Temple

[zonepirate]

I do not think that I would be breathing a sigh of relief too quickly. The paper said that we had violated two major rules three times. The paper said Ronnie would not comment on possible penalties until after the appeal deadline. We may have dodged a bullet but the gun is not empty, yet.

 

 

There will be some hefty penalities just not the Skogen Tuition stuff which would have stripped titles.

 

 

The thing about the Brentwood case is that they had the actual letter in hand that was sent out by the Brentwood coach which gave the TSSAA indisputable evidence about recruiting.

 

 

The Temple recruiting allegations could not be proved or disproved. People putting forth information but deciding not to go on record.

[Green_Acres]

I am going to guess that one thing the attorneys may appeal is the Chastain tuition issue. The school sent Chastain a bill. Remember that the TSSAA conducted their investigation without getting much information from Temple. The thing that I have heard over and over around the school from talking with different people is that the TSSAA was not communicating with them to request any additional information other than what was asked for at the beginning. We may see the Chastain issue crumble out of the picture. Then, we may not.

[taydizzle]

Since the Chastain tuition issue has been suggested as "appealable" let me just say that I believe it will be denied. Even if a bill had been sent to Coach Chastain by the school, his son's bill would still have been more than 60-90 days overdue and thus he would have been ineligible by rule. This may still cause Temple to lose their region title if they are forced to forfeit games that Chastain's son participated in.

 

I am going to give some information below that I found regarding Brentwood that sounds a lot like Temple. It makes the recruiting question a little easier to understand I think, and it certainly looks like Temple is guilty of violating the recruiting rule at least three times in spring football. It is a lot to read, but I thought it would help.

The information is from the Supreme Court documents and includes the Brentwood letter.

 

 

The TSSAA has promulgated a ???recruiting rule??? in order to regulate the attempts of

secondary schools to recruit middle school student athletes for athletic programs. The rule, found

in the TSSAA??™s Bylaws, reads:

The use of undue influence on a student (with or without an athletic record), his or her

parents or guardians of a student by any person connected, or not connected, with the school

to secure or to retain a student for athletic purposes shall be a violation of the recruiting rule.

The bylaws also include a number of questions and answers and other guidelines that are

known as interpretive commentary. While these are meant to aid in the interpretation of the

recruiting rule, they are not binding on the TSSAA Board of Control. Carter agreed that the

recruiting rule itself is ???all that really counts, everything else underneath it, the interpretative

commentary is discretionary and it depends on the totality of the circumstances.???

Excerpts from the interpretive commentary include the following:

1.

Q. How is undue influence interpreted in the recruiting rule?

A. A person or persons exceeding what is appropriate or normal and offering an incentive

or inducement to a student with or without an athletic record.

...

3.

Q. Is it permissible for a coach to contact a student or his or her parents prior to his

enrollment in the school?

A. No, a coach may not contact a student or his or her parents prior to his enrollment in the

school. This shall apply to all students whether or not they have an athletic record.

4.

Q. What are some of the guides [sic] used in determining whether there has been undue

influence used which would result in a violation of the recruiting rule?

A. Some examples are, but not limited to:

3. Any initial contact or prearranged contact by a member of the coaching staff or

representative of the school and a prospective student/athlete enrolled in any member

school except where there is a definite feeder pattern.

4. Any initial contact or prearranged contact by a member of the coaching staff or

representative of the school and a prospective student/athlete in the seventh grade

and above at any non-member school except where there is a definite feeder pattern

involving the schools.

Nos. 03-5245/5278 Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary

Sch. Athletic ######??™n et al. Page 4

1

Headmaster Brown later testified that those students who sign such contracts (and paid the accompanying $300

deposit), in his mind, were officially enrolled at Brentwood and committed to come. The TSSAA, however, contends

that the term ???enrolled??? (as used in the recruiting rule) is defined in the TSSAA Bylaws, under Article II (Eligibility

Rules), Section 1 (Academic Rules):

To be eligible to participate in athletic contests during any semester....

(/cool.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="B)" border="0" alt="cool.gif" /> Students shall be regularly enrolled, in regular attendance, and carrying at least five full courses. A student

shall be considered as regularly enrolled after the student has attended for three days, has engaged in three or

more days of football, girls volleyball, cross country, golf or girls soccer practice during the period on or after

August 1, or has participated in an athletic contest in any sport.

There was some testimony at trial indicating that a few students every year do not end up attending Brentwood even after

signing the enrollment contracts.

...

Private...schools may not contact students enrolled at the public schools. Public

schools may not contact students enrolled at the private schools.

...

7. Admitting students to athletic contests free of charge when there is an admission

being charged at the contest except where there is a definite feeder pattern involved

with the school.

The ???definite feeder pattern??? exception does not apply to Brentwood, except with regard to those

students who are enrolled at Brentwood Academy itself in the sixth grade or higher.

In some form, the recruiting rule has been in effect at least since the early 1950s and

probably earlier. It has undergone various changes; the auxiliary questions and answers and

guidelines were added during the 1980s and 90s.

