mrmike527 Show full post »
afan1
We already know that on some AAU elite teams somepeople pay and some do not. We also know that at some schools some kids pay full price and some do not.

I do not think that it is HAND SELECTING nor would most people. (in my opinion).

That being said I hope the proposal gets to a membership vote. They deserve a voice on the matter.
"The name All-Northwest itself means something to readers of the Leader-Telegram." ?

DO JUSTICE, LOVE MERCY, WALK HUMBLY
Quote 0 0
dwaderulzz_old
Quote:
ORIGINAL: a fan

We already know that on some AAU elite teams somepeople pay and some do not. We also know that at some schools some kids pay full price and some do not.

I do not think that it is HAND SELECTING nor would most people. (in my opinion).

That being said I hope the proposal gets to a membership vote. They deserve a voice on the matter.


A fan, this is the kind of staement that takes the entire argument back to recruiting. The implication is that athletes pay less than other students, not based on any financial needs assessment, but based on playing ability. If that isn't your intent then please retract it.

Secondly, why don't you look up the most recent D1 teams at state and see how many come from the smaller D1 cities. If you can't see the possibility of an advantage you're not being honest.
Quote 0 0
afan1
Quote:
ORIGINAL: fubarbucky

I would like to see the WIAA get all the D-3 athletic directors together and in an open forum:
1. Decide if there is really a "D-3 situation" or just a few disgruntled posters
2. If there is indeed a "D-3 situation" to what degree is it a problem
3. Come up with a concensus solution
4. Do it openly, don't hide anything

As a side note. I do not think the last three years of discussion of this subject have made me a better person. I've read a lot of rubbish ect ect ect from both sides. This makes it hard not to become hardened. The WIAA is owned by its constituents. Let them deal with the situation real or precived.

Notes: WIAA vows to resolve public-vs.-private issue
By ART KABELOWSKY

Posted: April 26, 2006
Wausau - The membership has spoken, and it's time for the WIAA to come up with an answer.
Earlier this month, the WIAA board of control held a retreat to discuss plans for the coming year. WIAA executive director Doug Chickering said he heard one message loud and clear.
"They told us that the public-vs.-private schools issue has to be resolved," Chickering said during the WIAA's annual meeting at the Stoney Creek Inn here Wednesday. "Our member schools expect action."

"The name All-Northwest itself means something to readers of the Leader-Telegram." ?

DO JUSTICE, LOVE MERCY, WALK HUMBLY
Quote 0 0
afan1
Quote:
ORIGINAL: dwaderulzz

Quote:
ORIGINAL: a fan

We already know that on some AAU elite teams somepeople pay and some do not. We also know that at some schools some kids pay full price and some do not.

I do not think that it is HAND SELECTING nor would most people. (in my opinion).

That being said I hope the proposal gets to a membership vote. They deserve a voice on the matter.


A fan, this is the kind of staement that takes the entire argument back to recruiting. The implication is that athletes pay less than other students, not based on any financial needs assessment, but based on playing ability. If that isn't your intent then please retract it.

Secondly, why don't you look up the most recent D1 teams at state and see how many come from the smaller D1 cities. If you can't see the possibility of an advantage you're not being honest.


As these things are not public I have no idea of the truth nor would you I'd guess. I just remember someone that sounded legit, post something about a supporter paying tuition for someone. ( does anyone else remember that post ? ) But honestly I do not know and admit that. Fair enough ?

Let's look at D1 then, Oshkosh 63k, Madison 221k, Wausa 37k, Mil 578k, Brookfield 38k Verona 7k, Kimberly 6K. What advantage are you getting at ?

