Auggie
Well-known member
Actually you hear much more passionate squaking about this issue on the girls boards then boys, that is why it is kind of funny that one of the dominating public sports is fast pitch softball.
Anyone paying attention?
- Thread starter CatAlum
- Start date
Actually you hear much more passionate squaking about this issue on the girls boards then boys, that is why it is kind of funny that one of the dominating public sports is fast pitch softball.
just a fan
Success is Tradition!
I disagree. The issue has resulted in multi page threads in the football forum several times a year since I joined Yappi (2001). Also, keep in mind that the number of people who post in the girls' sports forums is tiny compared to the number who post in the football forum.
The only issue that gets debated more often is the location of the football state championship games.
This is getting to be purely semantics. I disagree with your take.
Here's my summary...
Football is the most popular sport and generates the most interest and conversation. As a result, people frequently discuss this issue with football as a backdrop and a focus. BUT, everyone who talks critically on the anti-private side of the argument are pressing across the board solutions. No one makes distinctions. They want an across the board solution and MOST OF THEM BELIEVE THERE IS AN ACROSS THE BOARD PROBLEM.
Football isn't even a particularly good example of an imbalance. I understand the percentages of public and private teams. In football, the publics win more titles than the privates...not by a lot, but they do. Those who argue that privates should only win 15% can point to football, but that's a silly argument IMO.
The better examples of an imbalance are wrestling, hockey, swimming, and for the girls...basketball, soccer and volleyball.
Privates are doing at or below what some might consider "normal" (whatever the heck that means and I don't subscribe to it, but whatever)...softball, boys' track, girls' track, boys' basketball, gymnastics.
Here's my summary...
Football is the most popular sport and generates the most interest and conversation. As a result, people frequently discuss this issue with football as a backdrop and a focus. BUT, everyone who talks critically on the anti-private side of the argument are pressing across the board solutions. No one makes distinctions. They want an across the board solution and MOST OF THEM BELIEVE THERE IS AN ACROSS THE BOARD PROBLEM.
Football isn't even a particularly good example of an imbalance. I understand the percentages of public and private teams. In football, the publics win more titles than the privates...not by a lot, but they do. Those who argue that privates should only win 15% can point to football, but that's a silly argument IMO.
The better examples of an imbalance are wrestling, hockey, swimming, and for the girls...basketball, soccer and volleyball.
Privates are doing at or below what some might consider "normal" (whatever the heck that means and I don't subscribe to it, but whatever)...softball, boys' track, girls' track, boys' basketball, gymnastics.
Girls' track last ten years...21 public state champs, 9 private state champs; boys' basketball last ten years...27 public state champs, 17 private state champs.
Last edited:
multisportdad
Well-known member
You lost me on your analysis. Is 15% (from previous post) the number of private schools in Ohio?
If so, then 9/30 (girls' track) was won by 30% private, and 17/44 (boys' basketball) was won by 38.6% private.
If we use 15%, then girls' track should have 4 or 5 state champions, and boy's basketball should have 6 or 7.
Perhaps I misunderstood your post, or don't have the right numbers. What am I missing? Thanks.
dad: 15% is roughly the percentage of private schools in the total of all ohsaa schools. Some (not me) would argue that privates should only be winning about 15% of the state titles. Personally, I don't think anyone should even take note until the privaes are winning more than about what they win in boys' basketball (35-40%). The reason...there are a large number of public schools (maybe 30-40% of all publics) that will not/cannot compete for state titles. They are lower middle class and poor districts. While privates are not uniformly rich, there are no private school counterparts to the public school underclass. So, realistically, when it comes to state titles, privates have about 30-40% of the total schools.
So, if you put the "line of concern" at about 40% private state titles, the whole situation looks quite different.
just a fan
Success is Tradition!
While I agree with your point to an extent, there are some of the lower middle class and poor district teams have won state titles (McKinley, Warren Harding, Glenville, Northland, Trotwood, CAPE, Winton Woods, Middletown, etc.) and others have played in title games.
Keep in mind, also, there are many private schools as well as suburban schools that will not/cannot compete for state titles.
So, if you want to knock out all of the city schools that can't compete, you also have to knock out the suburban/private schools that can't compete. Will you still have 15% of them being private schools? I have no idea. I just know that it's not just lower SES school districts that have no chance of winning a state championship.
multisportdad
Well-known member
I pulled the financial figures for the 6 schools that won the state championships in track this year. You made mention earlier that all 6 were public, so I figured that was a good a place to start as any.
