[A.G.]

Collusion? Great point, TallyW. I had not looked at it that way.

However, if each school, INDEPENDENT (wink-wink) of each other decides not to play to LCA, then there is not much they can do. Heck, I look forward to the day when they play William Campbell or Gretna in football, and get exposed for the frauds they are in sports (at least compared to the publics).

[TallyW]

A.G. I'm with you there. LCA is only good in one sport right now and even there they would have a very rough time trying to compete at the best public school level.

[El Scorcho]

EL SCORCH, you might wanna double check your arguments against CSW. You say that his #2 point sounds defeatist to you, yet you sort of sound defeatist describing his point #4.

No, for that point to be defeatist I would have had to say that no one gives us a fair shake, and we're just going to live with that. I was making the point that we're having to do something about it, because of that circumstance. That's far from being defeated or acting like we are.

[Sly Fox]

Anybody else shocked this thread still has this type of legs?

Interesting counterpoints ... and let me welcome our new friend CWS to the fold. I thought his arguments were well stated even if I don't agree wholeheartedly with his mindset.

[Purple Haize]

For it to be Collusion, LCA would have to prove two things: 1. All of these schools got together and decided to boycott LCA athletics. This is a lot harder then it sounds. As the wise AG, who may have actually stayed awake during Sport Law, stated if evidence points to these schools coming to their own, in his words "wink wink" independent, decision to not play LCA, the lawsuit falls in on itself. 2) Did this Evil Coaching Cabal gain an unfair advantage over LCA, LCA's or their competitors, consumers or any other party with whom they were negotiating. (Why do I feel an Ace Ventura moment on this point) This fine TALLY is why sicking the "We Don't Have Enough To Do Lawyer Brigade" on the city and surrounding counties schools was a horrible tactical decision. AG, if you were actaully one of my former pupils and you took Sport Law, I am SURE you remember what the NUMBER ONE RULE was in ALL legal judgements. So repeat after me: It is not what you know, it is what you can prove. It will be easier to prove LCA has suffered no harm by its current scheduling (Did someone say state titles) then it will be for LCA to prove collusion.
So put the lawyers away, and start living by the rules LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.
(For full discloser: I played at a private school when Indiana had only one classification of high schools. We were members of the IHSAA and participated in state tournaments. We were held to the same standards in regards to transfers, scholarships and academics as other IHSAA schools, <but how shawn kemp ever graduated>. So I have no "Keep them out bias')

[cws1007]

Great replies. I enjoy a good conversation. I knew my post would cause some reaction – for and against. It seams like people are digging in and thinking.

Haize summed it up well. (maybe I should have waited and taken the SMGT classes with you). His key phrase was “horrible tactical decision.” My remarks were described as defeatist and pacifist. However, that was not my intent. Tactical approach was my intent. From what I read in the article and my knowledge of VHSL, it seemed as though LCA was jumping to a quick conclusion before working on relationships. This is a matter of opinion on approach to situations which we may disagree upon. I do agree however, that there is a time and place for legal action. However, in this case, I do not feel LCA has a legal case. Once again, I agree with Haize on the proof necessary to prove any wrongdoing. It simply is not there.

It was also stated that I started with a clean slate. Hmmm, where were you in 1993? Do I even know you? The fact is, I had a rough time. Those before me had carved a deep nitch for this school and had sided themselves against many of the other schools and personnel. This is where I personally learned the tactics to approach situations just like this. I went into my first year as a strong willed, bull headed, know-it-all AD who listened to what everyone was telling me about the other schools. I admit, I didn’t make many friends that year. However, I realized that I needed to develop my own relationships with these people and not see them as competitors, but as friends. WOW, what a difference. That’s when things began to change. I’m still great friends with many of these people today.

Regarding the comment: [Not with. Against. They want to participate AGAINST public institutions. There is a difference. One says "We need you." and the other says "We want to show you that our alternative is good.”] I think this makes another point regarding tactic. If LCA does not “need” these other schools, then why bother. If you are participating “against” then you have the mindset, us vs. them. This will always turn on the defenses by “them” whoever “they” maybe. Thirdly, what alternative are you trying to show is good? The VHSL works great, LCA has come up with a better way?

