The Countdown Begins...

[Itoldyouso]

QUOTE(takedown3 @ Apr 14 2007 - 09:54 AM) 826437320[/snapback]Get used to the BASSAA which will he located in the Carlton Flatt Building.

 

 

 

 

....and since Flatt is now retired, he will be the next Ronnie Carter. /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

[VolunteerGeneral]

This just in.... /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

 

QUOTE(MPHSTIGERS87 @ Apr 17 2007 - 10:34 AM) 826439354[/snapback]Either way, I hope they do split.

[VolunteerGeneral]

Well this was simply stupid for the TSSAA to ever ever ever try to punish BA over sending these letters out to kids that had already signed a contract to attend the school the next fall. This is not recruitment and this is definitely not undue influence. The TSSAA argued that they couldn`t send these type letters because the said student/athletes had not yet actually started attending the school. Questions were then asked regarding public school kids that start practice before their freshman year begins. I can tell you for a fact that my son was sent a letter from his coach before he started his freshman year at JCM.

 

I mean seriously folks, lets get real here. My son had already expressed interest in playing at JCM.The same applies to the kids involved in this BA case. I remember we had "Meet the Cougars" night before school actually started the fall of my son`s freshman year. Now someone please tell me how my son knew about that if (as the TSSAA is saying) it is illegal to contact students before they actually attend the school.

 

This whole mess, in my opinion, was brought on from the pressure applied by certain coaches to "get" BA. I certainly hope the SC finds in favor of BA simply because the TSSAA was stupid to try and claim sending letters to kids that had already signed a contract was recruiting.

 

I can`t say the word stupid enough. Stupid Stupid Stupid.

[FCSprideatUT]

QUOTE(MPHSTIGERS87 @ Apr 19 2007 - 08:58 AM) 826440932[/snapback]It wouldnt suprise me to see a private do that. TSSAA is trying to even the playing field for these kids and its upseting all the privates that do no wrong.

 

 

I wouldn't be suprised to hear about a one man court case of a Mount Pleasant fan Suing the TSSAA for Mt. Pleasant not winning a State Championship in football..... /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />

 

QUOTE(ELA @ Apr 19 2007 - 01:16 PM) 826441165[/snapback]I no longer care how it turns out but if the TSSAA loses this case, you can bet they will split out all private schools under any reorganization plan. The question is freedom of speech not freedom of participation and you will see all public schools in the United States search for ways to end association with private institutions. Many states already have their organizations structured this way and I have no doubt that the TSSAA already has such plans ready to go if they lose. In NC, we only have a handful of private schools that play in the NCHSAA. Most belong to independent leagues.

Again, it's time to end this case one way or another!

 

 

To my Knowledge TSSAA is considered a state institution and therefor cannot deny access to anyone who wants to join based soley on "they are a private" If anyone can correct this then please do i would like to know the correct idea on this

 

I honestly do not understand how the question is freedom of speech and not freedom of participation.

 

You are right i know a big example is Texas who has two completely seperate leagues one for privates and one for publics with i think only 4 privates playing in the public league. The difference you may ask?? All the privates in the private league voluneered to not be in the TexasSSAA. To my knowledge all the TSSAA can do is impose enough rules on all the privates that they would leave the TSSAA and form their own league. (but then again they might just sue the TSSAA for cruel and unusual punishment depending on the rules imposed)

 

For those of you...... +cough+MPLEASANT+cough+ who will take that last comment literally, it was a joke /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />

[itzme]

QUOTE(VolunteerGeneral @ Apr 19 2007 - 06:03 PM) 826441323[/snapback]Well this was simply stupid for the TSSAA to ever ever ever try to punish BA over sending these letters out to kids that had already signed a contract to attend the school the next fall. This is not recruitment and this is definitely not undue influence. The TSSAA argued that they couldn`t send these type letters because the said student/athletes had not yet actually started attending the school. Questions were then asked regarding public school kids that start practice before their freshman year begins. I can tell you for a fact that my son was sent a letter from his coach before he started his freshman year at JCM.

 

I mean seriously folks, lets get real here. My son had already expressed interest in playing at JCM.The same applies to the kids involved in this BA case. I remember we had "Meet the Cougars" night before school actually started the fall of my son`s freshman year. Now someone please tell me how my son knew about that if (as the TSSAA is saying) it is illegal to contact students before they actually attend the school.

