Question for ELA or CoachT

[krichunaka]

 

But consider the Big East, where, if I'm not mistaken, St. Johns plays basketball, but not football. If you extend the logic to consider the 'even playing field" scenario, then Miami (oops, they're gone) would refuse to play St. Johns in basketball because St. Johns won't play the Hurricanes in football. A prime example of what happens occured two seasons ago (I think), when Connecticutt flew south to play Miami in football. It wasn't pretty. On the other hand, Connecticutt is plenty-capable of competing with Miami, Virginia Tech (oops, they're gone too), or any of the powers-that-be in the Big East, or any other conference.

 

St. Johns doesn't play them in football, and isn't a football playing member, not because they aren't good, but because they aren't Division 1...

 

Perhaps your public schools that are struggling should just drop the sport instead of complaining, If you can't compete in terms of numbers, money, coaching, facilities, then you probably should think about dropping or not having a team...thats what St. Johns did.

University of South Florida recently went D1 in football (about 2 or 3 years ago) and because of where they are located, have the chance to get good real fast...last season they weren't eligible to go to a C-USA bowl, but they had a great record versus current CUSA teams and if they had been eligible, they would have gone.

 

Uconn chose to play Miami, Vtech and other schools like BC, they didn't wimp out...and they didn't complain...I don't understand where you are going with that argument, perhaps the public schools should either upgrade their facilities (which is what Uconn did) or simply choose not to complete (which is what St. John's did)

 

I think you kinda proved our point.

Very well put, EGO. I agree that South Florida will do real good "real fast." And that's precisely my point: The fact that schools are located in certain places, and have the availability of money, students, facilities, etc.... that's exactly why they can be not only good, but very good, "real fast."

 

The point is you're saying the same thing the rural publics have been "complaining" about for several years now. And you're right, they (we) are complaining. But to clarify what you say you "don't understand:" Your suggestion that smaller public schools who many of them are about as good as they're going to get; that they should simply "choose not to compete." Which is the brunt of the "complaint." They simply cannot get as good as those of much higher means and standards.

 

What you seem to really be saying is: They aren't good enough. Leave them out of the sport. Other than allow them to play for championships.... on a fair and balanced playing field.

 

And by the way, they do want to compete. And it's arrogant to even suggest that any team, simply because they don't rise to the level of the more privileged privates, shouldn't be allowed to play... that's quite aloof.

 

Oh, and to Volunteer General: The key word you used was; "FORCED." Again, more arrogance.

[TheEgoHasLanded]

 

But consider the Big East, where, if I'm not mistaken, St. Johns plays basketball, but not football. If you extend the logic to consider the 'even playing field" scenario, then Miami (oops, they're gone) would refuse to play St. Johns in basketball because St. Johns won't play the Hurricanes in football. A prime example of what happens occured two seasons ago (I think), when Connecticutt flew south to play Miami in football. It wasn't pretty. On the other hand, Connecticutt is plenty-capable of competing with Miami, Virginia Tech (oops, they're gone too), or any of the powers-that-be in the Big East, or any other conference.

 

St. Johns doesn't play them in football, and isn't a football playing member, not because they aren't good, but because they aren't Division 1...

 

Perhaps your public schools that are struggling should just drop the sport instead of complaining, If you can't compete in terms of numbers, money, coaching, facilities, then you probably should think about dropping or not having a team...thats what St. Johns did.

University of South Florida recently went D1 in football (about 2 or 3 years ago) and because of where they are located, have the chance to get good real fast...last season they weren't eligible to go to a C-USA bowl, but they had a great record versus current CUSA teams and if they had been eligible, they would have gone.

 

Uconn chose to play Miami, Vtech and other schools like BC, they didn't wimp out...and they didn't complain...I don't understand where you are going with that argument, perhaps the public schools should either upgrade their facilities (which is what Uconn did) or simply choose not to complete (which is what St. John's did)

 

I think you kinda proved our point.

