What the heck is a "level playing field"

[Antwan]

Ok,

 

I have a question...which privates are 'dominating' 1a, 2a, or 3a?

 

I noticed that you said the privates, as if we are all dominating those classes. Can you explain what you meant?

 

I was gonna ask what 1a private right now is anywhere near as good as TC or South Pitt. I don't need to mention Maryville or Alcoa or Fulton...we all know about them (the fact that you tried to negate them only shows how strong an argument they are).

 

But you and I know that last year you guys were the second best team in the state in 2a...you made Alcoa sweat in the semi-final game. They rolled over GP in the final. And the year before that Tyner was the second best team in 2a...same situation. So there are 2 publics in 2a other than Alcoa that could have beaten any private in the last 2 years.

 

I bet I could prove East Tennessee domination statistically in 2a and 3a and 4a much more easily than private domination. Are we splitting East Tennessee too?

 

You see that the whole "privates dominate" idea is only viable if you beg the question? If you look at the actual statistics most of the truly dominating teams in 1a, 2a, and 3a are public...and from East Tennessee. But no one seems to claim that East Tennessee public schools should have a multiplier or be split. Why is that?

 

 

Privates won the 1a title every year from 2000-2004. During the same period...privates finished runners-up every year except in 2001 (Cloudland). Why is that? For 5 straight years a different private school (actually CPA won 2) won the 1a title. Only about 20% (if that) of 1a was private schools. In 2a from 2000-2004 David Lipscomb or Goodpasture was in the title game 3 of those 5 years. They won two of those between them. They were the only 2a privates at the time. They are both still winning even though David Lipscomb moved up a class.

 

2000 1a was won by CPA...USJ runners-up

2001 1a was won by Ezell...Cloudland runners-up

2002 1a was won by CPA...Boyd runners-up

2003 1a was won by Boyd...DCA runners-up

2004 1a was won by DCA...Boyd runners-up

 

That's 9 out of 10 privates in title game.

 

2000 2a was won by Alcoa...Union City runners-up

2001 2a was won by Goodpasture...Cloudland runners-up

2002 2a was won by David Lipscomb...Mitchell runners-up

2003 2a was won by Huntingdon...David Lipscomb runners-up

2004 2a was won by Alcoa...Huntingdon runners-up

 

That's 3 out of 10 privates in title game even though there were only 2 privates in 2a

 

Since the multiplier let's see how privates have done.

 

2005 1a was won by Trousdale...Union City runners-up

2006 1a was won by JCS...FCS runners-up

2007 1a was won by SP...McKenzie runners-up

 

That's 2 out of 6 in title game.

 

2005-2007 2a was won by Alcoa...Goodpasture runners-up

 

That's 3 out of 6 in title game.

 

2005 3a was won by LA...David Lipscomb runners-up

2006 3a was won by Fulton...David Lipscomb runners-up

2007 3a was won by David Lipscomb...Fulton runners-up

 

That's 3 out of 6 in title game. There are only a few privates in 3a.

[reaction]

Nothing like waking up on a Saturday catching up on some Private/Public debate. /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

 

Lets see, what the heck is a level playing field? I'll have to come back to that question, and when I do, it will be correct because I am never wrong.

 

By the way, I think some multiplier needs to be put on Appy State. I mean they have won 3 national titles in a row. They need to be multiplied to Division 1. They have an unfair advantage of having Armanti Edwards at QB. I mean that is just flat out wrong for anyone that has to play them. Other 1 AA colleges need to come together and cry foul on Mr. Edwards! /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

[VolunteerGeneral]

Privates won the 1a title every year from 2000-2004. During the same period...privates finished runners-up every year except in 2001 (Cloudland). Why is that? For 5 straight years a different private school (actually CPA won 2) won the 1a title. Only about 20% (if that) of 1a was private schools. In 2a from 2000-2004 David Lipscomb or Goodpasture was in the title game 3 of those 5 years. They won two of those between them. They were the only 2a privates at the time. They are both still winning even though David Lipscomb moved up a class.

 

2000 1a was won by CPA...USJ runners-up

2001 1a was won by Ezell...Cloudland runners-up

2002 1a was won by CPA...Boyd runners-up

2003 1a was won by Boyd...DCA runners-up

2004 1a was won by DCA...Boyd runners-up

 

That's 9 out of 10 privates in title game.

 

2000 2a was won by Alcoa...Union City runners-up

2001 2a was won by Goodpasture...Cloudland runners-up

2002 2a was won by David Lipscomb...Mitchell runners-up

2003 2a was won by Huntingdon...David Lipscomb runners-up

2004 2a was won by Alcoa...Huntingdon runners-up

 

That's 3 out of 10 privates in title game even though there were only 2 privates in 2a

 

Since the multiplier let's see how privates have done.

