What the heck is a "level playing field"

[rick7425]

I think PBJ is right--FRA has really been squeezed by both the bigger prep schools and the Williamson County schools. A big deal for both FRA and BGA is that they are relatively small secular private schools. The smaller religiously-affiliated schools have carved out their niches by appealing to their particular religious constituencies...BA (imo) is sort of a cross between MBA/Ensworth and a small religious school...I think that as tuition costs have gone up, a lot of Nashville-area families have reached that tipping point at which they decide to move to Williamson County and enjoy the high quality free public education rather than sink 10s of thousands of dollars into private schools. 10-15 years ago, that same family would have been a prime candidate for FRA.

 

Another big difference (again...my opinion) is that BA is a Williamson County institution....It is distinctly "Williamson County" if that makes sense. There is a significant population there that wants a small, LOCAL private school with a religious affiliation. BA has really taken off as a school just as the Williamson County public schools have. I'm not sure who exactly FRA is trying to appeal to....

 

Actually, I think it would be more fair to characterize FRA as a non-denominational Christian school. FRA has taken off as a school as well. It has acquired property, built new buildings and academic facilities, increased its enrollment. It has benefited from the growth of Brentwood, with families that want the benefits of a Christian education or a smaller school setting rather than the larger public middle and high schools. I suspect that FRA has also benefited from BA's athletic emphasis and success by providing an area alternative where academics are seen as the primary thrust and where an "average" athlete is going to have a better chance to participate.

 

While trying to win is certainly an important part of athletic competition, I don't think FRA is driven in its school mission by a need to win TSSAA championships. FRA wants to be competitive for the benefit of its students and its "community," but I don't think the leaders of the school aspire to have the school seen as an elite athletic power. As far as why FRA stays in DI, I suspect that has to do with maintaining traditional rivalries, keeping athletic travel expense and student time away from school within reason, and trying to keep athletic competition in a healthy perspective relative to the school's primary academic mission. I don't really see how it would benefit FRA at all to move to DII.

[Antwan]

I think we should all be in the same division, aid, non-aid, magnet, open zone, closed zone. I never had a problem with playing the aid schools. It was really BA beating Riverdale that got all of that (and this) started. I think the potential for abuse is greater for those schools that offer financial aid, but that does not mean that all of those schools actually abuse the system. From the beginning I thought the TSSAA should severly punish intentional violaters rather than force a new division. If you want to discourage cheating you smash it hard every time it turns up, you don't declare a whole group of schools guilty and separate them. It would be the equivalent of me catching an athlete cheating on a test and giving all athletes in the classroom 0s because I thought they were more likely to cheat than non-athletes. I'm thinking most people wouldn't stand for that. I don't know why they stand for this.

 

Here is a question back at you. Wouldt you agree that publics in open counties or magnets have even more athletes to choose from than small privates?

 

And here is a question about your assumption that we have more to choose from. Have you actually checked population demographics vs. incomes to come to that conclusion, or is it just a 'feeling' you have?

 

 

To answer your question...no...I don't think small publics in open counties have more access to athletes. Magnets could depending on their admission process. I have yet to get an answer on where they get their athletes. Small publics are limited due to their location. Most all are in rural areas. The only exception I can think of is Alcoa. They are located in a relatively urban area. Some may allow kids from all over the county...but in most cases...there is not much crossover.

[rick7425]

I'm sure I posted this hypothetical somewhere before, but it seems to bear repeating.

 

If "Private School A" has 400 kids grades 9-12 (all of whom must satisfy the admissions standards and must pay tuition); and "Public School B" has 400 kids grades 9-12 (all of whom live in its geographic zone), what exactly is Private School A's advantage?

 

I know there has been some mention of the larger pool of potential students, but isn't there also an assumption at work here that the DI privates make admissions decisions based on athletic prowess? If that assumption is inaccurate, then what difference does the larger pool make in terms of athletics?

[Indian]

I think on the average, the private school will have a higher percentage who want to participate in extracurricular activities, including sports. The more players out there or trying out, the more good players there will be. There are exceptions on both sides but it seems most of the non-competitive privates are the recent start-ups, most of your established privates are at the very least, competitive against most opponents.

[fiftyfifty]

Their "zone" is a little smaller than the other small privates. The tuition for high school aged children is almost double that of Goodpasture, DCA and Ezell. I will say that point does somewhat validate BaldCoach's statement regarding tuition constituting their "zone". Perhaps there is a corelative effect on small DI privates - the higher the tuition the smaller the zone.