Very well put, EGO. I agree that South Florida will do real good "real fast." And that's precisely my point: The fact that schools are located in certain places, and have the availability of money, students, facilities, etc.... that's exactly why they can be not only good, but very good, "real fast."

 

The point is you're saying the same thing the rural publics have been "complaining" about for several years now. And you're right, they (we) are complaining. But to clarify what you say you "don't understand:" Your suggestion that smaller public schools who many of them are about as good as they're going to get; that they should simply "choose not to compete." Which is the brunt of the "complaint." They simply cannot get as good as those of much higher means and standards.

 

What you seem to really be saying is: They aren't good enough. Leave them out of the sport. Other than allow them to play for championships.... on a fair and balanced playing field.

 

And by the way, they do want to compete. And it's arrogant to even suggest that any team, simply because they don't rise to the level of the more privileged privates, shouldn't be allowed to play... that's quite aloof.

 

Oh, and to Volunteer General: The key word you used was; "FORCED." Again, more arrogance.

krichunaka- If you are going to say some schools will do better because of where they are located (a fact that I agree with) then I will say that Memphis should be dealt with harshly...Memphis has the best athletes throughout the state...Look at the kids that go on to play D1 sports, and I would bet that Memphis has as much or more than anyone else...Shawne Williams is the best basketball player in the city, White Station is the best basketball team. The best baseball player last year was Stuart Pomeranz, I believe he was drafted in the first round...Matt Cain from Houston High School also went first round, we could then talk about NY Jets first round pick Dewayne Robertson, 49ers wide receiver Cedric Wilson, and many other great football players from Memphis...

 

We do not however, reward or punish Memphis for it's location and abundance of talent...just as we do not reward or punish private schools for their location, abundance of talent...or even open zones.

 

 

I'm not saying that public schools shouldn't compete...I'm saying they shouldn't complain, and if they do not have the facilities, coaches, athletes, teachers, or anything else...then leave. Leave the TSSAA. SBEC left the MPSSA and went to the state championship in D2-A the last two or three years and won it this year...they are located in Southaven, MS...which obviously is not in TN.

 

The board deceided that there is no need for a split, and if you apply a multiplier that is fine, but you will then be playing schools like Huntindon, Tyner (who has the best football player in the state and has open zones...oh lala), Alcoa (a great tradition) and many other AA powerhouses...I don't think the grass will be greener in this case.

[krichunaka]

Well, Ego, you're right; and infact we probably agree on more than we disagree. Look, to take nothing from CAK, but if they hadn't pulled the big upset, I feel that Cloudland had an excellent chance to make most of this moot. But so much for woulda-coulda-shoulda.

 

I don't see the option as having a hundred-plus leave the orginization, and leaving the what, 26 or so privates as they now are.

 

I have to be careful here not to appear a pujo-look-alike.... But more to the point; and here's where I probably agree entirely with you: The multiplier will either a) put most of the privates into AA; or put many of the now AA schools back in with the single A schools. So I don't see the multiplier as the solution. Nor am I naive enough to think that suddenly the public single A schools will get good enough to, year in and year out, to be able to compete with the privates.

 

But I don't think creating a seperate entity to hide from the privates is a logical answer. On the other hand, from what I know about the Division 2 situation it hardly seems fair to the Division One privates to be forced into Division 2.

 

So I don't have an axe to grind with the privates per se; they would probably be very competitive in AA, but having them in Division 2 would open another can of worms altogether. And I'd love to have you comment on that particular scenario, if you please; but it would probably take ten-plus years to level that particular playing field. I wouldn't wish that on the small privates. That being said, the multiplier seems the lesser of the possible evils.

 

Ultimately I hope I don't appear to think I have the only fair option to consider. I know, and most of us recognize that the publics will not compete with the privates as long as most of them are in single A. But I'm not suggesting that the privates be abandoned.

 

Finally, I'm not sure that there is a win-win situation for all concerned. I hope that something will be done to give the single A publics a chance to compete. To leave things as they are, I feel, would be simply unfair to the smaller schools. Recent history seems to bear that out.

