Multiplier Question

[RedRobin]

You make a good point. You could make a case that only charging $500 tuition is in effect offering financial aid as it is well below market value. However, since the TSSAA cannot establish a tuition rate or mandate that a school charge a certain amount for tuition, the school is free to set the tuition at whatever they choose. As I see it, the TSSAA can only draw the line at whether their is literally financial aid being given or not. Since Alcoa charges the same $500 to the student athlete as the non athlete student, there is no literal financial aid, and therefore I do not believe the TSSAA will see open zone publics as DII.

 

 

I do understand that this is beating a dead horse, but to address the point that you made: a DII private charges the non-athlete the same as it charges the athlete. Financial aid has nothing to do with athleticism; it is based solely on financial need and the DII school that I am most familiar with gives as much aid to non-athletes as they do to athletes. They are literally precluded from taking into account a student's status regarding athletics when the third-party determines eligibility for financial aid. Thus, while there is no difference between the athlete and non-athlete under the "Alcoa model", there is also no difference between the two under the DII model.

Edited December 7, 2010 by RedRobin

[Govolsknox]

I do understand that this is beating a dead horse, but to address the point that you made: a DII private charges the non-athlete the same as it charges the athlete. Financial aid has nothing to do with athleticism; it is based solely on financial need and the DII school that I am most familiar with gives as much aid to non-athletes as they do to athletes. They are literally precluded from taking into account a student's status regarding athletics when the third-party determines eligibility for financial aid. Thus, while there is no difference between the athlete and non-athlete under the "Alcoa model", there is also no difference between the two under the DII model.

 

Perhaps we are debating semantics here but I'll leave it at this. In the DII financial aid model, the student's family pays part of the tuition and part of the tuition is paid for him based on need. Let's say tuition is $10,000 and he receives 75% aid. This student athlete pays $2,500 while regular students not receiving aid pay $10,000. This is simply not the same as the Alcoa model. In the Alcoa model, a low income or needy student athlete pays $500 just the same as a regular student pays $500 to attend. There is no financial aid being given in the Alcoa model. IMO, this is THE critical distinction. Regardless of the fact that we may be correct in believing that $500 is under market value for tuition, Alcoa has set that as their tuition and they charge it equally to both needy and non needy students alike. The TSSAA cannot mandate what a school system deems the value of tuition. Therefore, in the critical issue that separates current DII from current DI schools, Alcoa is not similar.

 

If on the other hand Alcoa charged $500 for tuition to regular students, but allowed needy students to pay a lower rate (which would be $125 to be consistent with the DII example above, 25% of $500) Alcoa would then be doing what the DII schools do. IMHO, regardless of whether one might believe $500 is too little for tuition, as long as they charge that $500 consistently to both needy and non needy student athletes, the TSSAA can't and won't consider them DII.

 

At one time I checked and Oak Ridge charged about $5000 per year to attend as out of zone. Maryville is around $2500. Alcoa is $500. The TSSAA simply has no authority to require schools to be consistent. Schools are free to set a tuition rate where they see fit.

 

Having said all that, it doesn't change the fact that Alcoa setting their tuition rate at the bargain rate of $500 is an obvious plus in being able to attract students and student athletes from OOZ. Again, nothing illegal here! It is playing by the rules and using them to your advantage fair and square. The question is, when (and if) will the TSSAA modify the rules to address the OOZ loophole that provides an obvious POTENTIAL advantage to open zone schools?

 

This is a complicated issue. You, APB and others have made valid points. Alcoa is "the perfect storm" for the OOZ issue. Great academics, diverse environment, great coaching, Bargain Basement tuition rate of $500, Blount county feeder program, Heritage and William Blount poor programs, Maryville virtually full and not taking OOZ student athletes, etc. When APB responds, he will correctly point out that there are a multitude of open zone schools that have not resulted in a dynasty. The difference is that Alcoa has all of the above on top of open zoning.

 

I submit that if it's just too complicated for the TSSAA to address the open zone issue, then do away with the multiplier all together. Perhaps do away with DII and perhaps do away with the size classifications. Why pretend that there is a level playing field and cherry pick some obvious advantages while ignoring another advantage that is just as obvious?

[volscott]

There are hundreds of open zone schools in TN. Why punish them for Alcoa success in football? Alcoa gets hammered by CAK in every other sport besides football, then turn around and "think " it is unfair for a private to have a multiplier? Come on! The 3A football championship had one private and one public. Both CAK and Goodpasture where very successful WITH the mult. TSSAA looks at this parity across all sports, and that why you'll not see them change the system.

