Multiplier Rule

[big red big blue]

I have to Agree with "tnsddeveloper" on this!

Its not the schools that are recruiting students in non-aid schools it the parents that are making the choice.  So if your parents make a good living and can take you out of the bottom 10% of school systems nationally you should be punished by the TSSAA. 

The multiplier rule is a load of Crap. The Crying Coachs always contend that private schools get to spend more money. While in truth all private schools try to have a Self-sustaining programs. Contact any DIV1 private school AD and ask them how much of their budget the school acutally kicks in for Football. Its probably very little. This Multiplier "Money" rule could easily be applied to counties that have wealthy populations. They draw in students (Recruites) because they collect Very high property taxes and spend a lot of money on their schools, their teachers and their athletic programs.

 

Maybe all wealthy counties or distric schools SHOULD be put in Division II they have great $$ advantage say over Trousdale, Macon, Smith or any rural county. A $150,000 home Trousdale Co. collects $490 in property taxes this goes for all the funding the county does (schools, road, everything)the same home in Williamson Co. pays $800 in regular property taxes and then pays another $300 in property tax that goes to the schools. And if your in Franklin you pay another $300 on top of that for what is called a school tax. Even if Tousdale Co. was the same population size as Franklin it wouldn't have the same resources to spend on its players.

 

Just look at the 5A Playoffs last year Germantown, Houston, Franklin, Brentwood,

Riverdale, Cookeville, Oak Ridge, and Kingsport Dobyns Bennett.  All upper/middle class schools no poor schools or counties here.

 

The TSSAA and all the crying coaches should get off the backs of the non-aid private schools. They are not doing anything any different than any other public school that has a decent budget does. And I would Wager that they don't spend as much money per student athlete as some public schools do. They just spend it wiser. 

 

The TSSAA should start looking at how EXACTLY much athletic money gets spent by a school in Football per student athlete. Thats Everything Coaches, Equipment, Facilities ... EVERYTHING.  Then Create multipliers to apply to EVERY school in Div1. Creating Multiplier / Classifications by Standard Deviations from the Mean dollars spent in combination with school size. 

 

This would be alot more equatable than just how big the school is or some random 1.8  multiplier to determine the classification.

 

Give me the Trousdale Co. Team & Coach and the budget per player that any of the 8 5A PUBLIC schools I listed gets and in 4 years I will give you a Consistant championship winning  program in class 3a or even 4a and could probably give alot of 5A schools a good fight.

 

Dhack

825734150[/snapback]

 

that's a very good post. Great point made on the success of the wealthier community schools. Really more fodder for the argument that there is very little, if anything, separating the likes of Brentwood, Germantown (whom I lost to while at MBA), Riverdale, etc., and MBA/BA/MUS, etc.

 

as for the small privates, they are all very different, and the perceived advantages people cite aren't as great as people think. I know because my mom spent the first half of her teaching career in metro nashville, and the second half in a small private w/ no financial aid and no real emphasis on sports. Those schools have a very tough road to hoe. Given the glut of private schools in Nashville (I've lived all over the country and can't imagine there's a city with more private schools per capita), they have to devote a ton of energy to recruiting students--not athletes--just to keep the school in business. Some schools have recognized the power of sports as a recruiting tool (Ezell, CPA, etc.) and have hired well-known successful coaches. That's an area in which they have a distinct advantage over comparably sized publics. Where they are at a disadvantage is in the competition they face all over a town, like Nashville, for students. Not just with other privates but with publics as well. There are a number of schools that have to devote a tremendous amount of money and energy to marketing and advertising. A rural public has a captive audience one way or the other. I have witnessed this first-hand at my mothers' school.

 

The problem is, as you can glean from this board and any simple conversation, is that the minute one of these public schools loses to a small private, the knee-jerk reaction is "they're cheating." My mom's school went for years with exactly 22 players on the football team. Routinely lost 55-0. No one was feeling sorry for them then. But once they start winning, it's all about "recruiting, cheating, unfair advantages, etc."

Edited August 31, 2005 by big red big blue

[tnsddeveloper]

Hey...I don't have any problem with kids from here going to Friendship or any other private school they want to.  It is their choice...as you say.

