Did anyone see this?
12/10/2013 11:17:01 AM
Power User
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1912
Personally I dont like this idea. What is everyone elses thoughts? PETITION TO AMEND MSHSAA BY-LAWS 1.4 AND 5.1: SEPARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE/CHARTER SCHOOLS Page 1 of 5 We the undersigned, in accord with Article VI, Section 3, of the MSHSAA Constitution, petition to have the following proposal placed on the 2014 Annual Election Ballot. A valid signature is that of only the school principal or superintendent of a MSHSAA member high school. PETITION REQUESTED BY CHAD BRADLEY, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR AND BRAD COLEMAN, PRINCIPAL – CENTRAL (PARK HILLS) HIGH SCHOOL. EFFECTIVE DATE: REQUESTED TO BECOME EFFECTIVE WITH THE 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR (JULY 1, 2014). Rationale from Petitioners: There is no way to level the playing field between public schools and private schools. The multiplier has not worked. The addition of classes has not worked. There are 70 private schools and approximately 500 public schools in Missouri. Private schools make up only about 15% of the competing teams in MSHSAA championship competitions. Yet, the number of state championships won by private schools is disproportionately higher in many sports. Since 2007, team sports such as volleyball, soccer and baseball have been dominated by non-public schools. In country club sports such as golf, tennis, and swimming the disparity is even greater. State Championships won by Sport by Private Schools/Charter Schools since 2007 Boys Sports: Girls Sports: Swimming 100% Soccer 82% Soccer 100% Tennis 64% Golf 75% Golf 57% Tennis 67% Volleyball 46% Baseball 32% Basketball 20% Cross Country 29% Track & Field 13% Basketball 20% Wrestling 17% Track & Field 13% The following sports are the only sports that the percent of private school state championships do not outnumber the percent of private schools competing. Girls Swimming 0 State Champions 7% private compete Girls Cross Country 4% state champions 14% private compete Softball 7% state champions 7% private compete Football 11% state champions 12% private compete There have also been accusations of undue influence, non-resident students competing on non-public teams, lack of geographic restrictions on non-public schools and recruitment of middle school and club sport athletes. Many recognize there are issues with private schools competing with public schools and the un-level playing field that is created by the inherent differences in rules governing public schools, private schools and charter schools. We have not been presented a remedy, short of separation, to the public-private issue. Therefore we recommend a separate state tournament series for public schools and non-public schools beginning in the 2014-2015 school year. To amend the MSHSAA By-Laws to require separate districts and state series tournaments for non-selective public member schools and schools that have selective enrollment policies and are exempt from MSIP requirements in activities that qualify for more than one classification, as shown below. New language is underlined and stricken language would be deleted. 1. 4 COOPERATIVE SPONSORSHIPS 1.4.1 High School Cooperative Sponsorships: With the approval of the MSHSAA Board of Directors, students from two public member high schools or from two selective member high schools may be combined to cooperatively sponsor interscholastic activities provided such is necessary to either have a sufficient number of students to support a program or will result in increased opportunities for students to participate and provided the following conditions are met: PETITION TO AMEND MSHSAA BY-LAWS 1.4 AND 5.1: SEPARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE/CHARTER SCHOOLS Page 2 of 5 d. The districts of the two schools must be contiguous or overlapping, or the two schools must be in the same public school district. The borders of the entire public school district in which a non-public school is located will be used to determine contiguity for purposes of a cooperative sponsorship that includes that non-public school (see item i also). Non-contiguous or non-overlapping districts that are isolated from a specific activity may request approval from the Board of Directors to form a cooperative program if it will increase the opportunities for students to participate. i. If a public school (a contiguous public school or a non-public school located within the boundaries of a multi-school district) wishes to co-op with a public school in a multiple high school district the superintendent of that multi-school district will determine which of his/her schools will form the co-op with the non-district school. When co-oping in this manner, all sports and activities must be cooperatively sponsored with the same school. 5.1 DISTRICT AND STATE TOURNAMENT PROCEDURES 5.1.1 Member Schools: All district and state events sponsored by MSHSAA shall be for member senior high schools only, or those member schools planned for and evolving as senior high schools which include the tenth grade or higher grades in their enrollments. For the purposes of enrollment and classification, the following definitions are provided: a. Public: High Schools under the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and which are subject to the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines. b. Selective: Any high school that has the ability to limit its enrollment through selectivity and is exempt from the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines. This category includeds Charter schools. c. Separate Championships: MSHSAA shall sponsor separate district and state series tournaments for public member senior high schools and for selective member senior high schools in activities with more than 128 total member schools participating [which pass on the Annual Ballot], except for Music and Speech/Debate/Theatre. [Proposed for Separate Championships: All sports and activities are proposed for separate championships except Music (evaluative rather than competitive), and the one class activities of Speech/Debate/Theatre, 8-man Football, Boys Swimming/Diving, Girls Swimming/Diving, and Spring Girls Softball.] 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 – no changes 5.1.4 Classifications: For competition in district and state athletic tournaments or meets, member high schools as defined in Article III, Section 1, shall be divided into a maximum of six classes, based on the number of schools registered for districts in the activity. Affiliate Registered Schools are not eligible for districts or the state series. In order for a district and state series to be sponsored by MSHSAA for an activity, a minimum of 50 public schools in three Board Districts must be registered for the activity for a period of two consecutive years. (See By-Law 5.2, Emerging Activities.) The procedure for grouping schools into classes for each sport shall be established by the Board of Directors. a. Combined Tournaments: Activities with 50 to 128 schools registered will participate in one class and will include both public and selective schools. b. Public School Tournaments: Other than specified exceptions (football) the number of classes in each activity shall be based on the number of public schools entering the state series in that sport as follows: One class -- 50 through 128 schools. Two classes -- 129 through 192 schools. Three classes -- 193 schools through 256 schools. Four classes -- 257 through 512 schools. Five classes -- 513 through 576 schools. Six classes -- 577 or more schools. b. Selective School Tournaments: The Board of Directors shall determine by activity whether more than one class is necessary for the selective school tournaments based on safety and equity. 5.1.5 Co-Ed Enrollments: High schools shall be classified on the basis of their coed enrollments in grades 9-12. The enrollment of any school that has the ability to limit its enrollment through selectivity and is exempt from the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines shall be multiplied by a 1.35 adjustment factor for classification. The enrollment for a single gender school shall be doubled. For single gender schools that are also selective and MSIP exempt, an enrollment adjustment factor of 1.35 shall then be applied for classification. 5.1.6 – no change 5.1.7 11-Man Football: For safety purposes, public schools shall be divided into six five classes in 11-man football, regardless of the number of schools registered. Schools participating in the State 11-man Football Playoffs shall be reclassified every two years beginning with the 1988-89 school year and every two years thereafter. The Board of Directors shall be authorized to assign all public schools entering the state 11-man football playoffs to districts and to require each school to play all other schools within the assigned district during the regular season to determine qualifiers for the state playoffs. PETITION TO AMEND MSHSAA BY-LAWS 1.4 AND 5.1: SEPARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE/CHARTER SCHOOLS Page 3 of 5 5.1.8 – no change 5.1.9 Girls and Boys Athletic Activity Within the Same Season: Public schools participating in cross country, track and field and basketball shall be divided into classes based on the enrollment of the gender with the larger number of public schools participating in the district and state series. 5.1.10 delete 5.1.11 delete 5.1.12 Girls Softball: MSHSAA shall sponsor two girls softball championship series seasons, one to be held in the fall and one to be held in the spring. The provisions of By-Laws 5.1.1 and 5.1.4 shall be used to determine public and selective school tournaments and classes in softball. Individual member schools may register for one championship series, not both. Schools registering for fall regular season softball and the fall championship series may participate in the spring regular season for softball but may not participate in the spring championship series. Schools registering for spring regular season softball and the spring championship series may not participate in the fall regular season nor the fall championship series. 5.1.13 delete SUMMARY: This amendment, if adopted by the member schools, would 1) restrict a public and a selective school from forming a cooperative sponsorship during the regular season or the state series, and 2) require that the MSHSAA sponsor separate district and state championship series for public and selective member high schools in activities that qualify for more than one class. The reclassification into separate district and state tournament series would take place at the beginning of the next two year classification cycle, effective with the 2014-15 school year.
Personally I dont like this idea. What is everyone elses thoughts?

