This is why many states have started proposing the multiplier rule. Not sure what the best solution is for Iowa, but denying there is an inherent advantage to the private school demographic is naive. About as naive is to believe that all the private schools recruit and that is why they are successful.
Last edited:
This is true and is part of what makes a solution difficult. You have those public schools, usually suburb types of schools that have limited low income, special needs kids as well. I know the school I support(not 3A) brings in a large number of Korean students due to their full tuition paying status so their athletic ability doesn't really help with the BEDS counts. I am intrigued by how Minnesota is approaching the situation. Do you agree that there are disadvantages to the private school model? You I can discuss with, never read not so much
Lol, ok. You are clearly extremely bias in the situation because you support a private school. I am completely unbiased in the situation. "Get better, hire better coaches..." Do you actually think the private schools just have such better coaches and athletes that they dominate purely on merit? In every state? That's a pretty huge coincidence.
A multiplier IS a real solution. Your denial is just proof of your bias. Again, I have no bias for or against any school. I just see the unfair advantage from following the sports, and you honestly would have to turn a blind eye not to see it. I'm still waiting for you to give me any real advantage that public schools have over private schools. I really hope there aren't people in the IHSAA and IGHSAU who are as bias as you towards private schools, because if there are, this problem will continue to occur.
You are cracking me up, you throw out so much garbage it's difficult to know where to start.
Do I think in some sports the coaches are just better? Yes, just like in public schools. Some coaches are just better, have developed better feeder systems, better parental support. It's not mutually exclusive to private schools, see Harlan and Emmetsburgh football, schools that have none of the advantages that you whine about.
'A multiplier IS a real solution'
Perhaps you can answer a few questions.
How many states have put in a straight multiplier? Feel free to list them.
What have the results been in those states? Feel free to list the results you feel are pertinent.
And a real advantage for a public school over a private school. Hmmm, let me see I can go to Kennedy, get a top notch education, get good coaching, get expanded opportunities education and arts wise if I also have an interest in that, compete in the top class of Iowa and pay no tuition.
Or
I can go to Xavier, get a top notch education, get good coaching, play on a football field that might not be great, have some solid expanded education opportunities but not quite as many as Kennedy, play in the 2nd largest class in Iowa. Again not the size or attention that Kennedy would get and if I am out of Parrish pay $9,200 a year or $5,200 a year in Parrish.
So
Let me see if you can understand this(doubtful)
Bigger school, bigger class, more opportunities academically, good coaching
FREE
That is an advantage over having to pay tuition.
I will let you decide whether being required to wear a uniform is an advantage or not.
Last question for you(for now), has a team you have played on or a school you have attended ever played Xavier?
Cid, completely agree with you on the suburban schools which consist of mostly similar demographics as private schools (think Solon, Mount Vernon, Center Point, Ankeny, Pleasant Valley, etc.).. Also, completely agree with you on the enrollment at your school and other private schools. Private schools care about extra-curriculars for sure, but are definitely not turning away a paying customer simply because the student is not an athlete. State titles don't pay the bills, paying customers do so I'm tired of that argument as much as I'm sure you are.