 

Suits me...I don't think there would be a mass exodus from public schools.

My reasoning evidently makes sense to the tssaa....hence the multiplier (which I don't agree with).

825734215[/snapback]

 

TSSAA agrees with you because you are their "demographic". Most TSSAA voting coaches are from small rural areas that have the same complaints as you.

 

Also, I don't think their will be a mass exodus. However, I do think a lot of the best athletes will be cherry picked.

[Antwan]

TSSAA agrees with you because you are their "demographic".  Most TSSAA voting coaches are from small rural areas that have the same complaints as you.

 

Also, I don't think their will be a mass exodus.  However, I do think a lot of the best athletes will be cherry picked.

825734527[/snapback]

 

I think that's a risk public schools are more than willing to chance.

[Antwan]

that's a very good post.  Great point made on the success of the wealthier community schools.  Really more fodder for the argument that there is very little, if anything, separating the likes of Brentwood, Germantown (whom I lost to while at MBA), Riverdale, etc., and MBA/BA/MUS, etc. 

 

as for the small privates, they are all very different, and the perceived advantages people cite aren't as great as people think.  I know because my mom spent the first half of her teaching career in metro nashville, and the second half in a small private w/ no financial aid and no real emphasis on sports.  Those schools have a very tough road to hoe.  Given the glut of private schools in Nashville (I've lived all over the country and can't imagine there's a city with more private schools per capita), they have to devote a ton of energy to recruiting students--not athletes--just to keep the school in business.  Some schools have recognized the power of sports as a recruiting tool (Ezell, CPA, etc.) and have hired well-known successful coaches.  That's an area in which they have a distinct advantage over comparably sized publics.  Where they are at a disadvantage is in the competition they face all over a town, like Nashville, for students.  Not just with other privates but with publics as well.  There are a number of schools that have to devote a tremendous amount of money and energy to marketing and advertising.  A rural public has a captive audience one way or the other.  I have witnessed this first-hand at my mothers' school. 

 

The problem is, as you can glean from this board and any simple conversation, is that the minute one of these public schools loses to a small private, the knee-jerk reaction is "they're cheating."  My mom's school went for years with exactly 22 players on the football team.  Routinely lost 55-0.  No one was feeling sorry for them then.  But once they start winning, it's all about "recruiting, cheating, unfair advantages, etc."

825734510[/snapback]

 

I know some small privates struggle financially. Do you think small publics don't struggle just as much? I know when my kids went to our school...the parents had to buy paper....supplies...and just about everything they had.

 

Again....go back and find a post that says anything about cheating. I have not said anything like that. It's not that the small publics lose to privates occasionally. The problem is the small publics lose to comparable privates just about every time.

You tell me why.

[big red big blue]

I know some small privates struggle financially.  Do you think small publics don't struggle just as much? I know when my kids went to our school...the parents had to buy paper....supplies...and just about everything they had.

 

Again....go back and find a post that says anything about cheating. I have not said anything like that.  It's not that the small publics lose to privates occasionally.  The problem is the small publics lose to comparable privates just about every time.

You tell me why.

825734571[/snapback]

 

never said you said anything about you and cheating. In fact, I didn't address you at all. As for finances, I never said anything about anyone's abundance or lack of money. You pretty much injected that one yourself. I just said these small private schools have to devote a lot of resources and energy just to attract students (not who or who doesn't have the money). No rural public school has to do that. They have a community to draw from...the more isolated, the better. That means less competition. Nashville, imo, based on the places I've lived, has the most competition for students I've seen. Again, jmo.

 

Can't address your facts about winning and losing either. All I can tell you is that my mom's school certainly didn't beat every public school it faced. In fact, they had at one point Nashville's longest losing streak during the late 80's early 90's. It was all public schools beating them, mostly rural ones. And w/ scores along the lines of 55-0 for several years. I guess those inherent advantages just didn't apply to them.

[Antwan]

never said you said anything about you and cheating.  In fact, I didn't address you at all.  As for finances, I never said anything about anyone's abundance or lack of money.  You pretty much injected that one yourself.  I just said these small private schools have to devote a lot of resources and energy just to attract students (not who or who doesn't have the money).  No rural public school has to do that.  They have a community to draw from...the more isolated, the better.  That means less competition.  Nashville, imo, based on the places I've lived, has the most competition for students I've seen.  Again, jmo.

