Public Schools that recruit like private schools

[Antwan]

QUOTE(Baldcoach @ Jan 30 2007 - 12:06 AM) 826351282[/snapback]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...and it will be ignored by the anti-private crowd.

 

NO dI private has EVER had a record that is equivalent to Fulton (3a), Alcoa (2a), or Trousdale County (1a) (and I can name more). I believe that takes care of the 'smaller public schools' being 'dominated' by the privates who have an 'unfair' advantage. It also kills the 'this only happens in the big schools and that isn't who we are talking about' silliness.

 

Either all of those schools have UNBELIEVABLY 'unfair' advantages over other publics and privates, or it is possible to be good, dominatingly good, without the so-called private school advantages.

 

Choose your poison...either admit that fairness dictates that you must multiply or split every school that is very good for a few years, or admit there is NO justification for a split or multiplier that only affects the dI privates except that about 6 of them happen to be good...not as good as the really good publics in their classes year in and year out, just good. When did being good become a bad thing in America? Ahh..I remember, it is only bad if the majority percieves you as different than them. Seems like I remember a word that describes this situation...

 

d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n

 

 

 

1. Fulton has not been in the same class with the privates until the last two years.

It's really difficult to compare them. They won one title in two years. David Lipscomb made it to the title game last year (2005)...Fulton did not. Fulton's success in recent.

 

2. Alcoa has been dominant...so there's one. Their dominance has been up and down...but recently they have beaten the privates. I think we both know why.

Lipscomb and Goodpasture have pounded them in the past. DL beat them 55-6 recently.

 

3. Trousdale did win the title last year...but didn't get close this year. They were beaten by a private. I would not say they have been dominant either. The previous 4 years they were in 3a devoid of privates. They did beat the privates in the early years...but not much in the later years.

[old24eagle]

QUOTE(Baldcoach @ Jan 30 2007 - 01:06 AM) 826351282[/snapback]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...and it will be ignored by the anti-private crowd.

 

NO dI private has EVER had a record that is equivalent to Fulton (3a), Alcoa (2a), or Trousdale County (1a) (and I can name more). I believe that takes care of the 'smaller public schools' being 'dominated' by the privates who have an 'unfair' advantage. It also kills the 'this only happens in the big schools and that isn't who we are talking about' silliness.

 

Either all of those schools have UNBELIEVABLY 'unfair' advantages over other publics and privates, or it is possible to be good, dominatingly good, without the so-called private school advantages.

 

Choose your poison...either admit that fairness dictates that you must multiply or split every school that is very good for a few years, or admit there is NO justification for a split or multiplier that only affects the dI privates except that about 6 of them happen to be good...not as good as the really good publics in their classes year in and year out, just good. When did being good become a bad thing in America? Ahh..I remember, it is only bad if the majority percieves you as different than them. Seems like I remember a word that describes this situation...

 

d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n

 

 

What is the deal with you constantly accusing people of being racist and discriminatory , can you not think of a better way prove your point? The minority(Privte Schools) win the majority of the Playoff games in the lower classes There is an advantage somewhere and you know it. All you can say to defend your position is discrimination or you say bbbbb but Alcoa bbbbb but Fulton give me a break. I have never said privates cheat but they definately have advantages

[FCSprideatUT]

QUOTE(MPHSTIGERS87 @ Jan 30 2007 - 08:48 AM) 826351432[/snapback]

Great post Stan Trott. Another stat in 1A. 6 out of the last 7 state champions have come from a private school. Thats not discrimination is it. This the same guy who ripped me saying I offended several hundred people for accusing schools of recruiting. How many people do you think you offended on that comment about discrimination Baldcoach?

 

 

 

I agree that discrimination is a bad word.

 

Other than that i would just like to point out that out of the 6 state champions that won in the last seven years, the multiplier has forced them all out. (which is what was wanted when the multiplier was made correct??) boyd, DCA, and now JCS are gone, that acounts for all 6 of those i think...

 

Oh, and i would like to ask the question to everyone, (yet again) that if PUBLICS had won 6 of the last 7 championships would you still be on here yelling about fair play just like it is now? If you can say yes to that question then you are un-baised. Me? i can honestly say that if PUBLICS had won 6 of the last 7 i wouldn't like it and i would be complaining about the multiplier being too high. so i am clearly biased... i just wonder sometimes if the shoe was on the other foot how many people would still be pulling for equal playing fields.

[BDURHAM]

No one is objective. Everyone in this debate

has a bias.

 

The titles are not the whole story.

 

The multiplier was probably not the main factor

in DCA and Boyd repeating.

