Anyone paying attention?
- Thread starter CatAlum
- Start date
Auggie
Well-known member
Hint: I don't think you would find any reference to Mary in the names of the schools.
BTW Here is another thing to chew on:
Most State Tournament Softball Appearances
14 - Tallmadge (1981-82-83-85-87-88-89-90-93-95-97-98-99-09)
12 - Jeromesville Hillsdale (1978-79-81-84-86-92-94-95-96-99-00-07)
11 - Akron Springfield (1978-88-89-90-91-92-93-94-95-96-05); LaGrange Keystone (1992-94-96-97-98-99-01-03-04-05-06)
10 - Strasburg-Franklin (1987-88-89-90-91-92-95-02-04-09); Portsmouth West (1986-87-88-89-98-99-00-01-02-03)
9 - Portsmouth Clay (1978-79-80-81-83-84-86-88-07)
8 - Convoy Crestview (2000-01-03-05-06-07-08-09); Akron Archbishop Hoban (1983-84-85-86-87-91-92-07)
Looks like the playing field is not very level.
Yes
There is only one Catholic school list- Akron Archbishop Hoban....
So on this forum we don't see all the complaining about "private schools stealing all the glory" like we do on the boys and girls basketball, football, baseball, and volleyball forums.
Any theories on why this is the case? Travel softball in the summer is as big (or maybe bigger) than AAU basketball or volleyball.
I will offer mine- Most girls I know seem to care more about their summer travel teams than the high school team, and since the season is only 6 weeks long (unlike basketball) don't pick a school based on softball. So the schools with good feeder programs do best. That is what appears to be the common thread among all those teams listed.
There is only one Catholic school list- Akron Archbishop Hoban....
So on this forum we don't see all the complaining about "private schools stealing all the glory" like we do on the boys and girls basketball, football, baseball, and volleyball forums.
Any theories on why this is the case? Travel softball in the summer is as big (or maybe bigger) than AAU basketball or volleyball.
I will offer mine- Most girls I know seem to care more about their summer travel teams than the high school team, and since the season is only 6 weeks long (unlike basketball) don't pick a school based on softball. So the schools with good feeder programs do best. That is what appears to be the common thread among all those teams listed.
It's just another example of a sport NOT dominated by the privates. You know (because you read my stuff) that there are many other examples (boys' track, gymnastics, boys' basketball, even football).
The POINT...the picture isn't all gloomy for publics and all rosy for privates. It's more complex than that. Those who advocate meat cleaver approaches, "one size fits all" solutions, also know that.
The numbers in this sport, this year, are actually pretty stunning. The privates are nowhere to be found.
The POINT...the picture isn't all gloomy for publics and all rosy for privates. It's more complex than that. Those who advocate meat cleaver approaches, "one size fits all" solutions, also know that.
The numbers in this sport, this year, are actually pretty stunning. The privates are nowhere to be found.
I never said it was clear cut but to sit and try and deny the CLEAR advantage Private schools have is just a case of serious loyalty blinders. The percentages don't add up in MOST sports.
The numbers this year are stunning in a lot of ways... no one from Cuyahoga/Summit/Portage made the state tourney... that never happens either. It's just an odd year.
The numbers this year are stunning in a lot of ways... no one from Cuyahoga/Summit/Portage made the state tourney... that never happens either. It's just an odd year.
Sounds like you want it both ways.
warriors378
New member
however; there is 2 from Stark and 1 from Mahoning...
CA, you're such the lawyer. Ignore the bulk of evidence and take the one random example that fits your agenda and run with it. Take a look at high school sports overall and the %'s aren't even close to what they should be. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? :shrug:
just a fan
Success is Tradition!
Most state championships:
Akron Springfield - 9
Akron Hoban - 7
Tallmadge - 7
Notice a common factor in that list?
Your comment is ultimately dishonest and disrespectful. You have read my stuff before and you know that's not my point. My information is to respond to the belief by many that the high school sports landscape is dominated by private schools, ACROSS THE BOARD, and, as a result, something is unfair and something must be done about it.
Let's take a closer look at this sport. Interesting. Over the last ten years (four divisions since '01, three divisions in '00), there have been THIRTY SIX (36) public school state champions in girls' softball. There have THREE (3) private school state champions...and NONE since 2004.
