ANYONE ELSE HEARING THIS?

[Warriors2011]

There is a difference in giving aid when a family qualifies for it, regardless of athletic talent, and seeking such players to give them aid. I don't think it's the aid as much as the higher percentage willing to even participate in sports. Look at the roster sizes for some of these Division I privates, compared to the number of males in the school.

There is definitely a difference between giving financial aid to needy families regarless of athletic talent and seeking out talented athletes to give them aid.  Webb does the latter, or maybe it's just a HUGE coincidence that a couple of football scholarship players from recent years' teams ran a 4.3 40-yard dash, or this year's team had a RB (no, I'm not talking about this year's UT commit, who is not a scholarship athlete) who ran a 4.3 or 4.4 40, or a defensive player (no, I'm not talking about this year's UT commit) who has D1 college potential.

 

Webb's football team this year, if my recollection is right, dressed out about 40 players, which is actually quite small.  And yet there are no less than 5 guys (and possibly as many as 8) on the team who, if they wanted to, could play college ball at some level.  That's what having money to spend on athletic "financial aid" can do for your team.

[Warriors2011]

If more local school boards allow more public schools to go open zone or the T$$AA lets kids living out of zone transfer to and play for public schools, there are a number of public 3a teams that could potentially compete with Alcoa

Agreed.  If I could vote, I would vote for that.  It's going to take more schools going to open zone to make 3A and 6A more competitive, because I don't think TSSAA is ever going to change its rules in a way that makes things tougher on the current open zone schools.

[UpperCumberlandMan]

Agreed. If I could vote, I would vote for that. It's going to take more schools going to open zone to make 3A and 6A more competitive, because I don't think TSSAA is ever going to change its rules in a way that makes things tougher on the current open zone schools.

100% agree

[AlcoasPaintedBridge]

ZZZZZZz....................

[Warriors2011]

ZZZZZZz....................

I could use a little nap myself!

[Indian]

If they're going out and seeking them, they're breaking a TSSAA rule and something should be done about it.

[AlcoasPaintedBridge]

I don't think TSSAA is ever going to change its rules in a way that makes things tougher on the current open zone schools.

Like Upperman?? or Milan?

Or are you talking about any of the Jackson area schools?

Where are these "alleged" open zone schools???

I have heard of some in Upper NET, Anderson Co. and the "grey area" that goes under I-40 on the NE side of Knoxville....

E'reboddy keeps bringing up Murvil and Alcoee and I don't understand why?? 

[UpperCumberlandMan]

Like Upperman?? or Milan?

Or are you talking about any of the Jackson area schools?

Where are these "alleged" open zone schools???

I have heard of some in Upper NET, Anderson Co. and the "grey area" that goes under I-40 on the NE side of Knoxville....

E'reboddy keeps bringing up Murvil and Alcoee and I don't understand why??

because there is a diffrence between a school that has no zones for any in-county kid, and schools that charge and takes in kids from where ever to play. Pay to play is very diffrent than a simple grey zone are in a county were kids can go to one or the other schoosl. If the Boro had " pay" open zone rules and recruited all the talent to two schools, Maryville would not have a chance. But its strict zoned. Public school is suppose to be play with what you got, not recruit the talent you lack. I think any school that gives schoolarships or need based funds to attend, or receives out of zone money should be in a seperate league. That's like NAIA school with no schoolarships forced to play with schoolarship schools. Now parents that like a school enough to move there, into that schools zone,is fine. Good schools and programs will attract kids. But pay and/or recruit type schools should be in a diffrent league. Edited February 3, 2014 by UpperCumberlandMan

[Warriors2011]

Like Upperman?? or Milan?

Or are you talking about any of the Jackson area schools?

Where are these "alleged" open zone schools???

I have heard of some in Upper NET, Anderson Co. and the "grey area" that goes under I-40 on the NE side of Knoxville....

E'reboddy keeps bringing up Murvil and Alcoee and I don't understand why?? 

Success breeds contempt from those who are not so successful I suppose.  But, hey, as you know, I know better than to pick a fight with Alcoa or its fans.  You'll not hear or see me claim that anything Alcoa does is against the rules or in any way inappropriate.  Please scroll up a few posts and see the glowing things I said about how very few teams can compete with Alcoa, etc.

 

What we're talking about here are possible ways to make some classifications, like 3A, a little more competitive than they are.  With the exception of CAK's two championships, Alcoa owns 3A, and I've seen on other threads where you guys are predicting another run of umpteen more in a row building on the 2013 championship.  That's great for you guys if that happens, but surely there's a part of you that wishes Alcoa's upcoming championships will actually MEAN something because there's some serious competition to go through to get to the championships.  Alcoa barely broke a sweat against any 3A competition this year; it's my understanding it was mostly like that for the other recent championship years with the exception of a decent game from CAK in the 2010 quarterfinals.