The next thing which blows all of this out of the water were the comments regarding student transfers and eligibility. If these allegations are true, then before LCA approaches other schools, they should be willing to play fair. I as an AD made several choices not to play schools who recruited or gave eligibility to students who would not have been eligible in our conferences. This can even get into safety issues. If LCA has an 8th grader playing varsity against a senior or if another school allows 20 year old seniors to play and your school does not, there is a huge liability waiting to happen. There are many scenarios which play out and when talking about schools participating, but not abiding my the same governing rules. Another point for the VHSL. If LCA was declined membership, it was not because of bias, but not abiding by the VHSL bylaws.

The point made about collusion does not directly apply in this case. Very true, in economics and fair business practices, collusion is illegal. Gas station owners cannot get together and raise gas prices, etc. This goes back to the “proof” issue first – as stated by Haize. In additon, to show collusion, you have to show proof of the gathered parties to have benefited unfairly from the practice. Again, no legal legs for LCA’s lawyers. Next, with LCA being a private institution it separates itself from the state school governing bodies. Organizations (like any conference) may designate regulations and guidelines which make its members eligible for membership and participation. Since LCA and the public schools are not in the same membership organization, there would be no collusion because parties affected by collusion must be in direct relationship one with another. Car manufacturers cannot be taken to court for collusion against Harley Davidson. They both make motor vehicles for people to drive, but they are in separate fields. This is a little hard to explain, but I’m sure a good Sport Law class refresher would help.

Summing it up, my opinion is that LCA jumped the gun with lawyers. It would be very difficult to prove a boycott. If they wish to participate with (or against) public schools, they need to join the VHSL. If they were denied that membership, they need to change their policies to abide within the bylaws of the VHSL. That is not defeatist, the Southern Baptist Convention will not allow Episcopal, Presbyterian or Methodist churches into its organization – then the VHSL is not required to give LCA membership. If LCA is not a VHSL member, public schools have no reason for scheduling them for athletic events.

[Baldspot]

You prove a boycott by showing the jury schedules from the various area schools and ask them to raise their hand when they see LCA listed as an opponent. Members of the jury will be smart enough to figure out why they can't raise their hand and there will be excruciating silence for the defendants to sit through as the schedules are reviewed one by one.

Bottom line is whether public or private, they all pay state taxes and should be afforded the same opportunities. Other states have long since realized this, Virginia needs to do the same.

[A.G.]

So what if the publics boycott LCA. They have full freedom to play whom they wish. Boycotts, per se, are not illegal. Many pro teams will not deal with players of certain agents. Many schools have decided NOT to play LU in athletics. Many fine people many decide to boycott Wal-Mart for their new marketing agreement with one of the Gay and Lesbian groups. Is that illegal, no. I posted in the beginning that the Piedmont Districts schools would not play Martinsville, a Piedmont District School, in football, because they were so powerful back in the 70's. That lasted 2-3 years.

My point? I think the entire reason LCA sicked the legal eagles on the schools was to bring attention to the issue. If they get perhaps one of two schools to play them, then mission accomplished. For their goal to get to into the VHSL, I would be shocked if that ever happened.

[TallyW]

From the Article:
Falwell Jr. said VHSL bylaws discourage members from scheduling games against non-members.

“They are only able to play private schools if they get permission from the VHSL first,” he said. “The VHSL, the way it’s set up in itself, is a violation of state antitrust laws. These schools are saying ‘We’re not going to ask permission, we’re going to boycott LCA,’ which makes it even more of an antitrust violation.”

Part of filing a lawsuit is that if the other party doesn't come around, you get to request things like emails or faxes or even subpeonia witnesses which give you the proof needed. I agree with some of the above posters that it is indeed a difficult case to prove... but that's why the suit was filed. HOPEFULLY several schools will consider this and say "gee... it's not worth sticking with Billy Bob over at ____ school.... let's go ahead and play LCA next year. Then the idea is that the group will break up and things can get back to normal.

[Baldspot]

The difference between LCA and the scenario involving Wal-Mart shoppers has to do with the tax monies collected by the state and used solely for the benefit of public school students. Wal-Mart of course does not collect taxes. If the VHSL accepts any money from the state, and they are involved in collusion against other tax paying entities, I believe they are on very shaky ground.

Tally is right, subpoenas, depositions, document retrievals and the threat of perjury charges can produce a lot of info in this case especially considering the large number of ADs that will have to raise their right hand before being deposed. Any communication between schools regarding not playing LCA and you have collusion.

[cws1007]

You prove a boycott by showing the jury schedules from the various area schools and ask them to raise their hand when they see LCA listed as an opponent. Members of the jury will be smart enough to figure out why they can't raise their hand and there will be excruciating silence for the defendants to sit through as the schedules are reviewed one by one.

