EDGE ATHLETICS

What More Than 40 Years of Coaching Has Taught Me About the Debate

Part 1 of a 3-Part Series on the Changing Landscape of Basketball

I’ve spent over 40 years coaching basketball—37 at the varsity level at Our Lady of Lourdes, along with time at the junior varsity and youth levels—and during that span one argument has consistently resurfaced, especially when certain teams have success: that private schools have an inherent advantage over public schools. I understand why that argument resonates. On the surface, it appears logical. Private schools are often perceived as having broader access to athletes and greater flexibility in how they build their programs. But from where I sit, having lived this reality day after day for decades, I believe that perception oversimplifies a much more complex situation.

The most common claim centers on recruiting. It’s an easy conclusion to draw when a program sustains success over time. But in our case, we do not recruit, and we never have. What we have done—year after year—is build a program rooted in consistency, accountability, and development. We work year-round. We invest in our players. We teach them how to play, how to compete, and how to be part of something bigger than themselves. Over time, that kind of environment becomes visible. Families talk. Players share experiences. Interest grows. That is not recruiting; it is the natural result of doing things the right way over a long period of time. We also do not offer athletic scholarships, which eliminates another commonly assumed advantage. There is no financial incentive tied to playing basketball at Lourdes.

Because of my role with Edge Athletics, I also understand that some people naturally connect that work to our high school program. It’s a fair question—and one that deserves a clear answer. Through Edge Athletics, I’ve had the opportunity to work with players from multiple districts throughout the region. Our focus is development. Those players return to their respective schools—often competing against us. At no point are they directed toward Lourdes. Families make their own decisions based on what they value and what they see. Development is not the same as placement, and exposure is not the same as influence. In fact, one of the consistent messages we share with families is that the path forward is not defined by movement or visibility, but by growth over time.

A second argument often raised is that private schools can draw from a wider pool of athletes, while public schools are limited by geography. That may have been true at one time, but the landscape has evolved. Many public schools now offer non-resident tuition programs, allowing students to attend outside their home district. Some will argue that these programs are capped—often cited at around 30 percent—and therefore do not create the same level of flexibility. In a sport like basketball, however, that distinction becomes far less meaningful.

Basketball is not driven by volume; it is driven by impact. A team does not need a large percentage of outside players to change its identity—it needs a small number of high-level players. If a program brings in just two or three of the best players in the area, that alone can significantly alter the competitive balance. In that sense, a 30 percent cap is not a meaningful limitation within the context of how the game is actually played. When a program has the ability to bring in even a small number of impact players from outside its district, the practical effect can mirror recruiting, regardless of what it is labeled. That is not an accusation—it is simply the functional reality of how influence works in basketball.

Even within that broader context, it’s important to clarify how our program is actually built. We are not assembling rosters filled with top-tier talent from across a wide area. Like most teams, our roster is made up of a mix of players—some who may be considered among the better players in the area, and many others who fill roles, develop over time, and contribute in ways that don’t always show up in rankings or headlines. Just as important, the players who have become our top performers were not recruited to come to Lourdes. They were developed within our program. That distinction matters, because it reinforces a simple reality: our success has not been built on access—it has been built on development.

Over the years, what I’ve found most telling is how the narrative shifts depending on the outcome. When a private school wins, the conversation tends to center around perceived advantages. But that narrative doesn’t always align with what actually happens on the court. We have had teams that, on paper, were not expected to advance—teams that were underdogs at every step—yet found ways to win against programs with higher-ranked players and, in some cases, future professionals.

One example stands out clearly. We won a Section 1 Championship against a team that featured a future NBA player, while none of our players went on to play college basketball. In another season, we entered the postseason with multiple losses and were not expected to advance, yet we defeated several of the top-ranked teams in the state along the way—including teams ranked second and third in New York. Those games were played on neutral courts, against highly regarded programs. They weren’t anomalies. They were examples of what can happen when a team is connected, disciplined, and committed to a system.

If there were truly a built-in structural advantage, it would be difficult to explain why we so often found ourselves in the role of the underdog. It would also be difficult to explain how those teams were able to compete—and win—against programs that, by perception, had more talent, more exposure, and more recognition. The reality is that continuity, preparation, and culture still matter. In many cases, they matter more than anything else.

At the same time, there are advantages on the public school side that are rarely part of this conversation. Public schools are guaranteed their student-athletes based on residency. If a talented player lives within a district, that school benefits automatically. In our case, every student who attends Lourdes makes a choice to be there. Public schools also benefit from established feeder systems. They develop players within a consistent structure starting in middle school, sometimes even earlier, and those players arrive at the varsity level already familiar with the system, terminology, and expectations. We don’t have that continuity. Our players come from a wide range of backgrounds, and we begin the process of building that foundation at the high school level.

It’s also worth addressing the perception that parochial schools function as athletic feeder systems. In reality, they do not. Parochial schools are educational pathways, not athletic pipelines. The majority of students who continue on to Lourdes from those schools do so because of academic preference, family values, or the overall environment—not because of sports. In fact, most of those students are not athletes at all. That distinction matters, because it reflects why families make those decisions in the first place.

There is an added layer of irony when looking at where many players actually begin. In our area, a significant number of young athletes are introduced to basketball through CYO programs, which are often organized through parochial schools. For many kids—especially those without access to structured programs elsewhere—that is their first opportunity to learn the game in an organized setting. That exists not as a pipeline to Lourdes or any other school, but simply because it provides access to the sport.

Classification presents another often overlooked factor. By enrollment, Lourdes is a smaller school. Yet over time, because of our basketball success, we have been moved up into higher classifications, meaning we consistently compete against the largest schools in the state. That puts us in matchups against programs with significantly larger student bodies and deeper talent pools on a regular basis.

At the same time, many of the schools our other athletic programs compete against are among the best programs in New York regardless of classification—they simply happen to fall within those particular enrollment groupings in those sports. Lourdes athletics has never avoided elite competition. The distinction in basketball is that sustained success has resulted in competing beyond our enrollment classification altogether.

That raises a reasonable question: if success leads to consistently competing against larger and deeper programs, is that really evidence of an advantage—or evidence of the standards our program has been held to over time?

It’s important to acknowledge that no system is perfect. There are programs—on both sides—that may push the boundaries of the rules. That reality contributes to the broader perception of imbalance. But grouping all schools together under that assumption is not the solution. What’s needed is consistency—consistent rules and consistent enforcement applied equally to everyone.

Proposals to separate public and private schools in postseason play attempt to address this issue, but they introduce new challenges. They limit opportunities for student-athletes to compete across different environments and reduce the overall competitive landscape. They may also create new forms of imbalance by grouping programs under different standards. In that sense, separation does not solve the problem—it simply shifts it.

If fairness is truly the goal, then the focus should remain on consistency. Programs should be evaluated based on how they operate, not simply by the label attached to them or the success they have.

Because in the end, success in high school athletics is rarely about structure alone. It is the result of preparation, commitment, and the culture within a program.

And those things still have to be earned.

Next Week in Part 2:
What We’re Losing in the New Era of College Sports