realignment

[soccerdad]

I could see a potential problem for some of the privates. Most of the other 2A programs are going to have other ideas as opposed to playing the top privates. Good post!!!

 

Yes, it's going to be real tuff the privates to find non-region games. Not only is there the private vs. public problem, but there's the 4th place scramble - what team would want to face a better team, raising the odds of NOT playing in the playoffs. The worst thing about the re-disalignment is the pressure it puts on privates, especially 5AA. Yea, its a problem trying to match their (privates) advantages, but now TSSAA has made it tough on the privates by linking their success on how many "soft" or even games they can come up with to assure a #1 through #4 seeding in playoffs. They could go up and play AAA, which some do now, but you can't have 5 of those games. It looks as though TSSAA is trying to freeze them out - making them want to bolt (forming their own association). But this would not be the answer to our situation.

Edited November 15, 2006 by soccerdad

[Stat_pack1]

Just a thought......may be way off base...was talking to some people out in the midwest and we were discussing the playoffs here vs. there. Out in their neck of the woods..their classes are based on the number of males only in a male sport and the same for the females....wonder how that would change things here...just curious.......thinking out loud you might say.

[TheBoredGuy]

No multiplier can level the playing field for most public schools matched against the private schools. If we have a public-private split then ALL private schools should play in the private school division. When the large private schools were dominating Class 5A we saw action to create a split. The smaller schools don't have the same clout so we live the fact that teams like Friendship Christian, Goodpasture, CPA and Lipscomb can dominate the public schools.

If it's good enough for the Brentwood Academy's of the world then ALL private schools should be sent to Division II. We should be concerned with the student-athletes instead of the politics of it all.

Either bring ALL the private schools back into Division I or mandate all private schools to play in Division II. I vote for the later in the name of fairness for all the student-athletes in Tennessee. It is the only fair and logical thing to do.

 

Public schools won the state championships for 1A and 2A last year, and I'm not sure but I thought I'd heard before that LA was also a public school. I get so sick of this "private schools have all the advantages" argument.

Edited November 15, 2006 by TheBoredGuy

[Rocking Chair]

Public schools won the state championships for 1A and 2A last year, and I'm not sure but I thought I'd heard before that LA was also a public school. I get so sick of this "private schools have all the advantages" argument.

 

You heard right b/c LA has never been a private school to my knowledge.

[ksgovols]

No, I think you can lump in open zoned publics and magnet schools with private schools. Some say it's a rural vs urban thing. My analogy is that it's like Little League vs travel teams. The closed zoned publics in rural areas are dealing with a finite number of student athletes. They have good years and bad years. It's a cyclical thing. The privates, magnet schools and open zoned publics can start a tradition and the players come to them. Starting the tradition is the hard part. Rural publics with closed zones do not have that luxury due to location and resources. A merit system is still the best solution to the problem.

[Lions4ever]

No, I think you can lump in open zoned publics and magnet schools with private schools. Some say it's a rural vs urban thing. My analogy is that it's like Little League vs travel teams. The closed zoned publics in rural areas are dealing with a finite number of student athletes. They have good years and bad years. It's a cyclical thing. The privates, magnet schools and open zoned publics can start a tradition and the players come to them. Starting the tradition is the hard part. Rural publics with closed zones do not have that luxury due to location and resources. A merit system is still the best solution to the problem.

agreed...

[Stat_pack1]

No, I think you can lump in open zoned publics and magnet schools with private schools. Some say it's a rural vs urban thing. My analogy is that it's like Little League vs travel teams. The closed zoned publics in rural areas are dealing with a finite number of student athletes. They have good years and bad years. It's a cyclical thing. The privates, magnet schools and open zoned publics can start a tradition and the players come to them. Starting the tradition is the hard part. Rural publics with closed zones do not have that luxury due to location and resources. A merit system is still the best solution to the problem.

Very good post....makes sense!

[Rangerbook06]

What the heck is a merit system?

[Indian]

Even in a merit system, the first year a Brentwood Academy or McCallie won in the highest division you'd be back where you started 10 years ago, and you'd have all the complaining again. Going by strength of schedule sounds nice in theory to decide wildcards, but what happens when teams with good tradition are scheduled and they have unexpected bad years? Another problem with S.O.S. is a program possibly having to decide on a money opponent, a nearby rival, and one that would help its standings but might bring 10 fans, and wouldn't draw the home fans out.