[TheEgoHasLanded]

The fairest thing is to go to a multiplier just because private schools have two times the turnout that most public schools have...I buy that, I believe that is a valid reason, and therefore I support a multiplier, I just know that the cloudlands of the world will still not find "a whole new world." And if they think they will, they are wrong. Then they will complain about other schools having a larger enrollment. I am reminded of some old adages "the grass is always greener on the other side," and "you can't have your cake and eat it too."

 

 

And I'd love to have you comment on that particular scenario, if you please; but it would probably take ten-plus years to level that particular playing field.

 

I assume you are wondering about my comments involving a new D2 involving all private schools?

 

The playing feel is not level now, with my school of 250 boys playing MUS, MBA, CBHS all of which having over 600 boys. Father Ryan is 1000 co-ed compared to the largest D2-AA school, Briarcrest, which has around 500 kids co-ed.

 

If you move all of the private schools to D2...they will leave D2. They will have no representation and will want to make their own rules, keep their own money, etc. The TSSAA will lose a lot of their revenue which means the public schools will have to pay more money for referees, tournaments, possibly insurance, etc. Travel costs might also go up as well. Also, the privates will form their own by-laws. Recruiting could very well be legal under the new guidelines...Financial aide would certainly be present. You could have private school coaches banging on the door of stars offering them everything under the sun. Is that a little extreme? Yes, but I also know that if you have no rules...anything goes. They could take public school kids and have them start as soon as they started at a private school.

 

 

I have played some of the current 1A private schools...they would get it handed to them in some sports...JCS, Ezell, and a few other 1A privates had a very tough time with my high school. I think they would do well, but they would not be willing to offer as much financial aide as some of the other schools (which is really unfair) and opens up even more problems for the TSSAA.

 

By moving to a multiplier, you affect, 1A, 2A, 3A, and possibly 4A and 5A.

A split affects every party involved.

 

When you think of those scenarios, you can see why the TSSAA was not in favor of a change (not only that, they don't want the privates to leave, which is what BA tried to do a while back).

[krichunaka]

Very well put; and again, I'm certainly not educated enough to suggest that I, of all people, could make things better.

 

I think that Cloudland would love to play Ezell, Boyd, CPA, etc, during the regular season, knowing that they wouldn't have to go against them in the playoffs. So many on here have accused Cloudland of playing softies; when, truth be known, they've gone out of their way to schedule better competition: The two Virginia schools they played this year were otherwise very good teams that just happened to play Cloudland while the Highlanders were way up, and they were way down. Also, Cherokee was a very capable team; but Cloudland was very powerful this season...maybe their best team ever...notwithstanding the CAK disaster.

 

This year Unaka began what many hope becomes a yearly match-up with King's Academy and Grace Christian Academy. Before too long Unaka will find it very difficult to compete with those teams; but again, great kids, very nice fans, and best-of-all, it's regular season.

 

I have, for what it's worth, given much thought to what you've been saying, and I expect you, Volunteer General, etc, have a much better understanding of this than I have.

[VolunteerGeneral]

 

Oh, and to Volunteer General: The key word you used was; "FORCED." Again, more arrogance.

Krichunaka...Not sure what you mean.

 

I used the same word that you used..."forced". You wrote...

Small, rural public single A schools should never be forced to play over their heads in football.

 

I said that there were schools in every class that are forced to play teams that are over their head. I used Warren County as an example. They are a large school and are "forced" to play against other 5A schools even though they are terrible. Ican give other examples of teams that are forced to play with competition that is over their heads. It`s not a public/private issue.

[krichunaka]

OK, General, thanks for clearing that up.

 

My comments were, of course, and obviously relevant to the public - private debate; which is why they are here in the public - private forum. But again thanks for getting back to me.

[VolunteerGeneral]

OK, General, thanks for clearing that up.

 

My comments were, of course, and obviously relevant to the public - private debate; which is why they are here in the public - private forum. But again thanks for getting back to me.

