Temple in Trouble?

[blueandgoldfan]

i would just like to say that 67 pages worth of comments is quite respectable.

[oldhops10]

For all that can be said, and all that will be said once the TSSAA delivers their decision, bear in mind that as outsiders looking in we may never know all of the details.

 

We will likely be told that Temple violated the rules in a sterile, by-the-book fashion with no real comment given to context. Undoubtedly, there have been violations. As I've said before, there is too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere, but I don't think that the violations that will be leveled against Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley are as malicious as they will be made out to be (or as flagrant as some of you are convinced is the case). From what I've gathered, there were some mistakes of ignorance of the rules that were made. That doesn't excuse the mistake, but it is one thing for someone to openly rebel against rules, and it is another to violate rules unwittingly. And again, and please read this carefully, I am in no way saying that the coaches/AD weren't responsible to know the rules.

 

Consider the following scenarios:

 

Scenario #1: Let's say you visit a restaurant with a friend that doesn't allow cell phones to be used at all while dining. The ringer needs to be turned off, set on vibrate only, and if you get a call you are required to talk outside. Violation of this rule can lead to your being asked to leave the restaurant. They have a sign posted in their window as you enter, and the menu provides the same instruction at the bottom of the back page. Well, it is your first time in the restaurant, you didn't see the sign as you walked in the door because you were in deep conversation with your friend, and you never saw the back page of the menu because once the waiter recommended the specials for the day you knew that's what you wanted. A short time later, your phone rings and you answer it, talk for one minute and hang up. Your friend, whose been there before, leans over and tells you the restaurant's policy. You apologize profusely, give a small wave to the manager who is looking at you, and immediately turn your ringer to silent, and put your phone away.

 

Scenario #2: You visit the same restaurant mentioned above with business clients. In fact, their food is so good, that you prefer to take business clients there on a regular basis, and are well-acquainted with their policy regarding cell phone use. Your cell phone rings (you didn't think you needed to turn the ringer off, because, after all, you might receive an important call) and proceed to talk on the phone. This is something that you regularly do. All the of the wait staff knows who you are because of this practice, and the manager has spoken to you on previous occasions about their policy which you think you can ignore.

 

In a very wooden sense, you could say that Scenarios 1 and 2 are identical. No talking on cell phones. Ringers should be turned off. Period.

 

Correct. But given the context of each, doesn't how you view the violators differ between the scenarios?

 

In Scenario 1, if the manager came over and asked you to leave wouldn't you think that was a bit extreme? Going too far? You make your case, apologize, mention that you just found out about the rule, and put your cell phone away. But let's say he sticks to the letter of the law. "No, cell phones aren't allowed. That's the rule, and you've violated the rule and I would like you to leave." Again, strictly speaking he may be well within his authority to ask you to leave, but he wouldn't last very long as a manager if the owner found out this was his regular practice. Given the context of the situation, does the punishment fit the crime?

 

In Scenario 2, the violation is "high-handed." It is a blatant ignoring of the known rules. For the manager to ask you to leave in this case is likely the right interpretation of the law. There's no regard for others, for the rules of the restaurant, and such a punishment would fit the crime.

 

Now, I realize analogies breakdown, but for the sake of discussion, let's say Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley fall under a Scenario 1 kind of situation. There was some ignorance or misunderstanding of what the rules were, and when presented with their mistake, they own up to it, apologize for the error, and make it clear that is wasn't a knowing violation of the rules. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? It would be one thing if they were caught and said "Yeah, we just wanted to win at all costs," but that is not the case.

 

My suspicion is that Coach Chastain falls closer to Scenario #2 since he received warnings along the way that what he was doing was a clear violation of the rules (a point made in one of the TFP articles), and evidenced by the player showing up at CSAS with Temple football gear (duh!).

 

Again, the punishment should fit the crime, and people should not be ignored for the sake of policy. Will the TSSAA show such wisdom in their decisions?

[taydizzle]

From your post, it appears that you are saying the following:

 

- Beard, Skogen, and Wadley all broke TSSAA rules.

 

- Chastain broke TSSAA rules.

 

The problem that Temple has is that when it comes to allowing students from another school who are not enrolled or attending your school participate and play in spring practice spring games (Larson 06, CSAS kids 07) this is not an ignorance or a misunderstanding of the rules. No one else has been accused, caught, etc. of doing this is such a way and there is a reason for that. Everyone knows that this is wrong! If Beard, Skogen, and Chastain didn't know, Wadley did and still it appears he allowed it or endorsed it in 06 and so they continued when he was gone in 07. This is beginning to look like a pattern that the TSSAA might do well to look back as long as any of these guys have been involved in Temple athletics.

 

Again, what has happened here is not a mistake or misunderstanding for at least one person and maybe more!

[T N T]

For all that can be said, and all that will be said once the TSSAA delivers their decision, bear in mind that as outsiders looking in we may never know all of the details.