 

The tuition for FRA for the upcoming school year is 14,850 for high school students. At CPA, it is 10,530, will increase some for the upcoming year. At DCA it is 6,595 and at Goodpasture, it is 6,306. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

[big red big blue]

While trying to win is certainly an important part of athletic competition, I don't think FRA is driven in its school mission by a need to win TSSAA championships. FRA wants to be competitive for the benefit of its students and its "community," but I don't think the leaders of the school aspire to have the school seen as an elite athletic power. As far as why FRA stays in DI, I suspect that has to do with maintaining traditional rivalries, keeping athletic travel expense and student time away from school within reason, and trying to keep athletic competition in a healthy perspective relative to the school's primary academic mission. I don't really see how it would benefit FRA at all to move to DII.

 

 

if you say so, but that's not how it used to be. FRA won a A title in '91, back when there were only 3 classes, public and private, and every title really meant something. Greg Johnson was the leader of the team and went on to play at Tennessee with Peyton Manning. There were other high level teams that played deep into the play-offs. There was a tremendous desire to win championships over there, in football, basketball, and wrestling, among other sports. Maybe times and attitudes have changed in the many years since then.

 

I will say this--if what you are saying is true, and that FRA is actually thriving today and not struggling to attract students, then it casts more doubt than ever on the idea that small privates enjoy inherent advantages (which I believe was your original point). If FRA is succeeding in every other way, then success in athletics should follow almost by default. More kids in total (and therefore more athletes and motivated kids), more committed parents, more money for facilities, coaches, etc. And obviously all the trappings of an urban student base. It certainly speaks to the argument for a merit system, because if they have consciously chosen to deemphasize athletics then they shouldn't be subject to a multiplier.

[jvaughan]

I'm sure I posted this hypothetical somewhere before, but it seems to bear repeating.

 

If "Private School A" has 400 kids grades 9-12 (all of whom must satisfy the admissions standards and must pay tuition); and "Public School B" has 400 kids grades 9-12 (all of whom live in its geographic zone), what exactly is Private School A's advantage?

 

I know there has been some mention of the larger pool of potential students, but isn't there also an assumption at work here that the DI privates make admissions decisions based on athletic prowess? If that assumption is inaccurate, then what difference does the larger pool make in terms of athletics?

 

 

Private School A's advantage is that the 400 can come from 6 counties over while Public School B's are all in its zone and can't get the kids that are 6 counties over. This of course is assuming that Public School B is not an open zoned school or doesn't accept tuition paying students.

[rick7425]

Private School A's advantage is that the 400 can come from 6 counties over while Public School B's are all in its zone and can't get the kids that are 6 counties over. This of course is assuming that Public School B is not an open zoned school or doesn't accept tuition paying students.

 

Again, if Private School A is not making admissions decisions based on athletic prowess, what difference does it make what geographic area the kids come from?

[rick7425]

if you say so, but that's not how it used to be. FRA won a A title in '91, back when there were only 3 classes, public and private, and every title really meant something. Greg Johnson was the leader of the team and went on to play at Tennessee with Peyton Manning. There were other high level teams that played deep into the play-offs. There was a tremendous desire to win championships over there, in football, basketball, and wrestling, among other sports. Maybe times and attitudes have changed in the many years since then.

 

I will say this--if what you are saying is true, and that FRA is actually thriving today and not struggling to attract students, then it casts more doubt than ever on the idea that small privates enjoy inherent advantages (which I believe was your original point). If FRA is succeeding in every other way, then success in athletics should follow almost by default. More kids in total (and therefore more athletes and motivated kids), more committed parents, more money for facilities, coaches, etc. And obviously all the trappings of an urban student base. It certainly speaks to the argument for a merit system, because if they have consciously chosen to deemphasize athletics then they shouldn't be subject to a multiplier.

 

My original point was not that small privates enjoy inherent advantages. My point all along has been that there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the public/private equation. Do I think there can be an advantage in athletics for a private school that makes admissions decisions based on athletic ability or prowess? Sure. And that advantage can be magnified if that school gives financial aid. But I think the underlying flaw in most of these broad assertions that all private schools have "advantages" is that they are based on the assumption that athletics drives the admissions decisions. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I think private schools where that happens are the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, I think it is the exceptions that people try to generalize about in order to support their arguments about "advantages" that private schools have.

