What the heck is a "level playing field"

[Baldcoach]

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

 

 

I can plainly see the trend...TC whipped multiple privates regularly every year.

 

If the privates have an advantage, and TC whips them, what does that say about TC? If the privates have an advantage, and TC has a better record than ANY of them EVER have had...

 

My point is not that the privates did not get better as the 90s wore on into the 2000s. My point is that TC and SPitt and multiple other schools I could name are every bit as good or BETTER. If we are claiming the privates all have some mystical advantage (it changes from money to zone to motivation to admissions to urban area depending on who is doing the talking) that makes it unfair for publics to play them, and if we are basing that claim on how much the privates win, then it is logically inescapable to conclude that ANY public who has a better winning record than ALL the privates must have equal or greater advantages.

 

And to head of Antwan's latest attempt at justification, you don't only look at the last 4 years' records for reclassification IF you are considering punishing a whole group of schools by claiming they consistently dominate. 4 years isn't nearly enough time to back that claim up with. 10 years, maybe, but to show that what you are seeing isn't a temporary trend you probably need 15 or 20 years worth of data. The only problem is that when you include that data the picture becomes less clear...and it is hard to justify punishing 20% of the small schools in the TSSAA without very clear data.

 

But heck, I'll take 4 years worth of data. Show me any private in the last 4 years that is as good as the best publics. Not better than, just as good as. If you can't, then you can't justify a split, period.

[Antwan]

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.

 

 

I don't think so. I saw SP too. It would have been a good game with CPA and DCA. Alcoa would have waxed them.

[Antwan]

I can plainly see the trend...TC whipped multiple privates regularly every year.

 

If the privates have an advantage, and TC whips them, what does that say about TC? If the privates have an advantage, and TC has a better record than ANY of them EVER have had...

 

My point is not that the privates did not get better as the 90s wore on into the 2000s. My point is that TC and SPitt and multiple other schools I could name are every bit as good or BETTER. If we are claiming the privates all have some mystical advantage (it changes from money to zone to motivation to admissions to urban area depending on who is doing the talking) that makes it unfair for publics to play them, and if we are basing that claim on how much the privates win, then it is logically inescapable to conclude that ANY public who has a better winning record than ALL the privates must have equal or greater advantages.

 

And to head of Antwan's latest attempt at justification, you don't only look at the last 4 years' records for reclassification IF you are considering punishing a whole group of schools by claiming they consistently dominate. 4 years isn't nearly enough time to back that claim up with. 10 years, maybe, but to show that what you are seeing isn't a temporary trend you probably need 15 or 20 years worth of data. The only problem is that when you include that data the picture becomes less clear...and it is hard to justify punishing 20% of the small schools in the TSSAA without very clear data.

 

But heck, I'll take 4 years worth of data. Show me any private in the last 4 years that is as good as the best publics. Not better than, just as good as. If you can't, then you can't justify a split, period.

 

 

CPA and DCA were as good or better than any public their size. DCA mauled Tyner easily. SP beat them by 4 points. I don't usually like comparative scores...but that's really the only comparison. I think CPA was better than DCA.

 

For the 100th time...it is not punishment to classify teams. You should know I'm against the multiplier also.

It is not difficult to see why it was implemented.

 

Justification....what justification?

[Ole3putt]

I can plainly see the trend...TC whipped multiple privates regularly every year.

 

If the privates have an advantage, and TC whips them, what does that say about TC? If the privates have an advantage, and TC has a better record than ANY of them EVER have had...

 

My point is not that the privates did not get better as the 90s wore on into the 2000s. My point is that TC and SPitt and multiple other schools I could name are every bit as good or BETTER. If we are claiming the privates all have some mystical advantage (it changes from money to zone to motivation to admissions to urban area depending on who is doing the talking) that makes it unfair for publics to play them, and if we are basing that claim on how much the privates win, then it is logically inescapable to conclude that ANY public who has a better winning record than ALL the privates must have equal or greater advantages.

 

And to head of Antwan's latest attempt at justification, you don't only look at the last 4 years' records for reclassification IF you are considering punishing a whole group of schools by claiming they consistently dominate. 4 years isn't nearly enough time to back that claim up with. 10 years, maybe, but to show that what you are seeing isn't a temporary trend you probably need 15 or 20 years worth of data. The only problem is that when you include that data the picture becomes less clear...and it is hard to justify punishing 20% of the small schools in the TSSAA without very clear data.

