LOL Okay so if you the 10 schools with the highest free and reduced and the 10 with the lowest free and reduce and did a decade of winning percentages for each. That would still be cherry picking. I am just curious, of how much data is needed by you not to call it cherry picking
My 6 man ratings.
- Thread starter huskernation03
- Start date
So for example, if Humphrey St. Francis has 10% of their students on Free/Reduced, should they be bumped up a class in sports? What if they keep winning? Have them play 11 man football with 17 kids out?
I do not know what to do about it at all, if anything. I am fine with it the way it is. I am just pointing out that social economics has way more to do with winning and losing than most people care to imagine
I tend to agree....and it is why some states (Colorado is one) uses that as a factor for classifications.
Interesting question, I don't know. Bet someone has looked at that, but I haven't. But, I do know that low F/R lunch % correlates with success in high school athletics in Nebraska. A stronger correlation than any other numbers I looked at.
Cherry picking? I looked at ALL schools in Nebraska and their success in football, volleyball, and basketball. I looked at TEN years of success data, looking for factors that predicted success. The first five years of the sample were used to see which factores best predicted the success in the last five years of the data. All the data comes from a system where classification by enrollment already exists, so all of my observations are from within an enrollment-classification system. In other words, nothing I looked at imagines a system where you don't start classification with enrollment numbers. I simply looked at other factors that could be used to adjust enrollment classification to create better competitive classes. Two factors proved to best predict success:
1) low F/R%
2) success (teams that won the last five years are more likely to win the next five)
One factor that didn't correlate well at all really surprised me
3) placement inside of classification (are you in the top/middle/bottom third of enrollment in your classification?
I really expected that would make a difference. It didn't show up statistically.
I tested several other factors (all from other state's classification experiments) and none of them produced conclusive results.
Here's the link the presentation. I think it still has access to the linked data as well, but it has been several years since the re-classification committee looked at it all, nodded a lot, asked a fee questions, and then did nothing with it because this topic is way too hot a potato for them to want to handle.
1) low F/R%
2) success (teams that won the last five years are more likely to win the next five)
One factor that didn't correlate well at all really surprised me
3) placement inside of classification (are you in the top/middle/bottom third of enrollment in your classification?
I really expected that would make a difference. It didn't show up statistically.
I tested several other factors (all from other state's classification experiments) and none of them produced conclusive results.
Here's the link the presentation. I think it still has access to the linked data as well, but it has been several years since the re-classification committee looked at it all, nodded a lot, asked a fee questions, and then did nothing with it because this topic is way too hot a potato for them to want to handle.
So then those who doubt now should say without a doubt social economics is the largest indicator of success
This is a good question. In my opinion, once we look at D1 athletes it gets kind of tricky. I am sure that a significant percentage of these D1 athletes come from economically disadvantaged homes. However, I believe the resounding percentage of those athletes come from the largest class of schools in their respected state. Odds are that nearly all students in their school came from the same economic situation. I understand that those details don't change the point you are making or question you are asking. However, we are not talking about Class A schools in this post.
I would say that it most certainly is a significant factor. I don't know if it is the largest.
It is currently, look at Bennington, Norris, Waverly, Elkhorn's, Gretna's, Westside, Lincoln Southwest, soon to be Lincoln Standing Bear. But I don't know how you could justify using it as a clause in change for classification. It wouldn't fly in Nebraska IMO. It's not those schools fault they have students who come from "wealthier backgrounds" that's how social economics are laid out. It's just life.
Most schools are in the classes they should be. Should some be bumped up or down? Yes, but that number is very low. But let's not pretend that if Omaha Benson dropped to C1 they would run through everyone. More competitive? Sure. To me, that sets a bad precedent saying "our kids aren't good enough so let's go play Auburn instead of Westside."
Or, again I'll use Humphrey St. Francis. Should Humphrey St. Francis play Lakeview in football or Pierce? Absolutely not.
I understand the point that you are making, but when searching for potential discussion points we certainly need to make sure we avoid brain explosions that would place a now D2 school in the belly of the Class C1 Beast.
Come on, nobody in their right mind would suggest such a thing. I know that you are aware of that. And you know what...most likely St Francis would keep winning if moved to D1. But not at the rate they currently win at.
But do you think HSF wants to be D2? They don’t. They’d love to have 25 kids per grade again like they did 15 years ago.
They were D2 15 years ago.
I believe that they do want to be D2. If they didn't, they would co-op sports with the school 2 blocks down the street from them. I believe they are perfectly happy playing in the smallest division in their class.
While, I agree, all three of those schools need to come together, co-oping is different.
HSF isn't turning away kids to stay Class D2.
I hear you, but we all have to admit that this one makes a person scratch their head a little bit. Golden opportunity to level up is right at their fingertips and they won't do it.
Twin River is just down the road and opens up their softball program to literally ANY school that wants to come. They have girls from Lindsay and Humphrey coming there to play softball.
I am not saying the St Francis is turning students away. I have no idea. I am saying that they like D2 Sports or they would fix it.
Last school I would stick up for is Parkview C. They had to rewrite the exchange rules twice because of their constant recruiting for other countries
My frustration with PC is they make other parochial schools look bad. It’s obvious they operate differently compared to schools to their comparable enrollment.
I assume you are talking about basketball.
I'd take Lakeview's top 8 against HSF and spot points as well. Lakeview plays one of the toughest C-1 Schedules in the state and generally comes out on the + side of .500.
Can I get a link to the dataset, I'd like to run it in R to test the correlation coefficient and run a few other diagnostics for stats purposes.
You'd have to gather it all up like I did 5-6 years ago. There is no one repository that I know of. Love to hear what you find.
