What the heck is a "level playing field"

[fiftyfifty]

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."

 

Good post Rick. But some of the public supporters would burn this post if they could. I believe that 99% of private school parents choose their schools on reasons other than sports. I also believe that need-based financial aid is 99 percent given for a student to be able to attend a private school, sports has nothing to do with it. This attacks the position that only rich people go to private schools. That is simply not true or there would not be any financial aid. Some of my prior statements are more than just beliefs, I know from personal experience from having several children go through private schools. If any financial aid was based on sports, it was a secret to me. I never saw an athlete recruited or heard the rumor that an athlete was recruited. At our school, almost 100% percent of our students came from the feeder schools. A handful of students came from public. If we had talent, we win, if we don't, we don't win. I don't think that all this talk of spliting will solve anything, only make it more difficult for many people to find a reason for their team not being successful. I went to a small school a long time ago and we got drilled by almost every school we played. Most of the schools we played in any sport were bigger and had many more students to pick from. But what I don't remember is anybody complaining about unfairness, we enjoyed playing and when we did win, it was great. You seem to imply that financial aid is an advantage in sports. It is not at many private schools, it is used for what it was intended for, to help a family who otherwise could not afford to send their child to a private school. The problem with discussing sports and private and public schools is that it is impossible to include all the factors that are involved. With public schools, maybe you can limit it to sports, but with private schools, there are other more important issues that would have to be included as to why an individual with his family decide to attend a private school. Sports is usually last on the totem pole. There are certainly some instances in which some private schools violate the intent of the financial aid by simply using it as a tool to entice an athlete. But there are some instances where public schools, alumni, coaches do things that entice a student to attend a certain school with athletics being the primary factor. So is the answer creating more divisions, spliting public and private, split rural and city and then it will be level. I say it will only change who you complain about for losing. It also will probably change the method that some will use to gain an advantage, but make it level, no way. Where is it level, somebody tell me and I will move there to live in peace and harmony. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

[SwamiSays]

A level playing field is like a rainbow and its pot of gold. Its pretty to look at the rainbow and dream of having the gold, but it not going to happen.

 

In competitive sports, there can never be a level playing field. Winning is about finding and exploiting advantages. Leveling is about eliminating those advantages. There is a dichotomy of terms that can never be resolved when looking at "competition" and "level."

 

This pot of gold will never be found.

[big red big blue]

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.

 

 

I just don't understand this. If one were to believe that financial aid is the reason why the D2 schools have "outperformed" their peers (and it's a common conclusion), then he would be concluding that by creating a student body that is diverse economically, the D2 schools have created a condition that contributes to the "unlevel playing field." That's all financial aid does--gives a tuition break to families of qualified students who can't afford the full tuition. And that if financial aid were eliminated, and the schools were made up only of the wealthiest parts of the population, then that advantage would go away. So when people say to us in D2, "drop financial aid for athletes and we'll gladly play you" they are declaring that "We will play you, provided your campus is exlcusively the province of the wealthy. If you include the 'less wealthy' by offering financial aid, we consider that unfair and refuse to play you."

 

So, by this logic, the more a school draws students from the lower economic strata, the more advantaged you are. So why doesn't this apply anywhere else? Why don't the schools made up almost exclusively of the poorest strata (inner-city) @@@@ up victories and titles at the expense of the wealthiest (suburban/private). Seems to me that if economic status has some sort of inverse relationship with athletic success, it's the schools made up MORE of the lower strata that should be separated and multiplied. But I doubt anyone out there would take Maplewood over Maryville this weekend.

 

Point being--I could make a list of a hundred reasons why I think the MBA's and BA's of the world have succeeded at the expense of their peers...and it would be the same exact list I made when someone asked me why Ravenwood won a 5A title with its first ever senior class, while McGavock has won 2 play-off games PERIOD in its 30+ years of existence. Financial aid would have nothing to do with it.

[Baldcoach]

I agree with a lot of what Rick says about level playing fields. I would contend that any 'levelling' device should have to meet 2 criteria.

 

First, the problem to be levelled must be objectively PRESENT in all affected schools. By that I mean that 'levelling' can't be based on some 'advantage' or 'disadvantage' that may be present in a few schools but isn't present in all of them. If a subset (privates, metro, magnet, open zoned) of schools is going to be 'levelled' then the aspect being levelled must be objectively present in all of those schools.

