What do we do with the Oceanside/Gray etc.

[Rebel-Fan-74]

Also, sorry to all that may view my perspective as rude. I have spoken to many people on this and the only ones who disagree are teams of a higher classification, or representatives of Collegiate schools themselves. Both of which, have been dismissive of my points, saying "Just get better" or something along those lines. It is very frustrating to try to hear someone else's side when they refuse to hear yours. It's not about "getting better" or the fact that I am directly hindered by these schools in any way. I just want an even playing field for everyone involved, for the kid's sakes.

No need to apologize for your opinion is just as important as anyone else. My concern with this idea:

Make them play up a level/Make them all play at 5A: Then you punish teams that are not recruiting and you pass the "cheaters" on to others, not really settle the issue.

What about the schools like Academic Magnet? They will have to follow the same rules as the Legion/Gray/Oceanside schools. They have a difficult time at the current level, bumping them up will all but destroy them.

Also, what about the schools like Wade Hampton (G) that struggle as it is? Adding Legion/Gray/Oceanside type schools only further makes their schedule even more impossible.

Moving them to 5A just shifts the problem, doesn't solve anything.

[Creekwater Werts]

Creewater- I will elaborate. First off nothing I am going to say is new. But my point is that everyone recruits in some way. But for schools to just condemn others like they are just completely innocent is a joke. Gray benefits from a lot of crappy public school around them. Large public schools do it a ton. Here in the upstate you have Greenville thats gets a ton of kids every year under the magnet program. Wrenn gets a new QB every year. Dorman, Byrnes and Spartanburg all swap players. It is happening in every state and in every sport. Unfortunately, rural smaller schools are the victims but its not the private and charters fault. It's simply the town is dying and getting smaller which means less players and talent. The big schools that are losing players are losing them for one of the three reasons. 1. Instability in the program. 2. Not winning 3. Poor environment etc. So to pin the transfer problem of a few schools doesn't make sense. What to end the transfer issue ? Very simple if you transfer you sit... but the public schools will never vote for it....ask why? if they have all the voting power.

Are you not reading anything I've said? Lol I'll keep it short this time.

It does not happen everywhere. It only happens at the larger schools you mentioned, and at the charter schools. Ask yourself this:

-Regardless of attraction or recruitment, do 4A/5A teams benefit from players transferring in from inferior or smaller schools? Yes

-Regardless of attraction or recruitment, do collegiate schools benefit from players transferring in from inferior or smaller schools? Yes

-Regardless of attraction or recruitment, do typical 2A teams benefit from players transferring in from inferior or smaller schools? Resounding No.

You said yourself, the small teams are the one taking the hit from this. And it is not because their 'towns are dying.' That is the most ridiculous $hit I've ever heard. If you pay attention to anything you know there is a massive influx of people moving into SC, and due to the limited amount of space, big towns are bleeding into small towns, and they are growing if anything. This is simply a silly excuse for you to continue to think the way you are.

Also you're wrong, it is the charter schools problem. Nobody forced them to be that way. If they want that advantage make them play with other people who have that advantage i.e. other charter schools/larger schools who also have the luxury of players transferring in. There is no reason typical 2A teams should be the losers in this. Gray knew their advantage going in, they should know that they should be the ones to be subjected. Not the traditional teams.

Why do you think the typical 2A teams should get screwed? It's not their fault either and they didn't choose to be that way. I just don't get your logic

[Creekwater Werts]

Also, sorry to all that may view my perspective as rude. I have spoken to many people on this and the only ones who disagree are teams of a higher classification, or representatives of Collegiate schools themselves. Both of which, have been dismissive of my points, saying "Just get better" or something along those lines. It is very frustrating to try to hear someone else's side when they refuse to hear yours. It's not about "getting better" or the fact that I am directly hindered by these schools in any way. I just want an even playing field for everyone involved, for the kid's sakes.

