I'm reading a lot of questioning of my opinion but no counter-arguments. If we are going to write off separation, let's do two things:

1) limit athletic eligibility to the county of the private institution, and

2) require financial assistance to be proportional for athletes and non-athletes, i.e. if 10% of the entire enrollment is receiving financial assistance, then only 10% of the athletes can be receiving financial assistance.

 

Another thing; I would love to see a post by a private school supporter at least acknowledging an unfair advantage.

 

Sprock,

I think post #6 constitutes a decent counter argument on many levels;

 

Limiting by county would cause nothing but more chaos, (ie counties are very different and any quantitative attempt to 'equalize' them is impossible

 

I don't think you understand financial aid.

 

How can anyone acknowledge an "unfair advantage", when we don't know what "fair" or "level" is? If it's measured by winning championships, then we will be separating, and re-separating, and re-aligning, based upon different criteria every time. First private and public; then public winners v public losers; then sub winners v sub losers; .....until we get to a point where there are so many championships that there are no losers. At every step, there will be those schools who win more than others and thereby need to be separated.

 

If it's not measured by championships, then what is it based upon? Do we require a certain number of 4.5 to 4.8 40 yrd dash times per school? Weight limits? Height quotas? Each school can have 3 people who can dunk? Each school is allowed 1 golfer with a 75 average, 2 with 80 etc...if a school is missing one of the categories, then we move a kid to another school to even it out, or the other schools have to hold a player out to even it out with the lesser schools?

Can you see the logical insanity of trying to legislate "fairness" or "level" or "neutralizing the potential athtletic pool advantage"?

 

Again, we can't start with restrictions and rules if we don't know what the desired result is. We are being asked to accept that it's unfair. The first question, then, is what does "fair" look like? Once we can agree on that, then regulating it is relatively easy. The truth is, we can't answer that basic question anymore than we can answer a question like "how do we insure that everybody has a 'nice' day. At some point, it's up to each individual and each institution to define their own goals, requirements, values, expectations, and then set about achieving them within the already agreed to set of rules and regulations that define "illegal" and "legal".

 

If we look at the series of events relative to this debate, I think we see that most of the constructive debate has evolved back into simply clarifying and improving the rules and policing of those rules, which most agree on. (Remember, there are a very few actual, documented "cheaters". We can deal with that together as consensus building on that issue is not difficult.

The others, (ie non-constructive debaters imo), have simply decided to not schedule a certain group of schools apparently. They still can't say what the desired result is, or what they actually want it to look like; they just know that they have to do something, I guess?

Isn't it all about the money.

 

Schools that can afford to, whether public or private, pour money into their sports programs to win. Why spend the money, kids want to be associated with a school that is a winner. I believe they enjoy saying they have a championship in swimming or track or lacrosse, etc., but football is higher profile and inspires parents and players alike. The schools pay to win- to get the media attention- to have the parents and kids want to joint the program- to get the best players- to win- to get media attention.......

 

Schools, public or private don't have to recruit outright when they win, people want to be associated with a winner. I believe we are all the same in that regard, public or private. At this point it seems the privates have recognized the value to recruiting (all students) that the investment in sports programs returns.

If you really want to level the playing field (hypothetically). Limit the money.

Set the rule that a program cannot spend over $XXX,XXX on their football program - public or private. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, school board, boosters, alumni - but it all has to be above board and auditable (leave the paper trail). The limit amount can change by class and enrollment. The programs can spend it on field, equipment, coaches salaries, sneakers for the coaches, whatever they think will benefit their program (certain restrictions on player perks). They just can't go over the limit without penalty.

 

I thought I would throw this out there although I think it would be tough to get some schools to raise funds up to the limit - those schools would likely be the bottom dwellers for years to come....., I'm also not sure counties with more than one high school could support such a proposal.

Pep, I'm a newbie to this site . But I'm not nearly as ignorant as you think I am. I've sat on two roundtable discussions as a public school representative with some of the state legislators making the decisions on this topic. I'm not attacking anyone. As a matter of fact, I agree with just about everything said on this thread. My stance, simply put, is either similarly limit the talent pools or separate.

Also, I didn't mention athletic scholarships. But since you brought it up, if you believe athletic prowess is not considered when deciding whether to offer need-based assistance at the big privates, you probably also believe the Jeff County traditional programs get their players through a lottery system.

Sorry if the tone of this post is negative. I picked it up from your condescending response. I hope I can gain your wisdom through reading this forum.

