Nov. 10 - Following up on the Championship Factor (and then we move on)

As expected, yesterday’s post regarding MSHSAA’s “Championship Factor” (apologies for using the incorrect term yesterday) elicited several strong responses and, as always when having good discussion, more questions regarding postseason play and private vs. public schools. This has always been a volatile topic and the hope here is that some perspective is provided as we seek to inform the soccer community into a better understanding (not necessarily agreement) of some of the challenges our sport faces.

First, some clarification. The term “recruiting” was used yesterday with regards to the perception by some (hence the use of quotation marks around the word) that private schools have better results because they are able to recruit better players, etc. (The actual line: “ What’s ‘fair' with regards to competition isn’t always just argument of private schools ‘recruiting’ to win in sports.”) In no way was that meant to be an insinuation that all (or any) private schools recruit and therefore that’s the only way they win. However, it IS a common argument often heard in the private vs. public school matter from those looking to explain WHY private schools tend to have better results - especially in soccer (as yesterday’s numbers would indicate). More than anything the “recruiting” line was used to dissuade that notion and certainly not meant as an insult to the private schools who often get targeted as “recruiters” instead of the more realistic scenario - private schools often have very good coaches who remain at that school (always a key factor in any school’s success) and are located in areas where club (off-season) development is better than others. Additionally, playing off season (club) soccer has unfortunately become an expensive proposition in America, which has impacted our game on many levels, and often benefits those who are better equipped to pay for schooling, training, etc.

Many of the top private schools have coaches who have been at their respective schools for many years. CBC’s Terry Michler, Chaminade’s Mike Gauvain and John Burroughs’ Alan Trzecki come to mind as coaches who have managed continued success and are arguably some of the best coaches in the country, let alone state. In fact, speaking with them is a true lesson in humility, knowledge and class. Before that, long-time coaching legends Vince Drake, Ebbie Dunn, Greg Vitello, Chris Lawson and others stayed successful by staying put and providing positives to the game. Coach Michler has likely forgot more about soccer than most will ever know and he likely said it best (paraphrased here) when it comes to the comparison of any soccer programs - whether private vs. public, small vs. large, city vs. out-state, etc: “Everyone has issues to deal with. No school is exempt from that. They may be different issues, but to each situation, there are going to be challenges. How you deal with them is what matters.”

So, when dealing with the real issue at hand and the topic of yesterday - what IS the “fairest” way to make a state playoff? MSHSAA’s Championship Factor is its latest attempt and one made with the intent of leveling the private vs. public field as best it can (much like what it did in 2002 with the 1.35 multiplier). These factors placed upon private schools came from the MSHSAA membership - not from the people of MSHSAA intent on “punishing” schools for having success, even though to some, it may feel like being successful means punishment. The Championship Factor (CF) was actually steered by administrators from private schools. The point of yesterday was to explain this latest impact on our game and one that likely won’t be able to be understood for a few years.

One interesting tidbit (and playoff stat of the day) to keep in mind with the competitive factor of the classes this year. In each of class 1-3 there were seven (by rankings) upsets. In Class 4 alone, there were 17. Only 9 of the 32 playoff teams repeated from 2020 which would lend some strength to the argument that the CF allowed different/more schools a chance to advance, but that’s likely too early to tell…just some things to consider.

One of the biggest takes so far from comments received (and even prior to all of these posts) is the question of why public schools aren’t subjected to the same formula as private schools. Simply put, the CF is an attempt to balance out the main difference between public and private school enrollment opportunities. Basically, public schools have enrollment boundaries and students attending come from within those boundaries. Private schools often encapsulate several school districts (especially if located in the bigger cities, which most in MO are) within that school’s allowed radius (something else that MSHSAA has done over the years - dropping the radius size from which students can attend a private school).

For example (and this is just to help illustrate a possible scenario and not meant as an arguing point directed at anyone)…Essentially, a student living in public school District X in St. Louis has multiple options to attend (if willing to pay, meet entrance requirements, etc.) several other private schools within a certain radius. Thus, the advantage, in theory, goes to a private school. Billy is a good player and wants to play with his club mates but Billy lives in District X. Private school Y has an an outstanding tradition of producing high level players who then have better opportunities to play after high school or maybe just have a more challenging academic program and Billy wants to go to the Ivy League. Several of Billy’s friends are going to play at School Y and want Billy to go there, too. Billy leaves School X to go to Y. School X coach is upset because he has lost a quality player. Coach Y had nothing to do with the “recruiting” but has gained another top level player because Billy can afford to pay to attend the school and is willing to drive 25 minutes across the city (and likely right past school X) for that experience to play with his buddies or focus on a specific educational path or belief. This is a main difference in private and public. Tommy at public school Z can’t decide to go school X, because he is bound by the school lines and still be eligible to play without meeting certain requirements set by MSHSAA. There have been more than a few state champion athletes who played in MO but resided in other states - in many sports, not just soccer, and they all likely went to private schools seeing that no public school boundaries are outside the state.