Now, where I will completely disagree with you is your "Get better and hire better coaches" argument. I don't disagree with your premise, schools definitely need good players and good coaches to be successful. However, to say it like that it's almost like <slap myself on the forehead> "Why didn't I think of that? Players and coaches need to get better. Well we'll fix that right now!" Let me provide you with some "facts." Private/wealthy schools don't have to worry about players not having a ride to practice, or choosing to work because they don't just get nice things from mom and dad, or having to babysit their little brother because they live in a single-parent home and mom has to work a double today. Teachers and coaches at these schools aren't battling extreme apathy due to low parent involvement, low parent expectations, poor living conditions and the fact that many kids can't see a light at the end of the tunnel for their lives. These kids don't see the value in "getting better" or "working harder" it just seems like a waste of time because they are destined to be nothing in life. Lift after school? What's the point? I'll go roll with my friends instead. Not only does all of this affect those particular kids, but if affects other kids who are friends with them and develop some of the same habits and attitudes. As for getting all those great coaches, I'm pretty sure Ryan Luehrsmann is never applying for the head basketball gig at Independence or Vinton-Shellsburg. Stu Ordman isn't leaving Jefferson to coach at West Liberty or Wilton. Now, I happen to believe there are some damn fine coaches in public schools (and some bad ones no doubt) and I am not trying to knock them one bit. But I know that top candidates are not looking to move their families or start their families in rural districts or districts with higher rates of poverty unless their family is from the community or the school has had some good tradition. And a head coach is only as good as his assistants, so finding more than one good coach becomes a little easier in places close to metros and that have higher affluence. I know this is the basketball forum, but not every 1A school has 15 (exaggerated) quality guys looking to coach high school football. That makes a difference.
That said, I have a hard time saying "you should be punished because your school has too many kids who come from good, successful families." I find that to be one of our major flaws as a society (poor old me, somebody needs to help make my life more fair). Do I think a multiplier levels the playing field some? Absolutely. Am I for it? I'm not sure. In the meantime I think you will continue to see an increase in transfers and open enrollment to these magnet schools in parents' quest for better opportunities for their kids.
Ok, I'll go one at a time responding to these questions, but first let me point out that your emotional investment into the argument is making you angry, a clear sign of bias.
1. Again, here is a compilation of states and how they handle the argument --> http://highschoolsports.cleveland.c...nal-fight-between-public-and-private-schools/
With states like Texas, there is no problem anymore because the private schools just play amongst themselves when it comes to postseason play. I hope the state doesn't go that route because we don't have that many private schools (if you look at state tournament brackets, you'd think 1/3rd of our schools are private, but I digress).
In Missouri, they have a 1.35 multiplier for non-public schools. The private schools were so dominant (33.2% of championships despite making up only 12% of number of schools), that the private schools who were moved up a class were still winning titles at higher classes. Illinois has a 1.65 multiplier, which levels the playing field fairly well, but apparently they also bump schools up because of success, which I don't really agree with.
2. Your example is naming an advantage that one specific public school has over a different private school. That means nothing to me. I'm asking you to name an advantage that public schools have over private schools (systematic advantages).
Example: Private schools have a systematic advantage over public schools, because their player pool is larger due to a much higher majority of their students being available to play high school sports.
3. No, I didn't go to a school anywhere near Xavier. Once again, I have no bias for or against them, or any other private school. I just realize they (as well as other private schools) have a built in advantage of a higher percentage of their students being eligible for sports.
Xavier is, in reality, a 4A basketball school. They have just as many eligible basketball players as a lot of the 4A schools. If they didn't, they wouldn't be playing in a 4A conference. Same goes for Wahlert, Heelan and Assumption. The player pool they are choosing from is a much higher percentage of their enrollment than the public schools that play in the same class.
You're on the right track here, but remember, this isn't to punish schools who have wealthy kids at all. Multipliers are based on athletic participation rates of private schools vs. public schools. The richness or poorness of the kids isn't the only factor in that number. You also have foreign exchange students, immigrants, kids who go to alternative schools, special education kids, etc... that make up a much higher percentage at the enrollment of public schools.
Have you read the article that you continue to link? Going through the list there are 2 states that have a multiplier like you are proposing, it was 3 but Georgia got rid of theirs, why you ask? It didn't change the success rate. Missouri has seen little to no change in the success rate there. So hang your hat on 2 as the answer you don't want to list. Are there other systems or attempts out there? Sure there are but the straight multiplier hasn't been shown to work.