 

As for FRA in particular, I think you have to be careful what conclusions you draw based on isolated examples of success achieved over the last 17 years, the fact that a few students over that time turned out to be exceptional athletes, or the competitive desires that are inherent in sports. The conclusion that I draw from those facts, based on my familiarity with FRA, is that through good coaching, hard work, and commitment by kids, FRA did as well as it could athletically with the students it had -- which should be the objective of any school's athletic program.

[big red big blue]

My original point was not that small privates enjoy inherent advantages. My point all along has been that there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides of the public/private equation. Do I think there can be an advantage in athletics for a private school that makes admissions decisions based on athletic ability or prowess? Sure. And that advantage can be magnified if that school gives financial aid. But I think the underlying flaw in most of these broad assertions that all private schools have "advantages" is that they are based on the assumption that athletics drives the admissions decisions. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but I think private schools where that happens are the exception, not the rule. Unfortunately, I think it is the exceptions that people try to generalize about in order to support their arguments about "advantages" that private schools have.

 

 

I think most people who favor a split or multiplier do so not because they think privates abuse (or have the potential to abuse) selective admissions by favoring athletes. I think most who favor a multiplier or split do so because they think either that private schools have inherent advantages that come from being in and around urban areas, and/or a greater percentage of kids participating in sports. Even Ronnie Carter explained the reason for the multiplier as an effort to account for the fact that a greater number of kids at private schools participate in sports than that at comparable publics (I posted the link somewhere on here). So at least in his mind, inherent advatages have never been linked to favoring athletes in the admissions process...it's a numbers issue and not a quality of athletes issue.

 

In an urban area, there is simply more choice. If a school does well in any respect (athletics, academics, arts, etc.), gets some publicity, then it can attract more students. Whether they consciously chose to favor athletes doesn't matter. Some of those students will be athletes. An isolated rural school can do great things and yet it is bound by the limits of its population.

[rick7425]

I think most people who favor a split or multiplier do so not because they think privates abuse (or have the potential to abuse) selective admissions by favoring athletes. I think most who favor a multiplier or split do so because they think either that private schools have inherent advantages that come from being in and around urban areas, and/or a greater percentage of kids participating in sports. Even Ronnie Carter explained the reason for the multiplier as an effort to account for the fact that a greater number of kids at private schools participate in sports than that at comparable publics (I posted the link somewhere on here). So at least in his mind, inherent advatages have never been linked to favoring athletes in the admissions process...it's a numbers issue and not a quality of athletes issue.

 

In an urban area, there is simply more choice. If a school does well in any respect (athletics, academics, arts, etc.), gets some publicity, then it can attract more students. Whether they consciously chose to favor athletes doesn't matter. Some of those students will be athletes. An isolated rural school can do great things and yet it is bound by the limits of its population.

 

I think some people who favor a split or multiplier do so because they can rationalize their way into increasing their chances to win. And unfortunately, I think some DII school folks who favor a complete split do so for the selfish reason that they would like the DI privates forced to DII to increase the size of DII (regardless of what those DI schools want).

 

As for advantages and disadvantages, I agree that an isolated rural school is bound by the limits of its population. On the other side of that equation, a private shool in an urban area is bound by the limits of its tuition cost, by its academic admission standards, and by the ready availability of other school options.

 

Same old refrain I know, but I believe schools at either end of the spectrum have advantages and disadvantages when it comes to athletic competition. You can take a given school and pick out advantages and disadvantages all day long. In the end, I don't believe they can fairly be generalized into an overall private school advantage in athletics.

[big red big blue]

Same old refrain I know, but I believe schools at either end of the spectrum have advantages and disadvantages when it comes to athletic competition. You can take a given school and pick out advantages and disadvantages all day long. In the end, I don't believe they can fairly be generalized into an overall private school advantage in athletics.

 

 

I guess likewise, I do believe that there are inherent advantages that privates enjoy, just none of which are related to financial aid. I think there's a reason why MBA, with roughly 350 boys, for years could compete with the local public schools that had at least twice as many boys. And we certainly did it without a glut of exceptional athletes that we lured in with financial aid and creative admissions policies...as evidence, in my era we enjoyed a pretty gaudy record over our local public opponents, all of whom were much larger enrollment-wise. During that era, we had essentially no d1 or even d1-aa recruits or signees. At best there were a few future d3 football players, which in reality could be anyone who played high school football. Meanwhile, the schools we played against regularly produced at a minimum several d1-aa players.

 

I don't think anything any financial-aid schools accomplished warranted a separate division, but I do think the de facto multiplier we played with was appropriate...just as I think the current multiplier is appropriate. The case of FRA is definitely puzzling to me....