Isn't it all about the money.

 

Schools that can afford to, whether public or private, pour money into their sports programs to win. Why spend the money, kids want to be associated with a school that is a winner. I believe they enjoy saying they have a championship in swimming or track or lacrosse, etc., but football is higher profile and inspires parents and players alike. The schools pay to win- to get the media attention- to have the parents and kids want to joint the program- to get the best players- to win- to get media attention.......

 

Schools, public or private don't have to recruit outright when they win, people want to be associated with a winner. I believe we are all the same in that regard, public or private. At this point it seems the privates have recognized the value to recruiting (all students) that the investment in sports programs returns.

 

 

I have never seen any data that would support a connection between money spent and championships won. (See NY Yankees )

You may be right if you insert the word "support" or "involvement". It would be somewhat unscientific, but I would guess that there is a distinct connection between winning & superior academic performance AND faculty-parent-community support.

 

The fact that we would probably find more support in the communities with more money might be what you're suggesting. However, I don't believe that they are mutually exclusive. That would be more of a social / economic statement. It is true, that the wealthier communities / families have an advantage to the extent that there are more opportunities available to the wealthier kids in the offseason...(camps, personal training, cars, gas money, equipment, etc). But it doesn't take money to go to pep rallies, work on the field, reinforce the values, discipline and expectations of the teachers/coaches, monitor your child's activity, encourage and be involved in work outs and studying, etc etc.

But a connection between school budgets and success, don't exist at the high school level.

Where's LadiesBBall Coach? Straighten me out here....

JustLetMPlay - good post, good points.

I believe nothing more than competing schools should have similar restrictions on where they can go for student-athletes. This is what I believe is "unfair" or "unlevel". The big privates will still have a good chance (maybe the best chance) of landing the strongest and fastest in their area. However, they should not be able to land the fastest and strongest in any area they chose.

Pep, I'm a newbie to this site . But I'm not nearly as ignorant as you think I am. I've sat on two roundtable discussions as a public school representative with some of the state legislators making the decisions on this topic. I'm not attacking anyone. As a matter of fact, I agree with just about everything said on this thread. My stance, simply put, is either similarly limit the talent pools or separate.

Also, I didn't mention athletic scholarships. But since you brought it up, if you believe athletic prowess is not considered when deciding whether to offer need-based assistance at the big privates, you probably also believe the Jeff County traditional programs get their players through a lottery system.

Sorry if the tone of this post is negative. I picked it up from your condescending response. I hope I can gain your wisdom through reading this forum.

 

On the bolded, it is my sincere hope that you do.

 

The financial aid decisions are based upon the number of dependants and the family's financial situation. Rockmom would be able to tell you this in a more effective manner than I, as I have yet to have any children. The information collected by Trinity is sent to a company out of the state with no affiliation to the school other than the fact that they analyze the information and come up with how much aid the family receives.

 

It isn't like we have some secret bunker where we sit there and talk about giving athletes scholarships. And for what it's worth you didn't directly say that, but the implication was there in the comment about the number of athletes allowed to receive financial aid as proportional to the student body. My older brother went to Trinity on account of the financial aid they were able to offer and he played football. He wasn't a big name star, but he didn't do badly. He even ceased playing after 3 years, yet the aid still came.

 

I just detest the notion of being unable to give a student financial aid simply because he happens to be an athlete. I understand the thought of our students receiving scholarships like that, I have heard people claim it for years. Those not affiliated with Trinity, that is.

 

Forgive a condescending tone, I was just being lazy because I didn't want to type out a whole lot of things that I and others have already done in this forum. The same threads seem to pop up in here every few months when people join the site and want to throw their hat into the fray. Which is why I said that most of what you mentioned has aready been addressed here. :thumb:

So it is okay, in the interests of "fairness", to destroy the small private institutions because there are those wh feel they aren't winning their fair share?

 

So it is fair to destroy some public schools because they are asked to compete in a system that stacks so much against them?

 

I still stand by my statement that rural schools who are able to compete, just compete not necessarily win, against the private schools and big urban schools ARE outworking everyone.

 

Last night, I took my son for a bball game in a league in NKY because there is NO OTHER OPTION for us. It was an evening trip for us. 40 minutes up. Arrive 30 minutes early. hour for the game. 40 minutes back. 2 hours and 50 minutes for the one game.

 

For those in NKY, it is a 10 minute trip, hour game and back home 10 minutes after the game.