 

Second, the problem must be objectively ABSENT in all non-affected schools. Otherwise by definition the levelled set of schools has been discriminated against.

 

Levelling by student population actually meets both criteria. 500+ student high schools can be objectively shown to ALL have at least 500 students. 300+ High schools can all be objectively shown to have less than 500 students. If we all agree that on average the more students present in a school the more the likelyhood of multiple good athletes then population is a valid method of 'levelling'.

 

A merit system is also a valid method of 'levelling' because schools that win their region and go 2 rounds or more into the playoffs 2 years (or whatever the 'up' criteria are) can all be objectively shown to have had better records than schools that didn't meet the 'up' criteria and vice versa. Since winning consistently certainly indicates advantage (while we might argue about the nature of the advantage...coaching, athletes, money, recruiting, community, facilities, etc. It can't be argued that schools that consistently dominate HAVE advantages.) a merit system is a valid levelling device.

 

Splitting and/or a multiplier are not valid UNLESS an objective reason for the split/multiplier can be given. The ability to offer financial aid MIGHT qualify (if we assume that free tuition in public schools doesn't offset), but all the others seem subjective to me...if not in the fact that they really ARE advantages then in the fact that there are schools on both sides that HAVE those advantages.

[realsoccer]

"What the heck is a "level playing field"?

 

Based upon literally thousands if not tens of thousands of posts on this subject from public school suporters, the always illusive "level playing field" is that set of conditions which will always insure that your public school is the state championship team in the respective sport in which they are participating. Obviously, when two public schools are playing in the same championship game, a severe case of cognitive dissonance occurs.

 

A "non level playing field" exists whenever your (the one where your child attends) public school is forced to play a private school, a open enrollment public school, a public school with better facilities, a public school with better coaches, an urban public school, a rural public school and any combination or permutation thereof. In summary, if your public school is beaten, that is prima facie evidence of a "non level playing field" condition and as such, just isn't fair. Your remedy is to lobby the TSSAA that your school should be placed in a new classification whose characteristics will be identical to any other school placed in that classification. The TSSAA will shortly be adding demographers and economists to insure that all socioeconomic criteria are considered.

 

Next question.

[rick7425]

I just don't understand this. If one were to believe that financial aid is the reason why the D2 schools have "outperformed" their peers (and it's a common conclusion), then he would be concluding that by creating a student body that is diverse economically, the D2 schools have created a condition that contributes to the "unlevel playing field." That's all financial aid does--gives a tuition break to families of qualified students who can't afford the full tuition.

 

brbb: I am generally very wary of generalizations. At the same time, I think it is naive to think that no Division II school ever uses financial aid in a way that enables it to improve its athletic program. Private schools typically get many more applicants than they have places for. Forget about recruiting. Do you not believe that when choosing between two applicants, athletic talent never matters -- even at those schools where the athletic director and head football coach also happens to be a member of the admissions committee? I don't intend to suggest that these sorts of sports-based decisions get made at all Division II schools; but I believe they do get made at some schools.

 

I'm not saying that financial aid is the reason Division II schools have outperformed their peers. I'm not so sure it is even true that Division II schools have outperformed their peers in such a general way. I do think there are a few examples of Division II schools that have fairly consistently outperformed public schools that are much larger and seemingly have a much larger pool of kids to draw from. But financial aid increases the size of the pool from which those Division II schools can draw as well, which is why the admission choices that get made through the use of financial aid can be important.

 

Most of us accept the fairness of classifying schools based on enrollment, on the theory that a larger school has a larger pool of students and, with that, a greater likelihood or frequency of gifted athletes. While private schools don't necessarily have such a large pool of students, they have a larger pool of potential students than a public school with a geographically defined zone. If a private school makes admission decisions based on athletic promise or ability, then its larger pool of potential students can enhance its ability to develop a greater concentration of gifted athletes in a relatively small student body. However, the cost of attending the school creates some limits on that pool of potential students, limits that the public schools do not have. I personally think these respective advantages and disadvantages in athletics growing out of differences in the pool of potential or actual students tend to balance each other out.