As far as my 'get better coaches, work harder' comment. I know that isn't the sole answer, that there are obstacles but good coaching can establish the culture that makes lifting after school the thing to do. Watched my kid on a recruiting visit get chuckled at by another Dad because the college coach said the entire team lifts at 6:30 in the morning and my son said 'good I can sleep in' other Dad thought he meant in season and didn't believe when he said 'no year around' It isn't fool proof and can't be 100% but there is a difference. There is a long time Hall of Fame Coach I know who spends more time pissing and moaning when he should be looking at ways to diversify his offense. It works 95% of the time until he faces a defense with the scheme and players and he is stuck with 7 base plays. Some of it is coaching, some of it is advantages, some of it is a good run.
Back to my original answer 2 is the new 'many' or 'most' in some people's eyes. Cracks me up.
If it doesn't change the success rate, then why are you arguing against it? If Xavier is gonna win just as much in the 4A bracket than in the 3A bracket, that is an argument FOR a multiplier, not against it. An argument against a multiplier would be that the private schools would start only winning 5-6% of the championships.
Again, your bias is running your argument. If I was the fan of a private school, and I enjoyed the thrill of beating up on public schools every year in the tournament, I probably wouldn't want change either. But it is the right thing to do. If you don't like multipliers, then maybe the state will look at a separate class for private schools. Then they could recruit all they want and not have to hide it, and everyone would be back to a fair playing field on the public side.
And also, I don't see where you're getting 2 out of that link, unless you just aren't reading it. Here is a list of states that have some sort of a multiplier or just have private schools in a separate class...
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana (this is a "success rate" multiplier, but still the same concept.)
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada (another "success rate" strategy)
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina (different league for schools who give financial aid)
Ohio (starting next school year)
Tennessee (different league for schools who give financial aid)
Texas
Virginia
That's 18 schools that either have a multiplier in place, or have their private schools compete in a different division. I don't know how you keep coming up with two, unless you are only counting Georgia and Missouri, because they are the only two states that seem to support your case in anyway. (Although, I would argue that private schools still winning the same percent after the multiplier actually supports my case more than yours)
Change for change sake? Always a good reason to do things. I tend to favor doing things that make an impact and aren't just a waste of time and money so somebody like you can look at things, hold it up and say 'look we did something, we knew it wouldn't change anything but we spent alot of money doing it anyway' bravo to you, if there isn't any benefit, don't bother.
our
Since you want me to keep shooting at a moving target let me see how I can do. Reading the article you linked and following your 'put in a multiplier' never mentioning success factors, low income measures, separate classes or anything else-because that would make it an unbiased conversation if you kept to your points rather than jumping around. The two states that have a straight multiplier are Alabama and Missouri and neither has seen a change in success rates for private schools. Which if you see my point previous, if nothing will change than why change, but if it makes you feel good about yourself than go for it and make it happen, you aren't going to make it happen on the Iowa Preps board, nor will you garner any support with your methodology or logic. Georgia had a multiplier and removed it. I can go into whether 18 is 'most' or 'many' but less than half is usually not considered 'most' in my world, if it is 'most' for you rock on. Now since you want to change the discussion to success rate multipliers you will need to change your 'non-biased' lack of education based discussion. Please tell me you didn't attend school in Iowa and get taught that 18 is 'most', let me help you out, using your own figures(good work feeding this to me) Most - the majority of, well at least according to Websters. Keep trying.
At this point, you're just angry. You're arguing with emotion, not logic. Understandable since you have a stock in how the private schools fair.
The "wasting time and money" argument is ridiculous. You are completely out of your mind if you think the change wouldn't impact anything. Especially in basketball, it would completely reshape the league. Xavier and Wahlert would be competing in 4A instead of running through eastern Iowa every year until they meet each other (and then the winner of that, usually Wahlert, winning the title).
In the lower classes, schools like Iowa City Regina that dominate in a ton of sports would have better competition in the post season. Boys' basketball wise, 3 of the 8 tournament teams last season were private schools, and 1 was an all boys school. That's half of the state tournament teams having gotten there with an unfair advantage. I could go on and on looking at each sport, and it would make a huge difference in at least one class in every sport.
Last edited:
Illinois has a straight multiplier. Minnesota has a reverse multiplier. They both work. Again, you are only looking at the situations that help your case, another example of bias and emotion.