 

There is more commitment from a rural parent who is trying to set up the situation for their kid to be competitive.

If you really want to level the playing field (hypothetically). Limit the money.

Set the rule that a program cannot spend over $XXX,XXX on their football program - public or private. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, school board, boosters, alumni - but it all has to be above board and auditable (leave the paper trail). The limit amount can change by class and enrollment. The programs can spend it on field, equipment, coaches salaries, sneakers for the coaches, whatever they think will benefit their program (certain restrictions on player perks). They just can't go over the limit without penalty.

 

I thought I would throw this out there although I think it would be tough to get some schools to raise funds up to the limit - those schools would likely be the bottom dwellers for years to come....., I'm also not sure counties with more than one high school could support such a proposal.

Doesn't work.

 

Where do you put in the improvements to facilities? Does that count if one school puts in millions on upgrading their football field?

 

Also, there are a lot of parents who cannot afford to send their child to all the camps and provide all the top notch equipment. Are you planning on limiting what parents can spend? Cause I can tell you Chris Collinsworth at Highlands is going to be spending a lot more on his kids, the camps they can attend and the equipment they have, than I can. He may have his kids involved in speed and offseason conditioning programs.

 

In addition, what about the parents who cannot afford to join the local country club and have their kid playing golf while another family in the district over is a member and can afford a top of the line pro to give lessons to their child at $100 an hour?

 

I just detest the notion of being unable to give a student financial aid simply because he happens to be an athlete. I understand the thought of our students receiving scholarships like that, I have heard people claim it for years. Those not affiliated with Trinity, that is.

 

 

And here you have big advantage that privates have over publics.

 

Child does not want to attend the school district in which they reside.

 

She can choose to go to Private School A that can offer financial aid to help offset the cost of tuition or Public School B that has open enrollment but CANNOT offer financial aid to help offset the cost of tuition.

 

Advantage: privates.

And here you have big advantage that privates have over publics.

 

Child does not want to attend the school district in which they reside.

 

She can choose to go to Private School A that can offer financial aid to help offset the cost of tuition or Public School B that has open enrollment but CANNOT offer financial aid to help offset the cost of tuition.

 

Advantage: privates.

 

I believe that the most any Catholic school can give in tuition assistance is 50% and the vast majority of students receive nowhere near that amount. Most are in the 25% range. So if tuition is $5000 per year (and it is more than that at most Catholic high schools in KY) that is still at least $2500 to 4000 per year in tutition cost. Even though Public school B cannot offer financial aid, I believe the tuition cost would be the same or less for that student to attend Public school B.

I believe that the most any Catholic school can give in tuition assistance is 50% and the vast majority of students receive nowhere near that amount. Most are in the 25% range. So if tuition is $5000 per year (and it is more than that at most Catholic high schools in KY) that is still at least $2500 to 4000 per year in tutition cost. Even though Public school B cannot offer financial aid, I believe the tuition cost would be the same or less for that student to attend Public school B.

 

If 50% and 25% is accurate, probably would be comparable even though I have no clue on what tuition is for a public school.

 

Would be interesting to lineup the tuition costs for the key privates and a couple handfuls of the publics to get an idea of what it is.

 

For example, tuition for an out-of-county student to Manual, I have not a guess.

If 50% and 25% is accurate, probably would be comparable even though I have no clue on what tuition is for a public school.

 

Would be interesting to lineup the tuition costs for the key privates and a couple handfuls of the publics to get an idea of what it is.

 

For example, tuition for an out-of-county student to Manual, I have not a guess.

 

ADA is around $4250...at least it was last year...

So it is fair to destroy some public schools because they are asked to compete in a system that stacks so much against them?

 

My interest in this discussion is purely football related. The private schools haven't dominated the smaller classes so it is a moot point. If the smaller private schools have to face the likes of Trinity and St.X I would think it only "fair" if the smaller public schools have to face Male, Manual, Henry Clay and Highlands on a regular basis, you know to balance it out.

 

That is my point, if you want to compare it use similar examples.

My interest in this discussion is purely football related. The private schools haven't dominated the smaller classes so it is a moot point. If the smaller private schools have to face the likes of Trinity and St.X I would think it only "fair" if the smaller public schools have to face Male, Manual, Henry Clay and Highlands on a regular basis, you know to balance it out.

 

That is my point, if you want to compare it use similar examples.

 

That is fair.