 

We will likely be told that Temple violated the rules in a sterile, by-the-book fashion with no real comment given to context. Undoubtedly, there have been violations. As I've said before, there is too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere, but I don't think that the violations that will be leveled against Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley are as malicious as they will be made out to be (or as flagrant as some of you are convinced is the case). From what I've gathered, there were some mistakes of ignorance of the rules that were made. That doesn't excuse the mistake, but it is one thing for someone to openly rebel against rules, and it is another to violate rules unwittingly. And again, and please read this carefully, I am in no way saying that the coaches/AD weren't responsible to know the rules.

 

Consider the following scenarios:

 

Scenario #1: Let's say you visit a restaurant with a friend that doesn't allow cell phones to be used at all while dining. The ringer needs to be turned off, set on vibrate only, and if you get a call you are required to talk outside. Violation of this rule can lead to your being asked to leave the restaurant. They have a sign posted in their window as you enter, and the menu provides the same instruction at the bottom of the back page. Well, it is your first time in the restaurant, you didn't see the sign as you walked in the door because you were in deep conversation with your friend, and you never saw the back page of the menu because once the waiter recommended the specials for the day you knew that's what you wanted. A short time later, your phone rings and you answer it, talk for one minute and hang up. Your friend, whose been there before, leans over and tells you the restaurant's policy. You apologize profusely, give a small wave to the manager who is looking at you, and immediately turn your ringer to silent, and put your phone away.

 

Scenario #2: You visit the same restaurant mentioned above with business clients. In fact, their food is so good, that you prefer to take business clients there on a regular basis, and are well-acquainted with their policy regarding cell phone use. Your cell phone rings (you didn't think you needed to turn the ringer off, because, after all, you might receive an important call) and proceed to talk on the phone. This is something that you regularly do. All the of the wait staff knows who you are because of this practice, and the manager has spoken to you on previous occasions about their policy which you think you can ignore.

 

In a very wooden sense, you could say that Scenarios 1 and 2 are identical. No talking on cell phones. Ringers should be turned off. Period.

 

Correct. But given the context of each, doesn't how you view the violators differ between the scenarios?

 

In Scenario 1, if the manager came over and asked you to leave wouldn't you think that was a bit extreme? Going too far? You make your case, apologize, mention that you just found out about the rule, and put your cell phone away. But let's say he sticks to the letter of the law. "No, cell phones aren't allowed. That's the rule, and you've violated the rule and I would like you to leave." Again, strictly speaking he may be well within his authority to ask you to leave, but he wouldn't last very long as a manager if the owner found out this was his regular practice. Given the context of the situation, does the punishment fit the crime?

 

In Scenario 2, the violation is "high-handed." It is a blatant ignoring of the known rules. For the manager to ask you to leave in this case is likely the right interpretation of the law. There's no regard for others, for the rules of the restaurant, and such a punishment would fit the crime.

 

Now, I realize analogies breakdown, but for the sake of discussion, let's say Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley fall under a Scenario 1 kind of situation. There was some ignorance or misunderstanding of what the rules were, and when presented with their mistake, they own up to it, apologize for the error, and make it clear that is wasn't a knowing violation of the rules. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? It would be one thing if they were caught and said "Yeah, we just wanted to win at all costs," but that is not the case.

 

My suspicion is that Coach Chastain falls closer to Scenario #2 since he received warnings along the way that what he was doing was a clear violation of the rules (a point made in one of the TFP articles), and evidenced by the player showing up at CSAS with Temple football gear (duh!).

 

Again, the punishment should fit the crime, and people should not be ignored for the sake of policy. Will the TSSAA show such wisdom in their decisions?

 

 

 

To just make a little point about your first scenario. The customer of the restaurant is not required to sign a form stating he or she has read and knows all the rules and will abide by those rules . The TSSAA requires all head coaches to sign a form stating that they know the rules and will abide by them.

[Farmboy1]

For all that can be said, and all that will be said once the TSSAA delivers their decision, bear in mind that as outsiders looking in we may never know all of the details.

 

We will likely be told that Temple violated the rules in a sterile, by-the-book fashion with no real comment given to context. Undoubtedly, there have been violations. As I've said before, there is too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere, but I don't think that the violations that will be leveled against Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley are as malicious as they will be made out to be (or as flagrant as some of you are convinced is the case). From what I've gathered, there were some mistakes of ignorance of the rules that were made. That doesn't excuse the mistake, but it is one thing for someone to openly rebel against rules, and it is another to violate rules unwittingly. And again, and please read this carefully, I am in no way saying that the coaches/AD weren't responsible to know the rules.

 

Consider the following scenarios:

 

Scenario #1: Let's say you visit a restaurant with a friend that doesn't allow cell phones to be used at all while dining. The ringer needs to be turned off, set on vibrate only, and if you get a call you are required to talk outside. Violation of this rule can lead to your being asked to leave the restaurant. They have a sign posted in their window as you enter, and the menu provides the same instruction at the bottom of the back page. Well, it is your first time in the restaurant, you didn't see the sign as you walked in the door because you were in deep conversation with your friend, and you never saw the back page of the menu because once the waiter recommended the specials for the day you knew that's what you wanted. A short time later, your phone rings and you answer it, talk for one minute and hang up. Your friend, whose been there before, leans over and tells you the restaurant's policy. You apologize profusely, give a small wave to the manager who is looking at you, and immediately turn your ringer to silent, and put your phone away.

