What happens if privates sweep 1A, 2A and 3A titles this year?

[Bighurt]

Laz,

I would be interested in investigating 2 aspects of the private/public winning percentage question. First, what is the percentage of private/public matchups compared to the total number of games? I would guess that the percentage over a season is no more than 15% which is good sampling for predictive purposes but not a good picture of the system statewide. Second, what is the percentage of public high schools that never play or almost never play private schools? My contention is that the better public school programs don't play the better private schools. How often do Riverdale, Maryville or Hillsboro play MBA, BA, McCallie or MUS?

 

I don't think that the winning percentage of private versus public is the real problem. I think BA winning 2 straight 5A state championships and private schools winning a high percentage of 1A and 2A state football championships in the late 90's and early 2000's are the real problems.

 

Creating Division II removed the problem for 5A and 4A schools. The mutiplier moved the problem from a 1A/2A problem to more of a 2A/3A problem.

 

I like the merit system because it promotes or demotes team that have or don't have success without burdening all a school's teams for the success of a team in one sport. IMO, the merit system will never fly however because the real goal is to punish all private schools in all sports especially football not to level the playing field.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Bighurt

[larry]

Do small private schools seem to have an advantage over the past few years? Yes.

 

Is that proof that trend is permanent? No.

 

Have private schools won more TSSAA awarded state championships than public schools? No.

 

Have private schools won more TSSAA awarded state championships in the past several years than public schools? I don't really know the answer to that, but in the only sport that matters, football, yes.

You do realize that in football only 25 schools in classes 1A-3A are private schools, out of the 172 schools, do you not?

Edited October 25, 2006 by larry

[bbsesq]

ok. starting in 1972 the private schools have a winning record against the publics in football every year except 1979 and 1993.

 

Now, let's see if you really did your home work or if you just got some statistics to spout in order to support your obvious bias (affluent v. non-affluent):

 

What as the record of those same public schools against their public school opponents during that same period of time?

[Bighurt]

bbseq,

I wouldn't doubt laz's stats.

[bbsesq]

bbseq,

I wouldn't doubt laz's stats.

 

I don't. I am simply asking if he is being complete in his use. If the schools that the privates played were equally bad against other publics, what do his statistics prove?

 

For instance take his weekly, pointless public v. private thread. For last week, the private schools won 14 of 25 games (56% private wins, 44% public wins). The records of those public schools that lost were a combined 58-88 (39% wins). Soooooooo, did they do better agains the privates than they do in their normal schedule or worse. According to laz, he would say the privates had an advantage.

 

Go figure!

[ksgovols]

I think in 5-2A, the privates ARE the normal schedule. That's part of the problem for the 3 rural publics in that region. The good news is that one of the 3 has made the playoffs the past 2 years. Bad news is my team isn't one of them.

 

It's reasonable to assume that even a merit system will have flaws as to which teams on each end of a classification are moved up or down during re-classification and travel issues. Let me just say, anything looks good after you draw a circle around the current regions in 2A. It looks like one of those new congressional districts that come up to 'balance' the vote.

Edited October 25, 2006 by ksgovols

[lazarus]

"For instance take his weekly, pointless public v. private thread. For last week, the private schools won 14 of 25 games (56% private wins, 44% public wins). The records of those public schools that lost were a combined 58-88 (39% wins). Soooooooo, did they do better agains the privates than they do in their normal schedule or worse. According to laz, he would say the privates had an advantage."

 

1) that BBQ is one mean guy. he knows how hard it is for me to just scroll past numbers. (no matter how little time i have)

 

2) of course the weekly public v private is pointless. we are just having some fun.

(it is good for public & private guys to just have some fun, its a bonding thing)

 

3) you stacked the deck against yourself. by taking only the records of the losing publics, it was guaranteed they had a better overall record. they won 0% last week. 39% overall is WAAAAY better. (or was i supposed to be distracted by the similarity between the overall publics % last week, and the losers overall season %?)

 

4) i question your data collection methods. 58 + 88 would be 146 games. only 14 publics lost, that would mean they had played 10.42 games apiece leading into last week (or even including last week), not possible in week 9.

 

5) the lure to pull in some numbers was irresistable, because the reason we all had such a close "pick" last week was the number of good publics playing.

the actual record of ALL the publics that played privates last week (against other publics only) was 89-74 (54.6%) that is considerably better than the 44% they won last week.

 

6) over time the public vs public record will find its way to 50%, thus a large enough sample size negates the need to make multi-level comparisons... unless there is some factor stacking the publics that participate against privates?

 

7) a 25 game, 1 week sample is not enough to draw solid conclusions, you cannot speak for me any more. now i have to find a new spokesman, dadgummit (i am laughing in a goodnatured manner)

Edited October 26, 2006 by lazarus

[1AMAN]

2) of course the weekly public v private is pointless. we are just having some fun.

(it is good for public & private guys to just have some fun, its a bonding thing)

 

Laz!! You mean there is no prize??

[lazarus]

"You mean there is no prize??"

 

it isnt enough that we all stand in awe of your knowledge?

[1AMAN]

"You mean there is no prize??"

 

it isnt enough that we all stand in awe of your knowledge?

*pouts* I guess *BIG SIGH*

[VolunteerGeneral]

Does anyone wonder if the move to 5 classes had anything to do with the apparent recent domination of private schools? I mean most private schools are small and they were put in the same class with the small rural schools that for the most part are the weakest programs. When there were only 3 classes they still played against the very small schools, but still had to go up against some bigger and better public schools. Look at USJ the past two years in region 7 AA. I hardly call that being succesful or dominant..

[lazarus]

"Does anyone wonder if the move to 5 classes had anything to do with the apparent recent domination of private schools?"

 

it wasnt the move to 5 classes, it was the formation of d-2. i dont have the numbers handy here, but the winning percentage for privates went way up after the split. many (maybe most) of the financial aid schools are not athletic powerhouses.

i havent looked recently, but the d-1 privates used to win more than they lost against the d-2 privates (as a whole). i doubt that has changed.