2A enrollment versus polls

[ddaddy]

The same place public school kids come from. No school has the same group of kids that all attend school together 8-10 years. We live in a transit society where families relocate, divorce, etc.. I have a grandson who has always gone to public schools, but he has attended 3 schools in the last 5 years due to family moves.

A lot of kids in public high school start in elementary and middle public schools, then the parents sense the need (academics, safety, etc.) to move their kid to private school for the last 4-6 years.

The other 1/2 were not recruited for football, they just joined the school in middle or high school because their families made that decision.

My son is a senior at CPA and has been there since kindergarten. He is a special needs child who doesn't play sports. 5 of the senior starters on CPA's team have been his classmate since the 4th grade.

 

 

 

Just trying to understand, so NONE of the "other 1/2" came there for athletics?

[Govolsknox]

Let me ask an honest question: If you had a son that you thought had a very realistic chance of playing football in college, would you rather send him to Maryville / Alcoa or send him to Heritage. If you were looking out for his best interest you would send him to the school with a strong program where he could develop into the best he could be (assuming academics were equal). On the other hand, if your son loved the game and wanted to play but was not especially gifted athletically, some families might decide to send him to a school where he had a chance to get in the game, not just ride the bench. Families make decisions every day about where they will buy or build a house and many, many times the school district is an important factor. The school's academics are many times the main concern, but athletics plays a part many times as well. Sometimes people are quick to point out that someone might send their kid to a private school in part because of athletics. This is also true of people sending their kid to a particular public school at times as well. One important difference is that in the case of Maryville, Alcoa, Austin East, etc., there will be a number of good athletes that come to that school automatically because of where they live. This is not the case with private schools, where no one is going to attend automatically.

[mcwrestler]

About the other half, although not in regards to Alcoa I can imagine some students would like to play for Alcoa, since they are a winning school. They are not recruited though. As was mentioned before it comes down to class size and availability. Alcoa has good academics and athletics so it is appealing. They don't recruit though. I agree no one complained when they had bad years. Envy is an ugly thing, if you can't compete point fingers and complain. It is not considered private because it is funded by tax dollars. Parents can't just buy their kid into school, it goes to city residents first, which is keeping the school full, then it goes to alums and other things. Alcoa has test scores and stats that are higher than the county schools, they spend more per student than other schools with the exeption being Oak ridge, and they pay teachers well too. It is a good school to get kids into, with the aforementioned things as well as smaller class size. I bet more students have come to Alcoa for academics than athletics.

[ddaddy]

Let me ask an honest question: If you had a son that you thought had a very realistic chance of playing football in college, would you rather send him to Maryville / Alcoa or send him to Heritage. If you were looking out for his best interest you would send him to the school with a strong program where he could develop into the best he could be (assuming academics were equal). On the other hand, if your son loved the game and wanted to play but was not especially gifted athletically, some families might decide to send him to a school where he had a chance to get in the game, not just ride the bench. Families make decisions every day about where they will buy or build a house and many, many times the school district is an important factor. The school's academics are many times the main concern, but athletics plays a part many times as well. Sometimes people are quick to point out that someone might send their kid to a private school in part because of athletics. This is also true of people sending their kid to a particular public school at times as well. One important difference is that in the case of Maryville, Alcoa, Austin East, etc., there will be a number of good athletes that come to that school automatically because of where they live. This is not the case with private schools, where no one is going to attend automatically.

 

 

I respect your imput and I think this is a very good post, one that I agree with 100%. Given the choice I would send my son to the best program for him. If I were living in an urban area I would sent my child to a private school. And I would choose one that had strong athletic programs. If I coached at a private I would get the best players I was allowed to get. I place no blame on privates for getting the best players they can. My frustration is the pretending that it doesn't create an advantage for them over those of us who do not have this same opportunity to reload with one or two needed players. The fact is the lower the classification a school is in the fewer impact players it takes for them to be competitive. I'm not trying to down privates, fact is those who suceed in athletics put a lot into it. They have good coaches and provide a huge amount of support for their programs. There are many rural schools who provide the same support. With those factors being equal it comes down to who has the best players to choose from to make up their team and there lies the rub. I respect everyones opinion on this long debated subject.

[riverrat]

Recruiting goes on in public schools all the time. Big programs have boosters who are executives in industry. Besides money given to programs, these people find jobs for parents of talented prospects. It is all legal because their is a change of residence and the coach does not "recruit' the kid. How many great middle school kids in systems with poor programs up and move before their freshman and sophomore year. Parents in some cases just up and move on their own. It does not take a genius, if a school regularly sends talent to colleges then they have college recruiters at their games. Parents of potential prospects see the $$ signs they can save if their kid gets a scholarship by being in a program with college exposure.

[ksgovols]

I don't think anyone is knocking 'choice'. There just needs to be a way to quantify the impact of the choice. Let's face it, if kids are attracted to a program, that's not a random sampling of the students in the school zone necessarily. Taking 600 kids randomly and fielding a football team is much different than fielding a football team and limiting your enrollment or taking 300 kids from a model demographic that almost by definition weeds out the other 300 you'd normally have. The random sampling of 600 has more obstacles in it's path to overcome.