 

The private school haters want to kick the privates out of 3A (and other Div. I classifications), so I've tried to explain why that might not be such a good idea.  You know I give Alcoa its due "props" at every turn--like pointing out how NOBODY among the 3A publics has even given them a decent game over the last 5 years.  Now, I know you're a dyed in the wool Alcoa fan, and it's hard to talk objectively about anything that might stand in the way of more championships for Alcoa, but surely you have to concede that it might be beneficial for high school football as a whole if 3A became a little more competitive?

 

I assume from your post that you believe there are several other public open zone schools in 3A already, at the places you mentioned.  I trust that you're right about that.  I suspect that those schools simply haven't gotten over the hump of establishing a championship level program with their open zone system yet.  Alcoa's, and Maryville's, long track record of success certainly attracts kids and families that want to compete for championships.  High quality workout programs and coaching add to the mix, and hard work from the boys is the final ingredient. 

 

But, surely you realize that the only people who want Alcoa to win the next umpteen 3A championships in a row are Alcoa fans, and you shouldn't take that personally.  Don't be so quick to dismiss the opinions of people who simply want to see the rest of the field become more competitive. 

Edited February 3, 2014 by Warriors2011

[UpperCumberlandMan]

Success breeds contempt from those who are not so successful I suppose. But, hey, as you know, I know better than to pick a fight with Alcoa or its fans. You'll not hear or see me claim that anything Alcoa does is against the rules or in any way inappropriate. Please scroll up a few posts and see the glowing things I said about how very few teams can compete with Alcoa, etc.

 

What we're talking about here are possible ways to make some classifications, like 3A, a little more competitive than they are. With the exception of CAK's two championships, Alcoa owns 3A, and I've seen on other threads where you guys are predicting another run of umpteen more in a row building on the 2013 championship. That's great for you guys if that happens, but surely there's a part of you that wishes Alcoa's upcoming championships will actually MEAN something because there's some serious competition to go through to get to the championships. Alcoa barely broke a sweat against any 3A competition this year; it's my understanding it was mostly like that for the other recent championship years with the exception of a decent game from CAK in the 2010 quarterfinals.

 

The private school haters want to kick the privates out of 3A (and other Div. I classifications), so I've tried to explain why that might not be such a good idea. You know I give Alcoa its due "props" at every turn--like pointing out how NOBODY among the 3A publics has even given them a decent game over the last 5 years. Now, I know you're a dyed in the wool Alcoa fan, and it's hard to talk objectively about anything that might stand in the way of more championships for Alcoa, but surely you have to concede that it might be beneficial for high school football as a whole if 3A became a little more competitive?

 

I assume from your post that you believe there are several other public open zone schools in 3A already, at the places you mentioned. I trust that you're right about that. I suspect that those schools simply haven't gotten over the hump of establishing a championship level program with their open zone system yet. Alcoa's, and Maryville's, long track record of success certainly attracts kids and families that want to compete for championships. High quality workout programs and coaching add to the mix, and hard work from the boys is the final ingredient.

 

But, surely you realize that the only people who want Alcoa to win the next umpteen 3A championships in a row are Alcoa fans, and you shouldn't take that personally. Don't be so quick to dismiss the opinions of people who simply want to see the rest of the field become more competitive.

There is no diffrence in ND having kids pay to attend and playing public school ball than Alcoa charging out of zone fees to attend. The reason is, Alcoa can specify how many " out of zone kids" get in. And I bet many of them that do get in are good ball players. That keeps enrollment levels down, but talent level high.

[Warriors2011]

There is no diffrence in ND having kids pay to attend and playing public school ball than Alcoa charging out of zone fees to attend. The reason is, Alcoa can specify how many " out of zone kids" get in. And I bet many of them that do get in are good ball players. That keeps enrollment levels down, but talent level high.

Well, there is a difference in the sense that Notre Dame's tuition is probably a lot higher than Alcoa's out of zone fee, but I get your point.  I will point out, UC Man, that you're not likely to get ANYWHERE debating this issue with Alcoa fans in light of the threads that took place leading up to the UC vs. Alcoa play-off game.  I fear they "tuned you out," rightly or not, long ago.

[UpperCumberlandMan]

Well, there is a difference in the sense that Notre Dame's tuition is probably a lot higher than Alcoa's out of zone fee, but I get your point. I will point out, UC Man, that you're not likely to get ANYWHERE debating this issue with Alcoa fans in light of the threads that took place leading up to the UC vs. Alcoa play-off game. I fear they "tuned you out," rightly or not, long ago.

no fear on the " tuned out", as a former Riverdale grad......I know how the system works when you can "get" all the players you need. And the school you compete with play with what they have.