What the heck is a "level playing field"

[Baldcoach]

Fairness or a level playing field is used to argue for multiplying/splitting the privates.

 

I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what criteria are used to determing this. I would like to know EXACTLY what is meant when the term 'level playing field' is used. Maybe then we can all talk about this.

[Antwan]

Fairness or a level playing field is used to argue for multiplying/splitting the privates.

 

I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what criteria are used to determing this. I would like to know EXACTLY what is meant when the term 'level playing field' is used. Maybe then we can all talk about this.

 

 

It means to divide X number of schools into some sort of class system as fairly as possible. That is easier said

than done. I know you support a merit system. I am not totally sold on that idea. I am also not too satisfied

with our current system. I think the answer lies somewhere in between.

[soccerdad]

Fairness or a level playing field is used to argue for multiplying/splitting the privates.

 

I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what criteria are used to determing this. I would like to know EXACTLY what is meant when the term 'level playing field' is used. Maybe then we can all talk about this.

 

 

 

Coach, it's hard to describe because I've only seen fields with crowns, pot holes, depressions, high spots, low spots, ankle twisters, valleys, rocks, clumps, bald spots (you're familiar with this one), and sprinkler heads. I've NEVER seen a level playing field. All "fields" are different!!! /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> It's TRUE. Just like LIFE!

[Baldcoach]

Coach, it's hard to describe because I've only seen fields with crowns, pot holes, depressions, high spots, low spots, ankle twisters, valleys, rocks, clumps, bald spots (you're familiar with this one), and sprinkler heads. I've NEVER seen a level playing field. All "fields" are different!!! /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> It's TRUE. Just like LIFE!

 

 

LOL! Sounds like our fields (and my head). I know that...wonder why so many private school bashers think all private schools and all public schools are alike as a group? I don't get it.

[soccerdad]

LOL! Sounds like our fields (and my head). I know that...wonder why so many private school bashers think all private schools and all public schools are alike as a group? I don't get it.

 

 

Well, you've raised a VERY cogent argument. TSSAA wants it all to be FAIR. How is that possible with the amount of diversity between schools? They try to be fair by separating by: the # of students and the $$ given students. They want to be fairer by separating you if your school receives no public aid (although it appears that the people in these non-aid receiving schools are the folks next door who pay for their part of that aid - is this fair?).

 

There is NO way to make the field level! If so, we would just have a dismal form of communism. Been there, seen it first hand - no competition, no drive, no hope, no excitement, no joy.

 

WHY DO WE DO SPORTS ANYWAY? Isn't it to teach life's lessons and promote the physical being? Go ahead and level the field and you dry up the SPIRIT of sports!!!!!

 

The 2009 awards ceremony: "Comrades, I award you the Order of TSSAA! As you know it's for all of you who have put on a uniform and adhered to the "fair and level" of sports. None of you have risen above the others and become proudful!! You are ALL champions!" [Note] /ph34r.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":ph34r:" border="0" alt="ph34r.gif" />

[PBandJ]

Fairness or a level playing field is used to argue for multiplying/splitting the privates.I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what criteria are used to determing this. I would like to know EXACTLY what is meant when the term 'level playing field' is used. Maybe then we can all talk about this.

Level playing field = merit system. As a 4A school supporter who can't really, really complain about Maryville until my team can get to the championship game to challenge them, it is apparent that the 4A playing field is FAR from level. A merit system would help alleviate many of the issues - including the ones generated by the multiplier. All throughout Europe and the world, a merit system is used to classify football, err soccer, teams. It has been that way for hundreds of years - literally. It can be done. It just can't be done by a backwoods administrator with chip on his shoulder.

[Antwan]

Well, you've raised a VERY cogent argument. TSSAA wants it all to be FAIR. How is that possible with the amount of diversity between schools? They try to be fair by separating by: the # of students and the $$ given students. They want to be fairer by separating you if your school receives no public aid (although it appears that the people in these non-aid receiving schools are the folks next door who pay for their part of that aid - is this fair?).

 

There is NO way to make the field level! If so, we would just have a dismal form of communism. Been there, seen it first hand - no competition, no drive, no hope, no excitement, no joy.

 

WHY DO WE DO SPORTS ANYWAY? Isn't it to teach life's lessons and promote the physical being? Go ahead and level the field and you dry up the SPIRIT of sports!!!!!

 

The 2009 awards ceremony: "Comrades, I award you the Order of TSSAA! As you know it's for all of you who have put on a uniform and adhered to the "fair and level" of sports. None of you have risen above the others and become proudful!! You are ALL champions!" [Note] /ph34r.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":ph34r:" border="0" alt="ph34r.gif" />

 

 

So...you are for one class for all.

[Baldcoach]

Level playing field = merit system. As a 4A school supporter who can't really, really complain about Maryville until my team can get to the championship game to challenge them, it is apparent that the 4A playing field is FAR from level. A merit system would help alleviate many of the issues - including the ones generated by the multiplier. All throughout Europe and the world, a merit system is used to classify football, err soccer, teams. It has been that way for hundreds of years - literally. It can be done. It just can't be done by a backwoods administrator with chip on his shoulder.

