Probation for Memphis Private

[apsugogovs]

In point of fact the small privates are more like small publics in their student makeup and community feeling...that is a big reason many parents choose them...they are the only place that is possible in urban areas. So perhaps lumping publics and privates into 2 distinct categories is a bit simplistic. Large, urban publics are fundamentally different than most small publics (which are usually rural and community centered), which are somewhat similar to small privates, which are fundamentally different than elite privates.

 

There are a few large publics that are cummunity centered, Maryville, Oakridge, Cleveland, Tullahoma, Kingsport-DB, Science Hill, just to name a few. Its also coincidence that most of these (not sure about D-B and Science Hill) are all independent school districts with one high school, but they are community based. I am not sure your analogy that small privates are similar in their student make-up compared to small public is correct, however I am willing to concede both provide a community feeling. Looking at the lastest statistics of small rural counties surrounding hamilton county there is a high percentage of economically disadvantage students that attend these schools. According to statistics Marion Co. 63.4%, Bledsoe Co. 67.7%, Sequatchie Co. 58.5% Bradley Co. 53.3%, Rhea Co. 64.6%, Meigs Co. 67.4%. This is a pretty high percentage of economically disadvantage students. I would be suprised to find these percentages in any small private school. I could be wrong as I have not been able to find any statistics on economically disadvantaged students attending private schools in Tennessee. Maybe you have some numbers that you could share to help make your case. Even when you look at Hamilton Co. which has only 55%, I am not sure you could find one private school that has that large of a percentage of economically disadvantaged. Even within hamilton county it would be interesting to compare schools close to each other to see the difference, say Howard with Chattanooga Christain, David Brainerd with Tyner, Boyd Buchanan with Brainerd, Red Bank with Baylor, I would think the Student makeup would not be the same. But I could be wrong. Yes it is simplistic to lump privates and publics into two distict catagories, but to me that is comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Please remember I am only talking about the educational part, Athletics becomes alot more complicated.

[VolunteerGeneral]

Actually you make a poor generalization in your argument based on a faulty assumption...that all privates are similar. In fact, the small religious privates DONT take only the good students...they usually have the same good/poor student ratio as the suburban publics...because their mission is not to be elite, but to provide a good, Christian education to as many people as they can, elite student or not. Thus, they don't have a selective admissions process like the elite privates...a fundamental flaw in the arguments of those who propose a split because privates are like privates and publics like publics.

 

In point of fact the small privates are more like small publics in their student makeup and community feeling...that is a big reason many parents choose them...they are the only place that is possible in urban areas. So perhaps lumping publics and privates into 2 distinct categories is a bit simplistic. Large, urban publics are fundamentally different than most small publics (which are usually rural and community centered), which are somewhat similar to small privates, which are fundamentally different than elite privates.

 

 

Baldcoach I`d have to disagree with you to some extent but maybe you can clarify for me. If a girl in your school became pregnant would she be allowed to attend?

[PBandJ]

Baldcoach I`d have to disagree with you to some extent but maybe you can clarify for me. If a girl in your school became pregnant would she be allowed to attend?

 

Not to answer for BC and Boyd, but I do know of 1 girl who became pregnant as a junior at a private I live near and she was allowed to continue attendance and graduate. She did have to go before the board since the act by which she got pregnant broke the student conduct code. I believe her appeal was "if God can forgive me, why can't you." No truer statement there - and she was allowed to stay.

[fiftyfifty]

Interesting conclusions and many cannot only be further from the truth of the matter. Maybe thats the reason i couldn't understand your point of view and the way you were assuming to so many things you were and coming back in a very idealistic manner with all of the answers but not trying to find some ways to do it. I know it can be done becasue a number of years back, that was the way school systems operated. so what's the difference now. They were the arguments I was making. If you think seperation is the answer, that's been tried and the conclusion was it did not work. Realistically, I don't think even you think it worked. To set apart the privates and make a separation there, grouping all privates together is not even close to being anywhere close to a comparison and that is why I asked the question.

Now, you must b e HIGH up the food chain to say any organization is never going to do this or that. You seem to act like you have first hand knowledge, it is a refutable conclusion and all privates will follow your thought. If that's the case, why did so many privates stay in DivI? Now I know why they left. Because of a ridiculous multiplier and I am wondering why they stayed to start with. My conclusion it is wrong. I may be wrong but your assumptions, and they are your individual assumptions, are fallacous and bear an old time feeling to maintain something that might not totally be the answer.

