I never said that anyone moved to a district because of a scoreboard.
I mean it's basically a punishment. It trails by two years so the success if based on what some 19 and 20 year old alumni did. It also will always fail to frame what an appropriate class is. It's based on the assumption that winning in a certain class must mean you're in the wrong class. Then if you don't win in the new class you go back down? Does it even know what it's trying to accomplish?
Some schools are 1 school, 5+ towns.
That isn't punishment. That is the competitive level you are playing at. If you staff is at the level you say they are (this goes for any staff), you shouldn't drop back down to a lower class. If you are a State champion at 5A but can't win a playoff game at 6A one can argue if that staff is really the good?
I understand your right vs wrong argument. I just don't agree with the punishment term for competitive balance.
But hey, many Chicago Christian fans have applauded their own feeder programs. Although I don't think it's to the extent that some of the publics have done (they just got a new HC so I doubt they developed culture/playbook in one year) They've apparently benefited from it though just by having kids play early and together. I'm guessing that particular faith community is a little more insular than the many Catholic schools, where middle to high school feeders have some strong correlations, but are ultimately pretty fluid.
Seen a couple posts from supporters that referenced feeders since their win. I'll try to find and link it.
They don't have a feeder program like "Little Knights" or anything like that. I think what they were saying was that several kids on this years teams played together in programs around Palos Heights like Tinley Park, Orland Park, etc.
Just spitballing, but something like 3 title games in 3 years vs 2 out of 2.
And this is really the issue.
why would there be the need to have a different set of rules?
Every sort of "feeder program" ranges in its level of formality. If their own fans are claiming it as such though they certainly know more than me.
Very little. When I played college baseball we had, arguably, the worst or second worst playing surface in the conference. It wasn't because we didn't do things to maintain it. We tried. Yet in my four years of playing as a starter we won the conference three times. And in my sophomore year we had seven starters on that field who all went on to sign professional contracts. I guess we looked at things differently back then. To me it's always been who is or are the coaches and is this a winning program? AND, can this program and coach help you to get to the next level if that is what you want?
You could argue many things about the hypothetical team who wins 5A and then can't win in 6A. It starts with a, at minimum, baseline assumption that the team is at least 25-50% turned over from the previous one (realistically probably more 50%-90% as a general expectation).
The problem is, if you are suggesting team turnover is the reason why you win or lose, you are confirming what most believe. The reason for private success is the ability to get certain kids to play on your team. You can't have it both ways. Moving up a class and can't win a playoff game two years in a row is not indicative of a top notch coaching staff.
All of incorporated Glenview east of Harms is part of the New Trier district. There are current New Trier students who live in incorporated Glenview and attended OLPH Catholic School.
"not win a playoff game" isn't even the standard. Merely not trophying twice sends a team back down to their natural non-success factor enrollment.
Same reasons there is a multiplier.
The problem is they do have the awareness however, we want things as easy as possible. We don't have the will to compete, we have the will to win regardless of how it happens.
there is no shot at coaching from my end. That is what is used when publics speak to the disparity of players in one program vs the other. They are often told that it’s not the players, it’s coaching.
I know it would never happen, but I’d love to see a coach like Racki take over a program like Momence or Dwight and see how he did after 6-7 years. Or better yet, a program like Plainfield Central.
Y'all said they’d have to take a pay cut and that the new pension sucks and no one in their right mind would come or feel the need to stay anymore! Can’t have it both ways is the saying…right!
I don’t even know what you are referring to. I was just taking what I consider the best coach in the CCL and imagining what kind of impact he would have if given time at a rural public school.
Ok... If I live in Plainfield and attend St. Mary's Plainfield for grade school and want to continue my Catholic education where do I attend high school then?
We did see something like this at Evanston. Also at West Chicago. Not rural, but not good.
Oh it was definitely a shot, just one you apparently feel justified making because of other perceived shots made.
I think most of that conversation was referencing their two "feeder schools", which are affiliated with the high school. If I recall, the poster said most kids that show up have played football at various pop warner programs, etc.
And maybe I conflated the feeder school with "youth football". And like I said outright, they just got a new coach so they certainly aren't running a feeder to the level like you're saying about scheme implementation. The Maine South / Park Ridge is the prime example. But even York has had long standing "feeder football" programs. I believe the York coaches before Fitzgerald just weren't doing much with it. It was it's own thing. But the kids in those programs grew up playing together in middle school and onto York.
