Do Private schools have an athletic edge?

[usatf oldguy]

I like your thinking jolly green building tradition is important whether you are a public or a private school.The more success you have the better the numbers seem to be.That being said however a private has a true edge because the tradition once built attracts from alot bigger base of kids.Inevitably at a public you just have the well run dry a year or so now and then.I know this is a post in football but the edge is there in all sports in public versus private.Lets take a sport I personally like and am involved with alot, track.Milton Hershey I think had won the state title around 13 out of 15 years in AA.Now clearly they have good coaching and great tradition but I think it's the recruiting that is more the edge here.Rarely if ever do you see such domination at a state level by a public school.Once again I think the answer is as easy as going to private school classifications in all sports.Let the privates play public schools if they so wish during the regular season but in the playoffs go to a private school championship.As I have posted before it was done before but for some reason somebody decided to go away from it.I am not suggesting privates cheat but the rules are in their favor and they don't want them changed.Apparently Mr. Cashman has decided to turn a deaf ear on the subject. I believe the only way to get it changed is for enough of the public schools to come forward and complain to the PIAA.

[BlueWhite23]

The private versus public school debate will be an ever-lasting one until something is drastic is done. Although, I agree with D.W.G. in the respect that successful programs are built through tradition. If interest in the program is instilled into young kids, a good majority of them will likely become part of the football program. A 10 or 12 year old kid going to watch some of the most prestigious programs on friday nights (BM, FH, CC, Tyrone, etc, etc) is motivation enough. Also notice that all of these programs are extremely well coached...Salem, Don B., John Franco, Ken Bussard. Kids grow up wanting to one day play for these guys, just like the athletes/brothers/cousins/friends did before them. Tradition is the number 1 factor that contributes to success. Although I disagree with the recruiting practices of private schools and think it gives an unfair advantage, removing them from the playoff pool of teams would not do any good. Just imagine the pairity that would be subsequently lost. No BM or BC in the playoffs? That's not good for the kids or local football in general. The PIAA shold be stricter in terms of recruiting/transferring practices to eliminate discussions like this one. But when all is said and done, it comes down to play on the field. 11 on 11 full speed. The kids decide who wins. Good athletes make a team, not neccesarily if the school is public or private. This past year, I believe even though BM won the D6 championship, as they rightfully earned, teams like CC, Tyrone and Philipsburg-Osceola would've also represented District 6 football very well in the state tournament. Those four teams were all on an elite level and if you were to take the school colors and names away they would all still be elite teams, the fact that some schools were private and some public couldn't be distinguished.

[thetruth22]

I think we can all agree that private schools do some sort of recruiting for sports and for academics, but what we are not looking at is these students are already at a school. Why can McCort talk students into leaving a school they may have been at for 8 years, but publics cant talk them into staying? I think that is an issue.

Now if your suggesting the McCorts of the world give money or jobs to families like colleges do for recruiting than thats a problem.

As i see it recruiting is a 2-way street maybe us publics should do alittle bit more to keep our students put.

[bcc1]

Every year BM puts out numerous adds in the local paper (T.D.) and also TV commercials recruiting kids to attend their school. Whether it be for academics or athletics, it is still recruiting. When you put out TV commercials, billboards, newspaper ads, etc., it is recruitment of some sort. So for anyone to say that the privates don't recruit then they are seriously mistaken. I have never seen a public school take out ads or put out TV commercials pushing the benefits of attending their school.

Is this an unfair advantage, and / or give them an edge?

[vman]

Figured it was time to stir this up....AGAIN!

I think we can all agree that private schools do some sort of recruiting for sports.

Uhhh, no...we don't all agree!

what we are not looking at is these students are already at a school.

This is a fairly BRILLIANT statement!

Why can McCort talk students into leaving a school they may have been at for 8 years, but publics cant talk them into staying?

Uhhh, sure they can!

I have never seen a public school take out ads or put out TV commercials pushing the benefits of attending their school.

Perhaps they should!

[Travo01]

As I said before, I do believe private schools have an advantage just by the fact that anyone can go there regardless where they live. Private schools basically are like running their own business. Why wouldn't they advertise to show people what they offer? No one complains when the employees at these schools pay taxes? Private schools create jobs for people which in turn helps out the economy. So I see no reason why they can't advertise to sell their product.

Until Kids, or more importantly, Parents, stay in one system for all 12 years, this will always be an arguement that will never be agreed upon. Is it fair for kids to go to Catholic Schools fo 8 years, use their system and then go to public high school? Yes!! It is thier choice, as it is for kids to leave public schools and go private. I am for choice and that goes both ways. If I was the McCorts girls basketball coach, I would be a little pissed when 4 of the 5 starters who played for the State Campionship team at Westmont, all played in the Parochial Basketball League for 4 years..

