TSSAA vs. BA - Round 587

[BL46]

Then...why should BA be able to do it...if you can't? Better yet...just do it and sue the tssaa.

 

 

Antwan...you're beating a dead horse. Move on.

[EastTN74]

Antwan...you're beating a dead horse. Move on.

 

ditto!

[itzme]

No 1A through 5A either, but do you want to see a Red Boiling Springs vs Riverdale football game?

No, I wouldn't. Just the best vs. the best. Doesn't that make sense? Don't you think MUS vs. Riverdale, Oak Ridge or Ravenwood would have been fun to see last year?

 

Nobody would claim that the DI A champ was the best team overall in the state, but many could argue whether DI 5A or DII 3A is the best. All I'm saying is that we should have a system where the teams that lay claim to being the best can play each other in the playoffs, if we are to have playoffs at all.

Edited July 8, 2006 by itzme

[VolunteerGeneral]

No, I wouldn't. Just the best vs. the best. Doesn't that make sense? Don't you think MUS vs. Riverdale, Oak Ridge or Ravenwood would have been fun to see last year?

 

Nobody would claim that the DI A champ was the best team overall in the state, but many could argue whether DI 5A or DII 3A is the best. All I'm saying is that we should have a system where the teams that lay claim to being the best can play each other in the playoffs, if we are to have playoffs at all.

 

Amen!

[rollredroll]

And yes, they have had a little trouble winning it in DllAAA. But, they are playing against MBA, MUS, CBHS, McCallie, which are all double the size of BA and are all boys. How many boys does BA have, 200? So, I think they do a pretty good job in the toughest division out there. What do you think?

 

The public side could likely argue that financial aid is an equalizer to mitigate any disparities in enrollment. I'm not sure I necessarily buy into that thinking, but I could see that as an argument.

 

Of the seven DII-AAA schools (I'm excluding Briarcrest's recent addition since they just competed for their first AAA title in '05), the largest school (CBHS) has no DII football titles. The second (McCallie) and third largest (FRHS) have one each, and the fourth (MBA) and fifth largest (MUS) have a combined seven titles (MBA 5, MUS 2). The two smallest (Baylor and BA) have 0. Enrollment apparently has little weight, as the fourth and fifth largest schools have the lion's share of the titles. And while BA is title-less in DII football, they are tied for first (with MBA) in championship game appearances with 6.

 

Financial aid apparently is not the reason for MBA's and MUS's dominance, for if you look at the percenatge of financial aid given as a percent of tuition collected, MBA and MUS are on the low end of the scale, as compared to McCallie, Baylor, and BA (FRHS and CBHS data is not available; I'm assuming BA's percentage is still higher than MBA's and MUS's - BA used to have specific "Financial Aid" line items in their Form 990s, and their percentages were higher, but their recent disclosures (FY 2003-2005) have the FA amount embedded in some other line item(s)).

 

The point of all this - on a playing field where everything is in essence level, higher enrollment and/or larger financial aid programs haven't necessarily translated into football titles. Sure, Baylor and BA could argue that doesn't hold true when comparing those schools to MBA and MUS, but it does hold true when comparing MBA and MUS to the three largest schools (CBHS, MCcCallie, FRHS).

[Antwan]

The public side could likely argue that financial aid is an equalizer to mitigate any disparities in enrollment. I'm not sure I necessarily buy into that thinking, but I could see that as an argument.

 

Of the seven DII-AAA schools (I'm excluding Briarcrest's recent addition since they just competed for their first AAA title in '05), the largest school (CBHS) has no DII football titles. The second (McCallie) and third largest (FRHS) have one each, and the fourth (MBA) and fifth largest (MUS) have a combined seven titles (MBA 5, MUS 2). The two smallest (Baylor and BA) have 0. Enrollment apparently has little weight, as the fourth and fifth largest schools have the lion's share of the titles. And while BA is title-less in DII football, they are tied for first (with MBA) in championship game appearances with 6.

 

Financial aid apparently is not the reason for MBA's and MUS's dominance, for if you look at the percenatge of financial aid given as a percent of tuition collected, MBA and MUS are on the low end of the scale, as compared to McCallie, Baylor, and BA (FRHS and CBHS data is not available; I'm assuming BA's percentage is still higher than MBA's and MUS's - BA used to have specific "Financial Aid" line items in their Form 990s, and their percentages were higher, but their recent disclosures (FY 2003-2005) have the FA amount embedded in some other line item(s)).

 

The point of all this - on a playing field where everything is in essence level, higher enrollment and/or larger financial aid programs haven't necessarily translated into football titles. Sure, Baylor and BA could argue that doesn't hold true when comparing those schools to MBA and MUS, but it does hold true when comparing MBA and MUS to the three largest schools (CBHS, MCcCallie, FRHS).

 

I can't argue with your logic within DII AAA...but I do think aid is a big factor when you compare DII with DI. Aid...and population base are two of the biggest factors.

[itzme]

Financial aid apparently is not the reason for MBA's and MUS's dominance, for if you look at the percenatge of financial aid given as a percent of tuition collected, MBA and MUS are on the low end of the scale, as compared to McCallie, Baylor, and BA (FRHS and CBHS data is not available; I'm assuming BA's percentage is still higher than MBA's and MUS's - BA used to have specific "Financial Aid" line items in their Form 990s, and their percentages were higher, but their recent disclosures (FY 2003-2005) have the FA amount embedded in some other line item(s)).

 

 

BA's financial aid target is 10% of the budget. Sometimes ends up being a bit less, sometimes right on the number.

[BDURHAM]

Why doesn't college football have a playoff between

Division III, II and I?

 

Hey, isn't there a division in college football for

non-scholarship teams? Wonder why?

