What the heck is a "level playing field"

[rick7425]

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.

 

I think this is just a difference in semantics. The concept remains the same. It is not an economic issue. It is not that public schools want the poor kids and don't want private schools to get them. It is not a geographic issue in the sense of square miles, county lines, or state lines. These are all just different ways of identifying the root problem as some public school people see it, namely that private schools can draw from a larger pool of potential students than a zoned public school can. And when the barrier of tuition is reduced or eliminated, the pool of potential students for private schools becomes larger still. Once that pool is enlarged, in the view of some it becomes easier for that private school to fill its rolls with more gifted athletes. Whether you discuss it in terms of geography, economics, enrollment, or whatever, the issue is all about how enlarging a school's pool of potential athletes affects competition.

 

The concern about how financial aid affects athletic competition is not one that emanated solely from the public schools. Before there was Division II, there was the "quota rule," which limited the number of financial aid recipients who could participate for a given school in each sport. The public schools in TSSAA had nothing to do with development of the "quota rule." The "quota rule" was developed by private school leaders out of concern that some of the larger and more expensive private schools could use financial aid to attract gifted athletes who would otherwise attend smaller and less expensive private schools. In the mid-1990s, there were more forces at work that pushed TSSAA toward the creation of Division II than just the dissatisfaction of some public school folks (the folks who were actually pushing then for total separation of public and private schools). Another force was what had been a fairly consistent push for several years by some private school leaders to do away with financial aid quotas (the late headmaster at MBA, whose name I cannot now recall, was very articulate in his support for this).

 

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with people on the different sides of this debate. But people are so passionate about this that they sometimes overlook the facts or distort the other side's positions, and I really hate to see that sort of exchange driving the wedge deeper. That's why I've jumped in here to try to clarify a couple of points as I see them. You know, I really don't think the kids who play care nearly as much about this stuff as we adults do. None of them want to get their brains beat out game after game, but as long as they feel like they have a chance to be competitive, and as long as they have some good rivalry games on the schedule, I don't think the kids care too much who they play from one game to the next.

[Baldcoach]

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?

 

 

Antwan,

 

It doesn't necessarily follow that if some groupings or 'levelling devices' are not valid that all are not valid. Go back and read my post on what I think makes them ok or not. Just because some of them are blatantly biased and unfair doesn't mean that all of them are that way.

[Antwan]

Antwan,

 

It doesn't necessarily follow that if some groupings or 'levelling devices' are not valid that all are not valid. Go back and read my post on what I think makes them ok or not. Just because some of them are blatantly biased and unfair doesn't mean that all of them are that way.

 

 

Blatantly unfair and biased in your opinion...does not necessarily mean they ARE blatantly biased and unfair to all. I think you should know I am against the multiplier in it's current form. I do realize some schools don't have a good chance to compete. Most small privates...however...do have that chance in the future...if they so choose...because they are located in an urban area. It is an advantage...and so are open zones. That's my opinion.

 

I think a level playing field in not totally obtainable. It is not possible to have 55 or so equal schools with the same advantages and disadvantages...but you have to start somewhere. I think it is more possible to obtain closer to a level playing field with 55 schools than with 350 schools. Small schools simply cannot compete with schools 5 or 6 times their size...year in and year out. Of course...there are exceptions...but there are very few.

 

There has been an attempt to "level the playing field" by the tssaa. It is an ongoing process. I don't think most want to see more classes. I know I don't. I would like to see 3 public classes and 2 private classes. That would reduce the number of classes over all. If publics have open zones or tuition paying athletes...move them up one class. That would be the same as adding the multiplier we have now. They do have the same advantage as privates. Let publics and privates play in the regular season...as they do now.

[JaxMan]

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?

 

 

actually I never mentioned working harder, but it wouldn't hurt any program...I think if you look at my history you will see I acknowledge differences in rural public schools and privates...I think you will also see I have no problem with a multiplier...I have only stated that to be fair open zone schools, public or private should get the same one...my point had little to do with anything other than to say a totally level playing field is only a dream...all schools...public or private have advantages and disadvantages...some have littel affect on wins or losses...others have a bigger afffect...and to your final point...sure I have my thoughts (like everyone on this board) as to what is fair, but I can tell you my littel private school will play were ever we are put...5A...aid giving...this year we were afffected by the multiplier and had to move to 2A...we didn't once complain...we went to work and we had a great year...much better than most had expected...sorry if I hit a nerve...I really was just commenting on the unrealilty of a playing field ever really being level...

