Multiplier Question

[volscott]

Let me narrow it down even more for you ... if you get what you want , and next year Alcoa beats Greeneville ( well they might be 5A .. But just making a point ) for the 4A State Championship and CAK beats ..... fill in the blank .... for the 3A Championship ... are you really happy with that ? As a Competitor I would not be satisfied knowing I had to get the rules changed that we had played by for 50 plus years . Would you ?? I would love it if we( Maryville ) could play Ensworth this weekend for the overall Championship ... or even Alcoa in a playoff for the overall .. I really just can't comprehend trying to change rules or legislate your way around competition . Sorry , that's just me I guess .

 

50 years??? Sorry, the multiplier hasn't been around that long. It is a relatively new rule and again, the question has been stated several times, GVK has stated it plainly---there just isn't any answers we can all debate yet. What we've gotten mostly so far is simply "you're whiners" "you aren't a real competitor" etc.

 

It doesn't matter to me personally since my son finished this year. So, it truly is a simple request--give us the logical reason the situation that GVK described, using Alcoa and CAK as examples, shouldn't be treated the same. Take those names out of it, pretend Alcoa shuts down and CAK shuts down--what is fair given the situation?

 

Or maybe this is easier---as I asked in a previous post--just divide us all up by size, no multiplier and if you make a dynasty, you have to move up.

[rebelscum1998]

If you watched the private school games, Maryville and Alcoa would compete with both. But that's another argument entirely.

 

However, I do have an idea.

 

Lets just blow it wide open. Start a mini-BCS of sorts. Name EVERYONE division 1. Let EVERYONE recruit, and ANYONE go to school ANYWHERE.

 

When great players FLOCK to the best coaches and best school tradition: Maryville's George Quarles(and staff) or Alcoa's Rankin and staff, what will be the excuse then?

[pepvol]

50 years??? Sorry, the multiplier hasn't been around that long. It is a relatively new rule and again, the question has been stated several times, GVK has stated it plainly---there just isn't any answers we can all debate yet. What we've gotten mostly so far is simply "you're whiners" "you aren't a real competitor" etc.

 

It doesn't matter to me personally since my son finished this year. So, it truly is a simple request--give us the logical reason the situation that GVK described, using Alcoa and CAK as examples, shouldn't be treated the same. Take those names out of it, pretend Alcoa shuts down and CAK shuts down--what is fair given the situation?

 

Or maybe this is easier---as I asked in a previous post--just divide us all up by size, no multiplier and if you make a dynasty, you have to move up.

 

I'm talking about tuition students you know " the open zone issue " ... lol

[CPHAGER]

You hit the nail on the head APB when you said ALL SPORTS. If Alcoa was racking up bowling state championships no one would care. Is the system fair? who knows, who cares??? I'll go to the softball or baseball thread in May and see how many of your west TN losers are complaining about open zones.

 

You hit the nail on the head it is not all sports it's football and we all know who is in charge of that and there is the reason. Noone gets that much talent without something going on.....

[clintabbott]

You hit the nail on the head it is not all sports it's football and we all know who is in charge of that and there is the reason. Noone gets that much talent without something going on.....

CPHAGER, What are you insuating? I've been around Alcoa for 41 years and I resent the fact that you say something is going on.

[RedRobin]

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?

 

I apologize that is taken so many posts to get my point across, but I promise that I will stop after this one. The cost of tuition at each school, public or private, is a matter of public record. I cannot verify the accuracy of the numbers, but I refer to Post # 31 above, which lists not only the cost per pupil at Alcoa (sorry to keep using this fine school as an example of the open zoned public, but it is the only one for which I am familiar with the rules), but it breaks down that cost between state funds and local funds. The family of any student who lives in the State of Tennessee is presumed to pay their fair share of the state portion of this tuition. Those who live in the school zone also pay the local portion, and thus are allowed to attend "tuition free". Any student who lives outside the school zone is also outside the local taxing authority and thus his/her family does not pay the local portion of the tuition; only the families of students living within the school zone proper pay their share of the local portion of the tuition.

 

My point is simply this: In "the Alcoa model", the out of zone athlete can attend by paying less than the local portion of the tuition, even though their family does not pay the local taxes (resulting in what you refer to as a "bargain basement" tuition); the local taxpayers make up the difference. DII uses the same model for an athlete who qualifies for aid, the only difference being that the school itself makes up the cost In either case, the school has the opportunity to bring in students from anywhere who are able to attend the school and play sports while not paying full tuition. This makes attendance at a school of that sort very attractive to most people, more attractive in fact than attending a school which uses what I will refer to as "the Maryville model" (which, assuming the accuracy of your above post, allows out of zone students, but charges them admission approximating the local portion of the tuition). I see the Maryville Model as being the same as the DI private situation, in that a student from anywhere can attend the school, but must pay full tuition in order to do so.

 

I agree with you that the TSSAA has no right to dictate how much tuition a school may charge. They do, however, have the right, and in fact the obligation, to place similarly situated schools in the same division. I doubt that it will ever happen, but I believe that public schools which follow the "Alcoa model" are most similar to DII schools. I also believe that schools which follow the Maryville model" should get the multiplier as do DI privates. We would love to have some of these schools come join us in DII-AA. Best wishes to all schools as they move on into the winter and spring sport seasons.

