Open zone schools: A level playing field?

[scots50]

BC:

 

You read this thread the exact same way I did. This is a very feable thread disgused as "intelligent discussion "not aimed at any one school". Bottom-line: CAK is tired of losing to Alcoa and wants TSSAA to apply a multipler to Alcoa and move us up and out of AA so they have a clear shot to State.

 

I think Alcoa playing in DII is a great idea. I think we would do quite well and continue to add gold balls to our trophy case.

 

There you go GVK. Make the pitch to TSSAA. If you can't beat em.....lobby and move em.

[BCsportsfan]

BC:

 

You read this thread the exact same way I did. This is a very feable thread disgused as "intelligent discussion "not aimed at any one school". Bottom-line: CAK is tired of losing to Alcoa and wants TSSAA to apply a multipler to Alcoa and move us up and out of AA so they have a clear shot to State.

 

I think Alcoa playing in DII is a great idea. I think we would do quite well and continue to add gold balls to our trophy case.

 

There you go GVK. Make the pitch to TSSAA. If you can't beat em.....lobby and move em.

 

Absolutely scots50! Many people feel that Alcoa success comes from open zone. Bringing talent in from "coast to coast" The success is the players buying into the system and a winning tradition made up of hard work, the best coaching, teaching football fundamentals for years through successfully feeder programs and last, the best community support!

[Govolsknox]

There would be nothing wrong with starting this thread for exactly the reason you suggested I have. However, I have already stated both my opinion and motivation. That would be similar to me opining that the reason that someone would want to turn the focus to the motivation of a thread rather than simply the merits of their position would be because it is not to their advantage to simply focus on the topic. But I'm sure that is not your purpose. This is a reasonable topic that deserves discussion, regardless of what you think someone's motivation is.

 

Before I say anything else, I want to go on record and say that the TSSAA will address this issue. I don't know how or when, but it is so obvious that it cannot and will not IMO be ignored forever.

 

To respond to BC's 2 suggestions on how to level the playing field. I did read your 2 "suggestions" in your previous response, but I thought you were kidding. We are obviously in agreement that there is an advantage to having a larger talent pool to draw from, whether it is due to school size, being a private, or offering scholarships. I'm not surprised that we agree on this point as I think most who really think about it would agree. However, I don't agree that BC's 2 suggestions on what to do about it are reasonable. Here's why: Both of BC's suggestions put schools who don't offer scholarships competing with schools who do offer scholarships. The whole purpose of the TSSAA instituting D2 was to separate schools on this basis. So, it would reverse what they were trying to do to begin with. It doesn't make sense to me, and I don't believe the TSSAA would ever take that action. There are other alternatives that do not "undo" the purpose of separating D1 and D2 and I think it is far more likely and reasonable that they will choose a different "equalizer."

 

Now, the TSSAA may at some point require all privates to compete in D2, but that is a discussion for another thread. Let's assume for a moment that the multiplier had never been put in place. I believe that public schools competing against privates with a strong football program would have a legitimate complaint. Afterall, privates can theoretically draw from an area much larger than a small school district right? If the only issue was CAK vs. Alcoa, my point would be that the way to level the playing field is to say that CAK shouldn't have a multiplier since Alcoa doesn't and both are open zoned. But that wouldn't address the schools that have no opportunity to be open zone, such as the rural schools. How would that level the playing field for Loudon, or Milan, etc.? Therefore, that is not my suggestion on how the TSSAA should handle this. They should take action that levels the playing field for both schools that have a multiplier and public, non open zoned schools.

 

I think somtimes the fans from Alcoa and Maryville assume that everything is directed at them and that everyone is out to get them, and that the only reason someone could bring something like this up is to help "their school." To me, this is a bigger issue than Alcoa versus the rest of 3A, public or private. This is about the way the TSSAA runs our highschool football league and attempting to make it as fair as possible. That is the basis for the other actions they have taken (such as deviding the schools up by enrollment) and this is just another example of another area that they should (and will IMO at some point) look at. I wonder, if and when they do, will the Alcoa fans think that the TSSAA is out to get them or recognize that it is not a level playing field regardless of whether the out of zone athletes have had even 1% impact on their success. The TSSAA has an obligation to protect the interest of open zoned public schools like Alcoa, Maryville, Oak Ridge, etc. but they also have an obligation to protect the interest of non open zoned schools. Where there is an advantage that leads to a larger talent pool to draw from, the TSSAA should take measures to level the playing field just like they have in every other instance. This is no different, and open zone public schools are not entitled to special treatment.

