Recruiting - 2018 class

[RiseAndGrind]

36 minutes ago, Pistol said:

Here's another one with a rundown of the same event.

Reece is mentioned in both. So is Talen Horton-Tucker. Drew Peterson is a kid Crews' staff was on, and I think someone from Ford's staff called about early on.

We're not mentioned under THT in either of them, but he's on the Interest list. Haven't offered.

Hold on to Thatch and Gordon, add Reece, and I'll be extremely happy. 

[SLURadioBoy]

3 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said:

Hold on to Thatch and Gordon, add Reece, and I'll be extremely happy. 

If we can't get Watson, I keep debating between who I would prefer between Reece and Davis. Both seem they would add length, athleticism and solid outside shooting to the team.

[SLURadioBoy]

New video of Watson just popped up. He mentions SLU when asked which schools he hears from the most and says he would like to take all of his official visits in August and make his decision before the high school season starts.

 

[Pistol]

22 minutes ago, SLURadioBoy said:

New video of Watson just popped up. He mentions SLU when asked which schools he hears from the most and says he would like to take all of his official visits in August and make his decision before the high school season starts.

It seems like his top 5 will consist of some combination of SLU, Mizzou, Butler, Creighton, Marquette, Iowa State, and West Virginia. Hopefully we have a top 5 soon. He's been saying for a while the timeline is: finalists in April, visits in late summer, decision in October.

I also think the Thatch commitment might be working against us in Watson's recruitment. I'm not sure how the staff is approaching this potential logjam, but recruits are very aware of class and positional charts.

[Glorydays2013]

Forgive me for not knowing or understanding but how is Missouri Class 1,2,3,4,5 split up by? Class size or location? Is it a coincidence that the top players are from class 4 or 5?

[Littlebill]

Just now, Glorydays2013 said:

Forgive me for not knowing or understanding but how is Missouri Class 1,2,3,4,5 split up by? Class size or location? Is it a coincidence that the top players are from class 4 or 5?

higher class = higher enrollment

[Quality Is Job 1]

27 minutes ago, Littlebill said:

higher class = higher enrollment

...with single-sex schools having their enrollment doubled for the classification formula.

[3star_recruit]

Watson also has interest in Notre Dame but they haven't offered yet.

[Littlebill]

1 hour ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

...with single-sex schools having their enrollment doubled for the classification formula.

I don't think that's the case, but I very well may be wrong (50/50). I think all schools are measured by how many guys or girls they have enrolled, not total enrollment.

[cheeseman]

33 minutes ago, Littlebill said:

I don't think that's the case, but I very well may be wrong (50/50). I think all schools are measured by how many guys or girls they have enrolled, not total enrollment.

No Q1 is correct.

[slu72 fan]

Private schools used to be bumped up a class in some sports. I think that's still the case. 

[Pistol]

I think the multiplier for private schools is 1.25x, not 2x.

[Quality Is Job 1]

2 hours ago, Pistol said:

I think the multiplier for private schools is 1.25x, not 2x.

I wasn't talking about mere private schools; just those for only males or only females.

[For-DaLove]

46 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

I wasn't talking about mere private schools; just those for only males or only females.

It is actually 1.35x for all private schools and an extra 2x for male or female only. So an all male private school receives a 2.35x multiplier.

[Pistol]

7 hours ago, For-DaLove said:

It is actually 1.35x for all private schools and an extra 2x for male or female only. So an all male private school receives a 2.35x multiplier.

I had to look it up, and you are correct. Per MSHSAA guidelines, Section 5.1.5 (Procedural By-Laws - Co-ed Enrollments), the rule is as follows:

Co-Ed Enrollments: High schools shall be classified on the basis of their coed enrollments in grades 9-12. The enrollment of any school that has the ability to limit its enrollment through selectivity and is exempt from the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines shall be multiplied by a 1.35 adjustment factor for classification. The enrollment for a single gender school shall be doubled. For single gender schools that are also selective and MSIP exempt, an enrollment adjustment factor of 1.35 shall then be applied for classification.

