Is the new multiplier rule working

[supersteve17]

In answer to the original question, I would want to know the definition of "working" in order to make an assessment. If someone could answer that question, the subsequent answer would be much easier to ascertain.

 

BTW, the way one answers the "working" question will show one's attitude toward this whole subject. The system will not "work" for some until all privates are separated/segregated from all publics. Isn't it interesting how similar the words "separate" and "segregate" are?

 

Laz, are you implying that "working" would equate to "parity?" (.500 records?)

[Bighurt]

And interestingly enough, two of those unbeatens are the schools that were protected by the no-double-jump rule...

Goodpasture was protected by the no double-jump rule. The way I read the classification breakdown below Lipscomb with an enrollment of 513 (513 times 1.8 = 923.4) should be in 3A. However, I could be wrong.

 

5A 1358 and above

4A 984 to 1357

3A 667 to 983

2A 399 to 666

1A 398 and under

[Antwan]

Goodpasture was protected by the no double-jump rule. The way I read the classification breakdown below Lipscomb with an enrollment of 513 (513 times 1.8 = 923.4) should be in 3A. However, I could be wrong.

 

5A 1358 and above

4A 984 to 1357

3A 667 to 983

2A 399 to 666

1A 398 and under

 

Goodpasture's enrollment was listed at 377...therefore they could not be moved two classes from 1a to 3a. Notre Dame is the other team Silverpie was speaking of...not DL. They are listed at 582...which would have put them in 4a.

[my2cents]

In answer to the original question, I would want to know the definition of "working" in order to make an assessment. If someone could answer that question, the subsequent answer would be much easier to ascertain.

 

BTW, the way one answers the "working" question will show one's attitude toward this whole subject. The system will not "work" for some until all privates are separated/segregated from all publics. Isn't it interesting how similar the words "separate" and "segregate" are?

 

Laz, are you implying that "working" would equate to "parity?" (.500 records?)

I started this and i am not sure what the definition of working is. I guess they put in the 1.8 because private schools were dominating in 1 & 2 & 3a.? I guess for example if last year the top 5 teams in 1a were 4 privates and 1 public and now in 2a it is 3-2 either way (or 4-1 public as far as that goes) is that considered working? I don't know myself, it just seems there is not as much uproar about the private schools since this has been done. but now looking at it i guess 1a would be happy and 2a might not think to much of it. Plus maybe it will not really show up till the playoffs start. 1.8 was a really big deal last year and i was just wondering if it accomplished what they wanted ( whoever they are).

[lazarus]

"Laz, are you implying that "working" would equate to "parity?" (.500 records?)"

 

obviously, it would not translate to .500 records for all. but i would think that should be the mode of the set of records. when the mode is undefeated, and the second most common result is winless, i tend to believe we have done a poor job of classifying that set of schools.

 

as far as reaching conclusions from the 1st 8 weeks of the multiplier; i think we are well short of sufficient data. but there does seem to be a trend.

[Baldcoach]

"Laz, are you implying that "working" would equate to "parity?" (.500 records?)"

 

obviously, it would not translate to .500 records for all. but i would think that should be the mode of the set of records. when the mode is undefeated, and the second most common result is winless, i tend to believe we have done a poor job of classifying that set of schools.

 

as far as reaching conclusions from the 1st 8 weeks of the multiplier; i think we are well short of sufficient data. but there does seem to be a trend.

 

Actually it is working about like I thought it would. 3a is weak except for a few REALLY good teams, so it doesn't surprise me that ND and DL are dominating there. The schools that moved to 2a were primarily the "powerhouses", but 2a is pretty strong so they are doing ok but not great as a group. The schools left in 1a were the privates that never won much anyway (with a couple of exceptions) and they still aren't winning much. But you are right Laz...statistically what you have are the All winners or All losers...not much in the middle, at least as far as region play goes.

[BUC4LIFE]

I'd like someone to define what justifies whether or not the multiplier is working.

 

Do the private schools have to win at less than a historical rate for the multiplier to be "working"?

 

Do the public schools have to win at greater than a, say, 50% rate for it to be "working"?

 

I don't have too much of a problem with the multiplier, in terms of what it accomplishes (moving stronger privates up), although I disagree with it in principle since it's effectively a punishment to a select group of schools. Nevertheless, I do not think the public sector will deem it to be "working" until the data (scores) are in their favor, and I would guess that would be at a point when the publics win at a rate greater than 50% (and not just an improvement in their historical sub-50% winning percentage).

 

However, if we do get to that point, wouldn't that be a point where the privates' argument against a multiplier would be as compelling as the publics' argument for a multiplier was coming into this season? Would the TSSAA be willing to listen and make change?

