Open zones, Privates, and Public Schools

[Govolsknox]

Since the CAK / Milan thread probably isn't the proper place to discuss this topic, I thought I would start one for those who feel compelled to discuss it. A few observations:

 

I think it ironic that so many Alcoa fans demanded that the open zone issue not be brought up for the 100th time, but it is commonly one of them who bring it up....again. No problem, just an observation.

 

I have made my opinion known in the past, that regardless of the outcome of a particular season for CAK, how an Alcoa team fares one particular season, or what classification CAK and Alcoa compete in, there is an obvious flaw in the TSSAA's policy.

 

The bottom line is that D1 privates accept tuition students from a wide area and pay the "penalty" of a 1.8 multiplier.

 

Alcoa accepts tuition students ($500) from a wide area and does not have a multiplier.

 

It is as simple as that. If you look at these 2 situations and don't see a disparity, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

My opinion will not change even though:

CAK won the championship game this year.

If CAK defeats Alcoa for the next 10 games

If CAK moves up to 4A and Alcoa moves to 4A as well

 

My opinion will not change because it has never been based on CAK's results, it is based on an obvious loophole by the TSSAA. Let me be clear, the problem is not with Alcoa who has played by the rules, the problem is the TSSAA. Schools who accept tuition students should either have a multiplier or not. The TSSAA should be consistent, and their current structure is not.

 

Unless and until the TSSAA corrects the loophole, I fully expect Alcoa to continue to play by the rules as they have all along, and for CAK and others to try their best to give them a run for their money.

[Kevin38]

Since the CAK / Milan thread probably isn't the proper place to discuss this topic, I thought I would start one for those who feel compelled to discuss it. A few observations:

 

I think it ironic that so many Alcoa fans demanded that the open zone issue not be brought up for the 100th time, but it is commonly one of them who bring it up....again. No problem, just an observation.

 

I have made my opinion known in the past, that regardless of the outcome of a particular season for CAK, how an Alcoa team fares one particular season, or what classification CAK and Alcoa compete in, there is an obvious flaw in the TSSAA's policy.

 

The bottom line is that D1 privates accept tuition students from a wide area and pay the "penalty" of a 1.8 multiplier.

 

Alcoa accepts tuition students ($500) from a wide area and does not have a multiplier.

 

It is as simple as that. If you look at these 2 situations and don't see a disparity, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

My opinion will not change even though:

CAK won the championship game this year.

If CAK defeats Alcoa for the next 10 games

If CAK moves up to 4A and Alcoa moves to 4A as well

 

My opinion will not change because it has never been based on CAK's results, it is based on an obvious loophole by the TSSAA. Let me be clear, the problem is not with Alcoa who has played by the rules, the problem is the TSSAA. Schools who accept tuition students should either have a multiplier or not. The TSSAA should be consistent, and their current structure is not.

 

Unless and until the TSSAA corrects the loophole, I fully expect Alcoa to continue to play by the rules as they have all along, and for CAK and others to try their best to give them a run for their money.

 

I am not familiar w/ "multiplier penalties", what exactly does that mean?

[Govolsknox]

For those who are wondering about where the CAK starters (according to the TSSAA pregame info) came from, I will list it to the best of my knowledge below. Anyone who sees an error feel free to correct me.

 

QB High #12 here at least since middle school

TB Rathbone #32, transferred from Blount Co, had to sit out a year

FB Henson #22 here at least since MS

WR Smith #25, here at least since MS

WR Howell #16, here at least since MS

WR Murchinson #5, here at least since MS

LT Kendrick #63, transferred from Grace, had to sit a year

LG Jenkins #53, I'm not sure

C Gass #52, here at least since MS

RG North #72, here at least since MS

RT Dalton #70, here at least since MS

 

LE Matlock #58, here at least since MS

DT Powers #75, here at least since MS

NG Sizemore #60, here at least since MS

RE Henson #22, here at least since MS

OLB Bailey #24, here at least since MS

ILB Winzenburg, moved to town from Wisconsin

ILB Maddux #18, started 9th grade, came from Powell system after redistricting forced a move to Karns

OLB August #33, here at least since MS

LC Spencer #23, started 9th grade, came from Lenoir City when a relative started coaching basketball at CAK

FS Ritchie #11, here at least since MS

RC Redford #17, here at least since MS

 

If you examine the above, its pretty obvious that like most schools, CAK plays with CAK kids. And like most publics, we have a few kids who move or transfer in and a few kids who move or transfer out. I have been watching the vast majority of the kids who won the gold ball last night since they were in the 6th grade.

[Govolsknox]

I am not familiar w/ "multiplier penalties", what exactly does that mean?

 

OK, I'll bite.

 

Privates who play in D1 have 2 primary distinctions.

1. They cannot give scholarships to help offset the cost of going to a private school to any athlete participating in a TSSAA sanctioned sport. This applies from Cheerleading to Football.

