nonews

... Vg, my old friend/nemesis, I'm very glad to see that you came through the storms relatively OK!... I have to admit that I was worried there for a while when I didn't see any recent posts from you, you almost had me regretting all the mean-spirited jibes I've given you over the past few months!... however, now it's business as usual!... BTW, it's "devastated" not "devestated" ... ... your relieved friend and local "spelling czar"... ... nonews...

...Sicilian? Not sure what you are referring to, my ethnicity is more Northern European I'm afraid... ... as for the recurring jibe(s), is it possible that you are perhaps over-reacting to (alleged) rumors regarding teacher certifications?... haven't these sort of "doomsday" scenarios benn mentioned before?...

...are you STILL doing the "Chicken Little" routine?... ...BTW, how did your interview in West Tn. go? ...were you inpressed with the setup there?... what are the chances of you re-locating to the upper West corner of Tn.?...

...just popped in to see what the current crisis is and how all the gang is doing... ..."The following is an editorial from the Jackson Sun.They have no biases. They simply state their opinion."... ...this is a joke, right VG?...everyone in West Tennessee knows that USJ will NEVER need a school newspaper as long as the Jackson Sun is still circulating!... ...btw, is Chicken Little, errr I mean ELA still doing his "the sky is falling" routine? ...

...perhaps "rebuttal" was too strong for an ongoing and friendly debate, "response" seemed a bit too tame; I do enjoy the give and take of our discourses and would never deign to infer that the argument is in any way intended to be anything other than a lively discussion based on mutual respect. The vagaries of my chosen profession often interfere with my ability to respond in a timely manner, which should never be construed with a reluctance to engage in the conversation. Having said that... ... to answer your question, I believe that the split was ultimately the result of several apparently unrelated factors which converged unexpectedly to elicit a groundswell of popular opinion. While the McCallie suit was definitely one such factor, and the threat of BA's suit (currently being litigated anew) another, one cannot ignore the overwhelming sentiment of the 1A and 2A schools to split with their private counterparts (confession - I still do not know the difference between private and independent schools, I'm feeling a bit lazy tonight and do not wish to look up your references). That sentiment was as heartfelt in 1997 as today, perhaps even more so as no partial split had yet occurred. McAdams' letter only exacerbated the situation, BA's move to 5A and subsequent win over Riverdale provided the impetus for the 4 and 5A schools to join the clamor for a split. When you also consider the fact that the makeup of the Legislative Council in 1997 contained some rather strong personalties who were in no way inclined to act as "yes men" for the Executive Director's whims, the inescapable conclusion is that the time then was ripe for a thorough reshaping of the way that the TSSAA classified and ultimately separated its constituent schools. I'm not sure that these same conditions exist today. While the sentiment is still strong in the lower classes to split the two types of schools, the current Council will never demonstrate any initiative on its on, and I'm still not convinced that the upper classes will "stay the course" in next year's vote. In addition, if you assume that the BA lawsuit is resolved favorable to the TSSAA's postion, another major factor in precipitating the original split has been nullified. Again, I'm anxiously awaiting your "response" ...

...the split to D-II was first implemented in the fall of 1997. The move to 5 classes was implemented prior to the fall season of 1993 (that was the year that the top 3 teams in each region were chosen to participate in the playoffs). The 5A school everyone is referring to was Riverdale, Coach Gary Rankin sent a letter (which I read) to every public school in the state bemoaning the fact that a school with an enrollment of @280 students (Brentwood Academy) could defeat the vaunted Warriors in the 5A state championship game. As far as I can remember, that occurred in 1996 and the letter was sent out during the following winter (I freely confess that I didn't actually look up that date). As for the McCallie suit, I remember it well, along with the controversy surrounding their refusal to accede to then current TSSAA rules regarding allotment of athletic scholarships; I also read Coach Glenn McAdams' letter ( then and current head coach of Lipscomb High School) and also heard his allegations firsthand during numerous meetings outlining the various ways that private institutions used (or perhaps use) to circumvent the restrictions then in place to prevent such abuses. I was at the Legislative Council meetings which ultimately led to the split, I heard all the arguements made by the coaches in question during the Board of Control meetings which later implemented the split into two divisions, including Carlton Flatt's impassioned appeal at the Nashville Convention Center in a vain attempt to forestall the foregone conclusion. Therefore, while I don't deny that the basic facts of your argument are true, I do think you are mistaken in your conclusion that the split was wholly precipitated by McCallie's intransigence to abiding by the former dictates of the TSSAA regarding the allotment of financial aid to athletes by private schools. Once again, I am anxiously awaiting your rebuttal...

