PBandJ

D1 privates do not give any scholarships, financial aid, etc. to any student athletes. D2 privates give financial aid on a need basis as determined by a third party national clearning house. It never amounts to full tuition.

Sure there are schools with very similar performance. Maryville, Alcoa, and Riverdale. /roflol.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":roflol:" border="0" alt="roflol.gif" />

Perhaps. Does anyone have an answer for an latest question? What school has an enrollment of roughly 350 students, they can beat any 5A team or D2 team in the state, and has won 8 gold championship balls? Hint: It isn't Brentwood Academy. /blink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":blink:" border="0" alt="blink.gif" />

You actually should go back and read my post (and yours). I gave educational options. None of that were "ways around zoning". A "way around zoning" would be an option you gave - lying about your address by using a grandparent. And yes, my options do have eligibility effects in a secondary sense since TSSAA rules are built around those primary population zoning rules. My next question to you is this: what school has an enrollment of roughly 350 students, they can beat any 5A team or D2 team in the state, and has won 8 gold championship balls?

Huh? I'm having a hard time following any logic in your post. STUDENTS are zoned, not just student athletes. And they aren't "zoned" for athletic purposes. Students are zoned to handle capacity (mostly population) within schools. Athletic eligibility is a by-product of a 3rd party organization that makes rules that take a secondary role to the real reason why there are zones. And I haven't given any reasons as to how to get around zoning. I gave a short list of options a student as for their education. Those options have zero to do with zoning.

I definitely agree about the diluted competition side. However, the agrument that "alcoa doesn't get as many transfers as everyone thinks" is exactly the point. How many is that? 1, 5, 10? The transfer of a a fine young man like a Chris Shriverdecker would mean at least a few more wins for most schools and could mean a real run for a state championship possibly for many. That is one guy. And I know his former public school resented his transfer greatly. And yes, it was done within the rules. It is an example of the "resentment" that was tossed out earlier. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to point out a double standard that exists in ways of thought in regards to privates and "open-zoned" publics.

I totally understand that there is resentment. But isn't there resentment when a child get's a public to public zone transfer? For example, a great football player "zoned" for McGavock but gets a zone transfer to attend Hillsboro. Or how about all the transfers to Alcoa and Maryville? Surely, publics are tired of getting pummelled by them as much as the privates are. When and where does the resentment end?

I profoundly disagree. It is the parents decision to choose what is right and wrong for a child - within the constructs of the law. That may mean homeschooling, that may mean private school, that may mean public school, or any other option available.

Let me ask you a question then according to your response above. Do public schools "own" the "rights" to a child that lives in a designated area?

Not trying to push your buttons, but splitting them for the sake of having separate championships definitely won't stop the public school bickering about private schools. Just look at Texas as a prime example. There has been a complete split for many, many years. And the public schools still have issues with the privates there as "stealing" their talent - as if they own a child living within a certain proximity to a school. It will never end. In the words sung by Jack Johnson, "and it goes on and on and on and on."

No doubt. There is a HUGE amount of animosity in Texas between publics and privates. I have some relatives in the Dallas-FW area and the publics outside the city core are always at odds with the privates - since there is the claim that the suburbian (sp?) and outlying areas claim their stars are taken by privates.

Actually as evidenced by the Texas board, the bickering and accusations won't stop anyway. /thumb[1].gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumb:" border="0" alt="thumb[1].gif" />

I spoke to a friend that is a Vandy law grad and also a fan of this case. He agrees with the statement above too. The only thing that can keep this case alive is if the judge in the court that the case was remanded to opens the door for a continued arguments for the antitrust portion of the case.

It sounds like one of two things could happen now. The judge could rule in favor of BA for the antitrust portion and the case could have new life (yikes). Or he could say its just over.

Huh? Well that just doesn't make any sense. That is a rather narrow minded point of view.

I'm sure there are some publics that are clean as whistles, but I bet there are several that aren't quite so squeaky clean.

1 - I agree with you. 2 - Alas, BA did sue the TSSAA in civil court. Although the case isn't officially over since it was remanded to a lower court - but I didn't see the BA press conference to hear what they had to say about their future plans.

We are also putting the cart before the horse. The case was remanded to a lower court so the case itself is not dead and can continue. There have been rulings for BA and for the TSSAA throughout the process. Considering that it has gone on and on for years and it was remanded, I doubt we've seen the last of this lawsuit.

Yes, that does mean that BA has the right to have the case continue with lower court review.

I haven't read the entire ruling yet, but unless they ask a lower court to re-hear an argument that they deemed incorrect then this part of it is over - "this part" being the issue that they ruled on. Now, there could be angles from other parts of previous rulings that could be contested and continue the process. And that will continue the lunacy.

I read a statement in an article on the front page of CoachT that caught me a little funny. The story is a great story talking about the travesty of the tennis coach at Marshall County not getting the recognition he deserves - which it seems like he so rightly does deserve. However, there is a comment in the article that jumps out: "Adkins is tennis in Marshall County, molding players from Lewisburg Middle School and turning them into great players and even better people in high school." I was under the impression that high school coaches were not to have any athletic contact in any form with junior and middle school students?!?!?

If they "walk" ... then they "walk" away from the governing body. Why would the privates sue to join them if they are left with the sanctioned high school sports body? Logically, that doesn't make sense. I do agree that the BA lawsuit will decide a lot of what is going to happen. There was an article in this last month's On The Ball magazine that discussed the issue, but really didn't do much than get the opinions of local coaches. It seems as though everyone has opinions, but not real substantive facts and answers.

Frankly after the idiocy exhibited over the last 10 years and the comments that continue to spew, I seriously doubt I could be surprised anymore.

That won't happen. They would be walking away from the only nationally sanctioned organization in the state. Although the reasons for it are wrong, I believe there will be a split with the privates being forced to start their own organization.