HAIL TO THE PRIVATE SCHOOLS!!!

[freethrow]

I think you need the state champion winners in all sports over the last 20-30 years, to see how much private impacts the winner/losers in sport.  The only real solution, which private will not like, is to have the public and private play in their own divisions.  This is done in a lot of places.  Arkansas is unlikely to do this because the state is small and not that many private schools at all differenct sizes. Private want to play in public leagues, its' better for them in attracting student/atletes.  In state where private and public play for their own championship it has influenced some athletes and they choose to stay in public school.  Let the private and public only play in the first part of the nonconference season and not at all for the state championships and you would see athletes stay in public schools.

Interesting tidbits from the AR DEM/GAZ today

"Families in the Roberts, Fulbright and Terry school zones have tended to move their sixth-graders out of the Little Rock school system and into private schools and independently run charter schools rather than have them attend Henderson Middle School, which is the attendance zone middle school for much of west Little Rock."

"A total of 2,700 high school students live in the two attendance zones that are served by McClellan and Fair, but only about 1,600 attend those two schools."

[sevenof400]

Interesting tidbits from the AR DEM/GAZ today

"Families in the Roberts, Fulbright and Terry school zones have tended to move their sixth-graders out of the Little Rock school system and into private schools and independently run charter schools rather than have them attend Henderson Middle School, which is the attendance zone middle school for much of west Little Rock."

"A total of 2,700 high school students live in the two attendance zones that are served by McClellan and Fair, but only about 1,600 attend those two schools."

Can you really blame them?  What parent in their right mind would want to send their child to McClellan or Fair if they had other choices?   

[gameoflife]

This is money talking.  I don't like the school or I like another better.  This is the private vs public system.  If you can afford it you do it as long as your children are doing as well or better.  In athletics you can attract better folks, they can go wherever the like within 25 miles any direction of their home.   You could live in downtown Little Rock and go about wherever you want to private schools.

[CoolBreeze]

Here's how the court systems in Missouri and Arkansas saw the advantages private schools have when the Activities Associations in those states were sued and had to defend their multipliers:

"MSHSAA responded in its brief with 10 possible advantages: private schools have higher percentages of athletic participation, larger attendance areas, are in more densely populated regions, have greater opportunities for skill development, have the opportunity for students to selectively attend their schools, control enrollments, have selective admissions, do not admit 21-year-olds, do not have alternative education students, and have lower drop-out rates (Mayse, 2002)."

"The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the motion after citing 12 differences between public and private schools in its findings of fact: private schools have higher participation rates (citing the Alabama study), are not required to educate handicapped and developmentally disabled students, have higher parental involvement rates, have the ability to attract foreign students under different conditions, are not required to limit extracurricular activities to only one period per day, do not have boundaries, do not have salary limits on coaches and are not required to publish the salaries, have no budget restraints on facilities, have won state championships at a higher percentage rate, do not have English as a second language students who are less likely to participate, have the ability to cap enrollment, and have the ability of their students to practice at summer workouts while public schools could not because they have jobs (Associated Press, 2006)"

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005884.pdf

That is the best, most comprehensive explanation of the advantages that private schools have that I have seen.

I agree. It's a pleasant surprise to see someone on that side of the issue actually present evidence.

That said, the MSHAA brief is the argument presented by one side of the lawsuit. It would only be fair to see what the other side said as well. It would have as much evidentiary force.

The decision by the Arkansas court is another issue. However, it has not been shown how most of those cited advantages affect sports (for example, greater parental participation and lack of developmentally disabled students). Such facts may provide advantages to the school, but it is not clear how that translates to a corresponding advantage on the field or court.

Moreover, with the exception of PA, it has not been shown that the advantages such as they are are not  counterbalanced by forcing private schools to play up a division.

It doesn't have to show they are counterbalanced. They just need a rational basis as to why they are treating the privates different, and they succeed in meeting that requirement

The opposing party might not have a very good argument or enough evidence, which is why the court didn't rule in their favor.

I don't mean that the court needed to counterbalance the argument. The  present who quoted it as evidence should have done so. What was presented re Missouri was not the court's ruling, it was the arguments presented by one side. Thus it is inappropriate to say that it is how the court saw private school advantages.

Even if the court ruled in MSHSAA's favor, that does not mean that it bought all the arguments presented by the winning side.  It's a common practice in court cases to make every argument you can think of, reasonable or not, in the hope that one or more of them will persuade the court.

FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

[CoolBreeze]

I don't suppose you will include success advancement for public schools who have even greater success than the private schools. If you are really looking for balance, it would seem that such an approach would be required.

It would definitely include public schools. I don't believe I said otherwise. I think that a school like PB, who has won the last two years at 6A, should play in 7A for the next two years. I think it would be good for PB and the 7A.

In that case, I would have no objection. If private schools indeed have an advantage and win more than their fair share of championships, that would be dealt with by moving them up a class more often. I assume that if they continue to win at the higher level, they would be moved up further.

