jangel

ER did play badly but it was anyone's game til the last first down.

Completely agree.

Body language, not even being engaged when the play isn't to you.

Congrats to Riverside on your first gold ball!

ER looks like they are missing the intensity they had throughout the playoffs.

Pearl Cohn had an amazing season and finally gets the Gold they've deserved for years. Congratulations PC and coach Brunetti!!

There wouldn't have been an onside to return if the call was correct.

No one can say anything about officiating on PC side after the 2pt call that ended the game. The bounces went PC way and they had one dominant quarter to take the gold. I believe they are the better team, but Upperman played well enough to win.

Not only that, but the second play had no hope if they lost yards on the first. Which they did.

Puzzling decision to take out your best player on the most important downs of the year and go to the running package that wasn't working.

Page was in control til the terrible 4th and 1 call. Totally dominated since.

SP was obviously a much better team. McKenzie doesn't score on their defense without a turnover. SP QB being healthy they likely win by a significant margin.

Outstanding game by East Robertson tonight. They made every play when it was needed to prevent any momentum for Smith. Basically a perfect first quarter with Groves being dominant. Congratulations and good luck the rest of the way. You will need to play at this level going forward.

I guess the AP voters know TC doesn't care about polls.

You can listen here http://icecast.voiceopia.com:8000/mcmradio.mp3

http://www.unapproved website.com/2014/ratings/ is the most accurate ranking I have seen. You can use tools on the site to predict scores for any teams in the nation, even from previous seasons. While there are no TN teams in their top 25, there are several in the top 100.

Round 1 Alcoa Sullivan North Gatlinburg-Pittman Chuckey-Doak Upperman Smith Co Cascade Polk Co CPA Lipscomb Academy East Hickman Fairview Lewis Co Camden Hickman Co Westview Round 2 Alcoa Gatlinburg-Pittman Smith Co Polk Co CPA Fairview Lewis Co Westview Semis Alcoa Smith Co CPA Lewis Co Final Alcoa 47 CPA 17

There is no comparison between the situation at Smith County and the situation at Alcoa. While having more schools to "compete" with for talent is a valid point, comparing Blount and Smith counties in this case is kind of silly. Blount county has a population of 105,000+ (according to 2000 census), while Smith county has a population of less than 20,000 (from same data). Over five times the population but only two more schools. Three of those schools compete in high classifications where they are already being placed against schools with similar potential student pools. However, Alcoa is a small school in a densely populated area, so it benefits from having access to high population talent without high population enrollment. I agree that it is the most likely solution since it is simple, and as you said has precedent. However, I believe there are several other options that are much more fair to everyone. Much larger schools that are already placed in higher classifications for their access to the high population as I said earlier. Two that you believe are not considered "football schools". Wouldn't the chance to play at a dynasty at Alcoa in a smaller, easier, classification be alluring to potential students? Again, would that constitute an unfair advantage? This only goes to show the amount of talent in the area, thanks to the high population. I don't believe it is mitigated at all. In fact, I believe it is THE source of any "unfair advantage" open-zoned schools have over anyone else. The large schools are already appropriately placed in higher classifications thanks to their high enrollment. Enrollment caused by the dense population. However, smaller schools do not suffer from this, so any advantage is much more profound there. The essence of any advantage to having an open zone is to be able to draw athletes from the talent pools of other schools. Though, you may be right that this issue is mitigated in the case that open-zoned schools receive a multiplier or other "equalizer". There is obviously enough talent in the area for both schools to stay on a championship level indefinitely. All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than just an open-zone issue. It's the size of the talent pool I tell ya!

A multiplier based on percentage of out of zone players on any given roster has several key flaws that prevent it from being useful at all, in my opinion. First, it could potentially encourage coaches to cut players to lower their team's multiplier. Obviously this is a terrible thing for everyone involved. If cutting a handful of non-impact players meant going to a lower classification, it would be very tempting. As well, this number could be manipulated by putting several non-players on the roster, such as managers. Also, the percentage could change a great deal every year. Within a four year classification period the number of out of zone players compared to the number of zoned players would vary far too much for any reasonable standard to be set. Simply adding the percentage itself as a multiplier seems like a weak adjustment anyway. A team with 37% out of zone players likely has just as much advantage as a private school as far as drawing talent goes. Private schools all share a 1.8 multiplier, regardless of size of their potential student pools. Speaking of which, that is the another flaw I see in such a multiplier. The potential student pool is not taken into account. I still say the real advantage here is being able to draw students from a large population. This proposed multiplier doesn't take that into account. It's simply not a very good metric to use as a basis for equality.