[stlbss22]

Even in a merit system, the first year a Brentwood Academy or McCallie won in the highest division you'd be back where you started 10 years ago, and you'd have all the complaining again. Going by strength of schedule sounds nice in theory to decide wildcards, but what happens when teams with good tradition are scheduled and they have unexpected bad years? Another problem with S.O.S. is a program possibly having to decide on a money opponent, a nearby rival, and one that would help its standings but might bring 10 fans, and wouldn't draw the home fans out.

 

If you've a good-tradition team that has a bad year, it'll impact SOS, but I think you roll with it and move on. We see it in college FB all the time, with their schedules set for several years in advance. Props to Texas for scheduling Ohio State last year and winning the National Championship, and if Ohio State gets by Michigan Sat., they'll be in the driver's seat to do the same this year.

 

I think money/rivals (since they usually go hand in hand) is a significant factor in considering whether a program should try and schedule for overall wins or not. As an example, look at Adamsville's 2006 schedule. They played at McNairy (3A) and hosted Hardin County (4A), both local rivals that should generate a large gate. Adamsville lost both games by a combined margin of 90-22.

 

Adamsville made the playoffs by way of the region tiebreakers, as the #4 seed. In a statewide wildcard race in 2007, it's doubtful they get in at 4-6.

 

So, in my mind, the question that each 2A coach will have to consider is, do you schedule for the gate, wins, or try and find a balance between the two?

 

That's a question I'm glad I don't have to answer, and why I think if you include SOS as a determining factor for the wildcard you at least provide 2A schools with a reason to continue playing up in class or scheduling better opponents, other than just the gate or tradition.

[Juicy]

I believe that ksgovols..stlbss..and Indian raise some good insight on the realignment situation. I wonder if any or all of these ideas were even thought of by the TSSAA ?

[Indian]

Here is something I came up with, very quickly so it probably has some holes in it. I used this year's top 3 teams from each region, and since there's still just 8 regions this year I used 8 wildcards instead of the 5 next year. I used a number 1 in each "quadrant" from overall record, and for first round games at least, only moved a team one quadrant, at most, from its region number. Some are playing in a matching quadrant/region number. They're not ranked by who I think would win, just overall records, some are too high, it's been made clear by the playoff results. It didn't necessarily go 1 vs 32, 2 vs 31, and so on because of the geography involved.

 

Quadrant 1:

1-Gatlinburg-Pittman (Gatlinburg) 6-0, 10-0

4-Happy Valley (Elizabethton) 4-2, 4-6

 

2-Sweetwater 3-3, 7-3

3-South Greene (Greeneville) 5-1, 6-4

 

Quadrant 2 :

1-Alcoa 6-0. 8-2

4-Boyd-Buchanan (Chattanooga) 3-1, 3-7

 

2-CAK (Knoxville) 4-2, 7-3

3-Tyner (Chattanooga) 3-1, 6-4

 

Quadrant 3:

1-Loudon 5-1, 8-2

4-Rockwood 2-4, 5-5

 

2-Smith County (Carthage) 4-1, 8-2

3-Bledsoe County (Pikeville) 2-2, 5-5

 

Quadrant 4:

1-Westmorland (Westmoreland) 5-0, 8-2

4-Ezell-Harding (Antioch) 3-4, 4-6

 

2-CPA (Nashville) 6-1, 8-2

3-York Institute (Jamestown) 3-2, 7-3

 

Quadrant 5:

1-Goodpasture (Madison) 7-0, 10-0

4-Upperman (Baxter) 2-3, 5-5

 

2-Fairview 5-2, 8-2

3-DCA (Nashville) 4-3, 6-4

 

Quadrant 6:

1-Lewis County (Hohenwald) 7-1, 9-1

4-Adamsville 4-6

 

2-Humboldt 6-1, 8-2

3-Huntingdon 4-3, 5-5

 

Quadrant 7:

1-Camden 8-0, 9-1

4-George Carver (Memphis) 5-1, 5-5

 

2-Waverly 6-2, 7-3

3-Peabody (Trenton) 4-3, 7-3

 

Quadrant 8:

1-Booker T. Washington (Memphis) 6-0, 9-1

4-Westwood (Memphis) 3-3, 3-8

 

2Westview (Martin) 4-3, 7-3

3-Milan 5-2, 5-5

 

 

Based on this, quadrant winners might be Sweetwater, Alcoa, Smith County, CPA, Goodpasture, Humboldt, Peabody, Milan. Those 8 meet in quarters and go from there.