What the heck is a "level playing field"

[rick7425]

I agree that Nashville privates would have no problem scheduling. I could see where Boyd and the Jackson privates would have more trouble scheduling region games due to travel. Those could offset that by playing local public schools in the regular season. They do that anyway now.

 

Seems a bit unrealistic to me. In football, TSSAA rules require all the teams in the region to play each other in the regular season. In the other sports, regular season competition within districts and regions is not mandated, but it is scheduled as a practical matter because it makes sense and facilitates seeding of the postseason tournaments. Without TSSAA rules or tournament seeding to prompt them, it is hard to imagine that the same publics that want to move all the privates into DII would nonetheless be happy to schedule regular season games with those privates. After all, who wants to schedule a game with a school that you feel has "unfair advantages"?

[Antwan]

Seems a bit unrealistic to me. In football, TSSAA rules require all the teams in the region to play each other in the regular season. In the other sports, regular season competition within districts and regions is not mandated, but it is scheduled as a practical matter because it makes sense and facilitates seeding of the postseason tournaments. Without TSSAA rules or tournament seeding to prompt them, it is hard to imagine that the same publics that want to move all the privates into DII would nonetheless be happy to schedule regular season games with those privates. After all, who wants to schedule a game with a school that you feel has "unfair advantages"?

 

 

Look at this year's schedule to answer your own question. Publics are playing privates in every class. Publics would be more likely to schedule privates that are not in their own class. Some don't want to play any out of region teams in their own class because they could play them again in the playoffs.

[Indian]

I agree that Nashville privates would have no problem scheduling. I could see where Boyd and the Jackson privates would have more trouble scheduling region games due to travel. Those could offset that by playing local public schools in the regular season. They do that anyway now.

 

 

Jackson area region: Carroll Academy, Jackson Christian, Trinity Christian, Fayette Academy, Jackson University School

 

Fayette might seem a little out of the way but they're already in the Region 8 in Division I 1A with Trinity.

 

Chattanooga area region: Chattanooga Grace, Silverdale Academy, Temple, Boyd-Buchanan, Chattanooga Christian, David Brainerd

 

On paper that one looks the best of any, all within probably 15 minutes of each other, lots of old rivalries and a couple of new ones. Hamilton Heights will probably join the TSSAA in a couple of years and could be added for everything but football and maybe eventually football. I have been told by coaches of teams that play the small church schools those schools would consider joining the TSSAA but up until the last couple of years would have had to play a Baylor or McCallie in basketball, with a 50 or 75-student enrollment.

 

Here are the other potential regions. I would not be surprised to see things end up close to this and as was said plenty of times, there should be few complaints especially about travel or facing teams over the small privates' capabilities. Some may not have all sports.

 

Knoxville Grace, Knoxville Christian, CAK, J Frank White, King??™s Academy

 

Boyd-Christian, St. Andrew's Sewanee, Columbia Academy, Zion Christian, Webb, Middle Tennessee Christian

 

Lighthouse Christian, First Assembly, Rossville Christian, Tipton-Rosemark, St. George's

 

SBEC, Immaculate Conception, Memphis Catholic, Lausanne, Elliston Baptist, Bishop Byrne

 

Division II Class AA could have three regions, Knoxville-Chattanooga, Nashville and Memphis, with teams such as Knoxville Catholic, Notre Dame, Lipscomb, possibly in the mix depending on enrollment cutoffs. It would help the teams in that class, too.

[PBandJ]

Seems a bit unrealistic to me. In football, TSSAA rules require all the teams in the region to play each other in the regular season. In the other sports, regular season competition within districts and regions is not mandated, but it is scheduled as a practical matter because it makes sense and facilitates seeding of the postseason tournaments. Without TSSAA rules or tournament seeding to prompt them, it is hard to imagine that the same publics that want to move all the privates into DII would nonetheless be happy to schedule regular season games with those privates. After all, who wants to schedule a game with a school that you feel has "unfair advantages"?

 

I completely agree. There were a few teams that ventured out and scheduled some privates this year - and it pretty much backfired across the board on the publics. The VAST majority of the public vs. private games are region mandated. After that - all the rest would be onsies and twosies.

 

Alcoa actually runs into the same issue. They find themselves having to schedule teams that require good amounts of travel (Spring Hill and White House this year) and/or D2 privates (McCallie last year). No one locally wants to play them.