 

No, I wouldn't. Just the best vs. the best. Doesn't that make sense? Don't you think MUS vs. Riverdale, Oak Ridge or Ravenwood would have been fun to see last year?

 

Nobody would claim that the DI A champ was the best team overall in the state, but many could argue whether DI 5A or DII 3A is the best. All I'm saying is that we should have a system where the teams that lay claim to being the best can play each other in the playoffs, if we are to have playoffs at all.

[TheBigRedDog]

not only were those teams the best in BA history, they were among the best in the history of the TSSAA. I watched both those teams knock MBA out of the play-offs. They were the perfect storm of talent and coaching. Richard Land, Mikki Allen, Tito Lee, Austin Kemp, Bo Clift, Kurston Biggers...they were just loaded. I've watched high school football all over the country and those teams could compete with anyone anywhere. I'd say not unlike the BA basketball team this year. Or MBA football in 1999. Sometimes, everything just comes together. You have a great coaching staff and you throw in a few special talents into the mix...

the funny thing is, in hidsight, if anyone had a reason to be suspicious/angry about BA winning 5A titles with only 300 students back then, it was us at MBA. After all, they knocked out 2 of the best MBA teams ever each of those years. And our student body is more that twice theirs with all guys. And coaching? Ricky Bowers at MBA. Enough said. But no one at MBA started frantically scheming to get BA off the schedule. Ricky just worried about getting it done on the field. And ever since then, BA has struggled to beat MBA.

 

I agree. I have said it before and I'll say it again: So much of high school football is about coaching. Carlton Flatt is one of the best coaches you will ever see. It is no wonder that BA was/is so good with fewer students. Someone used the example of McGavock, with its 2,000 students and only one playoff win ever...that is pathetic. A school that big should be competing for titles every year. I was on those '95 and '96 MBA teams that lost to BA in the playoffs(and beat McGavock ). I always had confidence going into games against public schools because I knew we were better prepared than they were. We certainly weren't more athletic or bigger than the public school kids, but we had great coaches and an environment around us that prepared us to succeed. Every school we played in 5A was much bigger than us and had better athletes, but they couldn't beat us (except for Northeast ). I'm sure the BA guys felt the same way. I can remember being angry at BA for winning those 5A titles, but not because they had 300 students, but because they knocked us out...and in '96 it was because we came so close to beating them (double overtime) and lost. Many people will say that that game was for the 5A title. Its no accident that that night the two best coaches, IMO, were on the field. As big red blue stated, sometimes everyting just comes together.

 

P.S. - whatever happened to Richard Land?

Edited July 10, 2006 by TheBigRedDog

[rollredroll]

Every school we played in 5A was much bigger than us and had better athletes, but they couldn't beat us (except for Northeast ).

 

We've read many times on these P/P boards how it takes those "one or two special athletes" to make a difference for private schools. That was certainly true for a public school in this case. Northeast was fabulous with Travis Stephens and that other back (Tim Thompson, I believe); they were mediocre at best before and mediocre at best since then.

 

P.S. - whatever happened to Richard Land?

 

I thought he signed with Texas out of BA, but I'm not sure he lasted long. He either quit playing, or didn't get much playing time, if memory serves.

[lazarus]

yeah, we've all heard the "poor outmanned BA" song before as well. i am afraid that only makes the charts at one campus.

coaching is important, but no one is so smart they can win without horses.

and coaching goes beyond just the head coach, lets give the staff their due.

when you played those "underachieving" mcgavock teams, how did the staffs stack up? (numbers and qualifications)

you could have swapped the head coaches and neither game would have had a different outcome.

now, had you swapped the staffs, and the homes the players went to after school, the games would have been very different.

carlton flatt is obviously a very good football coach, but he hasnt performed miracles.

more than one coach has seen their records soar after moving from public to private. are they getting injections of smart serum after they are hired?

[big red big blue]

yeah, we've all heard the "poor outmanned BA" song before as well. i am afraid that only makes the charts at one campus.

coaching is important, but no one is so smart they can win without horses.

and coaching goes beyond just the head coach, lets give the staff their due.

when you played those "underachieving" mcgavock teams, how did the staffs stack up? (numbers and qualifications)

you could have swapped the head coaches and neither game would have had a different outcome.

now, had you swapped the staffs, and the homes the players went to after school, the games would have been very different.

carlton flatt is obviously a very good football coach, but he hasnt performed miracles.

more than one coach has seen their records soar after moving from public to private. are they getting injections of smart serum after they are hired?

 

what I think happens is natural "self-selection" at winning schools like BA and Maryville. Once young kids demonstrate success early on, then they naturally gravitate to the places where the parents perceive they have the best opportunity to receive high level coaching and achieve great success. Part of that means that these schools are receiving kids from the outset with a high level of parental involvement and support. The kids playing sports and thriving at young ages naturally come from families that have already made sacrifices of time and money to support their kids. They are the ones practicing with their kids after work, sending them to camps, buying them the best equipment, driving them all around for games, etc. So the kids who show up for school not only have some demonstrated aptitude but also a sound family support structure. The coaches can skip over the basic minimums of showing up on time for practice, getting to off-season work-outs, etc., and move on to bigger challenges. On top of that, within the school there is a tremendous positive peer pressure. The more they win, the more the cycle perpetuates itself. I think, imo, it reached a "tipping point" for BA in the early 80's when Williamson county was still an up and coming area and metro Nashville schools were not doing well.

 

personally, I think it has nothing to do with public or private and everything to do with the culture of winning. It's why I think the real coaching geniuses are guys like Adeylott and Maurice Fitzgerald, who took dead programs (Hillsboro and Pearl-Cohn) and built them into winners from the ground up.