Now, when this clown at the Beacon Journal (Dyer) prints his article trying to "stir it up", does he mention that the picture is a little more murky than what happens in girls' basketball? Did he throw in the 29 to 4 advantage that publics have in boys' track? Did he mention the 36-3 advantage that publics have in softball? Did he mention that Brecksville has won the last 5 or 6 gymnastics titles? No...we pick on Cleveland Central Catholic (a school with a mediocre sports history), because Smithville didn't get the state title that they apparently deserved...and, of course, the Central Catholic kids don't "look" Catholic.
ONCE AGAIN...the point is that those who claim that privates have an unfair advantage and that it is proven in the results have to acknowledge that it's true in some sports, not true in others. Do privates win more than their "per capita" share of state titles across all sports? No doubt, yes. In some sports, like girls' basketball and girls' volleyball, the privates are way ahead. In some sports, like football, the privates win more than their per capita share, but the publics win more titles overall, suggesting, at least to a degree, a competitive landscape. In boys' track, in softball, even boys' basketball, the publics are dominant.
If you want to answer why that is and ponder it and consider policy and deliver intelligent opinions, at least start with good data and proper, honest perceptions.
Last edited:
polar_purple
New member
Some numbers to chew on.....
Total softball teams this year: 768
Total public schools: 672 (87.50%)
Total private schools: 96 (12.50%)
By Division...
Division 1: 173 public (93.51%) & 12 private (6.49%)
Division 2: 175 public (90.67%) & 18 private (9.33%)
Division 3: 174 public (90.16%) & 19 private (9.84%)
Division 4: 150 public (76.14%) & 47 private (23.86%)
In the State Tournament:
Publics: 16
Privates: 0
In the Regional Tournament:
Publics: 62
Privates: 2
Total softball teams this year: 768
Total public schools: 672 (87.50%)
Total private schools: 96 (12.50%)
By Division...
Division 1: 173 public (93.51%) & 12 private (6.49%)
Division 2: 175 public (90.67%) & 18 private (9.33%)
Division 3: 174 public (90.16%) & 19 private (9.84%)
Division 4: 150 public (76.14%) & 47 private (23.86%)
In the State Tournament:
Publics: 16
Privates: 0
In the Regional Tournament:
Publics: 62
Privates: 2
Auggie
Well-known member
Must be the water in Summit County?
Isn't there some sort of pitching guru that was based out of the Akron area that coached a lot of these girls and the one thing I think fast pitch fans will agree on the sport is really all about pitching.
You cannot use blanket statements and rules in the public private debate. If privates can assemble these all star teams why hasn't one developed in the big markets of Cleveland, Cincy, & Columbus in this sport? What about track? Gymnastics? Also if these schools adjust enrollment to get into a lower division what about the Regina situation where the school closed because of enrollment issues? I don't think the Notre Dame Nuns wanted a smaller school so they could win basketball titles to the point it closed. Simple solutions like separate playoffs or blanket multipliers to complex situations are not the answer.
Auggie
Well-known member
Using this simple minded logic how do you account for St. Xavier's boys swimming or Hawken's girls swimming dynasties? Ever been to a swim meet? They are basically free with only the family and a few students in the stands.
Without dropping to your level and throwing insults, I will say of course there are exceptions. And no, I've never been to a swim meet, as fun as that sounds.
Without dropping to your level and throwing insults, I will say of course there are exceptions. And no, I've never been to a swim meet, as fun as that sounds.
There's really only one revenue-generating sport...football. Maybe you throw in boys' basketball as another revenue-generator...maybe. In both sports, while the privates do better than their per capita participation, the publics win more state titles.
So, your point isn't much of a point.
Cat - McGal is exactly right. Let's say there are 10 schools and 9 are public and one is private. Just based on math publics should win 90% of the titles. If publics win 70% and privates win 30%, privates are winning more than they should based on numbers. Maybe they have an advantage, maybe they are just better. Maybe they practice harder and have smarter coaches. Who knows. You don't have to win more total titles to have an advantage though, just a higher % of titles than your number of private schools.
OK...let's see where we're at.
mje037 has apparently abandoned the now-discredited point that privates only excel in revenue-generating sports.
MCGal, when offered, simply can't bring herself to agree to the following simple statement...
"While private schools dominate certain sports in Ohio, they don't dominate all of them."
And the corollary to that statement, which MCGal also apparently can't bring herself to agree to...
"People who advocate for a change in the relationship between private and public athletic teams in Ohio should be familiar with the data from all of the sports".
mje037 has apparently abandoned the now-discredited point that privates only excel in revenue-generating sports.
MCGal, when offered, simply can't bring herself to agree to the following simple statement...
"While private schools dominate certain sports in Ohio, they don't dominate all of them."