PETITION TO AMEND MSHSAA BY-LAWS 1.4 AND 5.1:
SEPARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE/CHARTER SCHOOLS
Page 1 of 5
We the undersigned, in accord with Article VI, Section 3, of the MSHSAA Constitution, petition to have the following proposal placed on the 2014 Annual Election Ballot. A valid signature is that of only the school principal or superintendent of a MSHSAA member high school.
PETITION REQUESTED BY CHAD BRADLEY, ATHLETIC DIRECTOR AND BRAD COLEMAN, PRINCIPAL -- CENTRAL (PARK HILLS) HIGH SCHOOL. EFFECTIVE DATE: REQUESTED TO BECOME EFFECTIVE WITH THE 2014-15 SCHOOL YEAR (JULY 1, 2014).
Rationale from Petitioners: There is no way to level the playing field between public schools and private schools. The multiplier has not worked. The addition of classes has not worked. There are 70 private schools and approximately 500 public schools in Missouri. Private schools make up only about 15% of the competing teams in MSHSAA championship competitions. Yet, the number of state championships won by private schools is disproportionately higher in many sports. Since 2007, team sports such as volleyball, soccer and baseball have been dominated by non-public schools. In country club sports such as golf, tennis, and swimming the disparity is even greater.
State Championships won by Sport by Private Schools/Charter Schools since 2007
Boys Sports: Girls Sports:
Swimming 100% Soccer 82%
Soccer 100% Tennis 64%
Golf 75% Golf 57%
Tennis 67% Volleyball 46%
Baseball 32% Basketball 20%
Cross Country 29% Track & Field 13%
Basketball 20%
Wrestling 17%
Track & Field 13%
The following sports are the only sports that the percent of private school state championships do not outnumber the percent of private schools competing.
Girls Swimming 0 State Champions 7% private compete
Girls Cross Country 4% state champions 14% private compete
Softball 7% state champions 7% private compete
Football 11% state champions 12% private compete
There have also been accusations of undue influence, non-resident students competing on non-public teams, lack of geographic restrictions on non-public schools and recruitment of middle school and club sport athletes.
Many recognize there are issues with private schools competing with public schools and the un-level playing field that is created by the inherent differences in rules governing public schools, private schools and charter schools. We have not been presented a remedy, short of separation, to the public-private issue. Therefore we recommend a separate state tournament series for public schools and non-public schools beginning in the 2014-2015 school year.
To amend the MSHSAA By-Laws to require separate districts and state series tournaments for non-selective public member schools and schools that have selective enrollment policies and are exempt from MSIP requirements in activities that qualify for more than one classification, as shown below. New language is underlined and stricken language would be deleted.
1. 4 COOPERATIVE SPONSORSHIPS
1.4.1 High School Cooperative Sponsorships: With the approval of the MSHSAA Board of Directors, students from two public member high schools or from two selective member high schools may be combined to cooperatively sponsor interscholastic activities provided such is necessary to either have a sufficient number of students to support a program or will result in increased opportunities for students to participate and provided the following conditions are met:
PETITION TO AMEND MSHSAA BY-LAWS 1.4 AND 5.1:
SEPARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE/CHARTER SCHOOLS
Page 2 of 5
d. The districts of the two schools must be contiguous or overlapping, or the two schools must be in the same public school district. The borders of the entire public school district in which a non-public school is located will be used to determine contiguity for purposes of a cooperative sponsorship that includes that non-public school (see item i also). Non-contiguous or non-overlapping districts that are isolated from a specific activity may request approval from the Board of Directors to form a cooperative program if it will increase the opportunities for students to participate.
i. If a public school (a contiguous public school or a non-public school located within the boundaries of a multi-school district) wishes to co-op with a public school in a multiple high school district the superintendent of that multi-school district will determine which of his/her schools will form the co-op with the non-district school. When co-oping in this manner, all sports and activities must be cooperatively sponsored with the same school.
5.1 DISTRICT AND STATE TOURNAMENT PROCEDURES
5.1.1 Member Schools: All district and state events sponsored by MSHSAA shall be for member senior high schools only, or those member schools planned for and evolving as senior high schools which include the tenth grade or higher grades in their enrollments. For the purposes of enrollment and classification, the following definitions are provided:
a. Public: High Schools under the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and which are subject to the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines.
b. Selective: Any high school that has the ability to limit its enrollment through selectivity and is exempt from the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines. This category includeds Charter schools.
c. Separate Championships: MSHSAA shall sponsor separate district and state series tournaments for public member senior high schools and for selective member senior high schools in activities with more than 128 total member schools participating
5.1.2 and 5.1.3 -- no changes
5.1.4 Classifications: For competition in district and state athletic tournaments or meets, member high schools as defined in Article III, Section 1, shall be divided into a maximum of six classes, based on the number of schools registered for districts in the activity. Affiliate Registered Schools are not eligible for districts or the state series. In order for a district and state series to be sponsored by MSHSAA for an activity, a minimum of 50 public schools in three Board Districts must be registered for the activity for a period of two consecutive years. (See By-Law 5.2, Emerging Activities.) The procedure for grouping schools into classes for each sport shall be established by the Board of Directors.
a. Combined Tournaments: Activities with 50 to 128 schools registered will participate in one class and will include both public and selective schools.
