Open Zone Same As Privates That Recruit

[JaxMan]

Once again I agree with most of your comments...a couple of thoughts though...in my limited experince with magnets...they do require admission tests to get in...but so do most privates...transportation...both have to provide their own...in this area anyway they are still new...just a few years old...and they are competitive in most sports...I would offer that they are more like privates...at least small ones than they are like publics...with the added advantage thatt they can eliminate the undesirable issues you raised with out high tutition costs...I really don't have an issue with the multiplier...I would rather play in 2A now than to have to play with aid giving schools who are drastically differenty than us...I am merely rasing the question of is it fair for 2 schools so similar to be treated so differently...

[VolunteerGeneral]

I dont know if you are a golfer or not, the the advantages of privates over publics can be looked at like this; where would you rather play golf? The municipal course that is a little shabby, a little run down, and who knows who will show up and be playing in front of or behind you? Or would you rather be playing at a country club, with exclusive membership, plush greens, and a guy handing you a towel in the restroom? The question is definitely rhetorical, but I think it goes a long way to prove the point...by nature, privates have advantages that publics will never have.

 

 

 

Wrong Wrong Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If you have the money to send your kid to a private school (let`s just say $6,000.00) then you`d be much better off sending your kid to a public school and spending the money on private lessons. I play golf and let me say that I play just as badly on a nationally ranked course as I do as a local public course. If your interest was in golf then why on earth would you would you send your kid to a private school? Seriously! I`ve been a member of the Jackson Country Club which has one of the finest courses in the state of Tennessee and I can tell you for a fact that it cost less to be a member there than send your kid to a private school here in town. I can join the exclusive club, buy private lessons, send my kid to a public school and still spend less money. Oh I`m so very sorry to burst your bubble. You have 4 total posts so it seems like you joined just to make your offbase point. That`s so sad that you felt you were so right that you felt you were so right that it impelled you to make your first posts on the T. But welcome anyways.

[JaxMan]

Swami...I am not a golfer...I ride Harleys for fun...bu tto follow your comparison...lets say a new course was built that was just as nice as the local country club and it was free to play...you know you would pick the free course as now the country club offered no advantage but cost a lot more...the same is true with magnets and privates...they have as I said facilities as good or better than our small private and yet their is no tuition of 6500 or so due...it seems they have one advantage...a big one privates can't even offer...so that said I think they should have a multiler just as we do...they stand an even better chance of drawing kids from the undesirable enviroment you described in the local public school as they can go for free

[Baldcoach]

Swami,

 

I am not feeling picked upon at all. I am actually for a merit system rather than a multiplier, which would have landed us in 2a anyway. And, to be honest, 2a is a real challenge, which is one of the things that I think sports should be about.

 

I do believe, however, that if you are going to try to 'equalize' things or create a 'level playing field' that the method should be applied equally to all schools, not just a subset. If only a subset are targeted then what you have is discrimination.

 

Consider, there were 6 small privates in the early 2000's that had really good programs and won state titles...6 out of a hundred or so. We were one. We won 1 title, lost in OT the year before and after. CPA won 2, Ezell 1, DCA 2, and Lipscomb and Goodpasture won 1 or 2 each in 2a or 3a maybe. Compare that to Trousdale's record for the 5 years before they moved up to 3a. Or to South Pitt's Record in the late 90s. Or to Alcoa's or Knox Fulton's or Maryville's or Riverdale's records. The point is that if we are going to multiply ALL the privates because a few are good for a while, why are the publics getting a pass when some of them are better than any private has ever been? And what did the struggling private programs do to deserve a 1.8?

 

If we are going to really try for a level playing field, or something like it, we need some system that takes into account the advantages and disadvantages of EVERY school...public, private, rural, urban, magnet, etc. A merit system does so because it simply uses performance to classify. Performance is the end result of all of a school's advantages and disadvantages.

 

p.s. I wasn't trying to 'pick apart' your post, and I have a pretty universal viewpoint...you did read the part when I said I am a huge fan of South Pitt, Alcoa, and Maryville, right? I just wanted to point out that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...privates don't really have open zones just like country clubs...their zones are closed by the financial requirements involved. I used to say it like this...there is as much water in a small deep puddle (closed geographic zone, no tuition) as there is in a wide shallow one (open geographical, tuition). All of that is just another way of saying that all types of schools have advantages and disadvantages...the only reason that the advantages that private schools have are considered greater is because public schools are in charge of the TSSAA, which is the body that decides which advantages are greater.

