Public's should not play private schools

[alltherage]

I am personally upset that only one private school has won a state championship in girls' basketball since 1986. That is just not FAIR! /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

 

Play in a private division and one will win one every year /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

[MVM]

"It is time the TSSAA made a few more changes concerning private schools." Since the multiplier was established 2 years ago, in football, which is what is driving all this, privates schools have won 1 state championship in Division I. Is one too many? Again, why is it time for more changes?

 

I agree that football drives all HS sports, but in the other minor sports, soccer, golf, ect. Private schools are dominating. And changes do need to be made.

[Bighurt]

Play in a private division and one will win one every year /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

 

Thanks. I assume you could not answer why so you chose to ignore my questions.

 

BTW. There is a such animal as a "private" division. From the TSSAA handbook -

"Section 3. For tournament competition there shall be two categories. Division I shall be schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level do not receive need-based financial aid. Division II shall be those schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level may be the recipients of need-based financial aid."

[Bighurt]

I agree that football drives all HS sports, but in the other minor sports, soccer, golf, etc. Private schools are dominating. And changes do need to be made.

 

Why is only a problem if private schools dominate? Do public schools have a right to X number of championships because they make up X% of the TSSAA membership? I always thought sports was about who had the best team not some politically-correct concept of everyone wins.

 

I am sorry that I don't grasp the concept of "You beat us. We don't like losing or like you. Therefore, we have the votes so we will change the rules until the people that we like win.".

[MVM]

Why is only a problem if private schools dominate? Do public schools have a right to X number of championships because they make up X% of the TSSAA membership? I always thought sports was about who had the best team not some politically-correct concept of everyone wins.

 

I am sorry that I don't grasp the concept of "You beat us. We don't like losing or like you. Therefore, we have the votes so we will change the rules until the people that we like win.".

 

Well then, lets take your "Best Team" theory and throw EVERYONE together. No divisions...Best team, winner take all.

 

Divisions are there for a fair playing field, and when the playing fields are not fair for the privates then lets change it, If it's not fair for the publics then lets change it.

 

Although I like your "Best Team" theory....Can anyone say Hoosiers /thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" />

[Bighurt]

Well then, lets take your "Best Team" theory and throw EVERYONE together. No divisions...Best team, winner take all.

 

Divisions are there for a fair playing field, and when the playing fields are not fair for the privates then lets change it, If it's not fair for the publics then lets change it.

 

Although I like your "Best Team" theory....Can anyone say Hoosiers /thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" />

 

Hampton - 1960. Linden (Perry County (1955-57).

 

There were no classes when I played. Does that make me very old?

[alltherage]

Thanks. I assume you could not answer why so you chose to ignore my questions.

 

BTW. There is a such animal as a "private" division. From the TSSAA handbook -

"Section 3. For tournament competition there shall be two categories. Division I shall be schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level do not receive need-based financial aid. Division II shall be those schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level may be the recipients of need-based financial aid."

 

We could pick at the words in the code all day...for example....all private school students recieve need based financial aid to go to private school...(its not free). And it is over and above what is provided by the public school system. But I'm not here to fight about words but rather to deal with what has become a glaring issue.

Why are private schools so reluctant to play amongst themselves when it comes to state championships? This question has continiously been dodged on here....WHY?

[Bighurt]

We could pick at the words in the code all day...for example....all private school students receive need based financial aid to go to private school...(its not free). And it is over and above what is provided by the public school system. But I'm not here to fight about words but rather to deal with what has become a glaring issue.

Why are private schools so reluctant to play among themselves when it comes to state championships? This question has continuously been dodged on here....WHY?

 

The fallacy is that most people think that all private schools are alike. They aren't.

 

IMHO. Here are 3 basic reasons why I don't want to play just other private schools.

 

In order to compete with the D2 private schools, a D1 private schools would have to offer financial aid. That would require additional funds which would have to come from somewhere. I have been on a private school board and tuition is where 99% of funding comes from. There is a huge difference in the operating model of the schools like CPA, DCA, Goodpasture and Lipscomb and schools like MBA, Ensworth, BA and Baylor.

