Could a public school go DII?

[Shelia]

I was just wondering if a AA public school that could not compete with the Alcoa's, David Liscomb's etc... could go DII small if they fell in that division? Never heard this discussed.

[Asitis]

I was just wondering if a AA public school that could not compete with the Alcoa's, David Liscomb's etc... could go DII small if they fell in that division? Never heard this discussed.

 

 

Thought I read one time that ANYONE could, but I'm really not sure. Buck?

[BuckLateral]

Thought I read one time that ANYONE could, but I'm really not sure. Buck?

 

 

Interesting question that I have asked myself. I'm sure it probably has been addressed on this board before, probably back in 2004 when the last classification was being made. The TSSAA Bylaws do not appear to expressly address the question and it is not one of the " Frequently Asked Questions" under Membership at the end of the Bylaws. However, the language of the Bylaws would appear not to permit it.

 

Article 1, Sec. 3, of the Bylaws reads as follows:

 

Section 3. For tournament competition there shall be two categories. Division I shall be schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level do not receive need??“based financial aid. Division II shall be those schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level may be the recipients of need-based financial aid.

 

Since public schools do not give "need-based financial aid", their athletes do not receive it nor may they be the recipients of it. So the wording of this section would appear to limit membership in D-II to schools that can give need-based financial aid.

[Shelia]

Article 1, Sec. 3, of the Bylaws reads as follows:

 

Section 3. For tournament competition there shall be two categories. Division I shall be schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level do not receive need??“based financial aid. Division II shall be those schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level MAY be the recipients of need-based financial aid.

 

because it states MAY receive financial aid does not mean they MUST. I would think a public school could go DII small , compete and win championships.

[westtnman]

Article 1, Sec. 3, of the Bylaws reads as follows:

 

Section 3. For tournament competition there shall be two categories. Division I shall be schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level do not receive need??“based financial aid. Division II shall be those schools whose student-athletes competing at the varsity level MAY be the recipients of need-based financial aid.

 

because it states MAY receive financial aid does not mean they MUST. I would think a public school could go DII small , compete and win championships.

 

 

 

Take it Sheila that you think your school is on the AA bubble and you are wanting to move down to DII small schools?

[MetFan]

Take it Sheila that you think your school is on the AA bubble and you are wanting to move down to DII small schools?

 

Yeah but they would be playing the large schools unless the TSSAA made a rule that divided their enrolment by 2.

[KCHSCoach]

Public schools can go DII if they so wish

[Baldcoach]

I always thought they could go DII too...but it wouldn't help Sheila, if her public is aa it would have to compete in the large school division. I can pretty much promise that whoever they are they would rather play 3 and 4a DI schools than the top DII schools.

[BuckLateral]

I always thought they could go DII too...but it wouldn't help Sheila, if her public is aa it would have to compete in the large school division. I can pretty much promise that whoever they are they would rather play 3 and 4a DI schools than the top DII schools.

 

 

You guys might be right, Baldcoach and KCHS. As noted the bylaws don't seem to either expressly permit or prohibit it. Personally, I wouldn't mind it because of what it say about the multiplier. But my guess is that the TSSAA Board of Control would try to interpet its bylaws so as to prevent it because of that. Think about it. The TSSAA board of Control has instituted the highest multiplier in the country ( 1.8) because of the "unfair advantage" private schools have. (and, I might add, a multiplier that even the TSSAA Executive staff says is not working and suggested that the Board of Control do away with at its June meeting). Lets make those privates play schools twice their size---- that will make it fair. The underlying assumption, of course, is that the public schools just cannot compete against private schools unless the public school has almost twice the enrollment of its private school opponent from which to draw athletes. So, let's say that some schools in D-I A are stuck in the same region/district with a D-I school that they just can never get by in football------a school that is the "Alcoa" or "Maryville" of Class A. They look over at the D-II small schools and decide that life would be better over there, that they would not always be running up against that brick wall and might have a better, or at least a fighting, chance of getting a state championship, or at least playing for it. So, when the next classification period comes around, they elect to go over to D-II, where there is no multiplier, and compete against same size privates. Kind of flies in the face of the Board of Control's election to impose the multiplier on privates in D-I because that is what is needed to make things fair, to level the playing field, doesn't it? It undercuts the Board of Control's argument for the multiplier. Why on earth would any public school go to D-II where there is no multiplier to make things "fair"? I just don't see the Board of Control letting that happen.

 

Who knows, maybe that will be the next big D-I/D-II battle we have. That would be fun and introduce a new argument into this tired old horse we have been riding for the last four years.

[Baldcoach]

heh...hadn't thought of it that way Buck...makes sense though.

 

After all, if a small public could compete with privates without a multiplier that would invalidate the whole...wait a minute, isn't that what Trousdale, South Pitt, Alcoa, Fulton, Huntingdon, Milan, etc have been doing this whole time? Heck, they haven't just competed, they have dominated. But the BoC seems to somehow ignore that fact. Maybe they would ignore the small public in DII thing too. "There are none so blind that they can not see..."

[westtnman]

heh...hadn't thought of it that way Buck...makes sense though.

 

After all, if a small public could compete with privates without a multiplier that would invalidate the whole...wait a minute, isn't that what Trousdale, South Pitt, Alcoa, Fulton, Huntingdon, Milan, etc have been doing this whole time? Heck, they haven't just competed, they have dominated. But the BoC seems to somehow ignore that fact. Maybe they would ignore the small public in DII thing too. "There are none so blind that they can not see..."

 

 

 

As much as I love the thread and thought along the same lines, I do have to interject that Milan (enrollment of 626 from last numbers) has dominated USJ (350 students) and JCS (326 students) which would not be playing in the same division without the multiplier.

 

Here's an idea---if privates are penalized and multiplied by 1.8 to play in Div I, then why wouldn't publics have the same if they opted to play in Div II ????

[BuckLateral]

As much as I love the thread and thought along the same lines, I do have to interject that Milan (enrollment of 626 from last numbers) has dominated USJ (350 students) and JCS (326 students) which would not be playing in the same division without the multiplier.

 

Here's an idea---if privates are penalized and multiplied by 1.8 to play in Div I, then why wouldn't privates have the same if they opted to play in Div II ????

 

 

west: I think you meant why wouldn't "publics" have the same 1.8 multiplier if they opted to play in DII, didn't you?

 

Good idea. But that would ''penalize" public schools for playing with the private schools, instead of playing with the other public schools "where they belong", wouldn't it?. My guess is that a certain place down below would freeze over before the BofC would ever impose a draconian penalty like that on public schools.