Multiplier Question

[AlcoasPaintedBridge]

Ha, just remember. You invited me in.

Hey, a promise is a promise!

Where's your brother?

Edited December 7, 2010 by AlcoasPaintedBridge

[bulldawgs#1]

You should have paid attention during vocabulary time...commence=start...try to keep up here.

You said you didn't make any arguments. So, I said we could call them "comments." And you're trying to call me out. Come on now....

[Govolsknox]

Hey, a promise is a promise!

Where's your brother?

 

On the way, I presume...

[AlcoasPaintedBridge]

You said you didn't make any arguments. So, I said we could call them "comments." And you're trying to call me out. Come on now....

My bad...I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Gibson County.

[Govolsknox]

I have changed my "signature" in honor of this thread.

[FootballDad]

I've been detoxing from football season and gearing up for basketball but couldn't help but take a peek one more time at the football threads and wouldn't you know it...here we go. Nice for you to invite me & GVK over to your house APB. I really hate diving into this thing so soon after all the wonderful football I've witnessed this season and just after the enjoyable state championship games I watched on TV. Like GVK said, despite his and my attempts to make this about all open zone schools and the multiplier being applied equally, enough posters make it primarily about Alcoa so that it ultimately results in unfriendly fodder between us and our Blount Co. friends. I think you know how I feel. If the speed limit is 70mph for GVK in his Mercedes, it should be 70mph for BC or STARS in their garbage trucks.(ya'll know I still love ya ) Income, age, condition of the vehicle, country of origin, etc... should not matter. The law should be applied equally. Thats about as simple of an analogy as my simple brain can express at this hour.

 

I RESPECT Alcoa & Maryville more than ANY football program in this state, period, including CAK's (although I do hold a high opinion of our program as well). I also have been down this road and clearly stated my displeasure with the inequity of the multiplier and how it is applied to D1's vs Open Zone Schools. Therefore, I will stand on my previous posts from the past on this subject, defer to my much more esteemed colleagues, and move on to the basketball courts and watch the "little apple" try to get his shot back after a long grueling football season. This thread should be fun, but I'm not getting on this time around. Ultimately its a TSSAA thang and I'm not real enthusiastic about how that process typically plays out. See you in the gym or on the gridiron next fall. Merry Christmas to all and to all a goodnight.

[mcwrestler]

The problem with giving a multiplier to open-zoned schools is, where do you draw the line. I attended the Polk County School system for all 12 years of school, and I didn't know that we will accept non-resident tuition students until I looked it up today on the system's website. I can't honestly think of one case of this being used. So do you apply the multiplier to school systems that might have this on the books but it is seldom or never used?

 

And just for the record Polk County would be 5A in the current system if the 1.8 multiplier is applied.

IMO, you either are open zoned, or you are not. If you want to call for a multiplier to any school allowing non-zoned tuition students then it goes across the board, all sports, all schools. Not just the successful ones as some may hope.

 

If you are DII is one sport you are DII in all. If you are subject to OZ multiplier in one, it is a multiplier in all.

[rebulldawg]

Well you kinda jumped the gun there, but that's OK.

Since I guess I have been appointed Pope of this dilemma for better or worse, I get to set the rules.

My House, My rules.....

Anti open zone have 24 hours to make their cases...BUT!

Your case must be state wide! and include ALL sports.

If you want a multiplier put on open zone, it must include ALL open zone schools (you out there know who you are (Milan, Loudon, Greeneville...etc...) And your case CANNOT be football discriminant. There will be other sports affected by your recommendations and ALL deserve equal respect.

Me and my crack staff of open-zoners will be back on Wednesday to defend our side and you will have the chance to rebut on Thursday and that's it.

The thread will be closed Thursday at midnight. so make your best shot count.

 

 

Regards,

The Bridge.

 

 

 

 

open zones for all...i'm a believer!!!!

 

no multiplier, but tuition should be equal what the system would otherwise receive for an in-zone student from that city (property tax revenue, etc.), as long as the student resides in the same county. if out of the county students were allowed, should be equivalent to what would be received from that system's city AND county gov't.

[RedRobin]

Robin, while not identical to either, I see the open zone publics closer to the DI privates than DII privates. The distinguishing characteristic of DII is the school allowing athletes who receive financial aid the opportunity to play TSSAA sports. Alcoa does not give financial aid to student athletes which is the same as the DI privates, and therefore more similar to the DI private model.

