Fair Play

[Indian]

Unfair advantages?

 

Unfair would be if private schools were allowed to play twenty year olds against everyone else's 19 and unders. 

 

Unfair would be if privates only had to go eight yards for a first down while everyone else had to go ten. 

 

Unfair would be if privates got six personal fouls per player while everyone else got five. 

 

Unfair would be if privates got four outs per inning while everyone else got three.

 

Otherwise, if privates are playing with kids whose age conforms to the rules, kids who have to shoot free throws from 15 feet, kids who are required to run the full 400 meters in a 400 meter race -- yadda yadda yadda -- then what are they doing that is unfair?

825683493[/snapback]

 

 

You get to keep the riff-raff out of the school, which not only helps in attitude and percentage going out for sports (or band or any other after school activity), it keeps you playing in the lowest classification (up until now).

[Baldcoach]

Baldcoach,

Nothing I said was misleading, you and softballscout went on and on about paying taxes to the public school as if you are the only ones and we all should owe you something. So i just wanted to thank you, didnt want you to think it went unnoticed. Im sure you are a  great guy and we are all entitled to our opinion thats why these boards are so popular. This debate could go on forever and there is not right answer, but i think it is agreed by all (even you) that the private schools both large and small have great advantage over the poor, rural public schools that they are competing against.

825683322[/snapback]

 

 

No, I don't agree...neither do a lot of people. That is why this board is up.

 

And, the only reason I went on about it is another poster kept saying the private school parents should support public schools. I kept replying that they do...with taxes, just like everyone else.

[Baldcoach]

You get to keep the riff-raff out of the school, which not only helps in attitude and percentage going out for sports (or band or any other after school activity), it keeps you playing in the lowest classification (up until now).

825683542[/snapback]

 

 

Indian,

 

You are correct, private schools can keep problem kids out. But that is only an advantage if they selectively take good athletes to replace them. They don't. Fact is, athletics is never a criterion that is considered at our school for admission. The person who is in charge of admissions is the principle, and I can assure you that she does not care a bit if someone is athletic or not. THe coaches have no say at all in who gets in or is asked to leave.

 

I admit that not having as many behavior problem kids is nice, but let's be honest, those kids often are good athletes too, so not having them is no advantage athletically over having them.

[Baldcoach]

If there are no differences, then why not play at the AAA or 5A level?  Move yourself up and play stronger competition. 

 

Or better yet, play in the D2 classification.

 

Nothing prevents you from playing in either of those classifications -- except a long list of excuses.

825683515[/snapback]

 

 

STan,

 

*sigh* once again you intentionally misconstrue what someone posted. I KNOW you are smarter than that. It must be intentional. You were an angry child, weren't you?

[supersteve17]

If there are no differences, then why not play at the AAA or 5A level?  Move yourself up and play stronger competition. 

 

Or better yet, play in the D2 classification.

 

Nothing prevents you from playing in either of those classifications -- except a long list of excuses.

825683515[/snapback]

 

The primary reason is that the TSSAA has historically (since 1969) categorized schools by size. Nothing else was even considered until BA started their dominance AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS. I was not offering excuses, I was raising questions that to me, have never been answered.

[119wrestler]

The primary reason is that the TSSAA has historically (since 1969) categorized schools by size.  Nothing else was even considered until BA started their dominance AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.  I was not offering excuses, I was raising questions that to me, have never been answered.

825683721[/snapback]

they changed it cuz because ba was recruiting like crazy

Edited May 30, 2005 by 119wrestler

[1ladytigerfan]

Ok Baldcoach, if you dont see the advantages you have over the small, rural public schools you compete with, then compare yourself with the ones in my area, most of which im sure you have never heard of. Rockwood, Harriman, Oakdale, Sunbright, Midway, Greenback, Cosby, TSD, just to name a few, now compare your school or any other private that competes with them. And besides the number of students (which is controlled at your school by selective enrollment), tell me how these types of schools measure up. As a matter of fact our middle school football coach just left our school to take a position at CAK as their middle school football coach for more money, wow they must be the only private school around that pays more than public school according to you. Softballscout points out that Goodpasture plays the toughest schedule around and im sure thats true, they play lots of larger public schools and they are very successful but when it boils right down to it the above mentioned schools are the teams they start every year off competing for a state title against and they probably have never heard of them either, because they know that there is no chance they will ever have to play them. They also have 5 graduating seniors signing D1 college scholarships, well the above named schools in their histories have never had even 1 in softball, you guys must be the luckiest people in the whole state to have the athletes just fall into your schools.

[soccerdad]

Wow! I'm not sure I should say anything because it looks like you all have been discussing this so long that my 2 cents won't matter.

