Baldcoach

But whether 'crossover' actually happens isn't the question. After all, you said the advantage small privates have is potential. Open counties have a potential for more athletes. Just like your theory that small privates have that potential. And it all depends on what you call an 'urban' and a 'rural' area. If that means within city limits then magnets like Tyner fall right in there. If it means within 30 miles of a big city then lots of small publics fall in there... I'm still waiting to see if you have checked actual financial records to see what the zone is for small privates. Don't forget to include all the privates in an area, and don't forget that many of the kids' families who could pay simply won't do it with free public ed available. I am thinking the records are probably publicly available. I'm also thinking you won't like the results. The reason is that I know that most small privates are not completely full...thus they are taking all of the kids they can. The implication is that there is not a large, mysterious "pool" out there that they are drawing from...they are taking every available kid. And that makes their "pool" the same size as every school with their enrollment. But I'm willing to see the actual population demographics.

I would say that that assumption must be true. I would also propose that it is a multiplicative effect...not only do you reduce the families available to pay as you raise tuition, but you begin to draw from the same incomes that are already being mined by the elite preps. Since they can offer financial aid, you actually cost MORE than they do too...a tough place to be. We are seeing some of this in the 'nooga right now. The preps get 5 or 6 of our best academic/athletic kids every year by giving out enough financial aid that they can attend for LESS than what they pay to attend our school. It is why I get a laugh when small publics complain about the DI privates having more and better athletes...many of our best get siphoned right off to the elite preps.

I think we should all be in the same division, aid, non-aid, magnet, open zone, closed zone. I never had a problem with playing the aid schools. It was really BA beating Riverdale that got all of that (and this) started. I think the potential for abuse is greater for those schools that offer financial aid, but that does not mean that all of those schools actually abuse the system. From the beginning I thought the TSSAA should severly punish intentional violaters rather than force a new division. If you want to discourage cheating you smash it hard every time it turns up, you don't declare a whole group of schools guilty and separate them. It would be the equivalent of me catching an athlete cheating on a test and giving all athletes in the classroom 0s because I thought they were more likely to cheat than non-athletes. I'm thinking most people wouldn't stand for that. I don't know why they stand for this. Here is a question back at you. Wouldt you agree that publics in open counties or magnets have even more athletes to choose from than small privates? And here is a question about your assumption that we have more to choose from. Have you actually checked population demographics vs. incomes to come to that conclusion, or is it just a 'feeling' you have?

Put up some figures. I don't have them. In the major sports (Football, Basketball, Baseball/Softball) what are the championship numbers for 1a - 3a for the last 3 years. I haven't checked them, but if you are gonna say something at least back it up. I suspect that you are correct...I know that Temple has won 1a BB several times, and I know that in girl's softball the privates dominate. Then the question becomes is it a public private thing or a rural urban thing. So to make your argument stick you need to go to 4 and 5a in those sports and check urban vs rural schools. I suspect that you will find that urbans beat rurals in the same ratio or a greater ratio than privates beat publics. If so, I trust that your sense of fairness will require that all urban schools be kicked out too...LOL /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

Not using Baldy math, just stating facts. The small privates do NOT have more athletes to choose from. Our zone is closed...as closed as any public zone. Our zone is just financial, not geographic. So your 1 main reason is that the small privates have more athletes? That is why they should be split?

Let's keep in mind that by Top privates we are talking about DII privates...which have already been split. The DI privates don't pay nearly as well as most publics, and they have worse insurance and much worse retirement plans. Further the coaches and teachers have heavier class loads in general. The trade off is that the parents and kids are generally achiever types. Just wanted to clarify the debate. McCallie etc. = elite privates with lots of $ = DII.