[JaxMan]

Swami,

 

I appreciate your view point...although I disagre with it I have honestly tried to read it with an open mind and understand it...I do see some merits to your post, but I still would favor small non aid privates remaining in Div 1 with a multiplier and open zone publics getting the same one, or if a total split comes to have non aid privates in a seperate Div than aid giving privates...thanks though fo ryour ideas as it always helps all of us to share our thoughts and to consider those of others

[SwamiSays]

Wrong Wrong Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If you have the money to send your kid to a private school (let`s just say $6,000.00) then you`d be much better off sending your kid to a public school and spending the money on private lessons. I play golf and let me say that I play just as badly on a nationally ranked course as I do as a local public course. If your interest was in golf then why on earth would you would you send your kid to a private school? Seriously! I`ve been a member of the Jackson Country Club which has one of the finest courses in the state of Tennessee and I can tell you for a fact that it cost less to be a member there than send your kid to a private school here in town. I can join the exclusive club, buy private lessons, send my kid to a public school and still spend less money. Oh I`m so very sorry to burst your bubble. You have 4 total posts so it seems like you joined just to make your offbase point. That`s so sad that you felt you were so right that you felt you were so right that it impelled you to make your first posts on the T. But welcome anyways.

 

 

hhhmmmm...I'm not sure how to respond to this post. You seem to be intentionally argumentative and very immature in the way you chose to write your post. I can visualize you throwing a temper tantrum and beating your fists on the desktop. As you put it, "Wrong Wrong Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" how silly of you.

Apparently, you missed the point of the golf analogy. It isnt about playing golf, for goodness sake. Its about the advantage of offering a superior product. In your own words, "I hate to burst your bubble" but private schools have been around for thousnds of years, long before countries like the US even existed. Privates were created to give advantages to a select few, typically those who could afford it. There were exceptions and benefactors, and there was the Catholic Church who had a mission to try to educate all, but education as a whole, over centuries was reserved for a privileged few. Countries who had the wisdom and means to provide free education to all knew they were doing so against traditional educational philosophies, but did so anyway. Public education has always been trying to catch up to private. Unfortunately for privates, the one area where many publics have been able to catch and even exceed privates is in athletics. When the privates found a way around that, the public powers that be put in rules to limit that. Is that wrong? In my opionion, yes it is. Is that what we have? Yes it is. Can privates, even small privates, win within that? Of course they can. And have they? Yes they have.

And there is nothing sad about what compelled(you actually said impelled, whatever that means) me to make my "first" posts on CoachT. Unfortunately, like the rest of your post, it is immaturity and ignorance that led you to making such a statement. I have been on CoachT for years. Years that go back beyond yours. My original member number was about half of yours. The number of posts, nor the recent rejoining of CoachT has nothing to do with the legitimacy of my opinion and what I have posted here. As an athletic minded person, you should know that it doesnt matter when you join the dance, all that matters is that you are on the floor.

I think you might better be called an instigator, not a moderator.

I once had the honor of sitting on a presidential summit on education. President Reagan and I talked briefly at the conclusion of the meeting and we talked about leadership and leadership styles. He told me that no matter the situation, he always tried to maintain the position of the most mature person in the room. As a moderator, you might want to try that.

[SwamiSays]

Swami,

 

I am not feeling picked upon at all. I am actually for a merit system rather than a multiplier, which would have landed us in 2a anyway. And, to be honest, 2a is a real challenge, which is one of the things that I think sports should be about.

 

I do believe, however, that if you are going to try to 'equalize' things or create a 'level playing field' that the method should be applied equally to all schools, not just a subset. If only a subset are targeted then what you have is discrimination.

 

Consider, there were 6 small privates in the early 2000's that had really good programs and won state titles...6 out of a hundred or so. We were one. We won 1 title, lost in OT the year before and after. CPA won 2, Ezell 1, DCA 2, and Lipscomb and Goodpasture won 1 or 2 each in 2a or 3a maybe. Compare that to Trousdale's record for the 5 years before they moved up to 3a. Or to South Pitt's Record in the late 90s. Or to Alcoa's or Knox Fulton's or Maryville's or Riverdale's records. The point is that if we are going to multiply ALL the privates because a few are good for a while, why are the publics getting a pass when some of them are better than any private has ever been? And what did the struggling private programs do to deserve a 1.8?

 

If we are going to really try for a level playing field, or something like it, we need some system that takes into account the advantages and disadvantages of EVERY school...public, private, rural, urban, magnet, etc. A merit system does so because it simply uses performance to classify. Performance is the end result of all of a school's advantages and disadvantages.

 

p.s. I wasn't trying to 'pick apart' your post, and I have a pretty universal viewpoint...you did read the part when I said I am a huge fan of South Pitt, Alcoa, and Maryville, right? I just wanted to point out that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...privates don't really have open zones just like country clubs...their zones are closed by the financial requirements involved. I used to say it like this...there is as much water in a small deep puddle (closed geographic zone, no tuition) as there is in a wide shallow one (open geographical, tuition). All of that is just another way of saying that all types of schools have advantages and disadvantages...the only reason that the advantages that private schools have are considered greater is because public schools are in charge of the TSSAA, which is the body that decides which advantages are greater.

 

 

 

Coach, the only problem I have with the merit system it that ultimately, it punishes a team for its success, only in a little bit slower and innocuous way. With this system, the better you do, the higher you move up in classification. I agree whole heartedly that performance is what the final analysis should be about. But a true merit system would eventually have small schools forced to play large schools based on their success, unless you limit who they can play based on size, and then you are not a true merit system any more. I'm sure I am worng somewhere along the way here, so please correct me.