Public vs private is a simplified way of looking at the issue. It's really an economic advantage that plenty of public schools enjoy just as much (and more in some cases). That is why you'll consistently see the same well off public schools (often surrounding nice, larger towns) have success year after year.
They have parents that are committed, good jobs with disposable income, more playing and training opportunities, access to better coaches, and a community that is invested in their success.
They have parents that are committed, good jobs with disposable income, more playing and training opportunities, access to better coaches, and a community that is invested in their success.
if nothing else, this discussion is entertaining!
thanks guys!
and oh yeah...I see Wahlert got another 6"7" kid transfer in for a year because he wanted a "better education" !
here's an idea ...if you're a private school in an area that's bigger than 50,000 people, then you should have to play in the largest class just like all the schools in that city.
thanks guys!
and oh yeah...I see Wahlert got another 6"7" kid transfer in for a year because he wanted a "better education" !
here's an idea ...if you're a private school in an area that's bigger than 50,000 people, then you should have to play in the largest class just like all the schools in that city.
So I present the fact that multipliers have proven not to change the championship level and I am emotional? Makes perfect sense. Feel free to share my emotion based responses. Your thought that Xavier and Wahlert moving up makes the difference has been proven not to be true in other states. To go slow enough for you to understand(not sure if that is possible) and using your very own logic I will say, the names will change but another private or two will rise up to make things 'unfair' again, know why? Wait for it because you said it 'they are private and will dominate because they are private'
As far as Illinois, their state is a closed boundary state(slowly for you, no open enrollment) the multiplier applies to private schools and all non boundary schools(public). These pesky facts just keep getting me all emotional typing them. I will say you are resilient. Did I miss the part where you addressed the 18= most out of 50? Ahh, didn't think so, time to move the target, better get on it biased man(?).
Cid, you're either just trolling, are willfully being obtuse, or genuinely have no knowledge of education, demographics, or basic laws of sample sizes. Are you really, and I mean genuinely/truly/wholeheartedly, arguing that private schools don't have a built-in, systemic advantage in regards to potential for extra-curricular success and/or "outperforming" like-sized public schools? You can't believe that. Every ounce of available educational research vehemently disagrees with you.
Take recruiting out of the equation; it doesn't matter (and is where public v. private people get lost and hurt their own arguments). The only advantage that matters is population base and school demographics. Regina in IOWA CITY, Xavier in CEDAR RAPIDS, Wahlert in DUBUQUE, Heelan in SIOUX CITY, Assumption in DAVENPORT compete against schools located in population bases 1/10th to 1/100th their sizes. Give me 100,000 widgets and you 1000 widgets, and I'd bet I can select 10 higher quality widgets with random 10 widget selections over the course of several selections (call them school years) than you from the sample of 1000. Now, I'm no more qualified a widget selector or polisher than you (call us coaches), but it appears so because it's easier for me to select.
But, I'm going to be more selective actually. I'm only go to select from widgets which I know don't have any faults, low-quality parts, and come from a factory that prioritizes high-quality widgets. I'm willing to bet that I will win most widget comparisons over the course of the years. You'll surely get some pockets of high quality, and an absolutely amazing widget from time to time, but through no power of my own, I'll still probably win the majority of the time.
The fact is, 35 to 40% of the majority of public schools (Solon, incidentally is an outlier insofar as public school demographics go and not coincidentally, they have achieved tremendous success) are free and reduced lunch students (poverty), special ed (IEP/504/BD), or English Learners: populations least likely to participate in nor achieve success in extracurricular activities, let alone athletics (and please don't respond with intellectually lilliputian "But this one public school or this one kid did this....."). The other fact is, by nature of their mission and structure, private schools don't proportionally serve those populations. Consequently, factoring in population bases and natural demographics, "raw enrollment" figures are inherently skewed and an illogical, faulty way to classify like-sized private and public schools
Private and public schools should be treated differently because they are by nature different; no one with an iota of intellect or honesty can argue otherwise. They have different missions and serve different populations. To treat a rudimentary figure like "Raw Enrollment" as a basis of comparison is laughably illogical and represents a gross misunderstanding of education and science (I'm looking at you Department of Ed. and IAHSAA).
