jek

He did not play in the scrimmage

BA 23 DC 14 Dickson County scored one offensive and one defensive TD with one minute left in the 4th against BA's 3rd and 4th team. BA was missing a number of starters on offense for a variety of reasons. Passing game looks very promising. First and second team defense limited DC to virtually no offense.

BA at Louisville Manual

If you want to be a jerk. Go elsewhere please.

BA 149 McCallie 102 MBA 98 As Itzme said in an earlier post, never count out a Charlie Harper team. Congrats to Coach Harper and the team. That's 4 in a row for BA boys.

BA 224 MBA 221 in the regional. State should be a dog fight. Also, Kottas has plenty of speed but I believe Ty Ford and Chris Vaughn would be considered BA's top two sprinters.

As long as we are attempting to prosecute BA for rediculous and unreasonable charges, how about overuse of the halfback and fullback trap on offense. Now that's a case I could support!

Therein lies the $64,000 question. Obviously, the TSSAA had nothing of substance upon which to proceed. My belief is that they were employing the "Al Capone" strategy of prosecution (if you can't get him for murder and racketeering then get him for tax evasion). The TSSAA desparately wanted to appease a small constituency by prosecuting BA (and by association all Private schools that give financial aid) that they were willing to use any apparent violation. They were not prepared for BA's unwillingness to roll over and play dead. I am beginning to wonder whether the TSSAA and Ronnie Carter have liability insurance protection. I can't imagine that their E&O carrier would allow them to continue to generate legal fees with the legitimate exposure that they face. The coverage (if it exists) may have a very low limit which would remove any incentive for Carter and the TSSAA to settle without getting some substantial concessions from BA. However, there is no guarantee that the full court will hear the appeal. Proceeding with the actual appeal may not be Carter's strategy. He may be hoping that the prospect of pursuing the appeal will bring BA to the negotiating table for settlement.

The obvious solution would be to separate the members into large font posters and small font posters. However, this is may be interpreted as a free speech issue subject to review by the Courts.

Unfortunately, I am not sure whether the letters draw a clear distinction. My point to Stan was that participation was not an issue before the court. The issue is whether communication was appropriate. If he is asserting that participation is a violation, then he may be completely accurate. However, unless I have missed something, participation was not the violation for which BA was penalized.

"A simple affidavit could prove a recruiting violation" - we are splitting hairs. I conceded no such thing regarding enrollment. My point was to agree with the court interpretation that signing of the enrollment contract constitutes "enrollment" for purposes of this case. I have signed 5 BA enrollment contracts for one child and 4 for another. Deposits accompany the contracts. The court said that the enrollment contracts had been signed and TSSAA has not disputed those facts. TSSAA did not assert that attending spring practice was an issue in and of itself. Frankly, I have no idea as to whether this constitutes a violation. Again, the TSSAA did not assert that participation in Spring practice was a violation but rather the mere communication. Whether a Coach should or should not invite a kid to Spring practice is not before the Court or one of the issues in dispute. For the record, I don't think that it is a good idea for 8th graders to participate in varsity spring sports.

Sorry I missed this earlier. Where do you get your information? All of the students in question had signed legally binding enrollment contracts. Are you saying that you have information not provided to the courts?

Sorry, but you are wrong about the letters. When you sign an enrollment contract you are contractually obligated to the tuition for the year and you also pay a deposit towards that obligation. So yes, they sent money to the school. This legal document would by definition make them fully committed to the school. TSSAA argued that the letters did not constitute enrollment. The Appeals Court did not agree with the argument. The Court held that the TSSAA's provision was intended to prohibit the participation in an actual sporting event (spring practice would not be considered a sporting event based on the court's interpretation) until the student was actually in school. According to the Appeals Court ruling this provision did not apply to this specific situation. You said that an affidavit was proof. I agree that it is a form of evidence but is by no means proof. I do litigation support in my practice which involves giving and preparing others for depositions so I have a pretty good idea what constitutes evidence. Read the opinion, the undue influence issue was absolutely part of the free speech argument. Unless the TSSAA could prove that BA was using undue influence over these students, then the communication was appropriate and prohibition by the TSSAA would be an infringement of that free speech. For you to try assert that BA's communication with students that had signed legally binding contracts was inappropriate is absolute nonsense. Show me where BA sent letters to students that had not signed enrollment contracts and I will concede your point. This case is entirely about BA's right to communicate with students that it believes had committed to BA. The TSSAA was using this technical violation (their assertion-not mine) as a means of attempting to passify certain member schools by finding some means of punishing BA for infractions that the other member schools believe to have occurred but could not prove. Once again, I am willing to concede that violations at BA or other private schools may have occurred in years past. My point is that there is no systemic pattern of behavior pervasive at BA or most other private schools to violate the rules of communication with prospective students. If you have proof otherwise, then give Ronnie a call.

1. The letters in question were not a violation or bending of the rules. I spend enough time reading contracts to know provisions in an agreement are many times subject to interpretation. That's why we have courts and lawyers to resolve disputes. 2. The heart of the lawsuit is improper contact (recruiting) as defined by the TSSAA. BA has asserted (and the courts have agreed) that TSSAA's interpretation of BA's actions constitute an infringement of free speech (and do not constitute recruiting--as defined by the court). The "state actor" issue goes to the TSSAA's assertion that the free speech issue does not apply. 3. Anyone can sign an affidavit. That does not prove anything other than their willingness to say under oath xy or z. The individual could be lying, misinformed or completely accurate. You have to look at the full set of facts and properly interpret the law. I can sign an affidavit that the sky is purple. While I may think that the sky is purple and am truly sincere, that doesn't make the sky purple.