 

If you did look at ALL sports........as far as 3A is concern, CAK probably has the most state championships this year

 

 

Hammered BC? Come on now. Maybe in girls sports some but boys soccer--you guys have been very, very good. Boys basketball--Isom on a break away--hide the children.

 

CAK did have success in tennis and golf this year and last--Lord knows Junior and FootballDad have been spending more time at the country club this year--secret to our success.

[volscott]

Perhaps we are debating semantics here but I'll leave it at this. In the DII financial aid model, the student's family pays part of the tuition and part of the tuition is paid for him based on need. Let's say tuition is $10,000 and he receives 75% aid. This student athlete pays $2,500 while regular students not receiving aid pay $10,000. This is simply not the same as the Alcoa model. In the Alcoa model, a low income or needy student athlete pays $500 just the same as a regular student pays $500 to attend. There is no financial aid being given in the Alcoa model. IMO, this is THE critical distinction. Regardless of the fact that we may be correct in believing that $500 is under market value for tuition, Alcoa has set that as their tuition and they charge it equally to both needy and non needy students alike. The TSSAA cannot mandate what a school system deems the value of tuition. Therefore, in the critical issue that separates current DII from current DI schools, Alcoa is not similar.

 

If on the other hand Alcoa charged $500 for tuition to regular students, but allowed needy students to pay a lower rate (which would be $125 to be consistent with the DII example above, 25% of $500) Alcoa would then be doing what the DII schools do. IMHO, regardless of whether one might believe $500 is too little for tuition, as long as they charge that $500 consistently to both needy and non needy student athletes, the TSSAA can't and won't consider them DII.

 

At one time I checked and Oak Ridge charged about $5000 per year to attend as out of zone. Maryville is around $2500. Alcoa is $500. The TSSAA simply has no authority to require schools to be consistent. Schools are free to set a tuition rate where they see fit.

 

Having said all that, it doesn't change the fact that Alcoa setting their tuition rate at the bargain rate of $500 is an obvious plus in being able to attract students and student athletes from OOZ. Again, nothing illegal here! It is playing by the rules and using them to your advantage fair and square. The question is, when (and if) will the TSSAA modify the rules to address the OOZ loophole that provides an obvious POTENTIAL advantage to open zone schools?

 

This is a complicated issue. You, APB and others have made valid points. Alcoa is "the perfect storm" for the OOZ issue. Great academics, diverse environment, great coaching, Bargain Basement tuition rate of $500, Blount county feeder program, Heritage and William Blount poor programs, Maryville virtually full and not taking OOZ student athletes, etc. When APB responds, he will correctly point out that there are a multitude of open zone schools that have not resulted in a dynasty. The difference is that Alcoa has all of the above on top of open zoning.

 

I submit that if it's just too complicated for the TSSAA to address the open zone issue, then do away with the multiplier all together. Perhaps do away with DII and perhaps do away with the size classifications. Why pretend that there is a level playing field and cherry pick some obvious advantages while ignoring another advantage that is just as obvious?

[volscott]

Perhaps we are debating semantics here but I'll leave it at this. In the DII financial aid model, the student's family pays part of the tuition and part of the tuition is paid for him based on need. Let's say tuition is $10,000 and he receives 75% aid. This student athlete pays $2,500 while regular students not receiving aid pay $10,000. This is simply not the same as the Alcoa model. In the Alcoa model, a low income or needy student athlete pays $500 just the same as a regular student pays $500 to attend. There is no financial aid being given in the Alcoa model. IMO, this is THE critical distinction. Regardless of the fact that we may be correct in believing that $500 is under market value for tuition, Alcoa has set that as their tuition and they charge it equally to both needy and non needy students alike. The TSSAA cannot mandate what a school system deems the value of tuition. Therefore, in the critical issue that separates current DII from current DI schools, Alcoa is not similar.

 

If on the other hand Alcoa charged $500 for tuition to regular students, but allowed needy students to pay a lower rate (which would be $125 to be consistent with the DII example above, 25% of $500) Alcoa would then be doing what the DII schools do. IMHO, regardless of whether one might believe $500 is too little for tuition, as long as they charge that $500 consistently to both needy and non needy student athletes, the TSSAA can't and won't consider them DII.