 

This whole mess, in my opinion, was brought on from the pressure applied by certain coaches to "get" BA. I certainly hope the SC finds in favor of BA simply because the TSSAA was stupid to try and claim sending letters to kids that had already signed a contract was recruiting.

 

I can`t say the word stupid enough. Stupid Stupid Stupid.

 

 

I had to laugh at one of Judge Ginsburg's questions to the attorney for TSSAA...to paraphrase: "So it was permissible to have them attend Spring practice, but not permissible to talk to them about it, or have the coaches talk to them while they were there?"

 

That pretty much summarizes the case from a rational perspective.

 

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court case is not about whether BA recruited or not. It is about what rights a state high school governing agency has as it applies to limiting first amendment rights of a school. I fear that the Supremes would not have agreed to re-hear a case that has already been before them unless they wanted to overturn their previous ruling. I hope that I am wrong.

[BDURHAM]

Wrong. 8th graders from another school cannot attend spring practice.

 

 

QUOTE(itzme @ Apr 19 2007 - 09:07 PM) 826441511[/snapback]I had to laugh at one of Judge Ginsburg's questions to the attorney for TSSAA...to paraphrase: "So it was permissible to have them attend Spring practice, but not permissible to talk to them about it, or have the coaches talk to them while they were there?"

 

That pretty much summarizes the case from a rational perspective.

 

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court case is not about whether BA recruited or not. It is about what rights a state high school governing agency has as it applies to limiting first amendment rights of a school. I fear that the Supremes would not have agreed to re-hear a case that has already been before them unless they wanted to overturn their previous ruling. I hope that I am wrong.

[Antwan]

QUOTE(itzme @ Apr 19 2007 - 10:07 PM) 826441511[/snapback]I had to laugh at one of Judge Ginsburg's questions to the attorney for TSSAA...to paraphrase: "So it was permissible to have them attend Spring practice, but not permissible to talk to them about it, or have the coaches talk to them while they were there?"

 

That pretty much summarizes the case from a rational perspective.

 

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court case is not about whether BA recruited or not. It is about what rights a state high school governing agency has as it applies to limiting first amendment rights of a school. I fear that the Supremes would not have agreed to re-hear a case that has already been before them unless they wanted to overturn their previous ruling. I hope that I am wrong.

 

 

No...it was not permissable for them to attend spring practice. 8th graders are not allowed to attend spring practice before their freshman year. BA tried to violate that rule along with the contact rule. It appears BA intended to test those rules all along. Isn't that what this case is all about?

[canton]

QUOTE(itzme @ Apr 19 2007 - 09:07 PM) 826441511[/snapback]I had to laugh at one of Judge Ginsburg's questions to the attorney for TSSAA...to paraphrase: "So it was permissible to have them attend Spring practice, but not permissible to talk to them about it, or have the coaches talk to them while they were there?"

 

That pretty much summarizes the case from a rational perspective.

 

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court case is not about whether BA recruited or not. It is about what rights a state high school governing agency has as it applies to limiting first amendment rights of a school. I fear that the Supremes would not have agreed to re-hear a case that has already been before them unless they wanted to overturn their previous ruling. I hope that I am wrong.

 

 

 

I read the entire SC case that was posted on "The Tennesseans's" website. To me it sounded pro - TSSAA. I had always thought that the letters were no big deal, but reading about it today, made me understand why the TSSAA punished BA.

 

Question: If the SC rules in favor of the TSSAA, will BA have to serve the remainder of their penalty?

[itzme]

QUOTE(StanTrott @ Apr 19 2007 - 10:42 PM) 826441551[/snapback]Wrong. 8th graders from another school cannot attend spring practice.

 

Wrong.

 

That was not the rule in 1997. It was changed by TSSAA only a few years ago.

 

...apology accepted.

[KCHSCoach]

In 1997 8th graders could and did come ou tfor spring practice, that rule changed about 4 or 5 years ago.

[BLUEMOM]

Does anyone care to hazard a guess after reading the transcript as to the outcome?

[cbg]

QUOTE(BLUEMOM @ Apr 20 2007 - 10:50 AM) 826441789[/snapback]Does anyone care to hazard a guess after reading the transcript as to the outcome?

 

 

JMO, but from reading the transcript the SC will vote down party lines. The conservatives will vote for the TSSAA & the liberals will vote for BA. IMO, BA did little if anything wrong but they will loose this case because of external issues. The SC is well aware that the NCAA and other major organizations are standing behind the TSSAA. If BA wins a major can of worms will be opened and it will result in national ramifications.