RedUp

Lighthouse scheduled with 9 schools in DIIA and then dropped in late July. That leaves 9 schools scrambling. I feel bad for Lighthouse having to make the decision, but its a terrible time to decide to do this. It leaves holes that just can't be filled at this time---and we are just beginning the 2 year cycle!

Where are the results? Are they posted anywhere? Nothing has appeared in the Tennessean. Of course, that is not unusual.

I am looking for Buster Relays results-----does anyone know if they are posted?

I feel badly for those kids on financial aid who will have to sit and watch now that Catholic is in DI. Guess their mission statement has been ammended to something like: "Provide all of the benefits of a parochial education to all students --except for those on financial aid"

So---I bet you guys were throwing in the 4th quarter, as usual---wanna make sure your QB makes all-state. Congrats!

FACS 26 CATH 6 Did FACS hold back? I knew T-R had it in 'em----SBEC is overrated give some details on the T-R win???

David Brainerd went DII so they won't play these others in Region play at least.

With 4 classifications, my guess would be more DI privates will go DII.

Region III Temple High School David Brainerd Christian School Copper Basin High School South Pittsburg High School Lookout Valley High School Whitwell High School add: Grace Baptist Academy Silverdale (if they get accredited)

An unreliable source told me they were going DII. Got any insight?

Why can you not just take the posted schedules from the TSSAA web site and paste them here?

The question becomes, will College Heights, Grace and KCS declare for DII? Ensworth and Webb are already in the right place, so lets hope for the best choice from the 3 new schools.

Any word on what schools are going to do now? Any info would be appreciated.

In 4 years it will be an issue again and all privates will find themselves banished to DII. My question is, why not choose it instead of being forced in? Perhaps a few of these schools want to garner a few more championships before they have to play in the big league.

Reading the Tennessean today (Can someone post this link? I don't know how.) I see: The B of C, doing Carter's will, tabled the move to add 2 classes in other sports. This is crucial because several DI's were waiting to see if this passed before they made their declaration to go to DII on August 15. It just so happens that the B of C will consider 2 classes on August 22, 7 days after they want DI privates to declare if they are going DII. It look like an obvious attempt to keep DII limited. What I don't get is that for the longest time the B of C has had it in for private schools. Now it seems that they will go to extremes to keep the DI privates in DI !!!

Define"but need some assistance". WHO decides what "needs some assistance" means, and ----does running fast or jumping high come into play in any way??? You know as well as I do that this is wide open to total abuse. That is why DII uses SSS, a neutral third party determining, by national agreed upon standards, what "needs some assistance" means. I think all "Educational Supplements" are bogus and any school that uses them should be in DII, accountable like all the other schools that admit they give need based financial aid.

This is a great question. DII schools must make an extensive report to TSSAA on any students who receive need based aid, how much aid they receive, and what their SSS form shows that the parents need is. The report includes what is probably confidential information and should not be in the hands of TSSAA anyway. My point is----there is super accountability for DII schools when it comes to aid, and seemingly none for DI privates. Only very recently was "work study" addressed in the bylaws. Up until about 2 years ago, there was a cryptic phrase that any work study must be approved by the Executive Director. Now I think "work study" is not technically legal and there is another term used. I would like to see a DI coach or administrator explain it---but my bet is that we won't see that.

"I spoke to an AD at a Nashville D-II school yesterday and he said that D-II schools are NOT being included in any of the Z Plan discussions. His sentiments were that this plan would have no chance of passage if D-II schools were included, so the TSSAA removed them from the discussion. " What else is new that DII is not included? Of course, the meeting notice went out from TSSAA to all DII schools, yet nothing indicated that the DII schools did not need to attend, because they had absolutely no say and the plan had nothing to do with them. DII is an afterthought to TSSAA. The entire administration of TSSAA is slipshod, shot from the hip, reactive and totally rudderless. No direction from the director. Anything that happens in DII is only because the DII schools work well together and care about making things work for every school from top to bottom. Rant over.

An explanation has been given ("gotta start sometime") and Whitwell, Temple, St Andrew's and Loretto are out of a game with Scottsboro Christian in '04 after each played them in '03. It can't be shaped or colored any way other than that and I hope they all have been able to escape without paying $500 and that they have all found a game. Enough said---just wanted to vent----and keep holding up the philosophical question of the thread.

This is not hearsay or irresponsible message posting, its just the way it went down! It's just the facts. The TSSAA office was questioned. There was an explanation given. Here is the sequence of events: On the phone with an administrative assistant asking for an explanation, who said, "Wait just a minute, let me ask (the decision maker) about this, they are right here." After holding for about 5 minutes, the administrative assistant came back on and said "He said, we have to start somewhere. See if the school will let you out of the contract". Game contracts with a non-member school were approved for 2003----4 member schools played Scottsboro Christian (also called Living Word.) Now, TSSAA says none of them will play in 04.

That shows the rule--about which there is no debate--but it doesn't explain the timing or reasoning of the administrative decision. TSSAA made this administrative decision when clearly there was fault on their part for listing the non-member schools as cleared to play. Then reversing that decision, because you have to "start somewhere", which just so happened to be in the middle of the two year football contracts, make it seem punitive and TOTALLY arbitrary. The decision cost 4 members schools a 2004 football game and even more schools losing basketball/baseball games in 03-04. Ridiculous. And sure- move it to the football board. It's spilled milk---but it still leaves me chapped and it is a sign to me of total insensitivity and a total lack of responsiveness to member schools. So, the title/question of the thread.

TSSAA pulled the plug on several Chattanooga area schools who had scheduled Silverdale in Basketball and Baseball for 03-04 just before the Basketball season started! Around mid-October, the TSSAA web site had a box that listed "approved non-member schools" and it included Silverdale along with a Scottsboro AL school, Scottsboro Christian. After several schools had scheduled with them on the basis of what the web site said, suddenly it was decreed by TSSAA in late October or early November of 2003 that neither school was accredited and if a TSSAA member school played them, they would be penalized. This was outrageous that TSSAA would give a green light all the way through the scheduling season, then arbitrarily---and it was arbitrary in terms of the timing---- reverse course. Adding to the insanity, four TSSAA schools were contracted with Scottsboro Christian for 2004 football (each had entered into a perfectly legal and TSSAA approved 2 year contract with an approved non-member school) and all 4 had to get out of the contract, (paying $500???) or face the wrath and fines/penalties of TSSAA. When asked the common sense question "why not let it ride until the end of the year, or end of the current contract", (since it was the middle of the school year and each school was operating in good faith following TSSAA guidelines initially) schools heard this gem from Ronnie Carter, "You have to start sometime". OK, good ole boy! I thought TSSAA existed to support the schools, not the schools exist to support TSSAA. Was I ever wrong. So, ask not what TSSAA can do for your school, but be darn sure you ask what your school is supposed to do for TSSAA!

Silverdale was not accredited by SACS----but they are working on it and hope to play next year. They have football contracts with several schools who are holding their breaths!!!!!!!! The whole issue of playing "non-member schools" and the enforcement of the rule is abritrary on the part of TSSAA. I am gonna start another post on this one.

Z-Plan? what's this?

The only fair way to do it is by the numbers. If BGA, or Notre Dame, or JPII enroll the numbers for AAA, then they should go up. It should not be based on who can be competitive, unless a school , like BA, chooses to move up.