This arguement will go on forever.. That is the reason I am for School vouchers. Then, if your school doesn't work for you, you have more choices where you can go.

[voncap]

Since this discussion has stayed rather civil, I will interject my two cents worth on the subject, and I apologize for the length of the post.

BW 23's comment about athletes making a team is exactly right, and the following is why I think the private schools have an advantage in that area.

These numbers are not backed by an statistics and are definitely debatable. They are only based on my 20+years of being around a public school and knowing the schools population.

In a public school, you have 10% of the enrollment who have some type of mental or physical disability and will never be able to contribute to the athletic programs. You also have another 10% who have severe enough learning disabilities that regardless of how good a coach someone is, they are not likely to get any contribution from that part of the school's enrollment.

The public school enrollment also includes about another 20% of the enrollment that comes from a socio-economical part of society where sports/extra-curricular activities are not considered important or encouraged and are not part of their lifestyle. This is the area that a public school may find that 'diamond in the rough' , but it is unlikely you will keep these kids in your program until they graduate. At some point, a car and a job to pay for the car start to take precedence over sports.
I am not familar with the enrollments in the private schools, but I can't imagine that more than 10% of the private school's enrollment falls into this category.

Since McCort is the school most referenced here I will use their enrollment numbers (160) according to the PIAA website.

At McCort, you start with an enrollment of 160. Based on the above percentages, ten percent of their enrollment will not be part of the pool of potential contributors to their sports programs in any way. That gives McCort a pool of 144 potential athletes to choose from. The first two categories above should never be a factor at a private school.

Now apply the numbers to a similar size public school. Based on the above percentages, forty percent of the public school's enrollment will not likely contribute to their sports program. That gives the same size public school a pool of 96 potential athletes.

Now take those numbers one step further. Let's assume that for every 20 guys in the potential athlete pool you get 1 superstar athlete. A two or three sport athlete who is a stud in one sport and excels in the others. Based on those numbers that gives the private schools 7 athletes of this caliber as compared to 4 at the public school. If you were to break those numbers down to the next level of athlete say a star athlete (not a star in any single sport, but very good in two or three), the numbers increase even more in favor of the private school. I estimate you will probably get 4 of these type of athletes out of every 20 potential athletes. The private school ends up with 28 of these type of players and the public school ends up with 19. At this point, the private school coach is working with 35 exceptional athletes as compared to the public shool coach who is working with 23 exceptional athletes. For every level you drop down, the numbers increase exponentially in favor of the private schools.

Granted program tradition, quality coaching and various other factors all contribute to the success of a program, but the bottom line is you have to have athletes. Comparing those numbers it is easy to see that the private school coach has the better opportunity to succeed.

As I stated earlier any of the numbers above can be debated, but if you look at the theory objectionably, it is hard to dispute the fact that a private school doesn't have an athletic advantage over a similar sized public school.

[Sleepy Floyd]

Do private schools have an athletic edge? Does a bear poop in the woods? Is the Pope Catholic?

These are all questions that a person with average intelligence can answer correctly.

[vman]

Do private schools have an athletic edge? These are all questions that a person with average intelligence can answer correctly.

Avg intelligence ???

Here's classic demonstration of avg intelligence: (Nothing personal von)

These numbers are not backed by an statistics and are definitely debatable.

_ No $hi+

you have 10% of the enrollment who have some type of mental or physical disability and will never be able to contribute to the athletic programs. You also have another 10% who have severe enough learning disabilities that regardless of how good a coach someone is, they are not likely to get any contribution from that part of the school's enrollment.

The public school enrollment also includes about another 20% of the enrollment that comes from a socio-economical part of society where sports/extra-curricular activities are not considered important or encouraged and are not part of their lifestyle.

- HOLY MISINFORMED, STEREO TYPING, LACK OF UNDERSTANDING/CONCERN, SHALLOWNESS!!! If a kid has ADD, ODD, a Learning Disabilities, Dyslexia, etc.. they can't be athletic???? According to the 2000 U.S. Census, there are 49.7 million Americans over the age of four with a disability. That represents 19 percent of the population. Among that 19 percent, 14.3 million Americans have a mental disability .

Then physical disabilities???? Remember Jerome Bettis? Pretty severe asthma sufferer...did okay in college & professionally or are you insinuating that there are 16 kids each at WH, FH & JTWN in wheelchairs? AND SPEAKING OF KIDS W/ DISABILITIES, READ THIS:

A Gripping Tale
Huntingtown Wrestler Jenifer Never Lets His Birth Defect Keep Him Down



Staring at the last chocolate chip cookie in front of him, Trevon Jenifer is contemplating his discipline. How, like all of his teammates on Huntingtown High School's wrestling team, is Jenifer going to make weight, especially if he wants to wrestle at 103 pounds, the lightest class on the team?