[Bighurt]

I can't see any unfairness about placing Goodpasture, Boyd-Buchanan, USJ and similar sized current Division I private schools in Division II, in a class with the current small-class Division II teams such as BGA. It still gets brought up time to time by ADs and principals but those school would not be in the same class as MBA or McCallie.

 

Ah, there is the rub. D2 was created for schools that provide financial aid. The D1 private schools cannot give financial aid to any athletes. You (correct me if I am putting words in your mouth) say that D2 can be split in to financial aid and non financial aid. I don't see what that does except create fewer team in a region/districtand more scheduling problems. JMHO

[rick7425]

If the justification for DII in the first place was financial aid, then how is it fair to the DI privates to dissolve that differentiation once all are in DII and just go back to enrollment-based classifications within DII?

 

It is sad to hear those who are just looking for an easier path to championship glory rationalize their way into banishing a small handful of successful programs (along with all the other privates) that stand in their way. Sort of like the "separate but equal" argument for high school sports. I wouldn't bet that this sort of thinking will end with complete separation of public and private schools. Once the DI privates are out of the way, then we'll have to figure out what to do with the magnets. And once they're gone, next will come open-zoned systems like Memphis. Somewhere along the way, we'll have to divide further based on rural/urban differences.

 

Every loss can be rationalized by pointing to some mystical "advantage" that is labeled "unfair." Of course, those who bemoan their "disadvantages" the loudest usually avoid invitations to truly analyze all the respective "advantages" and "disadvantages" to see how it really balances out. For competiton "victims" in this public/private debate, it must be a little disquieting to admit that things like tuition costs and academic standards for admission and retention may actually be disadvantages for private schools (see, e.g., Vanderbilt University versus the eleven state universities in the SEC). It is a little difficult to explain how the purportedly large pool of potential applicants really has any effect when you consider all the other school choices and options available to that large pool, all the barriers (financial and academic) the kids in that pool must confront, and the absence of any evidence that private schools are making admissions decisions based on athletic ability. It's hard to admit that successful programs are often marked by things like better coaching, school leaders who do better jobs of motivating kids, harder off-season work by kids, greater commitment by kids, and greater parental involvement and interest, because to admit that those are difference-makers is to admit that perhaps some schools just do a better job with what they have rather than winning based on this mysterious "unfair advantage."

 

I've got an idea. After we get the privates out of the way (who, by the way, may wonder how public school administrators should continue to make and enforce rules applicable to private schools, if private school athletics are so incredibly different that they must be banished to an entirely separate division simply because they are private), then let's take the 300 or so publics that are left and divide them into 10 classifications of 30 schools each. Each classification can have a watered-down state championship. We may have to destroy a lot of traditional rivalries and revamp the way the schools do things, but what the heck -- if it's so good that it's okay to force the privates into a similar setup, then the publics shouldn't mind the same thing for themselves. And just think how much easier it will be to win championships with so many of them.

[Antwan]

If the justification for DII in the first place was financial aid, then how is it fair to the DI privates to dissolve that differentiation once all are in DII and just go back to enrollment-based classifications within DII?

 

It is sad to hear those who are just looking for an easier path to championship glory rationalize their way into banishing a small handful of successful programs (along with all the other privates) that stand in their way. Sort of like the "separate but equal" argument for high school sports. I wouldn't bet that this sort of thinking will end with complete separation of public and private schools. Once the DI privates are out of the way, then we'll have to figure out what to do with the magnets. And once they're gone, next will come open-zoned systems like Memphis. Somewhere along the way, we'll have to divide further based on rural/urban differences.

 

Every loss can be rationalized by pointing to some mystical "advantage" that is labeled "unfair." Of course, those who bemoan their "disadvantages" the loudest usually avoid invitations to truly analyze all the respective "advantages" and "disadvantages" to see how it really balances out. For competiton "victims" in this public/private debate, it must be a little disquieting to admit that things like tuition costs and academic standards for admission and retention may actually be disadvantages for private schools (see, e.g., Vanderbilt University versus the eleven state universities in the SEC). It is a little difficult to explain how the purportedly large pool of potential applicants really has any effect when you consider all the other school choices and options available to that large pool, all the barriers (financial and academic) the kids in that pool must confront, and the absence of any evidence that private schools are making admissions decisions based on athletic ability. It's hard to admit that successful programs are often marked by things like better coaching, school leaders who do better jobs of motivating kids, harder off-season work by kids, greater commitment by kids, and greater parental involvement and interest, because to admit that those are difference-makers is to admit that perhaps some schools just do a better job with what they have rather than winning based on this mysterious "unfair advantage."