 

At one time I checked and Oak Ridge charged about $5000 per year to attend as out of zone. Maryville is around $2500. Alcoa is $500. The TSSAA simply has no authority to require schools to be consistent. Schools are free to set a tuition rate where they see fit.

 

Having said all that, it doesn't change the fact that Alcoa setting their tuition rate at the bargain rate of $500 is an obvious plus in being able to attract students and student athletes from OOZ. Again, nothing illegal here! It is playing by the rules and using them to your advantage fair and square. The question is, when (and if) will the TSSAA modify the rules to address the OOZ loophole that provides an obvious POTENTIAL advantage to open zone schools?

 

This is a complicated issue. You, APB and others have made valid points. Alcoa is "the perfect storm" for the OOZ issue. Great academics, diverse environment, great coaching, Bargain Basement tuition rate of $500, Blount county feeder program, Heritage and William Blount poor programs, Maryville virtually full and not taking OOZ student athletes, etc. When APB responds, he will correctly point out that there are a multitude of open zone schools that have not resulted in a dynasty. The difference is that Alcoa has all of the above on top of open zoning.

 

I submit that if it's just too complicated for the TSSAA to address the open zone issue, then do away with the multiplier all together. Perhaps do away with DII and perhaps do away with the size classifications. Why pretend that there is a level playing field and cherry pick some obvious advantages while ignoring another advantage that is just as obvious?

 

 

One observation--OOZ folks choose an OOZ school for the same reason we chose CAK--perceived advantages over the public school options (everyone's list of those advantages are will be a little different) and the OOZ schood has all the same perceived and real advantages as a D1 private. So, multiplier seems fair to apply to both. For Polk's situation-if no one uses the OOZ option in Polk Co there must not be any perceived or real value so get rid of it.

 

This can get very complicated so I'll propose a solution. Get rid of the multiplier. Divide everyone not giving financial aid to athletes up into categories based on enrollment--4, 5, 6 whatever. If you win three state championships in a row, you move up for the next year in that sport. I'm sure I'll look like swiss cheese by tomorrow.

 

I'm about in FBD's position. I had a great time watching my son play these last four years and watching him mature, etc. That's what it's really all about in the end. Basketball time for the youngsters now.

[BCsportsfan]

One observation--OOZ folks choose an OOZ school for the same reason we chose CAK--perceived advantages over the public school options (everyone's list of those advantages are will be a little different) and the OOZ schood has all the same perceived and real advantages as a D1 private. So, multiplier seems fair to apply to both. For Polk's situation-if no one uses the OOZ option in Polk Co there must not be any perceived or real value so get rid of it.

 

This can get very complicated so I'll propose a solution. Get rid of the multiplier. Divide everyone not giving financial aid to athletes up into categories based on enrollment--4, 5, 6 whatever. If you win three state championships in a row, you move up for the next year in that sport. I'm sure I'll look like swiss cheese by tomorrow.

 

I'm about in FBD's position. I had a great time watching my son play these last four years and watching him mature, etc. That's what it's really all about in the end. Basketball time for the youngsters now.

 

 

CAK and all other privates in DI need to go DII. Like Webb. Then forget th multiplier.

[Indian]

If it's considered, they should look at a multiplier on individual teams at a school. Maybe something like an extra .2 for basketball and baseball per player(fewer on team), .1 for football. Teams with no out of zone players, don't get multiplied. This would protect struggling teams with all locals from having to move up.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Indian

[AlcoasPaintedBridge]

CAK and all other privates in DI need to go DII. Like Webb. Then forget th multiplier.

BC pleas hold your responses until tomorrow. Today is "their" day. Tomorrow the home team takes the field.

[faceforradio]

Perhaps we are debating semantics here but I'll leave it at this. In the DII financial aid model, the student's family pays part of the tuition and part of the tuition is paid for him based on need. Let's say tuition is $10,000 and he receives 75% aid. This student athlete pays $2,500 while regular students not receiving aid pay $10,000. This is simply not the same as the Alcoa model. In the Alcoa model, a low income or needy student athlete pays $500 just the same as a regular student pays $500 to attend. There is no financial aid being given in the Alcoa model. IMO, this is THE critical distinction. Regardless of the fact that we may be correct in believing that $500 is under market value for tuition, Alcoa has set that as their tuition and they charge it equally to both needy and non needy students alike. The TSSAA cannot mandate what a school system deems the value of tuition. Therefore, in the critical issue that separates current DII from current DI schools, Alcoa is not similar.

