Here`s a project for someone

[VolunteerGeneral]

I may do this myself, but just out of curiosity I wish somone would go back through last years 'prep signees' on this board and find out how many were from private schools and how many were from public schools. I don`t believe anyone has really examined this issue.

[lazarus]

hello t-gen,

 

any thought of doing this year's figures will have to wait a bit longer...

(the longer, the better, if you know what i mean).

 

but here are a few statistics from last year's scholarships.

it is unlikely that such glaring variances have significantly changed:

 

Class.......#Students.. Scholarships..% of Pop

Public A....15,623...... 37........... 0.23683%

Private A...4,353....... 27............ 0.62029%

D-II A.......2,181....... 5 ............ 0.22925%

 

Public AA.. 28,647...... 73........... 0.25483%

Private AA.1,260........9 ............ 0.71429%

D-II AA.....6,650....... 20 ........... 0.30075%

 

Public AAA.46,308 .....85............ 0.18355%

Private AAA

D-II AAA....1,174...... 6.............. 0.51107%

 

Public AAAA..64,068.. 131 ......... 0.20447%

Private AAAA

D-II AAAA.1,604....... 9............. 0.56110%

 

Public AAAAA..93,697..204......... 0.21772%

Private AAAAA

D-II AAAAA.861.........10........... 1.16144%

 

SUPER 7....3899........ 34............ 0.87202%

Super 7 (P).12,954.... 56............ 0.43230%

 

my "just for fun" public super 7 include:

oak ridge

brentwood

dobyns bennet

riverdale

germantown

oakland

maryville

Edited January 26, 2006 by lazarus

[Baldcoach]

hello t-gen,

 

any thought of doing this year's figures will have to wait a bit longer...

(the longer, the better, if you know what i mean).

 

but here are a few statistics from last year's scholarships.

it is unlikely that such glaring variances have significantly changed:

 

Class.......#Students.. Scholarships..% of Pop

Public A....15,623...... 37........... 0.23683%

Private A...4,353....... 27............ 0.62029%

D-II A.......2,181....... 5 ............ 0.22925%

 

Public AA.. 28,647...... 73........... 0.25483%

Private AA.1,260........9 ............ 0.71429%

D-II AA.....6,650....... 20 ........... 0.30075%

 

Public AAA.46,308 .....85............ 0.18355%

Private AAA

D-II AAA....1,174...... 6.............. 0.51107%

 

Public AAAA..64,068.. 131 ......... 0.20447%

Private AAAA

D-II AAAA.1,604....... 9............. 0.56110%

 

Public AAAAA..93,697..204......... 0.21772%

Private AAAAA

D-II AAAAA.861.........10........... 1.16144%

 

SUPER 7....3899........ 34............ 0.87202%

Super 7 (P).12,954.... 56............ 0.43230%

 

my "just for fun" public super 7 include:

oak ridge

brentwood

dobyns bennet

riverdale

germantown

oakland

maryville

 

 

There was actually quite a bit of work done on this on another thread...can't remember which one but I took the position that the public school teams had more great athletes on them than the privates. Mutliple stats were found but in the end when graduation rates, dropout rates, and college entry rates were calculated in it seemed that I was right. Do you remember what thread this was in Laz?

[lazarus]

hey bc,

 

no, i dont remember what thread it was.

but, at least on my machine, it appears a lot of old threads are gone anyway.

 

as i recall, the basic premise was that,

based on the difference in participation rates,

and college eligibility of the kids who did participate,

public schools were filled with hypothetical athletes

who would even everything out.

 

there were a lot of assumptions involved...

that the non-participants shared equal athletic ability with the participants,

that the graduation rates of participants & non-participants were likewise equal,

and so forth.

frankly, i thought it was a little bit of a stretch to bridge the gap between the actual data and the desired result with assumptions.

altho in todays world you could probably get funding for your study (that is a joke).

 

the bottom line is, hypothetical athletes dont do me a bit of good.

i have got to play with the athletes i have,

and the teams which have eventually sent more athletes to college have done a lot better than the teams that sent fewer, or (typically) none.

Edited January 27, 2006 by lazarus

[Baldcoach]

hey bc,

 

no, i dont remember what thread it was.

but, at least on my machine, it appears a lot of old threads are gone anyway.

 

as i recall, the basic premise was that,

based on the difference in participation rates,

and college eligibility of the kids who did participate,

public schools were filled with hypothetical athletes

who would even everything out.

 

there were a lot of assumptions involved...

that the non-participants shared equal athletic ability with the participants,

that the graduation rates of participants & non-participants were likewise equal,

and so forth.

frankly, i thought it was a little bit of a stretch to bridge the gap between the actual data and the desired result with assumptions.

altho in todays world you could probably get funding for your study (that is a joke).

 

the bottom line is, hypothetical athletes dont do me a bit of good.

i have got to play with the athletes i have,

and the teams which have eventually sent more athletes to college have done a lot better than the teams that sent fewer, or (typically) none.

 

Heh, good one...hypothetical athletes. They aren't hypothetical, they just aren't graduates or college students. They exist, believe me, we play against them all the time

[Kublah]

Are those from a particular sport or what? Because if those numbers are for all sports then there is no way they can be considered accurate. For example: USJ, a class A (at the time) private school, had 12 students sign athletic scholarships from their class last year. According to your statistics, that is close to half of all of of the scholarships accepted by class A private school students. I don't really think the "prep signees" board can be considered a legitimate source for this information.

Edited January 30, 2006 by KublahKD

[Baldcoach]

Are those from a particular sport or what? Because if those numbers are for all sports then there is no way they can be considered accurate. For example: USJ, a class A (at the time) private school, had 12 students sign athletic scholarships from their class last year. According to your statistics, that is close to half of all of of the scholarships accepted by class A private school students. I don't really think the "prep signees" board can be considered a legitimate source for this information.

 

Kubla,

 

I think they are for Football only as that was the sport that brought about the multiplier and DII.