Question for 1A fans that want a split

[Antwan]

Yes, but the likelihood of that occurring with a private school student is much greater when one considers the socioeconomic factors. The money argument is, after all, one of the biggest complaints the publics have.

 

I thought most of the small private families have to work two jobs just to go to high school. That's what the Bald One among others say.

[Kublah]

I thought most of the small private families have to work two jobs just to go to high school. That's what the Bald One among others say.

 

Haha touché my friend.

[Baldcoach]

I have a new term for you. You are using Baldymath...or Baldynomics. Nah...you have 17 scholarship kids (at least) and we have 16 for the same time period. You have near half the students we do. I am not sure of our percentage of college eligible students. You say 50%.

 

You will have about 82 or so in your graduating class. That is based on your 2006 enrollment...which was 347. We will have about 130 or so. That is based on the past. If you divide our enrollment (644) by 4...you would get 161. You will have near 95% of your students to graduate. We will have about 20-30 (at least) that won't graduate or transfer. That takes care of about 25% those that aren't college eligible. So we would have about 65 or so kids that are college eligible...you would have over 80. That for a school with 347 students in comparison with a school of 644. Maybe the multiplier is more accurate than I thought. Also in the equation...just because a kid is college eligible...does not mean they have the athletic ability to be offered. I only know of one of our kids that has a full ride for sure. Most pay most of their expenses...or have academic...or lottery scholarships...etc.

 

The four I forgot were edited in...and we do have two more on golf scholarships.

 

 

Heh...Baldymath. I like that!

 

Ok, here are the stats...For Tennessee at large approximately half of the kids who start high school graduate and a little less than half of the ones that graduate actually go on to college in the first year. So that is about a quarter (a little less actually).

 

For most small privates 95+% graduate and the same percentage go on to colleges in the first year...so about 90%.

 

Thus, if you guys had 16 scholarship kids over 10 years (is this just Football?) then assuming the averages hold you actually had 64+ kids who were good enough to get scholarships but 3/4 of them either didn't finish high school or didn't go on to college after graduation. If we had 17 kids get scholarships (Football + every other sport) the odds are good that we actually had 18 or possibly 19 scholarship capable kids and all but 1 or 2 actually graduated and went to college.

 

Given our average enrollment over the last 10 years (325 or so) and your average enrollment (640? I'm guessing) you guys should have had about two times as many college capable athletes as us if things were even...but that isn't what the numbers show. You actually had more like 3.5 times as many. And the last 10 years were the best we ever had in every sport, period. Even if TC has a better than average graduation and college percentage I'm thinking you can't argue that we had more good athletes than you guys did...notice I accounted for the difference in enrollment.

 

Ask Laz to check my numbers...he uses Laz-math. But if Baldy-math and Laz-math agree...which I expect...well, that pretty much kills the "you have all the athletes" and "you recruit or use 'selective enrollment' to get athletes" arguments. I maintain that the average small private that we have played has as many good athletes as us...and that the numbers will bear me out.

Edited December 24, 2006 by Baldcoach

[Antwan]

Heh...Baldymath. I like that!

 

Ok, here are the stats...For Tennessee at large approximately half of the kids who start high school graduate and a little less than half of the ones that graduate actually go on to college in the first year. So that is about a quarter (a little less actually).

 

For most small privates 95+% graduate and the same percentage go on to colleges in the first year...so about 90%.

 

Thus, if you guys had 16 scholarship kids over 10 years (is this just Football?) then assuming the averages hold you actually had 64+ kids who were good enough to get scholarships but 3/4 of them either didn't finish high school or didn't go on to college after graduation. If we had 17 kids get scholarships (Football + every other sport) the odds are good that we actually had 18 or possibly 19 scholarship capable kids and all but 1 or 2 actually graduated and went to college.

 

Given our average enrollment over the last 10 years (325 or so) and your average enrollment (640? I'm guessing) you guys should have had about two times as many college capable athletes as us if things were even...but that isn't what the numbers show. You actually had more like 3.5 times as many. And the last 10 years were the best we ever had in every sport, period. Even if TC has a better than average graduation and college percentage I'm thinking you can't argue that we had more good athletes than you guys did...notice I accounted for the difference in enrollment.

 

Ask Laz to check my numbers...he uses Laz-math. But if Baldy-math and Laz-math agree...which I expect...well, that pretty much kills the "you have all the athletes" and "you recruit or use 'selective enrollment' to get athletes" arguments. I maintain that the average small private that we have played has as many good athletes as us...and that the numbers will bear me out.