[SwamiSays]

Swami,

 

I appreciate your view point...although I disagre with it I have honestly tried to read it with an open mind and understand it...I do see some merits to your post, but I still would favor small non aid privates remaining in Div 1 with a multiplier and open zone publics getting the same one, or if a total split comes to have non aid privates in a seperate Div than aid giving privates...thanks though fo ryour ideas as it always helps all of us to share our thoughts and to consider those of others

 

 

In many ways, I agree with your proposal. The only point that I was trying to make, and having been on both sides of the fence, it that by nature, publics will always be lagging behind privates. Because of that, in many ways, privates will have an advantage.

 

One problem with open zoned multipliers is that you will en essense be creating more classifications. From what I understand, Memphis is basically open zoned. Several of those schools are already in the largest classification. If you give them a multipiler, it either changes nothing and they stay in the largest classification, or you create an even larger classification. If you are talking about smaller publics that have open zones, are you talking about open zoning, or are you talking about out of zone students? Open zones are still limited to the county lines, a large area indeed, but it is still not the expansive area that some privates pull from that cover several counties.

Again, my point is we have what we have. There will always be exceptions to every situation. There will always be a perceived unfairness by someone. I personally dont like the multiplier at all, but I do understand its purpose. Has it kept winning programs from winning? I dont have the complete answer to that, but from what I have seen, no it has not. Some say it has hurt the smallest of the privates, but how many championships were they winning before the multiplier hit? I am not trying to be insulting at all. Has anyone, and I'm sure they have, done any studies on teams that were at the top of their classification before the multiplier, and now are no longer competitive since the advent of the multiplier? Can it be directly tied to the multiplier, or is it other factors that have happened i.e; coaching changes, loss of talent, school climate changes, etc.?

[fiftyfifty]

In many ways, I agree with your proposal. The only point that I was trying to make, and having been on both sides of the fence, it that by nature, publics will always be lagging behind privates. Because of that, in many ways, privates will have an advantage.

 

One problem with open zoned multipliers is that you will en essense be creating more classifications. From what I understand, Memphis is basically open zoned. Several of those schools are already in the largest classification. If you give them a multipiler, it either changes nothing and they stay in the largest classification, or you create an even larger classification. If you are talking about smaller publics that have open zones, are you talking about open zoning, or are you talking about out of zone students? Open zones are still limited to the county lines, a large area indeed, but it is still not the expansive area that some privates pull from that cover several counties.

Again, my point is we have what we have. There will always be exceptions to every situation. There will always be a perceived unfairness by someone. I personally dont like the multiplier at all, but I do understand its purpose. Has it kept winning programs from winning? I dont have the complete answer to that, but from what I have seen, no it has not. Some say it has hurt the smallest of the privates, but how many championships were they winning before the multiplier hit? I am not trying to be insulting at all. Has anyone, and I'm sure they have, done any studies on teams that were at the top of their classification before the multiplier, and now are no longer competitive since the advent of the multiplier? Can it be directly tied to the multiplier, or is it other factors that have happened i.e; coaching changes, loss of talent, school climate changes, etc.?

 

Hmmmmmmm, I wonder if this poster is BACKINTN reborn, you sure do talk like him. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

[JaxMan]

Swami,

 

By open zones I am referring to any school who accepts kids from outside their set zone...as I think this makes them much like a private...I admit that kids from out of the county who pay a fee to attend is much closer to private but I think either should apply...I agree that in the 5A class the multiplier would have no affect as I don't think we need a 6th class...but typically this is not where it is a problem as 5A schools already have a large pool to chose from...in the 1A and 2A class is where it is most often a larger advantage for a open zoned school...

[SwamiSays]

Swami,

 

By open zones I am referring to any school who accepts kids from outside their set zone...as I think this makes them much like a private...I admit that kids from out of the county who pay a fee to attend is much closer to private but I think either should apply...I agree that in the 5A class the multiplier would have no affect as I don't think we need a 6th class...but typically this is not where it is a problem as 5A schools already have a large pool to chose from...in the 1A and 2A class is where it is most often a larger advantage for a open zoned school...

 

 

 

I see your point. My question is this, is it actually a "larger" advantage for small open zoned publics, or is it the same advantage and you are saying that there should be an equal handicap for both public and privates alike? I think you are saying the latter. And I totally agree that there should be equal handicapping, if any at all. I honestly dont know the answer to this next question, and hope someone can tell me...are there small privates, that were winning championships before the multiplier, and are now losing programs because of the multiplier?

 

My original point, several posts ago, is that many have forgetten the lesson of athletics, and have lost it to the thinking that only winning is acceptable and valued.

While multipliers do seem unfair in one light, they are see as fair in another. Its a very difficult situation to make it fair all the way around.

[JaxMan]

it is hard to say how the multipler affected privates who moved up as you would have to factor in as you said talent level...but take for instance CPA who won a tilte before and now has not...or USJ who won their region every year and finished 2nd in football I think twice before and now is winning 2 games a year...I don't have eh answer either...just talking out loud about what feels like an inequity to me...