[BCsportsfan]

At least I gave 2 "suggestions"? And Your preference to a level playing field on open zone?

 

Then what? A plan that all schools have the same coaching talent? The same amount of coaches?, The same amount of players? ...............All players have to weigh the same, all players get to play, and all teams get to win?

 

NOW, you have your "level playing field"! Yawn.............

 

The real deal would be to..........do away with DII and the multiplier and go back to 3 classifications. Make a team earn a championship!........... And, I would still like Alcoa and Maryville's chances for gold!

[scots50]

GVK:

My position is Alcoa has already had an unofficial multiplier applied during the reclassification. My reasoning is based upon an analysis and comparison of the enrollments of our scheduled 2A opponents from the 2008 season (as well as previous)and scheduled AA (3A/4A) opponents of the 2009 season. During my review, I eliminated Maryville, and all the other non-2A opponents. I also excluded CAK’s numbers.

 

In 2008 the average enrollments of Rockwood, Oliver Springs, Loudon, Wartburg Central and Sweetwater was 517 students. Of these students, an average of 268 students was male. Alcoa’s enrollment for 2008 was 509* students, 285 of which were male.

 

The 2009 season found Alcoa re-classified into the AA (3A/4A classification). The average enrollment of Fulton, Scott County, McMinn Central, Loudon, Kingston, and Stone Memorial is 803* students. Of these students, an average of 412 is male. Alcoa’s enrollment for 2009 is 532 students, 297 of which are male.

 

It does not take a rocket scientist (or CAK graduate; whichever is smarter) to see that Alcoa was pushed up into a significantly larger classification with minimal enrollment growth. Further, the pool of eligible males (297) did not increase in proportion to the average of our 3A/4A opponents (412). Bottom line: We are still closer to the construct of a 2A school rather than the AA (3A/4A) schools we face now. We could have fielded an additional varsity football team if we had the average male population.

 

The question now is why was Alcoa moved up? My answer is TSSAA applied a “We are dad gum tired of seeing Alcoa win the State championship multiplier”, hereinafter referred to the “Program Success Multiplier”. Although I did not calculate the enrollment changes, one could argue that Maryville got the same treatment from TSSAA this season. The 6A State Championship game is pretty telling: White Station has 2,100 students, 997 of which are male, while Maryville has 1,522 students, 809 of which are male. Based upon these numbers, I would argue that TSSAA also applied the “Program Success Multiplier” to Maryville as well. Maryville is just barely above the cutoff for 5A let alone 6A.

 

Of course, TSSAA’s plan to knock Alcoa and Maryville out of the title game failed. It did succeed in costing Maryville another state title. So what’s next? Alcoa moved up to 5A/6A? DII A? NCAA DII? Where does it stop? Regardless of “multipliers”, Alcoa (as BC noted) will win because of coaching, player development, player commitment and community support. Maryville will do the same. The programs crying need to get to work and start developing a similar program rather than blaming TSSAA, recruiting, open zone, referees, etc. Alcoa (and Maryville as well) will play wherever placed in the State and win. Period.

 

See you at the CAK/Alcoa BB game 5 Jan. I will be working ther game either in the concession stand or taking tickets. Stop by and say hello if you are in attendance.

 

*All enrollment data obtained from the 2008/2009 Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) Report Card.

[BCsportsfan]

But that wouldn't address the schools that have no opportunity to be open zone, such as the rural schools. How would that level the playing field for Loudon, or Milan, etc.?

 

Loudon IS open zone. Any player zoned for Lenoir City or Greenback can play at Loudon.

Milan IS open zone..............

 

Before I say anything else, I want to go on record and say that the TSSAA will address this issue. I don't know how or when, but it is so obvious that it cannot and will not IMO be ignored forever.

 

So you've seen the CAK boosts made up of all the rich Doctor's and Lawyers taken up the bribe money?

[Govolsknox]

[quote="BCsportsfan

Loudon IS open zone. Any player zoned for Lenoir City or Greenback can play at Loudon.

Milan IS open zone..............

 

NOW we are getting somewhere! Soon there will be only one........

 

 

So you've seen the CAK boosts made up of all the rich Doctor's and Lawyers taken up the bribe money?

 

You would think so but we can't get the doctors and lawyers to quit chest bumping long enough to contribute to my plan!

 

(Un-named CAK opponent's radio broadcast quote, "I've never seen so many doctors and lawyers chest bumping in my life!)