 

Secondly, travel is much greater in D2 because schools are generally concentrated in Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis and Knoxville. In football, it would be an issue mostly during the playoffs but in other sports like baseball, softball, soccer and basketball you have mid-week games where travel can be a problem. The problem with travel is money and safety.

 

Thirdly, facilities. Have you seen the facilities at MBA or Baylor or Ensworth? Compare their facilities to CPA, DCA, Goodpasture or Lipscomb. To compete on a level playing field, one would assume that facilities should at least be in the same universe. That would cost more money.

 

My biggest problem with "private schools playing only other private schools" is this. The TSSAA is a voluntary organization of secondary schools. Not an organization of public schools but a organization for all secondary schools who are approved for admission. One group (public schools) decides that the rules need to change because the playing field is not level. (Apparently, it was not a problem from 1925 until around 1995) So, the public school faction banishes a subset of their members to another division where they can ignore them. Then, a multiplier rule is passed so that smaller private schools are classified with larger public schools.

 

Majority rules? Well, the majority of Americans thought segregation was OK and the law of the law was changed because it was the right thing to do.

 

In the case of the TSSAA, they did the wrong thing with creating D2. They did the wrong thing by creating the multiplier rule. And (IMHO) they will do the wrong thing in 2 years when they banish all private schools to D2.

 

I post something similar to this epistle about every 6 months by the way.

[Indian]

The fallacy is that most people think that all private schools are alike. They aren't.

 

IMHO. Here are 3 basic reasons why I don't want to play just other private schools.

 

In order to compete with the D2 private schools, a D1 private schools would have to offer financial aid. That would require additional funds which would have to come from somewhere. I have been on a private school board and tuition is where 99% of funding comes from. There is a huge difference in the operating model of the schools like CPA, DCA, Goodpasture and Lipscomb and schools like MBA, Ensworth, BA and Baylor.

 

Yes, and CPA, DCA, Goodpasture would be in a smaller classification, most likely, and not have to compete with the others mentioned for championships. Lipscomb, with around 550 students, possibly could be in the highest class but I can't see them not being competitive and winning their share in just about every sport.

 

Secondly, travel is much greater in D2 because schools are generally concentrated in Nashville, Chattanooga, Memphis and Knoxville. In football, it would be an issue mostly during the playoffs but in other sports like baseball, softball, soccer and basketball you have mid-week games where travel can be a problem. The problem with travel is money and safety.

 

I think I bring this up about once a month. All teams in, even in two different classes, the travel decreases and there would be Knoxville area, Chattanooga area, midstate, Nashville area, Jackson area and Memphis area districts in a small class, Knoxville-Chattanooga, Nashville and Memphis districts in a large class.

 

Thirdly, facilities. Have you seen the facilities at MBA or Baylor or Ensworth? Compare their facilities to CPA, DCA, Goodpasture or Lipscomb. To compete on a level playing field, one would assume that facilities should at least be in the same universe. That would cost more money.

 

See the first answer.

 

My biggest problem with "private schools playing only other private schools" is this. The TSSAA is a voluntary organization of secondary schools. Not an organization of public schools but a organization for all secondary schools who are approved for admission. One group (public schools) decides that the rules need to change because the playing field is not level. (Apparently, it was not a problem from 1925 until around 1995) So, the public school faction banishes a subset of their members to another division where they can ignore them. Then, a multiplier rule is passed so that smaller private schools are classified with larger public schools.

 

Some of the schools with top athletic programs now were only in their first or second decade of existence in 1995, others had relatively recently added football. Given time to build, you see the results. The TSSAA classifies based on population right now, with a divider for financial aid, those two criteria are based on the competition imbalance that formerly resulted when all were together. Why would a complete split be any different when you can see the regular season and postseason results, year after year?

[Baldcoach]

To begin with many of the same reasons that make private school more more attractive academically also aid to benifit them athletically.