 

I'll always root for the rural public when they go up against a private, open zoned school or magnet because they are the underdogs from the get go. What would Lewis County be able to do if they could complement their team with a couple of kids from Hickman County and another one or two from Harpeth or Fairview? That's the difference. We're not talking about changing the enrollment numbers, just adding 3 or 4 impact players from outside Lewis County. It's not apples to apples. A merit system is the way to go.

[alcoafan72]

For the record Shiverdecker's mother developed a degenerative spinal disease and was forced to leave her job, she and Chris moved in with her sister and brother in law and family. I was born and raised in Alcoa and played on the first two championship teams. Chris' uncle, who was one on my best friends growing up in the 70's, and his family took them in and that's how he got to Alcoa. All of the other past great players and D1 prospects with the exceptions of Shivy, sommers, and Lanxter mentioned in an above post are Alcoa products. I either grew up with them, or their parents.

[Road2Three]

Everybody always wants to hate on a team that dominates year in/year out. Alcoa has a fine football program and after that classic slugfest down in Blount County last year between the Tornadoes and my Fulton Falcons, I have the upmost respect for Alcoa. They played a clean, respectable game and some teams would lose their discipline if they thought they were going to lose the game, which Alcoa isn't used to doing, but they didn't. They kept their composure and acted like men. That game will always be in my DVD collection and I wish the best of luck to Alcoa as they continue to dominate 2A. Keep doin' what your doin'. /thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" />

[GPAW6]

The truth is that good coaches on the field are usually good coaches off the field. If it is legal to recruit parents to an area school then more power to them. If they are better at their job than others then it shows part of their brilliance. I don't think anyone could argue their are some coaches that couldn's win consistently if you gave them a talent pool of 1,000. And some can win with a pool of 200. These coaches are to be congratulated. One example is John Cooley who left a top program at Memphis Ridgeway and went to Horn Lake. Horn Lake only won 1 game last year and has only lost 2 games so far this year. So lets admit some are better than others. (By the was Ridgeway has only won 2 games this year. What a difference a coach makes....)

[ksgovols]

The truth is that good coaches on the field are usually good coaches off the field. If it is legal to recruit parents to an area school then more power to them. If they are better at their job than others then it shows part of their brilliance. I don't think anyone could argue their are some coaches that couldn's win consistently if you gave them a talent pool of 1,000. And some can win with a pool of 200. These coaches are to be congratulated. One example is John Cooley who left a top program at Memphis Ridgeway and went to Horn Lake. Horn Lake only won 1 game last year and has only lost 2 games so far this year. So lets admit some are better than others. (By the was Ridgeway has only won 2 games this year. What a difference a coach makes....)

 

 

Then you'd be in favor of a merit system. The coaches that can win with their 11 or your 11 would be rewarded by being at the top level of competition and everyone else would sort themselves out from there based on demographics, enrollment, talent pool, genetics or any other predacator to football talent instead of an arbitrary enrollment number that means..............what? The maximum size talent pool that the closed zone public schools can draw from?

[divepix]

I started this post but stayed out of the way when it shifted to a public/private debate.

 

This will be my last post, but I do want to say thanks to all the posters who have made some excellent points and put a lot of thought in this hot issue. I agree with some and not with others, but that is part of the fun of CoachT.

 

I guess one of my pet peeves is when the public/private argument becomes an excuse for striving for excellence and an admission that someone with a disadvantage needs to run rather than figure out a way to win. Case in point: the multiplier was begged for, became law, and now there are those who still cry foul and say they cannot win.

There are some wonderful examples of those who have accepted the situation, overcome their disadvantages, and produced winning programs. What a great model for those kids to learn from who may face disadvantages later in life. Then they won't cry "unfair" and instead do what it takes to be an overcomer and winner.

[ksgovols]

We all play with the hand we're dealt. Does anyone think they could take a random sampling of students from a public school, send them to medical school, engineering school or law school and they'd have the same success ratio as the schools that tweak those numbers or those that send a smaller select group? That's why you send your kids to private school isn't it? To overcome those odds.

 

Sure, you have to applaud the schools that overcome the obstacles. That doesn't mean the obstacles that are in place are fairly placed.

 

My problem is not with private schools, open zoned schools or magnet schools. There's a reason they all exist and that's fine. The problem I have with this thread is the statement of how 'amazing' it is that these schools can do more with less. What a crock!

 

The TSSAA almost killed Harpeth's football program by putting them in the ABC region. It was the perfect storm. A program that was on a down cycle is stuck in the toughest region in 2A. What's more, a talented tailback transferred to BA, a big lineman to Father Ryan, a couple of athletes to Ensworth. Now the rest of the players are wondering what in the heck they are doing playing football. They gravitated to basketball where they've been to region 3 of the last 4 years and have had 5 or 6 guys get college scholarships. They stuck with baseball, where they've been to state 2 out of the last 3 years and had about 10 sign college scholarships. What the football team needs is for more of the athletes walking the halls to come out for football whether we play in 2A or 5A. You'd at least like to see a level playing field and some natural rivals to help sustain your football program though. You'd like to see your homegrown middle school talent not leave your system, recruited or otherwise. You'd like to think that everybody else in your classification is drawing from a circle around their campus that has in the neighborhood of 600 students. What's the purpose of having different classes to start with? Can't the little schools just work harder and give Riverdale and MBA all they want?