BA vs TSSAA

[my2cents]

Interesting about Div I vs Div II

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16663

[TedLNancy]

My understanding is that the contact was made after they enrolled. The coaches then either called or sent letters about camp or summer workouts. That is a little crazy if that is true. I could be way off. If the kid is fully enrolled... then coaches should be able to contact them about summer workouts or camp. (the band director and art teacher should be able to as well)

 

If they are not enrolled... there should be no contact.

I think there was more to it than simple contact. It has been awhile, but I seem to recall that what BA called a "harmless communication" was an invitation to 8th graders from other schools, who had "signed contracts to attend" BA, to participate in their spring practice.

 

There is the potential for harm there. If those kids did participate in spring drills for 3 or more days, they would be ineligible in football at any other school for 12 months. What if they changed their mind over the summer and decided to go to Hunter's Lane, Antioch...? They would be ineligible without a change of residence.

 

I may have my facts wrong, but if my recollection is correct there was the potential for harm to those students. I am sure that the ramifications of making kids ineligible should they change their minds would not have occurred to any involved in this, but there is a good reason why the TSSAA rules are designed to protect kids and schools are supposed to abide by them.

[BDURHAM]

On target and solid thought process.

 

I think there was more to it than simple contact. It has been awhile, but I seem to recall that what BA called a "harmless communication" was an invitation to 8th graders from other schools, who had "signed contracts to attend" BA, to participate in their spring practice.

 

There is the potential for harm there. If those kids did participate in spring drills for 3 or more days, they would be ineligible in football at any other school for 12 months. What if they changed their mind over the summer and decided to go to Hunter's Lane, Antioch...? They would be ineligible without a change of residence.

 

I may have my facts wrong, but if my recollection is correct there was the potential for harm to those students. I am sure that the ramifications of making kids ineligible should they change their minds would not have occurred to any involved in this, but there is a good reason why the TSSAA rules are designed to protect kids and schools are supposed to abide by them.

[itzme]

I think there was more to it than simple contact. It has been awhile, but I seem to recall that what BA called a "harmless communication" was an invitation to 8th graders from other schools, who had "signed contracts to attend" BA, to participate in their spring practice.

 

There is the potential for harm there. If those kids did participate in spring drills for 3 or more days, they would be ineligible in football at any other school for 12 months. What if they changed their mind over the summer and decided to go to Hunter's Lane, Antioch...? They would be ineligible without a change of residence.

 

I may have my facts wrong, but if my recollection is correct there was the potential for harm to those students. I am sure that the ramifications of making kids ineligible should they change their minds would not have occurred to any involved in this, but there is a good reason why the TSSAA rules are designed to protect kids and schools are supposed to abide by them.

Lack of eligibility would not have been their biggest problem. Had they "changed their mind" and gone elsewhere, their parents would still have been accountable for paying the full cost on tuition for the year. They were obligated already because they signed the contract.

 

Look at the submitted documents in this case and you will see that Riverdale sends a very similar letter to the one BA sent before the school year begins. What's the difference? You tell me!

[BDURHAM]

BA/Flatt invited 8th-graders to spring practice.

Riverdale does not do this.

 

Lack of eligibility would not have been their biggest problem. Had they "changed their mind" and gone elsewhere, their parents would still have been accountable for paying the full cost on tuition for the year. They were obligated already because they signed the contract.

 

Look at the submitted documents in this case and you will see that Riverdale sends a very similar letter to the one BA sent before the school year begins. What's the difference? You tell me!

[itzme]

BA/Flatt invited 8th-graders to spring practice.

Riverdale does not do this.

 

The specific "violation" cited was inviting 8th graders to practice before they were enrolled, which TSSAA defined as the first day of school. Many schools, including Riverdale, do indeed do this. Go look at the Supreme Court submissions and you will see copies of both letters.

Edited January 14, 2007 by itzme

[CoachT]

The specific "violation" cited was inviting 8th graders to practice before they were enrolled, which TSSAA defined as the first day of school. Many schools, including Riverdale, do indeed do this. Go look at the Supreme Court submissions and you will see copies of both letters.

If so, did the TSSAA know Riverdale did this or was this a discovery or admission after the fact?

[BDURHAM]

Riverdale does not invite 8th graders to spring practice.

 

You've got your facts mixed up.

 

The specific "violation" cited was inviting 8th graders to practice before they were enrolled, which TSSAA defined as the first day of school. Many schools, including Riverdale, do indeed do this. Go look at the Supreme Court submissions and you will see copies of both letters.

[tackle]

Lack of eligibility would not have been their biggest problem. Had they "changed their mind" and gone elsewhere, their parents would still have been accountable for paying the full cost on tuition for the year. They were obligated already because they signed the contract.

 

Look at the submitted documents in this case and you will see that Riverdale sends a very similar letter to the one BA sent before the school year begins. What's the difference? You tell me!

 

Are you telling me that if a kid enrolls in the spring at BA and then changes his mind over the summer, that the parents are responsible for an entire year's tuition? I can understand losing any deposit. That is only fair, since that student may have taken a spot that could have gone to another potential student. If there is a waiting list, then the spot could probably be filled. Is the full tuition due in the spring before the student enrolls? (I would think it would be difficult to collect that bill if the student never enrolled in the school. Since I have never seen a BA contract, I am in the dark on that one.) Would the school be understanding if a financial hardship caused the decision? I would hope so.