Bottom line is whether public or private, they all pay state taxes and should be afforded the same opportunities. Other states have long since realized this, Virginia needs to do the same.

Circumstantial evidence! No jury would side, just because of the schedules. Read the posts above - proof of intent must be shown.

The bottom line is, if everyone who pays taxes where told by the local, state and federal governments that we all must afford our services, etc. to each other, then LU would have to admit any and all students (gay, lesbian, sex offenders, etc.). LCA would also be made to teach the same curriculum as the public schools. The list would go on and on.

Paragraph two quoted above is the exact reason there has always been a debate over private/public education. Also, why school vouchers has never been put into effect the way Pres. Bush set out.

Everyone pays taxes (give unto Caesar's what is Caesar's), that does not give them the entitlement to make any other tax payer do business with them.

[SuperJon]

You prove a boycott by showing the jury schedules from the various area schools and ask them to raise their hand when they see LCA listed as an opponent. Members of the jury will be smart enough to figure out why they can't raise their hand and there will be excruciating silence for the defendants to sit through as the schedules are reviewed one by one.

I could give you a ton of area high schools back home who don't schedule my high school team for anything. That's because we're a 2A school and they're 3A or 4A. Is that a boycott or is that just smart?

[A.G.]

One of the more valid points made is the VHSL points system, which determines playoff bids in football. VHSL teams have nothing to gain by playing private schools, and everything to lose.

[Brokeback Flamer]

From the Article:
Falwell Jr. said VHSL bylaws discourage members from scheduling games against non-members.

“They are only able to play private schools if they get permission from the VHSL first,” he said. “The VHSL, the way it’s set up in itself, is a violation of state antitrust laws. These schools are saying ‘We’re not going to ask permission, we’re going to boycott LCA,’ which makes it even more of an antitrust violation.”

Part of filing a lawsuit is that if the other party doesn't come around, you get to request things like emails or faxes or even subpeonia witnesses which give you the proof needed. I agree with some of the above posters that it is indeed a difficult case to prove... but that's why the suit was filed. HOPEFULLY several schools will consider this and say "gee... it's not worth sticking with Billy Bob over at ____ school.... let's go ahead and play LCA next year. Then the idea is that the group will break up and things can get back to normal.

As a lawyer himself, JerryJr has several layers to this statement. Since the VHSL is the governing body, by playing any school NOT sanctioned by that governing body requires their approval. That is a common practice in several fields. Also, LCA DOES play against public schools and public schools play several area private schools. THe issue raised is that schools LCA WANTS to play don't want to play them (especially football). So while on the surface this looks like a very solid statement, it really isn't anything. Different governing bodies, different rules, different everything.
I am glad to see that your solution is to "Bully" schools into playing LCA. (Insert CWS example). Especially, since LCA states THEY are being bullied. Very nice.

[TallyW]

I am glad to see that your solution is to "Bully" schools into playing LCA. (Insert CWS example). Especially, since LCA states THEY are being bullied. Very nice.



I don't recall saying that using an attorney is "Bullying". If that is your perception I regret you feel that way about the legal process. I tend to appreciate that 1/3 of our government is found within the Legislative branch and I appreciate the fact that there are people who have set the time aside to study the law so that those who are harmed are able to have their voice heard. In fact attorneys enjoy spending time with one another (yes even attorneys who see each other in court have a drink afterwards). They don't view it as bullying. It's a process. A process which aims to keep things fair for average citizens. It's much better than the way people handle things around the rest of the world. In most places you have to have a gun to have a voice.

Brokeback I also disagree with your observation about the case. Surpise.

[SuperJon]

I wasn't talking about the courtroom. I was talking about a boycott. Scheduling LCA has no benefit for some of these schools. They're not boycotting LCA, they're doing what's best for their school. LCA is just whining like the red headed stepchild.

[Brokeback Flamer]

TALLY I was using the word bully in the same manner the Good Reverend uses it when describing law suits by the ACLU. Not twisting his words just using them the same he does.
I am glad that you are aware of the three branches of government and have a patriotic zest. Using lawyers are necessary, not sure where I said they were not. What I don't want to see, and if you take this suit far enough you will get it, is that all Central Virginia athletic schedules will have to be reviewed in Richmond by either lawmakers or judges to make sure that LCA is getting what THEY want.
The bottom line is nothing illegal is going on. So what if there is a policy in Lynchburg city to not schedule LCA? Why is that illegal?