This is almost exactly my point. You don't care about possible issues of unfairness because your team is so successful. Alcoa is a great program and likely will be regardless of any changes made. What I meant was, if you were a fan of another team you would see things differently. If it's true that all of those athletes are 'home-grown' then Alcoa is likely due for a huge drop off in talent sometime in the future. Small towns just can't sustain a crop of high level college athletes year after year, and eventually it will catch up. Though, I believe at least a few of the ones you've named moved there from elsewhere. None of that really matters. My point was that you would see things differently if you weren't a fan of a super dominant team.

It may be true there will never be a "level playing field". However, the TSSAA will continue to strive toward that goal, and should. Saying it will never happen is no excuse to give up trying. You even admit there are unfair advantages in your post. If no action should be taken against them, then why have any classifications or multiplier/zoning/transfer rules in the first place? Let's just get rid of Division II while we're at it as well. Would you feel the same if your team wasn't the one winning six straight championships? I doubt it. Goknox, referring to your previous reply to my earlier post, if a county has multiple schools the effect of distributed talent pool should already be taken into affect by the lower actual enrollment of those schools. Sorry to reply so late.

No, it is not. The argument presented here is that the open zone status provides an unfair advantage. How large of an advantage does not matter, only whether or not it is considered fair. Again, no. The premise is that open zone talent makes the difference between Alcoa and Maryville being 'successful' programs and being dominant programs going to the finals every year. And in Alcoa's case, almost never having competitive games within their classification. I'm sure there are some that take the position you are putting us all in, but not the many you claim. Anyone will readily admit the great value of the qualities you describe in your post. What teams are you referring to? Do you really believe teams like Alcoa and Maryville have "much lesser talent" than their Memphis area counterparts? There are many kids and teams that work hard as you have described here, without even a hope of ever sniffing a championship. How much easier is it to motivate athletes to go above and beyond when they are part of a dominant program? If open zoning is an unfair advantage, it would only make it easier to achieve these goals as well. CAK is also a multiplied private school. Not the best team to choose for a comparison in this argument. When the best example you can give of a team "working hard" to show that others can compete with Alcoa is a multiplied school, something is wrong. Especially ironic since you are basically arguing against the point that Alcoa (and company) is a team that should be considered for a multiplier itself. Forgive me if your actual point has eluded me. Since it is easier to pay a small tuition then change residence, isn't it logical that open zoning provides a greater opportunity for athletes to join such a program? Would this constitute an unfair advantage? I would like to say I have nothing against the above mentioned schools. I only referenced them as they were brought up in the quoted post. No offense to scots, but I feel you misrepresented the argument to make it appear weaker than it is. I still believe it is more complicated than simply open zoning, but I also believe there are still teams with 'unfair' advantages that are unaccounted for.

To me, there should obviously be more losing teams in the playoffs simply because around half of all teams are playing up during the regular season under this regular season system. I would much prefer having more losing teams in if it eliminates winning teams being left out.

I still don't believe the real issue here is strictly open zone vs. non open zone schools. A school that is open zoned with an area of 20,000 residents to draw from does not compare to an open zoned in an area with 100,000 to draw from. This is where I see the "unlevel playing field" show itself. I believe the only fair way to treat this situation would be to implement another equalizer similar to the previously mentioned 1A-6A enrollment splits. Something like a resident pool multiplier for sports. Example: Pool of Residents | Multiplier Under 25,000 1x 25,000-35,000 1.1x 35,000-45,000 1.2x 45,000-55,000 1.3x 55,000-65,000 1.4x 65,000-75,000 1.5x 75,000-85,000 1.6x 85,000-95,000 1.7x 95,000+ 1.8x This would leave the schools with the largest pools to draw from gaining a multiplier equal to private schools. As well, the multiplier is scaled to be more fair. This could also be applied to Private schools if one took the pool area around the school with the radius being the distance to the farthest enrolled student. There will be flaws with any system, and these numbers would need to be analyzed further to find the right balance, but I feel this type of implementation would be the most "fair". Also, I would like to say that the people defending specific open zone schools by claiming their success comes from only hard work, coaching, and program strength sound a lot like their successful private school brethren. There are many teams with great coaching, great determination, and great work ethic. After that, talent is the difference, and any team that draws any players from outside their zone is gaining a talent advantage over teams that are unable to do so. Even if most of your success is from old fashioned hard work, some of it is not.

I agree completely here. I don't think the open zone issue itself is the problem so much as the pools of residents teams have access to. A school from a county of 100,000 residents is always going to have a large advantage over a school from a county of 10,000 residents. The pool of possible students is what creates the advantage. Open enrollment only allows schools to take more advantage of it. I personally thought the Urban/Rural split that was suggested alongside the current classifications was very interesting. There were too many flaws built into that system for it to ever be truly considered, though. With some more thought, I believe that type of system would be the fairest. One that takes potential student pool into consideration.