I did say totally and do not want to be misunderstood because much of it likely is certainly not bad.

So now you get back to athletics. Are we saying athletics is the reason for all of this? Is now your reasoning a sport or two or more? Is your competitive juices so strong that you think it would bother anyone to be beaten by a superior team? if that is so you or I will never know at a State Tournament. So now in great debate fashion, if you run out of points, go after the other person. Since your questions are not based on a correct assumption, are not correct and really not related to this discussion, its not worth taking up the time to even consider answering. '

But if the comments you are making are this. Some private schools were formed for faith based reasons by people who felt their kids would get the right religious and academic training, meet the right peer group, likely be associated with those who might be associated with the rest of their life and for them personally be able to associate with those same people as adults, They are valid and important reasons. Those things have nothing to do with competitive juices of athletics but invariablly roll over in to the scene.

Now my next comment has something to do with a comment you have made that "If a school you know about uses aid to recruit athletes, you would go to the Bishop because that was not the mission of aid to students". Will the Bishop get involved in all infractions that Catholic Schools might have. I would hope you would excuse the quote or correct it if I have misquoted your statement. If that is your statement, I would agree with you and that is the premises of this whole situation as I understand it. The question is what is reasonable and what can both points of view accept. You have said that the basic tenet is true and in its simplistic form is true but you cannot say all are recognizing it. And you can reread what you posted and I thought it was a reasonable post. Evidently you are right but IMO you not very far off from being right that 100% will try to conform to it, I would hope. The question now is instead of saying tough luck, nothing will ever work, get those out of the discussion that say that and get some postiive thoughts to see if it can. They are not there now. And the reason they are not likely is someone is bankrolling both sides of the issues. Certainly if enough are bankrolling it and will continue to do so, no matter the cost, the stalemate will continue to exist. Reasonable people can make reasonable judgements and hold tight on tenants of right they want used.

So now we ARE back to the real reason of disagreement, athletics. no one in their reasonable mind will disagree over the right to form a school on the basis I outlined and, if someone wants to bankroll a school on those basics, fine. If privates agree to an agreed way of handling athletics and it is reasonable, fine. If those who don't want to do it, and won't, how would you as adminsitrator handle it, realizing all schools have to be handled the same and large fines will be meted out and they will get larger and larger and larger. Who is paying for that?

Now, you are saying my positon is something my positon is not. A misunderstanding, likely. You are saying this is over a sport. A misunderstanding, likely. My understanding of your postiton is there is no give, at all. I can understand it but you do not have the final say in anything. You are a constituant. Your basic tenant is all right but thats where it stops. The impression is that this is the position but really anyone can do anything they like, which I think you would agree, is not the case. Reasonable people will do the right thing if you trust them.

I Have made this longer than i intended and if a response is needed fine and if not, fine. I have no ability to change anything or get anyone to change anything........... like you, only by discussion.

But, like you, I will continue to post on the matter and respect anyone who disagrees with me. I would hope discussions like these does nothing but make visable points of view and coirrects misunderstandings rather than just standing back and shouting at each other. IMO, the wrongs here, on both sides, have to do with things that have happened in the past. Its time to find a way to correct it and if there can't be a way, we tried. Nothing is inevitable except the obvious.

 