[MDXPHD]

Here's how the court systems in Missouri and Arkansas saw the advantages private schools have when the Activities Associations in those states were sued and had to defend their multipliers:

"MSHSAA responded in its brief with 10 possible advantages: private schools have higher percentages of athletic participation, larger attendance areas, are in more densely populated regions, have greater opportunities for skill development, have the opportunity for students to selectively attend their schools, control enrollments, have selective admissions, do not admit 21-year-olds, do not have alternative education students, and have lower drop-out rates (Mayse, 2002)."

"The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the motion after citing 12 differences between public and private schools in its findings of fact: private schools have higher participation rates (citing the Alabama study), are not required to educate handicapped and developmentally disabled students, have higher parental involvement rates, have the ability to attract foreign students under different conditions, are not required to limit extracurricular activities to only one period per day, do not have boundaries, do not have salary limits on coaches and are not required to publish the salaries, have no budget restraints on facilities, have won state championships at a higher percentage rate, do not have English as a second language students who are less likely to participate, have the ability to cap enrollment, and have the ability of their students to practice at summer workouts while public schools could not because they have jobs (Associated Press, 2006)"

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005884.pdf

That is the best, most comprehensive explanation of the advantages that private schools have that I have seen.

I agree. It's a pleasant surprise to see someone on that side of the issue actually present evidence.

That said, the MSHAA brief is the argument presented by one side of the lawsuit. It would only be fair to see what the other side said as well. It would have as much evidentiary force.

The decision by the Arkansas court is another issue. However, it has not been shown how most of those cited advantages affect sports (for example, greater parental participation and lack of developmentally disabled students). Such facts may provide advantages to the school, but it is not clear how that translates to a corresponding advantage on the field or court.

Moreover, with the exception of PA, it has not been shown that the advantages such as they are are not  counterbalanced by forcing private schools to play up a division.

It doesn't have to show they are counterbalanced. They just need a rational basis as to why they are treating the privates different, and they succeed in meeting that requirement

The opposing party might not have a very good argument or enough evidence, which is why the court didn't rule in their favor.

I don't mean that the court needed to counterbalance the argument. The  present who quoted it as evidence should have done so. What was presented re Missouri was not the court's ruling, it was the arguments presented by one side. Thus it is inappropriate to say that it is how the court saw private school advantages.

Even if the court ruled in MSHSAA's favor, that does not mean that it bought all the arguments presented by the winning side.  It's a common practice in court cases to make every argument you can think of, reasonable or not, in the hope that one or more of them will persuade the court.

FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

Are you a member of the Arkansas Bar as well?

[CoolBreeze]

Here's how the court systems in Missouri and Arkansas saw the advantages private schools have when the Activities Associations in those states were sued and had to defend their multipliers:

"MSHSAA responded in its brief with 10 possible advantages: private schools have higher percentages of athletic participation, larger attendance areas, are in more densely populated regions, have greater opportunities for skill development, have the opportunity for students to selectively attend their schools, control enrollments, have selective admissions, do not admit 21-year-olds, do not have alternative education students, and have lower drop-out rates (Mayse, 2002)."

"The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the motion after citing 12 differences between public and private schools in its findings of fact: private schools have higher participation rates (citing the Alabama study), are not required to educate handicapped and developmentally disabled students, have higher parental involvement rates, have the ability to attract foreign students under different conditions, are not required to limit extracurricular activities to only one period per day, do not have boundaries, do not have salary limits on coaches and are not required to publish the salaries, have no budget restraints on facilities, have won state championships at a higher percentage rate, do not have English as a second language students who are less likely to participate, have the ability to cap enrollment, and have the ability of their students to practice at summer workouts while public schools could not because they have jobs (Associated Press, 2006)"

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005884.pdf

That is the best, most comprehensive explanation of the advantages that private schools have that I have seen.

I agree. It's a pleasant surprise to see someone on that side of the issue actually present evidence.

That said, the MSHAA brief is the argument presented by one side of the lawsuit. It would only be fair to see what the other side said as well. It would have as much evidentiary force.

The decision by the Arkansas court is another issue. However, it has not been shown how most of those cited advantages affect sports (for example, greater parental participation and lack of developmentally disabled students). Such facts may provide advantages to the school, but it is not clear how that translates to a corresponding advantage on the field or court.

Moreover, with the exception of PA, it has not been shown that the advantages such as they are are not  counterbalanced by forcing private schools to play up a division.

It doesn't have to show they are counterbalanced. They just need a rational basis as to why they are treating the privates different, and they succeed in meeting that requirement

The opposing party might not have a very good argument or enough evidence, which is why the court didn't rule in their favor.

I don't mean that the court needed to counterbalance the argument. The  present who quoted it as evidence should have done so. What was presented re Missouri was not the court's ruling, it was the arguments presented by one side. Thus it is inappropriate to say that it is how the court saw private school advantages.

Even if the court ruled in MSHSAA's favor, that does not mean that it bought all the arguments presented by the winning side.  It's a common practice in court cases to make every argument you can think of, reasonable or not, in the hope that one or more of them will persuade the court.

FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

Are you a member of the Arkansas Bar as well?

No.

[bleudog]

.........FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

That explains a lot.

[adaptedtigerfan]

U ever been accused of lying, CoolBreeze?  😂😂

[CoolBreeze]

FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

That explains a lot.

Are you referring to my insistence on evidence in support of various accusations or my tendency to be longwinded?

[MDXPHD]

Here's how the court systems in Missouri and Arkansas saw the advantages private schools have when the Activities Associations in those states were sued and had to defend their multipliers:

"MSHSAA responded in its brief with 10 possible advantages: private schools have higher percentages of athletic participation, larger attendance areas, are in more densely populated regions, have greater opportunities for skill development, have the opportunity for students to selectively attend their schools, control enrollments, have selective admissions, do not admit 21-year-olds, do not have alternative education students, and have lower drop-out rates (Mayse, 2002)."

"The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the motion after citing 12 differences between public and private schools in its findings of fact: private schools have higher participation rates (citing the Alabama study), are not required to educate handicapped and developmentally disabled students, have higher parental involvement rates, have the ability to attract foreign students under different conditions, are not required to limit extracurricular activities to only one period per day, do not have boundaries, do not have salary limits on coaches and are not required to publish the salaries, have no budget restraints on facilities, have won state championships at a higher percentage rate, do not have English as a second language students who are less likely to participate, have the ability to cap enrollment, and have the ability of their students to practice at summer workouts while public schools could not because they have jobs (Associated Press, 2006)"

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005884.pdf

That is the best, most comprehensive explanation of the advantages that private schools have that I have seen.

I agree. It's a pleasant surprise to see someone on that side of the issue actually present evidence.

That said, the MSHAA brief is the argument presented by one side of the lawsuit. It would only be fair to see what the other side said as well. It would have as much evidentiary force.

The decision by the Arkansas court is another issue. However, it has not been shown how most of those cited advantages affect sports (for example, greater parental participation and lack of developmentally disabled students). Such facts may provide advantages to the school, but it is not clear how that translates to a corresponding advantage on the field or court.

Moreover, with the exception of PA, it has not been shown that the advantages such as they are are not  counterbalanced by forcing private schools to play up a division.

It doesn't have to show they are counterbalanced. They just need a rational basis as to why they are treating the privates different, and they succeed in meeting that requirement

The opposing party might not have a very good argument or enough evidence, which is why the court didn't rule in their favor.

I don't mean that the court needed to counterbalance the argument. The  present who quoted it as evidence should have done so. What was presented re Missouri was not the court's ruling, it was the arguments presented by one side. Thus it is inappropriate to say that it is how the court saw private school advantages.

Even if the court ruled in MSHSAA's favor, that does not mean that it bought all the arguments presented by the winning side.  It's a common practice in court cases to make every argument you can think of, reasonable or not, in the hope that one or more of them will persuade the court.

FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

Are you a member of the Arkansas Bar as well?

No.

As you know, this case was brought more as an equal protection case. Since the court applied the very low rational basis standard, it wouldn't take much for the athletic associations to win. I'm not sure why you would question the court in Arkansas though. The court cited the 12 advantages the schools have. Sure, they could have taken it from a brief but it seems like they bought all 12 if they are the ones listing them in their findings of fact.

[PA Dad]

The last two paragraphs of the study reflect the division in the courts and also reflect the arguments made in this thread:

Despite nearly identical facts of the cases and wording of the policies, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri came to a
different conclusion in Beck v. MSHSAA (1993) than the 7th Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals in Griffin High School v. Illinois High School Association
(1987). In Beck v. MSHSAA (1993), the court opined "because the case at bar
lacks comparable evidence as to the existence of a 'private school advantage'...
it is not evident to this court how these 'differences' provide non-public
schools an advantage over public schools" (p. 1005). The court went on
to observe, "This court has searched in vain for an explanation of the 'advantage'
that nonpublic schools are afforded over public schools which might justify such an exception to the transfer restriction" (Beck v. MSHSAA, 1993,
p. 1005).

What is missing in the multiplier debate is the question of what it is that
makes successful programs successful, public or private. Jim Place,
Chaminade-Julienne football coach in Ohio who has coached at both public
and private schools, stated "They don't get it. We win because of discipline"
(as cited in Gokavi, 2005, p. C8). Ben Freeman, Pelion public school athletic
director in South Carolina, stated "you always know they're going to have
good teams there....They've always been well-coached, and they're just good
programs" (as cited in Emerson, 2006, ¶32). Byron Williams, the principal at
Salmen High, a public school in Louisiana, stated "I'm the kind of person, if
the bully is whipping my butt on the way to school, take the whipping....Don't
cry and stay home. Get better" (as cited in Longman, 2004, p. D1). Is it possible
that intangibles exist in both public and private schools such as tradition,
high expectations, effective coaching, discipline, and a strong work ethic that
lead to inordinate success? Is it possible that success begets success, and that
the key challenge in athletics is to build a tradition of success rather than legislating
success through a gerrymandered multiplier?

