Multiplier

[926]

1.8 was a compromise.  It puts the REAL COMPETITIVE DI Privates up one class but doesn't force D.L. into 3A.  The interesting thing is that the D1 Privates will now have Trousdale, and Tyner back down in 1A ball. 

 

Here are some other schools that may move down:

 

0405 East Robertson

0409 Wartburg Central

0412 Harriman

0416 Peabody 

0424 Huntingdon 

0427 Union City 

0434 Bledsoe County

 

Question:  Was there any discussion about the multiplier for URBAN schools?

Been a while since I posted on this issue. Good to be back.

 

ELA, where are you getting your enrollment figures? I only checked on Huntingdon, but the TSSAA website has their enrollment at 396, and unless they are going to rehash the enrollment cutoffs, they would still be in 2A. And Lipscomb, with an enrollment of 513 would absolutely move up to 3A. Goodpasture, with an enrollment of only 377 would only have 679 students with the multiplier and the low enrollment point for 3A is 675. They can take 3 fewer students once every four years and still remain in 2A.

 

5A - Schools with an enrollment of 1,348 and above

4A - Schools with an enrollment of 961 to 1,347

3A - Schools with an enrollment of 675-957

2A - Schools with an enrollment of 364-673

1A - Schools with an enrollment of 361 and under

 

I'm a little surprised that they didn't address the "open zone" issue. I assume that most of the competitive public schools are getting students from outside their zone, or even outside their county if they are a county school, and they aren't too eager to drag this out into the light right now.

[VolunteerGeneral]

This is crazy. Just go with 4 classes and get ready to be hit!

You are da man 9yearold!!

 

We all need to shut up and play ball!

[ELA]

1.8 was a compromise.  It puts the REAL COMPETITIVE DI Privates up one class but doesn't force D.L. into 3A.  The interesting thing is that the D1 Privates will now have Trousdale, and Tyner back down in 1A ball. 

 

Here are some other schools that may move down:

 

0405 East Robertson

0409 Wartburg Central

0412 Harriman

0416 Peabody 

0424 Huntingdon 

0427 Union City 

0434 Bledsoe County

 

Question:  Was there any discussion about the multiplier for URBAN schools?

Been a while since I posted on this issue. Good to be back.

 

ELA, where are you getting your enrollment figures? I only checked on Huntingdon, but the TSSAA website has their enrollment at 396, and unless they are going to rehash the enrollment cutoffs, they would still be in 2A. And Lipscomb, with an enrollment of 513 would absolutely move up to 3A. Goodpasture, with an enrollment of only 377 would only have 679 students with the multiplier and the low enrollment point for 3A is 675. They can take 3 fewer students once every four years and still remain in 2A.

 

5A - Schools with an enrollment of 1,348 and above

4A - Schools with an enrollment of 961 to 1,347

3A - Schools with an enrollment of 675-957

2A - Schools with an enrollment of 364-673

1A - Schools with an enrollment of 361 and under

 

I'm a little surprised that they didn't address the "open zone" issue. I assume that most of the competitive public schools are getting students from outside their zone, or even outside their county if they are a county school, and they aren't too eager to drag this out into the light right now.

My info comes from inside the TSSAA... The new cutoff for CLASS A BALL will be up over 400 (somewhere between 395 and 421). The reason for the move is because of the multiplier and the addition of several new programs that are not playing varsity football until 2005. The open zone schools were discussed and it was determined it would be too difficult to regulate since so many schools allow some transfer within their districts for academic reasons. The two people I have talked to say there aren't enough votes for the V-Plan.

[turbo]

Well.... In my humble opinion the 1a privates... could have handed it to ne one of those teams last year!!!

no, i'm afraid that won't happen. UC will be back up along with Huntingdon. With these two at full power we may finally see a public school from the west make it back to the championship.

[oskie]

ELA- do you see or have you figured out if there will be any effect on the upper claasifications as a result of this? For example, you state that the 1A upper limit will probably move up somewhere around 400, does this mean that the upper number for 2A, 3A and 4A will also increase?

[CPGB06]

During the tssaa meetings, was anything discussed in regards to DII? I for one would like to see DII get roled into the highest public classification for whichever sport.

 

Do you think that publics would now welcome DII's back since they have their multiplier for DIPV's? Something tells me they would not. I wonder why?

[ELA]

During the tssaa meetings, was anything discussed in regards to DII? I for one would like to see DII get roled into the highest public classification for whichever sport.

 

Do you think that publics would now welcome DII's back since they have their multiplier for DIPV's? Something tells me they would not. I wonder why?

There is not enough support to do anything to DII! The numbers should not effect CLASS 4A and 5A too much!

