Criteria used for classification

[Antwan]

Here are my thoughts on all of it, and probably my last post on this board for a while.

 

There are inherent limitations in every system like this. I think school size is the biggest one and I like a 4 or 5 class system to group schools with others their size. That is where I draw the line.

 

Look at this history of every action the T$$AA has taken in the last 10 years. School(s) win too much, and suddenly every rock is uncovered looking for a reason as to why and to qualify their success.

 

BA and friends were around for a long time, but it didn't matter until Rankin couldn't beat them in the Finals. Then somebody cried foul.

 

The smaller privates had been around for roughly 30 years and it was fine until they started winning too much, then somebody cried foul.

 

Now, you have a couple of open-zoned, tuition paying schools that had dominated. Nevermind they have been like this as long as I know, because they are winning too much now, everyone cries foul.

 

It's pretty much a socialist mindset IMO. No one can be too successful. If they are, look for how they have an advantage even if it may or may not be true, and make it harder on them to be successful. I'm sure most of the people who complain about a school winning too much are the same people who complain about the successful in life and probably accuse them of cheating to do that as well. Just basing that on what I have experienced, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

Oh yeah - pretty soon this whole debate will start again from scratch. The criers will eventually win and they will have aceieved their goal of athletic socialism. But, the other thing I have learned is that the successful will continue to work to be successful and will find ways to be successful again no matter the cirsumstance. The others....well, they continue to complain.

 

 

So...basically what you are saying is that for a team like Gordonsville (I picked them because they are in my county)

has to do to compete with BA on an equal basis is to work harder. Or...what do they have to do? How can they find a way to beat them year in and year out. They have basically the same enrollment. That's the circumstance I'm throwing out there. What's your solution?

[redandblack63]

Here are my thoughts on all of it, and probably my last post on this board for a while.

 

There are inherent limitations in every system like this. I think school size is the biggest one and I like a 4 or 5 class system to group schools with others their size. That is where I draw the line.

 

Look at this history of every action the T$$AA has taken in the last 10 years. School(s) win too much, and suddenly every rock is uncovered looking for a reason as to why and to qualify their success.

 

BA and friends were around for a long time, but it didn't matter until Rankin couldn't beat them in the Finals. Then somebody cried foul.

 

The smaller privates had been around for roughly 30 years and it was fine until they started winning too much, then somebody cried foul.

 

Now, you have a couple of open-zoned, tuition paying schools that had dominated. Nevermind they have been like this as long as I know, because they are winning too much now, everyone cries foul.

 

It's pretty much a socialist mindset IMO. No one can be too successful. If they are, look for how they have an advantage even if it may or may not be true, and make it harder on them to be successful. I'm sure most of the people who complain about a school winning too much are the same people who complain about the successful in life and probably accuse them of cheating to do that as well. Just basing that on what I have experienced, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

Oh yeah - pretty soon this whole debate will start again from scratch. The criers will eventually win and they will have aceieved their goal of athletic socialism. But, the other thing I have learned is that the successful will continue to work to be successful and will find ways to be successful again no matter the cirsumstance. The others....well, they continue to complain.

 

 

Believe it or not I must commend your post. Well put explanation Not that I agree with it all but certainly well thought out.

[redandblack63]

So...basically what you are saying is that for a team like Gordonsville (I picked them because they are in my county)

has to do to compete with BA on an equal basis is to work harder. Or...what do they have to do? How can they find a way to beat them year in and year out. They have basically the same enrollment. That's the circumstance I'm throwing out there. What's your solution?

 

 

Hard work is essential. I have never diminished success by saying they didn't work hard. Every team that wins on a high level regardless of tuition, private, open zone, public etc... they work hard. But it isn't the only factor.

1. Good Coaching

2. Committed players

3. Talented players

4. A couple of out of zone players sprinkled in the mix doesn't hurt.

 

I think most High School teams understand the importance of hard work. Some don't have the best of coaching, some don't have the talent, some don't have the advantage of tradition that brings in that occasional stud transfer that makes a difference.

 

I think good teams will continue to be successful. I am just concerned that the governing body makes sure everyone is playing by the same rules .

