What the heck is a "level playing field"

[big red big blue]

here are the results from 1A for the 90s. I guess the numbers aren't as conclusive as I recall; probably ambiguous at best:

 

'90: Trousdale d. Bruceton Central

'91: FRA d. Peabody

'92: Oneida d. BGA

'93: Trousdale d. USJ

'94: South Pitt d. Lake County

'95: BGA d. Bruceton Central

'96: DCA d. St. Benedict

'97: Trousdale County d. Clarkesville Academy

'98: Trousdale d. USJ

'99: South Pitt d. Moore County

 

privates won 3 of 10 titles with 3 different schools. Publics won 7 titles with 3 different schools. of the 20 participants, I count 8 privates and 12 publics. The 8 private appearances were accounted for by 6 different schools. the 12 public appearances by 7 different schools.

 

I don't have any idea what percentage of 1A is made up of privates/publics. But an interesting statistic would be what percentage of the 1A privates appeared in the title game versus the same percentage of 1A publics.

[reaction]

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.

 

Wouldn't it kind of sound like punishment to Privates since it may not have even happend if no one would of complained? Kinda like that kid that gets you in trouble at school when he tells the teacher your chewing gum in class. You know me, I try and stay out of this public/private debate but I couldn't resist. /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

[emily777]

why not?

[Baldcoach]

here are the results from 1A for the 90s. I guess the numbers aren't as conclusive as I recall; probably ambiguous at best:

 

'90: Trousdale d. Bruceton Central

'91: FRA d. Peabody

'92: Oneida d. BGA

'93: Trousdale d. USJ

'94: South Pitt d. Lake County

'95: BGA d. Bruceton Central

'96: DCA d. St. Benedict

'97: Trousdale County d. Clarkesville Academy

'98: Trousdale d. USJ

'99: South Pitt d. Moore County

 

privates won 3 of 10 titles with 3 different schools. Publics won 7 titles with 3 different schools. of the 20 participants, I count 8 privates and 12 publics. The 8 private appearances were accounted for by 6 different schools. the 12 public appearances by 7 different schools.

 

I don't have any idea what percentage of 1A is made up of privates/publics. But an interesting statistic would be what percentage of the 1A privates appeared in the title game versus the same percentage of 1A publics.

 

 

Actually there are only 2 DI privates in the list (BGA is DII and always has been since the split). And I note that TC won 4 titles in the 90s. 4...which is more than ANY DI private in 1a ever won total. Yet Satterfield is the biggest advocate of a split...just makes you say 'hmmm'.

 

Also note that South Pitt won 2...so 2 publics won 6 of 10 titles in the 90s...would that not constitute domination? Since both have won another in the last 3 years ( and TC was out of 1a for the intervening time), together they have 8 titles in 17 years (5 titles in only 9 years of 1a play for TC...or a win better than every other year)...or almost half. Put any 3 of the DI privates together and you don't get the 8 that TC and S.Pitt have won. How, then, can it be said that the privates 'dominated' 1a??

[Antwan]

Actually there are only 2 DI privates in the list (BGA is DII and always has been since the split). And I note that TC won 4 titles in the 90s. 4...which is more than ANY DI private in 1a ever won total. Yet Satterfield is the biggest advocate of a split...just makes you say 'hmmm'.

 

Also note that South Pitt won 2...so 2 publics won 6 of 10 titles in the 90s...would that not constitute domination? Since both have won another in the last 3 years ( and TC was out of 1a for the intervening time), together they have 8 titles in 17 years (5 titles in only 9 years of 1a play for TC...or a win better than every other year)...or almost half. Put any 3 of the DI privates together and you don't get the 8 that TC and S.Pitt have won. How, then, can it be said that the privates 'dominated' 1a??

 

 

Again...you have to look at the previous classification period...not 20 or even 10 years ago. I also doubt TC or SP would have won their most recent titles if the multiplier had not been in affect. They definitely would have had a chance...but I don't think either would have beaten CPA or DCA.

[Antwan]

Wouldn't it kind of sound like punishment to Privates since it may not have even happend if no one would of complained? Kinda like that kid that gets you in trouble at school when he tells the teacher your chewing gum in class. You know me, I try and stay out of this public/private debate but I couldn't resist. /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

 

 

Actually...that kid would not be in trouble if he didn't chew that gum in the first place. /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

[Ole3putt]

here are the results from 1A for the 90s. I guess the numbers aren't as conclusive as I recall; probably ambiguous at best:

 

'90: Trousdale d. Bruceton Central

'91: FRA d. Peabody

'92: Oneida d. BGA

'93: Trousdale d. USJ

'94: South Pitt d. Lake County

'95: BGA d. Bruceton Central

'96: DCA d. St. Benedict

'97: Trousdale County d. Clarkesville Academy

'98: Trousdale d. USJ

'99: South Pitt d. Moore County

 

privates won 3 of 10 titles with 3 different schools. Publics won 7 titles with 3 different schools. of the 20 participants, I count 8 privates and 12 publics. The 8 private appearances were accounted for by 6 different schools. the 12 public appearances by 7 different schools.