No need to apologize for your opinion is just as important as anyone else. My concern with this idea:

Make them play up a level/Make them all play at 5A: Then you punish teams that are not recruiting and you pass the "cheaters" on to others, not really settle the issue.

What about the schools like Academic Magnet? They will have to follow the same rules as the Legion/Gray/Oceanside schools. They have a difficult time at the current level, bumping them up will all but destroy them.

Also, what about the schools like Wade Hampton (G) that struggle as it is? Adding Legion/Gray/Oceanside type schools only further makes their schedule even more impossible.

Moving them to 5A just shifts the problem, doesn't solve anything.

I appreciate that Rebel Fan. And I agree it is difficult to make different rules for different charters. However, I do believe it would be very easy to determine which classification each of those charter schools belong based on common metrics. You can see Gray and Oceanside are different classifications already so I'm not sure there is a rule that says every charter school has to play the same classification. I guess they use the school size as a determining factor of classification for charter schools as well. I just think in this instance, there are better ways to group these schools than school size. Especially when considering some of the academically inclined charters are larger than some of their athletically inclined brothers. So, I do respect that point, and we must look out for those guys. But to rebuttal, there are only 6 charter schools. 3 of which are elite, athletically. If the other 3 teams are at a disadvantage, that stinks, but it's better than the entirety of small public schools to bear that same unfairness. Plus, if we want to be honest, these schools are already focused on academics and probably aren't too concerned with winning anyway.

While it would be impossible for those academic magnets to compete in a higher classification, the question to me now is "Whats less inconvenient: 3 academic magnets getting beat at sports most of their students don't care about? Or the entirety of 1A and 2A getting beat at sports that not only the whole school, but the whole town cares about?" To me the choice is obvious, but still I hate to even put those guys in that situation because it simply wouldn't be fair.

I think we should develop a metric to determine the strengths of these teams to determine which region they should be in.

After this season I may research this myself to see if I can give each of these charter schools a power rating as well as a power rating for ever public school of every classification. Would be time consuming the first time through but could use it just for kicks and giggles in the future.

Keep in mind this would only be used to determine classification of charter schools. Traditional schools will be classified as usual. The idea is this:

1). Create a power rating metric for every traditional public school in the state.

2). Determine average power rating for each classification, 1A-5A.

3). Create a power rating for charter schools using the same metric.

4). Use standard deviations to determine which classification the charter belongs to, in comparison to average power ratings of each classification for all traditional public schools. (Would have to use standard deviations because there may be a team in a lower class who has a higher rating than the average power rating than the classification above). This is a time-consuming process, but once implemented, you can reuse the metric every year.

This would determine the average strength of each team and gives literally everyone a fair playing field.

As is stands now, it's either $crew the magnets, or $crew the small public schools.

With this, academic magnets, are glad they don't have to play in a separate classification. 2A teams also win because even if they do face charters, it's charters who are relative to the average strength of their traditional classification.

Charters win because it gives them the chance to grow and compete with others. Which is their end goal anyway.



Thoughts on this and whether or not this is something the SCHSL could implement? Would be tough to bend the rules but apparently that's something the SCHSL has become eerily familiar with anyway hahahah jk

[Rebel-Fan-74]

Well, you have something like that already....

DOODLES


Interesting theory. Using DOODLES as well as the standard the SCHSL does for realignment.... Size and "strength"

[Creekwater Werts]

Well, you have something like that already....

DOODLES


Interesting theory. Using DOODLES as well as the standard the SCHSL does for realignment.... Size and "strength"

Doodles for SCHSL President!

Seriously though, not a terrible idea and Doodles implements this power structure in his free time. Can't tell me this isn't something that can be built upon with committee. Even if not perfect, I think it's better than the structure we have now.

[Atown97]

Legendary Coach Campbell at Lincolnton Georgia about 10yrs ago. Now fast forward to present day playoffs Public schools have their own brackets private have their own

[mrfootballtalk]

Creek - are you telling me Ware Shoals, Macbee, BL, 96 and places like that are growing ? You must be a Democrat if that is considered Economic Growth. I will say it one more time. There are no right or wrong answers but its not going away.

