Multiplier stupid, check the stats

[meyoumymy]

The Split Decision article states that 60% of private school kids play sports, while only 30% public school kids play sports, and therefore a multiplier should be implemented. Why do so many more private school kids play sports? Well, duh, look at the stats....

 

Let's use Greenback's area (East TN) for an example since they're the ones whining. Between Greenback, Midway, and Cloudland, the average # of girls' and boys' sports offered is 6 per school. Now let's look at the private schools that could face these public schools. CAK, Boyd Buc, and Chat Christian offer an average of 15.4 sports per school. All 6 of these schools currently play Div I - 1A.

 

Well, why might twice the private school kids participate in sports, how bout because MORE THAN TWICE THE SPORTING OPPORTUNITIES ARE OFFERED! If all the 1-A PUBLICS offered swimming, tennis, golf, and track to name a few, I bet the percentage of kids that participate would increase.

 

I agree that often times the private schools can raise more money to add additional sports, but why should they be penalized by a multiplier for this??? They shouldn't. It's just not right to make the small privates (with maybe 300 kids) move up to 2A and get hammered by schools with 950 students. Remember, it's still about the kids, and just because a kid's parents decide to send him or her to a Christian school doesn't mean his team shouldn't be able to compete against a school their size. TSSAA needs to consider this in their decision.

[ELA]

The Split Decision article states that 60% of private school kids play sports, while only 30% public school kids play sports, and therefore a multiplier should be implemented. Why do so many more private school kids play sports? Well, duh, look at the stats....

 

Let's use Greenback's area (East TN) for an example since they're the ones whining. Between Greenback, Midway, and Cloudland, the average # of girls' and boys' sports offered is 6 per school. Now let's look at the private schools that could face these public schools. CAK, Boyd Buc, and Chat Christian offer an average of 15.4 sports per school. All 6 of these schools currently play Div I - 1A.

 

Well, why might twice the private school kids participate in sports, how bout because MORE THAN TWICE THE SPORTING OPPORTUNITIES ARE OFFERED! If all the 1-A PUBLICS offered swimming, tennis, golf, and track to name a few, I bet the percentage of kids that participate would increase.

 

I agree that often times the private schools can raise more money to add additional sports, but why should they be penalized by a multiplier for this??? They shouldn't. It's just not right to make the small privates (with maybe 300 kids) move up to 2A and get hammered by schools with 950 students. Remember, it's still about the kids, and just because a kid's parents decide to send him or her to a Christian school doesn't mean his team shouldn't be able to compete against a school their size. TSSAA needs to consider this in their decision.

Look, I don't care one way or another about these stats, however, Greenback didn't invent them. The numbers come directly from the TSSAA. They have rosters from every school and they have compared the number of kids from each school participating in high school athletics vs how many students are enrolled in the school. Even if you look at just the so-called major revenue sports, the numbers don't change all that much when compared to other schools with the same enrollment numbers across the state. I can't speak for other sports, but in football, numbers are extremely important. They allow you to have more depth, and you can develop talent over a longer period of time before they start.

[1AMAN]

ELA is right. Just go to a USJ-Middleton football game(for example) and count the players on each sideline and tell me what you think about levels of participation then.

[VolunteerGeneral]

participation should have no bearing on classing schools. PERIOD!

[yellowdog]

participation should have no bearing on classing schools. PERIOD!

Then lets have no classification! No seriously, please let this discussion group know what your definition of classification is. (if you want it at all). It would be interesting to hear. Probably there should be a single thead on this anyway -- interesting to hear people's perspective.

[CSense]

participation should have no bearing on classing schools. PERIOD!

This is why I say enrollment size of the school is less of an advantage as the zoning issue. A school could have 1000 students and a good percentage of them could care less about sports and really don't even want to be in school to begin with.

 

For the person who says privates offer more sports than publics I have one comment.

 

IT'S BECAUSE MORE STUDENTS WHO ATTEND PRIVATE SCHOOLS WANT TO PLAY THOSE SPORTS AND GENERALLY HAVE PARENTS WHO CARE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN.

 

Unlike a good percentage of public school children.

 

A public school can't offer those sports because even though the education is "free", sports usually are not and there is simply little to no interest (they could not field these teams).

[tnfisher]

participation should have no bearing on classing schools. PERIOD!

volgen is right. Participation should have no bearing on classification. However, records like 36-3 (private vs publics in the playoffs) most certainly should.

[supersteve17]

Football, track and maybe soccer are the only sports that I can think of where large numbers of participants make much of a difference. And an argument could be made that "numbers" in football and soccer are overrated. Benny Monroe was mega-successful at Cleveland High School and he usually carried about 30 players on his roster.

[CSense]

Football, track and maybe soccer are the only sports that I can think of where large numbers of participants make much of a difference. And an argument could be made that "numbers" in football and soccer are overrated. Benny Monroe was mega-successful at Cleveland High School and he usually carried about 30 players on his roster.

Supersteve, good point. So why do we have 5 classes of DI schools for football?

[supersteve17]

Supersteve, good point. So why do we have 5 classes of DI schools for football?

I really don't know except that (cynically speaking) the TSSAA saw an "opportunity" for more teams to participate in a playoff format with all of the attendant blessings that accrue. Read into that whatever you will.

 

I am on record as wanting to do away with the playoffs altogether and let teams play up to eleven regular season games plus a bowl game. IMHO, this would create more local interest and support from civic groups, businesses and other organizations. Public schools that wanted to play private schools could and those that did not want to do so would not have to do so. (I fear that this would hurt the small privates because few small publics would schedule them, but I still think this would be better in the long run.)

[wardawg2038]

The point of this thread is very nonrealistic!! Lets take a small 1-A public with 250 kids in the school. 125 of those being boys. Your drawing pool for sports is small. They will not be participation for the other sports such as golf, tennis, swimming, wrestling, etc. Alot of these sports overlap seasons and it would be next to impossible to find enough individuals to participate. Next lets look at financing. Some small school struggle to finance their major sports let alone minor sports that will generate very little revenue. Also with limited school enrollment you have limited teaching staff! Who will coach these sports. THe coaches on staff who are already coaching two -three sports in a lot of cases. It is tough in a small area to find volunteer coaches. The thing that urks me about this thread is not alot of thought was put into the topic. I mean alot of smaller schools would love to supply their kids with other opportunities but it is just not feasible. Some small 1A publics do not even have bands, I definitely know of 1, so minor sports are not an option. To answer the point of classification it is to level the playing field. There are years single A teams maybe able to compete with larger schools 2A and 3A but on a year in year out basis it won't happen. Talent pools and number of athletes will not equate out. I don't know why we discuss this topic though the TSSAA will do what they want no matter what that has already been proven by the split being voted down.

[ELA]

I really don't know except that (cynically speaking) the TSSAA saw an "opportunity" for more teams to participate in a playoff format with all of the attendant blessings that accrue. Read into that whatever you will.

 

I am on record as wanting to do away with the playoffs altogether and let teams play up to eleven regular season games plus a bowl game. IMHO, this would create more local interest and support from civic groups, businesses and other organizations. Public schools that wanted to play private schools could and those that did not want to do so would not have to do so. (I fear that this would hurt the small privates because few small publics would schedule them, but I still think this would be better in the long run.)

I have endorsed this idea before but I think there are a lot of people who wouldn't like it.