 

With financial aid, however, the economic limitations on the larger pool of potential private school students can be reduced or even eliminated in some cases. The extent to which that reduction or elimination of economic limitations on attendance may affect athletic competition again depends to some degree on the extent to which the school factors athletic ability or promise into its admission decisions. I don't believe admission decisions at Division II schools are usually made based on athletic ability or promise, but I wouldn't say that it never happens.

 

Do I believe financial aid alters the ability to compete fairly to such an extent that it requires some adjustment? I don't really know whether I believe that or not. But it seems logical to me that financial aid could be a factor that affects competitive fairness to some extent, if for no other reason than its enlargement of the pool of potential students for a school.

[big red big blue]

brbb: I am generally very wary of generalizations. At the same time, I think it is naive to think that no Division II school ever uses financial aid in a way that enables it to improve its athletic program. Private schools typically get many more applicants than they have places for. Forget about recruiting. Do you not believe that when choosing between two applicants, athletic talent never matters -- even at those schools where the athletic director and head football coach also happens to be a member of the admissions committee? I don't intend to suggest that these sorts of sports-based decisions get made at all Division II schools; but I believe they do get made at some schools.

 

 

put aside for a second whether or not I believe that's true. If it is true, what does it have to do with financial aid? If private schools are pushing athletes to the front of the admissions line, that doesn't have anything to do with their family's ability to pay the full tuition. If you single us out strictly for giving financial aid, then you are declaring "make all the admissions exceptions you want, for athletes or whoever. Just make sure they are all sufficiently wealthy that they can pay the full tuition."

 

Now to the question of whether or not I think athletes get special treatment in the admissions process...not in the way you're implying. I think applicants are judged first and foremost on their ability to do the work academically. That's a non-starter. Beyond that, they are judged on their ability to succeed at and contribute to the school. When all things otherwise are more or less equal, then yes, I'd agree that someone who has participated in organized sports gets the nod over someone who hasn't....same as for someone who is a boy scout, active church member, mucisian, etc. Why? because those people are predisposed to success, for a number of reasons. I'd say the main factor is that these are the children of parents who are motivated enough to shuffle them to and from practice, spend extra time working with them in off-hours, volunteering for scouting trips, etc., and those parents are similarly motivated when it comes to school work. They are the ones who impose discipline and turn off the tv at night; they have already been introduced to "time management" at some level. I don't think this sort of motivation has connection with income level...hence by beef with people latching on to financial aid, which is awarded by an independent 3rd party based 100% exclusively on tax returns. There are no qualifying factors that go along with the application--not grades, athletic accomplishment, artistic ability, etc. It is only a function of income level.

 

So yes--financial aid opens to the door to a wider applicant pool. But, imo, that is only meaningful if you draw some conculsion about the population that is eligible for financial aid as compared with the population that isn't.

[rick7425]

brbb: The amount of attention this website gets, and the enthusiasm for high school sports reflected here, is evidence enough of how much difference it makes to some people. There is no reason to believe that high school sports enthusiasts are never among those involved in making private school admissions decisions. I do believe that there are occasions -- and I can only speculate about where and how frequently they occur -- when choices between multiple students seeking admission to a private school are made in part based on athletic promise (I suspect these choices are less frequent at schools that start at the kindergarten or elementary level, since most of their students are admitted long before athletic promise can be judged). That is not to say that the kids are not qualified academically, but if athletic promise goes into the decision, then the private school with 300 kids may have a greater frequency of promising athletes than the school whose 300 kids are determined without regard to athletic promise or ability (e.g., by geographic zone).

 

The phenomenon that I'm describing is not "recruiting." It does not mean that students who are admitted at the schools are not academically qualified. I'm not indicting private schools or Division II schools, and I'm not suggesting that anyone is doing anything wrong. I'm simply recognizing that there are opportunities for a private school to use its selective admissions process to increase the frequency of high-caliber athletes among its students from what it might be if athletics were disregarded in the decision-making process.

 

Your suggestion that I may be making "conclusions about the population that is eligible for financial aid as compared with the population that isn't" is unfair. The issue as I see it has nothing to do with a comparison of those who are or are not eligible for aid. The issue has to do with the size of the applicant pool that can be used by a school that chooses to consider athletic ability or promise in its selective admissions decisions.