That's extremely punitive. Wow. And then they stack districts geographically, putting a lot of the single-sex schools from the same conferences in the same districts, and then put those districts by each other in the state bracket.

The board of directors has no representation from private schools. The board and staff are also - to put it gently - lacking diversity in a way that might make them favor non-urban areas (kind of like the state house in that sense).

Man, MSHSAA sucks.

[kshoe]

36 minutes ago, Pistol said:

I had to look it up, and you are correct. Per MSHSAA guidelines, Section 5.1.5 (Procedural By-Laws - Co-ed Enrollments), the rule is as follows:

Co-Ed Enrollments: High schools shall be classified on the basis of their coed enrollments in grades 9-12. The enrollment of any school that has the ability to limit its enrollment through selectivity and is exempt from the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines shall be multiplied by a 1.35 adjustment factor for classification. The enrollment for a single gender school shall be doubled. For single gender schools that are also selective and MSIP exempt, an enrollment adjustment factor of 1.35 shall then be applied for classification.

That's extremely punitive. Wow. And then they stack districts geographically, putting a lot of the single-sex schools from the same conferences in the same districts, and then put those districts by each other in the state bracket.

The board of directors has no representation from private schools. The board and staff are also - to put it gently - lacking diversity in a way that might make them favor non-urban areas (kind of like the state house in that sense).

Man, MSHSAA sucks.

Why is it that punitive? The doubling part makes complete sense. A coed school with 2,000 kids is equivalent to a boys school with 1,000 kids when you ar thinking about a boys football or soccer or basketball team.

The selective multiplier seems reasonable to me too. These private schools are recruiting and have the ability to restrict entry to kids that don't provide an athletic or academic benefit. You can argue that a 35% increase is too high but its certainly moving in the right direction.

Lastly, to follow-up on Da-Love's numbers I think the multiplier is effectively 2.7 since the double the enrollment first, then multiply by 1.35.  

[Pistol]

35% is big. I thought I remembered it being instituted at 25% or less before, and this hasn't been a rule for all that long, right? Started in the early 2000s, if memory serves?

I just think if MSHSAA is going to hit certain schools with a multiplier, they could also put some effort into seeding playoffs rather than letting geography doing the work and winding up with unbalanced districts and brackets. Ohio seeds, so if you have a situation where 2 of the best teams in state are in the same conference, they're not going to face each other in the first round of the playoffs, like in Missouri, where the MCC schools often wind up in the same districts.

[Quality Is Job 1]

11 minutes ago, kshoe said:

Why is it that punitive? The doubling part makes complete sense. A coed school with 2,000 kids is equivalent to a boys school with 1,000 kids when you ar thinking about a boys football or soccer or basketball team.

The selective multiplier seems reasonable to me too. These private schools are recruiting and have the ability to restrict entry to kids that don't provide an athletic or academic benefit. You can argue that a 35% increase is too high but its certainly moving in the right direction.

Lastly, to follow-up on Da-Love's numbers I think the multiplier is effectively 2.7 since the double the enrollment first, then multiply by 1.35.  

I agree, kshoe, and considered posting a similar sentiment.  However, I lacked your eloquence and evidence!

[Quality Is Job 1]

2 minutes ago, Pistol said:

35% is big. I thought I remembered it being instituted at 25% or less before, and this hasn't been a rule for all that long, right? Started in the early 2000s, if memory serves?

I just think if MSHSAA is going to hit certain schools with a multiplier, they could also put some effort into seeding playoffs rather than letting geography doing the work and winding up with unbalanced districts and brackets. Ohio seeds, so if you have a situation where 2 of the best teams in state are in the same conference, they're not going to face each other in the first round of the playoffs, like in Missouri, where the MCC schools often wind up in the same districts.

I agree with you regarding the balancing of the brackets and districts.

[kshoe]

42 minutes ago, Pistol said:

35% is big. I thought I remembered it being instituted at 25% or less before, and this hasn't been a rule for all that long, right? Started in the early 2000s, if memory serves?