 

I don't have any idea what percentage of 1A is made up of privates/publics. But an interesting statistic would be what percentage of the 1A privates appeared in the title game versus the same percentage of 1A publics.

 

 

Let me add what TC had to overcome in 90's during the state playoffs, just to get to those title games.

Can we see the trend that started to take place.. (I'm sure Satterfield did)

 

'90: Rnd.2 DCA / Rnd.4 FRA

'91: Played 0 privates (FRA Won Title)

'92: Played 0 privates (BGA Won Title)

'93: Played 0 privates (played USJ in Finals)

'94: Rnd.1 FC. / Rnd.3 BGA

'95: Rnd.1 CPA / Rnd.3 BGA (BGA Won Title)

'96: Rnd.1 Ezell Harding / Rnd.2 Knox Cath. / Rnd.3 DCA ( DCA won Title over St. Benedict) 2 privates.

'97: Rnd.1 DCA / Rnd.3 CPA / Finals: Clarksville Acad.

'98: Rnd.1 FRA / Rnd.2 FC / Rnd.3 CPA / Finals USJ

'99: Rnd.1 FRA / Rnd.2 Ezell Hard. / Rnd.3 CPA

lets add:

'00: Rnd.1 FC / Rnd.2 DCA / Rnd.3 CPA

[big red big blue]

Actually there are only 2 DI privates in the list (BGA is DII and always has been since the split). And I note that TC won 4 titles in the 90s. 4...which is more than ANY DI private in 1a ever won total. Yet Satterfield is the biggest advocate of a split...just makes you say 'hmmm'.

 

Also note that South Pitt won 2...so 2 publics won 6 of 10 titles in the 90s...would that not constitute domination? Since both have won another in the last 3 years ( and TC was out of 1a for the intervening time), together they have 8 titles in 17 years (5 titles in only 9 years of 1a play for TC...or a win better than every other year)...or almost half. Put any 3 of the DI privates together and you don't get the 8 that TC and S.Pitt have won. How, then, can it be said that the privates 'dominated' 1a??

 

 

dominated was a poor choice of words, because obviously it's not that clear cut. Putting the two sets of numbers together, from 1990 to 2004, there were 30 participants in the 1A title game. 17 were private; 13 were public. That is pretty overwhelming data given that private schools make up a distinct minority of 1A (around 20% according to Antwan). But again what strikes me is the number of different private schools that have appeared in the title game over that period versus the same for public.

 

Again, it is just my opinion, but I think MOST private schools of all sizes play over their enrollment numbers. I have spent some time around CPA over the years. There is no way...NO WAY...you can tell me that program has much in common with a rural public school with the same number of students. It has much more in common with MBA, Ensowrth, or BA. They have the commitment and resources to run a first class operation in every way. I think the small public schools also work hard and do the best they can; they just lack the resources--financial and otherwise--that come from being in a city.

 

I think the best option isn't a pure merit system or a multiplier but just a "common sense" approach. It isn't logical that CPA and Nashville Christian should be lumped together purely based on two characteristics--that they are private and have a similar number of students. The schools are basically night and day in the commitment they have made to athletics. At the same time, it isn't fair that rural public schools with limited resources should be forced to play against CPA. There should just be a commone sense test that says CPA has offset whatever enrollment disadvantage it has with facilities, coaching, etc., and needs to play up a class. To me, it should be based on their accomplishments (ala a merit system) because whether they are good at using them or not, they have clear advantages over their peers that anyone could figure out after 5 minutes on their campus.

[Bighurt]

Again...you have to look at the previous classification period...not 20 or even 10 years ago. I also doubt TC or SP would have won their most recent titles if the multiplier had not been in affect. They definitely would have had a chance...but I don't think either would have beaten CPA or DCA.

 

Trousdale County is 4-1 against CPA although they have not played since 2000 (CPA's only win). CPA has never played South Pitt.

[Antwan]

Trousdale County is 4-1 against CPA although they have not played since 2000 (CPA's only win). CPA has never played South Pitt.

 

 

I think CPA and SP would have been a good game this year. The last few years before that CPA would have killed them. Same with TC the last few years. It would have been no contest. In 2005 it would have been close.

[Ole3putt]

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.

 

Antwan, /thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" /> with that earlier post / novel written; I'm glad someone else read between the lines too...

[Baldcoach]

Again...you have to look at the previous classification period...not 20 or even 10 years ago. I also doubt TC or SP would have won their most recent titles if the multiplier had not been in affect. They definitely would have had a chance...but I don't think either would have beaten CPA or DCA.

 

 

I can tell you absolutely that South Pitt would have won this year. Not sure that they wouldn't have had a shot at Alcoa and Lipscomb. They were that good. Don't know about TC 3 years ago, but I can't think of any reason for you to assume they wouldn't have won. After all, they did all through the 90s and the only reason they didn't in the early 2000s was they were in 3a.

 

You see, just by assuming what you did you show that you automatically assume an advantage that isn't there. We have played CPA, DCA, Lipscomb and Goodpasture at their best, and S.Pitt this year was every bit as good as any of them have ever been.