 

A zoned public school cannot make selective admissions decisions. A private school can. That may be a competitive "advantage" if the private school considers athletic ability in its decisions. But the cost of attending a private school puts some limits on that "advantage" because it limits the applicant pool. Financial aid, on the other hand, reduces or eliminates the tuition-based limits on the applicant pool. If the private school can use financial aid to open its doors to more families that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford the tuition, its pool of potential students, and therefore its pool of potential promising athletes, increases. If the pool is larger, and if athletics-based decisions are made from the qualified applicants in that pool, then the school may have a greater frequency of gifted athletes in its student body as compared to either another school with a randomly selected student body of the same size or a school with selectively admitted students from the smaller pool of those families who can afford tuition.

 

Does this difference warrant separation? I personally don't think so. Does it warrant some sort of adjustment when classifying schools? I don't think the Division I multiplier has been effective, but perhaps an enrollment multiplier for Division II schools might be sensible. I don't profess to have all the right answers. But in the debate, I don't think it makes sense to be dismissive about differences between schools that have selective admissions and offer financial aid and those that do not.

[big red big blue]

The phenomenon that I'm describing is not "recruiting." It does not mean that students who are admitted at the schools are not academically qualified. I'm not indicting private schools or Division II schools, and I'm not suggesting that anyone is doing anything wrong. I'm simply recognizing that there are opportunities for a private school to use its selective admissions process to increase the frequency of high-caliber athletes among its students from what it might be if athletics were disregarded in the decision-making process.

 

Your suggestion that I may be making "conclusions about the population that is eligible for financial aid as compared with the population that isn't" is unfair. The issue as I see it has nothing to do with a comparison of those who are or are not eligible for aid. The issue has to do with the size of the applicant pool that can be used by a school that chooses to consider athletic ability or promise in its selective admissions decisions.

 

 

I agree with you that there are all sorts of ways that private schools can manipulate their inherent characteristics into athletic advantages. Namely, as you say, by compromising admissions standards for athletes...does it happen? I don't know. Maybe. I never have come across athletes at MBA, BA, or Ryan that I thought were notably different from the rest of the student body. The people in my experience I would label as the underachievers are the ones who don't participate in anything. They were (again in my experience) the ones underperforming academically. I don't know how some of them got into MBA.

 

When we were voted into D2, the issue wasn't that our pool of applicants was wide geographically. It wasn't that we had low admissions standards so that the pool was wide academically. The only issue that was honed in on was widening the pool economically. Baylor and McCallie are both boarding schools. They attract kids from all over the country. But I never heard anyone say, "we refuse to play Baylor and McCallie because they have a wide pool geographically." It was all about financial aid.

 

Let me pose this hypothetical. What if back in '97 all the private schools agreed to drop financial aid. 100% of the students would pay full tuition. But, as a result of that 20% lost to the tuition hurdle, we are going to compensate elsewhere. Namely, we are going to relax some of our academic admission requirements and open the doors to less intelligent people. We are also going to market the school heavily outside its typical geographic footprint and attempt to draw in students from other regions. And in the cases of Ryan and BA, we are going to drop all religioius requirements for admission. So, in such a case, the applicant pool would have stayed the same size-wise but would have a different make-up in other ways. IF your theory holds true, then everyone would have been equally outraged and still voted us to d2, because it's not about who's in the applicant pool, but about the fact that private schools make admissions decisions that overweight athletics. By simple law of averages, the private schools would not have lost any access to athletes, in this case.

 

I don't think that would have happened. In fact, we can do it tomorrow and be welcomed back to D1 with open arms. We would be free to do whatever we want admissions-wise because we would have limited the pool economically.