 

2005 1a was won by Trousdale...Union City runners-up

2006 1a was won by JCS...FCS runners-up

2007 1a was won by SP...McKenzie runners-up

 

That's 2 out of 6 in title game.

 

2005-2007 2a was won by Alcoa...Goodpasture runners-up

 

That's 3 out of 6 in title game.

 

2005 3a was won by LA...David Lipscomb runners-up

2006 3a was won by Fulton...David Lipscomb runners-up

2007 3a was won by David Lipscomb...Fulton runners-up

 

That's 3 out of 6 in title game. There are only a few privates in 3a.

 

 

Anwan...I don`t think you answered his question. He asked which private schools have been dominate. I don`t see any evidence of a private school being dominate. From 2000-2004 (5 years) I didn`t see any team that appeared in the championship game more than twice. There was only one team that won two titles in that time and that was Alcoa.

 

You might make a case for Lipscomb since they have appeared in 5 title games since 2000, but they only won 2. Alcoa on the other hand has also appeared in 5 title games since then but they have won 5. My common sense tells me that Alcoa has been more dominant than any school you have listed. Did I miss something?

 

Now what I do see is a case that having open zones may be an advantage. That is why you might see several different private schools on your list, but not one of them has been what I would call dominant. Certainly none of them have been on the level of dominance that Alcoa has been.

[Antwan]

Anwan...I don`t think you answered his question. He asked which private schools have been dominate. I don`t see any evidence of a private school being dominate. From 2000-2004 (5 years) I didn`t see any team that appeared in the championship game more than twice. There was only one team that won two titles in that time and that was Alcoa.

 

You might make a case for Lipscomb since they have appeared in 5 title games since 2000, but they only won 2. Alcoa on the other hand has also appeared in 5 title games since then but they have won 5. My common sense tells me that Alcoa has been more dominant than any school you have listed. Did I miss something?

 

Now what I do see is a case that having open zones may be an advantage. That is why you might see several different private schools on your list, but not one of them has been what I would call dominant. Certainly none of them have been on the level of dominance that Alcoa has been.

 

 

I agree. There is a common thread between all the schools I did list that were in 1a. They were all small privates in urban areas. I think that's the point. If only 1 had won all of those titles...you could look at other factors more. Alcoa is a unique school. I am still not sure why they have had all of the DI athletes they have in the last several years. How many of those athletes were out of zone athletes? I really don't know. I know the Summers kid lived in Knoxville.

 

As far as appearances Lipscomb and Fulton have been right there near Alcoa. Lipscomb is in 3a. I think their advantage is less.

[Antwan]

Nothing like waking up on a Saturday catching up on some Private/Public debate. /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

 

Lets see, what the heck is a level playing field? I'll have to come back to that question, and when I do, it will be correct because I am never wrong.

 

By the way, I think some multiplier needs to be put on Appy State. I mean they have won 3 national titles in a row. They need to be multiplied to Division 1. They have an unfair advantage of having Armanti Edwards at QB. I mean that is just flat out wrong for anyone that has to play them. Other 1 AA colleges need to come together and cry foul on Mr. Edwards! /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

 

 

r...I am anxiously waiting for you to clarify the level playing field. /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

[big red big blue]

I have to agree with Antwan here. The evidence from 1A from over the years is pretty compelling. I don't know what percentage the private schools in 1A made up, but they won a big-time disproportionate number of the titles. And it wasn't the equivalent of arguing that likewise, Alcoa and Maryville have claimed a disproportionate # of titles in their respective divisions...it was different privates year after year winning the titles and appearing in the title game. I think the multiplier was definitely justified there, based on the evidence.

 

I think post-multiplier, DLHS and Goodpasture are two really good teams who have distinguished themselves much like Alcoa and Maryville have.

[Baldcoach]

I have to agree with Antwan here. The evidence from 1A from over the years is pretty compelling. I don't know what percentage the private schools in 1A made up, but they won a big-time disproportionate number of the titles. And it wasn't the equivalent of arguing that likewise, Alcoa and Maryville have claimed a disproportionate # of titles in their respective divisions...it was different privates year after year winning the titles and appearing in the title game. I think the multiplier was definitely justified there, based on the evidence.I think post-multiplier, DLHS and Goodpasture are two really good teams who have distinguished themselves much like Alcoa and Maryville have.

