What the heck is a "level playing field"

[BDURHAM]

Laz

 

That is a real easy read! Reminds me of some college

assingment reading many years ago.

 

I have heard someone has submitted a proposal for a total

split between the public and private schools. Wonder if it

will have legs?

 

stan,

 

well, that is kind of a rough description.

but there is a lot more going on than that.

there is one paper i think you would enjoy and find informative:

 

"cognitive biases potentially affecting judgement of global risks"

by eliezer yudkowsky

 

it includes the definition:

"the systematic experimental study of reproducable errors of human reasoning,

and what these errors reveal about underlying mental processes..."

 

i checked and you can google it up by entering the name of the paper.

 

while not designed as an introduction to the discipline itself,

it is written in plain language and i think you'll find it a good starting point.

(and it only takes a few minutes to read. it's about 20 pages long)

i warn you; you might have a hard time stopping, once you get started.

this is fascinating stuff and there is a lot out there.

[big red big blue]

I think we are headed for a total split and two separate organizations. The non-aid private schools have to leave the possibility of forming a separate organization out there as leverage for creating an equitable solution if/when the vote is cast that forces them all into D2 (which, good point Rick--seems ridiculous that D2 was created first to solve the "distortion" of financial aid, but now will be a catch-all for private schools in general). If the TSSAA repeats what it did in our case, i.e., just tosses everyone into D2 and then says "you're on your own," with no help scheduling or preserving some semblance of normalcy, then the idea of a separate organization will get some legs. It had some proponents at the last classification discussion. The TSSAA would have to weigh the idea of losing that many dues-paying members versus keeping the most vocal complainers appeased.

 

Ulimately, I think the most motivated split proponents won't accept compulsory games with the privates in the regular season. It would be a small sacrifice to accept (one that certainly teams like Riverdale, Brentwood High, etc. refused to make when they got their wish with D2), but these coaches/administrators could avoid the "who's better" discussion as long as the privates were out of sight, out of mind. Having to play them every year would make that impossible.

[lazarus]

"That is a real easy read! Reminds me of some college

assingment reading many years ago."

 

even tho it had nothing to do with sports,

it does make you think about these debates, huh?

a fun read, but not a confidence builder as far as the ability of humans to reason.

 

 

 

"I was hoping some of my comments and questions could prompt one to see things from a different perspective."

 

ah, so human.

we are always asking of others what we are unwilling to do ourselves.

 

 

 

"I have heard someone has submitted a proposal for a total

split between the public and private schools. Wonder if it

will have legs?"

 

dont know if it will have legs, but the thing seems to have immortality.

it's been popping up since classifications were invented.

is it just me, or was football more fun BEFORE the playoffs?

[SwamiSays]

"That is a real easy read! Reminds me of some college

assingment reading many years ago."

 

even tho it had nothing to do with sports,

it does make you think about these debates, huh?

a fun read, but not a confidence builder as far as the ability of humans to reason.

"I was hoping some of my comments and questions could prompt one to see things from a different perspective."

 

ah, so human.

we are always asking of others what we are unwilling to do ourselves.

"I have heard someone has submitted a proposal for a total

split between the public and private schools. Wonder if it

will have legs?"

 

dont know if it will have legs, but the thing seems to have immortality.

it's been popping up since classifications were invented.

is it just me, or was football more fun BEFORE the playoffs?

 

 

 

Football was WAY more fun before the playoffs. The good old days. I miss em

[bud]

Taco Bell.

[BuckLateral]

I think we are headed for a total split and two separate organizations. The non-aid private schools have to leave the possibility of forming a separate organization out there as leverage for creating an equitable solution if/when the vote is cast that forces them all into D2 (which, good point Rick--seems ridiculous that D2 was created first to solve the "distortion" of financial aid, but now will be a catch-all for private schools in general). If the TSSAA repeats what it did in our case, i.e., just tosses everyone into D2 and then says "you're on your own," with no help scheduling or preserving some semblance of normalcy, then the idea of a separate organization will get some legs. It had some proponents at the last classification discussion. The TSSAA would have to weigh the idea of losing that many dues-paying members versus keeping the most vocal complainers appeased.