Div I and Div II are not going to be reunited period, unless financial aid can be given to all students on a need based basis. As is stands now, you cannot be in Div I and give financial to an athlete. I could not understand most of your post as is the case with a lot of posters. I have multiple degrees, but there are no help in understanding whatever you are trying to say. Plain and simple, you want all the schools back together, its not going to happen. I bet you would order it if you had the power. But you don't, so it is a moot point. To address another poster, I take exception to the supposed distinction that Baldcoach continually makes between small privates and large privates. I hope that people don't take that premise on face value. Some of the values that he listed as what distinguishes a small private from a big private are just simply not true in my opinion. Until someone proves that Baldcoach is the final word on this issue, I can rightfully express a different opinion. I have a ton of experience in private schools too. I know personally big privates that take all sorts of students even those with learning disabilities or mentally challenged. The very reasons that he cited for the existence of small privates is the exact same reasons for many of the big privates, particularly Catholic privates. The only difference being that the goals were in place in Catholic schools prior to Bald Coach's great-great grandfather being born. Our goal is just as admirable as any small private, that is to further the students faith and morals, educate them and attempt to build the total person to be a productive person in the world today that hopefully will make a difference in the world. He uses that word elite which by definition means the choice selection of a group of people collectively. He links that with big privates while defending small privates as completedly different. My take is that both small privates and large privates do not fit this definition. They all have or almost all have faith based goals and are not that different. It goes without saying that if you take the lowest performing students that simply cannot pass in an highly academic atmosphere, you either lower your standards or have to reject some students. This is an unfortunate fact of life that all privates from time to time have to face, both big and small. There are other distinctions among privates that would have to be included to cover everything, but that would take a book to write. Back to Hargis. To answer your question about financial aid infractions, if any Bishop with a school under his direction becomes aware of a problem, I guarantee you he will become involved and have it corrected. At Father Ryan, that has not become necessary for many, many years. Ryan follows the rules. It would be nice to compete with all other schools in the state, but financial aid will become even more important in the future and there is no need to discriminate against any eligible student just for the fact that he or she happens to play sports. Guess What, all Ryan students are not rich, not even close and there is a sustained need for financial aid. I guess that means we don't fall into the "elite" class. That is about as simple as I know how to put it. Thank God, Ryan operates in that manner. As to your statement about bankrolling, what in the world are you taking about. One last point, I appologize for the post jumping around different issues, but that is the nature of a discussion of this nature.

 

PS you mention my competitive juices, let my state this as clear as I know how. I could care less about anybody beating anybody, my concern is always what is best for students, first and foremost. I believe with all my heart that the current seperation benefits more students than it hurts. The issue of sports takes a back seat to the financial aid issues previously mentioned in my post. The publics are never going to accept financial aid for athletes, most privates are never going to accept no aid for those in need since that would be in direct conflict to the mission of their school. /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />

[PHargis]

Your's is a very good post and does more define your case. Doesn't mean there is agreement. You have even toned down universial thoughts without exceptions and now it likely will be easier to post with you. And evidently "hat in your hand" comment is easier to deal with as you might think. You are making Ryan's case very well and not knowing, I have never thought it was anything except what you have posted and I have posted tht in connection with the Girls BB we posted about.

The problem is you are posting about Ryan and admitted that that was not universal thruout the State and now are leading me to an sumption that it is also all private Catholic Schools and I'm sorry, I don't trhink you post for all Catholic Schools and they would not want you to. And that is not to imply they are doing anything wrong (i.e. this thread title). I also think that a number of publics have little ground to stand on by saying privates have all of this advantage. If athletics are what we are getting down to as reason for not unifying, still still this situation needs to be looked at again. The obvious thing is why is the extra money being spent just because of sports. If the rules are as cut and dry, as you sometimes imply, where's the beef? I think the answer is there are rules violations. Why are there rules violations? Very respectfully, the answer that I understood to this question was answered iin "your hat in your hand" answer to your Volleyball analogy and gets to the bottom of the matter but shouldn't have in a forum such as this. Yes it could be your thoughts, but a primary answer to your point just shows where your priorities might be, BUT before you answer, I took that answer as one you thought was my motivation and that was furtherist from my motivation in every way. This is an interesting communication and I respect your thoughts but the confusion is you can speak for FR High School and somewhat Private Catholic Schools, have high up connections but yet you have to get on this Site and show your deep concern to the public about a Girls basketball coach at FR High School. This inconsistancy unsettles me and I think confuses those who have followed this Senario thru coach T. There is a good answer to this but your posts do not reflect someone who should have any clout at all to give the answers for all of these questions. I take your word that you do know what you are talking about. The following questions might help a number to understand.

Is it true, as has been vaguely posted, that there are limits placed on privates and to the number of athletes per sport that can be given aid per school? Or is in unlimited. Have there been any infractions between privates concerning transfers? And are all private schools under the same restrictions? I do have a followup when you answer the question.

[fiftyfifty]

Your's is a very good post and does more define your case. Doesn't mean there is agreement. You have even toned down universial thoughts without exceptions and now it likely will be easier to post with you. And evidently "hat in your hand" comment is easier to deal with as you might think. You are making Ryan's case very well and not knowing, I have never thought it was anything except what you have posted and I have posted tht in connection with the Girls BB we posted about.

