A viable solution to public vs. private debate

I don't envy the decision-makers at the IHSA. Now, don't get me wrong. They're terrific people who've always been open and accommodating whenever I've contacted them for explanations to controversial issues. They've always faced the music, and answered every inquiry.

I've questioned some of their decisions in print over the years. That's nothing new to the IHSA, which faces commentary and criticism on just about every issue -- not only from us pesky media types -- but from fans, students, parents, coaches, teachers, principals and administrators throughout the state.

And therein lies the conflict. I know the IHSA makes its decisions with the best interests of Illinois' high school sports in mind. But like any governing body, theirs is a precarious perch. No matter how good their decisions, no matter how well-intentioned, there will always be detractors and parts of the constituency that disagree.

Few issues have created a greater firestorm than the ongoing public vs. private debate -- or, boundary schools vs. non-boundary schools, if you will.

To address that, the IHSA instituted an "enrollment multilplier" several years ago that multiplies the enrollments of "non-boundary" schools by 1.65. Then the schools are slotted into classes for state-tournament play according to that enhanced figure. The intention is to level the playing field between schools that can draw athletes from far away and those that have more restrictive attendance boundaries.

While it was meant to be an equalizer, it's created plenty of inequities as well. The multiplier has served its purpose in bumping private/non-boundary schools up into a bigger class. But it's also produced some monumental mismatches, and forced too many schools to pay for the success of a select few.

As a favor to the IHSA and its members schools, we have developed a solution, my friends.

Or I should say my friend, Bill Tait, has brainstormed a terrific idea. So let me be the first to endorse it.

For the football playoffs, Tait's proposal works like this:

*A private (non-boundary) school that wins a state championship would move up one class for the next two years. So if Driscoll wins the Class 4A title next weekend, the Highlanders would play in Class 5A for the 2008 and 2009 seasons.

*Similarly, if the state runner-up were a private school, that program would bump up to the next class for one year.

The "bump" would occur after the playoff field is set. So, next year, Driscoll would be assigned to 4A. But once the field of teams was assembled, the smallest school in Class 5A would move down to trade spots with Driscoll. It would mostly affect mid-range schools rather than the state's largest and smallest programs.

"The first solution is to let the private schools have their own playoffs, but that wouldn't solve anything because then the discussion would be, 'Which (public or private champion) is better?'" Tait said. "My solution is an equalizer that would prevent all the private schools having to pay the price for a select few."

The plan certainly has merit. Consider how top-heavy football has been for so many years, led by only a handful of the state's most successful private programs. Driscoll, Mt. Carmel, Providence and Joliet Catholic have won 37 state championship between them, a staggering number.

But then consider the flip side with these private schools: Aurora Central, Aurora Christian, Marmion, St. Edward, Wheaton Academy, Benet, St. Francis de Sales, Seton, St. Ignatius, Hales Franciscan, De La Salle, Guerin, Leo, Notre Dame, Nazareth, Marist, St. Viator, St. Patrick, Benet, St. Joseph, St. Francis, St. Edward, Walther Lutheran, Chicago Christian, Wheaton Academy, Luther North and Luther South.

That's 24 private schools with zero state football titles between them. None. Yet, they're treated the same way as the Big 4 mentioned above.

The issue is currently being addressed by the IHSA through dozens of town meetings with principals across the state. They're discussing ways that those 24 teams -- and others in the same boat that have had little post-season success -- might be granted some relief from the multiplier.

The fate of the proposal may be determined Nov. 26 when the Legislative Commission holds its final meeting. It could be earmarked for further review, or simply wiped off the slate entirely. Let's hope for the former.

And while they won't have Tait's plan to toss around, it's definitely an idea worth considering.