thoughts
- Thread starter BlackKnight24
- Start date
Because it doesn't account for things like drawing area population, which is a more accurate portrayal of what class a school should be in than actual ADM.
Last edited:
? pretty self explanatory. The population within the district the school draws from. And if the school allows out of district students then there would be a multiplier involved.
I’ve never understood why people believe programs that have higher admin numbers, equates to more players trying out for sports. Some of these large programs, have very small numbers, when it comes to player participation. Just because a school has 2600 students, does not mean, all 1300 boys at the school are trying out for Football, or even 100 players
Last edited:
Mbd maybe I just don’t understand, drawing area population seems to be the same if not very similar to ADM. as for the multiplier I am in agreement. It seems to me that the issue is becoming charter schools within 1a esp. and from what I have heard that’s a big reason the realignment proposal is what it is at this point. Of course no one will admit to that.
nepsy I do agree with you, just because you are a bigger school doesn’t always mean better. However, even if the1300you mentioned don’t try out you still have a bigger pool and to pull from. Once a coach recruits his/her halls and builds a program there is an advantage whether we want to admit it or not.
The proposed system is an equation of ADM/ free and reduced/ and success in Wachovia/Wells Fargo cup. With that being said I have a hard time supporting this proposal, but like in life I do know what my opinion is worth.
nepsy I do agree with you, just because you are a bigger school doesn’t always mean better. However, even if the1300you mentioned don’t try out you still have a bigger pool and to pull from. Once a coach recruits his/her halls and builds a program there is an advantage whether we want to admit it or not.
The proposed system is an equation of ADM/ free and reduced/ and success in Wachovia/Wells Fargo cup. With that being said I have a hard time supporting this proposal, but like in life I do know what my opinion is worth.
What the heck does lunch status have to do with athletics?
For that matter, what does Wells Fargo cup have to do with it either? That’s more a measure of a broader athletic program. Schools that don’t field teams in some sports due to size or demographics may still have great success in some sports, particularly the revenue sports. I fail to see any correlation to fair assignment of schools due to either of those factors.
Am I missing something?
To answer the question. Lunch status will represent the affluency of a school. The thought process being that some more affluent schools have an advantage over less affluent schools. A multiplier will be used based off these numbers. Again this is a proposal that’s gaining traction with the nchsaa.
Again, I have so many issues with this proposal personally.
Again, I have so many issues with this proposal personally.
This is very much a generalization, but applies to Thomasville for sure. We have a very high level of free and reduced lunch eligible students. So much so, that all students in the system receive free breakfast and lunch because so few weren’t eligible. At least in football and basketball, Thomasville historically has had some success. Not so much in other sports. So I’m assuming that Thomasville would be rewarded for having a low income population by being put in a lower classification. In most cases, the athletes who have made Thomasville successful are the students who are in the lower income group. Sure, they may not have the ability for private batting lessons. Or attend prestigious football and basketball camps. But it doesn’t seem to have put them at a disadvantage in the two revenue sports.
There are some wealthy school districts that have had success in some sports. But there are plenty that haven’t. I see no correlation that should make it a determinant in redistricting.
We are definitely in the climate of over thinking or not thinking at all... NCHSAA has shown to be equally equipped at both.
If you have 30 kids for football which you draw from 100,000 population you will probably have a better team than a school that has 30 drawn from 30,000.
Basic math.
Basic math.
City like Chapel Hill has 60,988 population.
City of Shelby has 20,030 population.
I also say that Shelby has much more free and reduced lunch than Chapel Hill.
Just an example.
City of Shelby has 20,030 population.
I also say that Shelby has much more free and reduced lunch than Chapel Hill.
Just an example.
Your analogy is highly exaggerated, since not one school draws from a population of 100k. Also somebody should advise Colquitt County in Georgia, everybody should be better. They’ve dominated the State of GA for years, with a total enrollment of 1812. Richmond & Scotland have also done extremely well. So no. It’s not basic math. It depends on what type athletes are participating. You’re assuming, but it’s not a fact. Ardrey Kell has had top enrollment numbers 3000+, for years with unbelievable resources, they’re not even a lock for conference champs. Outside of last year, they’ve consistently played under 500 ball.
Last edited:
I'm going to stick with the facts. There is no historical data that confirms a teams enrollment numbers being low, equates to a team with higher numbers being better.
Last edited:
Then why does nchsaa have classifications?
Is that just for the hell of it?
Is that just for the hell of it?
Of course not, but they put a lot more into it, than you have more kids. Huge difference from 1A to 4A. My argument is with 3A&3AA and 4A&4AA. Make it 3&4 divisions and keep it moving.
Last edited: