TSSAA forming THSA?

[cbg]

QUOTE(FCSprideatUT @ Mar 8 2007 - 09:02 PM) 826405571[/snapback]Yeah why 4 instead of just an easy 3???

 

IF and a big one but IF they ever decide to completely level the playing field or whatever, i think that the #1 place to start is to classify football just like the do for baseball and basketball. Knock it down to 3 classifications (which would basically make 1A-2A together, 3a-4a together and leave 5A alone). I agree with the guy who said if the multiplier is deemed illegal then so would just making them all play in 2a or higher.

 

 

I am all for just 3 classifications in football, basketball and baseball but I also understand the problems that some of the rual 1A schools are dealing with and it's not the kids it's the hiring pool. The rual areas have a very difficult time finding teachers much less good coaches that know how to build successful programs. Most of the time they will only have 3 or 4 football coaches for all of their kids and they are lucky if more than one of those coaches knows the difference between a nickle package and a split back veer. With most 1A private schools being in large metro areas they have a much larger application pool to select teachers & coaches from than the small schools in rual towns. All successful programs have great leadership.

[tnsddeveloper]

QUOTE(cbg @ Mar 9 2007 - 01:54 PM) 826406362[/snapback]I am all for just 3 classifications in football, basketball and baseball but I also understand the problems that some of the rual 1A schools are dealing with and it's not the kids it's the hiring pool. The rual areas have a very difficult time finding teachers much less good coaches that know how to build successful programs. Most of the time they will only have 3 or 4 football coaches for all of their kids and they are lucky if more than one of those coaches knows the difference between a nickle package and a split back veer. With most 1A private schools being in large metro areas they have a much larger application pool to select teachers & coaches from than the small schools in rual towns. All successful programs have great leadership.

 

So now it is not only the "pool" of kids, but also the "pool" of coaches? When does it stop? Is it when the number of red bricks on a rural school are directly proportional to the brown bricks on a urban school? /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

[FCSprideatUT]

QUOTE(cbg @ Mar 9 2007 - 01:54 PM) 826406362[/snapback]I am all for just 3 classifications in football, basketball and baseball but I also understand the problems that some of the rual 1A schools are dealing with and it's not the kids it's the hiring pool. The rual areas have a very difficult time finding teachers much less good coaches that know how to build successful programs. Most of the time they will only have 3 or 4 football coaches for all of their kids and they are lucky if more than one of those coaches knows the difference between a nickle package and a split back veer. With most 1A private schools being in large metro areas they have a much larger application pool to select teachers & coaches from than the small schools in rual towns. All successful programs have great leadership.

 

 

ok then, i vote for the poor rural league and the rich rural league... along with of course having a poor urban league and also a rich urban league. After all, having teams from near nashville play teams from near the south carolina border is just not fair, who cares if they are both in tennessee.

[VolunteerGeneral]

Seriously you can`t justify any kind of classifying based on coaches. That`s simply a matter of what the community wants commit to or in the case of a private school, what it is willing to spend on coaches.

 

Smith County is a rural 2A school and it has at least 10 coaches. I think that`s wonderful and it great to see a communty give that kind of support to something I feel is beneficial to not only the kids that play but to the school and to the community itself. On the other hand just a few years ago JCM was an urban 5A school and had 4 coaches. They had around 90 players and the 4 coaches had to divide duty between the varsity, JV and freshman teams.

 

If you really feel like this should be a matter to be addressed, then lets go back to the one system most folks agree on and thats the merit system. That`s the one system that will indirectly address the issue. Teams that really support football with good coaches and several coaches tend to do better and would separate themselves from teams that don`t.

 

I agree with you though that in general it`s harder for rural schools to find funds for extra coaches but it`s not necessarily limited to rural schools. I`m all for schools really getting behind their programs and supporting it, but not all schools do that. A merit system would kinda sort those schools out.

[cbg]

Look men, I am for everyone being back together but I do understand both sides of the issue. I can see in the very near future where everyone is placed back together with four classifications (I would like to see 3) for football basketball, baseball, softball & girls VB. It would be great if track & field, wrestling, cross country, golf, tennis, & bowling only had one division.

[MPHSTIGERS87]

QUOTE(tnsddeveloper @ Mar 8 2007 - 06:48 PM) 826405367[/snapback]It would allow kids that can not afford to attend the private without financial assistance to attend AND play athletics.

 

 

If this is changed, could schools legally do that in D1?

[VolunteerGeneral]

QUOTE(MPHSTIGERS87 @ Mar 10 2007 - 07:56 AM) 826407108[/snapback]If this is changed, could schools legally do that in D1?

 

 

It just depends on what is decided. They could keep it like it is now in D-I and not allow anykids on aid to play. Or they could go back to the way it always use to be and allow 3. It`s all speculation though. But then again all the D-II schools could move back right now if they didn`t allow any aid students to play.

[old24eagle]

QUOTE(cbg @ Mar 9 2007 - 03:54 PM) 826406362[/snapback]I am all for just 3 classifications in football, basketball and baseball but I also understand the problems that some of the rual 1A schools are dealing with and it's not the kids it's the hiring pool. The rual areas have a very difficult time finding teachers much less good coaches that know how to build successful programs. Most of the time they will only have 3 or 4 football coaches for all of their kids and they are lucky if more than one of those coaches knows the difference between a nickle package and a split back veer. With most 1A private schools being in large metro areas they have a much larger application pool to select teachers & coaches from than the small schools in rual towns. All successful programs have great leadership.

