I posted this in the 3/4AA thread, but thought it was worth repeating, in a different version.

 

TSSAA's desire to make everyone happy and give all schools an equal playing field has devalued the elite talent of this state in terms of football. Tennessee ranked as one of the lowest in the country for football talent out of high school. This is because TSSAA has strangled football programs from having year round football like they do in Ohio, Texas, Florida, California, and even Georgia. All out of fear of offending the rural/small town football fan that thinks their high school is getting short-changed at an opportunity for a state championship. Doesn't TN have EIGHT gold balls every year between D1 and D2? This is ridiculous. Some states still only have ONE. Does that Gold Ball in AAA really matter, when you couldn't play the 6A team and see if you could beat them, and I content that most of the top teams in all the top four divisions could compete with each other.

 

The problem is that D2 schools have to abide by the same rules, so their players do not play spring ball, or summer elite camps, etc.... Private/public players BOTH suffer as a result. It is really unfortunate that exceptionally talented football players that could be five star recruits in another state are at minimum three star in the state of Tennessee because of TSSAA. This is the difference between a scholarship to a big academic school versus a junior college.

 

Mind you.. TSSAA is just trying to make everyone happy, which is impossible. I look at schools they have lumped into AAAA for playoffs that population-wise should be AA at best, just because they have had success in the past.

 

TSSAA is killing the state of Tennessee's reputation and the potential of our future athletes by six gold balls in D1 and two in D2, and by not allowing year round football. Allow these athletes to develop and have futures and the opportunities they deserve versus making them all suffer for the egos of some parents. Open the borders on counties and let their be powerhouses. It would be the best thing for these athletes futures, and would certainly stop this whole poor me syndrome on this site. Put the publics in one, put the privates in another, and let them play year round. Two gold balls.. One public, one private, and let the cream of the crop go on to playing on our TV Saturdays and Sundays and give back to their communities HERE IN TENNESSEE!!!

 

Ready for the backlack... bring it...

Good post.

But one quibble. No state still has a single championship in football--the fewest gold balls/blue trophies/whatever any state gives out is two (Alaska, Hawai'i, and Delaware) and the most is 20 (New Jersey, followed by Massachusetts with 18). Two states remain with a single tournament (per gender) in basketball (Delaware again, and Kentucky).

Of course, if somone suggested if you want football year round instead of during a season and football camps in June, scheduling would be terrifically bad but life is full of decisions and its one of those life decisions that will have to be made. One sport players, morton, is what you are saying. Its true, smaller schools would have a more difficult job. They could continue playing like they are

And then what if football handled it like off seasons like the other sports. And maybe get it out of the schools. Equipment makers would have a field day and parents who would likely have to buy it and pay for the insurance for injuries for an extended season and the equipment. Quite a few officials to pay which is all right and attendance could carry the games'. Maybe a little hot.

One trophy DivI and one trophy D2. Good thought.

Coaches have a longer season and schools keep the fields and premesis open maybe. Only down side is more injuries likely but have more players so that is all right. Interesting to see the comments. D2 schools need to try it first and work out the bugs and then DI will customize it to their needs.

Silver does have a point though and some good comments.

And a correction to myself. Massachusetts is only third with its 18--Texas has 19 (12 from the UIL, which with two exceptions is only open to public schools; six from TAPPS, which is the main private league; and one from the Southwest Prep Conference). Or 15 if you don't count the two UIL and two TAPPS titles in six-on-six ball. Then again, both Texas and New Jersey are way bigger than Tennessee, and Massachusetts is caught between having traditional games on Thanksgiving and needing to finish its season before it gets too cold.

I guess the thing I get from this is anything can be done if someone or a group wants to do it and the where to forth to pay for it is there. One in basketball in kentucky for each gender. Tells me that winner takes all means something in ther main emphasis. 6 on 6 is a real possibility but all the overlaps in sports will confuse many but thats all right.

