SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Private vs. Public question

MY PERSONAL COMMENTARY:

This is an interesting topic.

Let me go on record as saying that I truly respect the secondary institutions at Bishop England, Christ Church, and Southside Christian. However, these are the poignant examples I have to illustrate this conversation.

I, for one, have always embraced the idea (and fact) that the programs of Bishop England, Christ Church, and Southside Christian have competed in the S.C. High School League -- in all sports, especially soccer. I have always felt that it is better to "challenge yourself or program" to the best of its ability. I've held this judgement for years and considered it a moot point as long as those institutions participated in all SCHSL athletics. After all, I don't hear much complaining from BE, CCES, or SC when it comes to the fact that those schools don't perform too well in football, basketball, or track/field.

However, with the "multiplier rule" tabled this year and it being voted down narrowly by high school administrators, I have had cause to reconsider my stance on this issue.

After a pretty thorough "spring analysis", then I am pretty comfortable by saying on May 14, 2006, that if a private school selects to compete as a member of the SCHSL, then that institution should be placed in the largest classification of competition of all institutions in academics and athletics.

I sympathize with the rural 2A and 1A schools that have faced the likes of BE and CCES in the soccer championships, but it's not those schools (or their players) fault. I have an inkling that when these proposals were made that BE, CCES, and SC all had notions that in terms of football/basketball that those sports "at best" would be competitive with high schools in their classification, but probably not win championships -- at least not at the state level.

However, the truth is that athletics such as baseball, golf, soccer, softball, tennis, etc., have become "year-round" activities and they are given an advantage with those that can afford to play-and-pay for this privilege. I'm not saying that is wrong -- in fact, I encourage that type of training. But, after a period of time when statistics are compiled, then I think it's safe to draw a conclusion and for the Boys Class 2A ranks that means that Bishop England has particpated in all six of that classification's championship and won three titles and finished as Runners-Up the other three times. Chapin, which has won two titles, and Emerald, which captured one championship, are both "priviliged" soccer communities and when BE didn't win the 2A title, then those programs were there to cash in.

If you analyze the Class 1A title match, then you'll find that Christ Church has been victorious each time with the likes of Academic Magnet, Blackville-Hilda, Buford (2), Lincoln, and Williston-Elko finishing as Runners-Up -- folks, those are hardly bastions of prep soccer, but they should be congratulated for overcoming those obstacles. Take out Academic Magnet and you find largely rural schools competing for a championship against teams from urban-area institution that can attract student-athletes from a wide geographic area.

Putting it succinctly, if private schools (in the day-and-age of 2006) are going to be eligible to play in the public school system, then those institutions should be placed with the largest schools to "challenge themselves" to the utmost!

well stated...i now have a headache from reading this post.

Academic Magnet,Blackville-Hilda,Buford, Lincoln, and Williston-Elco all denied a state championship when they were the best public school in their state classification. This is what bothers me most. I'm not from McClellenville but I would bet every player on that team is from the McClellenville area. I think teams in 1A and 2A just want a level playing field and with BE and CC I don't feel that is the case. Do you all think the "multiplier rule" will be tabled again?

This is a confusing issue? If my son and his club teammates chose to take their whole club team and play at a high school, they would be forced to play at one of these private schools, for of course they do not all live in the same high school district and crossing over public school district lines is just not allowed. Thus, how is it an even playing field when this is a possibility within a private school? The participation of these private schools in the public school areana opens the door for some back room wheeling and dealing that we know doesn't go on in public schools. Just ask Kevin Garnett of the NBA!

USMNT2014. If my public high school team had been playing club ball together (BC...nearly all of them grew up playing at Congaree...the necsa Ambush is 2 schools with about 5 random players, and those 2 schools both competed in the state championships this fall...) how is this much different from what you are talking about...I think the key is to play year round like everyone else is doing, and you will be gradually more successful than you are.

Jack, they all have high schools (9th-12th grade). And these are the kids playing in the High school league. My only argument is that people shouldn't call it the "public" school league, because it is not. Christ Church didn't win any type of "public" school championship, they won the high school league championship. Article 3 of the SCHSL Constitution "Who May Join." Says that 1 Public schools who conform to the SCHSL rules and 2 Private Schools who conform to the rules. It's not a public school league...its a high school league.

Kyle, I like the idea of having them play in the top classification. And all of ya'll know that I support a Scisa school, and if you want to know my opinion on them playing scisa? bring them on. I'd love to have 3 more competitive schools in all sports. Bishop England may kill everyone, but their doing so already, its fine with me. I'm not saying that things need to stay the same, I'd like to see things as level as possible, but the only way that everyone is going to be on a level playing field is if schools play against schools who are level in each particular sport, like the soccer specific divisions proposed a while back.

And purple, I don't think SCHSL, from reading the little that I did on their website, is a public school system at all, or ever was.

That's a pretty intense post for 3:30 in the morning.

Benp...you are correct regarding playing year round. The player that focuses on one sport winds up improving in that sport to his highest capabilities.

You may have missed my point though. Those club players just happen to live in the same district. Whereas, at these so called private schools they do not have such limitations. I too beleive that if the schools are going to compete against each other than the playing field must be level regarding "all" rules regardless of who or what government system is setting those rules.

Let me look at it in another way. I believe most of these public high school rules and regulations have been setup to deter recruiting by the high schools. If (hypothetically speaking) I wanted to get a club team to attend one high school there is no way (by law) that I could do such in a public school setting. However, for these private schools it would only take inventive car pooling. That does not seem right. Let's even the playing field.

Hey thats a great idea... Why don't you get a really good club team to all move to BE or CC..All it would take is to arrange for transportation and come up with about $9000 per player..Unless he/she is a Catholic parisioner and then its only about $5500. Shouldn't be a problem. I mean everybody in Charleston can afford that....Right? When you look at it from a real stadpoint of who can afford to go to these schools, then the pool of players shrinks considerably.....If you want to talk about recruiting then give some specific examples...Otherwise don't make unsupported allegations.....As several people have said, this is a rural vs urban problem. Not one of district lines....The same problems exist within SCISA....The powers in the spring sports,except baseball are all from City schools where kids play that sport year round. It is not a public vs private problem, rather a problem of where the schools are located... It might well be that BE has an unfair competitive advantage in many sports. However attendance lines are not the culprit....

BDad11, you are acurate about location but naive to think that open enrollment for private schools is not a HUGE avantage. And I believe someone has misunderstood me to label SCHSL as public schools; I didn't (or if I implied that in some post, it was a mistake, not intended). That isn't an issue for me.

I believe my offer of putting all schools with open enrollment in AAAA (as also suggested by Kyle) is the fair thing to do. I would not recommend kicking BE, CC, and SSC out.

My question would then be,why is it not the same advantage for football and basketball at these schools?

My point is,it is more about location and the access to quality club play and or individual coaching as in tennis or golf.Again, we face the same problems in SCISA where the attendance line variable is removed...My school is very affluent in comparison to most schools, but we struggle against schools from Columbia and Charleston in soccer,tennis, and golf...Most of our kids are not commited enough to make the 1 hr drive 3-4 times a week to play for a quality club..If these same kids lived on the edge of either Columbia or Charleston, then I think the scenario would be different..There seems to be 3 variables involved...Attendance lines, affluence, and location i.e. access to quality year round instruction and play.I see the situation in SCISA with the first 2 variables removed and the same problems exist... Again, this is just my opinion and admittedly my frame of reference is different from many of yours..Makes for interesting discussions at any rate...