 

Wow, someone that can actually look at this subject objectively. The MULTIPLIER is 1.8 as everyone knows. It is the largest multiplier in the nation! The privates are in effect playing schools twice their size now. I read a post about one of the Nashville private schools hiring several retired pro players or college players. I know the public schools can't do that, but neither can most of the privates. Maybe they should also consider limiting the coaching staffs . I think the TSSAA will not listen to the privates if the scores got out of hand in favor of the public schools. I graduated from Boyd Buchanan in 1980. When we were everyones homecoming game and losing 70-0 every Friday night, there was NO PROBLEM then. We didn't cry and the TSSAA sure didn't help us out. We almost had to do away with our football program 10 years ago because we couldn't talk anyone into coaching it. Our school president Robert Akins volunteered to do it and the Board of Directors said OK. Mainly to save money. He is a great coach and has turned the program around. I thought the PRIVATE SCHOOLS like Baylor, McCallie, Brentwood that do recruit athletes being moved to their own division was the right answere, because none of us can compete with that. But your point about punishing a select group of schools is right on. I remember South Pittsburg in 1A and Trousdale dominating for years. But DCA, CPA and BOYD wins the state 3 years in a row and they make these changes. It is OK for Riverdale to kill everyone in 5A, but when Brentwood won the championship a couple of years the crying started. The Trousdale program is a great program, but their coach moved out of 1A and moved to 3A to get away from the privates. (They skipped 2A to avoid Goodpasture and Lipscomb) And now they are killing everyone by 30-50 points. So what should the TSSAA do to them. Their coach has been vocal about not wanting to play the privates. (Only likes to play who they can dominate) How about Tyner (magnet school) that can draw players from all over the county. I know that someone will say the privates can do that too. So why not apply the 1.8 multiplier to all the magnet schools? The answere to me would be not to punish the players for hard work or success. The schools that do not recruit and the public schools that are the SAME SIZE should be playing each other.

[itzme]

Wow, someone that can actually look at this subject objectively. The MULTIPLIER is 1.8 as everyone knows. It is the largest multiplier in the nation! The privates are in effect playing schools twice their size now. I read a post about one of the Nashville private schools hiring several retired pro players or college players. I know the public schools can't do that, but neither can most of the privates. Maybe they should also consider limiting the coaching staffs . I think the TSSAA will not listen to the privates if the scores got out of hand in favor of the public schools. I graduated from Boyd Buchanan in 1980. When we were everyones homecoming game and losing 70-0 every Friday night, there was NO PROBLEM then. We didn't cry and the TSSAA sure didn't help us out. We almost had to do away with our football program 10 years ago because we couldn't talk anyone into coaching it. Our school president Robert Akins volunteered to do it and the Board of Directors said OK. Mainly to save money. He is a great coach and has turned the program around. I thought the PRIVATE SCHOOLS like Baylor, McCallie, Brentwood that do recruit athletes being moved to their own division was the right answere, because none of us can compete with that. But your point about punishing a select group of schools is right on. I remember South Pittsburg in 1A and Trousdale dominating for years. But DCA, CPA and BOYD wins the state 3 years in a row and they make these changes. It is OK for Riverdale to kill everyone in 5A, but when Brentwood won the championship a couple of years the crying started. The Trousdale program is a great program, but their coach moved out of 1A and moved to 3A to get away from the privates. (They skipped 2A to avoid Goodpasture and Lipscomb) And now they are killing everyone by 30-50 points. So what should the TSSAA do to them. Their coach has been vocal about not wanting to play the privates. (Only likes to play who they can dominate) How about Tyner (magnet school) that can draw players from all over the county. I know that someone will say the privates can do that too. So why not apply the 1.8 multiplier to all the magnet schools? The answere to me would be not to punish the players for hard work or success. The schools that do not recruit and the public schools that are the SAME SIZE should be playing each other.

Good post.

 

You might be interested to know that the NFL has a program to subsidize any high school that hires an ex-NFL player as a coach. I believe it's $5,000, but I'm not sure. Most of these guys aren't in it for the money, but just to get some experience and/or help kids learn proper technique.

[Bighurt]

Goodpasture's enrollment was listed at 377...therefore they could not be moved two classes from 1a to 3a. Notre Dame is the other team Silverpie was speaking of...not DL. They are listed at 582...which would have put them in 4a.

Like I said, I could be wrong and I was . . . again.

Edited October 12, 2005 by Bighurt

[lazarus]

"Wow, someone that can actually look at this subject objectively."

 

and then follows an encyclopedic reporting of one side of the argument!

makes me wish i was smart enough to use the little smiley face that is laughing.

 

more often than not, we humans define "objective" as "agrees totally with me".

[Old Timer]

more often than not, we humans define "objective" as "agrees totally with me".

 

Or vice versa.

[Antwan]

Like I said, I could be wrong and I was . . . again.

 

Ah BH...you're right most of the time.