[Sly Fox]

From the Op/Ed page of the fishwrap:

LCA should level playing field for schools

Lynchburg News & Advance
September 2, 2006

If the private Liberty Christian Academy is serious about wanting to compete with public schools in the Seminole and other public school athletic districts, it should agree to rules imposed by the Virginia High School League. That’s the body that governs athletic and scholastic competition among public schools in Virginia.

LCA has made some attempts to schedule local high schools in football and other sports, but has not had much success. The biggest problem - and it’s a legitimate one - is that the school is not governed by the same rules that limit what the public schools can and cannot do.

For example, under VHSL rules, the public schools cannot recruit athletes from one school to another. If they could, E.C. Glass and Heritage high schools could raid teams from Jefferson Forest and Amherst, for example, in an effort to get the best of their players.

Area coaches and public school officials say that LCA is building its athletic programs by recruiting athletes from public school teams.

LCA wonders why the public schools won’t schedule them on the football field, the basketball court or the baseball diamond.

The private school cannot become a member of the VHSL, but it could apply with the state group to become classified in a category under which it would abide by all of the VHSL rules or at least by most of them.

Rather than take that route, LCA has decided to threaten the local public schools in the Group AA Seminole District and Group AAA Western District with a lawsuit if they don’t agree to schedule the private school in athletic contests.

Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based legal group with offices in Liberty University’s new law school, has sent a letter to Lynchburg School Superintendent Paul McKendrick expressing concern over the city schools’ resistance to participate in activities involving LCA. An earlier communication from Liberty Counsel threatened a lawsuit against the schools if they persisted in not putting LCA on their athletic schedules. That Liberty Counsel letter suggested that schools in the city and the region were boycotting LCA’s athletic program.

A boycott of LCA athletic teams would be in violation of VHSL rules.

McKendrick asserted in a letter last spring that he could find no evidence of Lynchburg schools participating in a boycott of LCA’s athletic program.

LCA athletic director Frank Rocco said recently that conversations he has had with some local school athletic directors showed that they are willing to schedule private schools. But, as Ted Allen of The News & Advance reported, Rocco confirmed it is too late to schedule competition for the new school year because scheduling dates for the schools have been filled.

Glass athletic director Chip Berry said LCA is not on the Hilltoppers’ 2006-2007 schedule for any sport. “Nothing’s changed,” he said about the schedules, adding he hasn’t received a call from LCA regarding scheduling issues. “I’ve never been contacted by any of them.”

Any conversation among superintendents, principals and athletic directors in the public schools boils down to their claim that LCA does not play by VHSL rules, especially those regarding recruiting. Public schools require student athletes to sit out and lose a year of eligibility after transferring to another public school. Private schools allow transfer students to play right away. Private schools also offer a fifth year of eligibility to student athletes who need it for academic reasons.

In the past, LCA has had donors give money to pay athletes’ tuition, enabling them to play for LCA teams. With the school’s move next to the LU campus last winter, students have an even greater incentive to transfer from the public schools.

Jerry Falwell Jr., an attorney associated with LCA, has pointed out that other states have found ways to allow private schools to play in public school leagues. That’s true.

It can also be accommodated here - if LCA will play by the same rules that govern the public schools through the VHSL. LCA officials should try that approach.

http://www.newsadvance.com/servlet/Sate ... 0417&path=

[BJWilliams]

I know this would be the ultimate necro (in message board speak) but I was reminded of this discussion when I posted about LCA playing Gretna in football this fall in the Non-LU Sports section

["R" i "]

HMO, It is simple. LCA's trying to gain entrance into the VHSL, is the main reason IMHO that this "boycott" is taking place, .

I am under the impression that the public schools are boycotting for several reasons..... one of which you mentioned. I just want to share what people that are apart of the city athlectic board are saying the reasons are,

in a casual conversation one of the members said this..

1.) they are starting to take all of our talent out of ours schools at an early age. (ie the two or three sandusky kids that play on the JV basketball team). which hits home to this sandusky A.D.

2.) we do not have the same facilities they have

3.) we can not offer tuition assistants to private school learning. ( to quote him "if these kids couldnt dribble a basketball they would NOT be at LCA".)

[LUconn]

[quote=""R" i ""] people that are apart of the city athlectic board [/quote]

I'm not gonna lie. My first thought was, "there's a city athletic message board? "