 

 

QUOTE(FCSprideatUT @ Jan 30 2007 - 03:13 PM) 826351876[/snapback]

I agree that discrimination is a bad word.

 

Other than that i would just like to point out that out of the 6 state champions that won in the last seven years, the multiplier has forced them all out. (which is what was wanted when the multiplier was made correct??) boyd, DCA, and now JCS are gone, that acounts for all 6 of those i think...

 

Oh, and i would like to ask the question to everyone, (yet again) that if PUBLICS had won 6 of the last 7 championships would you still be on here yelling about fair play just like it is now? If you can say yes to that question then you are un-baised. Me? i can honestly say that if PUBLICS had won 6 of the last 7 i wouldn't like it and i would be complaining about the multiplier being too high. so i am clearly biased... i just wonder sometimes if the shoe was on the other foot how many people would still be pulling for equal playing fields.

 

[Baldcoach]

QUOTE(old24eagle @ Jan 30 2007 - 12:23 PM) 826351574[/snapback]

What is the deal with you constantly accusing people of being racist and discriminatory , can you not think of a better way prove your point? The minority(Privte Schools) win the majority of the Playoff games in the lower classes There is an advantage somewhere and you know it. All you can say to defend your position is discrimination or you say bbbbb but Alcoa bbbbb but Fulton give me a break. I have never said privates cheat but they definately have advantages

 

 

 

Well, I'll answer this first. "Racism" and "discrimination" do not mean the same thing. Racism IS discrimination based on race, but discrimination is a much broader term.

 

Discriminate (TREAT DIFFERENTLY)

verb

to treat a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, religion, sex, etc

 

I am NOT accusing anyone of racism...I am accusing you and several others of discrimination, because you want to 'treat a particular group of people' (private student/athletes) 'differently, especially in a worse way than you treat other people' (public school athletes) because they don't go to a public school.

 

And I defy you to show any advantage any DI private has over the best publics. You say it, tell me what it is, because they take us to the cleaners just like they take you...except you only whine about us. Which brings us back to discrimination.

[Antwan]

QUOTE(Baldcoach @ Jan 30 2007 - 04:39 PM) 826352026[/snapback]

Well, I'll answer this first. "Racism" and "discrimination" do not mean the same thing. Racism IS discrimination based on race, but discrimination is a much broader term.

 

Discriminate (TREAT DIFFERENTLY)

verb

to treat a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, religion, sex, etc

 

I am NOT accusing anyone of racism...I am accusing you and several others of discrimination, because you want to 'treat a particular group of people' (private student/athletes) 'differently, especially in a worse way than you treat other people' (public school athletes) because they don't go to a public school.

 

And I defy you to show any advantage any DI private has over the best publics. You say it, tell me what it is, because they take us to the cleaners just like they take you...except you only whine about us. Which brings us back to discrimination.

 

 

 

Read my previous post. Who are the best publics? If you are talking about those teams mentioned...the post speaks for itself.

 

I think if someone doesn't AGREE with YOU...they are discriminatory...or biased.

Is that Baldy-philosophy?

[Baldcoach]

QUOTE(FCSprideatUT @ Jan 30 2007 - 04:13 PM) 826351876[/snapback]

I agree that discrimination is a bad word.

 

Other than that i would just like to point out that out of the 6 state champions that won in the last seven years, the multiplier has forced them all out. (which is what was wanted when the multiplier was made correct??) boyd, DCA, and now JCS are gone, that acounts for all 6 of those i think...

 

Oh, and i would like to ask the question to everyone, (yet again) that if PUBLICS had won 6 of the last 7 championships would you still be on here yelling about fair play just like it is now? If you can say yes to that question then you are un-baised. Me? i can honestly say that if PUBLICS had won 6 of the last 7 i wouldn't like it and i would be complaining about the multiplier being too high. so i am clearly biased... i just wonder sometimes if the shoe was on the other foot how many people would still be pulling for equal playing fields.

 

 

 

 

Publics have won 5 of the last 6 championships in 1a, 2a, and 3a. That doesn't upset me at all, the teams that have won them are GREAT teams and rather than whine I just want to hold them up as examples of super teams.

 

What does upset me is when people come on here and cry about how dominating the privates are AFTER the publics have won 5 of 6...give me a break. And I noticed that in all the replies no one addressed the teams I brought up except one, who got it wrong record wise...so my point still stands...if you are on here talking about splitting the dominating small privates in the name of 'fairness' and not addressing the super dominating small publics you are totally biased.

[Baldcoach]

QUOTE(Antwan @ Jan 30 2007 - 05:44 PM) 826352033[/snapback]

Read my previous post. Who are the best publics? If you are talking about those teams mentioned...the post speaks for itself.