 

 

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I understand where you are coming from, but I see it as follows:

 

DI "closed zone" publics. All students live in zone. Full fair market value of the education is paid by by state and local taxes.

 

DI privates. No zone - students can come from anywhere. Athletes cannot receive need-based aid. Family of student must pay full fair market value of education. Multiplier of 1.8 is applied.

 

DII privates. No zone - students can come from anywhere. Athletes can receive need-based financial aid, but no student receives 100% tuition in need-based aid. Family of student pays difference between need-based financial aid and the fair market value of the eduction. Need-based aid is paid by school (endowment, etc.) allowing athlete to attend school for less than the fair market value of the education.

 

DI "open zone" public (based on the Alcoa model). No zone - students can come from anywhere. Student pays nominal "tuition" of $500/year. The vast majority of the fair market value of the education is paid by state and local taxes, regardless of residence of the student, allowing out of zone athlete to attend school for less than the fair market value of the education.

 

Alcoa clearly has numerous assets, both athletic and academic which are attractive to out of zone students. It seems to me that allowing these students to attend by paying far less than the actual value of the education makes these true open zone publics more like DII schools from the "recruiting" standpoint (I put the word "recruiting" in quotation marks because I am not in any way accusing any school, DI or DII, of improper recruiting). The key is that they are able to offer a very attractive educational and athletic "package" to any and all students, regardless of where they reside, for less than the fair market value of the package. The only difference that I see is that in DII, this can only be offered upon a showing of legitimate financial need and the tuition is subsidized by the school itself. For the true DI open zoned school, there is no financial need requirement and the tuition is subsidized by the local taxpayers. Looked at from the perspective of the student, the "package" that Alcoa offers resembles that of any DII (as regards a student with demonstrable financial need) : a very attractive educational and athletic environment for a price far less than it is worth.

[polkalumni]

IMO, you either are open zoned, or you are not. If you want to call for a multiplier to any school allowing non-zoned tuition students then it goes across the board, all sports, all schools. Not just the successful ones as some may hope.

 

If you are DII is one sport you are DII in all. If you are subject to OZ multiplier in one, it is a multiplier in all.

I agree with you, my point is there should not be a multiplier for OZ schools. Heck, I'm not even a fan of the multiplier for D-1 privates. Just my opinion.

Edited December 7, 2010 by polkalumni

[Govolsknox]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I understand where you are coming from, but I see it as follows:

 

DI "closed zone" publics. All students live in zone. Full fair market value of the education is paid by by state and local taxes.

 

DI privates. No zone - students can come from anywhere. Athletes cannot receive need-based aid. Family of student must pay full fair market value of education. Multiplier of 1.8 is applied.

 

DII privates. No zone - students can come from anywhere. Athletes can receive need-based financial aid, but no student receives 100% tuition in need-based aid. Family of student pays difference between need-based financial aid and the fair market value of the eduction. Need-based aid is paid by school (endowment, etc.) allowing athlete to attend school for less than the fair market value of the education.

 

DI "open zone" public (based on the Alcoa model). No zone - students can come from anywhere. Student pays nominal "tuition" of $500/year. The vast majority of the fair market value of the education is paid by state and local taxes, regardless of residence of the student, allowing out of zone athlete to attend school for less than the fair market value of the education.

 

Alcoa clearly has numerous assets, both athletic and academic which are attractive to out of zone students. It seems to me that allowing these students to attend by paying far less than the actual value of the education makes these true open zone publics more like DII schools from the "recruiting" standpoint (I put the word "recruiting" in quotation marks because I am not in any way accusing any school, DI or DII, of improper recruiting). The key is that they are able to offer a very attractive educational and athletic "package" to any and all students, regardless of where they reside, for less than the fair market value of the package. The only difference that I see is that in DII, this can only be offered upon a showing of legitimate financial need and the tuition is subsidized by the school itself. For the true DI open zoned school, there is no financial need requirement and the tuition is subsidized by the local taxpayers. Looked at from the perspective of the student, the "package" that Alcoa offers resembles that of any DII (as regards a student with demonstrable financial need) : a very attractive educational and athletic environment for a price far less than it is worth.

 

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.

Edited December 7, 2010 by Govolsknox

[Govolsknox]

speed limit is 70mph for GVK in his Mercedes,

 

No worries. My Yugo strains to get up to 50mph.