Wow Devil, you can read my mind. Cool!!! Let's do it some more! Ok, I'm thinking of someone who was debating Football and small privates splitting, got his head handed to him because he didn't know very much, and changed the subject to other sports with no warning so that he could claim victory and that those who disagreed with him were unfair and mean and darn it, just didn't care! Without me giving too many hints, can you pick up my psychic waves like you did when you somehow became aware of my thoughts and motives in your last post? Frankly, as I have said many times, playing in 2a has forced us to try to get better. In the long run that will help us. I argue for a merit system if we are going to use anything other than school population because a merit system ACTUALLY PUTS SCHOOLS WHERE THEY BELONG based on record, not someone's opinion about what advantages they may or may not have. It would put my team right where it is, or one division higher, so it isnt' helping us. But it is, unlike a multiplier for some schools (did you realize that the multiplier actually only makes a difference for 9 schools...betcha you didn't) and not for others with the same advantages, a fair system of classification.

I don't know enough about all the sports to comment. I DO know that Football was and is what started DII and the multiplier, and it is the driving force behind the split talk. So that is what I concentrate on...not out of convenience, but out of common sense. And while YOU may be talking big picture as in all the sports, the TSSAA and most of the rest of us are looking at Football. I think the other sports are worth talking about, they just haven't been the primary drivers of the debate so far.

Antwan, I have seen and heard many advantages posted as THE advantage. And you and I both know that there are some publics that have all of the advantages attributed to the privates. Which of the many are you referring too? And it IS a question of whether the privates have an advantage that the publics can't overcome. If not, why are they multiplied? Why would a split be legitimate?

Bud, If we look at the last 3 years (since the multiplier was put in) then the three best 1a schools in the state are FCA, South Pitt, and TC. Last year South Pitt was by far the best 1a team in the state and also easily one of the best 2 or 3a teams. In 2a Alcoa dominates. But the second best team (going by how they did vs Alcoa...not scientific to say the least) for 2 of the 3 years wasn't Goodpasture who played in title game from the West, but 2 public schools that Alcoa eliminated on the way to the title. In 3a you have Fulton. It could be argued that DLHS is as good (they won this year) and to be fair Knox Catholic gives Fulton all they can handle every year, but Fulton is the multiple title winner. But you are correct, given another set of criteria an argument could be made that there are some elite privates that are about as good as the best publics. Even so my argument stands. Because if the privates have so many non-overcomable advantages vs. the publics, it should be plainly obvious that the best 2 or 3 teams in the state in 1a - 3a are private. Instead we are debating whether there are any privates who are anywhere near the best publics. Just looking at that discussion, what conclusion do you think someone who was from another country would come to if asked who had the advantages in Tennessee High School Football? The argument gets much less conclusive if you look at the 10 years before the multiplier, but since we do have the multiplier, those who are arguing for the split are essentially arguing that since the multiplier the small privates have still dominated. With 7 of 9 state winners in 1-3a being public I'm thinking that conclusion must be biased.

What has been posted many times? The advantage that the privates have that no public has and can't be overcome??

None of it should have ever happened...it hasn't happened in any other states. Once you start the witch hunt it catches everyone who doesn't conform to what the guardians of the orthodoxy decide is right. I warned all of you 5 years ago as people tried to justify a small private split and then a multiplier that it would't stop with the small privates. Several times I said that if we allowed ourselves to start thinking that "fair" was the same thing as "even" then all schools who were good would be declared to have advantages that weren't "fair" and would be lynched. People made fun. People said it would never come to that. Well, here we are. We are actually discussing splitting the small privates after we have applied the largest multiplier in the nation. And we are discussing grouping the urban and rural schools and either having seperate divisions or putting an "urban" multiplier in. I told you so. Once you decide that it is legitimate to reclassify a subset of schools because they seem to perform well you open the door on ALL schools that outperform the worst schools. So, since the complainers had such success getting the small privates multiplied out, now they will complain about those evil urban schools. Because urban schools win more championships. And because we have allowed ourselves to begin thinking in terms of "unfair advantages" there is a good chance that they will win again. And what have we achieved? We have furthered the idea that any subset of schools that outperforms the poorest performers has "unfair" advantages. So there will be other splits.... 5 years ago I predicted that within 20 years if someone in a leadership position didn't stand up and say "Enough!" and reverse the trend that we would have at least 4 divisions with at least 3 champs in each for a total of 12 state champs. People laughed. I guess we aren't laughing now.

