cw160

Does anyone have the times for the duals at Overton and Hendersonville? Who will be in region 6? Overton, ??? Who's in region 7? Hendersonville, Clarksville, Kenwood?

Thanks to legman and the rest who posted like him. These folks who cry for one classifcation for wrestling make a lot of noise on this board, but they're not the majority in the real world. How presumptuous of them to presume to speak for all wrestling fans. And there's no point in trying to present a logical argument to them. Obviously they know what's best: thanks TSSAA for trying.

I think you need a brain transplant. You'll be LUCKY to be in the top 5 in your region.

Thank you Laner22. I thought I was the only one on here. If BYU-Idaho wanted to keep football, they would still have it. You're accepting an EXCUSE: "We had to drop football because of Title 9!" If BYU wants wrestling, or any other sport, they will fund it - and students will come. BYU-Idaho currently has sports for men and women, but they don't have field hockey. lacrosse, wrestling, or football. Good fir them. College administrators are using Title 9 as a reason to cut budgets as money gets tight. Again, why should the student body of any university be taxed to pay for a program that can't sustain itself financially? TV has killed college football at all but the football factories. Go to an average local college game and check out the crowd. You get more people at a local farm auction than at a UT-Martin vs Austin Peay football game. Why? People are at home watching UT, Alabama, Memphis, Notre Dame, Florida, etc. Universities keep pumping money into athletic programs that can't support themselves until the majority tires of it and refuse to pony up the funds. It just happened to wrestling, gymnsastics, diving, swimming, etc first. MTSU is swimming upstream and the financial officers or taxpayers will eventually wise up or tire of spending money on a losing proposition. Not UT, but MTSU. Last point and then I'll get off here. Women's sports currently fail at the professional level. Look at women's pro basketball and soccer. Both are failing financially - because they don't have a fan base yet. They will continually lose money until: a. they build a large enough fan base, or b. the government subsidiizes women's professional sports Women's sports (except for maybe UT-women's basketball which has a fan base) don't support themselves now. Again, colleges are dropping athletic teams because they cost too much! Title 9 is only an excuse to blame the government - not the people who make the decisions. Maybe we should consider cutting all athletic programs which can't pay their own way!

1. BYU didn't phase our wrestling because of Title IX; gutless BYU administrators chose to do that rather than fund women's athletics on an equal par with men's. 2. Wrestlers have no "entitlement" to continue their sport on the public dole. This whole argument is specious. If colleges provided complete equality and all sporting opportunities, they'd be in worse financial shape than they are now: men's and women's swimming, diving, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, shooting/riflery, skiing, rodeo, crew, men's volleyball, etc. 3. Anybody with knowledge of college athletics knows the problem with college funding is not Title IX and it's not women's athletics. Most just won't say it or even face it.

OK. He called a bad game, in your opinion. Who said the ref isn't supposed to make a game-deciding call a PK in sudden death? That's one of the most stupid statements on this thread. You can't tell me that if a Franklin player was taken down in the box that you wouldn't go crazy - and rightfully so. So he's not the best ref in the world, but he seems to get some good games in the center. He must be doing something right. I thought he missed calls both ways so it kind of evened out, but then I'm not from Franklin or Hendersonville. Also, it appears you have your own baggage. You seem to be willing to share a lot of information about him. If fact, you are implying that he's not only incompetent but unethical.

Chill Barb, I think people have asked questions and stated opinions; no one has attacked you that I can see. Why do you feel a need to defend yourself? Also, who mentioned your being a woman, female, or mother? I haven't seen anybody refer to that except you. And as someone said, there are already minimum standards for grades; perhaps they're not high enough to suit you, or me, but that's something we all live with. I also wonder, did he start watching TV and playing video games excessively when he started playing baseball?

Barb. The only difference is that you want the unmovtivated 15 year olds locked up in school for three years, with state-paid baby sitters, waiting until they turn 18 so they can quit. Maybe if schools didn't have to spend money tracking down truants, setting up alternative schools, dealing with kids whose parents don't value education, the schools would have the time and money to educate the children who do want an education. Send those 15 year olds out to get employed. Let them work and pay taxes. If they don't want to work, fine - let the people support them who are most responsible for their behavior: their parents. Maybe our economy would even grow due to all the cheap labor quitting school. What a great way for a 15 year old to learn about economics! Back to the original: the idea is to let local boards decide the rules for their system. If County A wants to let kids who can't read and write play high school sports, let them. If County B wants to require students to have a B average every six weeks, let them. We both believe in standards: you believe you should set a lot of rules for everybody and I believe I should set one - or two and I'm still not sure about #2.

There should probably be only two requirements: 1. that a student be enrolled in the school and 2. some abitrary upper-age limit (18, 19 or 20). And I'm not even sure about #2. The rest should be decided by the local school board. You may think that's ridiculous, but look what's happened to us by trying to make requirements about things. Of course, I also think students should be allowed to quit school after they pass the ninth grade proficiency test - instead of waiting until they're 18.

Maybe I just don't grasp the complexity of the NCLB. If the school does not pass the NCLB rules why would you want to send your child there anyway? Who penalizes a child for attending a school that doesn't pass the rules? TSSAA doesn't penaiize the school. There are lots of schools with merit finalists and a number that have none. That doesn't stop a school from suiting up on Friday night.

Sorry.

Gerry, a lot of people have complimented you and said they think you're going to be a great coach. If your comments are serious, I truly doubt it. Surely, your comments about working for nothing are tongue-in-cheek. Will you teach for free?

A student will still be able to transfer "without penalty" as long as he/she does not have an athletic record. Why should that change? Maybe I'm missing the point.

It doesn't appear that NCLB would have any impact on the TSSAA regulations. Why would your child be penalized for transferring to a school that passes the NCLB requirements? A child can transfer now and not be penalized. Or do you want you child to attend School A, transfer to B, then transfer to C? That's still possible and kids do it every year.

And you're proud of that? I'm sure your coach appreciates it too!