(post trimmed for brevity) ..."The problem I have is that you never make a point"... ...good point! I'm glad you noticed! The only point I was even trying to make was that IMO the data does not adequately support his conclusion(s), and that both a larger sample size and population (most likely in the form of similar statistics from earlier years) would be necessary to account for deviations from standard variance... ..."you disingenuously ignore what are generally regarded as de facto (forgive me; I have yet to learn how to use the italics, bold, etc. buttons below) statistical givens"... ...I stand corrected, I, like Lazarus and many others here am not a professional statistician, and any knowledge I have of the subject is admittedly rudimentary in nature and based on long-forgotten and little-used courses taken eons ago ... ..."Do you not think we could follow your reasoning? Begin with the basic assumptions and show why they are false before you launch into the more calculated and intricate obfuscations of statistical analysis"... ...quite often I'm not sure I can follow my reasoning, as you so eloquently pointed out at least some of it is inherently flawed... BTW, that's a great quote from your SA class instructor... ..."What post are we reading? He did this, albeit not in the stasis of a formal paper. Read all his posts before positing a defamation that is inaccurate"... ... we are reading the same post, I wasn't intentionally defaming Lazarus or anyone else, merely disagreeing with the conclusions presented... as for the statement you question, it was poorly worded, the implication was that an analysis of the same MOV numbers from pre-split games would (again, IMHO) provide a more accurate comparison and would in addition provide a sort of "control" group with which to compare the more recent data... note that in his later post Lazarus bemoans that same lack of a control group for comparison... ..."Come on, dear sir. This is the equivalent to asking a student to prove that it is a discrepancy between a corporation earning a 26.7% dividend as opposed to an industry-wide 6.5. As a professor of mine once said, "Sometimes it is true: the numbers speak for themselves apart from some purely academic proof of their veracity"... ... no disagreement here, but after re-reading the original post I'm not altogether certain that these numbers will support any conclusion except that, particularly in 1A, some very weak teams are presently included in the playoffs, evidence of which is the shrinking MOV found in the later rounds in all classes... it would be interesting to compare these numbers with similar data from the pre-split days...I do have one remaining question though, namely that 3 and 4A have higher MOV numbers than 2A, yet these classifications do not currently include any private schools, shouldn't their MOV numbers be closer to those of 5A if the conclusions are supported by the data?... ..."Thank you for the humor"..."I wish I could retake some of my final exams under the dictates of your axioms of statistical relevance. Instead of a MAGNA I could, rather easily I think, get the coveted SUMMA"... ...you're welcome. Like you, I don't think my chances of teaching statistical analysis anytime in the near (or far) future are very good, however I would assert that at least some valid points were raised by my over-lengthy post...