A more teachable student = a more coachable athelete

More conducive atmosphere towards learning in the class= more conducive on the field as well

Less violence in the schools=less conflict on the team

Greater opportunities for parent involvement and support, it helps in the class and on the field

 

A simple comparison would be allowing travel ball teams to compete against recreation teams.

 

Now please take a moment and respond as to why privates are so reluctant to play amongst themselves?

 

 

Ok, let's take these one at a time...remember the criterion was all privates vs all publics...

 

Do all privates have more teachable students than all publics? I think no one would assert this...there are certainly many publics that have a better student on average than many privates. In fact, the small religious privates don't have more academically capable students than most publics...their admissions process isn't academically selective like the more elite preps.

 

More conducive atmosphere towards learning in class = what, exactly? This argument sounds good but is somewhat vague...what about the classes that makes them a more conducive learning environment translates to the field, and is this true of all privates vs all publics??

 

Less violence = less team conflict? So all public schools are violent? I would think this advantage applies between plenty of public schools too...there is a range of violence/conflict in public schools. Some of them may have a history of student violence, but I would think that that is a small minority.

 

Greater parental involvement. OK, I think this is an advantage that most privates have over most publics. That is 1.

 

The other three you mentioned could just as easily be advantages of suburban publics or magnets over inner city or very rural publics.

 

My point remains...separating privates as a group is not justifiable on any grounds unless they have insurmountable advantages as a group over publics. I'm still waiting for 3. You won't find them, however, because your assumption for your argument is flawed. All privates are NOT alike, just as all publics are not alike.

 

Now for your question: I answered it already. In Tennessee the publics and privates have always played together. Suddenly people like you want the privates separated. It isn't a matter of privates not wanting to play together, it is a matter of a few very vocal publics being prejudiced against privates because a few privates are almost as good as the best publics. It is discrimination...and your language is word for word the same as was used in the 60s when people discussed racial integration, all you have to do is replace the word "privates" with "black people".

 

"as to why privates are so reluctant to play amongst themselves"

 

"Play in a private division and one will win one every year "

 

"Why are private schools so reluctant to play amongst themselves when it comes to state championships?"

[Baldcoach]

Well then, lets take your "Best Team" theory and throw EVERYONE together. No divisions...Best team, winner take all.

 

Divisions are there for a fair playing field, and when the playing fields are not fair for the privates then lets change it, If it's not fair for the publics then lets change it.

 

Although I like your "Best Team" theory....Can anyone say Hoosiers /thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" />

 

 

I agree with this. Since the most dominating programs in the state are all public and ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, I say the privates should get a .85 multiplier to even things out. After all, no private has ever had the record of a Riverdale, or Maryville, or Fulton, or Alcoa, or Trousdale (I believe that covers 1a through 5a). Let's even things out by only counting 85% of private school students...or we could multiply all publics by 1.15 for Football.

 

Really though, if we are going to move schools up, or down, or out based on advantages then we have to decide which advantages are bigger and which are smaller...after all, all schools have a different set of advantages and disadvantages. Then we need to come up with a method for classifying every school's advantages/disadvantages, tallying them, and then we can multiply or divide the school to make things fair. There is actually a way to do this fairly...go to a merit system since performance takes into account all advantages and all disadvantages automatically.

[alltherage]

Ok, let's take these one at a time...remember the criterion was all privates vs all publics...

 

Do all privates have more teachable students than all publics? I think no one would assert this...there are certainly many publics that have a better student on average than many privates. In fact, the small religious privates don't have more academically capable students than most publics...their admissions process isn't academically selective like the more elite preps.

 

The fallacy with this argument, as with all your agruments, is that you only want to deal with the outer fringe of the situation and run from the the heart of it.

And how dare you insinuate I am a racist! You better go check the race ratio of students in public vs private schools. And while you are at it you might go back and read the dozens of posts by private school supporters that list the same things as I listed to you as benifits to the private schools. You better get a whole lot better argument if you hope to convince anyone!