[MDXPHD]

FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

That explains a lot.

Are you referring to my insistence on evidence in support of various accusations or my tendency to be longwinded?

Almost every state concedes that private schools have numerous advantages so they implement a multiplier, separate the two, success advancement systems, or another method to balance the two types of schools. What exactly are you looking for? 

[CoolBreeze]

Here's how the court systems in Missouri and Arkansas saw the advantages private schools have when the Activities Associations in those states were sued and had to defend their multipliers:

"MSHSAA responded in its brief with 10 possible advantages: private schools have higher percentages of athletic participation, larger attendance areas, are in more densely populated regions, have greater opportunities for skill development, have the opportunity for students to selectively attend their schools, control enrollments, have selective admissions, do not admit 21-year-olds, do not have alternative education students, and have lower drop-out rates (Mayse, 2002)."

"The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the motion after citing 12 differences between public and private schools in its findings of fact: private schools have higher participation rates (citing the Alabama study), are not required to educate handicapped and developmentally disabled students, have higher parental involvement rates, have the ability to attract foreign students under different conditions, are not required to limit extracurricular activities to only one period per day, do not have boundaries, do not have salary limits on coaches and are not required to publish the salaries, have no budget restraints on facilities, have won state championships at a higher percentage rate, do not have English as a second language students who are less likely to participate, have the ability to cap enrollment, and have the ability of their students to practice at summer workouts while public schools could not because they have jobs (Associated Press, 2006)"

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005884.pdf

That is the best, most comprehensive explanation of the advantages that private schools have that I have seen.

I agree. It's a pleasant surprise to see someone on that side of the issue actually present evidence.

That said, the MSHAA brief is the argument presented by one side of the lawsuit. It would only be fair to see what the other side said as well. It would have as much evidentiary force.

The decision by the Arkansas court is another issue. However, it has not been shown how most of those cited advantages affect sports (for example, greater parental participation and lack of developmentally disabled students). Such facts may provide advantages to the school, but it is not clear how that translates to a corresponding advantage on the field or court.

Moreover, with the exception of PA, it has not been shown that the advantages such as they are are not  counterbalanced by forcing private schools to play up a division.

It doesn't have to show they are counterbalanced. They just need a rational basis as to why they are treating the privates different, and they succeed in meeting that requirement

The opposing party might not have a very good argument or enough evidence, which is why the court didn't rule in their favor.

I don't mean that the court needed to counterbalance the argument. The  present who quoted it as evidence should have done so. What was presented re Missouri was not the court's ruling, it was the arguments presented by one side. Thus it is inappropriate to say that it is how the court saw private school advantages.

Even if the court ruled in MSHSAA's favor, that does not mean that it bought all the arguments presented by the winning side.  It's a common practice in court cases to make every argument you can think of, reasonable or not, in the hope that one or more of them will persuade the court.

FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

Are you a member of the Arkansas Bar as well?

No.

As you know, this case was brought more as an equal protection case. Since the court applied the very low rational basis standard, it wouldn't take much for the athletic associations to win. I'm not sure why you would question the court in Arkansas though. The court cited the 12 advantages the schools have. Sure, they could have taken it from a brief but it seems like they bought all 12 if they are the ones listing them in their findings of fact.

My suggestion that the court did not buy all of the arguments applied only to the Missouri case, where the poster used MSHAA's arguments rather than the court's ruling.

[MDXPHD]

Here's how the court systems in Missouri and Arkansas saw the advantages private schools have when the Activities Associations in those states were sued and had to defend their multipliers:

"MSHSAA responded in its brief with 10 possible advantages: private schools have higher percentages of athletic participation, larger attendance areas, are in more densely populated regions, have greater opportunities for skill development, have the opportunity for students to selectively attend their schools, control enrollments, have selective admissions, do not admit 21-year-olds, do not have alternative education students, and have lower drop-out rates (Mayse, 2002)."

"The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied the motion after citing 12 differences between public and private schools in its findings of fact: private schools have higher participation rates (citing the Alabama study), are not required to educate handicapped and developmentally disabled students, have higher parental involvement rates, have the ability to attract foreign students under different conditions, are not required to limit extracurricular activities to only one period per day, do not have boundaries, do not have salary limits on coaches and are not required to publish the salaries, have no budget restraints on facilities, have won state championships at a higher percentage rate, do not have English as a second language students who are less likely to participate, have the ability to cap enrollment, and have the ability of their students to practice at summer workouts while public schools could not because they have jobs (Associated Press, 2006)"

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1005884.pdf

That is the best, most comprehensive explanation of the advantages that private schools have that I have seen.

I agree. It's a pleasant surprise to see someone on that side of the issue actually present evidence.

That said, the MSHAA brief is the argument presented by one side of the lawsuit. It would only be fair to see what the other side said as well. It would have as much evidentiary force.

The decision by the Arkansas court is another issue. However, it has not been shown how most of those cited advantages affect sports (for example, greater parental participation and lack of developmentally disabled students). Such facts may provide advantages to the school, but it is not clear how that translates to a corresponding advantage on the field or court.

