Here in Michigan our state parks are nicer than the national parks in my opinion.
I have thought the same in several states — California and Texas have some amazing state parks. For example, I liked the state park outside of Big Bend NP better than the national park.
In Ohio we have one National Park, but it is really not a traditional National Park. The Cuyahoga Valley National Park is broken up and intertwined with local & state parks as well as residential areas.
The State Parks are well maintained, but the best run park system in the state of Ohio is the Cleveland Metroparks. They now control some former State Parks and City parks and are a regional park system that incorporates the Cleveland Zoo, several golf courses, a toboggan run and stables. It controls over twenty thousand acres of woodlands. It is financed by specific local taxes and user fees and is a great asset to the entire Cleveland Region.
Here in Pennsylvania as well . . . with the exception of Gettysburg which generates so much revenue and visitors that I don't see how they can possibly lose money. Of course, given the efficiencies of fedzilla, I suppose it is possible.
A few years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania wanted to close down the Bushy Run battlefield from Pontiac's War, one of our local state historic sites. The locals stepped in, took it over and set up an auxiliary volunteer group to take it over. It is now better run that it ever was under state control.
Mt. Vernon has been successfully run by a Women's Auxiliary group since 1860-- yet another successful model of alternatives to national parks and historical sites.