BA vs. TSSAA Ruling In

[tnsddeveloper]

So you're admitting that you were wrong in your assumptions about my intentions. I could care less how you view me, but I just want you to know that you are admitting that you were incorrect in your assumptions about my earlier posts.

I thought you enjoyed talking down to me, so I don't mind. Please don't have a "tizzy" fit. Is that how you put it earlier?

Oh no, no tizzy here. You are misinterpretting my supposed misinterpretation of your supposed misinterpreted first response to VoGe. There is not an admission of wrong assumption here - I think you used a poor example in trying to make VoGe seem hypocritical. Actually, not just poor ... not at all.

Edited April 4, 2006 by tnsddeveloper

[cbg]

On the surface, the case appears to be weak. I think the minute it

went to court and lawyers started defining the issues, it became

a major lawsuit.

 

When exactly could the TSSAA have stopped and settled? What

would have been the terms? What about the state actor label

and the freedom of speech issues? Could the present rules

have been enforced?

 

If the TSSAA knew the violations would have grown to a major

lawsuit, then they would have surely chosen a case with some

"meat." The letter and tickets did violate the spirit and letter

of the rules, no matter what the courts interpretation may be.

 

Bringing the two sides together may require an Abraham Lincoln

figure, who sadly does not appear to exist in Tennessee high school

athletics. Why cast blame entirely at the TSSAA? Why not blame

BA for sending the minor $3,000 fine to the US Supreme Court?

 

And one question lingers, has Carlton Flatt ever recruited? That

is the issue behind this case, which makes the BA march to the

Supreme Court insane. BA and their lawyers brought on the civil

war, and who wants to follow Carlton Flatt in this battle?

 

 

Stan,

 

You are a smart man that has been around long enough to know that sending a letter to students that had already signed a contract was not wrong and the courts stated that it was not wrong. Don't blame Brentwood Academy for taking this case to the Supereme Court, if the TSSAA didn't want to play the game they had every opportunity to bail out before the legal expenses got so high. Being a tax payer of the State of Tennessee we should all be most upset with the TSSAA Board of Control and how they are spending OUR MONEY. Yes, it is the tax payers of Tennessee who will have to pay for this crap. They are spending my money and I have no control over the situation. Maybe we should all demand that Ronnie Carter and the Board of Control sign a personl note that they will be responsible for the legal expenses if the TSSAA does not win this NEW legal battle.

[VolunteerGeneral]

Firstly, let's take a look at some of the things you just said. By saying they, you are generalizing the public schools as if they are the same. Are you not stereotyping public schools? Isn't that what you said you hated, when they stereotyped you? You are contradicting yourself. You hate generalizations, but yet you are doing it yourself.

Secondly, here is an example of the recruiting public schools are facing. Ensworth is a new high school. They somehow have gotten the two best players from McEwen. I know you probably don't have a clue where McEwen is, but neither does the rest of the world. Now, I ask you how did these two athletes just up and decide to leave their small world named McEwen? Recruiting that's how. Do you really think they have to pay the large tuition it is to attend there. Don't be naive. They can be put on scholarship.

Lastly, I'm not going to say all, but most kids given the chance to attend a private school in Nashville or anywhere is going to choose the private school. Let me tell you why, academics. Parents do want the best for their kids and (I hate to bring up generalizations in front of you, because I know how you "hate" them so much, Benedict Arnold) private schools have a tendacy to be known as good institutions for learning. Therefore, it is not the fault of the public schools that they cannot keep their kids. It is not like public schools are not doing the best they can with the funds they are given. However, I would like to hear you further explain yourself on the subject about stereotypes and how it is public schools own faults for not keeping the athletes at their school. By the way, Volunteergenerals are idiots. How do you like that generalization.

 

Just to let you know since you are a new poster. Calling other posters names is against board rules. Maybe you should take the time and read them.

[VolunteerGeneral]

I think you used a poor example in trying to make VoGe seem hypocritical. Actually, not just poor ... not at all.

 

I agtree that`s why I didn`t even respond to it. (except for the name calling and that was against board rules.)

[sharptop]

privates hope publics go away

[pujo]

I agtree that`s why I didn`t even respond to it. (except for the name calling and that was against board rules.)

I guess General Custard is out of the question.lol . I' m still reading but it don't seem like any new points have been brought up in the last couple of years. I think I fully understand the whole situation now. I like the private schools and the way they do things but they do have some definate advantages.

[lazarus]

"You are a smart man that has been around long enough to know that sending a letter to students that had already signed a contract was not wrong and the courts stated that it was not wrong."

 

i must be a lot less smart than stan.

while i dont see anything wrong with what they did in this instance

(of course i think recruiting should be legal)

i missed the part where the supremes ruled on that specific act.

 

it seems more that the noble purpose of the lawsuit was to secure the inalienable right to recruit.

 

i'm all for it.

[silverpie]

"You are a smart man that has been around long enough to know that sending a letter to students that had already signed a contract was not wrong and the courts stated that it was not wrong."

 

i missed the part where the supremes ruled on that specific act.