Moreover, with the exception of PA, it has not been shown that the advantages such as they are are not  counterbalanced by forcing private schools to play up a division.

It doesn't have to show they are counterbalanced. They just need a rational basis as to why they are treating the privates different, and they succeed in meeting that requirement

The opposing party might not have a very good argument or enough evidence, which is why the court didn't rule in their favor.

I don't mean that the court needed to counterbalance the argument. The  present who quoted it as evidence should have done so. What was presented re Missouri was not the court's ruling, it was the arguments presented by one side. Thus it is inappropriate to say that it is how the court saw private school advantages.

Even if the court ruled in MSHSAA's favor, that does not mean that it bought all the arguments presented by the winning side.  It's a common practice in court cases to make every argument you can think of, reasonable or not, in the hope that one or more of them will persuade the court.

FYI, I have been a member of the Missouri Bar for almost 40 years.

Are you a member of the Arkansas Bar as well?

No.

As you know, this case was brought more as an equal protection case. Since the court applied the very low rational basis standard, it wouldn't take much for the athletic associations to win. I'm not sure why you would question the court in Arkansas though. The court cited the 12 advantages the schools have. Sure, they could have taken it from a brief but it seems like they bought all 12 if they are the ones listing them in their findings of fact.

My suggestion that the court did not buy all of the arguments applied only to the Missouri case, where the poster used MSHAA's arguments rather than the court's ruling.

Oh. Got it.

[JC Guy]

The last two paragraphs of the study reflect the division in the courts and also reflect the arguments made in this thread:

Despite nearly identical facts of the cases and wording of the policies, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri came to a
different conclusion in Beck v. MSHSAA (1993) than the 7th Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals in Griffin High School v. Illinois High School Association
(1987). In Beck v. MSHSAA (1993), the court opined "because the case at bar
lacks comparable evidence as to the existence of a 'private school advantage'...
it is not evident to this court how these 'differences' provide non-public
schools an advantage over public schools" (p. 1005). The court went on
to observe, "This court has searched in vain for an explanation of the 'advantage'
that nonpublic schools are afforded over public schools which might justify such an exception to the transfer restriction" (Beck v. MSHSAA, 1993,
p. 1005).

What is missing in the multiplier debate is the question of what it is that
makes successful programs successful, public or private. Jim Place,
Chaminade-Julienne football coach in Ohio who has coached at both public
and private schools, stated "They don't get it. We win because of discipline"
(as cited in Gokavi, 2005, p. C8). Ben Freeman, Pelion public school athletic
director in South Carolina, stated "you always know they're going to have
good teams there....They've always been well-coached, and they're just good
programs" (as cited in Emerson, 2006, ¶32). Byron Williams, the principal at
Salmen High, a public school in Louisiana, stated "I'm the kind of person, if
the bully is whipping my butt on the way to school, take the whipping....Don't
cry and stay home. Get better" (as cited in Longman, 2004, p. D1). Is it possible
that intangibles exist in both public and private schools such as tradition,
high expectations, effective coaching, discipline, and a strong work ethic that
lead to inordinate success? Is it possible that success begets success, and that
the key challenge in athletics is to build a tradition of success rather than legislating
success through a gerrymandered multiplier?

Typed pretty much the same thing last night PA Dad and then decided to just stay out of it. Even though we are public we get the recruiting tag as well because we are a charter school for our neighbor parish. I played for a school that had a tradition of playing for champion ships and my sons have been playing for another. What both programs had in common was tradition, outstanding weight programs, outstanding conditioning programs and the high school coaches coached the same kids through from junior high until seniors. Last but not least even though they are separated by three states and thirty years they both were labeled cheaters by the schools that couldn't beat them.

[oasistrader]

+ 1

[Oldbadger]

Posted this on the 5A board, thought is was "germane" to the 3A also.  Although I don't personally speak German, maybe you will understand.

Fella's I'm at a loss here.  Many people say there is no difference between public and private.  That there is no advantage for the private schools, yet they are successful.  There are great coaches at the private schools as there are great coaches at the public schools.  Why then, are the private schools for the most part, beating all the public schools and winning all these state championships. is there a difference in the athletes? If so, why?

[CoolBreeze]

Posted this on the 5A board, thought is was "germane" to the 3A also.  Although I don't personally speak German, maybe you will understand.

Fella's I'm at a loss here.  Many people say there is no difference between public and private.  That there is no advantage for the private schools, yet they are successful.  There are great coaches at the private schools as there are great coaches at the public schools.  Why then, are the private schools for the most part, beating all the public schools and winning all these state championships. is there a difference in the athletes? If so, why?

The problem is that for the most part they are not dominating. This is a 3A thread. One private school has one 3A football championships in the last 15 years. The other 12 were all won by public schools, and 5 of the last 10 by a single public school. That does not qualify as domination by private schools.