[Govolsknox]

BCsportsfan: At least I gave 2 "suggestions"? And Your preference to a level playing field on open zone?

 

Yes sir, you did. I love opinion boards like this. I don't know that there is a "right" or a "wrong" answer, as these are all just opinions. You asked my preference: First, I think that some attempt should be made to address the issue. I was hoping (and still hope) to hear other thoughts as to what the TSSAA might do, but in the meantime, the best I can come up with is a graduated multiplier such as I tossed out on page one of this thread. I don't think a team that has 2% of their roster made up of out of zone students should have the same multiplier as a team that has 50% of their roster comprised of out of zone players. I don't know that I have a feel for what the range should be, and I think if that was the decision, it should be considered carefully.

 

BC said: Then what? A plan that all schools have the same coaching talent? The same amount of coaches?, The same amount of players? ...............All players have to weigh the same, all players get to play, and all teams get to win?

 

NOW, you have your "level playing field"! Yawn.............

 

I don't personally think these criteria warrant the TSSAA trying to level the playing field, nor have I heard anyone suggest that they should. What I have seen is numerous instances of precedence where the TSSAA has specifically attempted to address issues where a school has the potential of a larger talent pool to draw from. I have already mentioned 3 precedents to exactly this type of situation.

1. Privates who offer scholarships (TSSAA action: Place them into a separate devision)

2. Privates who don't (TSSAA action: institute multiplier)

3. School size disparity (TSSAA action: institure 1A - 6A)

 

Let me add a 4th. Why is it that a player has to sit out a year if he transfers to a different school without moving a specific number of miles? Once again, the TSSAA is attempting to prevent a school from having an unfair advantage because they have a larger talent pool to draw from. If this rule were eliminated, there would be alot more transfers to the powerhouse programs. This forces a player's family to move their primary residence if they want to move to a different program. (At least in theory, as we all have heard of cases of abuse...)

 

 

BC said: The real deal would be to..........do away with DII and the multiplier and go back to 3 classifications. Make a team earn a championship!........... And, I would still like Alcoa and Maryville's chances for gold!

 

BC, we partially agree here. While I don't think this is the best solution, or the most likely one, I will agree with you on this basis: If you aren't going to address the obvious issue of open zoning, then you might as well not pretend that you are trying to provide a level playing field. The open zone issue is every bit as valid IMO as the other examples where the TSSAA has acted. Just throw out the multiplier and D2, and then you really need to eliminate the classifications as well. If size of talent pool doesn't matter, then let the schools with 250 kids compete with the ones with 2000.

 

I want to go ahead and get this out of the way as well: Alcoa would win 6A, 5A, 4A, 3A, 2A, and 1A as well as D2. They are the best team in the state, and their closest competition would be Maryville. But it doesn't change at all what the TSSAA's responsibility is in this matter.

[Govolsknox]

GVK:

My position is Alcoa has already had an unofficial multiplier applied during the reclassification. My reasoning is based upon an analysis and comparison of the enrollments of our scheduled 2A opponents from the 2008 season (as well as previous)and scheduled AA (3A/4A) opponents of the 2009 season. During my review, I eliminated Maryville, and all the other non-2A opponents. I also excluded CAK’s numbers.

 

In 2008 the average enrollments of Rockwood, Oliver Springs, Loudon, Wartburg Central and Sweetwater was 517 students. Of these students, an average of 268 students was male. Alcoa’s enrollment for 2008 was 509* students, 285 of which were male.

 

The 2009 season found Alcoa re-classified into the AA (3A/4A classification). The average enrollment of Fulton, Scott County, McMinn Central, Loudon, Kingston, and Stone Memorial is 803* students. Of these students, an average of 412 is male. Alcoa’s enrollment for 2009 is 532 students, 297 of which are male.

 

It does not take a rocket scientist (or CAK graduate; whichever is smarter) to see that Alcoa was pushed up into a significantly larger classification with minimal enrollment growth. Further, the pool of eligible males (297) did not increase in proportion to the average of our 3A/4A opponents (412). Bottom line: We are still closer to the construct of a 2A school rather than the AA (3A/4A) schools we face now. We could have fielded an additional varsity football team if we had the average male population.

 

The question now is why was Alcoa moved up? My answer is TSSAA applied a “We are dad gum tired of seeing Alcoa win the State championship multiplier”, hereinafter referred to the “Program Success Multiplier”. Although I did not calculate the enrollment changes, one could argue that Maryville got the same treatment from TSSAA this season. The 6A State Championship game is pretty telling: White Station has 2,100 students, 997 of which are male, while Maryville has 1,522 students, 809 of which are male. Based upon these numbers, I would argue that TSSAA also applied the “Program Success Multiplier” to Maryville as well. Maryville is just barely above the cutoff for 5A let alone 6A.