"The implication is that athletes pay less than other students, not based on any financial needs assessment, but based on playing ability." Perhaps this great player has financial need and therefore gets assistance? I would love to see the breakdown on who all gets assistance but know I never will. []

But let's HONESTLY look at just one private:
I sometimes learn as I go........[X(].


xxxxx High School offers a variety of different grants and scholarships to help defray the cost of tuition. Over $400,000 was awarded last year to approximately 40% of the students who attend xxxxx These awards include both merit and need based grants $1,000 merit based scholarships to freshmen based on Placement Test Scores.$500 to $1000 Freshmen Leadership Scholarships.Student Activities Leadership grants to students is grades 10-12.Archdiocesan Employee Discounts.Limited matches to Parish Sponsored scholarships.Archdiocese of Milwaukee grants. Dozens of need based scholarships up to half tuition have been sponsored by the xxxxxx as well as individual and corporate donors.

Sounds like prior poster ( I refered to ) spoke from knowledge.




( Hey, I'm always honest, you know that by now ) [:-]
"The name All-Northwest itself means something to readers of the Leader-Telegram." ?

DO JUSTICE, LOVE MERCY, WALK HUMBLY
Quote 0 0
paladium
This will probably be my last post in this discussion, as I'm getting bored with the same arguement time after time.

Anyway, as posted somewhere else, what about this:

Post-Season division is decided by 2 factos, school size and conference size.

For example: A school of 200 kids, in a conference where the average school had 300 kids, would add half the difference to their enrollment, bringing them to 250 kids. This would apply to every school, public or private. As many private schools play in conferences with larger schools, this would mean that many of them might move up a division. Its safe to say, I think, that playing against larger schools improves your chances of winning in the post season, as you've been playinng better competitionn and therefore have gotten better. This would off-set that advantage, but would do it fairly among both public and private schools. In no way would this be a definite, every year thing, but I think it is safe to say that with many schools they would end up playingup a division 50% of the time. It might not eliminate issues, but it would go a long way to making it 'fair,' as it impacts both private and public schools, based upon the competition they play.
The Brewers will finish 90-72 and earn the #1 WC berth.

Carlos Gomez will have a 30/40 season (HR/SB) and win a 2nd Gold Glove en route to an All Star selection.
Quote 0 0
catinthehat
I'm against the new division 5 proposal. I think its the wrong way to handle the public vs. private issue. I know there will be some that will say "that's not what its for." I think its proposed in hope that it will satisfy the smallest schools by dodging the real problem. There's nothing wrong with D4. Its just that the overwhelming majority of D-4 schools are still small town, rural, small community, etc... These people feel pretty strongly they shouldn't have to compete with the advantages that inherently come with the small enrollment privates located in cities.

Imagine the outrage if a D5 is created and and shortly there after a city private wins the championship. Sounds silly? It happened in D7 football. There was alot of anger and heated debate then, if you remember.

After reading some posts addressing the large gap in D1 between biggest and smallest, maybe thats where the new division (if needed) could go. Instead of adding a D5, maybe we should add a D1A right ahead of D1. I know its the same as adding a division 5, but you would know it was created specifically to address the large gap in D1. Help me out D1 people who are the standouts who might fall into the biggest division then (out of five) whatever its called.
Quote 0 0
thecrackerjack
Quote:
ORIGINAL: catinthehat

I'm against the new division 5 proposal. I think its the wrong way to handle the public vs. private issue. I know there will be some that will say "that's not what its for." I think its proposed in hope that it will satisfy the smallest schools by dodging the real problem. There's nothing wrong with D4. Its just that the overwhelming majority of D-4 schools are still small town, rural, small community, etc... These people feel pretty strongly they shouldn't have to compete with the advantages that inherently come with the small enrollment privates located in cities.

Imagine the outrage if a D5 is created and and shortly there after a city private wins the championship. Sounds silly? It happened in D7 football. There was alot of anger and heated debate then, if you remember.