Public programs can be as dominant as private ones. some years ago, my son attended a public school in another state which had recently had its national record for consecutive football victories broken by another public school in the northern Midwest. Like someone said earlier in this thread, they had an outstanding coach and an outstanding weight program. The didn't lose a game for more than 5 years.

P.S. They won another state championship while we lived there.

[CoolBreeze]

U ever been accused of lying, CoolBreeze?  😂😂

I am certainly capable of being mistaken, but I do NOT lie.

By the way, what prompted this. It seems to have come out of left field

[bleudog]

Posted this on the 5A board, thought is was "germane" to the 3A also.  Although I don't personally speak German, maybe you will understand.

Fella's I'm at a loss here.  Many people say there is no difference between public and private.  That there is no advantage for the private schools, yet they are successful.  There are great coaches at the private schools as there are great coaches at the public schools.  Why then, are the private schools for the most part, beating all the public schools and winning all these state championships. is there a difference in the athletes? If so, why?

The problem is that for the most part they are not dominating. This is a 3A thread. One private school has one 3A football championships in the last 15 years. The other 12 were all won by public schools, and 5 of the last 10 by a single public school. That does not qualify as domination by private schools..........

I know it's just a few years off from your 15 years, but the demarcation line for the private school debate is 1997 and 1998:  Pre U$C and Post U$C.  Since then, Arkansas has not gone two years in a row without at least one classification being won by one of the dozen or so private schools. 

Harding has won two of the last four 3A titles and some of U$C's, PA's and CAC's title(s) since 1998 were as 3A schools. 

U$C's dominance in 2A in the late 90s and early 00s is what led to the multiplier and the multiplier's slight modification into the play-up-one rule.  PA is carrying that torch now and one day may get the blame/credit for split playoffs.


2015 - Fayetteville (4), Pine Bluff (23), Pulaski Academy (5), Nashville (5), Harding Academy (6), McCrory (1)

2014 - Bentonville (5), Pine Bluff (22), Pulaski Academy (4), Warren (4), Charleston (5), Junction City (6)

2013 – Bentonville (4), El Dorado (9), Morrilton (3), Booneville (3), Charleston (4), Junction City (5)

2012 – Fayetteville (3), Greenwood (7), Camden Fairview, Stuttgart (7), Harding Academy (5), Junction City (4)

2011 – Fayetteville (2), El Dorado (8), Greenwood (6), Pulaski Academy (3), Charleston (3), Strong

2010 – Bentonville (3), El Dorado (7), Greenwood (5), Shiloh Christian (7), Rivercrest, Magazine

2009 – Springdale Har-Ber, El Dorado (6), Monticello, Shiloh Christian (6), Fountain Lake, Junction City (3)

2008 – Bentonville (2), Lake Hamilton(2), Pulaski Academy (2), Shiloh Christian (5), Charleston (2), Junction City (2)

2007 – Fayetteville, Texarkana (5), Greenwood (4), Nashville (4), Glen Rose, Mount Ida

2006 – FS Southside (7), Texarkana (4), Greenwood (3), Nashville (3), Shiloh Christian (4), Jessieville

2005 – Springdale (5), Greenwood (2), Nashville (2), Charleston

2004 – LR Central (30), Wynne (4), Central Arkansas Christian, Rison (8)

2003 – LR Central (29), Batesville, Pulaski Academy, Junction City

2002 – FS Southside (6), Stuttgart (6), Warren (3), Harding Academy (4)

2001 – Bentonville, Wynne (3), Warren (2), Shiloh Christian (3)

2000 – Cabot (2), Greenwood, Booneville (2), Rison(7)

1999 – FS Northside (14), Harrison, McGehee (7), Shiloh Christian (2)

1998 – LR Fair, Alma, McGehee (6), Shiloh Christian


CLICK HERE

[gameoflife]

The ability to gather a group of student/athletes for the purpose of playing at that particular school.  In a large heavily populated area it's easier to do because more students to draw from.  At some small town you don't see it so often and practically no private schools, and no success if you see one.

[CoolBreeze]

Posted this on the 5A board, thought is was "germane" to the 3A also.  Although I don't personally speak German, maybe you will understand.

Fella's I'm at a loss here.  Many people say there is no difference between public and private.  That there is no advantage for the private schools, yet they are successful.  There are great coaches at the private schools as there are great coaches at the public schools.  Why then, are the private schools for the most part, beating all the public schools and winning all these state championships. is there a difference in the athletes? If so, why?

The problem is that for the most part they are not dominating. This is a 3A thread. One private school has one 3A football championships in the last 15 years. The other 12 were all won by public schools, and 5 of the last 10 by a single public school. That does not qualify as domination by private schools..........

I know it's just a few years off from your 15 years, but the demarcation line for the private school debate is 1997 and 1998:  Pre U$C and Post U$C.  Since then, Arkansas has not gone two years in a row without at least one classification being won by one of the dozen or so private schools. 

Harding has won two of the last four 3A titles and some of U$C's, PA's and CAC's title(s) since 1998 were as 3A schools. 