[Antwan]

Hard work is essential. I have never diminished success by saying they didn't work hard. Every team that wins on a high level regardless of tuition, private, open zone, public etc... they work hard. But it isn't the only factor.

1. Good Coaching

2. Committed players

3. Talented players

4. A couple of out of zone players sprinkled in the mix doesn't hurt.

 

I think most High School teams understand the importance of hard work. Some don't have the best of coaching, some don't have the talent, some don't have the advantage of tradition that brings in that occasional stud transfer that makes a difference.

 

I think good teams will continue to be successful. I am just concerned that the governing body makes sure everyone is playing by the same rules .

 

 

Yeah...that and about a million people to draw from doesn't hurt either.

 

Actually...they have all of the things you mentioned just as we do. The problem is neither of us have had a DI signee since 1974. The difference is #3. Rural schools don't have the players year in and year out. BA does.

Why is that? Last year we had 86 players on our roster. Gordonsville had 60. It's not because the students we have don't come out. You could substitute Alcoa for BA in the above scenario also. What do you think is the difference?

 

Good teams...as you put it...will continue to do well if they are in a reasonable classification system. Alcoa is a dominant 2a team right now. How many titles do you think they would have won under a one class system?

I can answer that for you. Nada.

[pressman]

The whole classification process is grouping teams with other teams they can compete with on a fairly equal basis.

I have said...and will say again...this is an ongoing process. Do you agree that aid giving privates have an advantage over non-aid giving privates? Do you agree that larger schools have an advantage over smaller schools? Do you agree that open zone publics have an advantage over closed zone publics in schools of equal size? Are 5a schools discriminated against because they are in a different class than 4a schools?

 

Of course...all of these questions have exceptions (potentially)...but as a rule...what are your answers to these questions?

 

As for my previous post...Solomon made this statement in his first paragraph.

If he actually believes this...then why have a class system at all? It appears he thinks every school has the potential to compete equally with any other team. Don't make excuses for losing to BA or Riverdale if you are a 1a public.

That's the way I read it.

 

You say "there's nothing wrong with a classification system as long as the classification system is OBJECTIVE."

Don't you mean...there's nothing wrong with a classification system as long as it suits baldy? Putting privates in their own class is no more subjective than separating 5a schools from 1a schools.

 

 

Great post!

[Indian]

BA and friends were around for a long time, but it didn't matter until Rankin couldn't beat them in the Finals. Then somebody cried foul.

 

It's because they weren't beating schools five and six times larger until then, even though they liked could have been through many of those years.

[big red big blue]

BA and friends were around for a long time, but it didn't matter until Rankin couldn't beat them in the Finals. Then somebody cried foul.

 

It's because they weren't beating schools five and six times larger until then, even though they liked could have been through many of those years.

 

 

It's interesting....Riverdale beats Baylor 49-0 in '94, and 21-7 in '95. But one loss to BA in the Clinic Bowl and all of a sudden financial aid granting private schools have "unfair advantages."

 

If numbers are the key driver, shouldn't the TSSAA be questionting how it is possible that 1400 student Smyrna has back-to-back 5A titles while competing against 2200-student Riverdale? Or what about 400-student Alcoa knocking off 500 all-male D2 private McCallie last year?

[Baldcoach]

You say "there's nothing wrong with a classification system as long as the classification system is OBJECTIVE."

Don't you mean...there's nothing wrong with a classification system as long as it suits baldy? Putting privates in their own class is no more subjective than separating 5a schools from 1a schools.

 

No, and you know that isn't the case. I am in favor of a merit system(if we have to try for the non-existent 'level playing field') because it is fair, which doesn't 'suit' me at all, or my school. It would definitely keep us in 2a and possibly move us to 3a with a good 2 consecutive seasons.

 

What's wrong is that the current system is completely subjective...it is set up by public school ADs who have subjectively decided that privates have advantages that are more 'advantageous' than public school advantages. But no one, not even you, can tell me which advantages the privates have that some publics don't have. Worse, when pinned down, everyone picks their pet peeve 'advantage' and explains why IT is the reason for the multiplier/split.