 

Can't address your facts about winning and losing either.  All I can tell you is that my mom's school certainly didn't beat every public school it faced.  In fact, they had at one point Nashville's longest losing streak during the late 80's early 90's.  It was all public schools beating them, mostly rural ones.  And w/ scores along the lines of 55-0 for several years.  I guess those inherent advantages just  didn't apply to them.

825734602[/snapback]

 

 

he problem is, as you can glean from this board and any simple conversation, is that the minute one of these public schools loses to a small private, the knee-jerk reaction is "they're cheating."  My mom's school went for years with exactly 22 players on the football team.  Routinely lost 55-0.  No one was feeling sorry for them then.  But once they start winning, it's all about "recruiting, cheating, unfair advantages, etc."

*

 

Was that you that posted this post? Looks like you are accusing somebody of those statements. As for the routne 55-0 beatings...there was no multiplier then. Maybe we should have split then...then you could have competed with other small privates in the playoffs.

[big red big blue]

Was that you that posted this post?  Looks like you are accusing somebody of those statements. As for the routne 55-0 beatings...there was no multiplier then.  Maybe we should have split then...then you could have competed with other small privates in the playoffs.

825734622[/snapback]

 

again, never said you (where you = you, Antwan) said anything about cheating. Don't see "Antwan" anywhere in my post that wasn't addressed to you. I was talking about what we heard (and still hear) anytime they a win over a public school. Obviously you are pretty defensive about it.

 

The multiplier, had it applied to them, would have just meant that they dropped football altogether back then. They kind of took a "we'll fix the problem ourselves" approach. Certainly not with overwheleming resources. Just smart, energetic devoted people.

[Antwan]

again, never said you (where you = you, Antwan) said anything about cheating.  Don't see "Antwan" anywhere in my post that wasn't addressed to you.  I was talking about what we heard (and still hear) anytime they a win over a public school.  Obviously you are pretty defensive about it.

 

The multiplier, had it applied to them, would have just meant that they dropped football altogether back then. They kind of took a "we'll fix the problem ourselves" approach.  Certainly not with overwheleming resources.  Just smart, energetic devoted people.

825734625[/snapback]

 

Everyone starts somewhere. Some of the small public schools have been playing football a long time. My school started before 1930. Our program was already established just like the other schools around here. I think you...and most...miss that point.

 

Defensive...nah...just responding to what you said to whomever.

[big red big blue]

Everyone starts somewhere.  Some of the  small public schools have been playing football a long time.  My school started before 1930. Our program was already established just like the other schools around here.  I think you...and most...miss that point. 

 

Defensive...nah...just responding to what you said to whomever.

825734628[/snapback]

 

I'm not disagreeing with everything you're saying. I'm only pointing out that it's inaccurate to say "small private schools in a big city like Nashville have inherent advantages over comparable public schools because of who they are." Small private schools have a whole different set of problems to deal with that, quite frankly, keep getting worse as the number of schools (private and public) in Nashville grows. I doubt the leadership of your school has ever spent any time truly wondering whether or not it would be able to open its doors the following fall. The government would never allow it to fail. A small fringe private school on the other hand faces that question pretty often. Saw it myself. So it's more than just "they are beating us because of who they are."

 

of course, I readily admit they are other small privates (CPA, DL, Goodpasture, etc.) who have leveraged their positions in the community and resources to build programs that need to be "multiplied up" against better competition. BA's failure to solve this problem themselves in the 80s and 90s is why we are here in the first place.

[dhack]

So, Melrose, Memphis East and other urban schools are at an advantage because of what?  I think what you are implicating is true.........to a point, but the small rural schools are the ones that the small privates have been competing against, not Riverdale and Gallatin.  Then, to appease those that complained the loudest, TSSAA puts most of the small privates into a region with 3 small rurals that didn't........complain?