In 1997, a number of coaches at public high schools that were TSSAA members reported

various alleged recruiting violations by Brentwood to the TSSAA. On behalf of the TSSAA, Carter

and other TSSAA officials began an investigation into the allegations. During the investigation,

Brentwood supplied Carter with a copy of a letter Flatt sent to various eighth grade boys in April

1997 as well as information regarding phone calls Flatt made to the families of the boys to whom

the letter was sent. The letter read, in part:

Having officially enrolled at Brentwood Academy, the TSSAA allows you to participate in

spring football practice. If you are not currently involved in a sport at your school, we

would like to invite you to practice with your new team.... Due to the inconvenience to your

parents, please do not feel that you must attend every practice. However, I do feel that

getting involved as soon as possible would definitely be to your advantage.... We are

certainly glad that you decided to become an Eagle.

The letter was signed, ???Your Coach, Carlton Flatt.??? This letter was sent to all incoming ninth grade

male students who had applied, been tested and admitted, and signed enrollment contracts with

Brentwood.1 Flatt testified that after the letter was mailed, he received ???a couple of phone calls???

from parents of boys who received the letter with questions about the letter and the necessity of the

boys attending practice. As a result of these calls, Flatt decided to call each of the families of the

boys who received the letter to clarify that the spring practice was not mandatory and should not

trump any other academic or athletic responsibility the boys might have. All twelve boys who

received the letter ended up attending spring practice.

Nos. 03-5245/5278 Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary

Sch. Athletic ######??™n et al. Page 5

The TSSAA also investigated allegations that tickets for a Brentwood football game

provided by Flatt to a middle school coach were used by some of the coach??™s student athletes to

attend the game for free. As the TSSAA put it, these tickets were ???made available to uncontrolled

individuals??? in a way that facilitated ???the possibility for abuse.??? Flatt later testified that he had told

the coach that the tickets were not to be used to provide free admission to middle school students.

The middle school coach nonetheless allowed two of the free tickets to be used by two of his

students.

Carter notified Brentwood by letter dated July 29, 1997, that the TSSAA had found

Brentwood guilty of multiple violations of TSSAA rules. The letter informed Brentwood of various

penalties that would be assessed as a result of the rules violations. Brentwood requested a hearing

with Carter and members of the TSSAA Board of Control; a hearing was held on August 13, 1997,

at which Headmaster Brown and representatives of Brentwood made a presentation regarding the

allegations and determinations in the July 29 letter. Following the hearing, Carter again sent a letter

to Brown providing more specific information about the violations and penalties to be assessed

against Brentwood. Pursuant to the TSSAA Bylaws, Brentwood appealed the penalties to the full

Board of Control, which is charged with enforcing the TSSAA Bylaws. Another hearing was held

on August 23, 1997. In an August 23, 1997, letter that represented the final TSSAA decision on the

matter, the Board notified Brentwood that it had found that Brentwood, and specifically Flatt,

violated the recruiting rule in two ways: (1) by granting free admission to a Brentwood football

game to two eighth grade athletes from another school; and (2) by sending letters and making phone

calls to eighth grade boys at other schools regarding spring football practice at Brentwood.2 The

Board also cited Brentwood for conducting impermissible off-season practice with certain

Brentwood student-athletes, but this alleged rule violation is not an issue in this appeal. As a result

of these violations, the Board imposed numerous penalties, including a four-year probation for

Brentwood??™s entire athletic program, suspension of playoff eligibility for the Brentwood football

and boys??™ basketball teams, and a $3,000 fine.

[zonepirate]

I am going to guess that one thing the attorneys may appeal is the Chastain tuition issue. The school sent Chastain a bill. Remember that the TSSAA conducted their investigation without getting much information from Temple. The thing that I have heard over and over around the school from talking with different people is that the TSSAA was not communicating with them to request any additional information other than what was asked for at the beginning. We may see the Chastain issue crumble out of the picture. Then, we may not.

 

 

That appeal won't fly. The rule is clear and a bill just shows that they knew he owed the school tuition and if it wasn't paid in 60 days his son was ineligible. It don't take much to prove that, just a dated bill and no proof that it was paid

 

From Section 16 >>>

 

"Schools shall remove any student from athletic eligibility whose accounts with the school are 60 days overdue."

[Noway]

That appeal won't fly. The rule is clear and a bill just shows that they knew he owed the school tuition and if it wasn't paid in 60 days his son was ineligible. It don't take much to prove that, just a dated bill and no proof that it was paid

 

From Section 16 >>>

 

"Schools shall remove any student from athletic eligibility whose accounts with the school are 60 days overdue."

 

 

This is why the appeal WILL fly....Temple has discovered payment from chastain for the first bill. They have it on file and recorded it correctly (can you believe that). The problem is that was the only one....so hypothetically if the first billing was in september and chastain payed that bill but failed to pay the 2nd one....Temple might have possibly been done with football already so as not jeopardizing anything..

 

Zone....there is actually a 60-90 day rule on receiving payment it is not just 60-taydizzle got that right....so he paid the first bill and had 90 days to pay the second before his son was inelligible...and I believe if I have done the math right...temple had gotten beat by FCS during that second 90 day pay period....