 

2. When determining what size class the team plays in (1A, 2A, etc) the D1 privates have their high school enrollment multiplied by 1.8. This causes D1 privates to play against public schools that have a much larger enrollment.

 

For those who don't know, D2 privates don't have either of the above 2 issues to contend with, but they play in their own private school division.

[Kevin38]

OK, I'll bite.

 

Privates who play in D1 have 2 primary distinctions.

1. They cannot give scholarships to help offset the cost of going to a private school to any athlete participating in a TSSAA sanctioned sport. This applies from Cheerleading to Football.

 

2. When determining what size class the team plays in (1A, 2A, etc) the D1 privates have their high school enrollment multiplied by 1.8. This causes D1 privates to play against public schools that have a much larger enrollment.

For those who don't know, D2 privates don't have either of the above 2 issues to contend with, but they play in their own private school division.

 

Ok, I was thinking it had something to do w/ that but wasnt for sure, thanx for the info.....

[jake]

Since the CAK / Milan thread probably isn't the proper place to discuss this topic, I thought I would start one for those who feel compelled to discuss it. A few observations:

 

I think it ironic that so many Alcoa fans demanded that the open zone issue not be brought up for the 100th time, but it is commonly one of them who bring it up....again. No problem, just an observation.

 

I have made my opinion known in the past, that regardless of the outcome of a particular season for CAK, how an Alcoa team fares one particular season, or what classification CAK and Alcoa compete in, there is an obvious flaw in the TSSAA's policy.

 

The bottom line is that D1 privates accept tuition students from a wide area and pay the "penalty" of a 1.8 multiplier.

 

Alcoa accepts tuition students ($500) from a wide area and does not have a multiplier.

 

It is as simple as that. If you look at these 2 situations and don't see a disparity, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

My opinion will not change even though:

CAK won the championship game this year.

If CAK defeats Alcoa for the next 10 games

If CAK moves up to 4A and Alcoa moves to 4A as well

 

My opinion will not change because it has never been based on CAK's results, it is based on an obvious loophole by the TSSAA. Let me be clear, the problem is not with Alcoa who has played by the rules, the problem is the TSSAA. Schools who accept tuition students should either have a multiplier or not. The TSSAA should be consistent, and their current structure is not.

 

Unless and until the TSSAA corrects the loophole, I fully expect Alcoa to continue to play by the rules as they have all along, and for CAK and others to try their best to give them a run for their money.

 

 

GVK, I agree 100% and always have. There is really no difference in Alcoa and CAK, open zones in my mind is no different than being private. Anyone thinking differently has got colored glasses on....and you are also right in pointing out that Alcoa, Maryville, etc...have done nothing wrong, they are playing by the rules.

 

I moved from a different state and when I came here, it was the first I had heard of open zones. Where I lived, if you wanted to go to a different school, that was fine, just pick your family up and move to that zone, and they monitored it heavily. I am not saying where I came from was right and it is wrong here, just saying that is the way it was.

[NoNameD]

Since the CAK / Milan thread probably isn't the proper place to discuss this topic, I thought I would start one for those who feel compelled to discuss it. A few observations:

 

I think it ironic that so many Alcoa fans demanded that the open zone issue not be brought up for the 100th time, but it is commonly one of them who bring it up....again. No problem, just an observation.

 

I have made my opinion known in the past, that regardless of the outcome of a particular season for CAK, how an Alcoa team fares one particular season, or what classification CAK and Alcoa compete in, there is an obvious flaw in the TSSAA's policy.

 

The bottom line is that D1 privates accept tuition students from a wide area and pay the "penalty" of a 1.8 multiplier.

 

Alcoa accepts tuition students ($500) from a wide area and does not have a multiplier.

 

It is as simple as that. If you look at these 2 situations and don't see a disparity, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

My opinion will not change even though:

CAK won the championship game this year.

If CAK defeats Alcoa for the next 10 games

If CAK moves up to 4A and Alcoa moves to 4A as well

 

My opinion will not change because it has never been based on CAK's results, it is based on an obvious loophole by the TSSAA. Let me be clear, the problem is not with Alcoa who has played by the rules, the problem is the TSSAA. Schools who accept tuition students should either have a multiplier or not. The TSSAA should be consistent, and their current structure is not.

 

Unless and until the TSSAA corrects the loophole, I fully expect Alcoa to continue to play by the rules as they have all along, and for CAK and others to try their best to give them a run for their money.

 

 

Simple answer to the problem, because there is a real problem between private schools, open zone tuition public schools, (really semi private), and true public schools that do not allow out of zone tuition students.

Put all the private schools in one league with with open zone tuition public schools. The other league would be made up of public schools that do not allow out of zone tuition students. That would solve the private schools complaining about having to travel too far to play other private schools. The would just be playing other semi private schools. The real teams that suffer because of the T$$AA are the public schools that do not accept out of zone students tuition students. If these public schools that accept out of zone tuition students want to keep playing in the public league don't let those students participate in athletics. Do the statistics, how many public schools that are not open zone tuition schools win championships, especially in class 2A thru 6A.

