Private-public split will be bad for high school football

[chill]

Q, Arlington is now up to nearly 2800 students if I can believe my niece that attends school there. They will play schools with 1000 students?

[QSouth89]

Q, Arlington is now up to nearly 2800 students if I can believe my niece that attends school there. They will play schools with 1000 students?

I was referring to football and trying to stir the pot. I don't know how this will end up. But 6 classes is a lot 5 is probably better. A lot of people are complaining about the 6A (super 32 teams)

[Indian]

If they bring all back in from DII for the regular season it needs to be 6, the regions would average too many teams with 5.

[Booger]

D2 should be blended with 6A in all sports; including even that softball stuff

 

Booger just sayin

[UpperCumberlandMan]

I am ready for football, line them up and play. I am over all this advantaged and disadvantaged schools talk.

[Govolsknox]

As far as I know, none of us posters on CoachT have any real influence on the outcome. It will be what it will be. But I have to agree with an earlier poster. If the TSSAA addresses the public / private debate but does not address the clear issue of open zones, what have they accomplished? The privates, at least, have a multiplier and the fact that they don't have a "home zone" that automatically brings in kids, and they have to deal with expensive tuition that prevents many good athletes from attending. These are not factors with the schools who have (completely within the rules) made tremendous use of the open zone policy. I realize that it is a nightmare to address because many schools that are technically open zoned have almost no open zone student athletes contributing, while some have a substantial number and are major contributors. If the TSSAA splits the privates out but does not address this other issue, the concern so many have brought up, of a large disparity on the size of talent pool a school has to work with, won't have been addressed. As others have pointed out in the past, this issue gets more dramatic, the smaller the school is. Both privates and open zone schools have a much bigger "advantage" in 1A - 3A than against the large schools.

 

This advantage is apparently so large that even a 1.8 multiplier is not enough to "even the playing field." So if that is the case for a private, working with a 1.8 multiplier, what advantage does that mean for an open zone public, with low tuition, a "home zone" + open zone, and no multiplier? I have never heard a reasonable answer to that question. It has been well documented that many open zone schools don't achieve success (just like some privates don't achieve athletic success) but the fact remains that some open zone schools HAVE had a roster that has a substantial number of out of zone players that have had a major contribution to their success.  And while athletics is not the most important thing in high school, it IS the most important thing to the TSSAthletics Association. It's their job to address athletic issues such as this, even the complicated ones.

[QSouth89]

I am ready for football, line them up and play. I am over all this advantaged and disadvantaged schools talk.

Me too

[QSouth89]

As far as I know, none of us posters on CoachT have any real influence on the outcome. It will be what it will be. But I have to agree with an earlier poster. If the TSSAA addresses the public / private debate but does not address the clear issue of open zones, what have they accomplished? The privates, at least, have a multiplier and the fact that they don't have a "home zone" that automatically brings in kids, and they have to deal with expensive tuition that prevents many good athletes from attending. These are not factors with the schools who have (completely within the rules) made tremendous use of the open zone policy. I realize that it is a nightmare to address because many schools that are technically open zoned have almost no open zone student athletes contributing, while some have a substantial number and are major contributors. If the TSSAA splits the privates out but does not address this other issue, the concern so many have brought up, of a large disparity on the size of talent pool a school has to work with, won't have been addressed. As others have pointed out in the past, this issue gets more dramatic, the smaller the school is. Both privates and open zone schools have a much bigger "advantage" in 1A - 3A than against the large schools.

 

This advantage is apparently so large that even a 1.8 multiplier is not enough to "even the playing field." So if that is the case for a private, working with a 1.8 multiplier, what advantage does that mean for an open zone public, with low tuition, a "home zone" + open zone, and no multiplier? I have never heard a reasonable answer to that question. It has been well documented that many open zone schools don't achieve success (just like some privates don't achieve athletic success) but the fact remains that some open zone schools HAVE had a roster that has a substantial number of out of zone players that have had a major contribution to their success. And while athletics is not the most important thing in high school, it IS the most important thing to the TSSAthletics Association. It's their job to address athletic issues such as this, even the complicated ones.

Excellent point

[Booger]

I am ready for football, line them up and play. I am over all this advantaged and disadvantaged schools talk.

 

Booger just sayin

[pujo]

As far as I know, none of us posters on CoachT have any real influence on the outcome. It will be what it will be. But I have to agree with an earlier poster. If the TSSAA addresses the public / private debate but does not address the clear issue of open zones, what have they accomplished? The privates, at least, have a multiplier and the fact that they don't have a "home zone" that automatically brings in kids, and they have to deal with expensive tuition that prevents many good athletes from attending. These are not factors with the schools who have (completely within the rules) made tremendous use of the open zone policy. I realize that it is a nightmare to address because many schools that are technically open zoned have almost no open zone student athletes contributing, while some have a substantial number and are major contributors. If the TSSAA splits the privates out but does not address this other issue, the concern so many have brought up, of a large disparity on the size of talent pool a school has to work with, won't have been addressed. As others have pointed out in the past, this issue gets more dramatic, the smaller the school is. Both privates and open zone schools have a much bigger "advantage" in 1A - 3A than against the large schools.

 

This advantage is apparently so large that even a 1.8 multiplier is not enough to "even the playing field." So if that is the case for a private, working with a 1.8 multiplier, what advantage does that mean for an open zone public, with low tuition, a "home zone" + open zone, and no multiplier? I have never heard a reasonable answer to that question. It has been well documented that many open zone schools don't achieve success (just like some privates don't achieve athletic success) but the fact remains that some open zone schools HAVE had a roster that has a substantial number of out of zone players that have had a major contribution to their success.  And while athletics is not the most important thing in high school, it IS the most important thing to the TSSAthletics Association. It's their job to address athletic issues such as this, even the complicated ones.

Home run

[Indian]

Total split fails 5-4.

[Gerry Bertier]

Apparently the BOC is not representative of the schools in this state with this vote as the majority of schools across the state are for the split. Shame on them.