 

 

I've argued that a merit system is the only fair system available if the private bashers really want fairness. Most hate the idea. Therefore my contention is that they don't want a level playing field at all, they are just looking for someone to blame besides themselves when things don't go well for them and the privates are an easy target. But I still hold out hope that someone can define what is meant by "level playing field"...

[soccerdad]

So...you are for one class for all.

 

 

HA! My unified league of non-achievers is just a joke. But it shows the extremes "fairness" can take us to. A problem I do see, in this area of fairness, is the disparity between urban and rural. /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":blink:" border="0" alt="blink.gif" /> Could we have a third division that sets them apart?

[rick7425]

Part of the problem with this debate is that different people have different ideas about what constitutes a "level playing field." To me, a "level playing field" in sports is a setting where everyone has a fair chance to compete successfully. That doesn't mean that results are guaranteed. It isn't necessarily measured by state championships, and the focus on championships distorts the debate in my view since it ignores all the other competition that occurs. It doesn't mean that there won't be some differences in facilities, coaches, communities, funding, or other factors that contribute to or detract from an athletic program. It doesn't mean equality. It is more about eliminating those differences that so fundamentally alter the playing field that competition cannot be fair over the long haul. It is rough, not exact. For example, a school with 300 kids can probably compete fairly with a school with 400 kids. But a school with 300 kids, over the long haul, may not be able to compete fairly with a school with 2,000 kids -- even though some smaller school might win occasionally (and there may be some exceptional smaller school that wins a lot).

 

So, in my opinion, the challenge is not simply to see what schools win title games (there is a whole lot more that matters in high school sports than just winning state titles). Nor, in my view, is the challenge to identify every possible difference between a public school versus a private school, a zoned school versus a magnet school, a school that offers need-based financial aid to student-athletes versus one that doesn't, a rural school versus an urban school. There will always be differences from school to school that affect results and outcomes. But the real challenge is to identify those factors which may be so significant that one group of schools truly does not have a fair chance to compete successfully. On that issue, even well-meaning individuals may disagree. Those disagreements are not always as self-serving as some insist on making them out to be.

[soccerdad]

Part of the problem with this debate is that different people have different ideas about what constitutes a "level playing field." To me, a "level playing field" in sports is a setting where everyone has a fair chance to compete successfully. That doesn't mean that results are guaranteed. It isn't necessarily measured by state championships, and the focus on championships distorts the debate in my view since it ignores all the other competition that occurs. It doesn't mean that there won't be some differences in facilities, coaches, communities, funding, or other factors that contribute to or detract from an athletic program. It doesn't mean equality. It is more about eliminating those differences that so fundamentally alter the playing field that competition cannot be fair over the long haul. It is rough, not exact. For example, a school with 300 kids can probably compete fairly with a school with 400 kids. But a school with 300 kids, over the long haul, may not be able to compete fairly with a school with 2,000 kids -- even though some smaller school might win occasionally (and there may be some exceptional smaller school that wins a lot).

 

So, in my opinion, the challenge is not simply to see what schools win title games (there is a whole lot more that matters in high school sports than just winning state titles). Nor, in my view, is the challenge to identify every possible difference between a public school versus a private school, a zoned school versus a magnet school, a school that offers need-based financial aid to student-athletes versus one that doesn't, a rural school versus an urban school. There will always be differences from school to school that affect results and outcomes. But the real challenge is to identify those factors which may be so significant that one group of schools truly does not have a fair chance to compete successfully. On that issue, even well-meaning individuals may disagree. Those disagreements are not always as self-serving as some insist on making them out to be.

 

Good post Rick! How can we agree on these "significant factors"? What might be some of them?

[rick7425]

How can we agree on these "significant factors"? What might be some of them?

 

Ah, the challenge. I have no difficulty agreeing that dramatic differences in enrollment can be such a significant factor. Beyond that, I'm not sure what I would say is so significant that it disturbs my concept of a "level playing field." Perhaps when one looks at how well Division II schools do in some sports against Division I counterparts with much larger enrollment, one might conclude that the provision of need-based financial aid to student-athletes is such a significant factor. It is certainly a more significant factor now than it was before Division II was created, because the "quota rule" was eliminated in Division II.

 

When you look across all the different sports, I'm not sure I see the rural/urban distinction as one that prevents a "level playing field." Of course, you may find certain phenomena like the dominance of south Nashville and Williamson County, Chattanooga, and Knoxville in girls' soccer. But I think this is less a function of urban/rural distinction and more a product of the fact that youth soccer programs in those areas have been in place much longer and are more a part of the local fabric.

 

I personally don't see the Division I private schools as having such a significant advantage over small public schools as to warrant concern about a "level playing field." Admittedly some private schools have newer or more elaborate facilities and perhaps better financial support for athletics through their booster programs. But I don't know that these differences produce marked competitive advantages. Of course families can choose to pay tuition to send their children to such schools with attractive facilities, but I think most parents make educational choices for their children for reasons other than athletics. I also think that if parents are committed to making a sports-based choice for their child, they can do so at the public school level as well by sending a child to an out-of-zone school in or before the 9th grade or by moving into the zone of the school of choice. For this same reason, I don't really see the magnet school difference as one that requires particular attention to keep the playing field "level."

 

You know, we can always find some advantage that we believe the "other guy" has. But in the broad number of instances, I just don't believe there are very many of those advantages that rise to the level of requiring some correction to create a "level playing field."