I guess the thing I get from this is anything can be done if someone or a group wants to do it and the where to forth to pay for it is there. One in basketball in kentucky for each gender. Tells me that winner takes all means something in ther main emphasis. 6 on 6 is a real possibility but all the overlaps in sports will confuse many but thats all right.

????????? The only quote discernable is"one in kentucky.......",sure it means more,but fair?Why not just have one for the whole nation?Small schools can't compete with AAA,(yeah,yeah, I saw hoosiers too,why do you think they made it into a movie?) I think in most sports,disregarding football(what a mess),Tennessee has a pretty well balanced system between competitive advantage,and not watering down the significance of "winning it all".Teams advance through dist.and reg.tournaments,substate,and then to the big stage,a pretty good process for eliminating teams similar in overall size and makeup of regulations. Use boys basketball as an example,what chance would one of the smaller schools have had in the AAA tournament? Blowing a single A team off the floor would've meant nothing to Melrose or White Station, and someone getting embarassed is not what I want to see happen to an otherwise solid bunch of kids,who are badly "outgunned". Not the whole content of this post follows the thread intended, just responding to your post. You may,if you wish,substitute DI or DII for the size differential,not that I believe the advantage is as great,but an advantage does exist if allowed to bus students in from great distances,across county lines,ect...or waive fees(scholorships or financial aid from outside sources....)If fill-in-the-blank wins state, they've bested every comparable program statewide,and that should be good enough. P.S. What was that 6 on 6,i'm lost?

Sorry, should have been 7 on 7, 8 on 8 or 9 on 9. maybe touch football. Any variation you might think. By the way, your last post was very good.

What are the primary objectives of high school sports? I don't think enhancing the college scholarship opportunities of the annual handful of truly elite athletes would rate very high on that list, certainly not higher than the benefits intended for the broader masses of student-athletes. If I'm right about that, then I question whether the costs of year-round football to kids (the ones who want to participate in multiple sports but would be pressured to skip other sports for football) and schools (whose programs in other sports may suffer from having fewer potential participants) would be justified by a few instances of 3-star recruits becoming 5-star recruits.

What are the primary objectives of high school sports? I don't think enhancing the college scholarship opportunities of the annual handful of truly elite athletes would rate very high on that list, certainly not higher than the benefits intended for the broader masses of student-athletes. If I'm right about that, then I question whether the costs of year-round football to kids (the ones who want to participate in multiple sports but would be pressured to skip other sports for football) and schools (whose programs in other sports may suffer from having fewer potential participants) would be justified by a few instances of 3-star recruits becoming 5-star recruits.

 

Common sense prevails as Rick's post proves. The priorities of sports should be for the most athletes, not the few and far between elites. Good post.

What are the primary objectives of high school sports? I don't think enhancing the college scholarship opportunities of the annual handful of truly elite athletes would rate very high on that list, certainly not higher than the benefits intended for the broader masses of student-athletes. If I'm right about that, then I question whether the costs of year-round football to kids (the ones who want to participate in multiple sports but would be pressured to skip other sports for football) and schools (whose programs in other sports may suffer from having fewer potential participants) would be justified by a few instances of 3-star recruits becoming 5-star recruits.

Not to burst anyone's bubble, two years ago on this site the subject came up between some of those whose job was to find eligible recruits in the Southeast and the stat was thrown out that ,at the time, Tennessee had on the average about 6-8 top D1 prospects a year. Certainly there were more " less than top D1 prospects". The point 7435 is making could relate to other sports which the numbers might or might not be higher. I will say some will be higher depending on the year. The point Morton is making could be valid but there are ways to do that without disrupting the high school experience for everyone. Search out alternatives and if the mind is dead set on making that run to stardom, there is only one time in life it can be pursued and it may have to be done in another state with a national program. Realistically the chances are slim and the returns are costly and a fleeting moment of injury can cut everything short. Dreams can only take athletes so far. The risk is less to make oneself a great scientist, mathimatician, theologan, or some other field. But it can be done.

Just in case anyone might have misunderstood me, I was not intending to take a position on the debates over emphasis on sport--merely to be sure y'all who are had legitimate data on hand.