Take recruiting out of the equation; it doesn't matter (and is where public v. private people get lost and hurt their own arguments). The only advantage that matters is population base and school demographics. Regina in IOWA CITY, Xavier in CEDAR RAPIDS, Wahlert in DUBUQUE, Heelan in SIOUX CITY, Assumption in DAVENPORT compete against schools located in population bases 1/10th to 1/100th their sizes. Give me 100,000 widgets and you 1000 widgets, and I'd bet I can select 10 higher quality widgets with random 10 widget selections over the course of several selections (call them school years) than you from the sample of 1000. Now, I'm no more qualified a widget selector or polisher than you (call us coaches), but it appears so because it's easier for me to select.
But, I'm going to be more selective actually. I'm only go to select from widgets which I know don't have any faults, low-quality parts, and come from a factory that prioritizes high-quality widgets. I'm willing to bet that I will win most widget comparisons over the course of the years. You'll surely get some pockets of high quality, and an absolutely amazing widget from time to time, but through no power of my own, I'll still probably win the majority of the time.
The fact is, 35 to 40% of the majority of public schools (Solon, incidentally is an outlier insofar as public school demographics go and not coincidentally, they have achieved tremendous success) are free and reduced lunch students (poverty), special ed (IEP/504/BD), or English Learners: populations least likely to participate in nor achieve success in extracurricular activities, let alone athletics (and please don't respond with intellectually lilliputian "But this one public school or this one kid did this....."). The other fact is, by nature of their mission and structure, private schools don't proportionally serve those populations. Consequently, factoring in population bases and natural demographics, "raw enrollment" figures are inherently skewed and an illogical, faulty way to classify like-sized private and public schools
Private and public schools should be treated differently because they are by nature different; no one with an iota of intellect or honesty can argue otherwise. They have different missions and serve different populations. To treat a rudimentary figure like "Raw Enrollment" as a basis of comparison is laughably illogical and represents a gross misunderstanding of education and science (I'm looking at you Department of Ed. and IAHSAA).
Last edited:
Red, nowhere have I stated that there isn't a systematic advantages for private schools, if I have please point it out. Have never argued that private schools serve a large population of ESL, low or free meal students(more than most would think) or special Ed students.
I have taken recruiting out of my discussions because quite honestly public schools are better at it than privates and should be (come here for free vs. come here for $9k a year) and yes I know of scholarships. I respond to that when people bring it up.
As far as selection of widgets goes there are outliers to look at as well 35 years of Regina football that given your demographic advantage should never have occurred, I am sure there is a study out there that explains how their widgets were different, Is Wahlert great in football? Waterloo Columbus? All have the same widget advantage.
If you follow the discussions you will see I respond when people say that 'most' or 'many' states have a multiplier and that is the answer, factually untrue and proven not to have the results that the public supporters are hoping for. I also respond when someone like 'never reads' checks in from study hall and demonstrates they have less knowledge than even I have.
Red I know you have an interest and background in this field. If you can show where I have said nothing should be done or there aren't advantages for privates please show me that. The multiplier isn't the answer, I challenge the supporters of it to provide a solution, change just to change to give the appearance of caring or of doing something is very government/large company like and really does nothing other than to give the appearance of needing the person proposing the change. I will admit to trolling some of the people with little or no education on the subject. So what do you propose as the solution?
Red is completely right. You are being willfully ignorant. And on top of that, you are getting angry at people who disagree with you, and attempting to use personal insults (poorly). You have no place in this discussion because of your extreme bias towards your own private school.
No, this has nothing to do with economics. Private schools just have a much higher percentage of kids who can play sports. The argument towards a multiplier/reverse multiplier isn't about punishing schools for having nice facilities, or kids with more money.