[WhoDat]

Creek - are you telling me Ware Shoals, Macbee, BL, 96 and places like that are growing ? You must be a Democrat if that is considered Economic Growth. I will say it one more time. There are no right or wrong answers but its not going away.

Just curious, how tall are you “mrfootballtalk?” You seem to have a know it all approach with Napoleon’s little man syndrome.

[mrfootballtalk]

To Creek and Whodat


First off Saluda has gotten in plenty of transfers from the neighboring schools ( a couple from RSM a few years back). But who cares they have had success so kids are going to want to come play there. That isn't a crime. As far as me knowing it all. I believe, I have said several times there are no great answers and what I am saying is nothing new. So I am a little confused on the know it all comment. But no worries. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to say that the big school and the charters are the recruiters and the rest of 1A and 2A don't is just not factually accurate. Is it less likely that small town football teams have kids transfer in? For sure , but kids move schools for whatever reasons they want and my point is that there is no good solution so therefore the problem isn't going away. FYI 6'2 ... IF that is a know it all statement or approach then I guess the shoe fits.

[Creekwater Werts]

Creek - are you telling me Ware Shoals, Macbee, BL, 96 and places like that are growing ? You must be a Democrat if that is considered Economic Growth. I will say it one more time. There are no right or wrong answers but its not going away.

MR. FoOTbALl,

Let me start by saying you chose the wrong fella to talk to on economic growth.

First off, it is silly to assume that I meant every small town in SC is growing. I didn't think I would have to note that but, alas. That is not what I'm saying and your 3 examples don't negate my point. Majority of these small towns are growing, with the exception of a few. Ware shoals and 96 are dying bc of greenwood opiod and gang crises. They aren't benefiting from large towns bleeding into them because Greenwood is the only large town near them, and it's shrinking. One of the only, if not THE only, larger county in the state trending in that direction. Outside of that, MacBee is geographically doomed and probably will be for the next 30 years. Even they will grow, eventually. But, you're right. Thats 3 that aren't growing. Congrats.

Now about BL. Please tell me thats not Batesburg Leesville you're talking about? If so, I want you to know that I won't take anything you say seriously from here on out. Their population has grown by nearly 17% in the last decade, which is, not great, but also contrary to your point that they're shrinking. The entire population of South Carolina has only grown by 11% in the same span, for reference.

Plus, if you know anything about Batesburg, you know they've been repairing and expanding on infrastructure as well as economic stimulation for the last 7-10 years. So not only has their population grown, but their ability to accomodate has improved significantly as well. For now, Gilbert is benefiting from the Columbia/lexington bleed, but soon enough you will see Batesburg's investment coming to fruition, also. And when it does come, it will be quick.

So, Batesburg, if that's who you're referring to, is doing just fine. That limits you to 3 fair examples and I doubt you have many more. On the flipside, there are a number of small towns that are growing, and many exponentially in comparison to larger towns. Many in real estate believe it's due to a market bubble which is driving people to sell their suburban homes to buy land AND a home. Creekwater think it's more of a culmination of that, low interest rates, and yankee transplants giving beneficiaries a price they can't refuse. Nonetheless, the numbers support just about any theory. Cept yours, that is.

And, to put this respectfully for other readers, I darn sure ain't a democrat either. I just know how to read charts. Very thankful to my Elementary school system for teaching me that. Going forward lets just leave the political stuff at the google home page.

Now that we got that ridiculous comment out of the way, would you mind looking at my above proposal? It was a piggy back off a few other ideas, but, doesn't hurt your small towns, your academic magnets, 'athletic' magnets, or any other traditional public school. Or SCISA, for that matter. Also doesn't group all academic magnets into a single classification. If you can play devils advocate for that, though, I would like to discuss that!