After reading some posts addressing the large gap in D1 between biggest and smallest, maybe thats where the new division (if needed) could go. Instead of adding a D5, maybe we should add a D1A right ahead of D1. I know its the same as adding a division 5, but you would know it was created specifically to address the large gap in D1. Help me out D1 people who are the standouts who might fall into the biggest division then (out of five) whatever its called.


the d5 idea was shot down like a week or 2 ago
Fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all.
- Yvon Chouinard

@miedent 
Quote 0 0
Slim_old
Quote:
ORIGINAL: catinthehat

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Slim

Quote:
ORIGINAL: oldshep

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Slim

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Mr_mike527
One of the great points on another thread was that the point of the divisions was to seperate the small cities and schools apart from the larger cities and schools. If you don't think a larger city has an advantage, there is no point to the divisions in the first place.

The point of divisions is divide teams by enrollment not by population.

Undoubtedly their are advantages (youth programs, YMCA's, etc.) large cities see over small towns. But saying this is a 35-50% advantage (1.35-1.50 multiplier) is ridiculous. Also, wouldn't the public schools in these cities realize the same advantage? Where is the disgust in regards to them?

Giving schools an incentive to excel in athletics is a poor idea as well. If anything a disproportionate amount of attention is given to athletics already.



Actually, when the WIAA broke the basketball tournament into 4 divisions, it was with the idea of giving more small communities the opportunity to experience success in the tournament. This happened in 1989/90. There were no private schools in the WIAA then so the small towns did get this opportunity. By dividing the schools by enrollment, the WIAA figured you would get some f the smallest towns more of a chance since they naturally have the smallest enrollments.

please, really i beg of you please, find one written instance where it states the WIAA was differentiating between small schools and small communities....You can twist and contort ideas all you want, but face it, divisions exist to divide schools based on enrollment. If not D4 would only include teams who come from towns size unincorporated-2000, D3 2001-5000, etc. []


When the divisions were created small enrollment and small community went HAND IN HAND! It didn't need to be "one written instance" Anyone with a pulse should be able to use some common sense to figure that out. Yes, you are correct when you say "face it, divisions exist to divide schools based on enrollment." Well kind of. That WAS the idea. Back then it was implied that small enrollement, small school, and small community all meant the same thing. If your enrollment was tiny (>250) it was practically a mathematical certainty that the school was from small rural community. Since '99-'00 that ideal has been thrown out the window. Folks like yourself AND the WIAA don't have the common sense (or in the case of the WIAA, the balls) to admit there is a difference between where a rural D3,D4 public and D3 private in the middle of Racine acquire their enrollments.

Same enrollment is the ONLY thing that is the same anymore. If you honestly believe similar enrollments makes EVERYTHING equal you might as well erase the divisions and start from scratch.

This will also be my last post in this thread, as noone else actually takes the time to read post and address anything new in them.

Speaking directly to you catinthehat. Straightline, population does not equal enrollment in high schools. Since everyone is so enthrolled with exceptions to the rules presented in statistical form consider the following....

Lakeland (Minoqua) - population = 4859 students = 953- D1 students:citizens 1:5.1
Verona - pop = 7052 students = 1435 - D1 s:c 1:4.91
Kimberly - pop = 6146 students = 1180 - D1 s:c 1:5.2

Marshall - pop = 3432 students = 359 - D3 s:c 1:9.56

Abby - pop = 1956 students = 203 - D4 s:c 1:9.63

Care to you rethink your public school, small community = small school viewpoint. You can see schools in suburban areas have a much more dense s:c ratio, why? Becuase their are other socioeconomic factors. You just can't say "big town = big school".

I am not going to take the time to rank schools based on their cities/town population, but I will tell you this by your arguement both Lakeland and Marshall would both probably be D2. Is it fair to have (and this isnt as big of a deal in basketball, but on a pure number basis is a huge deal in football) a team drawing from nearly 1000 students play against a team with only 350 students? Since you insist on dissing my logic and common sense, I will let you explain that to the rest of the board.
Boom goes the Dynamite

The plot doesn't thicken....
Quote 0 0
Slim_old
Quote:
ORIGINAL: a fan

An intesting fact I dug up:

"the last D3 field before WISSA schools were added consisted of Chetek, Marshall, Lomira, and Auburndale.