"everyone who is approaching the split as a panacea is in for a big disappointment, for the unfolding data tells me that BOTH sides are heading for greater inequities, not lesser. NO ONE is going to win." ... I would humbly disagree with this premise, based on the arguments presented below... "as has been discussed ad infinitum, the privates have won 17 of 18 games against public schools. the average margin of those victories has been 28.5 points, compared to 20.5 points for all other games. that is a 40% greater margin, obviously a significant difference" ... obvious how? Upon what statistical basis are you postulating that assertion? Basic statistical analysis requires that you examine both the total population vs. the representative faction before drawing any conclusions... "however, the average margin of victory of private over private has been 27.2 points. it seems that the disparity between privates is every bit as great as that between public & private" ...granted this would seem significant, but once again you need to present statistical evidence that this discrepancy is indeed beyond the realm of ordinary variation... "those who are celebrating the split from the private side need to think long and hard about the desirability of entering a much smaller field with a greater disparity between the weak and the strong. an all-private organization would mean either playing a handful of opponents over and over, or entering into some horrendously one-sided contests. remember, this data does not include the d-II teams and their super-7" ... and thus the argument is rendered moot, as it does not include evidenciary statistics from the one classification wherein the afore-mentioned "private vs. private" playoff matchups are the norm rather than the exception... "returning to the entire pool of games, this year only 40 (27%) of the games were decided by a touchdown or less. 56 (37%) of the games were decided by 4 or more touchdowns. 91 games (61%) were decided by more than two touchdowns. that is an awful lot of blowouts for a supposed playoff situation" ... is it then your assertion that any contest which ends in a 14+ point differential is a "blowout"?... "what captures the attention is examining the margin of victory by class. in 1-A, the average margin has been 26.0 points; 2-A=20.8; 3-A=23.5, and 4-A=21.5. All of these are above the overall average, all but 2-A by a considerable amount" ...without having access to the original data, independent verification is impossible, however one wonders again what standards of comparison were employed, i.e. does the standard deviation of all classifications outside of 2A fall outside the normal range of statistical probability, or have you again presuppossed the "obvious"?... "because in 5-A, the only division without a cap, the average margin is only 14.8 points. again this is a subjective judgment, but 14.8 points actually sounds like a playoff situation" ...why? What is magical about the 2 touchdown margin? One could also argue that 5A is the abberation, that this class tends to be more balanced BECAUSE of the wide range of enrollments... "it seems the 23.0 average margin in the other 4 classes is an incredible 55% higher than that in 5-A. for the public supporters who think a split will benefit them, that is considerably more than the 40% margin between private-public and all other contests" ...again, I would ask if this is stastically relevant given the sample size... "the data would seem to support the proposal that a split would lead to GREATER inequities in the all public organization than exist now. it would only be harder to identify the characteristics leading to those inequities" ... due to the points already mentioned, I would assert that the statistics quoted support no conclusions without further analysis... "i tried hard to find any statistically identifiable factor that would account for the discrepancy between 5-A and all the other classes. i could find none. the difference in the school sizes was squarely in the middle between the others (in 1-A the largest school is 1.99 times the size of the smallest, 2-A is 1.85, 3-A is 1.42, 4-A is 1.40, and 5-A is 1.75). trolling thru the data revealed no other compelling characteristic, except that there is no division above 5-A. that theorized connection is supported by the fact that 1-A has easily the widest average margin, and there is no division below it" ... no arguments here... "from a mathematical perspective, i believe the evidence is undeniable that our classification system is flawed. clearly 5-A is the only class that is truly competitive" ...again, the presupposition is arbitrary... "with or without the privates, that will not change, unless we re-think the way we classify teams. equally clear (at least to me), the proposed split will only serve to accentuate the failings of the current system FOR BOTH SIDES. the only people who will win in that scenario is those who are willing to suffer themselves in order to see that suffering is inflicted on their supposed opponents" ... while I won't argue that your data is correct, I'm not altogether certain that you have drawn verifiable conclusions from the raw data... "i reckon that everyone can draw their own conclusions from this information. and the raw data is readily available if anyone would like to take a shot at it. i would really like to see other peoples analysis. it is so easy to miss significant information in a big heap of numbers. for those who agree with my conclusions (or at least see a reason to hesitate before following the present course), i hope you will take another look at my proposal for a sea-change in the way we classify our sports. i believe that it addresses the inherent flaws in the way we currently operate. even if you dont agree with that solution, i hope you will consider some other option besides what we are fixing to do to ourselves" ... I take it then you are opposed to the split solution. Given the lack of statistical analysis mentioned, could the same data not be interpreted as actually supporting a split?...

... "the inmates are running the asylum"!...

... the game can't be at UC... Milan won the region...