 

But heck, I'll take 4 years worth of data. Show me any private in the last 4 years that is as good as the best publics. Not better than, just as good as. If you can't, then you can't justify a split, period.

 

 

I didn't post it to illistrate a winning trend on behalf of Trousdale Co. It is combined with both wins & losses during post season of that time. Also it points out the amount of privates that T.C was having to play throughout this time. which IMO it's a small area of illumination of privates, highlighting the oncoming progress of those that were continuing to grow and get better. I have nothing against having the ability to send a child to their choosing, as long as it doesn't interfere with the guidlines that have been put into place for both public & private, to keep it on the everchanging playing feild of athletics.

 

Your question "If the privates have an advantage. What does that say about T.C" ? Trousedale Co... (East of Sumner Co, South of Macon Co, West of Smith Co, and North of Wilson Co.). Tucked along side of these counties as the smallest county. AREA WISE in the state of Tn. Currently (1) small public school system covering the entire county. If we want to compete. We have to overcome and adapt with what we have, just to continue compete. again as long as it's kept on somewhat of a level playing field... Sure we've had success over the years, but I guess that gives you the justification and excuse to use Trousdale Co. as your example of an advantage we've had, when so called punishing privates; just because of the winning record.

[Baldcoach]

I didn't post it to illistrate a winning trend on behalf of Trousdale Co. It is combined with both wins & losses during post season of that time. Also it points out the amount of privates that T.C was having to play throughout this time. which IMO it's a small area of illumination of privates, highlighting the oncoming progress of those that were continuing to grow and get better. I have nothing against having the ability to send a child to their choosing, as long as it doesn't interfere with the guidlines that have been put into place for both public & private, to keep it on the everchanging playing feild of athletics.

 

Your question "If the privates have an advantage. What does that say about T.C" ? Trousedale Co... (East of Sumner Co, South of Macon Co, West of Smith Co, and North of Wilson Co.). Tucked along side of these counties as the smallest county. AREA WISE in the state of Tn. Currently (1) small public school system covering the entire county. If we want to compete. We have to overcome and adapt with what we have, just to continue compete. again as long as it's kept on somewhat of a level playing field... Sure we've had success over the years, but I guess that gives you the justification and excuse to use Trousdale Co. as your example of an advantage we've had, when so called punishing privates; just because of the winning record.

 

 

3putt,

 

I admire any good program. TC is a great one. My point is this...if you are saying the privates have an advantage because of their record, and TC has a better record than any private, what does that say?

 

It says one of 2 things. Either TC has greater advantages, or record doesn't necessarily equate to advantage. Either way any argument against the small privates based on their record is negated. In fact, TC isn't the only public school with a better record than all the small privates. I admire them all...public and private. Because I know that every school has advantages and disadvantages, and to play at a championship level requires additional work and effort from everyone involved. But unlike many public supporters I don't look for some mystical set of advantages that TC or SP or Alcoa or Fulton has that makes them better than everyone else, and I especially don't look for things they are doing that might be illegal. I assume they are working thier butts off and that success breeds success.

 

What ticks me off is when people say "oh, yeah, the great publics don't have advantages, they overcome huge odds to be the great teams they are but the privates have so many advanatages it just isn't as hard for them." Baloney. Either success = advantage or not. It can't = advantage for privates that succeed and not publics. Everyone who plays at a championship level overcomes a lot of disadvantages AND has a lot of advantages. Nature of the beast. But only the privates are punished for it.

 

p.s. I especially have a problem with coaches who have legendary programs claiming someone else who has some success has some sort of mystical advantage(s). I don't care who they are or where they come from, that is just plain old hypocrisy.

[supersteve17]

So...you are for one class for all.

 

 

Yes. And do away with football playoffs while you're at it (I've delineated my reasons in the past). That has been my stance pretty consistently for the last few years. I know it won't happen, but neither will the ever-elusive "level playing field."

[Antwan]

Yes. And do away with football playoffs while you're at it (I've delineated my reasons in the past). That has been my stance pretty consistently for the last few years. I know it won't happen, but neither will the ever-elusive "level playing field."

 

 

I know that is your stance....and I respect that. There are very few states that don't have playoffs these days. I am for a playoff system of some kind. I think my stance is clear on that point too. What bothers me are the ones that want a playoff system slanted toward their advantage.