[Gov]

5A - Schools with an enrollment of 1,348 and above

4A - Schools with an enrollment of 961 to 1,347

3A - Schools with an enrollment of 675-957

2A - Schools with an enrollment of 364-673

1A - Schools with an enrollment of 361 and under

 

This is one of the incorrect assumptions that those who don't understand how schools are classified. There really isn't a number for the cut-offs. Schools are divided equally by the number of classifications. Ex. If there are 100 schools in football. then there will be 20 schools in each classification. One has to remember that for every school that moves up in classification there will be a school that moves down. The only move that I am not sure of, is when a school decides to play above there classification, I am not sure that this bump up would bump a school down. So the numbers above mean nothing, the numbers are established after you divide the schools up evenly among the classifications. However it will be interesting to see if they divide the schools first and then use the multiplier or use the multiplier to divide the schools. It will also be interesting to see if any of the affective schools jump to division II, which is probably going to happen to schools in the Nashville area. This will also have an interesting affect on public schools that may move down and the regions they play in. It may move the smallest 4-a schools down to 3-a, just because the number of schools playing D-1 will decrease. Maybe Laz, C'Sense, and Baldy can crunch all the numbers.

Edited February 10, 2004 by Gov

[blueandgoldfan]

with some of these teams moving down to single A, how does south pitt feel about possibly having to play tyner now?

[rollredroll]

I’m still unclear on how a 1.8 multiplier represents a “compromise”. I’m not saying that it doesn’t, but I’d like to know what the difference a 1.5, 1.8, and 2.0 has on the teams in question. Specifically, are there any DI private schools that move up with a 1.8 (or even a 2.0) that wouldn’t move up with a 1.5?

 

I realize the classification tables at tssaa.org are dated, and that new classification parameters have to be set, but it seems as if, on the surface, the vast majority of the DI privates probably would not see a 1.8 as a compromise. The tiny 1A privates (Nashville Christian and Trinity Christian, for example) appear to stay put either with a 1.5, 1.8, or 2.0 (assuming the new cutoff is around the current 361). The big 1A privates (DCA and USJ, for example) move up either with a 1.5, 1.8, or 2.0. In fact, I only see one school (Jackson Christian) that is impacted by a change in multiplier; they move up at either 1.8 or 2.0 but stay put at 1.5. Once again, I realize that enrollments have changed and new classification ranges must be established, but based on what data I see available, assuming there is not a dramatic change in enrollments, calling a 1.8 a “compromise” is just lip service. Even assuming ELA’s/TSSAA’s estimated 1A cutoff (395-421) holds true, in absence of dramatic changes in the privates’ enrollments, 1.8 doesn’t sound like much of a compromise (in a 395-421 cutoff range, only JCS seems to benefit from a 1.8 versus 2.0).

 

So the 1A privates are contemplating a move to Division II? In the past, they certainly have not shown fear of playing tough competition (CPA playing Riverdale, USJ scheduling 3A and 4A teams, etc.). Perhaps that’s their way of telling the TSSAA to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. While I agree that many of the 1A privates have the ability to play up, a multiplier, in concept alone, is a means of applying a different set of rules to a few select schools. Of course, moving to Division II creates the same dilemma – those schools currently offer financial aid and the current 1A privates do not – but I would guess that their rationale is, “At least in Division II, we are given a fair opportunity to level the playing field ourselves by offering financial aid”. The anti-private supporter will argue, “The DI privates play by a different set of rules (larger pools, etc.) – they should have a different standard applied to them”. That’s fine, I can accept that, but I can’t accept any complaints about those DI privates now looking to find a new home in DII – DII is the only division where all schools have the potential to be treated equally. All that being said, I’ll believe the current 1A privates will move when I see it (I think we would all agree that the current DII-AA teams – the assumed destination for current DI privates schools – on average look more intimidating on paper that most of the I-AA schools).

 

All things considered, I’m happy with the multiplier as it relates to what is accomplishes on the playing field. I have to admit, though, that I am a little surprised that I don’t see more celebration on the boards from the “small rural school”. Their wish has been granted. Is the potential of getting some powerhouse 2A publics moving down to 1A making them uneasy? Are we going to have start addressing the concerns for the “small, but not as small, rural school"? Given the “shifting of the problem”, I’d say the next multiplier we see will probably have a 4 in front of the decimal instead of a 1 if a whole new set of schools start complaining….anything to get the privates in I5A or in DII.

[silverpie]

I think the comment about "not moving David Lipscomb up to 3.A." was meant to indicate they didn't see moving the Mustangs into the basketball-etc. AAA classification.

[ELA]

with some of these teams moving down to single A, how does south pitt feel about possibly having to play tyner now?

I was wrong about TYNER! They will stay in AA because they have about 500 kids in their school.