825734314[/snapback]

I never said that all Urban Schools had an advantage or disadvantage, If you really looked at the money spent by some urban schools on athletics you might see that it is lower than average due to budget constraints of the system. With a equatable multiplier system that poor urban school might move down a class and be able to compete with other schools that have more resources. The well off urban school might have to move up.

 

The fact that small rural schools are having a hard time under the new system is true very true.... and now you have the small rural schools complaining not just the MBA bashers. And it not the small private schools fault they are just playing under the new rules and trying to save some money and eliminate hefty travel expenses.

I never said that the TSSAA ridgid 1.8 multiplier plan was very smart just the opposite.

 

I would still propose the following

1. Put all schools in the TSSAA sytem in the same division.

2. Add a new 6A class

3. Put in place a graduated multiplier system that is applied to all schools and that takes into account

a. School Size (Male Population only)

b. Total Athelitic $$'s spent by school / Player

c. Total Value of assistance recieved by players

d. Place a $$/% cap on the amount of assistance that can be given

 

I think it would create the equity we are all looking for, eliminate some travel expenses of smaller schools and create some good rivalries.

But as I said before It won't replace Talent, good coaching or hard work but it may level the field a bit.

I really think this is a mute point anyhow the TSSAA doesn't read our posts.

 

Dhack

[big red big blue]

I never said that all Urban Schools had an advantage or disadvantage, If you really looked at the money spent by some urban schools on athletics you might see that it is lower than average due to budget constraints of the system. With a equatable multiplier system that poor urban school might move down a class and be able to compete with other schools that have more resources. The well off urban school might have to move up.

 

The fact that small rural schools are having a hard time under the new system is true very true.... and now you have the small rural schools complaining not just the MBA bashers. And it not the small private schools fault they are just playing under the new rules and trying to save some money and eliminate hefty travel expenses.

I never said that the TSSAA ridgid 1.8 multiplier plan was very smart just the opposite.

 

I would still propose the following

1. Put all schools in the TSSAA sytem in the same division.

2. Add a new 6A class

3. Put in place a graduated multiplier system that is applied to all schools and        that takes into account

      a. School Size (Male Population only)

      b. Total Athelitic $$'s spent by school / Player

      c. Total Value of assistance recieved by players

      d. Place a $$/% cap on the amount of assistance that can be given

 

I think it would create the equity we are all looking for, eliminate some travel expenses of smaller schools and create some good rivalries.

But as I said before It won't replace Talent, good coaching or hard work but it may level the field a bit.

I really think this is a mute point anyhow the TSSAA doesn't read our posts.

 

Dhack

825734645[/snapback]

 

I think the right solution is something like that. It wouldn't solve everything (as in, a private school can always hire/fire coaches as it pleases while public schools must wade through the teachers' union and gov't beuracracy) but at least it would separate schools that make a big financial commitment to athletics and those that don't. You couldn't just buy your way to the top with private fund raisers, etc.

[possum]

Ok, in order then...

 

yes, Boyd is spending 1.3 million dollars to upgrade their field...which has been the worst in Chattanooga or the surrounding area for 25 years.  It has never been upgraded from the time back in 80 when the permanent bleachers were built by the coaches out of cinder blocks and concrete slabs.  So the money is to totally replace the 25 year old slab bleachers, build a new pressbox, and build a building that will actually have visitor locker rooms and a home locker room big enough for the team to dress in (right now the visitors dress in the girls gym locker room and our underclassmen have to dress in the boys gym locker room.  The money is coming completely from donations, not from the school operating budget.

 

second, while lots of you responded to the mispelling comment, not one of you were able to respond to the heart of the post, which is that the whole multiplier/d2 argument for the small privates isn't about "fair", it is about punishment for being good.  Refute it if you can, but that is the truth.

 

third, Possum let's not be disingenuous (I probably spelled that one wrong lol), you know that Whitwell's facility is FAR superior to Boyd's as they are now, as is every other school's in our old region...you would pitch a fit if Whitwell had to play in facilities like ours...so implying that the upgrade is a luxury not a necessity is, at the least, misleading.

825729062[/snapback]

I am implying that it is obvious that Boyd is growing, yes they were in desperate need for an upgrade, and the kids that go there deserve better. I am not sure what your point is?