b. Public School Tournaments: Other than specified exceptions (football) the number of classes in each activity shall be based on the number of public schools entering the state series in that sport as follows:
One class -- 50 through 128 schools.
Two classes -- 129 through 192 schools.
Three classes -- 193 schools through 256 schools.
Four classes -- 257 through 512 schools.
Five classes -- 513 through 576 schools.
Six classes -- 577 or more schools.
b. Selective School Tournaments: The Board of Directors shall determine by activity whether more than one class is necessary for the selective school tournaments based on safety and equity.
5.1.5 Co-Ed Enrollments: High schools shall be classified on the basis of their coed enrollments in grades 9-12. The enrollment of any school that has the ability to limit its enrollment through selectivity and is exempt from the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines shall be multiplied by a 1.35 adjustment factor for classification. The enrollment for a single gender school shall be doubled. For single gender schools that are also selective and MSIP exempt, an enrollment adjustment factor of 1.35 shall then be applied for classification.
5.1.6 -- no change
5.1.7 11-Man Football: For safety purposes, public schools shall be divided into six five classes in 11-man football, regardless of the number of schools registered. Schools participating in the State 11-man Football Playoffs shall be reclassified every two years beginning with the 1988-89 school year and every two years thereafter. The Board of Directors shall be authorized to assign all public schools entering the state 11-man football playoffs to districts and to require each school to play all other schools within the assigned district during the regular season to determine qualifiers for the state playoffs.
PETITION TO AMEND MSHSAA BY-LAWS 1.4 AND 5.1:
SEPARATE CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE/CHARTER SCHOOLS
Page 3 of 5
5.1.8 -- no change
5.1.9 Girls and Boys Athletic Activity Within the Same Season: Public schools participating in cross country, track and field and basketball shall be divided into classes based on the enrollment of the gender with the larger number of public schools participating in the district and state series.
5.1.10 delete
5.1.11 delete
5.1.12 Girls Softball: MSHSAA shall sponsor two girls softball championship series seasons, one to be held in the fall and one to be held in the spring. The provisions of By-Laws 5.1.1 and 5.1.4 shall be used to determine public and selective school tournaments and classes in softball. Individual member schools may register for one championship series, not both. Schools registering for fall regular season softball and the fall championship series may participate in the spring regular season for softball but may not participate in the spring championship series. Schools registering for spring regular season softball and the spring championship series may not participate in the fall regular season nor the fall championship series.
5.1.13 delete
SUMMARY: This amendment, if adopted by the member schools, would 1) restrict a public and a selective school from forming a cooperative sponsorship during the regular season or the state series, and 2) require that the MSHSAA sponsor separate district and state championship series for public and selective member high schools in activities that qualify for more than one class. The reclassification into separate district and state tournament series would take place at the beginning of the next two year classification cycle, effective with the 2014-15 school year.
12/10/2013 11:25:32 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 332
Bad, bad idea....it is done in other states and I think does not allow for a "true" champion or individual to be crowned. The multiplier is fine - are some, not all, private schools recruiting? You bet, but for that matter so are some public :-) Leave it alone and hope this sucker gets voted down....
Bad, bad idea....it is done in other states and I think does not allow for a "true" champion or individual to be crowned. The multiplier is fine - are some, not all, private schools recruiting? You bet, but for that matter so are some public Leave it alone and hope this sucker gets voted down....
12/10/2013 11:31:18 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 387
I do believe that the private schools have an advantage -- the numbers cannot be denied. However, I feel that separation like this would be bad for high school sports in general. Talk about unfair playing field. It would be a dual between Rockhurst and SLUH most years in cross country. Even worse in a sport like football.
I do believe that the private schools have an advantage -- the numbers cannot be denied. However, I feel that separation like this would be bad for high school sports in general. Talk about unfair playing field. It would be a dual between Rockhurst and SLUH most years in cross country. Even worse in a sport like football.
12/10/2013 11:36:44 AM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1092
I don't see this as a good idea as a track/cross-country coach. We were class 3 in cross-country and finished 4th in our district, behind 2 private and 1 public schools. This means we would have qualified under a "public school only" format. I still don't think it is a good idea. I don't honestly think that either private school team that beat us recruited away any students specifically for cross-country, so they don't have an unfair advantage in that regard. Private schools do have an advantage in being selective, but IMO the multiplier rule takes care of that. I might feel differently if I was trying to win a state title in boys swimming, which no team other than Rockhurst has done in the last 10 years. Sean Nunn Raytown South
I don't see this as a good idea as a track/cross-country coach. We were class 3 in cross-country and finished 4th in our district, behind 2 private and 1 public schools. This means we would have qualified under a "public school only" format. I still don't think it is a good idea. I don't honestly think that either private school team that beat us recruited away any students specifically for cross-country, so they don't have an unfair advantage in that regard. Private schools do have an advantage in being selective, but IMO the multiplier rule takes care of that.