And the corollary to that statement, which MCGal also apparently can't bring herself to agree to...
"People who advocate for a change in the relationship between private and public athletic teams in Ohio should be familiar with the data from all of the sports".
I didn't say that at all. I said that of course there are exceptions, but in general there seems to be a case that in the higher profile sports (football, boys basketball, girls basketball) private schools win proportionately more than they do in less profile sports.
I also wasn't stating that as fact because I don't have all the numbers, just stating an opinion the all agreed upon point that privates may do better in some sports and worse in others may be money/revenue related. It's all about the money.
I also wasn't stating that as fact because I don't have all the numbers, just stating an opinion the all agreed upon point that privates may do better in some sports and worse in others may be money/revenue related. It's all about the money.
just a fan
Success is Tradition!
If they are advocating for change across all sports, I absolutely agree. But then, I can't say that I've seen anyone advocate for change in any sport except football and basketball. That said, I'm not a fan of separation. I might be okay with well thought out adjustments, but I'm not sure that there is an adjustment that doesn't just shift "advantage."
In general, I think people have a tendency to overstate "advantages" and to oversimplify solutions. And, people tend to ignore history. If you go back far enough, public schools dominated just about every sport. Then private schools dominated many sports, now (I think) the suburban publics have led to a pendulum swing back toward the middle. With the continued growth of suburban schools and the continual increase in tuition for private school education, I think it's a matter of time before we see suburban publics dominate many sports. Are we then going to ask for three state championships....city, suburban, and private?
What a crock.
The change advocates ABSOLUTETLY are advocating for across the board change. Has anyone ever read that someone supports a multiplier in football but not boys' track? Ridiculous. Or that someone supports removing the privates from girls' basketball but not softball. Double ridiculous.
For most deep thinkers on this, the "problem" as they see it, crosses all sports.
just a fan
Success is Tradition!
No, it's not a crock. The people that you are thinking of when you say "change advocates" just aren't the people who I was thinking of. I was only talking about people on Yappi, and people on Yappi aren't advocating for across the board change. For the most part, they don't care about anything but football and basketball, and it's in the football and basketball forums that the topic has been discussed 95% of the time.
If a change were to occur, of course it would be across all sports.....but that doesn't mean that people are advocating for change in all sports. They are advocating for change because of football and basketball.
By the way, there aren't many "deep thinkers" on Yappi.
It's obvious to me that the softball coaches at the private schools do not pay nearly as much attention to recruiting as the basketball and football coaches do.
In fact, the softball results illustrate the fact that the better athletes don't just naturally migrate to the private schools for the "better education" as so many private school apologists would like us to believe.
In fact, the softball results illustrate the fact that the better athletes don't just naturally migrate to the private schools for the "better education" as so many private school apologists would like us to believe.
If you can find a single post on Yappi where someone explicitly advocates for a public-private change in just one sport, please point me to it. Merely because the topic is discussed within the confines of a single sport doesn't mean the advocate supports a change in only that one sport.
Please, find me a thread where someone on Yappi states..."hey, I'm only talking about changing football" or "hey, I'm only talking about girls' basketball".
Here, I'll help you. Go to the following thread on the football site where it's been recently discussed. It's clear...the advocates for a change believe there is an "across the board" problem with the privates that requires an "across the board" solution.
http://yappi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203379
btw...track yesterday...all six team state champs (three boys, three girls) were public schools.
The differences
are many- short season, few long-time coaches, no feeder system. I believe a good feeder system is really the key in baseball/softball. There is no real CYO baseball of nay quality anywhere, unlike basketball, football, volleyball.
The problem is that the whole issue is not as simple as people can say on a short forum.
are many- short season, few long-time coaches, no feeder system. I believe a good feeder system is really the key in baseball/softball. There is no real CYO baseball of nay quality anywhere, unlike basketball, football, volleyball.
The problem is that the whole issue is not as simple as people can say on a short forum.
just a fan
Success is Tradition!
I didn't say that! As I said in my last post, of course any change that would be made would cut across all sports, but people aren't advocating for change because they care about the advantage that private schools have in golf!
They (again, Yappi posters) are advocating for change because of their perception that private schools have an unfair advantage in football and basketball. St. Xavier dominates swimming, St. Edward dominates wrestling, Cincy private schools dominate volleyball. Do you think that's why people are advocating for change?
Football, and to a lesser extent basketball, is driving the advocacy for change. If there was no evidence of an advantage in football and basketball but clear evidence in the other sports, would this issue have feet?