 

I don't think the Supreme Court explicitly addressed that point (they dodge as many points as possible as a matter of course, deciding the minimum quantity necessary to reach a ruling on the question presented). However, the district court (Judge Campbell) did very clearly rule on the point, stating that once there was a signed contract, the no-contact rule ceased to be reasonable (in practical terms, that must be deemed the point of enrollment).

[Bill#49]

I don't think the Supreme Court explicitly addressed that point (they dodge as many points as possible as a matter of course, deciding the minimum quantity necessary to reach a ruling on the question presented). However, the district court (Judge Campbell) did very clearly rule on the point, stating that once there was a signed contract, the no-contact rule ceased to be reasonable (in practical terms, that must be deemed the point of enrollment).

 

"Let's just LOVE one another", "Let's just LOVE one another", "Let's just LOVE one another", "Let's just LOVE one another", "Let's just LOVE one another"

 

1. Ronnie Carter and TSSAA admit that you were wrong and settle the court case without bankrupting the public and private schools with your dues that you will be charging for the next 20 years. How many millions $$$$ are owed now?

 

2. Put everyone back in together, public, private, magnet, and be happy with it.

 

3. Allow EVERYONE TO RECRUIT!!

 

4. Insert a "merit system" of some kind. It seems the most fair since we have lost by being able to separate all the privates.

 

5. How am I doing so far?

 

6. I still have a firm opinion that Private schools have an unfair advantage. But I also see where this thing is headed and the public schools are going to lose, lose, lose with the courts by trying to exclude the privates.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Bill#49

[tnsddeveloper]

"Let's just LOVE one another", "Let's just LOVE one another", "Let's just LOVE one another", "Let's just LOVE one another", "Let's just LOVE one another"

 

1. Ronnie Carter and TSSAA admit that you were wrong and settle the court case without bankrupting the public and private schools with your dues that you will be charging for the next 20 years. How many millions $$$$ are owed now?

 

2. Put everyone back in together, public, private, magnet, and be happy with it.

 

3. Allow EVERYONE TO RECRUIT!!

 

4. Insert a "merit system" of some kind. It seems the most fair since we have lost by being able to separate all the privates.

 

5. How am I doing so far?

 

6. I still have a firm opinion that Private schools have an unfair advantage. But I also see where this thing is headed and the public schools are going to lose, lose, lose with the courts by trying to exclude the privates.

Excellent post! I wish Ronnie would put a stop to the madness too. I want everyone back together. I think allowing everyone to recruit is only fair - seems like the magnets, open-zoners, transfer-friendly publics, and privates do benefit right now by not having fully closed zones. And the recruiting would even itself out with a merit system.

[big red big blue]

 

it seems more that the noble purpose of the lawsuit was to secure the inalienable right to recruit.

 

i'm all for it.

 

I don't think that's at all what it was about. I think it was about declaring that the TSSAA is de facto state agent with equivalent powers, and that they can't put forth ambiguous rules like "undue influence" and enforce them arbitrarily without being accountable to the judicial system, like any other government agency with the power to assess penalties. I think all parties agree that unfettered recruiting is bad for everyone. No one wants that. Everyone does want an even-handed TSSAA that weighs the needs of all (and not just a few) of its members' needs equally. Though, to be sure, the "genie is out of the bottle" and now that it is ruled that the TSSAA is a state agent that cannot restrict free speech, recruiting is in reality legal. This is why I think, ultimately, there will have to be formed a new governing body that is clearly not a state agent and that can restrict free speech in order to keep unfettered recruiting illegal. I think somehow private schools will have to use as a negotiating chip that they will voluntarily give up recruiting in exchange for other concessions from the publics.

 

an interesting fact about the SC ruling was that it was a 5-4 outcome, with lines split evenly down liberal (for) and conservative (against) lines, and Sandra Day O'Connor providing the swing vote (for). It is highly doubtful that today's court would have ruled that way... I guess certain issues create strange bedfellows...

[cbg]

I don't think that's at all what it was about. I think it was about declaring that the TSSAA is de facto state agent with equivalent powers, and that they can't put forth ambiguous rules like "undue influence" and enforce them arbitrarily without being accountable to the judicial system, like any other government agency with the power to assess penalties. I think all parties agree that unfettered recruiting is bad for everyone. No one wants that. Everyone does want an even-handed TSSAA that weighs the needs of all (and not just a few) of its members' needs equally. Though, to be sure, the "genie is out of the bottle" and now that it is ruled that the TSSAA is a state agent that cannot restrict free speech, recruiting is in reality legal. This is why I think, ultimately, there will have to be formed a new governing body that is clearly not a state agent and that can restrict free speech in order to keep unfettered recruiting illegal. I think somehow private schools will have to use as a negotiating chip that they will voluntarily give up recruiting in exchange for other concessions from the publics.

 

an interesting fact about the SC ruling was that it was a 5-4 outcome, with lines split evenly down liberal (for) and conservative (against) lines, and Sandra Day O'Connor providing the swing vote (for). It is highly doubtful that today's court would have ruled that way... I guess certain issues create strange bedfellows...

 

It would be interesting to know if the members of the Supreme Court attended private,prep,catholic schools, public, etc... or if they sent their own children to private schools.