Edited December 8, 2010 by RedRobin

[CPHAGER]

I apologize that is taken so many posts to get my point across, but I promise that I will stop after this one. The cost of tuition at each school, public or private, is a matter of public record. I cannot verify the accuracy of the numbers, but I refer to Post # 31 above, which lists not only the cost per pupil at Alcoa (sorry to keep using this fine school as an example of the open zoned public, but it is the only one for which I am familiar with the rules), but it breaks down that cost between state funds and local funds. The family of any student who lives in the State of Tennessee is presumed to pay their fair share of the state portion of this tuition. Those who live in the school zone also pay the local portion, and thus are allowed to attend "tuition free". Any student who lives outside the school zone is also outside the local taxing authority and thus his/her family does not pay the local portion of the tuition; only the families of students living within the school zone proper pay their share of the local portion of the tuition.

 

My point is simply this: In "the Alcoa model", the out of zone athlete can attend by paying less than the local portion of the tuition, even though their family does not pay the local taxes (resulting in what you refer to as a "bargain basement" tuition); the local taxpayers make up the difference. DII uses the same model for an athlete who qualifies for aid, the only difference being that the school itself makes up the cost In either case, the school has the opportunity to bring in students from anywhere who are able to attend the school and play sports while not paying full tuition. This makes attendance at a school of that sort very attractive to most people, more attractive in fact than attending a school which uses what I will refer to as "the Maryville model" (which, assuming the accuracy of your above post, allows out of zone students, but charges them admission approximating the local portion of the tuition). I see the Maryville Model as being the same as the DI private situation, in that a student from anywhere can attend the school, but must pay full tuition in order to do so.

 

I agree with you that the TSSAA has no right to dictate how much tuition a school may charge. They do., however, have the right, and in fact the obligation, to place similarly situated school in the same divisions. I doubt that it will ever happen, but I believe that schools which follow the "Alcoa Model" are most similar to DII schools. Besides, we would love to have some of these schools come join us in DII-AA. Best wishes to all schools as they move on into the winter and spring sport seasons.teams for a healthy and productive off-season.

Very good answer!

[mbsdude]

If you are going to penalize the privates for open zone, then it's a must to do the same for the public's. This question is under consideration and I see it happening within 2 years. I dont blame Alcoa for taking advantage of Open Zones, Just the system for allowing it

[CPHAGER]

If you are going to penalize the privates for open zone, then it's a must to do the same for the public's. This question is under consideration and I see it happening within 2 years. I dont blame Alcoa for taking advantage of Open Zones, Just the system for allowing it

 

Another very good answer!

[rebelscum1998]

Honestly, I think people would pick up and move in order to play for these storied programs even if you didn't let them pay tuition and stay where they are.

 

Brent Burnette, QB from Maryville class of '08 is a great example. Lived in Halls until middle school, wanted to play for a good team, and that, among other reasons, fueled a move to Maryville. He paid no tuition, he lived about 5 minutes from MHS, and played 60 games without losing one in high school and got 4 rings.

 

People such as that will still go to these programs. Just the city's population will grow instead of the school's bank account!

[Govolsknox]

Let me narrow it down even more for you ... if you get what you want , and next year Alcoa beats Greeneville ( well they might be 5A .. But just making a point ) for the 4A State Championship and CAK beats ..... fill in the blank .... for the 3A Championship ... are you really happy with that ?

 

This question cuts both ways. So, I'll ask your question turned around in the other direction. Does a fine program with open zoning like Alcoa really want to win against their competition (CAK, Goodpasture, etc.) while that competition has one hand tied behind their back (multiplier), at the same time that Alcoa enjoys the same advantage (tuition out of zone students) but does not have the same penalty (multiplier)? To pick up on your implied point, isn't that victory just a bit hollow?

 

Alcoa would have won state championships without OOZ or with a multiplier. That isn't the point. The fact that so many fans refuse to admit this obvious disparity makes it appear that even though they recognize there is an advantage, they don't care about teams being treated equally.

 

What the OOZ folks need to come to terms with in their own minds is why some who have tuition out of zone get a multiplier and others who have tuition out of zone do not. If they can't see the disparity in that, then it is because they CHOOSE not to. All the name calling of, "whiners" and "not a true competitor" etc does not change the fact that Alcoa enjoys an obvious advantage, like a DI private, but without the multiplier that comes with it.

 

As for CAK, it is likely that if the TSSAA ever adds a multiplier to Alcoa, CAK will have already moved up to 4A as it is a growing school. If that happens, both teams will be where they should be.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Govolsknox

[rebelscum1998]

Alcoa would have won state championships without OOZ or with a multiplier. That isn't the point. The fact that so many fans refuse to admit this obvious disparity makes it appear that even though they recognize there is an advantage, they don't care about teams being treated equally.

 

I'm glad you realize this. Though Alcoa may have OZ, most of the players who I know that play for them, live somewhere off of Hall Rd in Alcoa.