Let me reiterate. Grace made the playoffs in 4 years. The public mentioned WON 5a...won the championship. I don't care how much easier it is to get respectable (although I think that is completely false...sure you have a thousand kids, and so does everyone you play) at one level or another, winning it all is something completely different than not being in last place. Again, no private is as good as the best publics. The records are clear. No private has ever started a Football program and won their division's title in 4 years. But somehow the small privates are sooo much better than the publics that they need to be split off?? Here is my challenge once again. Name the advantage that all privates have that no publics have that can't be overcome. And if whatever it is you name is so amazing, how is it that the best schools in the state at every level are public?

What a load. You are saying it is easier to take a new program to the highest level of performance in the state than it is to take a small program to a mid-level of performance?? We aren't talking about Grace WINNING 1a, we are talking about them not being at the bottom of their REGION. The 5a schools mentioned WON 5A!! I tell you what, in 4 years let's look at the new 1a/2a school opening on Signal Mountain here in the 'nooga...betcha they make the playoffs...and against 3 of those dreaded small privates too.

Alcoa is NOT the only public high school in 2aa for the last several years that could have beaten GP. 3 years ago Tyner was the closest game Alcoa played all year, including the championship. 2 years ago Smith Cnty was the closest that Alcoa played...again a public. Either of them and you could probably throw Loudon in could have beaten GP (not saying would have, could have). You mention Grace making the playoffs...with 4 teams going you really don't have to be very good to do that, do you? Especially if your region only has 6 or 7 teams. But I appreciate you mentioning Alcoa. After all, with all the advantages the small privates have NONE of them have EVER had the kind of run Alcoa is having, EVER. Now, you would expect at least 1 to be equal, since they have soooo many advantages over the publics...

Are you implying that kicking the small privates out will end all TSSAA rulebreaking? Or is it that only privates break rules? I guess I missed your reasoning...or maybe its just I couldn't see how it was reasonable.

C. Flatt, the guy who started all of this and the guy who NEVER coached at a non-aid private. Believe me when I tell you that none of us who coach at small privates consider him a very informed source. Certainly elite preps have a lot of advantages. But they are NOT in any way like small religious privates except for the fact that neither group is public. It's like uneducated Americans comparing the French and the Germans and saying "Well, they must be alike, they are all Europeans". Don't let any French or German guys hear you say that...

Hmm...you ARE right about 1 thing, there are a few small privates that are very good on a regular basis in Football. Temple, Grace, FRA, Ezell, USJ are not them, however. While all of those programs have had good years, and at least 2 have championships (Ezell 8 years ago, FRA longer than that), they are not in the same category as DCA, CPA, Goodpasture, or DLHS. So you named 4 really good private programs. 3 in 2a, 1 in 3a. Ok, now can you name 4 public schools with as good records or better in 1,2, or 3a. As for your statement that we will see "different" county schools...What a load. The fact is that it is the public schools that have the most dominating state championship records...and it is the same schools over and over. I don't even have to name them...we all know them because they are GREAT programs. Here is a news flash. Good programs win, public or private. Your implication that the privates are all good is silly. Your implication that somehow the poor noble publics struggle to overcome their disadvantages and maybe once in 20 years get to the championships may be true for some publics, but it is NOT true for the good programs...they are there every year at every level. In fact, they dominate...they are far more dominating than their private counterparts. Name any current DI private school that has as good a record over the last 5 or 10 years as the best publics. Even DLHS and Goodpasture can't match the best publics in their divisions.