[supersteve17]

I know that is your stance....and I respect that. There are very few states that don't have playoffs these days. I am for a playoff system of some kind. I think my stance is clear on that point too. What bothers me are the ones that want a playoff system slanted toward their advantage.

 

 

I am not so naive as to believe that we will ever go back to a no-playoff system. I agree that schools or groups of schools that seek a playoff system slanted towards their advantage is bothersome. What I don't know or can't figure out is what "advantages" are truly "advantageous" and what advantages are used as scapegoats or excuses for inadequacies. By the very nature of the case, aren't some schools going to have inescapable advantages over others each year? Those advantaged ones may change from year to year, but they will always exist, won't they? Am I missing something?

[Antwan]

I am not so naive as to believe that we will ever go back to a no-playoff system. I agree that schools or groups of schools that seek a playoff system slanted towards their advantage is bothersome. What I don't know or can't figure out is what "advantages" are truly "advantageous" and what advantages are used as scapegoats or excuses for inadequacies. By the very nature of the case, aren't some schools going to have inescapable advantages over others each year? Those advantaged ones may change from year to year, but they will always exist, won't they? Am I missing something?

 

 

I think the goal is to group schools into relatively equal classes. This is an ongoing process. The attempt is made every 4 years to accomplish that goal. I am for grouping schools in classes as even as possible...and also doing that with as few classes as possible.

 

You can use any excuse you want...but a small rural public has very little chance to compete with small privates and also large publics. You can use the Hoosier mentality and do away with classes...as you said...or you can divide schools so several can compete. Some schools will compete no matter what (ala BA). Some schools will not compete well in any class (ala RBS).

[oknative]

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

 

You make this statement sound like DLHS, GP, Alcoa and Maryville are all impacted the same by the multiplier. The only commonality is that all four teams get to field players from outside of what a typical district would be. Yet Alcoa and Maryville aren't touched by the limitations of a multiplier as GP and DLHS are.

 

Alcoa has distinguished itself because it now gets to play teams, that without the multiplier, would be 1a. Lets see -the multiplier went into effect in 2005, and no one other than Alcoa has won the state 2A title since.

 

I truly believe the multiplier did fix some of the problems associated with the small 1a public schools, but its tilted the balance of fairness in 2A to an open-zone school like Alcoa . How many consecutive titles at Alcoa will it take before someone realizes fairness or a level-playing field can't be reached until the privates and open zoned schools like Alcoa all have the same llimitations applied equally.

[reaction]

I think the goal is to group schools into relatively equal classes. This is an ongoing process. The attempt is made every 4 years to accomplish that goal. I am for grouping schools in classes as even as possible...and also doing that with as few classes as possible.

 

You can use any excuse you want...but a small rural public has very little chance to compete with small privates and also large publics. You can use the Hoosier mentality and do away with classes...as you said...or you can divide schools so several can compete. Some schools will compete no matter what (ala BA). Some schools will not compete well in any class (ala RBS).

 

Why don't we kick out the small rural publics sine they can't compete with anyone but themselves? /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" /> Make a class for them some how...

[Indian]

Believe it or not, it's been discussed, not being kicked out but forming a different organization. It was talked about on here a bit early last year, here are some of the posts, combined:

 

There are about 150 public schools in A and AA, in the rural areas or at least outside the largest state cities. I can certainly see them forming their own group. It could have about 75 each in two classes for everything but football, and three in football. Maybe some of the Class AAA schools would be interested, too. Or teams could play who they wanted without concrete districts or regions, and playoffs could be determined after that.

 

Some might not want to jump, but if their neighbors did who would they play if they stayed. The largest schools probably wouldn't move, I'm guessing, but some might. I'm probably missing some that are rural, left in some that aren't really too rural, but this should be somewhat accurate. Some of them are far more rural than others on the list. It would be a help financially, too many of the schools have district games with city schools that literally bring less than 10 fans/parents to basketball games.

 

I"m speculating on which teams would jump, some might feel comfortable competing with urban and metro schools. I don't think such a group would invite any private schools.

 

These were schools listed on the TSSAA site, some might not have all sports and some of the enrollments may have changed a lot since then.

 

Clinch 32

Hermitage Springs 90

Frank Hughes 108

Hampshire 112

Big Sandy 143

Clarksburg 150

Oakdale 163

Gleason 166

Greenfield 169

Santa Fe 171

Sale Creek 179

Sunbright 179

Washburn 187

Pickett County 192

Red Boiling Springs 201

Bradford 208

Copper Basin 208

Cloudland 218

Huntland 222

Hollow Rock-Bruceton 224

Greenback 226

Coalfield 227

Clarkrange 231

Lookout Valley 233

Middle College 241

South Fulton 244

South Pittsburg 247

Clay Co.249

Van Buren 254

Lake Co. 258

Midway 268

Cornersville 281

Moore Co. 286

Harriman 301

Eagleville 310

Hancock County 318

Collinwood 324

Westside 326

Culleoka 328

McEwen 329

Community 334

Perry County 336

Monterey 339

Wayne County 339

White House Heritage 341

Scotts Hill 343

Whitwell 343

Gordonsville 345

Watertown 347

Unaka 348

Jellico 353

West Carroll 354

Jo Byrns 356

Middleton 356

McKenzie 382

Halls 383

Mt Pleasant 385

Union City 391

North Greene 400

Forrest 402

Huntingdon 407

Peabody 407

Summertown 411

Cosby 411

Trousdale 414

Cascade 422

Oneida

Houston Co.425

Wartburg 425

Dresden 432

Humboldt 433

East Robertson 436

Richland 441

Adamsville 442

Hampton 443

Decatur Co. Riverside 451

Rockwood 455

Marion Co. 478

Upperman 479

Oliver Springs 492

Jackson County 494

South Greene 497

Westmoreland 507

Meigs County 513

Tellico Plains 519

Loretto 526

Bledsoe Co. 532

Lewis County 553

Chuckey-Doak 569

Polk Co. 569

Happy Valley 576

Milan 577

Sequatchie 578

Gatlinburg-Pittman 588

Camden 605

West Greene 608

Sweetwater 611

Cumberland Gap 618

Westview 627

Harpeth 627

Smith Co. 644

Waverly 653

Stewart Co.661

Grundy Co. 676

York 668

Cheatham Co. 672

Cannon Co. 674

Loudon 675

Kingston 677

Johnson Co. 683

Chester Co. 706

Scott 741

Gibson Co. 754

Unicoi Co. 754

Pigeon Forge 769

DeKalb County 771

Elizabethton 774

McNairy 775

Crockett County 778

Marshall County 779

McMinn Central 802

Claiborne County 804

Rutledge 814

Macon Co. 820

Greenbrier 821

White House 827

Bolivar 865

Spring Hill 875

Obion County 888

Union Co. 888

Livingston Academy 889

Ripley 900

Lexington 903

Stone 920

Montgomery Central 927

Sequoyah 943

Dyersburg 948

Giles Co. 967

Springfield 977

Dyer County 1,014

Portland 1,049

Seymour 1,079

Hickman Co. 1,108

Lawrence Co. 1,110

Volunteer 1,125

Cocke Co.1,142

Hardin Co. 1,159

Cherokee 1,160

Clinton 1,160

Shelbyville 1,172

Tennessee 1,178

Lenoir City 1,183

Tullahoma 1,189

White Co. 1,205

Daniel Boone 1,229

Henry County 1,338

Campbell Co.1,362

McMinn County 1,363

David Crockett 1,390

Rhea County 1,398

Dickson Co. 1,436

Columbia 1,464

Franklin County 1,498

Lincoln Co.1,552

Coffee County 1,597

Sevier Co. 1,640

Franklin High School 1,715

Warren County 1,802

Cumberland Co. 1,994 (doesn't have the numbers lost to the new Stone High School)

Cookeville 2,004

Jefferson Co. 2,047

 

There would be about 50 each in a three-class football system with these schools. If Jefferson, McMinn County, Cookeville and those types did not join, I think two classes could be used. In basketball there would be nearly 60 in three classes or about 90 each in a two-class group.

 

Around Chattanooga, districts in basketball and other non-football sports might include

A: Whitwell, Lookout Valley, Sale Creek, South Pittsburg, Copper Basin, Richard Hardy

AA: Marion County, Bledsoe County, Sequatchie, Grundy County, Tellico Plains, Meigs County, Polk County, Sweetwater (or split these with the first four in one group and the other four in the second group)

AAA: McMinn Central, Stone, Sequoyah, Cumberland County, Rhea County, McMinn County

 

Football would probably be similar, Marion and McMinn Central might drop in football to replace schools that don't have that sport such as Hardy and Sale Creek.