[Antwan]

actually I never mentioned working harder, but it wouldn't hurt any program...I think if you look at my history you will see I acknowledge differences in rural public schools and privates...I think you will also see I have no problem with a multiplier...I have only stated that to be fair open zone schools, public or private should get the same one...my point had little to do with anything other than to say a totally level playing field is only a dream...all schools...public or private have advantages and disadvantages...some have littel affect on wins or losses...others have a bigger afffect...and to your final point...sure I have my thoughts (like everyone on this board) as to what is fair, but I can tell you my littel private school will play were ever we are put...5A...aid giving...this year we were afffected by the multiplier and had to move to 2A...we didn't once complain...we went to work and we had a great year...much better than most had expected...sorry if I hit a nerve...I really was just commenting on the unrealilty of a playing field ever really being level...

 

 

Read my previous post.

[Bighurt]

. . . There has been an attempt to "level the playing field" by the tssaa. It is an ongoing process. I don't think most want to see more classes. I know I don't. I would like to see 3 public classes and 2 private classes. That would reduce the number of classes over all. If publics have open zones or tuition paying athletes...move them up one class. That would be the same as adding the multiplier we have now. They do have the same advantage as privates. Let publics and privates play in the regular season...as they do now.

 

I agree with most of what you posted. I don't think open zoning makes that much of a difference but that's just my opinion.

 

I am assuming that for playoff purposes there is a public school division and a private school division.

 

Having 3 classes in a public school division may be too few. I think the lowest class would cut off at an enrollment of 600 to 700 and that might be too wide a disparity from the smallest school to the largest. For example, you might have Red Boiling Springs at 200 competing with Waverly Central at 653.

 

I think having 2 classes in the private school division might not be entirely equitable to schools that are in the higher class enrollment-wise but don't provide financial aid. For example, you might have Goodpasture or Lipscomb competing against MBA and CBHS.

 

Again, just my opinion.

[Antwan]

I agree with most of what you posted. I don't think open zoning makes that much of a difference but that's just my opinion.

 

I am assuming that for playoff purposes there is a public school division and a private school division.

 

Having 3 classes in a public school division may be too few. I think the lowest class would cut off at an enrollment of 600 to 700 and that might be too wide a disparity from the smallest school to the largest. For example, you might have Red Boiling Springs at 200 competing with Waverly Central at 653.

 

I think having 2 classes in the private school division might not be entirely equitable to schools that are in the higher class enrollment-wise but don't provide financial aid. For example, you might have Goodpasture or Lipscomb competing against MBA and CBHS.

 

Again, just my opinion.

 

 

The private division would be aid or non-aid. In aid schools...I don't think the size of the school makes much difference.

 

I think 3 public classes would be enough. A 200 or so student school could compete with a 600 or so student school.

It would be difficult...but not unreasonable. You could make the middle and largest class bigger than the smallest class.

 

I don't think open zoning makes much if any difference in rural areas. I think it does make a difference in urban areas. I also think the larger the school...or class...the less difference it makes.

[rick7425]

I think having 2 classes in the private school division might not be entirely equitable to schools that are in the higher class enrollment-wise but don't provide financial aid. For example, you might have Goodpasture or Lipscomb competing against MBA and CBHS.

 

An interesting reminder that the "level playing field" issue as it relates to financial aid is not just a public/private issue.

[rick7425]

Antwan: I was having an earlier exchange on this board with Big Red Big Blue, and Bighurt's statement was seemingly pertinent to that. Some of the folks who continue to criticize TSSAA for the creation of Division II insist that financial aid does not provide advantages in athletics, it only provides a means for those of lesser means to attend private schools. But if it is recognized that financial aid does make a competitive difference between private schools because it broadens the pool of potential applicants, then it surely makes a difference between the Division II school and a public school that has no ability to admit students on a selective basis.

[KCHSCoach]

Again Public Schools have a de facto monopoly on students, public schools will get them unless parents pay extra (tax dollars already going to public schools), to get them into private schools, Public school kids get free books, free transportation, and in some cases free lunches. So quit crying about supposed private school advantages.

[Antwan]

Antwan: I was having an earlier exchange on this board with Big Red Big Blue, and Bighurt's statement was seemingly pertinent to that. Some of the folks who continue to criticize TSSAA for the creation of Division II insist that financial aid does not provide advantages in athletics, it only provides a means for those of lesser means to attend private schools. But if it is recognized that financial aid does make a competitive difference between private schools because it broadens the pool of potential applicants, then it surely makes a difference between the Division II school and a public school that has no ability to admit students on a selective basis.

Okay...thanks. I haven't read those posts. They're too long.

Again Public Schools have a de facto monopoly on students, public schools will get them unless parents pay extra (tax dollars already going to public schools), to get them into private schools, Public school kids get free books, free transportation, and in some cases free lunches. So quit crying about supposed private school advantages.

Yeah...that makes sense. BA has about 200 boys and they are always one of the best teams in the state. Nah...no advantage there.

[rick7425]

Okay...thanks. I haven't read those posts. They're too long.

 

Mine tend to be that way. That's another reason I probably ought to stay out of these discussions.