PullinGuard

I think that makes it clear no one thought there was any issue. I understand he was hurt early in the season and didn't play a lot or have a ton of impact after a knee injury. Still played some. If the school or family imagined in the slightest that there was any question, I don't think he would have played after the injury.

I have no idea why they preferred FHS, but they did. The two schools are very different and there could be any number of good reasons. They would have moved into Fayetteville proper, but it was everyone's understanding that this was no issue up to and including when Childress made his ruling in September. I don't think one soul involved in the school system or the family thought there was any issue at all until Oct 15th. Especially after the TSSAA ruled him eligible based on the correct address.

And that means nothing unless you are willing to make assumptions with no guidance from the rules. If you think it does, it's no wonder that you believe what you do. If a school has no buses, does that mean it has no territory? The answer is yes according to this logic. Even though that's clearly an absurdity. Is Fayetteville proper outside of LCHS's territory? It never has been, but it is now. They don't pick up in town and never have.

It mentions both. Nowhere does it say you have to satisfy both. That's the root of the problem - they need to clarify the intent. I believe 'bus routes' are there to clarify the school boards intent when there are multiple schools in a zoned system. That's logical, considering everything. 'Bus routes' have been used in that manner hundreds of times. Never in this manner, to my knowledge.

There are good reasons and good logic to support the idea that the TSSAA misapplied their own rules. But you'd have to invest more time than anyone with sense would want to at this point. For just a taste, consider that Bernard Childress ruled him eligible based on the correct address and two of the BOC agreed (today) that Menees' ruling was wrong. If the Executive Director and two of the BOC disagree with it, it's easy to see that it wasn't a trivial situation, in my opinion.

Yes. If someone moves to Fayetteville proper from say, Nashville, they could only attend FHS and be immediately eligible if they are past (or already in) ninth grade, not LCHS. Unless they add bus pickup in town to LCHS to get around it. Until now, everyone has believed they had a choice where to go and be immediately eligible as long as you came from out of county. You can still pick either for the start of ninth grade and be eligible.

That is Fayetteville's explicit policy regarding geographic boundaries, both written and illustrated/confirmed with 50 years of history. If this ruling holds, Lincoln County loses Fayetteville proper are territory. They don't pick up with buses in town. Of course, they could decide to change that now in order to keep Fayetteville as territory.

I could imagine it. Whether Fayetteville is right on the rules and logic or not, the TSSAA will need to do that for sure. If they now feel they were wrong on the territory matter, they could approve the hardship, then clarify the bus route language over the winter and thereby achieve what may be the just, correct, and logical outcome, save face, and also not open a big can of worms with this bus route ruling. For instance, If LCHS doesn't pick up kids in town (I think they don't), they lose Fayetteville proper as territory if this ruling holds without clarification. No one has ever believed that is or should be the case, imo.

I could easily imagine it given the initial clearance under normal rules. Hardships are much harder to consider than an address only ordinarily, and if Childress says he's good to go under the normal transfer rules, I don't think anyone would have any interest in considering the hardship (and lots of reasons not to). From either side. The hardship application would serve no purpose if he's ruled good without it - that's my point. So it would be no surprise if it were filed from the start but then never considered. Again, 100% a theory. I know nothing at all about it.

I know nothing at all about it. But the tweet says 'had', and that implies it was done sometime in the past. Could've been in the background all along, I don't know. Even if it existed from day one, it would've been rendered moot by the original 'all-clear' letter, and therefore never considered until now. Just a theory. I assume you couldn't file it now, but don't know.

FYI, Wilson is the Director of Schools for Fayetteville. I gather that Morson is the coach.

I will - thx.

If there's a published ruling, I'll take a look. But no, I'm not there. Seriously, I have no direct connection. But football and logic interest me, so here I am. I did live there way more years ago than I'd like to admit, so have some understanding of key details that some others might not.

I believe that all games affected are scheduled for 7pm Saturday, but can be played at any earlier time (up to Friday at 7) with mutual agreement between the schools.

I have no idea.

My final thoughts on the matter prior to the appeal. The intent of the territory definition and rule seem clear. The TSSAA gives full authority over area served to the local school board. That's inarguable, in my opinion. The territory rule mentions both 'geographic boundaries and bus routes' as defining the territory, without giving any guidance as to which governs if there is a conflict. Menees' ruling gives complete deference to bus routes and ignores geographic boundaries entirely. Now, FHS and LCHS are in two entirely separate systems - this is important. There is no authority anywhere that gives the right to define area served to anyone other than the individual school boards. Since 1978, there have been no 'zones' for high schools in Lincoln County established by anyone, anywhere (beyond Menees). I believe that the 'bus route' specification is intended to define which high school is to be attended in a multi-high school system that has buses. The bus that comes by your house obviously shows what the school board's intent is if the system has multiple schools. And the TSSAA rules clearly intend to defer to the school board to decide which students are meant to attend which school. Menees' ruling depends 100% on bus routes and ignores 'geographic boundaries' entirely. What could justify that, when both are mentioned? Not only are they both mentioned, but 'geographic boundaries' is mentioned first. That's obviously not alphabetical order. Absent any other guidance, this order for the specifications implies that the geographic boundary definition is more important than the bus routes specification. You might like to argue that point, but it is not arguable that there is no remote indication that bus routes are to be considered superior. I believe bus routes are meant to be used to fully understand the school boards intent when there are multiple high schools and zones in a system - that is both logical and of clear and common practical use. I think it's also meant to provide as much convenience as possible for a student and family. I believe that Menees' ruling incorrectly conflates FHS and LCHS as if they are a part of a single system. If that were the case, the consideration of the two system's bus routes would reasonably define the intention of a theoretical single school board. I think it is clear that, instead, the two Boards are in clear competition and not cooperation with each other (I and many others can assure you of this). If the two Boards had 'agreed' on where each would run buses, then I'd agree with Menees. They did not and do not plan anything together, including bus routes. In the end, the TSSAA clearly intends that the local school board be the only authority that defines their territory. A competing school board is not granted this authority. There is no prohibition or regulation of overlapping school systems with respect to area served. It is 100% clear that the Fayetteville School Board explicitly defines their geographic area to be all of Lincoln County. The bus routes are merely reflective of economic realities and in 50 years have never had anything at all to do with where the Fayetteville School Board expects their students to come from. The TSSAA rules seem to be clearly intended to defer entirely to the local school boards intent with regard to territory. In this case, that intent is clear.