 

I think if someone doesn't AGREE with YOU...they are discriminatory...or biased.

Is that Baldy-philosophy?

 

 

 

 

Antwan, you know that is not true. But I can tell I hit a nerve...well and good.

 

And you DID address my post somewhat, but you cooked your books. If you look back at my post I said no DI private had ever had a record like TC, Alcoa, or Fulton. So let's look at their records...

 

TC --> Hard to do this since after the 99 season they moved out of 1a, so we have to use the last 5 years they played in 1a. That would be this year, last year, and the 3 years before they moved up. Ok, hmm...lets see...OH! 3 (or 4...can't get the last year from the TSSAA website) STATE TITLES in 5 years! A total of about 3 losses in 5 years!

 

Alcoa --> 4 in a row, 'nuff said

 

Fulton --> 3 or 4 of the last 5...same as TC, maybe better.

 

No DI private has EVER in their wildest dreams had 5 years like those teams...all Public.

 

You are a fairly straight shooter, so you have to admit that those who insist the privates are 'dominating' the publics somehow forget about the ultra dominating public programs...who dominate the 'dominating' privates regularly. In the interest of fairness, one can't argue that one type of school can kill everyone and not have advantages but another type of school MUST have advantages if they win a lot.

[Baldcoach]

QUOTE(StanTrott @ Jan 30 2007 - 09:16 AM) 826351399[/snapback]

What are you talking about?

 

Ever heard of Baylor?

 

How about MBA?

 

Check out their records in the past against

publics.

 

The trend of privates dominating in the present is

a reality. Have you not seen lazarus' statistics?

 

It is not all about the titles. Look at who dominated

in the regular season and playoffs. The numbers

speak for themselves.

 

I believe the number was 15% of the schools (privates)

won 64% of the games in the regular season, and the

percentage increased in the playoffs.

 

This is from one of lazarus' posts:

 

"Summary: 14% of the schools (privates) have won 73%

of the playoff games vs. public schools 1A - 3A."

 

stan, i dont have those counts at hand,

but your numbers, if not correct, are close enough (for government work)

 

 

 

Stan,

 

I specifically stated the DI privates, you pulled the DII schools (and BIG ones) in. Apples and oranges.

 

Reread my argument, it is that it is unfair (discriminatory) to accuse the DI privates of having advantages and ignore the totally dominating public schools of the same size. I'll tell you what, look at the best 2 private schools and public schools in each category and compare regular season records and playoff records for the last 5 years, then get back to me.

[Antwan]

QUOTE(Baldcoach @ Jan 30 2007 - 04:58 PM) 826352044[/snapback]

Antwan, you know that is not true. But I can tell I hit a nerve...well and good.

 

And you DID address my post somewhat, but you cooked your books. If you look back at my post I said no DI private had ever had a record like TC, Alcoa, or Fulton. So let's look at their records...

 

TC --> Hard to do this since after the 99 season they moved out of 1a, so we have to use the last 5 years they played in 1a. That would be this year, last year, and the 3 years before they moved up. Ok, hmm...lets see...OH! 3 (or 4...can't get the last year from the TSSAA website) STATE TITLES in 5 years! A total of about 3 losses in 5 years!

 

Alcoa --> 4 in a row, 'nuff said

 

Fulton --> 3 or 4 of the last 5...same as TC, maybe better.

 

No DI private has EVER in their wildest dreams had 5 years like those teams...all Public.

 

You are a fairly straight shooter, so you have to admit that those who insist the privates are 'dominating' the publics somehow forget about the ultra dominating public programs...who dominate the 'dominating' privates regularly. In the interest of fairness, one can't argue that one type of school can kill everyone and not have advantages but another type of school MUST have advantages if they win a lot.

 

 

 

NO...that is not the case. I did not say that at all.

 

At least get your facts straight before you argue.

 

1. Trousdale won in 1997...1998...2005. That is only 3 in 5 years.

CPA won in 2000...and 2002. That's 2 in 3 years. That compares pretty well.

 

Your own team was in the title game 2002...20003...2004.

 

During the same period...privates won 1a in 2000...2001...2002... 2003... 2004... 2006.

 

2. Alcoa has won 3 in a row...not 4. I acknowledged that fact earlier.

 

This came from David Lipscomb's website:

 

The TSSAA's All Time Winningest 2A Team

1993-2004 TSSAA's 3rd Winningest Team in all Classifications

 

3. Fulton won in 2003...2004...2006. Two of those years were devoid of any privates in their class. They did win this year over a private in the title game.

 

You skew your facts and figures to your advantage. The numbers don't lie. It's not close.

