quote:
Screw that. I don't mind jacking up the class on schools that outright recruit, but punishing a school because they "almost accidentally" recruit is bull shite.

It's not punishment. It's placing schools in a place where their resources would allow them to fairly compete.

I am completely sympathetic with the rural school complaint that no rural public school can compete with what happens when an urban private school becomes a "destination" in its community. If U-High is doing a good job with its football program, it's going to attract players from around a metro area of 800,000 while the little 2A town of 5k people is just going to attract their townies. Let's face it, nobody's moving to Logansport because it has a good football team unless they have a job in or near Logansport. And there ain't many of those. Those schools truly have to play with what they got.

That's why the multiplier makes sense. That's why having a multiplier based at least partly on population access makes total sense.

Again, I'd make the availability of need-based financial aid a bigger part of a formula than population access because if Crescent City Baptist is giving no scholarships to football players, it shouldn't have to bump up 2 classes just because it's in the middle of Metairie.

But if you are U-High or Curtis or Evangel and you do little things to get those players in, then by all means, bump them several classes. If you want to protect your crappy 2A-quality girls tiddlywinks team from getting crushed by Archbishop Chappelle, then quit recruiting a 5A-level football and boys basketball teams.

This post was edited on 1/30/13 at 6:29 pm