... the term "state actor" means that the State of Tennessee has empowered either directly or indirectly an otherwise independent etitity to act in its behalf in regards to some function normally handled exclusively by the state. In this case, the State, through the Dept. of Education, has indirectly endowed the TSSAA with a de facto regulatory power by abdicating its own authority in the administration of athletics in favor of that of the TSSAA. In doing so, TSSAA has become (arguably perhaps) a "state actor" and is therefore subject to the same restrictions as other more traditional regulatory agencies of the government. In the case of the BA suit, the TSSAA's lawyers argued unsuccessfully that the organization was a voluntary, independent association of like-minded schools, and therefore not subject to suit by its members, i.e. if you don't like the rules leave the organization. This argument had always proved valid before this suit, and basically made the TSSAA immune to suits brought by member schools for a variety of reasons. However, the US Supreme Court ruled this argument invalid on appeal, ruling that TSSAA serves as a state actor due to the fact that the state has delegated its regulatory powers regarding athletics to the TSSAA, and also due to the fact that there are no comparable organizations with similar duties and responsibilities extant in Tennessee. Although this ruling has widely and erroneously been viewed as a victory for BA, it simply means that one of the primary arguments invoked by the TSSAA's lawyers as grounds for dismissal of the suit has been ruled out. Thus the merits of the suit have yet to be determined by any court, and a casual observer might easily conclude that the suit has essentially ended in a stalemate. Neither party seems particularly interested in any outcome other than ending the endless wrangling over legal terms and it is clear that neither party will benefit from prolonging this suit anymore. However, many misinformed individuals have wrongly assumed that the ultimate outcome of this suit will lead to wholesale changes in the way athletics are administered and regulated in Tennessee. Nothing could be farther from the truth, essentially this suit was too narrowly framed to be extended beyond its immediate charges that the TSSAA did knowingly and unlawfully restrict BA from the free expression of its right to do business as a corporate entitity. It is doubtful that any verdict will result in a severe penalty for either BA or the TSSAA as the verdict must necessarily be as narrowly framed as the suit that rendered it. Finally, the basic argument of the suit has essentially been rendered moot, as the affected parties have long since moved on from school, and the subsequent "split" into 2 divisions has removed the impetus for conflict between BA and most of the other members of the association. Having said all that, one must also remember that the term "state actor" is easily removed. If the State Board of Education ever picks up the regulation of athletics, or a second athletic regulatory body ever comes into being, the legal ramification will be that TSSAA is no longer serving as a State Actor and the primary reason this lawsuit was successfully appealed by BA will no longer be valid. Thus any attempt by the private schools to form an independent governing body will remove their ability to sue the TSSAA as a State Actor. In addition, the ruling declaring that the TSSAA is indeed serving as a State Actor in no way restricts the organization in the ways in which it can regulate or govern athletics. In much the same way that the State Board has regulatory powers over the publically funded schools of Tennessee but does not necessarily enjoy the same power of regulation over privately funded schools, the TSSAA must ultimately be seen as a public school organization if it is indeed a State Actor. This is one of those scenarios not envisioned by the originators of the suit, but could ultimately prove to be disastrous in the argument that the TSSAA is somehow treating the private schools in a discriminatory manner by separating these schools from their public counterparts. ... have a nice day...

... ignorance is bliss... ... the US Supreme Court ruled that TSSAA is acting as a de facto state actor due primarily to the fact that the state Board of Education has essentially relegated the administration of high school athletics to the TSSAA, any change of policy by the state Board would render this ruling moot... ... in sending the suit back to the US Appeals court the Supreme Court did NOT rule on the relative merits, but rather vindicated BA's argument that the TSSAA was indeed serving as a state actor and could therefore be sued according to Federal and state discrimination laws... ... however nothing in this ruling construed in any way that BA's basic argument (i.e. that the enforcement of then current TSSAA bylaws and interpretations thereof were both arbitrary and discriminatory towards BA's basic civil rights as a corporate entity) was valid... ... as for private schools suing the TSSAA, yes I'm sure they could (one must remember that although a suit may be filed, it doesn't necessarily follow that the plantiffs have any chance of winning it), but no argument thus far presented shows any apparent promise for preventing any type of split... ... finally, private schools already recognize the problems inherent to forming a separate organization outside the auspices of the TSSAA, namely the fact that the National Federation will recognize only one such sanctioning body per state, and any new governing body formed has NO chance of superceding the TSSAA as the recognized arbiter of high school athletics in Tennessee... ... however, the uninformed (ignorant?) masses are having great fun espousing their own warped views regarding the BA lawsuit...

... ummm, but what about the fact that Fairley absolutely ROUTED Northside earlier this year...

...what a shining example of the quality education provided by the Sweetwater school system...

... doing the right thing, even when no one is watching you... ... doing the right thing, even when it doesn't matter... ... the glue that binds winning organizations together... ... that which separates those who win from those who lose... ... the true test of character...