I might feel differently if I was trying to win a state title in boys swimming, which no team other than Rockhurst has done in the last 10 years.

Sean Nunn
Raytown South
12/10/2013 11:42:45 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 332
@seannunn That is a good point Coach Nunn on swimming...unless you are shelling out thousands of dollars a year for club swimming you better not expect to be getting a state medal or team trophy at the public high school meet. Though some public schools manage to break through (Blue Springs and Glendale come to mind) they also are loaded with year round club swimmers. For the life of me I can not figure out why MSHSAA allows high school swimmers to do BOTH club AND high school at the same time/same season...yet if an XC or track kid wants to do a fun 5k or support a cause with a road run they are ineligible for the year...never got a straight answer on that one!
@seannunn
That is a good point Coach Nunn on swimming...unless you are shelling out thousands of dollars a year for club swimming you better not expect to be getting a state medal or team trophy at the public high school meet. Though some public schools manage to break through (Blue Springs and Glendale come to mind) they also are loaded with year round club swimmers. For the life of me I can not figure out why MSHSAA allows high school swimmers to do BOTH club AND high school at the same time/same season...yet if an XC or track kid wants to do a fun 5k or support a cause with a road run they are ineligible for the year...never got a straight answer on that one!
12/10/2013 12:54:38 PM
Coach
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 38
In many sports you can multiply it by whatever you want it won't matter it is a distinct advantage for private schools.
In many sports you can multiply it by whatever you want it won't matter it is a distinct advantage for private schools.
12/10/2013 8:26:33 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 461
I agree with Coach Crites! It is time for a change! No offense intended toward the private school coaches or athletes. They are not the problem. The problem is the system......I do not think you can level the playing field. And because of that one glaring fact.....we should act by separating into two distinct State Series! IMO
I agree with Coach Crites! It is time for a change! No offense intended toward the private school coaches or athletes. They are not the problem. The problem is the system......I do not think you can level the playing field. And because of that one glaring fact.....we should act by separating into two distinct State Series! IMO
12/10/2013 11:01:00 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 10
Anyone that doesn't think that recruiting is going on has either not been around that particular sport enough or has not asked kids these days. Football especially but it happens in all sports. A team loses a top player (QB) to graduation then all the sudden has a QB from another local school that is private. I know 2 local runners in XC that moved from one school to another (same town) to be on the "better" team. It happens all the time. But, a separate championship is not the answer. Change the multiplier!
Anyone that doesn't think that recruiting is going on has either not been around that particular sport enough or has not asked kids these days. Football especially but it happens in all sports. A team loses a top player (QB) to graduation then all the sudden has a QB from another local school that is private. I know 2 local runners in XC that moved from one school to another (same town) to be on the "better" team. It happens all the time. But, a separate championship is not the answer. Change the multiplier!
12/10/2013 11:05:31 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 56
With 4 consecutive championships you'd think Hazelwood Central was a private school right? I know parents who have moved to live in the Hazelwood Central school district or Kirkwood, Francis Howell and Parkway districts to give their kids a better educational experience and the possibility of having an athletic career beyond high school. Educational/Athletic Influence (NOT RECRUITING) doesn't just happen in the private school sector.
With 4 consecutive championships you'd think Hazelwood Central was a private school right?