 

Of course, TSSAA’s plan to knock Alcoa and Maryville out of the title game failed. It did succeed in costing Maryville another state title. So what’s next? Alcoa moved up to 5A/6A? DII A? NCAA DII? Where does it stop? Regardless of “multipliers”, Alcoa (as BC noted) will win because of coaching, player development, player commitment and community support. Maryville will do the same. The programs crying need to get to work and start developing a similar program rather than blaming TSSAA, recruiting, open zone, referees, etc. Alcoa (and Maryville as well) will play wherever placed in the State and win. Period.

 

See you at the CAK/Alcoa BB game 5 Jan. I will be working ther game either in the concession stand or taking tickets. Stop by and say hello if you are in attendance.

 

*All enrollment data obtained from the 2008/2009 Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) Report Card.

 

Scot, I feel compelled to say that I'm impressed with your research and that I enjoy the friendly discussion with you, BC, and the rest of the CoachT posters. As I mentioned before, I recognize that this forum is for opinions, and that good people can look at a situation and come to different conclusions.

 

I read your post several times carefully. CAK is also at the bottom end of the enrollment numbers for 3A so I relate to having to play against schools with larger enrollments. However, if the TSSAA is going to go to 6 classes instead of 5, the numbers have to break somewhere. So, schools like CAK and Alcoa move up, while schools like A-E stay in the same class. You may have inside information about the TSSAA's decision making criteria, I do not. Without more evidence, I personally find it far-fetched to believe that the TSSAA established the breaking points for 6 classifications based on making it more difficult for Alcoa and Maryville.

 

Regardless, I see this as a totally separate issue. One could take the position that the TSSAA should have different breaking points for the classifications, but IMHO, that has nothing to do with the TSSAA remaining consistent to the precedents they have set regarding the size of a school's talent pool. In order to remain consistent, this issue should be thoroughly considered and some action should be taken.

 

Now, to more important things...I would definitely like to look you up to shake hands at the BB game Tuesday. I hope that APB and BC are there as well!? I know it may be hard to work out with everyone's post Holiday schedule, but is anyone interested in lunch at BOH on Monday or Tuesday? If so, I will try to wake FBD up in time to join us if we can work it out.

[BCsportsfan]

Now, to more important things...I would definitely like to look you up to shake hands at the BB game Tuesday. I hope that APB and BC are there as well!? I know it may be hard to work out with everyone's post Holiday schedule, but is anyone interested in lunch at BOH on Monday or Tuesday? If so, I will try to wake FBD up in time to join us if we can work it out.

 

ohhhhhhh.........did someone say FOOD?! Sorry GVK, Monday is the first day back to work. It will take two days to just clear my email inbox BUT, I will be a the BB game............I'll introduce you to scots50 and 50ishfootballmom.

[jangel]

I still don't believe the real issue here is strictly open zone vs. non open zone schools. A school that is open zoned with an area of 20,000 residents to draw from does not compare to an open zoned in an area with 100,000 to draw from. This is where I see the "unlevel playing field" show itself.

 

I believe the only fair way to treat this situation would be to implement another equalizer similar to the previously mentioned 1A-6A enrollment splits. Something like a resident pool multiplier for sports.

 

Example:

 

Pool of Residents | Multiplier

Under 25,000 1x

25,000-35,000 1.1x

35,000-45,000 1.2x

45,000-55,000 1.3x

55,000-65,000 1.4x

65,000-75,000 1.5x

75,000-85,000 1.6x

85,000-95,000 1.7x

95,000+ 1.8x

 

This would leave the schools with the largest pools to draw from gaining a multiplier equal to private schools. As well, the multiplier is scaled to be more fair. This could also be applied to Private schools if one took the pool area around the school with the radius being the distance to the farthest enrolled student. There will be flaws with any system, and these numbers would need to be analyzed further to find the right balance, but I feel this type of implementation would be the most "fair".

 

Also, I would like to say that the people defending specific open zone schools by claiming their success comes from only hard work, coaching, and program strength sound a lot like their successful private school brethren. There are many teams with great coaching, great determination, and great work ethic. After that, talent is the difference, and any team that draws any players from outside their zone is gaining a talent advantage over teams that are unable to do so. Even if most of your success is from old fashioned hard work, some of it is not.