[cncgonzo]

OK, I'll bite.

 

Privates who play in D1 have 2 primary distinctions.

1. They cannot give scholarships to help offset the cost of going to a private school to any athlete participating in a TSSAA sanctioned sport. This applies from Cheerleading to Football.

 

2. When determining what size class the team plays in (1A, 2A, etc) the D1 privates have their high school enrollment multiplied by 1.8. This causes D1 privates to play against public schools that have a much larger enrollment.

 

For those who don't know, D2 privates don't have either of the above 2 issues to contend with, but they play in their own private school division.

Do you think they will change the multiplier next time they set the classes? IMO the 1.8 is to high. If they want to "punish" private schools I think 1.5 would be enough. I just hope they do not raise it.

[cncgonzo]

Simple answer to the problem, because there is a real problem between private schools, open zone tuition public schools, (really semi private), and true public schools that do not allow out of zone tuition students.

Put all the private schools in one league with with open zone tuition public schools. The other league would be made up of public schools that do not allow out of zone tuition students. That would solve the private schools complaining about having to travel too far to play other private schools. The would just be playing other semi private schools. The real teams that suffer because of the T$$AA are the public schools that do not accept out of zone students tuition students. If these public schools that accept out of zone tuition students want to keep playing in the public league don't let those students participate in athletics. Do the statistics, how many public schools that are not open zone tuition schools win championships, especially in class 2A thru 6A.

How many of this year teams are Open Zone? I think two are private schools CAK and Friendship, so of the other 10 how many would be OZ?

[oldraiderfan]

Since the CAK / Milan thread probably isn't the proper place to discuss this topic, I thought I would start one for those who feel compelled to discuss it. A few observations:

 

I think it ironic that so many Alcoa fans demanded that the open zone issue not be brought up for the 100th time, but it is commonly one of them who bring it up....again. No problem, just an observation.

 

I have made my opinion known in the past, that regardless of the outcome of a particular season for CAK, how an Alcoa team fares one particular season, or what classification CAK and Alcoa compete in, there is an obvious flaw in the TSSAA's policy.

 

The bottom line is that D1 privates accept tuition students from a wide area and pay the "penalty" of a 1.8 multiplier.

 

Alcoa accepts tuition students ($500) from a wide area and does not have a multiplier.

 

It is as simple as that. If you look at these 2 situations and don't see a disparity, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

My opinion will not change even though:

CAK won the championship game this year.

If CAK defeats Alcoa for the next 10 games

If CAK moves up to 4A and Alcoa moves to 4A as well

 

My opinion will not change because it has never been based on CAK's results, it is based on an obvious loophole by the TSSAA. Let me be clear, the problem is not with Alcoa who has played by the rules, the problem is the TSSAA. Schools who accept tuition students should either have a multiplier or not. The TSSAA should be consistent, and their current structure is not.

 

Unless and until the TSSAA corrects the loophole, I fully expect Alcoa to continue to play by the rules as they have all along, and for CAK and others to try their best to give them a run for their money.

It is my opinion that any school that can pick and choose it's players can compete in 6AAAAAA classifacation look at Brent wood Acd. a single A school but plays in big school division, so that said, how can it possiably be fair for public schools to play privates?

[CPA4Ever]

Most of CPA players have been there since elementary school as well. One thing that is often overlooked by those crying over the advantages of private is that privates do not get their pick of players from the community. In Nashville, for example, athletes who want to go to private schools can choose from over 20 in the area, not just CPA, and some of them (MBA, BGA, Ensworth, etc.) offer them aid to get them in school, which CPA cannot do.

The multipier is a significent "equalizer". CPA has 327 students playing in 3A where the smallest school has 520. This year they played:

Milan - 626 students

Cheatham Co.-712

Pearl Cohn(2)-675 (who pick up players from magnet schools who don't have football)

Goodpasture(2)-347

Stratford-929

David Lipsomb-538

Maplewood -1018

Whites Creek-1043

Other statewide top 3A teams enrollment:

CAK - 408

Alcoa-544 (OZ)

Austin East-741

Sullivan No.-638

Smith Co.-667

[jake]

It is my opinion that any school that can pick and choose it's players can compete in 6AAAAAA classifacation look at Brent wood Acd. a single A school but plays in big school division, so that said, how can it possiably be fair for public schools to play privates?

 

D-1 privates can't pick and choose their players, they are not giving scholarships. Look at it this way: I live in Blount County, if I can transport my kid to Knoxville (CAK) and can afford the tuition, I can send him to CAK. If I want to send him to Alcoa, being I don't live in the city, they will not provide transportation for my kid to come to their school, but if I can transport them and am willing to pay their tuition ($500), then my kid can go to Alcoa. The same goes for any kid in Knoxville that wanted to come to Alcoa, if they transport them and pay the tuition, all is good. What is the difference between Alcoa and CAK, the answer is CAK has to multiply their enrollment x1.8 to get the classification that they play in.