The total population of those four communities is around 9,000. This year's D3 field consisted of schools from Eau Claire, La Crosse, Racine, and Manitowoc. Those four communities consist of over 200,000.

You cannot honestly look at those numbers and not conclude that there is the possibility of an advantage.


[u][/u]

are there no private schools in D2 or D4? Why are they not mentioned? Is it because D2 is the exception to the rule and not the norm?

If anything shouldn't D4 have the biggest diference? How many private school teams were in Madison for D4?
Boom goes the Dynamite

The plot doesn't thicken....
Quote 0 0
afan1
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Slim

Quote:
ORIGINAL: a fan

An intesting fact I dug up:

"the last D3 field before WISSA schools were added consisted of Chetek, Marshall, Lomira, and Auburndale.

The total population of those four communities is around 9,000. This year's D3 field consisted of schools from Eau Claire, La Crosse, Racine, and Manitowoc. Those four communities consist of over 200,000.

You cannot honestly look at those numbers and not conclude that there is the possibility of an advantage.


[u][/u]

are there no private schools in D2 or D4? Why are they not mentioned? Is it because D2 is the exception to the rule and not the norm?

If anything shouldn't D4 have the biggest diference? How many private school teams were in Madison for D4?


Why ask the question if you know the answer ?
I chose D3 because that seems to be the div that
the problem seems most apparent. If you will not accept the problem in the Div where it is the most obvious why would I think that you would in other Div's. Clearly you will not and refuse to. It has been clearly pointed out statisticly before as to what the NORM D3 community or school is. I see that your team did quite well in Div 4 this spring. Maybe you do not like the idea of moving up to D3 ? I will just have to accept that you are simply protecting your turf and will leave it at that. [:-] Good day

As you spoke about yourself SLIM, in a past post:


As somebody with no real alliance to any program (I am 24, live 3.5 hours from my alma mater and other than occasionally glancing at the old home town news paper, do not really follow their athletic programs), let me give as close to an unbiased as their is on this site to this topic.

I an not sure you really are unbiased from reading quite a few of your post on this issue. [:-]



"The name All-Northwest itself means something to readers of the Leader-Telegram." ?

DO JUSTICE, LOVE MERCY, WALK HUMBLY
Quote 0 0
catinthehat
Wow... I'm impressed. Once again on this topic somebody digs out a few exceptions to try and discredit the norm. By the way Slim, did I ever use ANY specific towns with their respective populations? Nope.

I used words like community and rural. I should have ued the words "normally" and "typical" so all of the exceptions to the norm pointer outer geniuses could keep the exceptions to themselves. We all know there are exceptions to most rules.

TYPICALLY, in the state of wisconsin, in the late 80s the smallest rural schools which made up the eventual D4 were smaller school districts from smaller communities. Communities as in, the village in question, and the surrounding townships which make the school district and its enrollment.

NORMALLY, these small D4 schools would battle other small communities in the playoffs. Enrollments were similar. Community size was similar. Playing feild seemed fair

Around '99-'00 Many of these rural community folks were dissapointed to hear that their small community schools may now have to face private schools, potentially from cities of 50,000 to 80,000 people in the playoff system, if for nothing else their enrollments were the same.

I hope that clears up the rural point of view a little better.

Whatever you do, please keep in mind there a probably a few exceptions to the things mentioned above
Quote 0 0
fubarbucky_old
IMHO I feel that it is very important for these meetings to be in open forum and include everyone that is affected in D-3 (represented by the athletic directors or principals of the D-3 schools)

I want the meetings in the open so that all the misinformation and inuendo of the past three years is put where it belongs, in the rubbish.

I want it in the open so that peoples views are known by all and cannot be hid
behind anonymity.

Last I want it in the open so whatever decision is reached you know who voted for what and by what margin was the decision reached.