I have no doubt that the rules have been violated by both public and private. However, to suggest that BA or the other high profile private schools are engaged in systematic and willful violations of the rules (please make sure you define recruiting in the context of rules violations) is incorrect. Does BA or the other private schools make legitimate attempts and/or contact to get the best students, absolutely. I'll even grant you the premise that inadvertent violations occur. If you can prove your accusation in court for $100,000 in legal fees reimbursement, then by all means give Ronnie Carter a call. That would be a bargain considering what they have spent and will spend. You can save them lots of money and potentially save high school sports in Tennessee.

I never said that there aren't students that come to BA (or other Private schools) for just the athletics. My point is that these are the rare exceptions and not the rule. Just because you think that you can name a few does not invalidate the system. Also, just because the child thinks he or she is coming for athletics does not mean that the Parent has the same motivation. I know of kids who have come to BA for the athletics when the Parent was using this as the carrot to get them into the environment in hopes that they would also become motivated to be a good student.

So you are going to cite one example in order to indict the whole system. How about the hundreds (or thousands) of students that went on to college because of the education they received at a private school (as a result of the need based financial aid that enabled them to get away from a bad public school situation). How many tremendous athletes or potential scholars do not graduate from public high school because of the circumstances of that school environment. There are many fine public schools in this state but there are also many substandard schools. Trying to extrapolate results from a very very small sample in order to define the merits of a system is incredibly narrow minded and short sighted. Look at the results over the long term and total population before rendering judgment.

I don't think anyone has asserted that there have been no cases where need based financial aid has been granted to a student that only participates in athletics. My point is that this is by far the exception and not the rule. I agree with your point above that no school should recruit students for athletics. Private schools should be granting need based financial aid to those students that want to maximize their potential (which should be academics first and then extracurricular activities). In practice, that is what is happening at BA. Regardless, as long as a school does not violate the rules by using undue influence or providing improper financial incentives (as discussed and defined in the various court rulings) then there is no issue. I make my living in the entertainment world and am well acquainted with the issues of rumor and inuendo. I have heard many of the "allegations" over the years and know them to be nothing more than jealous rantings. I am sure that there are more than a few Coaches and Principals that would love to see BA get slapped with a real violation. If the substantive violations truly existed, then someone would have brought them to light.

The seriousness of the allegation is not the same as quality of the evidence. Smoke in the absence of proof carries no weight and nor should it. The TSSAA went to court with their strongest hand. Do you seriously think that the TSSAA would be trying to make their case with such a weak charge if that had substantive evidence? Anyone can make an allegation based on rumor and inuendo. As I've said many times, if you or anyone has proof of a violation, then bring it to the attention of the TSSAA. For the record, many of the participants in BA's nationally known fine arts program also participate in athletics. Come to a BA theatrical performance if you truly want to be amazed at the talents of high school students. I'm guessing very few on the other side of this argument really care if their respective school loses a talented actor, tuba player or potential valedictorian to BA. Many of those posting on the topic want to believe that financial aid to high profile athletes is the norm when just the opposite is true. The vast majority of students receiving financial aid are not high profile athletes but rather good students that participate in a wide variety of activities.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to private schools outside the densely populated areas of Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis and Chattanooga.

Huh? I think you misreading my posts. I don't think the TSSAA case has merit and believe that pursuit of appeals is fruitless for both legal and financial reasons.

TSSAA may very well ask the full court to hear the appeal. My guess is that the earlier Supreme Court ruling will weigh heavily in their decision process. I have read the dissenting opinion as well and we definitely disagree on the which side has the most compelling argument. Regardless, the sheer weight of TSSAA's legal bills as well as their very real exposure to the liability for BA's legal fees may force the TSSAA to cut their losses and negotiate a reasonable settlement.

I understand your points and don't necessarily disagree (in theory). For the record, I am not necessarily opposed to a full Public/Private split. My personal opinion is that the Privates in metropolitan areas would grow much stronger and the Publics weaker. The rural Privates would most likely suffer. Read the full opinion by the Appeals Court. My response to your original post comes from my reading of her opinion. You and I can discuss the merits of Public versus Private and whether a level playing field exists. However, if the courts decide that a Public/Private split is an anti-trust violation, then our argument is rendered meaningless. It would certainly appear that the Appeals Court was suggesting that at a real possibility.

You are absolutely missing the point and have mischaracterized the statement in the article. BA and the other DII schools want to attract the best students and communicate with those students the merits of a private school education. Just because the Tuba player can also kick a football should not limit the ability of a school to offer need based financial aid. The issue is one of undue influence or unnecessary focus on athletics. No student should be solicited only on the merits of their athletic achievements. If a school is only soliciting a student for that purpose, then the offender should be sanctioned. The TSSAA has not been able to remotely make that case against BA or other DII schools. You are correct in your statement that this may ultimately be an anti-trust question. The Appeals Judge made it quite clear that the TSSAA Public/Private separation may have resulted in the restriction of competition. It will be very difficult for the public schools to form an organization that is not considered a "state agent". Based on what I read from the Appeals Court decision, a forced Public/Private split may not be allowed to continue. In addition, it is going to be very difficult for the TSSAA to continue to fight this battle given the mounting legal bills.

Virtually every student that graduates from BA goes on to college. Sure, you can point to a handful of athletes over the last 30 years that failed to live up to their potential. However, I challenge you to show me a public school system that comes anywhere close to the graduation rates of the DII schools. For every failed situation that you can identify at BA, you will find 100 success stories. I have no doubt that the same is true for the other DII schools. You're looking for equality of outcome when the need is equality of opportunity. Competition in a free market is the reality of life. BA and the other DII schools provide an opportunity for kids without the financial means to receive a quality education. You may think that financial aid is significantly skewed towards athletes but you would be very much mistaken.