"Everybody's trying to lose weight," Jenifer tells a group of friends sitting nearby at a recent Huntingtown basketball game. "But I've got to gain weight, like eight, nine pounds."

Trevon Jenifer, in a match against Jonathan Phills of Oxon Hill, draws a crowd whenever he wrestles. "The whole stage stops to watch this kid," says Jim Johnson, a referee who has worked other matches but is not pictured here.

Jenifer laughs and chomps into the cookie. That's taking one for the team. Then he plants his hands down on the first row of bleachers, levels his torso into his wheelchair parked on the gym floor, and whizzes to get another cookie.

Jenifer, 16, was born without any legs, the result of a condition called congenital amputation, in which a part or entire limb is missing at birth. Jenifer's 95-pound body ends at his hip sockets.

And that's where his story begins.

Wheelchair track and basketball, Jenifer's hobbies the past 10 years, allowed him the rush of a sport, yet failed to offer him the contact he yearned for from athletics. So he decided to try wrestling this season. Going into tonight's home match against Thomas Stone, the junior has forged an 8-7 record with a combination of balance and upper-body strength that has helped him overcome his condition.

"This kid is utterly amazing. I was just awestruck," said Jim Johnson, who officiated one of Jenifer's matches last month. "I've been refereeing since 1968. I coached [wrestling] at the Maryland School for the Blind [from 1979 to '84] and, let me you, this kid tops all of that.

"It was thrilling to watch him. I was at a point where it was hard to maintain the objectivity of being an official, instead of just watching to be entertained."

According to Mitch Hull, director of national teams for USA Wrestling, while the sport has a history of athletes with similar disabilities, he is unaware of another current high school wrestler like Jenifer.

"Somebody with these types of handicaps has been eliminated from team sports," said Hull, who, in 1989 at Purdue University, coached Terry Kissel, who lost his left leg in a farming accident as a youth. "Our sport is a situation where it challenges you -- 'How hard are you going to work?' [Your opponent] might be stronger. He might be quicker. But that element of working hard, there's an appeal to a person who's handicapped. You can't measure their heart and that's what this sport really measures."

Kyle Maynard, also a congenital amputee whose arms end just above his elbows and has no legs aside from a pair a short limbs and misshapen feet, attracted national attention last year when he went 35-16 as a senior at Collins Hill High in Suwanee, Ga. Nick Ackerman, who lost both his legs at the knees to amputation when he was 1 1/2 because of a life-threatening form of bacterial meningitis, won the 174-pound title at the 2001 NCAA Division III Championships while wrestling for Simpson (Iowa) College.

Ask Jenifer about Maynard and Ackerman, and he returns a broad smile and acknowledgment of their stories. Press him and he'll say the one disabled athlete who motivated him was Neil Parry, who played one down for San Jose State's football team in 2003 with a prosthetic right leg, following a horrific on-field injury three years earlier that required amputation just below the knee.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let's assume that for every 20 guys in the potential athlete pool you get 1 superstar athlete. A two or three sport athlete who is a stud in one sport and excels in the others. Based on those numbers that gives the private schools 7 athletes of this caliber as compared to 4 at the public school. If you were to break those numbers down to the next level of athlete say a star athlete (not a star in any single sport, but very good in two or three), the numbers increase even more in favor of the private school. I estimate you will probably get 4 of these type of athletes out of every 20 potential athletes. The private school ends up with 28 of these type of players and the public school ends up with 19. At this point, the private school coach is working with 35 exceptional athletes as compared to the public shool coach who is working with 23 exceptional athletes. For every level you drop down, the numbers increase exponentially in favor of the private schools.

As I stated earlier any of the numbers above can be debated, but if you look at the theory objectionably, .

Ohhh, I look @ those made up #'s objectionably ( think you meant objectively there Home)

it is hard to dispute the fact that a private school doesn't have an athletic advantage over a similar sized public school.

In the spirit of keeping discussion civil, I gotta agree w/ ya von.....I can't dispute the fact that private schools do not have an athletic advantage over similar sized public schools!

And with no advantage, what really gets some of my pals fired up is the fact that the single Crushers have handled AAA opponents in the last decade!

[once a runner]

I agree with Voncap's observations. I think what he was trying to say is that kids are more likely to participate in sports if they are families from a higher socioeconomic status. Of course there are exceptions, but in general this rule seems to apply. Therefore, it is likely that a private school will get more kids to participate because they are generally from families who are fairly well off financially. To have an extra $5,000 per child per year usually means you are not on the poverty line. The more kids that participate leads to greater competition, a greater chance of finding a superstar athlete and ultimately more success.