[Govolsknox]

Jangel, IMO, you make a number of very good points. First, I think you make a valid point that population effects the amount of "advantage" that open zoning affords. A couple of questions that I have though regarding this issue. 1. How does the amount of schools within the county effect the open zone issue? If a school is open zoned for students in a county of say 75,000 residents, wouldn't you have to consider how many schools are in the county? Wouldn't it be different if there were 4 schools in the county versus only 2 schools? 2. Isn't there some disparity in how schools are "open zoned?" For instance, I believe Oak Ridge's "open zone" policy is that anyone who is willing to pay tuition is eligible for consideration to be admitted to Oak Ridge High School, regardless of whether they live in Anderson County or not. I'm not sure what Maryville and Alcoa's policy is as far as non-Blount county student athletes paying a tuition fee to attend their school.

 

So, I may be wrong, but if I'm not mistaken, I don't know how you would determine what the population pool is if a school will consider taking tuition paying student-athletes from outside their county. Perhaps Maryville, Alcoa, and others have the same policy as OR, I don't know. But if schools have the opportunity to accept athletes from outside their county, it would make it impossible (IMO) to use population as a factor as you could never determine it. If someone was willing to make the commute, I believe you could live in Nashville and pay tuition to attend Oak Ridge. If I'm correct in my understanding, I belive this would force you to use alternative criteria for a graduated multiplier, such as percentage of out of zone players on the roster since it would be impossible to determine the potential talent pool.

 

Regarding your points about people asserting that success is only a product of coaching, community support, hard work, having the best training etc, I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree totally that these are all very important aspects to consistently fielding a championship caliber team every year. This is why you see many of the same teams in the top 10 year after year after year. However I don't believe that the only teams that have outstanding coaching, support, training, work ethic, etc are in Blount County. There are other factors, the most obvious of which is the talent of the players involved. Just MHO, but I do believe GQ has been able to consistently get his players to over-achieve. I think Oak Ridge (up until the Stevens era) had the same characteristic (although not nearly as many championships.) Not many D-1 or even large quantities of college prospects, but a team that was far better than the sum of the individual parts. Alcoa in recent years I see a little differently. I think Coach Rankin is an outstanding coach, one of the best in the state. But I have been amazed at the number of D1 prospects and lower level college prospects that have come through that little 550 student population. When I started following CAK (when my kids started there), I had come from a background of watching Oak Ridge football very closely for many years. I saw more D1 prospect in a couple of years of watching Alcoa than I saw in a decade of OR football. I have always been amazed at the talent, and have believed that sooner or later the talent level has to start to resemble the other schools in their size range. It just isn't logical that a school with 250ish male students can continue to produce that quantity of college prospects indefinitely. Sooner or later, the small quantity of students will have an effect. Coach Rankin isn't "creating" talent like Randall Cobb or Brandon Warren; that is God-given talent.

 

Now, I have seen where other posters have commented about what percentage of Alcoa's roster is out of zone. I have also seen where Alcoa supporters say that the out of zone players are having virtually no impact. I have no idea what the reality is, but it is obvious to me that if I had a son that was "a player" and I lived in Blount County, I would want to send him to Alcoa or Maryville and NOT Heritage or William Blount. Maryville and Alcoa = great schools, great environment, first class football program. I have no problem with any parent feeling the same way as I would if I lived there. IMO, nothing wrong with it. My issue is with the TSSAA not recognizing and acting on the fact that this creates the potential of an advantage to schools like Maryville, Alcoa, Oak Ridge, etc. I mean how can it not be an advantage if a parent of a very good HS football player can choose Oak Ridge over Clinton (past couple of years excluded lol) or choose Maryville over Heritage. It's as obvious as the nose on your face that there is the potential of advantage regardless of whether out of zone players have made any impact whatsoever in the recent success of the program.

 

The TSSAA's job is to deal with providing a reasonable standard of a level playing field based on the potential advantage, not the specifics of whether one school's success is tied to the advantage. For instance, Heritage is "penalized" by being in a larger classification (6A I think) because of the size of their student poplulation which is the size of the talent pool they have to draw from. They are not placed in 6A because they are a powerhouse. Or another example, there are private schools who don't have a good football program at all who still have a multiplier, because of the opportunity that a private school has to draw from a larger talent pool. The issue with open zoning and the reason that the TSSAA will take action at some point is the potential for an advantage, not whether they are a football powerhouse. Because of this, schools like Heritage will be effected to some degree too when the TSSAA takes action on this issue.