I know parents who have moved to live in the Hazelwood Central school district or Kirkwood, Francis Howell and Parkway districts to give their kids a better educational experience and the possibility of having an athletic career beyond high school.

Educational/Athletic Influence (NOT RECRUITING) doesn't just happen in the private school sector.
12/11/2013 1:15:24 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 82
I recently heard about this, and I am not in favor of it. I am a coach at a private school. Our school is located in Kansas City, and our school district is unaccredited. Many of the families in our area send their children to private schools beginning in elementary school because they feel that private schools offer a better education and better opportunities for the future of their children. Families choose our school for academics, not for athletics. It is a huge financial sacrifice for families to pay tuition to a private school, and many of these families have more than one child to put through school. We are not a large school, almost 600 students (all girls). When the multiplier was put into effect, we went from Class 3 to Class 4 in cross country and the first few years were very tough as we competed against schools that had many more students than we did. I remember telling my athletes that we had to set the bar higher if we wanted to compete with schools that were two and three times bigger than we were. It took a few years but we did eventually get better through hard work. Anybody that knows me, my program and the athletics department at our school knows we do not recruit athletes. Our school has never done this and I think it is unfair for people to suggest that recruiting athletes is a common occurrence at private schools. It is not uncommon to hear of parents who have children in public schools moving to a different part of town so their children can attend better schools. There is nothing wrong with this, as parents want what is best for their children to help them succeed. I would be saddened if this came to a vote and passed. The years my team has been fortunate enough to qualify for the state cross country meet, they have been proud to be there because they knew it was quite an accomplishment to be able to compete against the best schools in the state. To be moved into a different classification with only private schools would not allow us to compete against the top teams in Missouri. I would rather have my athletes competing against both public and private schools than to be separated into a different classification.
I recently heard about this, and I am not in favor of it. I am a coach at a private school. Our school is located in Kansas City, and our school district is unaccredited. Many of the families in our area send their children to private schools beginning in elementary school because they feel that private schools offer a better education and better opportunities for the future of their children. Families choose our school for academics, not for athletics. It is a huge financial sacrifice for families to pay tuition to a private school, and many of these families have more than one child to put through school.
We are not a large school, almost 600 students (all girls). When the multiplier was put into effect, we went from Class 3 to Class 4 in cross country and the first few years were very tough as we competed against schools that had many more students than we did. I remember telling my athletes that we had to set the bar higher if we wanted to compete with schools that were two and three times bigger than we were. It took a few years but we did eventually get better through hard work. Anybody that knows me, my program and the athletics department at our school knows we do not recruit athletes. Our school has never done this and I think it is unfair for people to suggest that recruiting athletes is a common occurrence at private schools. It is not uncommon to hear of parents who have children in public schools moving to a different part of town so their children can attend better schools. There is nothing wrong with this, as parents want what is best for their children to help them succeed.
I would be saddened if this came to a vote and passed. The years my team has been fortunate enough to qualify for the state cross country meet, they have been proud to be there because they knew it was quite an accomplishment to be able to compete against the best schools in the state. To be moved into a different classification with only private schools would not allow us to compete against the top teams in Missouri. I would rather have my athletes competing against both public and private schools than to be separated into a different classification.
12/11/2013 2:42:07 PM
User
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 15
I have been on both sides of this discussion. As a kid I grew up in a rural community where football was the sport you played. I live in a different community now and we made the decision to send our kids to a Lutheran school at preschool. The same Lutheran school that my wife's family has attended since the 1800s. As a kid I remember traveling to St. Louis in 1972 only to see our hometown football team's dream of a state championship ended by Country Day, my cousin's dream ended by Country Day (2x) and my team's dream ended by Duchesne. This was the fact of life at the time for 2A/3A football. From 1972 until 2002 private schools won 61% of the 2A state championships. In the eleven years preceding 2003 that number had increased to 73% for 2A. In the eleven years since 2002 no private schools have won the 2A state football championship and only 1 has won the 3A state championship. Considering that from 1972 through 2002 private schools had won the 2A and 3A state football championship 47% this has been a big change. Why the big change? Possibly the multiplier? So in this case the multiplier has worked. I do think we need to be careful in trying to engineer the fair distribution of championships. Where does this stop? We are moving to 5 classes in track because the big 4A schools were too dominant. We voted down qualifier plus because that might be too fair. Should we address the fact that Webb City is not sharing the 4A state football crown very well? After all, in the period cited by the proposal's authors Webb City has won the 4A crown 71% of the time. How about the fact that area codes of 314 & 636 have only won a state football championship 5 times (just eyeballing the championship list) during the period cited by the proposal's authors. 5 for 35 (not too many 1A schools in this area) or 14%. That can't be fair. Where does "fair" stop? I am sorry but if you take private schools out of 2A girls cross country it is not going to make 2A teams say, "whew, we only have to face Herky, I like our chances" or a 4A football team jump up and down over the fact that private schools are "out of their way." There are a lot of questions that should be answered before we put this to a vote. 1)Why split all sports when it seems there is a "fair" distribution in a lot of the sports. (I'm sorry but I am not going to say 20% for basketball is an unfair distribution given the relatively short observation period.) 2) What if we extend the period observed to include all the multiplier period? Would the public/private distribution be consistent with the numbers cited by the authors'? 3) Would increasing the number of classes in volleyball, soccer, baseball and "the country club sports" solve the "dominance"? It seems more cost effective to add classes to these sports than to duplicate the entire championship system and the higher costs involved 4)Of the state championships won by public schools, are they evenly distributed throughout the public schools in that class? If not, are there sports "powerhouses" outside of the private schools and how do we address this? This could also apply to private schools. Are the championships cited by the authors being won by private schools being won by a small subset of the private school population? 5)If we remove private schools where do the class breaks move to for the public school division? Seems a little rushed to me.
I have been on both sides of this discussion. As a kid I grew up in a rural community where football was the sport you played. I live in a different community now and we made the decision to send our kids to a Lutheran school at preschool. The same Lutheran school that my wife's family has attended since the 1800s. As a kid I remember traveling to St. Louis in 1972 only to see our hometown football team's dream of a state championship ended by Country Day, my cousin's dream ended by Country Day (2x) and my team's dream ended by Duchesne. This was the fact of life at the time for 2A/3A football. From 1972 until 2002 private schools won 61% of the 2A state championships. In the eleven years preceding 2003 that number had increased to 73% for 2A. In the eleven years since 2002 no private schools have won the 2A state football championship and only 1 has won the 3A state championship. Considering that from 1972 through 2002 private schools had won the 2A and 3A state football championship 47% this has been a big change. Why the big change? Possibly the multiplier? So in this case the multiplier has worked.

