Basketball. I graduated from Reed City High School in 1993. My senior year we met Saginaw Buena Vista in the Quarterfinals in Alma. They had 3 All Americans on their team, 2 of them went on to play in the NBA for a time. All 3 of those were recruited players. It dies happen, might not happen as often, but it does happen.
Jaylen Rose would have been recruited, but his family was so poor that it was impossible for him to go and play anywhere else than the public school in Detroit.
There are multiple variables at play. If a child is privileged enough to attend a private school, that is great. A parent has the rich to provide their child with the best education they possibly can. I believe the line should be drawn when it comes to recruiting players though. This is not College. Leave the recruiting at that level where it belongs. In the end, recruiting players is nothing more than buying your way to more victories and championships. It has no place in high school athletics.
Eagle2 wrote: There are way more private/catholic schools that don't have a winning football program than do. Where is their advantage? The haters always point to a few catholic schools that have a rich history of football success and cry recruiting. We all could list 4-6 public schools that have a rich history of football success and follow the same model - good coach, start them young, get all the good athletes in the school playing football, and lift weights and work hard even in the off-season.
If those private "football" schools are such great "recruiters" why do they suck at basketball where you can recruit two really good players and win immediately?
I have heard of a couple public and private schools in the Detroit area that good football players choose to attend but that has nothing to do with public vs private. It's more about good vs crappy. You would have a better argument with city vs rural or rich vs poor. Public vs private is a weak argument.