 

If on the other hand Alcoa charged $500 for tuition to regular students, but allowed needy students to pay a lower rate (which would be $125 to be consistent with the DII example above, 25% of $500) Alcoa would then be doing what the DII schools do. IMHO, regardless of whether one might believe $500 is too little for tuition, as long as they charge that $500 consistently to both needy and non needy student athletes, the TSSAA can't and won't consider them DII.

 

At one time I checked and Oak Ridge charged about $5000 per year to attend as out of zone. Maryville is around $2500. Alcoa is $500. The TSSAA simply has no authority to require schools to be consistent. Schools are free to set a tuition rate where they see fit.

 

Having said all that, it doesn't change the fact that Alcoa setting their tuition rate at the bargain rate of $500 is an obvious plus in being able to attract students and student athletes from OOZ. Again, nothing illegal here! It is playing by the rules and using them to your advantage fair and square. The question is, when (and if) will the TSSAA modify the rules to address the OOZ loophole that provides an obvious POTENTIAL advantage to open zone schools?

 

This is a complicated issue. You, APB and others have made valid points. Alcoa is "the perfect storm" for the OOZ issue. Great academics, diverse environment, great coaching, Bargain Basement tuition rate of $500, Blount county feeder program, Heritage and William Blount poor programs, Maryville virtually full and not taking OOZ student athletes, etc. When APB responds, he will correctly point out that there are a multitude of open zone schools that have not resulted in a dynasty. The difference is that Alcoa has all of the above on top of open zoning.

 

I submit that if it's just too complicated for the TSSAA to address the open zone issue, then do away with the multiplier all together. Perhaps do away with DII and perhaps do away with the size classifications. Why pretend that there is a level playing field and cherry pick some obvious advantages while ignoring another advantage that is just as obvious?

GVK, probably the best post I've seen on this subject. Your summary of the "perfect storm", is only missing an explanation of the economic factors that led to the establishment of the home town base that would win most games anyway. I have actually considered writing a book about it all. Maybe you CAK guys can hook me up with some of your publisher friends. Hope you guys don't disappear from the boards next year.

[Govolsknox]

CAK and all other privates in DI need to go DII. Like Webb. Then forget th multiplier.

 

I respect differing opinions, but I don't believe this fits and here's why. Once again, the distinguishing characteristic of DII is financial aid being an option for athletes. Since CAK doesn't give financial aid to athletes, nor does Alcoa, neither should be in DII. The TSSAA cannot mandate that CAK give financial aid any more than it can mandate that Alcoa charge $2000 - $5000 for tuition. It is the schools decision what the tuition rate is and whether they wish to offer financial aid. If and when they offer financial aid to student athletes, they are then a DII school. Alcoa simply has the benefit of an extremely low tuition that is "doable" by the majority of families.

[Govolsknox]

GVK, probably the best post I've seen on this subject. Your summary of the "perfect storm", is only missing an explanation of the economic factors that led to the establishment of the home town base that would win most games anyway. I have actually considered writing a book about it all. Maybe you CAK guys can hook me up with some of your publisher friends. Hope you guys don't disappear from the boards next year.

 

Thank you FFR. I have read your previous posts discussing the historical background of the Alcoa community and its impact on Alcoa football. Excellent information and quite interesting as well. Perhaps you might consider cutting and pasting to this thread for those who are interested and didn't get a chance to read your posts from earlier threads on this subject.

[BullDawgGirl03]

APB still hasn't answered my question as to why Milan is an "open zone" school.

 

But let's fancy his fantasy world that Milan pulls 'all' the 'good' football players from Gibson Co. with the understanding that Alcoa is truly an open zone and does pull good football players from Blount Co. The question was raised on how many of our other schools in the county were dominate or state champions. Gibson Co. has approximately 50,000 (approximately 8350 under 18) residents to Blount Co.s 123,000(approximately 27,183 under 18)!

 

Now back to reality where Milan IS closed (despite APBs desperate attempts to prove otherwise) and Alcoa IS open and has a MUCH larger pool to appeal to. Logically that's why there are more competitive schools, because you have a larger area! There is no way anyone can make a logical argument that an open zone (especially in highly populated areas) doesn't have an advantage against a closed zone school.