I do think we need to be careful in trying to engineer the fair distribution of championships. Where does this stop? We are moving to 5 classes in track because the big 4A schools were too dominant. We voted down qualifier plus because that might be too fair. Should we address the fact that Webb City is not sharing the 4A state football crown very well? After all, in the period cited by the proposal's authors Webb City has won the 4A crown 71% of the time. How about the fact that area codes of 314 & 636 have only won a state football championship 5 times (just eyeballing the championship list) during the period cited by the proposal's authors. 5 for 35 (not too many 1A schools in this area) or 14%. That can't be fair. Where does "fair" stop?

I am sorry but if you take private schools out of 2A girls cross country it is not going to make 2A teams say, "whew, we only have to face Herky, I like our chances" or a 4A football team jump up and down over the fact that private schools are "out of their way."

There are a lot of questions that should be answered before we put this to a vote. 1)Why split all sports when it seems there is a "fair" distribution in a lot of the sports. (I'm sorry but I am not going to say 20% for basketball is an unfair distribution given the relatively short observation period.) 2) What if we extend the period observed to include all the multiplier period? Would the public/private distribution be consistent with the numbers cited by the authors'? 3) Would increasing the number of classes in volleyball, soccer, baseball and "the country club sports" solve the "dominance"? It seems more cost effective to add classes to these sports than to duplicate the entire championship system and the higher costs involved 4)Of the state championships won by public schools, are they evenly distributed throughout the public schools in that class? If not, are there sports "powerhouses" outside of the private schools and how do we address this? This could also apply to private schools. Are the championships cited by the authors being won by private schools being won by a small subset of the private school population? 5)If we remove private schools where do the class breaks move to for the public school division?