 

Ulimately, I think the most motivated split proponents won't accept compulsory games with the privates in the regular season. It would be a small sacrifice to accept (one that certainly teams like Riverdale, Brentwood High, etc. refused to make when they got their wish with D2), but these coaches/administrators could avoid the "who's better" discussion as long as the privates were out of sight, out of mind. Having to play them every year would make that impossible.

 

 

big red big blue:

 

In a January 2 article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, in an answer to the question "What is the likelihood of a complete public-private split and is the multiplier working?", Ronnie Carter gave the following answer:

 

"We really don't see the cry for the complete split like we did before the multiplier. A complete split would mean redefining Division II or rewriting our bylaws. Right now the way our bylaws are written, schools choose to either not give financial aid or placed in D-II. The only thing I can say for sure right now is that I don't see us going back to having everyone together but as it is now, we won't see a complete change either.

 

"There were nine schools that were bumped up by the multiplier. Most of the feedback I've received is that the multiplier hasn't worked and they want to go back the way it was."

 

I have seen Mr. Carter before say that he does not believe that the TSSAA will see a complete split between public and privates. Consistent with what he says in the above article, it is my understanding that a complete split would require amending the bylaws of the TSSAA, which can only be done by a vote of the legislative council----the board of control cannot do this. The last time this proposal was put to a vote before the legislative council was in December, 2003 when the proposal to change the by-laws to read " all public schools shall play in Division I and all public schools shall play in Division II' was denied by a vote of 5-4. The legislative council meets only twice a year, in December and March. So the next time this could come up for a vote in this school year-----and prior to August 2008 when independent schools must elect whether to go D-I or D-II for the 2009-2013 classification period-----is next month.

 

Given Mr. Carter's most recent statement, on what basis or information are you and the other posters under this topic who have said we are headed for a total split relying. Is anyone aware of whether there is or will be a proposal before the legislative council in March for a complete split? Or is this just a gut feeling / personal opinion that you have . I'm not trying to be adverse to or critical of you and the others who have made this comment or take a position one way or the other. With the upcoming legislative council meeting, I'm just curious to find out if there is information out there you guys have that would contradict what Mr. Carter is saying. If so, then the upcoming council meeting could be pretty important in terms of this topic.

[Antwan]

big red big blue:

 

In a January 2 article in the Chattanooga Times Free Press, in an answer to the question "What is the likelihood of a complete public-private split and is the multiplier working?", Ronnie Carter gave the following answer:

 

"We really don't see the cry for the complete split like we did before the multiplier. A complete split would mean redefining Division II or rewriting our bylaws. Right now the way our bylaws are written, schools choose to either not give financial aid or placed in D-II. The only thing I can say for sure right now is that I don't see us going back to having everyone together but as it is now, we won't see a complete change either.

 

"There were nine schools that were bumped up by the multiplier. Most of the feedback I've received is that the multiplier hasn't worked and they want to go back the way it was."

 

I have seen Mr. Carter before say that he does not believe that the TSSAA will see a complete split between public and privates. Consistent with what he says in the above article, it is my understanding that a complete split would require amending the bylaws of the TSSAA, which can only be done by a vote of the legislative council----the board of control cannot do this. The last time this proposal was put to a vote before the legislative council was in December, 2003 when the proposal to change the by-laws to read " all public schools shall play in Division I and all public schools shall play in Division II' was denied by a vote of 5-4. The legislative council meets only twice a year, in December and March. So the next time this could come up for a vote in this school year-----and prior to August 2008 when independent schools must elect whether to go D-I or D-II for the 2009-2013 classification period-----is next month.

 

Given Mr. Carter's most recent statement, on what basis or information are you and the other posters under this topic who have said we are headed for a total split relying. Is anyone aware of whether there is or will be a proposal before the legislative council in March for a complete split? Or is this just a gut feeling / personal opinion that you have . I'm not trying to be adverse to or critical of you and the others who have made this comment or take a position one way or the other. With the upcoming legislative council meeting, I'm just curious to find out if there is information out there you guys have that would contradict what Mr. Carter is saying. If so, then the upcoming council meeting could be pretty important in terms of this topic.

 

 

I don't see a complete split happening in the next reclassification period. I saw those comments by Ronnie Carter too. It may come up again in the next 4 years. I would think it would depend on how this upcoming 4 years goes. I do expect open zone or the urban/rural thing to come up this time. What will be changed...who's to say? It will be discussed. Mr. Carter said that too.