I guess I'm asking for a lot but if this topic is that important to all I would expect no less.
Quote 0 0
Marty Moose_old
Quote:
ORIGINAL: jogagr5

Quote:
ORIGINAL: Paladium

I'd like to comment on what I find hilarious about this topic and situation, because it really is hilarious.

1) Since who knows when, the WISAA was thought of as the weak, little sister of the WIAA. WISAA championships meant nothing to the big bad WIAA, and when the merger was approved, there was non issue whatsoever with it being based upon enrollement.
2) Now that private schools have shown that some of them have outstanding athletic programs, all of a sudden its "we need to make it fair," "send them back to the WISAA," and crap like that.
3) And, perhaps the funniest part about this discussion. Some of you get so worked up over it, but nothing will change! You can argue until you are blue in the face, and what you say will have no impact! How so? Well, look at it this way. Where is the WIAA based? Larger cities, with private schools. With private schools in the WIAA, they get more revenue, and have more pull than they would before hand, when the WISAA was an option for a school to go to. Moving privates up in divisions won't help any, because as they move up the divisions, their press coverage increases. The more press coverage they get, the more kids hear about them and want to go there. The more kids that go there, the more money they get from tuition and donations, meaning they can provide better education services, meaning once more more kids will go there.

Want some proposals that are being considered in other states?

Kentucky: After transferring schools, a student may not compete at any high school level for 1 year, and may not compete at the varsity level for two years. This rules goes both ways, with the sole exception being the family moving to another district. The private school, for living purposes, is considered to have the same housing district as the public school in who's district it is in. So, unless you move to another district, your child must spend two years ineligble to play Varsity ball. Doesn't that seem fair? It would effectly end transferring for athletic purposes, as what kid would want to transfer only to sit out two years, and how many families will pack up and move to a complete new district as well?

Want an attorneys perspective? Here's one: The reason is that coaches from some public high schools are complaining that private high schools are winning too many state championships. The solution favored by some of these coaches, mostly from outstate Missouri, is to establish separate state championships for public and private high schools in every sport except football.

This proposal does not simply pit public schools against private schools. It has also sparked a debate between public schools that don't want to compete against private schools and those that do. Considering that public schools are divided on the issue, there would appear to be another solution that has not yet been proposed. Why don't the public schools that don't want to compete against private schools form their own athletic association?

If some public schools don't want to take part in tournaments with private schools, let them have their way. But don't let them impose their views on the public schools that want to play in competitive tournaments in which all high schools are welcome. If some public schools want to implement dual state championships in most sports, so be it. But they should not prevent other public schools from playing in the more competitive championship tournament if that's what these schools want to do.

So, you don't like playing privates, you get your school to form a new association. Don't ruin it for the schools that love the competition that some private schools provide. Do you ever hear Stratford, Gilmore, Elva-Strum, Iola, Hilbert complaining? No. I have yet to hear a school that is consistently a winner complain about the current arrangement, it is mainly those who no longer play ball, those whose teams never beat private schools, or those who have a personal bias against private schools.


Also, something interesting to note. Nationwide, it has been found that within the community where the Private school is located, there is no issues between schools. In Eau Claire, there are no issues between the private system and the public system. It is generally the outsiders, the ones who are not actually involved, who bring up issues and make them issues. It is rarely the schools who compete with the private schools for students who voice concerns, and not even half of the schools they compete with athletically voice concerns as a system. It is, for the most part, parents and fans of athletic rivals who have problems with private schools. In football, do any of you think that Wisconsin Lutheran has any problems with the other schools in their conference? No. The coaches like WisCo, for the competition provided. It is the parents and outsiders who have the problem.

So, to everyone here, here's some advice.
Unless you go to a private or public school and have talked with your school board, administrators, and coaches about every issue involved, keep your trap shut. If your a parent or alumni and do not know every issue, keep your mouth shut. All these topics are doing is spreading rumors and biases amongst students. Now, I'll follow my own advice, and as I don't know everything involved in this issue, I'll shut up.