 

I've taught and coached (soccer & football) single A in both public and private. What I've seen is that our athletes are attracted to winning programs - it doesn't matter if they're public or private. Sure, religious affiliation plays a strong role in selection, but the sports program is a very strong attractant. Sure, I get fired up about the new multi-million $ private school nearby (with DEEEP pockets)! But, I also get fired up about losing my athletes to a nearby, large public school!

 

Presently, I teach at a K-12 public school (very rare!) county-wide zoned and every year I lose players to both public and private. Sure they say it's because of one thing or another, but if you dig a little deeper, you find it's the athletics. We are a very competitive culture and we want our kids playing where they can reach their full potential or at least the state finals!

 

I don't see this as an issue of private v. public, but more a small v. larger or rural v. urban problem! The smaller the school - in both private and public - the harder it is to put together a strong program.

 

We small schools (public and private):

1. have less $ (so we don't have weight rooms, training equip, enough fields, etc.)

2. have less staff (some have to coach 2 or more sports - which leads to poorer performance in the classroom- which then affects the academic reputation of the school)

3. have less athletes to choose from (many of them play multiple sports - which leads to fatigue and academic difficulties - which also affects our academic reputation)

4. often have to play schools up to 8 times our size (we have 115 and play AA schools of over 900)!!!!

 

Our lot in life is difficult! SO, how can we compete? With a lot of HARD WORK! And we even win! However, the likelihood of seeing us at state is slim. But that's the nature of things.

 

If you complain about the number of private schools at state - I say work harder! If you complain about not having enough money - I say you can coach on a shoe-string budget and get GOOD results - I've done it for years!

 

The one area I think we should revisit is placing A and AA schools togehter. This is blatantly unfair! This would also solve some of our rural v. urban problem.

 

Well, I've rambled on long enough. Work hard, play fair, be good!

Edited May 30, 2005 by soccerdad

[BDURHAM]

Baldcoach and Supersteve,

 

Don't avoid the question by attacking me.

 

The rules of the game are the same in all classifications, including D2.

Answer the question.

 

Why not play all the way up against the best competition?

 

If not is not about the Gold Balls, why not play the best competition?

 

 

STan,

 

*sigh* once again you intentionally misconstrue what someone posted.  I KNOW you are smarter than that.  It must be intentional.  You were an angry child, weren't you? 

825683572[/snapback]

[supersteve17]

Baldcoach and Supersteve,

 

Don't avoid the question by attacking me.

 

The rules of the game are the same in all classifications, including D2.

Answer the question. 

 

Why not play all the way up against the best competition?

 

If not is not about the Gold Balls, why not play the best competition?

825684393[/snapback]

 

Stan,

 

Sorry if you perceived my post to be "attacking" you. I simply asked questions. Why don't you answer my questions?

 

BTW, the answer I offered to "Why not play up...?" was that the TSSAA historically classified schools by size alone. Until Brentwood Academy won the football state championship at the highest level, no other criterion was used besides size! The TSSAA membership changed the rules because of the success of a relatively few private schools -- starting with BA. The first change was Division II for financial aid schools. The next change was a 1.8 multiplier. Private schools are simply playing by the rules the Organization legislates. (Not to say that the possibility of cheating doesn't exist -- assuming that schools follow the rules.) That is my answer.

 

I would ask you a question as well. For public schools who perceive private schools to have "unfair advantages," "If it is not about Gold Balls, why not play the best competition?" Or put another way, if privates are so superior, why don't publics want to play them?

 

I am not asking in the spirit of "attack." Just raising questions.

[ksgovols]

My personal opinion concerning the new alignment with 2 public schools and 5 privates in our district for football is that the good athletes on the public school teams will end up on private school rosters. I can see no positive result for the 2 public schools playing in a district full of private schools.

[Baldcoach]

Baldcoach and Supersteve,

 

Don't avoid the question by attacking me.

 

The rules of the game are the same in all classifications, including D2.

Answer the question. 

 

Why not play all the way up against the best competition?

 

If not is not about the Gold Balls, why not play the best competition?

825684393[/snapback]

 

 

Stan,

 

The wink indicates a joke, the sigh indicates frustration with your intentional misconstruction of other people's posts. Neither is meant to 'attack'. If anything, the wink was meant to show that even though you are frustrating when you change things to fit your argument I still like you.

 

As for why not play the best competition, again, that bites both ways. I have continually argued that the only fair way to classify schools is to start with size and then use a merit system to move schools up and down.

 

You have consistently said that that idea is crazy. I am glad that you are seeing its merits now. If we are going to really strive for a 'level playing field' (which doesn't exist, kind of like an ideal gas) then a merit system is the only answer. If we want to classify schools by size as the easiest/quickest way to get most schools in with similar schools, then it is unfair to turn around and say "these schools seem to be doing well...let's use merit to force them up or out." Either use a merit based system or not. I am all for it, but it has to apply to ALL schools, not just the privates. Otherwise it is discrimination, pure and simple.