 

No...that is all sports...but that is not over 10 years. I think that is only 5 years.

I think over the last 5 or 10 we have only 6 scholarship for football. None of those are DI.

[lazarus]

"Ask Laz to check my numbers...he uses Laz-math."

 

the math is simple enough,

not sure i understand the logic behind it.

i might just not quite understand what you are getting at.

 

it sounds like you start with the premise that all student bodies contain the same percentage of potential college athletes and use that to prove that a student body twice as large has twice as many potential college athletes. the conclusion is really just a restatement of the original premise.

 

however, if the actual result is that the student body twice as large produces only half as many college athletes, that would seem to be a pretty strong indication that the original premise is not correct.

 

laz-math doesnt work the same as baldy-math. baldy-math seems to start with a premise, and follow it thru to its conclusion with little concern for actual results.

laz-math simply compiles results and looks for trends sufficient to predict future results. private schools produce far greater numbers of college athletes, and have consistently done so for many years. so laz-math anticipates they will continue to do so.

[Antwan]

Heh...Baldymath. I like that!

 

Ok, here are the stats...For Tennessee at large approximately half of the kids who start high school graduate and a little less than half of the ones that graduate actually go on to college in the first year. So that is about a quarter (a little less actually).

 

For most small privates 95+% graduate and the same percentage go on to colleges in the first year...so about 90%.

 

Thus, if you guys had 16 scholarship kids over 10 years (is this just Football?) then assuming the averages hold you actually had 64+ kids who were good enough to get scholarships but 3/4 of them either didn't finish high school or didn't go on to college after graduation. If we had 17 kids get scholarships (Football + every other sport) the odds are good that we actually had 18 or possibly 19 scholarship capable kids and all but 1 or 2 actually graduated and went to college.

 

Given our average enrollment over the last 10 years (325 or so) and your average enrollment (640? I'm guessing) you guys should have had about two times as many college capable athletes as us if things were even...but that isn't what the numbers show. You actually had more like 3.5 times as many. And the last 10 years were the best we ever had in every sport, period. Even if TC has a better than average graduation and college percentage I'm thinking you can't argue that we had more good athletes than you guys did...notice I accounted for the difference in enrollment.

 

Ask Laz to check my numbers...he uses Laz-math. But if Baldy-math and Laz-math agree...which I expect...well, that pretty much kills the "you have all the athletes" and "you recruit or use 'selective enrollment' to get athletes" arguments. I maintain that the average small private that we have played has as many good athletes as us...and that the numbers will bear me out.

 

If you agree the numbers for athletes in our two schools are about even...then the multiplier would apply...at least to both of us. You shouldn't have the same number of athletes...you should have about half. Trousdale seems to be the kicker. Everybody wants to refer to them as the small public school execption. They have had very few athletes to play in college.

[The Bull]

Then report him G...or quit spreading gossip and rumor. He is not allowed to go to little league parks to get kids and we all know it...we also know if that was really happening people like you would be snowing the TSSAA under with letters and pictures. Quit lying by saying things that you don't know are true...put up or shut up.

 

But it is ok to start up a (same age group mind you) private school football team and allow students that are not enrolled in your school to play for this team??????

[FadePattern]

But it is ok to start up a (same age group mind you) private school football team and allow students that are not enrolled in your school to play for this team??????

 

About a year ago I saw where the "Ensworth Tigers" Jr. Pro. team had won their league/division in Jr. Pro/Pop Warner/Youth Football league. I wondered then if that team was comprised of only Ensworth kids. If not, does that qualify as "recruiting". I am in no way thowing out accusations, but am just curious about how that works. I know that Lipscomb and Goodpassture have 5/6 grade athletics and all those kids are enrolled at the respective schools.

[Baldcoach]

I'll get the last two posts in 1 if I just post and don't reply...

 

There is nothing wrong with parents from a private or public school starting a kid's team or select team in the off season. I personally know of bunches in the Nooga from both the public and private sector. Indoor soccer teams, select softball, Pop-Warner and YMCA football teams, select baseball, AAU Basketball...all have kids playing in the off season and parents (or coaches) have teams made up primarily of one school's athletes.

 

It is really intended to let the team play together in the offseason...something that is not likely to happen in a metro area if someone doesn't take the initiative. As far as I know there is no rule that says you can't do this...