If you only look at the first 5 years of the 21st century then you are right about the D1 privates dominating...all 4 of them. The problem is that most of the small privates who you see in those games had been playing football since the mid-late 70s. Where were they then? You know what Twain said...there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. 5 years is a pretty short time to check and could be a glitch. In fact, Trousdale has more 1a state titles over the last 25 years than any of the 4 (possible exception DCA) who were good in the early 2000s. So does South Pitt. So does Alcoa (more than any 3 combined in fact...3 in a row in the early 80s). I find the idea that a multiplier was 'justified' somewhat offensive. What, exactly justified it? Winning or the fact that it was small privates winning? If the first then there are other schools that should have been hit. The second is sheer discrimination...publics can win and win a lot but privates can't. Why is that? Even some on this thread have essentially said that if a private wins another title in 1a or 2a the split is inevitable...actually threatening puishment for any program that might be good enough to win. How is that justified?Keep in mind that Trousdale and South Pitt have more titles than any of the 4 who appeared in the early 2000s, and they are STILL WINNING THEM. No one has threatened them...in fact, Satterfield is the biggest whiner of all about how dominating the small privates are...while he puts up the most titles of any 1a sized school in the state.All I am asking for is equal treatment. If it is a crime to win then punish all the winners. If not then quit punishing the small privates for winning. If we really want a level field we have to treat the same circumstances the same way for all schools. A merit system works that way. If we are going to say that winning a lot is undesirable then let's say it for everyone and institute a merit system so all the winners work their way upward to mediocrity and all the losers work their way downward to mediocrity. Then we can have mediocre Football all over, but at least we will have been fair. If winning is desirable then leave the winning schools alone except at the clinics...find them there and figure out what they are doing to kick your butts and then do it.

I have to agree with Antwan here. The evidence from 1A from over the years is pretty compelling. I don't know what percentage the private schools in 1A made up, but they won a big-time disproportionate number of the titles. And it wasn't the equivalent of arguing that likewise, Alcoa and Maryville have claimed a disproportionate # of titles in their respective divisions...it was different privates year after year winning the titles and appearing in the title game. I think the multiplier was definitely justified there, based on the evidence.I think post-multiplier, DLHS and Goodpasture are two really good teams who have distinguished themselves much like Alcoa and Maryville have.

If you only look at the first 5 years of the 21st century then you are right about the D1 privates dominating...all 4 of them. The problem is that most of the small privates who you see in those games had been playing football since the mid-late 70s. Where were they then? You know what Twain said...there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. 5 years is a pretty short time to check and could be a glitch. In fact, Trousdale has more 1a state titles over the last 25 years than any of the 4 (possible exception DCA) who were good in the early 2000s. So does South Pitt. So does Alcoa (more than any 3 combined in fact...3 in a row in the early 80s). I find the idea that a multiplier was 'justified' somewhat offensive. What, exactly justified it? Winning or the fact that it was small privates winning? If the first then there are other schools that should have been hit. The second is sheer discrimination...publics can win and win a lot but privates can't. Why is that? Even some on this thread have essentially said that if a private wins another title in 1a or 2a the split is inevitable...actually threatening puishment for any program that might be good enough to win. How is that justified?Keep in mind that Trousdale and South Pitt have more titles than any of the 4 who appeared in the early 2000s, and they are STILL WINNING THEM. No one has threatened them...in fact, Satterfield is the biggest whiner of all about how dominating the small privates are...while he puts up the most titles of any 1a sized school in the state.All I am asking for is equal treatment. If it is a crime to win then punish all the winners. If not then quit punishing the small privates for winning. If we really want a level field we have to treat the same circumstances the same way for all schools. A merit system works that way. If we are going to say that winning a lot is undesirable then let's say it for everyone and institute a merit system so all the winners work their way upward to mediocrity and all the losers work their way downward to mediocrity. Then we can have mediocre Football all over, but at least we will have been fair. If winning is desirable then leave the winning schools alone except at the clinics...find them there and figure out what they are doing to kick your butts and then do it.