 

This is what happens when classifications are based on someone's OPINIONS of what is and isn't an advantage. It is what happens when classifications are subjective.

 

Classifying by school population is objective. Classifying by performance (a merit system) is also objective. Both use absolutely objective, measurable criteria to determine classification for ALL schools. A multiplier is subjective by its very nature. Thus the reason different states use different multipliers. Thus the reason some people say the multiplier isn't enough and some say it is too harsh. It is based on the opinions of a bunch of public school ADs on how much more advantageous private school "advantages" are than public school "advantages" are, and that makes it completely subjective. So is DII...because it is base on the same opinions, not objective and verifiable criteria.

 

A split seems objective, after all, you are basing it on objective criteria...public or private school. But the reasons seem subjective to me...again we are back to the same reasoning as that of the multiplier and DII.

 

I repeat an earlier challenge, not just to you but to any of the anti-private crowd. Give me the reason...the one that everyone for this split agrees upon. Explain how it applies only to privates and not publics. Explain objectively how it gives privates an advantage over publics that is greater than any public advantages over privates.

If you can do it I'll quit denouncing it as prejudice. Until then that's what it is.

[LSMFT]

This isn't directed toward a public-private debate, but why aren't all other sports divided into 5 classifications like football?

 

Why shouldn't there be state champions in 5 classes instead of just 3? If 3 classes are good for 95% of the sports why not have it in football?

[rick7425]

Classifying by school population is objective. Classifying by performance (a merit system) is also objective. Both use absolutely objective, measurable criteria to determine classification for ALL schools. A multiplier is subjective by its very nature. Thus the reason different states use different multipliers. Thus the reason some people say the multiplier isn't enough and some say it is too harsh. It is based on the opinions of a bunch of public school ADs on how much more advantageous private school "advantages" are than public school "advantages" are, and that makes it completely subjective. So is DII...because it is base on the same opinions, not objective and verifiable criteria.

 

A split seems objective, after all, you are basing it on objective criteria...public or private school. But the reasons seem subjective to me...again we are back to the same reasoning as that of the multiplier and DII.

 

I repeat an earlier challenge, not just to you but to any of the anti-private crowd. Give me the reason...the one that everyone for this split agrees upon. Explain how it applies only to privates and not publics. Explain objectively how it gives privates an advantage over publics that is greater than any public advantages over privates.

If you can do it I'll quit denouncing it as prejudice. Until then that's what it is.

 

What is the reason for classifying by school population? Is it because larger schools have more kids to pick from and therefore are likely to have more quality athletes or a greater frequency of outstanding athletes? Is this based on "objective and verifiable criteria," or is it just opinion?

 

Hypothetically, let's assume there are two zoned public schools, one with 300 students and the other with 600. If the line for classification based on school population fell between these two numbers, I take it you would view that as legitimate based on objective criteria.

 

Now let's assume we have two schools, one public with 300 zoned students, another private with 300 students. Because the private school is not limited by a geographic zone, it has 600 qualified applicants for its 300 spots. And in our hypothetical, the private school considers athletic ability or potential when evaluating applicants. Might not that private school's number of quality athletes and frequency of outstanding athletes tend to be more like that of a 600-student zoned public school than a 300-student zoned public school? If that is true, then for athletic competition, wouldn't separating these two 300 student schools be just as appropriate as separating the a 300 student zoned public school from a 600 student zoned public school, based on "school population"? And if that same private school gives financial aid and thereby broadens its pool of academically qualified potential students because those who otherwise could not afford it may now apply, and it thereby increases its number of qualified applicants to 750, might not its number of quality athletes and frequency of outstanding athletes then be more akin to the zoned public school that has 750 students?

 

Before you jump to any conclusions, understand that I am not a part of the "anti-private crowd" as you call it. I have a child who is a private school graduate and another who is currently a private school student-athlete. I don't like Division II, I don't like the Division I multiplier, and I profoundly hope there will not be a split. But I recognize that there are legitimate arguments to be made on all sides of these issues. I am not inclined to be dismissive of opinions that differ from mine based on an "objective/subjective" distinction that I am not sure really exists. I prefer to look at all sides fairly, and I hope those responsible for making the ultimate decisions for TSSAA -- people who by and large try to do the right thing and deserve a good deal more respect than they get on these message boards -- will do the same.