The problem is you are posting about Ryan and admitted that that was not universal thruout the State and now are leading me to an sumption that it is also all private Catholic Schools and I'm sorry, I don't trhink you post for all Catholic Schools and they would not want you to. And that is not to imply they are doing anything wrong (i.e. this thread title). I also think that a number of publics have little ground to stand on by saying privates have all of this advantage. If athletics are what we are getting down to as reason for not unifying, still still this situation needs to be looked at again. The obvious thing is why is the extra money being spent just because of sports. If the rules are as cut and dry, as you sometimes imply, where's the beef? I think the answer is there are rules violations. Why are there rules violations? Very respectfully, the answer that I understood to this question was answered iin "your hat in your hand" answer to your Volleyball analogy and gets to the bottom of the matter but shouldn't have in a forum such as this. Yes it could be your thoughts, but a primary answer to your point just shows where your priorities might be, BUT before you answer, I took that answer as one you thought was my motivation and that was furtherist from my motivation in every way. This is an interesting communication and I respect your thoughts but the confusion is you can speak for FR High School and somewhat Private Catholic Schools, have high up connections but yet you have to get on this Site and show your deep concern to the public about a Girls basketball coach at FR High School. This inconsistancy unsettles me and I think confuses those who have followed this Senario thru coach T. There is a good answer to this but your posts do not reflect someone who should have any clout at all to give the answers for all of these questions. I take your word that you do know what you are talking about. The following questions might help a number to understand.

Is it true, as has been vaguely posted, that there are limits placed on privates and to the number of athletes per sport that can be given aid per school? Or is in unlimited. Have there been any infractions between privates concerning transfers? And are all private schools under the same restrictions? I do have a followup when you answer the question.

Some privates look at the rules differently. Thats their business. It is evident that many private schools do not actively recruit or abuse financial aid. It is especially evident in secondary sports in many peoples opinions such as socer, cross-country, softball, volleyball. Why the privates that follow the rules are still able to compete is due to the tremendous off-season work put in by these athletes. But in football there is a difference, there are some schools that go after athletes. It is easily noticed, but the rules are not violated, or you can't catch them or whatever. The schools that do not follow this train of thought are obvious by their football team year after year. This is not restricted to private schools by any means, it involves some publics as well. If you look some of the periennial public title winners, they have a setup that most publics are not privy to. When a public school violates a rule, it does not carry the same weight as when a private school violates a rule. I know for a fact that violations of rules have taken place in both public and private, or at least a violation of the rule as some people interpret it, others interpret it a different way. As to financial aid, if a great majority of aid was given to athletes, then obviously something is wrong. I haven't seen any proof that athletes are generally lower on the poverty line than other students. Financial Aid should be distributed based on need only across the board to all students of any particular school. If need takes a backseat for any reason, I think you are not using aid for the purpose it is intended for. Does this happen, certainly it does in some schools. As long as human beings run the schools, there are going to be willful mistakes and non willful mistakes made. Some private schools have so much aid, there is no need to monitor whether they are athletes or not, but not too many schools have that privledge. The rules for private schools in Div II are state wide to the best of my knowledge. But the interpretation of the rules vary somewhat among the administrators when you look at private schools statewide. I personally have no problem having two divisions. Ryan still plays public schools on a regular basis. But the great contests of the past are long gone. There was a Ryan game many years ago at Vanderbilt with over ten thousand fans in attendence. I long for those days, but you don't get everything you wish for. As long as they are doing everything in their power to educate both in academics, morals, the faith, and helping each child to be the best person possible and make a difference in the world, I am happy. The sports will take care of itself. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

PS. You referred to the treatment of a former Ryan coach. I can be a ardent supporter of Ryan, but still criticize the handling of a particular situation. Let me state that I did not post anything close to what I actually know about that situation. I did not see that as helping the situation. I am extremely concerned that girls sports get a fair shake. So if you think it was about an individual mostly, thats not true. Its more about any pattern of the males getting the better deal in sports. As far as female-male treatment, I am talking about sports. Since Ryan used to be all boys, it would be easy to fall into that "lets take care of the males first". As it turned out, two excellant coaches are coaching the girls and I am quite satisfied and could care less what gender they are. Its one thing to tell a coach you are going to replace them, but to then tell them that they are no longer needed in any capacity after over twenty years at the school is over-kill in my and many others opinions. Certainly not everything that Siegel does makes you happy, so if you posted a criticism about them, I personally would not criticize them or you. You have that right and so do I. Nobody is perfect and no school is perfect. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> PSS I forgot, there have been violations of every rule in sports in the book that is possible to break by both public and private from time to time.