So, the argument of putting the CF on all schools (not just private) doesn’t help the perception that public and private are in the same boat. Most states have some form of “leveling” in order to make the two groups as even as possible. Virginia has separate state tournaments (one for private, one for public), for example (something no one really wants here, at least for the health of our state athletics). Illinois uses a CF similar to what we do. This isn’t just a MO issue and both the multiplier and CF (and even, to some extent the creation of a fourth class for soccer when the numbers didn’t support it) were designed to make the postseason as “fair” as it could possibly be, with regards to enrollments and now, the success of the programs historically.

One other factor that many forget or don’t realize when it comes to the state playoffs is that the MSHSAA system is not designed to have the “best” teams reach the playoffs, or even the final four. It’s not set up to be the English Premier League. MSHSAA’s goal is to have regional representation based on the number of schools within those regions. More schools in STL likely means more STL teams , but in almost every year there will be schools from KC, SW/Central, SE, NW who reach the playoffs. It goes without saying that many times the two best teams in the state (rankings, MPR, etc.) often play in a district final because the best soccer comes from that particular area. Westminster and Whitfield had that happen this year. The cries come out every year to “seed the region and make the best tournament possible.” That’s one way of looking at it and would certainly be fun in the same sense of how most of our pro and college sports are run, but logistically (and philosophically, from MSHSAA’s standpoint), it is not likely to happen. Even “relegating and promoting” teams within the classes based on past success or "unsuccess" (how is that decided, for example?) is a tricky subject to handle and doesn’t fit in with MSHSAA’s philosophy, whether one agrees with it or not.

Logistically, the issue comes with travel, especially in the smaller classes. Using the MPR from this year and just looking quickly at Class 1, Brentwood (5 seed) would have to travel to Maryville (4 seed) for a quarterfinal - over 5 hours away. Fair Grove (6) would travel to Festus to play St. Pius (3), which is almost 3 1/2 hours. In Class 2, Perryville would host Harrisonville - 5 hours (at least) by bus. Even class 4 would have Jackson going 4+ hours to play Kickapoo. None of these are good situations for those teams and fans having to travel. There are still going to be some extended bus trips (again, particularly in the smaller classes) this weekend, but keeping the quarterfinals as is based on geography eases some of those issues and more importantly (to MSHSAA, anyway) brings teams from different geographic regions into the final four.

Playing quarterfinals at neutral sites could be a possibility (and done in the past), but one of the things MSHSAA has found (based on conversations held during the annual Soccer Advisory Board meetings) is that it’s better to have host schools for playoffs. They are better attended (at least for one school) and tend to do better financially. Also, finding neutral sites has long been an issue - MSHSAA has often struggled (and basically had to beg at times) to find places willing to host, especially if the school is no longer alive in the playoffs. MSHSAA several years ago went to having the host school coming from whatever district number based on the year. (This year’s host schools are the odd numbered districts because 2021 is an odd number. It goes to even numbered next year.) Most coaches on the advisory board over the years have heard this discussion and most lean toward school’s hosting - no neutral sites until the final four. (While we are at it, the finals selection site is up for bid every few years and has been played outside of STL Soccer Park before, BUT the overwhelming choice by coaches, in particular, is to play the finals at Soccer Park due to its facilities, history and environment. Other places have bid before, but have not been able to provide what Soccer Park has offered and hopefully will continue to offer.)

**NOTE: the Soccer Advisory Board meetings at MSHSAA in early December often discuss the current issues the sport faces and in theory, every coach has an opportunity to bring anything up to the committee for discussion/implementation. Coaches are chosen to represent each region and vote for changes based on how their region would choose. In theory this is great practice, but there are flaws. 1) There are often not a good balance of small/large, public/private coaches on the board at any one time and 2) many coaches either don’t participate with their region rep OR even get the information to participate.**

While the discussion on the state of the playoffs could likely continue (with valid and interesting points from all sides), we are left with what we have for now. An imperfect system because of exactly what Coach Michler said above - we have so many school environments that differ greatly across the state. 224 boys programs all with their own problems, advantages, strengths and weaknesses. Finding that perfect system for everyone isn’t likely going to happen, but gaining some perspective on it can help the people who care for it continue to strive to make it as best as it can in the future.

Coming up…a breakdown of Quarterfinal Saturday.