No Privates in 1A Girls State Tournament

[sportsguy1]

FYI-No Privates made the girls state tournament in basketball. That means that for the second year in a row a public will win this title.

[supersteve17]

Where are the private schools in girls' basketball? I think they are shut out of this year's state tourney! If private schools have so many "unfair advantages" why does this not extend to girls' basketball?

 

These things really do seem to go in cycles. Always have. Probably always will. Reactionaries tend to create more problems than they solve. When will we get out of the way and let the kids play?

[supersteve17]

No reaction from anywhere? Oh, I forgot. This is all about football. That's the only realm that private schools have "unfair advantages."

[b-ball mania]

This is nothing new, for some reason girls basketball is the only sport that

single A privates do not dominate. It goes back to the thought that the farther you move away from the city the better girls basketball teams you will find.

[wardawg2038]

Hate to say it as a public private split supporter but you are correct in that football is the driving force in the argument. Let us not forget boys b-ball also. Temple with a win tonite will be looking for a 3-peat. CCS has won it along with Ezell and others. Mens sports will always cause more controversy than the womens sports, not being sexist but honest. My wife played college womens b-ball and is now a middle school coach. The girls sports just do not draw the attention or prestige of the mens sports with a few exceptions, Shelbyville, Gleason and a few others noted. THe major concern in the south is that of Football and then mens B-ball. Any problems created and resolutions made will be driven by those sports. That is just the way it is and will be in the South.

[supersteve17]

Hate to say it as a public private split supporter but you are correct in that football is the driving force in the argument. Let us not forget boys b-ball also. Temple with a win tonite will be looking for a 3-peat. CCS has won it along with Ezell and others. Mens sports will always cause more controversy than the womens sports, not being sexist but honest. My wife played college womens b-ball and is now a middle school coach. The girls sports just do not draw the attention or prestige of the mens sports with a few exceptions, Shelbyville, Gleason and a few others noted. THe major concern in the south is that of Football and then mens B-ball. Any problems created and resolutions made will be driven by those sports. That is just the way it is and will be in the South.

Are you saying that you agree there are really no "unfair advantages" or that those advantages don't apply to some areas? Answer carefully.

 

BTW, I am not trying to be argumentative (even though it may seem like it). I am simply trying to make a point. We have the multiplier and really have no choice but to live with it. Private schools will be okay, so I'm not trying to engender sympathy. I just like consistency.

[1AMAN]

Well, I think girl's basketball is probably stronger in the rural areas, because it is usually the only choice that the girls in the rural areas have for an outlet for sports, especially at the smaller schools. I know Perry Co. has only softball, a few girls that play golf, and just started Volleyball a couple of years ago for the girls sports, so for years it was basketball or nothing. I'm sure a lot of the other small public schools in the rural areas could say about the same thing.

[lazarus]

stuporsteve;

 

there are a number of reasons that the privets are not dominating girls basketball.

 

the privet schools have not hired as good of coaches as they did for boys sports.

and their girls do not work as hard as their boys athletes.

 

why? that should be obvious. there are not nearly as many girls parents as boys who would shell out big bucks to get their kid a "state championgyp" so the schools would be wasting their money obtaining championships that don't bring in more students (or at least a longer waiting list).

 

besides, while dominating in girls sports serves as a nice adjunct to powerhouse boys programs, we all know that if a privet school has to resort to girls programs as their athletic flagship, they are second-rate and snickered at by the other privets.

 

BTW, I am not trying to be argumentative (even though it may seem like it). i am really aiming more for offensive (but i choose to be honest about it).

 

now, if you want to make a point, how about some data to back up your "cycle" mantra. not one, or aven a few, isolated datum, take a complete set of data, any complete set of data, and show me a cycle.

[beethoven]

I have a theory. No data. No time spent pondering.

 

Girl's BB as the only athletic outlet for years in rural areas is right on. Add in the fact that most privates are in urban or suburban areas, where they usually don't have that one or two coaches pushing a strong program all the way through. Doesn't Jim Brown at Jackson Co. coach every level of girls BB in the county? The traditional dominance of Shelbyville is a result of very hard work that starts at the elementary level. The insell formula is widely mimicked but rarely comes to fruitation. It is no surprise that the best players find there way to Jackson Co., Livingston, Upperman, Shelbyville etc... The contacts made through AAU and summer camps provides a fertile recruiting ground for strong programs and there parents and boosters.

 

That same type of networking and training is also mimicked (sp?) by the private FB programs. Not recruiting in the college sense. They sell there program with wins and parent contacts. Can't find a rule breaking there. Apples and oranges don't roll down a hill the same!

[hssportsfan]

No reaction from anywhere? Oh, I forgot. This is all about football. That's the only realm that private schools have "unfair advantages."

Have you looked at the baseball and softball state tourneys the last several years? The private schools have obviously coached and worked much harder in those sports as well.

[RealGoEagles]

Well, I'll be happy when the 1a privates go to DII, maybe we can level the playing field and get away from the publics.

 

 

(do you really see how stupid that sounds now?)

 

Oh, yeah, I"m talking to you Laz.

[supersteve17]

stuporsteve;

 

there are a number of reasons that the privets are not dominating girls basketball.

 

the privet schools have not hired as good of coaches as they did for boys sports.

and their girls do not work as hard as their boys athletes.

 

why? that should be obvious. there are not nearly as many girls parents as boys who would shell out big bucks to get their kid a "state championgyp" so the schools would be wasting their money obtaining championships that don't bring in more students (or at least a longer waiting list).

 

besides, while dominating in girls sports serves as a nice adjunct to powerhouse boys programs, we all know that if a privet school has to resort to girls programs as their athletic flagship, they are second-rate and snickered at by the other privets.

 

BTW, I am not trying to be argumentative (even though it may seem like it). i am really aiming more for offensive (but i choose to be honest about it).

 

now, if you want to make a point, how about some data to back up your "cycle" mantra. not one, or aven a few, isolated datum, take a complete set of data, any complete set of data, and show me a cycle.

lazaruin,

 

Please write in coherent sentences, not incoherent sentences.

 

I'll work on the data for you. Work on your writing for me.