Multiplier stupid, check the stats

[VolunteerGeneral]

BTW....Acouple of years ago I looked through the TSSAA program for 1A and the participation rates for public and private schools weren`t that far off. In fcat Cloudland by far had the highest rate of any school in the 1A playoffs.

 

Besides you can`t control participation rates.

 

Another thought....You can take any school public or private and if every male in the school played the sport (football) I don`t think they would be improved that much. If a kid wants to play, he will play. Just adding worthless numbers of kids doesn`t really impact the overall quality. CPA could have 100 kids on the team, but that doesn`t mean that all 100 are football players.

[1AMAN]

The article was talking about 1A, that's where the most glaring example of the advantages of open zone/private schools exists. As you go up in size I believe the advantage becomes less and less. And before you throw up BA, they had the added advantage of financial aid. Somebody give me some numbers on the schools I had in my last post. I picked out all the 1A privates who had a public school within 5 of their enrollment number. Just saying that one year Cloudland had the higest number isn't answering the question. One example does not prove me wrong. There are exceptions to every thing.

Edited January 30, 2004 by 1AMAN

[CSense]

BTW....Acouple of years ago I looked through the TSSAA program for 1A and the participation rates for public and private schools weren`t that far off. In fcat Cloudland by far had the highest rate of any school in the 1A playoffs.

 

Besides you can`t control participation rates.

 

Another thought....You can take any school public or private and if every male in the school played the sport (football) I don`t think they would be improved that much. If a kid wants to play, he will play. Just adding worthless numbers of kids doesn`t really impact the overall quality. CPA could have 100 kids on the team, but that doesn`t mean that all 100 are football players.

"Besides you can`t control participation rates."

 

 

I agree with this VG. This is why I say enrollment size isn't as much an advantage as some certain other factors, but it seems like the size of a school is what has been separated in the past and a multiplier also ultimately tries to make some schools "larger" in numbers alone than they are forgetting about those "other" advantages.

[possum]

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 agree totally, there are two many games that have to be played to reach state. To take this a little further, we could develope a HS BCS, and do away with classifications so teams can choose who they want to play. I know this wouldn't be close to a perfect plan, but how close is the format that we have now? I do know taking 4 teams from each region is rediculus, at the absolute most maybe 2.

[wardawg2038]

Enrollment size matters period. It is a drawing pool and the more students you have the better your odds are of having solid participation. I witnessed the Goodpasture and Sequatchie Co. game this year in the playoffs. I saw Seq. show up to play with about 35 young men then I watched Goodpasture march out with about 82 players. Granted some of those kids were eightgraders (another problem I have with the TSSAA) but still the participation numbers were dramatically different. Every year you will se a Lipscomb or Goodpasture field 60 to 80 players on roster while a Sequatchie, Tyner, Bledsoe, Marion etc will struggle to have 35 to 40 players. Why is this? Alot of reasons. 1st. Most of the kids that go to a private school will be more apt to play sports. They, in general, will be more concerned about grades and will be more involved in school whether it is clubs or athletics. Public schools many times have a variety of students with different backgrounds economical situations and ability levels. Alot of these students could care less about school or athletics andare waiting until the day they can drop out or quit. 2nd. Drawing pool. Now,Now we will not use the "R" word because I feel it is not relevent. Most Private school are located in large areas Memphis, Jackson, Nashville, Knoxville and Chattanooga. The number of people who live in this area are sometimes double and triple that of a Tiptonville, Hohenwald, Tracy City, etc.

The chances at drawing prospective students is alot greater than the other places mentioned. Even at public schools with established traditions, you rarely see a parent bring his or her child from Chattanooga to school in South Pittsburg. Why b/c more than likely they work in Chattanooga. Inconvience. Now a parent who lives in South Pittsburg may take there child to a private in Chatt. b/c more than likely even if living in South Pitt. the parent will probably work in Chatt. More convient. So what does all the rambling mean? No matter how you cut it , slice it or argue it their is an advantage, Participation rates are higher and that is the trend that is probably not going to change. What can we do about it? Nothing. The TSSAA has already proven they will not listen to their member schools but in fact are going to do what they dang well feel like. So lets all set back and see what happens, Feb. 9th is fast approaching

[ie3]

Everyone asks about participation rates versus outcome of games. Numbers do count in football. North Greene was on the field at Knox Catholic this year (can't say it was really a game), they brought the biggest team they have had in years, 24. Knox Catholic dressed 66 (I counted), and every player played. By the time the second, and third, and fouth stringers made it into the game, NG's entire team had played and was exhausted facing countless fresh opponents.

Yes, I know Knox Catholic is DII, but the schools are almost identical in population. I almost said size, but that brings alot more into it. The number of players on the field matter, period.

[VolunteerGeneral]

I don`t think anyone is saying that having a lot of participation is not an advantage. However you can`t legislate this. There are a lot of public schools that have high participation rates. I don`t know why this subject is even pertinent to this disussion.

