>>[garnet&black] There is a bias that AAAA and AAA are better and thus players are better because the schools are bigger<<
What I don't understand is the nature of the bias if such a bias exists. If there are 1000 kids playing in 4-A, 100 kids playing in 3-A, 10 kids playing in 2-A, and 1 kid playing in 1-A, then an unbiased representation would be 100X more kids making an all-star team in 4-A versus 2-A. This is made even more difficult by the actual candidate pool -- if in 4-A there are 2000 candidates of which 1000 were selected and in 1-A there was only 1 candidate then that becomes another factor. Of course, these are hypothetical numbers -- I wish I had the time to go figure out the real ones.
The problem I think you're getting at isn't the actual sampled representation over a given population but the assumption people make that because a player is from a smaller school that they are always less qualified than a player from a larger school. This is like saying that an engineer from MIT is always better than an engineer from Clemson. While it may typically be true, it is not always true.