RBS gets killed by EVERYONE every year. You can't seriously think this is a good argument? If so, post the scores of the FCS/RBS for the last 5 years, then post the scores of the TC/RBS or Montery/RBS or Clay County/RBS games. You can't make any argument by choosing the elite of one category and contrasting with the worst of another...surely you see that? p.s. This last season RBS was beaten by more than 30 6 times. 5 were publics. In 2 games they were within 1 TD...Picket County and Mt. Juliet Christian. Seems to me they did a lot better vs. the small privates than the small publics they played. Aren't facts inconvenient?

I'm going to try to address these one at a time. 1) No, DII is not allowed to recruit. Those schools are allowed to offer students need based financial aid. The need is determined by a third party. Recruiting (ie. giving money or aid that is not need based) is still illegal for them. 2) Temple is NOT in DII, they are in DI. They were punished for Football infractions, thus the reason they did not forfeit their Basketball Championship. While we may think they got off too lightly, they did get punished. The size/severity of punishment is decided by the TSSAA which is run by other public school administrators. Talk to them about it. 3) Everyone, not just Friendship, beats Red Boiling Springs. How well has Friendship done in the last 5 years against TC? 4) You are mixing your DII privates (who are in their own division) like Baylor, MBA, and Father Ryan with DI privates like Temple. Further, you have worked yourself into a lather and are just spouting nonsense. Temple won 1 game this year. Baylor has struggled in Football for the last 4 or 5 years. FRA hasn't had a great Football year in quite a while, etc. 5) For every DI private you mentioned that is good I can name a DI public that is better and in the SAME CLASS. If you are going to point out the best privates let's compare them to the best publics...really, don't do that, because it kills your whole stance. 6) How many privates have won state in the last 3 years? Let me get this right, you think it is unfair for a small public to play a small private, but it is fair for a private like Silverdale in Chattanooga with 190 kids in the high school and a 4 year old program to be lumped in with Knox Fulton? LOL 7) Consider the DI privates you named as being good every year. How many DI Football players have they sent to colleges over the last 5 years? I'm guessing less than 10. The only 2 I know of are the reciever kid from GP that plays for USC and the tackle from DCA that plays for MTSU. There are probably a couple more. Now take a look at the good public programs and ask how many of their players have gone DI, and how many could have gone DI if they could have made high enough to qualify on the ACT. The best athletes are at the publics and big preps, not the small privates. So I agree, let's level the playing field. The privates should be able to choose the best player on every public school team and sit him out for the game. Also, the truly dominating publics should have to play up a class or 2. Oh, wait, you meant we should punish the privates more than we already have. Ahh, I understand now... Seriously, your proposal is not about levelling, it is about punishing. If you want levelling then go to a merit system. But you don't, in fact, you haven't even bothered learning the difference between DI and DII, because you ASSUME that all privates are alike.

1) Recruiting is illegal. If a school is openly recruiting they are openly voilating TSSAA rules. If you know this is going on as blatantly as you imply it is then you are obligated to report it. If not then quit making unfounded allegations. 2) What huge, mega-powerful, non-overcomable advantage do ALL privates have over ALL publics that merits splitting them out that way?

Indian, You were a big fan of Mulder and Sculley, right? Why in the world would a secret cabal of angry public school coaches, principals, and ADs try to frighten schools away from joining a division that they are trying to throw the privates into? My understanding is that the initial purpose WAS to lump all privates in, but when everyone finally cooled off the only reason they could come up with for DII was financial aid, and it just didn't seem fair to toss in the small privates that didn't offer it. After all, IF it is such a huge advantage then it is an advantage over the non-aid schools as well.

Carter doesn't decide...read the other posts. Are you implying that the game "evolving so much..." is what makes the privates "more prevalent"? If so, couldn't the publics evolve too?

Since the TSSAA does not have elementary sports I'm thinking that elementary kids can't be held accountable for TSSAA rules unless they are 'brought up' to play at a varsity level (which I don't think it is possible to do).

Your killing me Eagle. Exageration for emphasis is one thing...you take it to a whole new level. I'm thinking you should run a political campaign...a lot of shouting and crying and finger pointing with no real facts.