[noonesfool]

VolGeneral, I don't jump on this forum often but when I do I usually got your back. Participation is irrelevant in regard to classification. Participation is based on several issues. Socio-economics and values, community expectations and the ability of a coach to promote his sport. Lets take Greenback HS. They started wrestling only a few years ago and they fill a full roster and are beating top large Knoxville area teams (the coach). Erwin (baseball), Cloudland (football), reflect the community and their expectations. Small schools private or public if they represent a higher socio-economic area are usually strong in golf, soccer and tennis. So the only thing relevant about participation is that young people are involved, and your chances may increase the potential to win in certain sports but not your whole sports program. When every one is looking for advantage it is hard to find equity.

[Baldcoach]

It seems to me that the "pool" argument and the "participation" argument should be mutually exclusive in some cases.

 

After all, if someone is claiming that it is an advantage to have a large pool of students to choose from then aren't they really claiming that the advantage is in the POTENTIAL players and not in the players themselves? BUT, if the advantage actually is in the number of players who participate on the field, doesn't that imply that the potential isn't the real advantage but that the actual is?

 

What about small privates who don't have very many players? Do they still have an advantage because of their pool?

 

What about small, non-open zoned publics who have a lot of players? Are they still at a disadvantage because they have a smaller pool of potential athletes (note I still think the whole pool thing is baloney...just using others' points here).

 

Sounds like trying to have your disadvantage and eat it too to me...

[lazarus]

i ate my disadvantage once... and it made me sick.

[ELA]

It seems to me that the "pool" argument and the "participation" argument should be mutually exclusive in some cases.

 

After all, if someone is claiming that it is an advantage to have a large pool of students to choose from then aren't they really claiming that the advantage is in the POTENTIAL players and not in the players themselves? BUT, if the advantage actually is in the number of players who participate on the field, doesn't that imply that the potential isn't the real advantage but that the actual is?

 

What about small privates who don't have very many players? Do they still have an advantage because of their pool?

 

What about small, non-open zoned publics who have a lot of players? Are they still at a disadvantage because they have a smaller pool of potential athletes (note I still think the whole pool thing is baloney...just using others' points here).

 

Sounds like trying to have your disadvantage and eat it too to me...

I guess you guys will stay in DI and so will USJ?

[FatCat]

I don`t think anyone is saying that having a lot of participation is not an advantage. However you can`t legislate this. There are a lot of public schools that have high participation rates. I don`t know why this subject is even pertinent to this disussion.

VolGen,

 

 

 

There is never a hard, fast rule. But, in general, the public schools who do better usually have a higher participation rate. So, that applies to this fact immensely. If the AVERAGE public school has 30% participation and the AVERAGE private has 60%.....that is a HUGE disparity. Then, you take into account the higher level of the average student athlete at a private school and you have quite an advantage building!

 

But, my whole argument would be to completely split ALL privates out from publics because it is apples and oranges. And, short of that, raise the bar for the private schools to make it a closer comparison.

 

After all, if someone is claiming that it is an advantage to have a large pool of students to choose from then aren't they really claiming that the advantage is in the POTENTIAL players and not in the players themselves? BUT, if the advantage actually is in the number of players who participate on the field, doesn't that imply that the potential isn't the real advantage but that the actual is?

 

What about small privates who don't have very many players? Do they still have an advantage because of their pool?

 

Baldcoach,

 

The points are exclusive of each other, but both go towards why comparing privates to publics is apples and oranges. There are definitely some 2A and 3A public schools who can beat 5A schools. My son's team, 3A Greenbrier, beat the snot out of 5A Beech at their homecoming. But, that is the exception and not the rule.

 

The general rule is that the greater your student population, the greater the chance you will have more quality athletes. But, it doesn't guarantee that. Trousdale County is a perfect example of the exception. There are many factors (as you said) that determine the quality of the teams that come onto the field. That is why it is a rare team that continually dominates in the public schools. There are too many factors that can change. But, the one constant is the size of the pool from which they have to draw from.

 

On the other hand, the private schools don't face such a fluid situation in the types of kids they get in. They have a pretty consistant high level of student athlete.

 

Now, if a private school has twice as many kids participating in athletics on the average, then that is almost equivalent to doubling the size of the student population. It is not exactly the same, but it sure is close. And, because of the nature of the student athlete at private schools, that pool they are choosing from is generally more talented than the AVERAGE public school.

 

That doesn't apply to ALL private schools and that doesn't apply to ALL public schools. But, the averages ABSOLUTELY go that way. If you don't think a group of kids whose parents PAY several thousand dollars a year for them to go to a certain school is not a very different situation from a group of kids whose parents send them to the local public school, then you will never grasp this argument.

 

Again, I would like to see if you think public schools should perform as well academically as private schools. Based on your arguments, the performance of public schools on standardized tests should be the same as that of private schools. But it is not and it will never be!!!

 

As a matter of fact, based on your arguments, we should not have a DIV II. Brentwood Academy should come in and compete in Class 3A and not expect to win the state championship every year.

Edited February 11, 2004 by VolunteerGeneral