[PHargis]

I really want to reply but I can't right now but I want my post to be close to your post. An opinion, your last two posts Have gotten us closer to the same time zone and now maybe it could be possible to start posting some concrete things which could help. I appreciate your post again and its forthrightness and gained a lot again from its values approach.

[PHargis]

Some privates look at the rules differently. Thats their business. It is evident that many private schools do not actively recruit or abuse financial aid. It is especially evident in secondary sports in many peoples opinions such as socer, cross-country, softball, volleyball. Why the privates that follow the rules are still able to compete is due to the tremendous off-season work put in by these athletes. But in football there is a difference, there are some schools that go after athletes. It is easily noticed, but the rules are not violated, or you can't catch them or whatever. The schools that do not follow this train of thought are obvious by their football team year after year. This is not restricted to private schools by any means, it involves some publics as well. If you look some of the periennial public title winners, they have a setup that most publics are not privy to. When a public school violates a rule, it does not carry the same weight as when a private school violates a rule. I know for a fact that violations of rules have taken place in both public and private, or at least a violation of the rule as some people interpret it, others interpret it a different way. As to financial aid, if a great majority of aid was given to athletes, then obviously something is wrong. I haven't seen any proof that athletes are generally lower on the poverty line than other students. Financial Aid should be distributed based on need only across the board to all students of any particular school. If need takes a backseat for any reason, I think you are not using aid for the purpose it is intended for. Does this happen, certainly it does in some schools. As long as human beings run the schools, there are going to be willful mistakes and non willful mistakes made. Some private schools have so much aid, there is no need to monitor whether they are athletes or not, but not too many schools have that privledge. The rules for private schools in Div II are state wide to the best of my knowledge. But the interpretation of the rules vary somewhat among the administrators when you look at private schools statewide. I personally have no problem having two divisions. Ryan still plays public schools on a regular basis. But the great contests of the past are long gone. There was a Ryan game many years ago at Vanderbilt with over ten thousand fans in attendence. I long for those days, but you don't get everything you wish for. As long as they are doing everything in their power to educate both in academics, morals, the faith, and helping each child to be the best person possible and make a difference in the world, I am happy. The sports will take care of itself. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

PS. You referred to the treatment of a former Ryan coach. I can be a ardent supporter of Ryan, but still criticize the handling of a particular situation. Let me state that I did not post anything close to what I actually know about that situation. I did not see that as helping the situation. I am extremely concerned that girls sports get a fair shake. So if you think it was about an individual mostly, thats not true. Its more about any pattern of the males getting the better deal in sports. As far as female-male treatment, I am talking about sports. Since Ryan used to be all boys, it would be easy to fall into that "lets take care of the males first". As it turned out, two excellant coaches are coaching the girls and I am quite satisfied and could care less what gender they are. Its one thing to tell a coach you are going to replace them, but to then tell them that they are no longer needed in any capacity after over twenty years at the school is over-kill in my and many others opinions. Certainly not everything that Siegel does makes you happy, so if you posted a criticism about them, I personally would not criticize them or you. You have that right and so do I. Nobody is perfect and no school is perfect. /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> PSS I forgot, there have been violations of every rule in sports in the book that is possible to break by both public and private from time to time.

Yours was a post, since I have re-read it, that we are closer than a time zone and can be best described as within a city limits. I appreciate very much you posting as much on this and replying with me as much as you have, Really the only small thing we might disagree on is the conclusion. I do, like you, like to go back to those times when huge crowds attend fewer State Championship events with a unified schedule and it means something. The banter is great but nothing is ever concluded and is costing education and fans a lot of money. It might never mean anything in Football and the only way I see it happening is in the rest of the sports is conceding financial aid with some limits on athletic FA, lowering or eliminating the multiplier and asking private schools to follow the rules you say FR goes by. I have a better understanding as to your point of view and I think you may have mine. I still think there is a way to do this with a little more thought but its going to have to have acceptance of more tolerant people than we have now. See you in the next season.