Seems a little rushed to me.
12/11/2013 3:30:49 PM
User
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 35
I’m also not in favor of separating out the schools as I feel in general the multiplier helps to level the playing field. I am in favor of additional classes in almost all sports like is being done for track. In general there is not much difference between a school with 2500 students and 2700 but there’s huge difference between a school with 100 students and one that has 300. Additional classes help group the schools closer to the same size together. You can never make everything perfectly even but more classes means more even in my book. I would be in favor of adding a 5th class to Cross Country just like Track. Additional classes I think helps schools of all sizes but the smaller school need smaller groupings the most.
I'm also not in favor of separating out the schools as I feel in general the multiplier helps to level the playing field. I am in favor of additional classes in almost all sports like is being done for track. In general there is not much difference between a school with 2500 students and 2700 but there's huge difference between a school with 100 students and one that has 300. Additional classes help group the schools closer to the same size together. You can never make everything perfectly even but more classes means more even in my book. I would be in favor of adding a 5th class to Cross Country just like Track. Additional classes I think helps schools of all sizes but the smaller school need smaller groupings the most.
12/12/2013 8:18:20 PM
User
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 215
I will give you a Kansas perspective from someone who's kids run at St James Academy, one of the 3 Catholic High's in Johnson County. Those 3 schools own the girls sports in Kansas and many guys sports but combined have only one football state title and a total of 3 championship game appearances so they hardly dominate in football. I can see those 3 getting moved up but what about Bishop Ward in KCK who struggle being an inner city Catholic school? Or some of the rural Catholic's who struggle around the State? This is not an issue. My thought is a Europeon soccer system where if you win something you get moved up or if you stink you get moved down. I think purely doing things by enrollment numbers or to private schools is silly. That is not solving the entire issues.
I will give you a Kansas perspective from someone who's kids run at St James Academy, one of the 3 Catholic High's in Johnson County. Those 3 schools own the girls sports in Kansas and many guys sports but combined have only one football state title and a total of 3 championship game appearances so they hardly dominate in football.

I can see those 3 getting moved up but what about Bishop Ward in KCK who struggle being an inner city Catholic school? Or some of the rural Catholic's who struggle around the State?

This is not an issue. My thought is a Europeon soccer system where if you win something you get moved up or if you stink you get moved down. I think purely doing things by enrollment numbers or to private schools is silly. That is not solving the entire issues.
12/15/2013 12:40:57 PM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1092
@coachmoran I don't think anyone is saying that St. Teresa's recruits kids to run for them; at least, I hope they aren't. I certainly would not say that. Even though there have been two very good girls from my geographical boundaries who have run for private schools in the last 6-7 years, I don't believe either of them were recruited. I honestly believe that their parents think they were/are getting a better education, and that is their decision to make. The issue is whether a private school where 95% or more of the kids are financially "well off" is on a level playing field with a public school that might have 50% of the kids on free or reduced lunch. Obviously they are not. Money buys time for luxuries like extracurricular activities, access to sports therapists, treadmills, ability to attend camps, etc. The multiplier goes some distance towards correcting that inequity. That being said, I don't believe in splitting into a private division and a public division. Just because the titles aren't evenly distributed doesn't mean the system is unfair. Using that logic West Plains in their glory years should have been in their own division. Hopefully this will not getting through. I believe it is a disservice to any group of people to say "well, if you aren't winning as much as you would like to, then change the rules just so that you can win." Sean Nunn Raytown South
@coachmoran

I don't think anyone is saying that St. Teresa's recruits kids to run for them; at least, I hope they aren't. I certainly would not say that. Even though there have been two very good girls from my geographical boundaries who have run for private schools in the last 6-7 years, I don't believe either of them were recruited. I honestly believe that their parents think they were/are getting a better education, and that is their decision to make.

The issue is whether a private school where 95% or more of the kids are financially "well off" is on a level playing field with a public school that might have 50% of the kids on free or reduced lunch. Obviously they are not. Money buys time for luxuries like extracurricular activities, access to sports therapists, treadmills, ability to attend camps, etc. The multiplier goes some distance towards correcting that inequity.

That being said, I don't believe in splitting into a private division and a public division. Just because the titles aren't evenly distributed doesn't mean the system is unfair. Using that logic West Plains in their glory years should have been in their own division. Hopefully this will not getting through. I believe it is a disservice to any group of people to say "well, if you aren't winning as much as you would like to, then change the rules just so that you can win."