I am enjoying your lack of addressing the facts that I present. You haven't really presented much other than you want a multiplier, whether it has been proven to work or not. Feel free to show my 'anger' or 'bias' in this discussion. If you follow your pattern you won't, your other pattern of not offering anything new or valuable to this discussion will more than likely continue as well. This presenting facts and being portrayed as emotional or biased is rather amusing.
Your "facts" are just talking points that you are hanging onto. Like that multipliers don't "work" because of the results from a couple of states that have used them (despite the success of multipliers in other states).
And your bit about "Let me go slow for you so you can understand" is nothing more than steaming. You can tell someone is losing an argument when they start douching out like that.
The majority of people here seem to know a multiplier is the way to go. I will look forward to reading your angry ramblings when it happens.
Please show some facts from other states demonstrating the success of multipliers.
Will it be long?
Last edited:
Dude, there are articles all over about it. You refuse to look at the right side of the argument. I'm sick of explaining it to you while you whine. If anyone would like to discuss it from an unbiased position, that would be great, but obviously cid is incapable of doing so.
There aren't a bunch of articles about the success of the multiplier.
Will you be sharing any facts demonstrating the success of the multiplier? A simple yes or no will do. The burden of proof is on you as the one requesting a change.
I will patiently wait for your response.
Indiana Tournament Success Factor
Here's a look at how the Indiana "Tournament Success Factor" has "worked" in the last 3 years, focusing mostly on one private school.
Public vs. Private
Here's a study done showing how the Tournament Success Factor has impacted the classifications and outcomes of schools through different sports. I like this one because it goes in depth and really shows the disparity of private school vs. public school success in all sports.
The plain fact of the matter is that some schools simply don't belong in their respective class. Wahlert and Xavier don't belong in 3A basketball while Regina does not belong in 1A football. Therefore, I like this system better than a multiplier. It allows Wahlert to compete in 3A for football, while moving to 4A in basketball (not educated on their success in other sports) or Regina to move up to 3A (most likely) in football but stay 1A/2A in other sports. Like any solution it has its downside, however. For example, if a school that is traditionally average to above average gets its "once in a generation" class to come through and win a state title they would be forced to move up a class the next two years with talent that may not be as equipped to compete at a higher level. A team like Mediapolis in football or Mt. Vernon in basketball from a few years ago come to mind. It does place schools that experience success year-in-year-out with proper competition though.
Here's a look at how the Indiana "Tournament Success Factor" has "worked" in the last 3 years, focusing mostly on one private school.
Public vs. Private
Here's a study done showing how the Tournament Success Factor has impacted the classifications and outcomes of schools through different sports. I like this one because it goes in depth and really shows the disparity of private school vs. public school success in all sports.
The plain fact of the matter is that some schools simply don't belong in their respective class. Wahlert and Xavier don't belong in 3A basketball while Regina does not belong in 1A football. Therefore, I like this system better than a multiplier. It allows Wahlert to compete in 3A for football, while moving to 4A in basketball (not educated on their success in other sports) or Regina to move up to 3A (most likely) in football but stay 1A/2A in other sports. Like any solution it has its downside, however. For example, if a school that is traditionally average to above average gets its "once in a generation" class to come through and win a state title they would be forced to move up a class the next two years with talent that may not be as equipped to compete at a higher level. A team like Mediapolis in football or Mt. Vernon in basketball from a few years ago come to mind. It does place schools that experience success year-in-year-out with proper competition though.
I agree there are a lot of options out there. Never reads has lobbied for a straight multiplier and been asked to support his position. He has either chosen or is unable to do so.
Good find RoundMound. I'm not as into the "success factor" because I wouldn't want them to punish any school for success. It would be nice to see the participation rates from the Iowa private schools vs. Public schools and use that to find a proper multiplier/reverse multiplier number.
I have, as have others in this thread. You are emotionally involved, which is why you can't see reality.
Similar threads