 

I've got an idea. After we get the privates out of the way (who, by the way, may wonder how public school administrators should continue to make and enforce rules applicable to private schools, if private school athletics are so incredibly different that they must be banished to an entirely separate division simply because they are private), then let's take the 300 or so publics that are left and divide them into 10 classifications of 30 schools each. Each classification can have a watered-down state championship. We may have to destroy a lot of traditional rivalries and revamp the way the schools do things, but what the heck -- if it's so good that it's okay to force the privates into a similar setup, then the publics shouldn't mind the same thing for themselves. And just think how much easier it will be to win championships with so many of them.

 

 

Gee...same old mumbo jumbo. Every public supporter is not for more classes. I am not for more classes. I am for less myself. Let's divide publics into 3 classes equal classes with no option to move up. Let's divide privates into 2 classes (aid and non-aid). As for magnets and open zone publics...multiply them by 1.75 or so. Give magnets the option of being in DI or DII non-aid. If publics elect to close their zones...they are not multiplied. Use bus routes for zoning purposes.

[Antwan]

I completely agree. There were a few teams that ventured out and scheduled some privates this year - and it pretty much backfired across the board on the publics. The VAST majority of the public vs. private games are region mandated. After that - all the rest would be onsies and twosies.

 

Alcoa actually runs into the same issue. They find themselves having to schedule teams that require good amounts of travel (Spring Hill and White House this year) and/or D2 privates (McCallie last year). No one locally wants to play them.

 

 

You are wrong about that. Just about every private that wants to play publics can. Look at just about any of them...especially DI privates.

[Indian]

Ah, there is the rub. D2 was created for schools that provide financial aid. The D1 private schools cannot give financial aid to any athletes. You (correct me if I am putting words in your mouth) say that D2 can be split in to financial aid and non financial aid. I don't see what that does except create fewer team in a region/districtand more scheduling problems. JMHO

 

 

 

It was wrong to separate them on that basis, when it left in Goodpasture and the rest. It made Riverdale and the rest of the 4A and 5A schools happy. I don't think financial aid would put BGA and the current small Division II schools on a higher competition level than Goodpasture, FRA, Boyd-Buchanan, CAK, actually I think some of the current Division I privates would be stronger than most any small school in that divsion. If there's no difference or the non-aid teams are on the average, better, why not combine them unless that's a reason offered to avoid placement into Division II.

 

I can't see any administrator from a Goodpasture, for example, honestly making the claim his school wouldn't be able to compete in a Division II, Class A. The small class should be include aid and non-aid schools, plus a Goodpasture would be allowed to give some aid if available from time to time, without worrying if they're breaking a Division I rule.

 

I know Notre Dame had to stop giving some financial aid when they moved back to Division I, I never heard if those students were grandfathered in or just had to leave if they couldn't come up with tuition. A big part of the reason for moving to Division I was travel, again with everyone in Division II that wouldn't be an issue until the postseason.

[lazarus]

(laz,

Would you agree with this statement:

"The vast majority of public school administrators and coaches do not

believe private schools belong in the same classification with public

schools.")

 

yes, i believe that is a true statement.

 

(No matter what the numbers say, many people believe that there is an

unfair advantage held by the privates. Put privates in 4A and 5A and

WW III will break out.)

 

i'd say that is accurate as well.

 

(Who is "BC"?)

 

balled coach.......

 

now, would you agree with this statement:

 

the arguments made on either side of the public-private debate

offer views of reality that are grossly distorted by personal interest,

and prove little beyond the validity of the theories of psychological heuristics.

[rick7425]

Gee...same old mumbo jumbo. Every public supporter is not for more classes. I am not for more classes. I am for less myself. Let's divide publics into 3 classes equal classes with no option to move up. Let's divide privates into 2 classes (aid and non-aid). As for magnets and open zone publics...multiply them by 1.75 or so. Give magnets the option of being in DI or DII non-aid. If publics elect to close their zones...they are not multiplied. Use bus routes for zoning purposes.