[Antwan]

If you only look at the first 5 years of the 21st century then you are right about the D1 privates dominating...all 4 of them. The problem is that most of the small privates who you see in those games had been playing football since the mid-late 70s. Where were they then? You know what Twain said...there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. 5 years is a pretty short time to check and could be a glitch. In fact, Trousdale has more 1a state titles over the last 25 years than any of the 4 (possible exception DCA) who were good in the early 2000s. So does South Pitt. So does Alcoa (more than any 3 combined in fact...3 in a row in the early 80s). I find the idea that a multiplier was 'justified' somewhat offensive. What, exactly justified it? Winning or the fact that it was small privates winning? If the first then there are other schools that should have been hit. The second is sheer discrimination...publics can win and win a lot but privates can't. Why is that? Even some on this thread have essentially said that if a private wins another title in 1a or 2a the split is inevitable...actually threatening puishment for any program that might be good enough to win. How is that justified?Keep in mind that Trousdale and South Pitt have more titles than any of the 4 who appeared in the early 2000s, and they are STILL WINNING THEM. No one has threatened them...in fact, Satterfield is the biggest whiner of all about how dominating the small privates are...while he puts up the most titles of any 1a sized school in the state.All I am asking for is equal treatment. If it is a crime to win then punish all the winners. If not then quit punishing the small privates for winning. If we really want a level field we have to treat the same circumstances the same way for all schools. A merit system works that way. If we are going to say that winning a lot is undesirable then let's say it for everyone and institute a merit system so all the winners work their way upward to mediocrity and all the losers work their way downward to mediocrity. Then we can have mediocre Football all over, but at least we will have been fair. If winning is desirable then leave the winning schools alone except at the clinics...find them there and figure out what they are doing to kick your butts and then do it.If you only look at the first 5 years of the 21st century then you are right about the D1 privates dominating...all 4 of them. The problem is that most of the small privates who you see in those games had been playing football since the mid-late 70s. Where were they then? You know what Twain said...there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics. 5 years is a pretty short time to check and could be a glitch. In fact, Trousdale has more 1a state titles over the last 25 years than any of the 4 (possible exception DCA) who were good in the early 2000s. So does South Pitt. So does Alcoa (more than any 3 combined in fact...3 in a row in the early 80s). I find the idea that a multiplier was 'justified' somewhat offensive. What, exactly justified it? Winning or the fact that it was small privates winning? If the first then there are other schools that should have been hit. The second is sheer discrimination...publics can win and win a lot but privates can't. Why is that? Even some on this thread have essentially said that if a private wins another title in 1a or 2a the split is inevitable...actually threatening puishment for any program that might be good enough to win. How is that justified?Keep in mind that Trousdale and South Pitt have more titles than any of the 4 who appeared in the early 2000s, and they are STILL WINNING THEM. No one has threatened them...in fact, Satterfield is the biggest whiner of all about how dominating the small privates are...while he puts up the most titles of any 1a sized school in the state.All I am asking for is equal treatment. If it is a crime to win then punish all the winners. If not then quit punishing the small privates for winning. If we really want a level field we have to treat the same circumstances the same way for all schools. A merit system works that way. If we are going to say that winning a lot is undesirable then let's say it for everyone and institute a merit system so all the winners work their way upward to mediocrity and all the losers work their way downward to mediocrity. Then we can have mediocre Football all over, but at least we will have been fair. If winning is desirable then leave the winning schools alone except at the clinics...find them there and figure out what they are doing to kick your butts and then do it.

 

 

Like I said before...it's an ongoing thing to reclassify. You have to look at the previous 4 year period...not 20 years ago.

 

It's not difficult to see why the multiplier was implemented. I agree that some public schools have that same advantage. They are few...but there are some. I think that will be addressed soon.

 

When Satterfield complains about privates...it's whining. When you complain about the multiplier or open zone publics...it's injustice or punishment.

[MVM]

Like I said before...it's an ongoing thing to reclassify. You have to look at the previous 4 year period...not 20 years ago.

 

It's not difficult to see why the multiplier was implemented. I agree that some public schools have that same advantage. They are few...but there are some. I think that will be addressed soon.

 

When Satterfield complains about privates...it's whining. When you complain about the multiplier or open zone publics...it's injustice or punishment.

 

/thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" />

[reaction]

Without the "whining" do you think the multiplier would of happend on the TSSAA's own thinking? I don't know so I'm just asking.

[big red big blue]

sometime on this board a long time ago, Supersteve posted the stats....they go back much farther than this decade. 1A privates over the course of the 90s and up until the multiplier won a disproportionate number of titles. And again, it was a different group year after year doing it. That in my opinion translates into an inherent advantage at some level. Is it manifested in 100% of the group? No. But it's enough to be compelling, at least in my view.

[Antwan]

Without the "whining" do you think the multiplier would of happend on the TSSAA's own thinking? I don't know so I'm just asking.

 

 

I would think it would not have happened if nobody had complained. I think the multiplier was a compromise. If you remember a large majority of public schools voted for a complete split. I also think the overwhelming dominance of the 1a playoffs by different privates from 2000-2004 had a large hand in it too.