 

 

"Look at the submitted documents in this case and you will see that Riverdale sends a very similar letter to the one BA sent before the school year begins. What's the difference? You tell me!"

 

Isn't is different for a public school to invite students in a "natural feeder school" to participate than for a private school to invite students from other schools? I don't know enough about Rutherford County's zoning, so I am just wondering on this one. If Riverdale does indeed send out similiar letters, are they to students at natural feeder schools who will be going to Riverdale regardless? There would be no problem if an 8th grader in the Brentwood Academy Middle School participated in BA's spring practice. They are in a natural feeder school. If an 8th grader at JT Moore, Franklin Middle, or Bass Middle... was invited to participate, that would be a stretch. While a student at those schools is free to go to BA, he is not in a natural feeder situation-even if he had applied and been accepted. He still wasn't "enrolled" at the school in the spring.

 

If anyone can clear up the Riverdale parallel, please do so. Stan Trott seems certain that Riverdale doesn't invite 8th graders. Is there any link to the documents that were introduced in court?

Edited January 15, 2007 by tackle

[OnlineLC]

Are you telling me that if a kid enrolls in the spring at BA and then changes his mind over the summer, that the parents are responsible for an entire year's tuition? I can understand losing any deposit. T

 

I am not in a position to comment on the rest, but the answer to tuition being due is yes. If a parent signs a contract, they end up owing a full year tuition regardless of whether the student attends or not. It may sound harsh, but schools need to know what budgets they are operating under and if it was just the deposit at stake, I guarantee there would be a high incidence of broken contracts as soon as students start school in August.

[cbg]

Are you telling me that if a kid enrolls in the spring at BA and then changes his mind over the summer, that the parents are responsible for an entire year's tuition? I can understand losing any deposit. That is only fair, since that student may have taken a spot that could have gone to another potential student. If there is a waiting list, then the spot could probably be filled. Is the full tuition due in the spring before the student enrolls? (I would think it would be difficult to collect that bill if the student never enrolled in the school. Since I have never seen a BA contract, I am in the dark on that one.) Would the school be understanding if a financial hardship caused the decision? I would hope so.

"Look at the submitted documents in this case and you will see that Riverdale sends a very similar letter to the one BA sent before the school year begins. What's the difference? You tell me!"

 

Isn't is different for a public school to invite students in a "natural feeder school" to participate than for a private school to invite students from other schools? I don't know enough about Rutherford County's zoning, so I am just wondering on this one. If Riverdale does indeed send out similiar letters, are they to students at natural feeder schools who will be going to Riverdale regardless? There would be no problem if an 8th grader in the Brentwood Academy Middle School participated in BA's spring practice. They are in a natural feeder school. If an 8th grader at JT Moore, Franklin Middle, or Bass Middle... was invited to participate, that would be a stretch. While a student at those schools is free to go to BA, he is not in a natural feeder situation-even if he had applied and been accepted. He still wasn't "enrolled" at the school in the spring.

 

If anyone can clear up the Riverdale parallel, please do so. Stan Trott seems certain that Riverdale doesn't invite 8th graders. Is there any link to the documents that were introduced in court?

 

I can only speak of some schools but the contracts are binding legal documents. If the parents sign a contract in the Spring for their son/daughter to attend a private school in the Fall the tuition is due in full even if they decide to attend another school. If you read the fine print it will say that you are obligated to pay one years tuition because the school is holding slot in your childs name. If your child is expelled or ask to leave for any reason (social, academic, discipline) during the first semester you are still responsible for paying the full years tuition.

 

The moral of the story is to do your homework and don't sign the contract if you have any doubt that you wish to attend the school. However, if you don't sign the contract you will forfiet your option to attend the school.

[itzme]

If so, did the TSSAA know Riverdale did this or was this a discovery or admission after the fact?

 

I really have no idea. I assume it was after the fact. Remember, TSSAA's problem was that BA had invited 8th graders to participate before school had actually started. They did not differentiate between Spring practice and Summer practice. The issue is that nobody cared that Riverdale, or any other school, invited rising 9th graders to participate, nor should they have. Here is a link to BA's response to TSSAA's latest appeal. The two letters are on the final two pages in the appendix:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/06-427BIO.pdf

 

It's important for people to understand that this case is no longer about whether a violation of the undue influence rule took place or not. I understand that people have different opinions about all that. The crux of the case now is whether TSSAA can define and enforce any rule on a case-by-case basis, with only itself to answer to.

 

TSSAA's argument is that all schools belong to TSSAA on a voluntary basis (analogous to a country club) and therefore must abide by it's rules and rulings without any rights of appeal to the courts. Essentially, they are saying "if you don't like it then quit and go somewhere else." BA's argument is that TSSAA is a quasi-government agency (a "state actor") and is not really voluntary in any true sense of the word if a school wants to participate in athletics. In other words, they are the "only game in town".

 

The point (IMO) is that the undue influence rule is poorly constructed and far too arbitrary. Anyone can read all the information about this case online and make up their own mind. Personally, I think the scenario of how this all happened in the first place, as outlined in the BA response beginning on page 16 of the linked document, rings pretty true.