Sean Nunn
Raytown South
12/15/2013 4:37:22 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 332
Over my 10 years of coaching I have heard first hand accounts from kids and parents about being recruited by private schools. But many of them were also recruited by public schools. To say that recruitment is exclusively something that occurs only by private schools is bogus. I would also say I have seen more than enough parents bending the rules to get their kids into a specific school for the athletic program but the coach is not a factor in recruiting those kids personally. Quite frankly this is something that we as coaches need to uphold ourselves to the highest standards and not be bending and breaking rules in terms of recruitment. Coach Moran runs an honorable program and in fact all XC coaches I know personally do as well. This proposal is bad, in my opinion, because over time the system has worked with the ebbs and flows and the multiplier is doing its job. That said, I respect all sides of the argument and my opinion is my own.
Over my 10 years of coaching I have heard first hand accounts from kids and parents about being recruited by private schools. But many of them were also recruited by public schools. To say that recruitment is exclusively something that occurs only by private schools is bogus. I would also say I have seen more than enough parents bending the rules to get their kids into a specific school for the athletic program but the coach is not a factor in recruiting those kids personally. Quite frankly this is something that we as coaches need to uphold ourselves to the highest standards and not be bending and breaking rules in terms of recruitment. Coach Moran runs an honorable program and in fact all XC coaches I know personally do as well.
This proposal is bad, in my opinion, because over time the system has worked with the ebbs and flows and the multiplier is doing its job. That said, I respect all sides of the argument and my opinion is my own.
12/16/2013 11:29:13 AM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1092
@speced I think you make a good point about cross-country coaches being pretty honorable. However, I am not 100% sure that is true in every other sport. As I have stated before though, I don't think that is sufficient cause for making a change like this. Sean Nunn Raytown South
@speced

I think you make a good point about cross-country coaches being pretty honorable. However, I am not 100% sure that is true in every other sport.
As I have stated before though, I don't think that is sufficient cause for making a change like this.

Sean Nunn
Raytown South
12/16/2013 6:16:08 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 205
I think a point is missing on here, or I didn't read as well as I should have. If you split the private schools out, then what would the new classes look like? I think some people are acting like this would help public schools based on the idea that the classes would stay the same, which they wouldn't. I would guess that my school (De Soto) with 950 kids would now be in the largest class competing with the largest schools in the state. I think this would spread the classes out again to have small schools competing with schools of a much larger size. I am obviously guessing but would we then have 3 classes in track? Not to mention that we would then not see the best in the state compete at the state track meet. Maybe something needs to be done, but this doesn't seem to be the answer, for what my 2 cents is worth. curious to hear what everybody thinks and can somebody fill me in on what led to this petition? Thanks.
I think a point is missing on here, or I didn't read as well as I should have. If you split the private schools out, then what would the new classes look like? I think some people are acting like this would help public schools based on the idea that the classes would stay the same, which they wouldn't. I would guess that my school (De Soto) with 950 kids would now be in the largest class competing with the largest schools in the state. I think this would spread the classes out again to have small schools competing with schools of a much larger size. I am obviously guessing but would we then have 3 classes in track?

Not to mention that we would then not see the best in the state compete at the state track meet.

Maybe something needs to be done, but this doesn't seem to be the answer, for what my 2 cents is worth.

curious to hear what everybody thinks and can somebody fill me in on what led to this petition? Thanks.
12/16/2013 8:21:22 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1073
@tfrank As noted in the petition at the beginning of this thread it came from Park Hills Central. It did not come about from either track or cross country. XC numbers without private/charter would change little as far as cutoff numbers. There would still be 4 classes with the same number of schools per class. It would be at 1205 for the bottom of Class 4, 480 for Class 3 and 205 for Class 1. However, I ran these with the girls numbers and that may change since there are more all girls schools. With the 5 class proposal in place in track and the numbers of 64-96-96-96-catch all in place after January, Class 5 cutoff at 1362, Class 4 at 588, Class 3 at 241 and Class 2 at 100. Yep, major change. I will stick my neck out and say I think they will have enough valid signatures to place the proposal on the ballot but it has no chance of passing.
@tfrank
As noted in the petition at the beginning of this thread it came from Park Hills Central. It did not come about from either track or cross country.
XC numbers without private/charter would change little as far as cutoff numbers. There would still be 4 classes with the same number of schools per class. It would be at 1205 for the bottom of Class 4, 480 for Class 3 and 205 for Class 1. However, I ran these with the girls numbers and that may change since there are more all girls schools.
With the 5 class proposal in place in track and the numbers of 64-96-96-96-catch all in place after January, Class 5 cutoff at 1362, Class 4 at 588, Class 3 at 241 and Class 2 at 100. Yep, major change.
I will stick my neck out and say I think they will have enough valid signatures to place the proposal on the ballot but it has no chance of passing.
12/17/2013 8:16:34 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 205
Appreciate the insight as always. I obviously haven't paid that close of attention to this issue. Surprised by the what the cutoffs would be, thought the 70 schools would make a bigger difference. Does this have a chance of passing? Wouldn't this cost MSHSAA revenue? Thanks again, Coach Frank
Appreciate the insight as always. I obviously haven't paid that close of attention to this issue. Surprised by the what the cutoffs would be, thought the 70 schools would make a bigger difference. Does this have a chance of passing? Wouldn't this cost MSHSAA revenue?

Thanks again,

Coach Frank
12/17/2013 3:03:45 PM
Coach
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 150
Dean, Do you remember what the MSHSAA vote was on this issue a few years ago when it did get on the ballot? I remember the idea of splitting public and private was soundly defeated, but I couldn't remember by how much. Thanks, Coach Stone
Dean,

Do you remember what the MSHSAA vote was on this issue a few years ago when it did get on the ballot? I remember the idea of splitting public and private was soundly defeated, but I couldn't remember by how much.

Thanks,
Coach Stone

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.