The median family income in Ohio is 47K and the median house value in Ohio is 140K. The data may be a year old, but I don't think that would have a significant impact.
North Robinson Colonel Crawford income 37K, house 84K
Versailles 43K/132K
Pemberville Eastwood 62K/153K
Cleveland Collinwood no figures, and I know nothing of this school. This school is part of Cleveland Metropolitan School district. My guess is since it CMS, it probably isn't above the medians, but I could be wrong.
Reynoldsburg 61K/170K
Warren G Harding 32K/78K
Would you consider 43K/132K poor? What about 37K/84K? Or mayber 32K/78K?
What I am having difficulty in understanding is you want to exclude schools from the disadvantaged count because they are, well, disadvantaged.
I think track is an exception to the general rule.
I'm not just making up the wealth thing. Sports Illustrated had a very scholarly article 4-5 years ago on the clear advantage that wealthy high schools have GENERALLY over poorer schools...and the trend was increasing.
As for disadvantaged privates (from jaf's comments)...the number of private schools that can't compete or never compete in anything is pretty tiny.
I'm not just making up the wealth thing. Sports Illustrated had a very scholarly article 4-5 years ago on the clear advantage that wealthy high schools have GENERALLY over poorer schools...and the trend was increasing.
As for disadvantaged privates (from jaf's comments)...the number of private schools that can't compete or never compete in anything is pretty tiny.
multisportdad
Well-known member
Ok, I get it now.
You can use track as an example that privates do not win their proportionate share because it is less than this arbitrary 40% figure derived because of poor schools that will never win a state championship. You can also use track as proof that privates do not dominate since all 6 state championships were public schools.
I, however, cannot not use track as an example that poor public schools can win a state championship, since it is an exception to the general rule.
Perhaps softball is also an exception to the general rule?
I never said that poor public schools can't win a state title. I did say that it goes against an overall trend...and I do think there are some things unique to track that make it more likely.
multisportdad
Well-known member
Man, I have to work on my reading comprehension. I really thought when you said this (post 37):
I thought that meant that poor public schools can't compete and cannot win state titles. I guess the schools that won the track titles, that are in poor districts, are just more exceptions to the rule. Or that a small number of the large number of poor public school districts can win....but the rest can't. But then, how do you identify which of those schools qualify as the small number, and which qualify as the part of the large number only?
Anyway, I am way more interested in why you think track is unique. Please elaborate on this thought for me.
sportster57
Member
I think we all know what he means...need we go there?
I'll try to say this nicely. I would encourage you to read my comments again.
I did not say "They are ALL of the lower middle class and poor districts."
I believe that both comments can be true. If you're having trouble with that, I recommend you take yourself up on improving your English comprehension.
multisportdad
Well-known member
Thanks for being so civil, and being concerned with my ability to comprehend written thoughts. I promise to return the favor.
You’re right, you don’t say ALL. But let’s break it down, shall we?
You propose that there are a large number of schools that cannot compete for a state title. Fair enough. You then offer the explanation as to why they cannot compete; that ‘they are lower middle class and poor districts’. Since you do not qualify the explanation, and following the If A then B construct of logical arguments, then your argument becomes ‘If a school is lower middle class and poor, then they cannot compete for a state title’. This means that ANY school that is lower middle class and poor, then they cannot compete for a state title, and from which I can logically derive, ‘ALL schools that are lower middle class and poor cannot compete for state titles.
Note I am not agreeing with your argument, just showing you what argument you are making by the words you wrote.
Had you really meant to say that a poor public school could win a state title, then you would have qualified the explanation. Maybe something like ‘They are the MAJORITY of the lower ….’.
I’ll try to say this nicely. Perhaps in the future you should be more careful in the wording you use, so that others can better follow your arguments.
Anyway, that’s all under the bridge now…..
I am way more interested in why you think track is unique when it comes to poor public schools winning state titles; please enlighten me on why this is so.
Your interpretation of what I said...it isn't what I said. In any event, I've said more. If you want to carry it on, you'll have to do it alone.
As for why poor school districts can do well in track...I don't know. You did a fair amount of work on this. Collinwood has never, ever, come close to winning anything but girls' track and they've won several of those. Part of why they win is that they have a very good coach but we all know that coaches, even the good ones, need talent to win. Why do you think Collinwood does so well in track and not, say, in volleyball or golf or hockey or girls' soccer or boys' soccer or even football or lacrosse or field hockey or even girls' and boys' basketball?
Any thoughts?