 

I agree with you, fewer classes are better. My proposal for 10 public school classes was a facetious suggestion. But in your haste to defend what you support for the public schools, perhaps you don't see the inconsistency that I see in your proposal. While you laud the idea of only a few large classes for the public schools, your classification scheme would leave about 65 private schools in two small classes. Why is it that larger classes are better for the publics, but smaller ones are okay for the privates?

 

While we're at it, here are a few statements that I think are true:

 

1. In some instances, parents of an athletically gifted child move into a particular public school zone so that their child can attend that school for athletic reasons.

 

2. The price of tuition is a barrier to private school enrollment.

 

3. Private schools require admission exams, zoned public schools do not.

 

4. The academic requirements for retention in many private schools are more rigorous than they are in many public schools.

 

5. Most private schools are located in or around metropolitan areas where they compete with many other private schools, zoned public schools, and magnet schools for students.

 

6. In the Nashville area, many families move to Sumner County or Williamson County so that their children can attend public schools that they believe are superior to the Metro Nashville schools.

 

7. Grades K through 6 are the grades when the vast majority of kids attending private schools initially enroll in those schools.

 

8. In general, schools (both public and private) do not recruit children for athletic purposes, although individual instances of recruiting do happen on occasion.

 

9. In general, private DI schools do not make admission decisions based on athletic ability or prowess.

 

In light of these things that I believe to be truths, I still keep returning to the question I asked weeks ago on this board -- if a DI private school that doesn't recruit or base admissions on athletic prowess has 300 students, and a public school has 300 students, where is the inherent "advantage" that is "unfair"?

 

Oh, never mind, this is just more of my "mumbo jumbo." I'm sure that somewhere along the way, someone has authoritatively declared what the real "unfair advantage" is; and it couldn't possibly be that things like coaching, hard work, commitment, and good fortune make any difference when it comes to winning and losing in sports.

[Antwan]

I agree with you, fewer classes are better. My proposal for 10 public school classes was a facetious suggestion. But in your haste to defend what you support for the public schools, perhaps you don't see the inconsistency that I see in your proposal. While you laud the idea of only a few large classes for the public schools, your classification scheme would leave about 65 private schools in two small classes. Why is it that larger classes are better for the publics, but smaller ones are okay for the privates?

 

While we're at it, here are a few statements that I think are true:

 

1. In some instances, parents of an athletically gifted child move into a particular public school zone so that their child can attend that school for athletic reasons.

 

2. The price of tuition is a barrier to private school enrollment.

 

3. Private schools require admission exams, zoned public schools do not.

 

4. The academic requirements for retention in many private schools are more rigorous than they are in many public schools.

 

5. Most private schools are located in or around metropolitan areas where they compete with many other private schools, zoned public schools, and magnet schools for students.

 

6. In the Nashville area, many families move to Sumner County or Williamson County so that their children can attend public schools that they believe are superior to the Metro Nashville schools.

 

7. Grades K through 6 are the grades when the vast majority of kids attending private schools initially enroll in those schools.

 

8. In general, schools (both public and private) do not recruit children for athletic purposes, although individual instances of recruiting do happen on occasion.

 

9. In general, private DI schools do not make admission decisions based on athletic ability or prowess.

 

In light of these things that I believe to be truths, I still keep returning to the question I asked weeks ago on this board -- if a DI private school that doesn't recruit or base admissions on athletic prowess has 300 students, and a public school has 300 students, where is the inherent "advantage" that is "unfair"?

 

Oh, never mind, this is just more of my "mumbo jumbo." I'm sure that somewhere along the way, someone has authoritatively declared what the real "unfair advantage" is; and it couldn't possibly be that things like coaching, hard work, commitment, and good fortune make any difference when it comes to winning and losing in sports.

 

 

Gee...the number of schools in each of the private classes would be based on how many schools there are. That would also be the case in the 3 public classes. Heck...didn't we have just 7 schools a couple of year ago in the highest DII class?

 

Whatever the reason...privates of the same enrollment win more than publics. I think population base is the reason. Others think a much higher level of participation is the reason. The point is...they do. It is no more fair to put privates in the same class as publics than it is to put 4a schools in the same class as 2a schools...or 1a schools in the same class as 3a schools. Some 3a schools might lose to some 1a schools...but as a whole...they should not be in the same class.