From an earlier post: "That's roughly 15%. Going back just the last fifteen years, ramblin', private schools have won approx 38% of the state championships in football..."
While that statement is accurate, it can also be somewhat misleading. The issue is as much about "haves" and "have nots", when it comes to state titles, as it anything else, IMHO.
With Naz breaking the seal this year, a total of 27 private schools have a won 98 FB state titles. Very impressive. If we look at the most successful 27 public schools (based on titles/playoff wins), they account for 89 titles. Also very impressive. So those 54 schools (roughly 10% of the number of playoff eligible schools) account for 70% (187 of 268) of the titles - that is really impressive.
And if you look at those exact same 54 private and public schools in the 10 years since the multiplier, they account for 61 (28 private/33 public) of the 80 titles, a whopping 76%!
So it's OK for a relatively small number of public schools to be very successful, but not OK for private schools? Is that really what this is about?
And while it's nice to think that removing/multiplying/applying the success factor to the private schools will provide a "level playing field", in reality what will happen is that the successful public school programs will continue to succeed at a high level and a few new successful public school programs will emerge - all the while most of the schools (private or public) will continue to be "have nots".
While that statement is accurate, it can also be somewhat misleading. The issue is as much about "haves" and "have nots", when it comes to state titles, as it anything else, IMHO.
With Naz breaking the seal this year, a total of 27 private schools have a won 98 FB state titles. Very impressive. If we look at the most successful 27 public schools (based on titles/playoff wins), they account for 89 titles. Also very impressive. So those 54 schools (roughly 10% of the number of playoff eligible schools) account for 70% (187 of 268) of the titles - that is really impressive.
And if you look at those exact same 54 private and public schools in the 10 years since the multiplier, they account for 61 (28 private/33 public) of the 80 titles, a whopping 76%!
So it's OK for a relatively small number of public schools to be very successful, but not OK for private schools? Is that really what this is about?
And while it's nice to think that removing/multiplying/applying the success factor to the private schools will provide a "level playing field", in reality what will happen is that the successful public school programs will continue to succeed at a high level and a few new successful public school programs will emerge - all the while most of the schools (private or public) will continue to be "have nots".