[Antwan]

You say "there's nothing wrong with a classification system as long as the classification system is OBJECTIVE."

Don't you mean...there's nothing wrong with a classification system as long as it suits baldy? Putting privates in their own class is no more subjective than separating 5a schools from 1a schools.

No, and you know that isn't the case. I am in favor of a merit system(if we have to try for the non-existent 'level playing field') because it is fair, which doesn't 'suit' me at all, or my school. It would definitely keep us in 2a and possibly move us to 3a with a good 2 consecutive seasons.

 

What's wrong is that the current system is completely subjective...it is set up by public school ADs who have subjectively decided that privates have advantages that are more 'advantageous' than public school advantages. But no one, not even you, can tell me which advantages the privates have that some publics don't have. Worse, when pinned down, everyone picks their pet peeve 'advantage' and explains why IT is the reason for the multiplier/split.

 

This is what happens when classifications are based on someone's OPINIONS of what is and isn't an advantage. It is what happens when classifications are subjective.

 

Classifying by school population is objective. Classifying by performance (a merit system) is also objective. Both use absolutely objective, measurable criteria to determine classification for ALL schools. A multiplier is subjective by its very nature. Thus the reason different states use different multipliers. Thus the reason some people say the multiplier isn't enough and some say it is too harsh. It is based on the opinions of a bunch of public school ADs on how much more advantageous private school "advantages" are than public school "advantages" are, and that makes it completely subjective. So is DII...because it is base on the same opinions, not objective and verifiable criteria.

 

A split seems objective, after all, you are basing it on objective criteria...public or private school. But the reasons seem subjective to me...again we are back to the same reasoning as that of the multiplier and DII.

 

I repeat an earlier challenge, not just to you but to any of the anti-private crowd. Give me the reason...the one that everyone for this split agrees upon. Explain how it applies only to privates and not publics. Explain objectively how it gives privates an advantage over publics that is greater than any public advantages over privates.

If you can do it I'll quit denouncing it as prejudice. Until then that's what it is.

 

 

For the 101st time...small privates have an advantage because they are almost exclusively in high population areas.

That is the advantage they have. You are correct that a few publics have that same advantage. I think that will be addressed in the next classification period. There's just not many publics that use that advantage. It seems just about all the small privates do.

 

I am no more anti-private than I am anti-4a or 5a. If we are to have a classification system...privates belong in their own class just as publics belong in their own classes.

[robjim]

Here are my thoughts on all of it, and probably my last post on this board for a while.

 

There are inherent limitations in every system like this. I think school size is the biggest one and I like a 4 or 5 class system to group schools with others their size. That is where I draw the line.

 

Look at this history of every action the T$$AA has taken in the last 10 years. School(s) win too much, and suddenly every rock is uncovered looking for a reason as to why and to qualify their success.

 

BA and friends were around for a long time, but it didn't matter until Rankin couldn't beat them in the Finals. Then somebody cried foul.

 

The smaller privates had been around for roughly 30 years and it was fine until they started winning too much, then somebody cried foul.

 

Now, you have a couple of open-zoned, tuition paying schools that had dominated. Nevermind they have been like this as long as I know, because they are winning too much now, everyone cries foul.

 

It's pretty much a socialist mindset IMO. No one can be too successful. If they are, look for how they have an advantage even if it may or may not be true, and make it harder on them to be successful. I'm sure most of the people who complain about a school winning too much are the same people who complain about the successful in life and probably accuse them of cheating to do that as well. Just basing that on what I have experienced, I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

Oh yeah - pretty soon this whole debate will start again from scratch. The criers will eventually win and they will have aceieved their goal of athletic socialism. But, the other thing I have learned is that the successful will continue to work to be successful and will find ways to be successful again no matter the cirsumstance. The others....well, they continue to complain.

 

 

 

Sol, you are my favorite poster, ah next to Antwan.

Ya'll have a great New Year.