 

In conclusion...you must be kidding that privates have not dominated publics over the last 5 years. It's not all about titles either. Privates have dominated publics...as a whole. The multiplier did shift the problem to 2a and 3a. That's about all it has done.

[Baldcoach]

QUOTE(StanTrott @ Jan 30 2007 - 09:07 AM) 826351393[/snapback]

baldcoach:

 

"The point that is perpetually lost on you is the reality

that the privates have freely chosen to leave the public

school system. You are using a word that has

greater meaning to many people -- discrimination."

 

THis isn't lost on me Stan, and if publics and privates had been seperated in Tennessee from the beginning it would be a different situation...but they were together with no problems until some of the privates got good, then suddenly everyone was all upset and calling for a split. "Discrimination" is a perfectly good word that has a perfectly legitimate meaning apart from racism...it means to single out a group for unfair treatment...see the Cambridge definition I posted.

"What distinguishes private schools is the fact that

the parents have decided that their kids will not

attend public schools. It is freedom of choice. Have

private school supporters discriminated against

public school students? See how inflammatory that

word can be?"

 

By definition no, they haven't unfairly judged or treated any students. They have done what you said at first, freely chosen. And discrimination is not an inflammatory word...unless you insist on taking it out of the context it is written in, and I can't do anything about how you choose to take the word.

 

"No one is preventing anyone from entering a

public school. Discrimination? A very poor

choice of words."

 

See above...

 

"We don't want our kids attending public schools,

but we would like to have a few exceptional

athletes from public schools on our team." How

many private school coaches and supporters have

silently or outwardly had this thought?

The issue becomes more complex with the reality

of private school coaches recruiting public school

kids. It happens. Not at all private schools, but

it happens in your city of Chattanooga. Admit it."

 

Stan, DI, DI, DI...I don't believe that any DI schools in the nooga have recruited, but I admit the possibility. What about publics recruiting? After all, that isn't something only privates can do. In the end, recruiting is illegal and those responsible should be punished...but punishing a whole group of schools by splitting them off for the alleged infractions of one or two while ignoring the same thing in the other group if schools is...hmm...I've seen the word recently....

 

[Baldcoach]

QUOTE(Antwan @ Jan 30 2007 - 06:26 PM) 826352065[/snapback]

NO...that is not the case. I did not say that at all.

 

At least get your facts straight before you argue.

 

1. Trousdale won in 1997...1998...2005. That is only 3 in 5 years.

CPA won in 2000...and 2002. That's 2 in 3 years. That compares pretty well.

 

Your own team was in the title game 2002...20003...2004.

 

During the same period...privates won 1a in 2000...2001...2002... 2003... 2004... 2006.

 

2. Alcoa has won 3 in a row...not 4. I acknowledged that fact earlier.

 

This came from David Lipscomb's website:

 

The TSSAA's All Time Winningest 2A Team

1993-2004 TSSAA's 3rd Winningest Team in all Classifications

 

3. Fulton won in 2003...2004...2006. Two of those years were devoid of any privates in their class. They did win this year over a private in the title game.

 

You skew your facts and figures to your advantage. The numbers don't lie. It's not close.

 

In conclusion...you must be kidding that privates have not dominated publics over the last 5 years. It's not all about titles either. Privates have dominated publics...as a whole. The multiplier did shift the problem to 2a and 3a. That's about all it has done.

 

 

 

 

Stan,

 

I know this is tough for you, but you are helping my case. Let me restate...

 

If there are public schools in every category that are as good as or better than the best DI privates

 

And If we are saying that the privates have an advantage because of their record

 

Then we have to say that the publics who are as good as them have an advantage too.

 

BUT, if some publics have an equivalent advantage and we are just speaking of punishing the good privates, then we are discriminating because we have singled out one group for punishment while ignoring the same factor in another.

 

Alcoa 3 in a row (for the second time...8 total state titles I believe). Name a DI private that has won 3 in a row or has anything like 8 titles.

Fulton 3 out of 4.

TC 2 in a row and then left 1a, won the first year back for 3 in a row. Again, name any DI with 3 in a row, or 3 in 5 years...you can't. Oh, and don't forget the other 3 or 4 TC titles.

 

You have to say that CPA won 2 in a row, or we went 3 years in a row (and won 1) and that is 'almost' as good. Almost as good = not as good, thus these 3 schools have better records than ANY DI private has EVER had for 5 consecutive years...all of them including 3 State Titles.

 

They are easily as good as the best privates, work the numbers how you will. And if these programs or others are as good as or better than the best privates then to speak of splitting the small privates because they are too good but leave the really good publics out is discrimination. That is my point, and it stands whether the best publics are much better, a little better, or as good as the best privates.