[big red big blue]

Given Mr. Carter's most recent statement, on what basis or information are you and the other posters under this topic who have said we are headed for a total split relying. Is anyone aware of whether there is or will be a proposal before the legislative council in March for a complete split? Or is this just a gut feeling / personal opinion that you have . I'm not trying to be adverse to or critical of you and the others who have made this comment or take a position one way or the other. With the upcoming legislative council meeting, I'm just curious to find out if there is information out there you guys have that would contradict what Mr. Carter is saying. If so, then the upcoming council meeting could be pretty important in terms of this topic.

 

 

It is certainly all my opinion and not based on any sort of inside information. My understanding of that 5-4 vote is that an overwhelming number of the TSSAA membership was in favor of a complete split when it came to a vote, and the legislative council actually "defied" its wishes with its vote. My memory is that RC lobbied very hard for the members of the council to not vote for a complete split. I recall a lot of the rank and file TSSAA members complaining very loudly about the wishes of the majority not being honored by the legislative council. We posted a bunch of links to the Jackson, TN, paper on here at some point with coverage.

 

I really don't know what will happen if this is put to a vote again...but the emotions around it still seem pretty raw to me. I haven't seen a lot of people saying "we finally got it right with the multiplier, and I'm satisfied with what we have." Voting to keep the current D1 structure as it is actually requires that the membership vote against its self-interest. What incentive do public school leaders have to keep privates in? This isn't like the D2 vote, where the privates were consistently the biggest gates for the publics, and there were economic factors at stake. By choosing to keep privates in D1, they are making their own lives harder, even with the multiplier. I suspect that it will be too hard for publics to resist voting out a block of schools that impede their success.

 

But that 5-4 vote last time leads me to think that a lot of people really do see beyond their own immediate self-interests and consider the big picture. It is unfortunate that no one had the same perspective when D2 was considered.

[BDURHAM]

Laz,

 

I don't read all these posts, and I have a poor memory.

Didn't you state that the multiplier was working?

 

 

"The multiplier didn??™t cause any real changes. It wasn??™t necessary,??? Carter said. ???I said at the time that if you moved nine teams up, then there were nine other teams that would move down.???

 

Article from Chattanoogie:http://www.tfponline.com/news/2008/feb/29/tssaa-could-end-multiplier/

[OLD PIRATE]

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"...

 

Old Pirate says you are obviously a private coach-supporter, well, OP wonders if you "ever" coach or played for a small public school? That said, just curious where?

[lazarus]

"I don't read all these posts, and I have a poor memory.

Didn't you state that the multiplier was working?"

 

i believe i said something to the effect that the results so far were within reasonable parameters.

i still feel that way.

it isnt perfect, there are some losers on the private side, and some on the public side.

but overall, things seem reasonable competitive this way.

 

a merit system would still be a better solution.

 

 

"The multiplier didn??™t cause any real changes. It wasn??™t necessary,??? Carter said. ???I said at the time that if you moved nine teams up, then there were nine other teams that would move down.???

 

i will be darned if i can understand what he means by this.

if he means competitively, it certainly had an effect.

a 65 or 70% winning percentage is a lot different than 95%.

 

if he means it didnt eliminate all complaints,

does anyone think we'll ever eliminate all complaints?

eliminate the multiplier and go back to where we were,

and i think there will be trouble.

[BDURHAM]

Laz,

 

That is what I thought you would say. Thanks for responding.

 

There are many, many public schools that want a full split.

Dropping the multiplier will only increase the debate and

potential action to create a split -- in my opinion.

 

"I don't read all these posts, and I have a poor memory.

Didn't you state that the multiplier was working?"

 

i believe i said something to the effect that the results so far were within reasonable parameters.

i still feel that way.

it isnt perfect, there are some losers on the private side, and some on the public side.

but overall, things seem reasonable competitive this way.

 

a merit system would still be a better solution.

"The multiplier didn??™t cause any real changes. It wasn??™t necessary,??? Carter said. ???I said at the time that if you moved nine teams up, then there were nine other teams that would move down.???

 

i will be darned if i can understand what he means by this.

if he means competitively, it certainly had an effect.

a 65 or 70% winning percentage is a lot different than 95%.

 

if he means it didnt eliminate all complaints,

does anyone think we'll ever eliminate all complaints?

eliminate the multiplier and go back to where we were,

and i think there will be trouble.