[JaxMan]

a level playing field is:a dream situation that in life never happens...a term used by losing teams to explain why they lost and how they could win...a crutch to change life...where people lose and win at everything...advantages will always exist...in sports, business, life...those that learn to accept and adjust will be winners...those who look for excuses will be losers...it really has nothing to do with public or private...it is a mindset...

brbb: The amount of attention this website gets, and the enthusiasm for high school sports reflected here, is evidence enough of how much difference it makes to some people. There is no reason to believe that high school sports enthusiasts are never among those involved in making private school admissions decisions. I do believe that there are occasions -- and I can only speculate about where and how frequently they occur -- when choices between multiple students seeking admission to a private school are made in part based on athletic promise (I suspect these choices are less frequent at schools that start at the kindergarten or elementary level, since most of their students are admitted long before athletic promise can be judged). That is not to say that the kids are not qualified academically, but if athletic promise goes into the decision, then the private school with 300 kids may have a greater frequency of promising athletes than the school whose 300 kids are determined without regard to athletic promise or ability (e.g., by geographic zone). The phenomenon that I'm describing is not "recruiting." It does not mean that students who are admitted at the schools are not academically qualified. I'm not indicting private schools or Division II schools, and I'm not suggesting that anyone is doing anything wrong. I'm simply recognizing that there are opportunities for a private school to use its selective admissions process to increase the frequency of high-caliber athletes among its students from what it might be if athletics were disregarded in the decision-making process. Your suggestion that I may be making "conclusions about the population that is eligible for financial aid as compared with the population that isn't" is unfair. The issue as I see it has nothing to do with a comparison of those who are or are not eligible for aid. The issue has to do with the size of the applicant pool that can be used by a school that chooses to consider athletic ability or promise in its selective admissions decisions. A zoned public school cannot make selective admissions decisions. A private school can. That may be a competitive "advantage" if the private school considers athletic ability in its decisions. But the cost of attending a private school puts some limits on that "advantage" because it limits the applicant pool. Financial aid, on the other hand, reduces or eliminates the tuition-based limits on the applicant pool. If the private school can use financial aid to open its doors to more families that otherwise wouldn't be able to afford the tuition, its pool of potential students, and therefore its pool of potential promising athletes, increases. If the pool is larger, and if athletics-based decisions are made from the qualified applicants in that pool, then the school may have a greater frequency of gifted athletes in its student body as compared to either another school with a randomly selected student body of the same size or a school with selectively admitted students from the smaller pool of those families who can afford tuition.Does this difference warrant separation? I personally don't think so. Does it warrant some sort of adjustment when classifying schools? I don't think the Division I multiplier has been effective, but perhaps an enrollment multiplier for Division II schools might be sensible. I don't profess to have all the right answers. But in the debate, I don't think it makes sense to be dismissive about differences between schools that have selective admissions and offer financial aid and those that do not.

so can a open zone school...which by the way is a growing tend in this state

[Antwan]

a level playing field is:a dream situation that in life never happens...a term used by losing teams to explain why they lost and how they could win...a crutch to change life...where people lose and win at everything...advantages will always exist...in sports, business, life...those that learn to accept and adjust will be winners...those who look for excuses will be losers...it really has nothing to do with public or private...it is a mindset...so can a open zone school...which by the way is a growing tend in this state

 

 

You have the same answer most private supporters do. You have to work harder to get better...and so on. To be the best...you have to play the best...and so on.

 

Anyone that says this should be for one class for all (no classifications). Why would you be upset with the multiplier?

Why would you be upset to be placed in the same class with aid schools? Why would you be upset to be grouped with 5a publics? All you have to do is work harder to compete...right? After all...that's the way business world is...life is...right?

[rick7425]

I agree with you that there are all sorts of ways that private schools can manipulate their inherent characteristics into athletic advantages. Namely, as you say, by compromising admissions standards for athletes...does it happen? I don't know. Maybe. I never have come across athletes at MBA, BA, or Ryan that I thought were notably different from the rest of the student body. The people in my experience I would label as the underachievers are the ones who don't participate in anything. They were (again in my experience) the ones underperforming academically. I don't know how some of them got into MBA.

 

brbb: It doesn't necessarily require compromising admissions standards. That was part of my point. A private school can admit athletically gifted kids with greater than random frequency simply by considering athletic ability as a part of the decisions it makes when choosing from among the qualified applicants it has. A zoned public school, on the other hand, doesn't get to make those choices (I agree that it is different in a magnet school or an open-zoned public school, as someone else suggested). Again, this ability to choose is offset to some extent by the limits of tuition -- some families can't afford private school, so those kids won't be in the applicant pool at Division I private schools. But those kids can be in the applicant pool at Division II schools.