1. What did it matter what the WIAA thought of WISAA championships? They were two different associations. The WIAA was supposed to review the merger after 3 years to look at issues that arose from the merger. This is one of the issues that arose from the merger and needs to be addressed. And, this issue is obviously one that was overlooked and not anticipated at the time of the merger. But, they did plan the review the merger, so they knew it was possible that issues may arise and changes may need to be made.
2. It does need to be made "fair"! We aren't asking for special rules so the publics win all the championships. We are asking for ALL schools to play against who they SHOULD be playing against. Right now, it's not that way.
3. What does it really matter where the WIAA office is? The membership is based through out the entire state and that membership is made up of more publics than privates. So your revenue theory really doesn't hold water. Would the WIAA be taking in more revenue then if, as you propose, the publics did pull out of the WIAA? No. And as for the privates going back to WISAA. That would make more sense since they had their own association at one time and, in the eyes of many, this merger isn't working out. There needs to be a change whether it is a multiplier, moving up a division or maybe something that hasn't even been proposed yet. I think just about everyone knows what private schools are around them. So, I don't think the more coverage they get the more kids will want to go there. They have to have the means to go there and if they do have the means, they are probably already going to a private school. In Eau Claire, Regis gets just as much, or more, coverage than Memorial and North do. It seems ECIL doesn't get as much. In Eau Claire the Privates and Publics don't play each other in sports. So, why would there be an issue? Although, if you are from this area you know that Regis isn't very well liked, whatever the reasons are.

The MOST HILARIOUS thing is that you don't think that if the public school members of the WIAA complain enough, that something won't be done about this issue.


Actually, I believe there is a City Track Meet, A City Cross Country Meet, some Volleyball, Baseball, and Softball games between Regis and Memorial/North. Altoona is also in the same conference and is what a mile away from Regis, maybe two miles from EC Memorial. Not that this matters much - but The Privates do compete against the Publics in Eau Claire - that is a Fact.
Quote 0 0
afan1
Quote:
ORIGINAL: fubarbucky

IMHO I feel that it is very important for these meetings to be in open forum and include everyone that is affected in D-3 (represented by the athletic directors or principals of the D-3 schools)

I want the meetings in the open so that all the misinformation and inuendo of the past three years is put where it belongs, in the rubbish.

I want it in the open so that peoples views are known by all and cannot be hid
behind anonymity.

Last I want it in the open so whatever decision is reached you know who voted for what and by what margin was the decision reached.

I guess I'm asking for a lot but if this topic is that important to all I would expect no less.


I do know that in 2006 the WIAA did have area meetings, my take is that these were basicly listening meetings as you seem to call for.
They were for all Div's.

Issue 11 of the WIAA bulletins on the WIAA page has a good amount of info for you. Dougs speech is very intresting and gives you the mindset of the WIAA after the April 2006 membersip meeting.

Vote totals are common knowledge and can be found in the info the WIAA releases.
"The name All-Northwest itself means something to readers of the Leader-Telegram." ?

DO JUSTICE, LOVE MERCY, WALK HUMBLY
Quote 0 0
wissportsnet

Boys Basketball Alumni Round-up: February 21st, from @ColtonWilson23 #wisbb -- https://t.co/0K6CZzZWpf https://t.co/715tfpBGVS

wissportsnet

WSN15: Boys Basketball Top Teams #12 -- Two NCAA Division I players at one WIAA Division 4 school = state champions… https://t.co/1MThqzce9L

wissportsnet

Predicting winners of every state wrestling title plus a look By The Numbers, from @Nate_Woelfel -… https://t.co/HgU1bLP7d6

wissportsnet

Join the free Boys Basketball Playoff Pick 'Em Contest; Staff picks coming Tuesday #wisbb -- https://t.co/Y6yTA3OgP8 https://t.co/hA6Uyw9uje