No, it isn’t. That’s because something could conceivably change and they don’t want to show incorrect information. Also, playoff possibilities are a big problem as long as this isn’t resolved, since there would be possibilities with FHS and without - just too confusing to list. Sensible that those aren’t included. You are apparently contending Region 5 will not participate in the playoffs. I don’t believe that at all. They have announced nothing at all to indicate that. Why not? We’ll see. Both the TSSAA’s rules and the law says that they can’t just leave region 5 out. So, if the rules and the law matter, then that isn’t happening.

I’ve read the rules extensively and have not seen the residence note you cite. Please post that portion of the rules.

They do not. They explicitly say the school is open to all residents of Lincoln County - that clearly shows their intentions relative to geography are separate from bus routes. *** Fayetteville High School is a public high school in the Fayetteville City School District serving students in grades 9th through 12th grade. Admission is open to all Lincoln County residents. Transportation is provided within city limits for students. *** It's a little hard for me to imagine that bus routes should be considered more important than geographic boundaries and the clear and undeniable history of where the school's students come from. It's absolutely a fact that the system has drawn a substantial number students from all over the county for 40+ years. Just hard to imagine that bus routes, which can obviously be decided based on pure economics (and which consequently may or may not exist at all) are logically more important than the historical footprint of where students have lived. Still, more information is needed for me to make a reasoned judgment on the matter. It's not trivial.

So, you're saying the territory is both the geographic boundaries and the bus routes. It does not say the lesser of the two or where the two intersect. Definitely says both are to be considered, but does not give guidance as to how to go about that. But you clearly do think Tullahoma has no territory at all, correct? Does that strike you as sensible? If it's not sensible and Tullahoma does indeed have territory, why is that? What rule or logic allows for that? Because this rule interpreted with your logic says they don't have any territory at all. Seems unlikely. I know back in the early 2000's, there was a TSSAA provision that said if you are in a zoned district, with multiple high schools, and the bus routes changed so that it became more reasonable for you to switch to a different school, you could do so without sitting out a year. I wonder if this is a vestige of that. If the bus route specification is meant to deal with zones within a system, then the problematic Tullahoma territory observations fades away. Why is the bus route specification there? That's key, and you can't just assume it, one way or the other. See below, from the 2003 handbook (found it). This could explain why the bus route language remains. This is the only historical reference to bus routes that I've been able to find. *** Section 15. Students who change their school due to a bona fide change or establishment of bus routes by the county board of education and by the county superintendent shall not forfeit their eligibility. In cases where such a change in bus routes makes it equally convenient for a student to attend another school or the school in which he or she already has an athletic record, such student cannot transfer without losing eligibility for a period of 12 months. *** Notable, I think, that this contemplates a kid playing BEFORE there is a bus route in his area. (bone fide change or establishment of bus routes). Starts to give a potential idea of where the bus route specification may have come from and why it's there.

You must not be reading what I'm writing. That is clearly the crux of this matter (but was not in question in the Signal Mtn case - everyone agreed he was out of territory). But it's not logical to merely assume that one is more important than the other without more information. Which one governs if they don't agree? You are assuming the bus routes govern in all cases if there's a disagreement. That's a reasonable guess, but it's only a guess if you don't have any more guidance as to the rationale behind why each specification is there. In order to logically decide this, one has to have more information. You need the history and rationale behind why two different criteria are listed without any explicit guidance on what to do if they disagree. Is it reasonable to assume that geographic boundaries are to be ignored if there is a disagreement? That may very well be correct in the end, but it's not reasonable to assume it. You need to know how the rule came to be in order to understand how to deal with a case where the two do not agree. I've mentioned it several times now. Is it sensible to declare that Tullahoma has no 'territory' at all since it has no buses? It has to be if you completely believe only buses matter in a disagreement. But for me, that nonsensical example creates some cognitive dissonance, and I'd like some more information to resolve it. We need to see the legislative agenda and minutes for when 'territory' was defined. That might provide some guidance. The TSSAA missed this twice, it appears. It may not be trivial.

I'd venture to guess that the situations aren't identical. In fact, that's obvious. There was no debate about whether that kid was out of territory - the case dealt with academic/hardship waivers and whether a kid with one of those was automatically eligible for athletics at his new school even though all acknowledged he was out of territory.

Nope, not if bus routes govern. Basically, geographic boundaries mean nothing under this train of thought, as best I can tell. Same for Tullahoma. It has no territory whatsoever if bus routes govern.

And that's not what Fayetteville is doing. In no way are they attempting to tell kids inside the city that they are out of LCHS's territory. At least not to my knowledge. Nor should they.

Is the TSSAA's rule, not mine. It says the geographic boundaries are up to the local school board.