U$C's dominance in 2A in the late 90s and early 00s is what led to the multiplier and the multiplier's slight modification into the play-up-one rule.  PA is carrying that torch now and one day may get the blame/credit for split playoffs.


2015 - Fayetteville (4), Pine Bluff (23), Pulaski Academy (5), Nashville (5), Harding Academy (6), McCrory (1)

2014 - Bentonville (5), Pine Bluff (22), Pulaski Academy (4), Warren (4), Charleston (5), Junction City (6)

2013 – Bentonville (4), El Dorado (9), Morrilton (3), Booneville (3), Charleston (4), Junction City (5)

2012 – Fayetteville (3), Greenwood (7), Camden Fairview, Stuttgart (7), Harding Academy (5), Junction City (4)

2011 – Fayetteville (2), El Dorado (8), Greenwood (6), Pulaski Academy (3), Charleston (3), Strong

2010 – Bentonville (3), El Dorado (7), Greenwood (5), Shiloh Christian (7), Rivercrest, Magazine

2009 – Springdale Har-Ber, El Dorado (6), Monticello, Shiloh Christian (6), Fountain Lake, Junction City (3)

2008 – Bentonville (2), Lake Hamilton(2), Pulaski Academy (2), Shiloh Christian (5), Charleston (2), Junction City (2)

2007 – Fayetteville, Texarkana (5), Greenwood (4), Nashville (4), Glen Rose, Mount Ida

2006 – FS Southside (7), Texarkana (4), Greenwood (3), Nashville (3), Shiloh Christian (4), Jessieville

2005 – Springdale (5), Greenwood (2), Nashville (2), Charleston

2004 – LR Central (30), Wynne (4), Central Arkansas Christian, Rison (8)

2003 – LR Central (29), Batesville, Pulaski Academy, Junction City

2002 – FS Southside (6), Stuttgart (6), Warren (3), Harding Academy (4)

2001 – Bentonville, Wynne (3), Warren (2), Shiloh Christian (3)

2000 – Cabot (2), Greenwood, Booneville (2), Rison(7)

1999 – FS Northside (14), Harrison, McGehee (7), Shiloh Christian (2)

1998 – LR Fair, Alma, McGehee (6), Shiloh Christian


CLICK HERE

It's true that Harding won 2 of the last 4, but that is carefully selecting the sample to magnify the significance of the evidence. By the same token Charleston has won 3 of the last 5 and five of ten between 2005 and 2014. Who is the more dominant, the private school or the public school?

Moreover, Harding's 6 titles are over 40 years. The first was in 1976. And they won none from 1984 through 2001. Winning two or three titles in a relatively short period of time and then doing it again after a gap of 15-20 years does not constitute a consistently dominant program.

Additionally, to say one of the seven divisions being won by a private school every other year constitutes dominance sets a ridiculously low standard.

Finally, by your own figures, CAC has not won a title since 2004 and Shiloh since 2009. It looks like they are no longer a problem. The only program fro which a case can reasonably made to be truly dominant is PA, and even they have only won consecutive titles once.

[bleudog]

It's true that Harding won 2 of the last 4, but that is carefully selecting the sample to magnify the significance of the evidence......

No, my post was trying to provide "evidence" that many people might not agree with this statement:

..........One private school has one 3A football championships in the last 15 years.  The other 12 were all won by public schools........

I'll be more concise:

2015  HA
2012  HA
2006  U$C
2004  CAC
2003  PA

[CoolBreeze]

As much as I have enjoyed poking holes in all the questionable arguments for a supposed advantage to private schools, I believe this thread has run its course.

All arguments have been advanced and debunked. A federal court has even ruled (see JC Guy's post above) that it was unable to find any competitive advantage in the supposed differences between public and private schools citing most  of the same arguments advanced here.

My point is no amount of reasonable argument or evidenced will convince many of the posters on this thread. The are convinced that private schools have an advantage and they will not give up that view for any reason.

Accordingly, I am signing off this thread.

To all of you who support teams which did not win this year's championship--Better luck next year. There are some fine football programs in 3A, both public and private. I will be looking forward to finding out who who has the best team in 2016.

Best wishes to all.

CB

[gameoflife]

LOL, we all know the federal courts have supported some very dubious positions over the years and later changed their minds.  Not sure how much trust in those guys I have.
Private schools do have an advantage, it's pretty clear.  Ability to draw together athletes at one school over and over.  How many schools have a 50 mile wide school district?

[sevenof400]

As much as I have enjoyed poking holes in all the questionable arguments for a supposed advantage to private schools, I believe this thread has run its course.

All arguments have been advanced and debunked. A federal court has even ruled (see JC Guy's post above) that it was unable to find any competitive advantage in the supposed differences between public and private schools citing most  of the same arguments advanced here.

My point is no amount of reasonable argument or evidenced will convince many of the posters on this thread. The are convinced that private schools have an advantage and they will not give up that view for any reason.

Accordingly, I am signing off this thread.

To all of you who support teams which did not win this year's championship--Better luck next year. There are some fine football programs in 3A, both public and private. I will be looking forward to finding out who who has the best team in 2016.

