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.

No, it was the player not the old man. I only used his once when I was still sitting at home realizing his HS career is over. He had a great run and I'm proud of him (and his posts).

Quinn Epperly-QB for CAK 30+ TD's 71% completions 2500+ yrds combined 20-3 as starter jr/sr year

Hey Mom, your guys did the same thing last year when we (CAK) visited with no provocation--it's just bush league behavior from an otherwise good HS fball environment.

Re the "where do we get our players" and "how long have these guys played together" I don't have the roster in front of me but here's an off the top of my head attempt: QB, all WRs, both MLBs, CB, S, and several lineman have been at CAK since ES. Almost all the rest came in MS or freshman year. These are for starters and those playing a lot. CAK is a private, K-12 school with about 415 HS kids. We play 3A due to the multiplier. Playing D1 we obviously don't give any financial aid to HS athletes(private school haters, please don't bombard me with "yea, right!" we won't resolve that issue if you think we're liars.) Like the public schools with open zoning, kids can come from anywhere and play as long as they abide by the TSSAA rules. However, if you come to CAK, you do 1)pay $8000 per year tuition 2) have to complete the pre-app process 3) have to complete the interview/admissions process 4) have to want to be in a Christian school environment. We have one contributor from outside of Knox County. Probably 90% of the players come from the Hardin Valley, Farragut, and Bearden (6A) public school districts. They clearly aren't missing our boys as they all made the playoffs, including Hardin Valley in their second year. We play D1 because we think it makes us better. A lot of the small private school competition isn't very good. While it stinks being 0-10 against Alcoa, it has made us a better football team. Besides, we have bragging rights in the other sports with them---I know APB and BC, those don't count but I have a football son, a soccer son, and a volleyball daughter so got to throw them in there. I know the CAK players respect Polk Co and their hard-nosed style of play. They too have developed a great team chemistry. This should be a great game of contrasting styles. Come early and eat a lot-skip those chain restaurants on Cedar Bluff Bvld and come have a burger and the now famous 'nanner puddin'

Dobyns-Bennett, Maryville and Greenville all received votes for the South Region top 20 but didn't make it. Alcoa was 20th. Congrats to all

That's correct, but if you use TSSAA's fourth tie breaker to break the tie between Betsy and Chucky (both end up with 14 points but Betsy has 49 in 4th tie breaker vs 45 for Chucky) it looks like: HValley WGreene Betsy CDoak AE SGreene GP SullNorth Better but I still understand the frustration--we'll be frustrated next year probably. There isn't a perfect system but at least this year we didn't have all the last minute switch a roos.

I'm sure everyone knows this but Betsy is being penalized for 1)playing a tough schedule and 2) "only" having 6 wins. The seeding system sets 1) total wins 2) games against teams with a .500 record or better 3) wins against teams with .500 or better record. So, the current system benefits those that play a weak schedule and win, unless you schedule a tough road and win. This makes the future for teams in small districts (like our district-CAK) tough since no one wants to play a team with a good reputation(ok, not no one but most) and you have to have so many (5 for us) outside the district wins. The current system also uses no distinction between playing up or down--so CAK's victory over Grace (A) carries the same weight as the victory over Seymour (AAAA). My opinion--use total of first three categories of tie breakers (above) to seed--that way you get total wins and strength of schedule taken into account. I disagree that you should automatically get a higher seed if you win the district vs a second place team in another district if they have the same number of wins and play a tougher schedule. Betsy is a good team -- they played us tough but Alcoa(obviously) and Loudon were better. Can't compare to the rest in Q1 since we have no exposure. If you haven't already seen it, you can look on the TSSAA site for all of the data they used to seed. At least is laid out for all to see vs the secret sauce they used last year!

Watch it now, I've got both a footballer and and a volleyballer!