I just think if MSHSAA is going to hit certain schools with a multiplier, they could also put some effort into seeding playoffs rather than letting geography doing the work and winding up with unbalanced districts and brackets. Ohio seeds, so if you have a situation where 2 of the best teams in state are in the same conference, they're not going to face each other in the first round of the playoffs, like in Missouri, where the MCC schools often wind up in the same districts.

Agreed on seeding but its a slippery slope as you also want some regional cohesion so that teams from St. Louis aren't playing district games against KC team. I do agree some common sense could be applied.

The bottom line to me is that it sure seems like the private schools do quite well in the major sports on the statewide level so it's hard to argue they are being unduly penalized.

[Billiken4life5]

3 minutes ago, kshoe said:

Agreed on seeding but its a slippery slope as you also want some regional cohesion so that teams from St. Louis aren't playing district games against KC team. I do agree some common sense could be applied.

The bottom line to me is that it sure seems like the private schools do quite well in the major sports on the statewide level so it's hard to argue they are being unduly penalized.

Multiplier has been largely ineffective because most of the schools it was designed to hurt (CBC, Rockhurst, Chaminade) were already in the largest classification.  

[slufanskip]

2 hours ago, Pistol said:

I had to look it up, and you are correct. Per MSHSAA guidelines, Section 5.1.5 (Procedural By-Laws - Co-ed Enrollments), the rule is as follows:

Co-Ed Enrollments: High schools shall be classified on the basis of their coed enrollments in grades 9-12. The enrollment of any school that has the ability to limit its enrollment through selectivity and is exempt from the Missouri School Improvement Program (MSIP) guidelines shall be multiplied by a 1.35 adjustment factor for classification. The enrollment for a single gender school shall be doubled. For single gender schools that are also selective and MSIP exempt, an enrollment adjustment factor of 1.35 shall then be applied for classification.

That's extremely punitive. Wow. And then they stack districts geographically, putting a lot of the single-sex schools from the same conferences in the same districts, and then put those districts by each other in the state bracket.

The board of directors has no representation from private schools. The board and staff are also - to put it gently - lacking diversity in a way that might make them favor non-urban areas (kind of like the state house in that sense).

Man, MSHSAA sucks.

How do you account for private schools recruiting and Public schools have a certain district or area. Private schools it would seem to me have a distinct advantage as far as sports are concerned.

[cheeseman]

There are reasons for the multiplier.  The private schools do recruit - Skip is correct - anybody who says they don't is just wrong.  Second, The geographic grouping is only because the private schools tend to be in the same general area - where the money is for one thing.  Third, the private schools agreed to this process because the other option was for the public and private schools would be separated.  In other words, 2 different groups - we would have a private school champ and a public school one - by the way this would not be unique to Missouri if they had adopted it.  The private schools were dead set against separation so they did have a say in it.

[Old guy]

34 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

How do you account for private schools recruiting and Public schools have a certain district or area. Private schools it would seem to me have a distinct advantage as far as sports are concerned.

Private schools have an academic advantage which applies to players that are not aiming to be one and dones and have little prospect of being drafted by the NBA after one year. Kids like the ones I am describing have to think about the level and quality of education they will be getting, and generally the private schools have an advantage in this regard. This does not mean that public schools do not provide an excellent education, they do but they may limit the excellent education to students in special honors groups and the athletes are NOT generally included in these groups. 

[brianstl]

1 hour ago, Billiken4life5 said:

Multiplier has been largely ineffective because most of the schools it was designed to hurt (CBC, Rockhurst, Chaminade) were already in the largest classification.  

It wasn't designed to hurt the big private schools.  It was designed to hurt schools like Ritter, MICDS, Lutheran North, Bishop LeBlond, Valle, Bishop Morgan, Helias, Borgia, etc.  It was done to hurt the private schools that compete in the classes that public rural high schools compete in.  This was all about making rural MO happy.