Best wishes to all.

CB

Breeze,

If you are concluding that private schools have no advantage over public schools, it is clear that you entered this thread with your mind already made up as well.  There is ample evidence in this thread of private school advantage - but the largest factor lies within the makeup of the student body. 

Public schools cannot control their student body to anywhere near the extent private schools do. 
The everyday needs of private school students are (by and large) not survival based as too many public school students are.

The impact of these two factors cannot be understated. 

You have also misstated what the court found in the case you cited - the fact that there may (or may not) be a competitive advantage does not mean private schools do not have advantages over public schools.  A lack of comparable evidence does not mean the absence (or presence) of an advantage (or advantages).  It means comparing the two is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

[bleudog]

As much as I have enjoyed poking holes in all the questionable arguments for a supposed advantage to private schools, I believe this thread has run its course.

All arguments have been advanced and debunked. A federal court has even ruled (see JC Guy's post above) that it was unable to find any competitive advantage in the supposed differences between public and private schools citing most  of the same arguments advanced here.

My point is no amount of reasonable argument or evidenced will convince many of the posters on this thread. The are convinced that private schools have an advantage and they will not give up that view for any reason.

Accordingly, I am signing off this thread.

To all of you who support teams which did not win this year's championship--Better luck next year. There are some fine football programs in 3A, both public and private. I will be looking forward to finding out who who has the best team in 2016.

Best wishes to all.

CB

Breeze,

If you are concluding that private schools have no advantage over public schools, it is clear that you entered this thread with your mind already made up as well.  There is ample evidence in this thread of private school advantage - but the largest factor lies within the makeup of the student body. 

Public schools cannot control their student body to anywhere near the extent private schools do. 
The everyday needs of private school students are (by and large) not survival based as too many public school students are.

The impact of these two factors cannot be understated. 

You have also misstated what the court found in the case you cited - the fact that there may (or may not) be a competitive advantage does not mean private schools do not have advantages over public schools.  A lack of comparable evidence does not mean the absence (or presence) of an advantage (or advantages).  It means comparing the two is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

The diversity demographics for the AVERAGE school in Arkansas are as follows:

White                              64%
Black                              21%
Hispanic                         10%
Two or more races            2%
Amer Ind/Alaskan Native   1%
Asian                               1%

Free and reduced lunch ratio     61%

I'd GUESS the average 3A school generates its student body from about 3,000 people living with a reasonable commuting distance of its campus.

How any reasonable person can look at that and compare those numbers to private school averages, then say the two systems are apples to apples is beyond me.

Even though we all poke fun at the AAA, even they were successfully able to defend their multiplier system in court when required to do so.  And the AAA's case was presented and ruled on after the federal decision referenced.

[gameoflife]

poor little rich kids.  LOL!   just kidding. sort of.

[bleudog]

The Louisiana equivalent of the AAA just voted to expand their select (private/charter/parochial) and non-select (public) split playoff in football to now include basketball, baseball and softball.

http://www.ksla.com/story/31091486/lhsaa-selects-new-playoff-system-votes-on-other-items

[Black and Gold]

Are there even enough private schools in Arkansas for that to work? Sounds like it would be two big private schools fighting for the championship every year. Maybe I'm wrong, Birgit just sounds like the smaller ones would be at a disadvantage.

[bleudog]

Are there even enough private schools in Arkansas for that to work? Sounds like it would be two big private schools fighting for the championship every year. Maybe I'm wrong, Birgit just sounds like the smaller ones would be at a disadvantage.

Louisiana subdivides both groups.  I think there are five public and four private championship games in the Super Dome.  Arkansas could probably support two maybe three playoffs subdivisions for the private schools.  NCAA football playoffs for the P5 only has four teams.

[Wilson]

Louisiana went nutts today. . the LHSAA voted to separate public/private in baseball, basketball, and softball today to go along with the football . . but where they have 9 state champions in football .   they will divide those 3 sports up with 12 championships. . that's 48 state championship trophies to hand out for those 3. . insane

[xcat]

No other state allows private schools to play with public schools its common sense they can recruit by just waiving the admission fee for a good player. Needs to be done away with.

Let's see... Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, California, Arizona... just to name a few... allow private schools to compete for state championships with public schools.

Some of those states also have private school associations; however, Mississippi's the only one that is somewhat large (116 schools, 90 of which play football)  Mississippi has only 10 private schools in the public league, but Mississippi is well... Mississippi.

Alabama's public association has 46 private school members (more than the private school league).  Those are just a couple of examples of your lack of factual knowledge. Maybe do a little research before spouting off about something you know nothing about.

[Wilson]

and Texas is deliberating letting TAPS schools join the UIL public association in the not to distant future

[Lions84]

and Texas is deliberating letting TAPS schools join the UIL public association in the not to distant future

Yep I been hearing that but I doubt it will happen.

[Wilson]

A couple of coaches from over there i used to play softball with/against seem to think its gonna happen

[Lions84]

We will see how that plays out.