Open zone schools: A level playing field?

[amos]

The biggest issue for Knox County Schools as compared to privates and surrounding counties is time! Knox County simply will not ever be a place that football players can have weightlifting during the day. Not only does school get out at 3:30, the players havn't lifted a weight or watched a film so coaches have to make decisions. 1-keep players till 7:00 to allow time for watching film and lifting 2 days a week or 2-get players home to eat dinner and do homework at a remotly resonable time. Many of the surrounding counties get out of school earlier and have 4th block weightlifting. Privates at least have players in weightlifting/film before school is out even though they don't get out till 3:30 too. This is no small advantage. There is no lack of commitment from coaches and players as someone suggested way back on this post. Youth league programs around Knoxville don't really feed kids to H.S. programs. Each youth program has kids on teams that will go to many different schools. It's ridiculous and everybody knows it. Could anybody even argue that lack of youth leagues running the H.S. x's and o's doesn't make a difference? Knox West, I think, has the only youth program that is directly under the umbrella of the head coach at the H.S. and they only had 3 teams last year. They have to run the basic offense and defense of the H.S. or they can't coach. Privates already have this as well as surrounding counties. These are the real issues when it is all said and done.

[Govolsknox]

A multiplier based on percentage of out of zone players on any given roster has several key flaws that prevent it from being useful at all, in my opinion.

 

First, it could potentially encourage coaches to cut players to lower their team's multiplier. Obviously this is a terrible thing for everyone involved. If cutting a handful of non-impact players meant going to a lower classification, it would be very tempting. As well, this number could be manipulated by putting several non-players on the roster, such as managers.

 

Also, the percentage could change a great deal every year. Within a four year classification period the number of out of zone players compared to the number of zoned players would vary far too much for any reasonable standard to be set. Simply adding the percentage itself as a multiplier seems like a weak adjustment anyway. A team with 37% out of zone players likely has just as much advantage as a private school as far as drawing talent goes. Private schools all share a 1.8 multiplier, regardless of size of their potential student pools.

 

Speaking of which, that is the another flaw I see in such a multiplier. The potential student pool is not taken into account. I still say the real advantage here is being able to draw students from a large population. This proposed multiplier doesn't take that into account.

 

It's simply not a very good metric to use as a basis for equality.

 

Jangel, I see your points. A multiplier to deal with the open zone issue is not perfect. However, I believe it is the best option that has been mentioned on this thread so far. I believe the fact that there is already precedence for using a multiplier to "level the playing field" makes it the most likely remedy the TSSAA will use if and when they choose to examine the issue. You make a fair point that being able to draw from a county the size of Knox or Blount is a positive as compared to a small rural county. However, as BC points out, there is also the obvious negative that there are more schools in the geography to compete for those same athletes willing to go out of their district. (Although there are really only 2 football schools out of 4 Blount HS's.) Look at the Knoxville area for a moment and consider all of the schools that have had strong or very strong football programs. I'll name a few. (All of these are within roughly a 30 minute drive): Austin East, Anderson Co, Bearden, Carter, Farragut, Fulton, Central, Halls, Oak Ridge, Webb, Catholic, CAK. There are alot more schools of course than these, but these are all schools that either currently or traditionally have strong to very strong football programs. So, I think while your point is valid, it is mitigated by BC's point that in a large county with large population, there are more schools to compete for those athletes willing to go out of their district. IMO, while it may not be 100%, this automatically essentially neutralizes the issue you are concerned with.

[BCsportsfan]

A multiplier based on percentage of out of zone players on any given roster has several key flaws that prevent it from being useful at all, in my opinion.

 

First, it could potentially encourage coaches to cut players to lower their team's multiplier. Obviously this is a terrible thing for everyone involved. If cutting a handful of non-impact players meant going to a lower classification, it would be very tempting. As well, this number could be manipulated by putting several non-players on the roster, such as managers.

 

Also, the percentage could change a great deal every year. Within a four year classification period the number of out of zone players compared to the number of zoned players would vary far too much for any reasonable standard to be set. Simply adding the percentage itself as a multiplier seems like a weak adjustment anyway. A team with 37% out of zone players likely has just as much advantage as a private school as far as drawing talent goes. Private schools all share a 1.8 multiplier, regardless of size of their potential student pools.

 

Speaking of which, that is the another flaw I see in such a multiplier. The potential student pool is not taken into account. I still say the real advantage here is being able to draw students from a large population. This proposed multiplier doesn't take that into account.

 

It's simply not a very good metric to use as a basis for equality.

 

Jangel, I see your points. A multiplier to deal with the open zone issue is not perfect. However, I believe it is the best option that has been mentioned on this thread so far. I believe the fact that there is already precedence for using a multiplier to "level the playing field" makes it the most likely remedy the TSSAA will use if and when they choose to examine the issue. You make a fair point that being able to draw from a county the size of Knox or Blount is a positive as compared to a small rural county. However, as BC points out, there is also the obvious negative that there are more schools in the geography to compete for those same athletes willing to go out of their district. (Although there are really only 2 football schools out of 4 Blount HS's.) Look at the Knoxville area for a moment and consider all of the schools that have had strong or very strong football programs. I'll name a few. (All of these are within roughly a 30 minute drive): Austin East, Anderson Co, Bearden, Carter, Farragut, Fulton, Central, Halls, Oak Ridge, Webb, Catholic, CAK. There are alot more schools of course than these, but these are all schools that either currently or traditionally have strong to very strong football programs. So, I think while your point is valid, it is mitigated by BC's point that in a large county with large population, there are more schools to compete for those athletes willing to go out of their district. IMO, while it may not be 100%, this automatically essentially neutralizes the issue you are concerned with.

