"a waning-moments pass that appeared to be in Baylor hands but somehow was ruled an Ensworth touchdown."
It was a cruel/miraculous play, and in terms of the effort put forth by both teams, it was almost a fitting way to symbolize how even the game was.
Specifically, see NFHS Football Casebook 2008 7.5. Article 4 SITUATION, (sub-section b):
"Airborne A1 and B1 simultaneously gain possession of a legal forward pass near the goal line and return to the ground where...(b) they alight in the end zone with the ball...It is a touchdown in (b)"
That is technically why it was ruled a touchdown.
Skeptical, as an important question has not been answered. Vice Chancellor McCardell claims this is an effort to make tuition more affordable for families in need, but a 10% tuition break off $46,000 does far less good than a 50% discount off $46,000 (the latter comes from need and merit aid). This is not to suggest what Sewanee ought to do, but substance is important.
A ~50% discount is what Sewanee has been offering, on average, for close to half of its students. What percentage of ~$41,000 will now be discounted for students most in need? VC McCardell dislikes the "high tuition, high discount" practices so prevalent in private college education today, but $41,000 still is "high tuition". Without a significant discount, Sewanee tuition will remain out of reach for many. 10% off $46,000 will certainly make the school more attractive for wealthy applicants, no question.
However, if a major reason for this change is to make Sewanee more affordable for those in need, then the university cannot ignore the imperative still for major discounting, despite the tuition cut. Since Sewanee now is going to give a 10% discount to students who currently receive NO financial aid (a majority of the student body), it could be suggested that this entire initiative is more about flat enrollment for the last several years than altruism. A $2 million shortfall in budgeted financial aid for this current fiscal year probably also added to the sense of urgency. However, the decision to cut revenue in the next fiscal year by 10% combined with this budgetary expense reality is a curious strategy, unless there is a contingency to reduce financial aid significantly as an offset if higher enrollment / generous giving is not realized (or if Sewanee is willing to go into the red -- and if this is the case, McCardell has immense courage).
The marketing value of the move has already been seen in the last few days. What major online source of news has not covered this? If Sewanee would simply give some idea of what it plans to do to ensure that its students most in need will not be hurt by the plan, then it will hold a lot more water as a strategy "to make Sewanee more affordable". Also, the university should stress to prospective students of need that Sewanee will remain a viable option for them. For them, there is little difference between $46,000 and $41,000 if the lower number is prohibitive.
To the Vice Chancellor's credit, he has mentioned that voluntary support (i.e., gifts) will be a significant part of the strategy. It will have to be, since Sewanee's physical plant cannot accommodate the large increase in enrollment that would lead to significantly increased revenues from a high-volume, somewhat lower-price path. In reality, we are looking at a modest realized increase in enrollment next year at best.