No problem. You know some people come on here ans say things like..."if you can`t see the advantages of private schools then you are blind." Well what I see is are advanatages that are enjoyed by schools thoughout the 5 Classes. Open zones, money, support, facilities, number of coaches, etc. Private schools are just an easy target since they are "labeled" private instead of public and for that a lot of people want to kick them out of Div. I.

 

Certainly being a private school does not mean the team will be great. There is an overabundance of evidence to support that. They do have some advantages though just like other schools have advantages. I just don`t think private schools should be singled out. If open zones are a problem, then go after open zone schools. Money?? I`ve always said you can`t legislate money. But I guess you could put some kind of budget limit on how much a school can spend on a team depending on what class they are in, but how would you ever be able to enforce it? Support?? How could we ever legislate support. If there is a way then I guess we can try and legislate that but I can`t think of a way to do it, yet this is a complaint that is used against private schools. Number of coaches?? Not all private schools have a lot of coaches, but some do. Is this an advantage? Yes, I would say it is. In fact our team has 6 football coaches for example and we have to compete against teams that have 12 coaches. We don`t play any private schools since we are in 4A but yet we face some of the same disadvantages like this.We can easily legislate this by limiting the number of coaches allowed per team, but that would only hurt the overall quality of sports in this state. Oh and another complaint is participation. Again we can limit the number of kids that can play on a sports team. That would be simple enough. My jaw dropped this fall when a friend told me that Dobyns-Bennett had 350 kids in their band. I know that isn`t sports, but thats a heckuva participation isn`t it? Yes we can just place a limit on the number of players. That would certainly make things more fair and I`m sure everyone would go along with that. Ya think?

 

Private schools IMO are being unfairly singled out for the recent success they have enjoyed. Everyone is quick to comment on any advantage they might have yet they don`t want to address the issues. They ignore the fact that these advantages exist in every class even with public schools and want to single out private schools as if it doesn`t matter that there are public schools with the same advantages.

 

Your comments are actually relevant to all classes. Which is why I say this is not or should not be a public private debate. If we are going to address these issues then we should address them throughout the system and not just single out private schools.

[37421]

krichunaka- A very good post about the inadequacies and fallout of all the suggested remedies. I see a possible solution that has been mentioned (in several forms) on these boards before: A merit-based system.

Start every team where they are now (enrollment classification)

If they make the semi-finals (or finals) two out of three years-they move up one class.

If they are an under .250 win team they move down a class.

Within four years every team ends up, competitively, where they belong.

The teams will continue to rise to their level of ability and desire, or descend to whatever level until they are competitive.

 

Ego,

Research among state associations that have a multiplier in the southeast has shown that the participation and "open zone" factors bring about a 1.5 (Georgia) or 1.35 (Alabama) multiplier for private schools. I know of no private DI schools that would oppose such a move in the TSSAA.

I agree that (given the options we have heard) the multiplier is the lesser of the evils.

 

Here's wishing every supporter of High School kids (public and private, metro and rural, open or closed zone) a very happy and blessed Holiday season!!

[krichunaka]

37421,

 

I'd call that an excellent post. And I think you're right. We do know that over the past few years the Single A privates have shown the single A publics a thing or two about the many things that Volunteer General listed.

I can't help but feel that, as long as they're reasonably certain that the single A; or even the Single and Double A schools will stay put.... that nothing will be done.

 

I don't think the split would've helped ...well, except for the Single A schools; but something should be done. The voters will do only what they're forced to do. And as long as most of the Single A schools have no expectation of reaching beyond round two of the playoffs, then the outcry will be very restrained. That's unfortunate, or at least it is for the rural publics; and it's what the voters are counting on.

 

They will do nothing..... unless the smaller schools pull the trigger; and I hardly feel that there's enough support for such a dare. And again, the voters are praying that there isn't. Again, great posts by you and VG.

Edited December 22, 2003 by krichunaka