volscott

Wow, where to start. First, while open zoning has been around for ever, a multiplier to "handicap" privates hasn't. Therefore the combination of the two creates a brand new environment--not a 50 year old issue that is just being questioned due to Alcoa. Second, I can't say it much more but I'll try one more time. Our guys have nothing but respect for Alcoa--THEY HAVE NOT BROKEN ANY RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!. They beat us fair and square multiple times. My son loved playing them and used them every year to decide how good we (and he) had become. That will still be the case no matter what happens. Third, I bet we could compare football budgets and you'd be really surprised. I'll bet you a BOH lunch that C. Rankin makes more money than C. Bradley(and that's ok, not an accusation). CAK has build its enrollment off of its mission statement and academics not huge athletic budgets. I'm not saying we get by on nothing but the idea that we are rolling out huge dollars on football, above and beyond what Maryville, Alcoa, Greenville, etc are just isn't accurate. THERE IS NO ACCUSATION THAT ANY OF THESE SCHOOLS IS DOING ANYTHING WRONG IN MY STATEMENT EITHER!!!!. Fourth, this rule will never get changed by TSSAA. If we want to talk about bias, I think we all know there is bias in TSSAA against private schools. And there is some justification for it---scholarships, illegal recruiting, etc. have been done by some before which led to DII. I think this started as a simple question (not by a CAK supporter)--Is this a good/fair/appropriate rule (the multiplier) given there is no difference in how an open zone school can attract students vs a DI private? I still haven't seen a real answer. I have seen some name calling, some "you private school guys can't take it" sort of stuff, etc. Honestly, I may have missed it-if so someone can direct me back to a particular post I'll gladly review. Fifth, I think the rule change has already happened-the implemenation of the multiplier. The question is not should we change a rule to give DI schools an advantage, the question is "is this relatively new rule correct?" Sixth, APB, what will we do without your pictures?

Sorry I was out of order too Got carried away. Yea, life isn't fair and that's what we tell our kids. But that doesnt' excuse TSSAA from making a bad rule.

Maybe there are some Alcoa haters out there but to me it is simply a question of what is the fair rule and this one isn't. Alcoa would win regardless if they moved up---they have every combo of things you need (coach, numbers, tradition, athletes, support, etc.). By the way, Catholic tried the appeal on the multiplier (to reduce it) but that went no where. And yes, magnet schools should fall into the same category-if you can pull students from anywhere you should be treated the same.

50 years??? Sorry, the multiplier hasn't been around that long. It is a relatively new rule and again, the question has been stated several times, GVK has stated it plainly---there just isn't any answers we can all debate yet. What we've gotten mostly so far is simply "you're whiners" "you aren't a real competitor" etc. It doesn't matter to me personally since my son finished this year. So, it truly is a simple request--give us the logical reason the situation that GVK described, using Alcoa and CAK as examples, shouldn't be treated the same. Take those names out of it, pretend Alcoa shuts down and CAK shuts down--what is fair given the situation? Or maybe this is easier---as I asked in a previous post--just divide us all up by size, no multiplier and if you make a dynasty, you have to move up.

So you'd be ok with the DII's competing against the publics? I mean, if you think we're crying about winning, I assume you'd be ok competing against the DIIs and that you'd prefer that--and wouldn't cry about their winning. Frankly, Alcoa would beat all the ones I've seen play but I'm not sure your other open zone brothers would agree. It really isn't about whining--it's simply asking a fairness issue, as best as that can be set up by a supposedly impartial organization (TSSAA). Pretend Alcoa shuts its doors and think about the best answer.

As much as it might hurt you(or at least seems to)open zone schools in a populous area are more like CAK and other D1 privates than you like to admit. Clearly paying for athletes to come to you school, as DII allows, is a significant advantage over all the rest of us.

Oh, come on APB, at least from GoVols,FBD,Junior and I, this isnt about Alcoa--taking on the victim role doesn't become you. I don't know what the motivation of the original question was but the original question is simply a fair question "given all the reasons why open zone parents choose a different school than what they are zoned for, why does it make sense for D1 privates to have a multipler and not public open zone? I know those weren't the original words but there isn't any Alcoa hate in that question. Other schools do it too--the aforementioned Coach T experts from CAK just happen to know you guys better than other schools since we are right here with you.

Yep, yep and yep. I'd be wasting everyone's time with anything more. Again, this isn't about Alcoa--as several have said--they'd be winning championships no matter where they play.

One observation--OOZ folks choose an OOZ school for the same reason we chose CAK--perceived advantages over the public school options (everyone's list of those advantages are will be a little different) and the OOZ schood has all the same perceived and real advantages as a D1 private. So, multiplier seems fair to apply to both. For Polk's situation-if no one uses the OOZ option in Polk Co there must not be any perceived or real value so get rid of it. This can get very complicated so I'll propose a solution. Get rid of the multiplier. Divide everyone not giving financial aid to athletes up into categories based on enrollment--4, 5, 6 whatever. If you win three state championships in a row, you move up for the next year in that sport. I'm sure I'll look like swiss cheese by tomorrow. I'm about in FBD's position. I had a great time watching my son play these last four years and watching him mature, etc. That's what it's really all about in the end. Basketball time for the youngsters now.

Hammered BC? Come on now. Maybe in girls sports some but boys soccer--you guys have been very, very good. Boys basketball--Isom on a break away--hide the children. CAK did have success in tennis and golf this year and last--Lord knows Junior and FootballDad have been spending more time at the country club this year--secret to our success.

Can't speak for other schools, but at CAK, the answer is "no" there is no work/study plan. Everyone pays their $8000 a year if you're playing sports. APB and BC---you know everyone at CAK respects your coach, fans, and players. It is a fair question, not because anyone hates you but simply because it is a fair question---Why should CAK (or like school) have a multiplier and Alcoa (or any open zone) not? You have had kids from Knox Co before, just not this year. Don't get all hot and bothered just curious as to the logic. Thanks

Ditto-I didn't talk to Coach R but my son did--same view of him as Jr's Dad.

Anderson Co, 6A team from Nashville(sorry, can't recall which), Lexington Christian in KY(won state last year-not sure about this year), ---those are ones I'm aware of.