 

Also note, in Blount County, Alcoa city and Maryville city limits intertwine with both schools being approx. 5 miles apart. Both schools are open zone and very successfully football programs. This makes it very difficult for one school to pull in all the area talent.

 

Also..........don't tell William Blount or Heritage they're not a football school.

[jangel]

I see what you mean. Like Smith County. That County has only one other school, Gordonsville a small 1A school, so Smith County can pull players from the rest of the entire county(large potential pool). Where Blount County has 4 schools, Alcoa, Heritage, Maryville and William Blount. With Heritage, Maryville, and WB being big 6A schools it does not leave much of a potential student pool for Alcoa.

 

There is no comparison between the situation at Smith County and the situation at Alcoa. While having more schools to "compete" with for talent is a valid point, comparing Blount and Smith counties in this case is kind of silly. Blount county has a population of 105,000+ (according to 2000 census), while Smith county has a population of less than 20,000 (from same data). Over five times the population but only two more schools. Three of those schools compete in high classifications where they are already being placed against schools with similar potential student pools. However, Alcoa is a small school in a densely populated area, so it benefits from having access to high population talent without high population enrollment.

 

Jangel, I see your points. A multiplier to deal with the open zone issue is not perfect. However, I believe it is the best option that has been mentioned on this thread so far. I believe the fact that there is already precedence for using a multiplier to "level the playing field" makes it the most likely remedy the TSSAA will use if and when they choose to examine the issue.

 

I agree that it is the most likely solution since it is simple, and as you said has precedent. However, I believe there are several other options that are much more fair to everyone.

 

You make a fair point that being able to draw from a county the size of Knox or Blount is a positive as compared to a small rural county. However, as BC points out, there is also the obvious negative that there are more schools in the geography to compete for those same athletes willing to go out of their district. (Although there are really only 2 football schools out of 4 Blount HS's.)

 

Much larger schools that are already placed in higher classifications for their access to the high population as I said earlier. Two that you believe are not considered "football schools". Wouldn't the chance to play at a dynasty at Alcoa in a smaller, easier, classification be alluring to potential students? Again, would that constitute an unfair advantage?

 

Look at the Knoxville area for a moment and consider all of the schools that have had strong or very strong football programs. I'll name a few. (All of these are within roughly a 30 minute drive): Austin East, Anderson Co, Bearden, Carter, Farragut, Fulton, Central, Halls, Oak Ridge, Webb, Catholic, CAK. There are alot more schools of course than these, but these are all schools that either currently or traditionally have strong to very strong football programs.

 

This only goes to show the amount of talent in the area, thanks to the high population.

 

So, I think while your point is valid, it is mitigated by BC's point that in a large county with large population, there are more schools to compete for those athletes willing to go out of their district. IMO, while it may not be 100%, this automatically essentially neutralizes the issue you are concerned with.

 

I don't believe it is mitigated at all. In fact, I believe it is THE source of any "unfair advantage" open-zoned schools have over anyone else. The large schools are already appropriately placed in higher classifications thanks to their high enrollment. Enrollment caused by the dense population. However, smaller schools do not suffer from this, so any advantage is much more profound there. The essence of any advantage to having an open zone is to be able to draw athletes from the talent pools of other schools. Though, you may be right that this issue is mitigated in the case that open-zoned schools receive a multiplier or other "equalizer".

 

Also note, in Blount County, Alcoa city and Maryville city limits intertwine with both schools being approx. 5 miles apart. Both schools are open zone and very successfully football programs. This makes it very difficult for one school to pull in all the area talent.

 

There is obviously enough talent in the area for both schools to stay on a championship level indefinitely.

 

All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than just an open-zone issue. It's the size of the talent pool I tell ya!

[BCsportsfan]

The good thing about the open zone debate is................it will still be a big topic of discussion next season after Alcoa pounds the mud out of teams and wins their 7th straight this year!

[Indian]

Names aren't needed or wanted-at all-but for those familiar with the team, how many starters counting kicker and punter were players from outside Alcoa, whatever area would be their "zone"?

[AlcoasPaintedBridge]

SHOW ME THE FOOD!!!!!

What day, time????

I told Mike to have some desserts so GVK could have his cake and eat it too with this thread.

[Govolsknox]

SHOW ME THE FOOD!!!!!

What day, time????

I told Mike to have some desserts so GVK could have his cake and eat it too with this thread.

 

Is it time yet??? Did we decide on Monday or Tuesday BOH. (Both? ) Whatever works best for you guys is good for me.

[Redog]

Don't forget about the magnet schools - they are "workin" the system too

[AlcoaPride2010]

Final Score: Alcoa a lot, your school 0.

"its not fair(blah blah blah)... open zone(blah blah blah)... recruiting(blah blah blah)."

Do yall haters ever get tired of crying?

[riverrat]

No it is not a level playing field. Would be interesting to research the successful DI schools and see which ones are open enrollment.

[MLREB]

Names aren't needed or wanted-at all-but for those familiar with the team, how many starters counting kicker and punter were players from outside Alcoa, whatever area would be their "zone"?

 

 

Last year it was 37%. It could be more or less in 2010. A couple of kids that were OOZ players last year are rumored to be moving back to their previous school. Alcoa has a high percentage of younger (7th and 8th graders) that are OOZ players that are attending school for athletic and academic purposes. Until the county schools upgrade football and academics Alcoa is going to remain an attractive alternative to the county schools in addition to some Knox and Loudon County kids.