[Baldcoach]

"Ask Laz to check my numbers...he uses Laz-math."

 

the math is simple enough,

not sure i understand the logic behind it.

i might just not quite understand what you are getting at.

 

it sounds like you start with the premise that all student bodies contain the same percentage of potential college athletes and use that to prove that a student body twice as large has twice as many potential college athletes. the conclusion is really just a restatement of the original premise.

 

however, if the actual result is that the student body twice as large produces only half as many college athletes, that would seem to be a pretty strong indication that the original premise is not correct.

 

laz-math doesnt work the same as baldy-math. baldy-math seems to start with a premise, and follow it thru to its conclusion with little concern for actual results.

laz-math simply compiles results and looks for trends sufficient to predict future results. private schools produce far greater numbers of college athletes, and have consistently done so for many years. so laz-math anticipates they will continue to do so.

 

 

Laz,

 

I didn't start with a premise...these numbers are left over from a thread from a couple of years back. We were discussing the idea that the small privates had better talent than the publics. Someone (could have been you) compared numbers of college scholarships from the privates and the publics...they were about even. The conclusion was that the privates had college level athletes at a 4 to 1 advantage over the publics.

 

I pointed out that the average kid who started high school in a small private had about a 90% chance to graduate and go to college the first year, but according to statistics the average Tennessee public school kid had about a 23% chance to graduate and go to college the first year. If these stats apply to athletes then in actuality the number of college level athletes on the field slightly favors the small publics...it is just that 3/4 of them will not go to college thus will not have scholarships (for various reasons).

 

Using that same set of ratios, TC actually had 3 times the number of college level athletes that Boyd did over a shorter period of time...given that their enrollment is about 190% of Boyd's, they actually field MORE athletic talent on any given day than Boyd does, even though the number of scholarships doesn't show it.

[Antwan]

Laz,

 

I didn't start with a premise...these numbers are left over from a thread from a couple of years back. We were discussing the idea that the small privates had better talent than the publics. Someone (could have been you) compared numbers of college scholarships from the privates and the publics...they were about even. The conclusion was that the privates had college level athletes at a 4 to 1 advantage over the publics.

 

I pointed out that the average kid who started high school in a small private had about a 90% chance to graduate and go to college the first year, but according to statistics the average Tennessee public school kid had about a 23% chance to graduate and go to college the first year. If these stats apply to athletes then in actuality the number of college level athletes on the field slightly favors the small publics...it is just that 3/4 of them will not go to college thus will not have scholarships (for various reasons).

 

Using that same set of ratios, TC actually had 3 times the number of college level athletes that Boyd did over a shorter period of time...given that their enrollment is about 190% of Boyd's, they actually field MORE athletic talent on any given day than Boyd does, even though the number of scholarships doesn't show it.

 

I don't know where you get that TC has 190% enrollment over Boyd...since in the 2006 enrollment figures they had 414 and you had 347. I don't do Baldy-math...but Twan-math says that about 120%. No...they haven't had many players to play in college. I know it's nowhere near what you have had. Wesley Satterfield went to University of the South (non-scholarship DIII). I think T.T. Harper played JUCO. They had a player or two play somewhere (I think Cumberland and or APSU)...and one of the Harpers played at UTM (several years ago). Their qb (Dillehay) walked on at Tech. That's about it...that I know of. Maybe someone from TC can tell you that.

[Baldcoach]

I don't know where you get that TC has 190% enrollment over Boyd...since in the 2006 enrollment figures they had 414 and you had 347. I don't do Baldy-math...but Twan-math says that about 120%. No...they haven't had many players to play in college. I know it's nowhere near what you have had. Wesley Satterfield went to University of the South (non-scholarship DIII). I think T.T. Harper played JUCO. They had a player or two play somewhere (I think Cumberland and or APSU)...and one of the Harpers played at UTM (several years ago). Their qb (Dillehay) walked on at Tech. That's about it...that I know of. Maybe someone from TC can tell you that.

 

 

Antwan, you have had more college level athletes play for you than we have...and if your enrollment is closer to ours that makes it even more unbalanced your way...that was my point.

 

I don't know where I got 190% either...I never can hit numbers when I type lol. Over the last 10 years our enrollment has averaged about 330 and I was guessing that yours was 430ish...so that would be 130%. I was working with your numbers of scholarship people...don't know if they are accuarate or not, was just using what you gave me.