 

Wouldn't having only three classifications really make things cramped? Especially if the D-2 teams came back. How would that work? Would we have huge 10-12 team regions , more regions , go back to the districts wtihin regions similar to basketball. It seems to me that there would be way to many schools with football to only have three classifications. The playoff system would have to be drastically changed or we would be playing until January. This would be extremely unfair to the very small schools because this would most likely put schools with enrollments of less than 200 playing schools with enrollment over 700. I know it doesn't work in ALL cases but most of the time if you pick your 50 players out of 700 and I get mine out of 200 your going to win. JMO

[rollredroll]

QUOTE(old24eagle @ Mar 14 2007 - 07:41 PM) 826412048[/snapback]Wouldn't having only three classifications really make things cramped?...This would be extremely unfair to the very small schools because this would most likely put schools with enrollments of less than 200 playing schools with enrollment over 700. I know it doesn't work in ALL cases but most of the time if you pick your 50 players out of 700 and I get mine out of 200 your going to win. JMO

 

 

What would the solution be then? A classification for every distinct enrollment?

 

Would a 200-student public school prefer to play a 700-student public school or a 111-student private school (which would be a 200-student school when multiplied)? What is the bigger issue: enrollment, or recruitment?

 

While I have become somewhat sympathetic to the concerns of the "small rural schools" over the years, I don't think those schools are going to win over many fence straddlers by following up "playing private schools is extremely unfair" with "playing larger public schools is extremely unfair". What's going to be the battle cry when the 250-student schools start beating the 200-student schools? There has to be some challenge; otherwise, football state titles would take on even less significance with any more classifications.

[cbg]

QUOTE(old24eagle @ Mar 14 2007 - 08:41 PM) 826412048[/snapback]Wouldn't having only three classifications really make things cramped? Especially if the D-2 teams came back. How would that work? Would we have huge 10-12 team regions , more regions , go back to the districts wtihin regions similar to basketball. It seems to me that there would be way to many schools with football to only have three classifications. The playoff system would have to be drastically changed or we would be playing until January. This would be extremely unfair to the very small schools because this would most likely put schools with enrollments of less than 200 playing schools with enrollment over 700. I know it doesn't work in ALL cases but most of the time if you pick your 50 players out of 700 and I get mine out of 200 your going to win. JMO

 

 

If they went back to 3 classifications with everyone together they would have to go back to districts, regions & state. It use to be that you had to win your district in football to advance to the playoffs. Due to the TSSAA needing revenue I could see where the districts would have 6-8 teams with the top two teams advancing to the playoffs and the other teams with 7 or more wins being allowed to attend a bowl game.

 

I could see the follow Districts in AAA football for the Nashville area:

 

 

District #1

Hillsboro

Montgomery Bell Academy

Father Ryan

David Lipscomb

Overton

Hillwood

Ensworth

Pearl Cohn

 

District #2

McGavock

Hunters Lane

Stratford

Mapelwood

Whites Creek

Antioch

Cane Ridge (new school)

Glencliff

 

That would give every team 7 District games and they would be able to schedule 3 games with any teams that they so desire.

 

Just imagine the amount of money that could be made by each school from football gate receipts. It would be a packed house at most all of the games due to the local neighborhood grudge matches.

 

JMO, but high school football season starts much too early in Tennessee and we should not play the 1st regular season game until the Friday before Labor Day.

[old24eagle]

QUOTE(rollredroll @ Mar 14 2007 - 10:04 PM) 826412081[/snapback]What would the solution be then? A classification for every distinct enrollment?

 

Would a 200-student public school prefer to play a 700-student public school or a 111-student private school (which would be a 200-student school when multiplied)? What is the bigger issue: enrollment, or recruitment?

 

While I have become somewhat sympathetic to the concerns of the "small rural schools" over the years, I don't think those schools are going to win over many fence straddlers by following up "playing private schools is extremely unfair" with "playing larger public schools is extremely unfair". What's going to be the battle cry when the 250-student schools start beating the 200-student schools? There has to be some challenge; otherwise, football state titles would take on even less significance with any more classifications.

 

Let me rephrase a little. You can pick 50 kids out of 200 students at a public who are just there , or you can pick 50 kids out of 700 at a public who are just there , or you can pick 50 kids out of 111 at a private who are all taught , fed , and at times trained very well at home (unlike most public school kids) who wouldn't be at that private if they were not , which tends to make much better student athletes. The small public is at a disadvantage in either case. My personal opininon is the way we have it now would be perfect if all privates had to play at least 2A.

[FCSprideatUT]

I can honestly understand you saying that privates like FCS, goodpasture, JCS, TCA... ect. should have to play in 2A. I disagree but regardless of if i disagree or not i understand what you are saying. I think that with the multiplier leading the nation it will do its job and privates will be kept to a minimum. The notion of "as one privates moves up another one comes out of nowhere and recruits its way to the top of 1A before leaving" is stupid to me if you look at the past.

 

but regardless I just want you to look up mt. Juliet Christian. they are the only example i know but there has got to be others.

 

Now, if you look at Mt. Juliet Christian in depth you will see that 3 of their last 4 wins, have been against Red Boiling Springs who hasn't won a game in 4 or 5 seasons. Would you really send this school to 2A and have them threatening Red Boiling Springs for the longest loosing streak in the state??? There has got to be other examples of privates in 1A that are bottom of their region barrel.

 

Also, the chances of a rule stating "all privates must play in at least 2A, will not happen. There will be a total split before then.