[Green_Acres]

This is why the appeal WILL fly....Temple has discovered payment from chastain for the first bill. They have it on file and recorded it correctly (can you believe that). The problem is that was the only one....so hypothetically if the first billing was in september and chastain payed that bill but failed to pay the 2nd one....Temple might have possibly been done with football already so as not jeopardizing anything..

 

Zone....there is actually a 60-90 day rule on receiving payment it is not just 60-taydizzle got that right....so he paid the first bill and had 90 days to pay the second before his son was inelligible...and I believe if I have done the math right...temple had gotten beat by FCS during that second 90 day pay period....

 

 

 

Noway, if you know all that you say you do, then you should also know that the first payment is due August 10th and not in September, unless, of course, there were some specific payment arrangements made. The school has always been willing to work out payment arrangements if you are having difficulty making the monthly payments. In fact, the school this year (or last year?) went to a 12 month plan rather than a 10 month plan.

 

If you take a look at the TSSAA handbook at www.tssaa.org you will see that they do not say anything about allowing 90 days. I am obviously curious about your 60-90 rule about receiving payment. The rule book says on page 16, "Schools shall remove any student from athletic eligibility whose accounts with the school are 60 days overdue."

[Rabble Rouser]

This is why the appeal WILL fly....Temple has discovered payment from chastain for the first bill. They have it on file and recorded it correctly (can you believe that). The problem is that was the only one....so hypothetically if the first billing was in september and chastain payed that bill but failed to pay the 2nd one....Temple might have possibly been done with football already so as not jeopardizing anything..

 

Zone....there is actually a 60-90 day rule on receiving payment it is not just 60-taydizzle got that right....so he paid the first bill and had 90 days to pay the second before his son was inelligible...and I believe if I have done the math right...temple had gotten beat by FCS during that second 90 day pay period....

 

I'm not 100 percent on this, but...When a school appeals to TSSAA they are essentially appealing to the same group of public school officials that helped make the ruling in the first place, and they have to pay for the privilege of having these officials travel to the home office, and in the history of the organization, I don't think one ruling has been overturned. I wouldn't put too much into a successful appeal.

[taydizzle]

When Brentwood appealed their penalty, it was actually increased. The appeal goes before two members of the Board of Control.

[Baldcoach]

When Brentwood appealed their penalty, it was actually increased. The appeal goes before two members of the Board of Control.

 

 

And I thought in America we were supposed to be tried by a jury of our peers... /dry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

[zonepirate]

This is why the appeal WILL fly....Temple has discovered payment from chastain for the first bill. They have it on file and recorded it correctly (can you believe that). The problem is that was the only one....so hypothetically if the first billing was in september and chastain payed that bill but failed to pay the 2nd one....Temple might have possibly been done with football already so as not jeopardizing anything..

 

Zone....there is actually a 60-90 day rule on receiving payment it is not just 60-taydizzle got that right....so he paid the first bill and had 90 days to pay the second before his son was inelligible...and I believe if I have done the math right...temple had gotten beat by FCS during that second 90 day pay period....

 

 

Sorry but the rule says 60 days. It is very clear and say nothing about 90 days. Here it is again (below) straight from the TSSAA handbook. As far as billings I have no idea but since school started in Aug I would think that the first biling should have been due then. The dates that it was paid (if it was) etc could come into play but the games he played in were late in the season so who knows. I would think the TSSAA would have looked at that already.

 

From Section 16, TSSAA handbook >>>

 

"Schools shall remove any student from athletic eligibility whose accounts with the school are 60 days overdue."

[zonepirate]

When Brentwood appealed their penalty, it was actually increased. The appeal goes before two members of the Board of Control.

 

 

The appeal goes before the whole board. What you are thinking of is that at least 2 members of the board must be present at a hearing.

 

Here is the proceedure (my highlights)

 

Hearings

Section 1. Any school charged with violating TSSAA regulations shall be notified of such charges by the Executive Director. If a hearing is desired by the school involved, the Executive Director must be notified immediately in writing. Provisions will then be made for such hearing, and the school so notified.

Section 2. Hearings shall be conducted by the Executive Director in the presence of two or more members of the Board of Control who represent the Grand Division of the state in which the school is located, and who shall act in an advisory capacity. After testimony has been heard, the Executive Director shall meet in executive session with the members of the Board of Control who are present at the hearing. After discussing with the Board members the evidence and possible penalties, the Executive Director shall decide what penalty, if any, is to be placed against the school.

Section 3. Regardless of whether a member school has sought a hearing under Section 2, the school may appeal any decision of the Executive Director to the Board of Control. If the decision of the Executive Director is sustained, the school making the appeal shall defray the expenses for the meeting of the Board of Control in case a special meeting of the Board is called to consider the appeal.

Section 4. No member of the Board of Control shall serve on the Board while a case involving the school which he/she represents is being heard.

[zonepirate]

And I thought in America we were supposed to be tried by a jury of our peers... /dry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="

 

 

That's pretty much what it is. The Board of Control is made up of a representative from a school in each of the 9 districts.

 

Board of Control