 

Scenario #2: You visit the same restaurant mentioned above with business clients. In fact, their food is so good, that you prefer to take business clients there on a regular basis, and are well-acquainted with their policy regarding cell phone use. Your cell phone rings (you didn't think you needed to turn the ringer off, because, after all, you might receive an important call) and proceed to talk on the phone. This is something that you regularly do. All the of the wait staff knows who you are because of this practice, and the manager has spoken to you on previous occasions about their policy which you think you can ignore.

 

In a very wooden sense, you could say that Scenarios 1 and 2 are identical. No talking on cell phones. Ringers should be turned off. Period.

 

Correct. But given the context of each, doesn't how you view the violators differ between the scenarios?

 

In Scenario 1, if the manager came over and asked you to leave wouldn't you think that was a bit extreme? Going too far? You make your case, apologize, mention that you just found out about the rule, and put your cell phone away. But let's say he sticks to the letter of the law. "No, cell phones aren't allowed. That's the rule, and you've violated the rule and I would like you to leave." Again, strictly speaking he may be well within his authority to ask you to leave, but he wouldn't last very long as a manager if the owner found out this was his regular practice. Given the context of the situation, does the punishment fit the crime?

 

In Scenario 2, the violation is "high-handed." It is a blatant ignoring of the known rules. For the manager to ask you to leave in this case is likely the right interpretation of the law. There's no regard for others, for the rules of the restaurant, and such a punishment would fit the crime.

 

Now, I realize analogies breakdown, but for the sake of discussion, let's say Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley fall under a Scenario 1 kind of situation. There was some ignorance or misunderstanding of what the rules were, and when presented with their mistake, they own up to it, apologize for the error, and make it clear that is wasn't a knowing violation of the rules. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? It would be one thing if they were caught and said "Yeah, we just wanted to win at all costs," but that is not the case.

 

My suspicion is that Coach Chastain falls closer to Scenario #2 since he received warnings along the way that what he was doing was a clear violation of the rules (a point made in one of the TFP articles), and evidenced by the player showing up at CSAS with Temple football gear (duh!).

 

Again, the punishment should fit the crime, and people should not be ignored for the sake of policy. Will the TSSAA show such wisdom in their decisions?

 

First it is post like these that make you wonder who the person that wrote this really is. Then again with this thread it is like please enjoy the music while your penalty is found.Like I said 30 pages ago and purple grad said a few pages ago denial is what keeps this thread alive and kicking.We also noted earlier that Wadley was a tssaa rep so once again ignorance can not excuse the crime.I will continue to enjoy the music while I wait but cant quit thinking what post like this will say when penalties are set that this is your outline for excuse.Innocent people and kids pay for mistakes of others every day thats not fair but what if we went through life saying well its not there mistake wiill just over look it.

[BDURHAM]

Circling the wagons?

 

For all that can be said, and all that will be said once the TSSAA delivers their decision, bear in mind that as outsiders looking in we may never know all of the details.

 

We will likely be told that Temple violated the rules in a sterile, by-the-book fashion with no real comment given to context. Undoubtedly, there have been violations. As I've said before, there is too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere, but I don't think that the violations that will be leveled against Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley are as malicious as they will be made out to be (or as flagrant as some of you are convinced is the case). From what I've gathered, there were some mistakes of ignorance of the rules that were made. That doesn't excuse the mistake, but it is one thing for someone to openly rebel against rules, and it is another to violate rules unwittingly. And again, and please read this carefully, I am in no way saying that the coaches/AD weren't responsible to know the rules.

 

Consider the following scenarios:

 

Scenario #1: Let's say you visit a restaurant with a friend that doesn't allow cell phones to be used at all while dining. The ringer needs to be turned off, set on vibrate only, and if you get a call you are required to talk outside. Violation of this rule can lead to your being asked to leave the restaurant. They have a sign posted in their window as you enter, and the menu provides the same instruction at the bottom of the back page. Well, it is your first time in the restaurant, you didn't see the sign as you walked in the door because you were in deep conversation with your friend, and you never saw the back page of the menu because once the waiter recommended the specials for the day you knew that's what you wanted. A short time later, your phone rings and you answer it, talk for one minute and hang up. Your friend, whose been there before, leans over and tells you the restaurant's policy. You apologize profusely, give a small wave to the manager who is looking at you, and immediately turn your ringer to silent, and put your phone away.

 

Scenario #2: You visit the same restaurant mentioned above with business clients. In fact, their food is so good, that you prefer to take business clients there on a regular basis, and are well-acquainted with their policy regarding cell phone use. Your cell phone rings (you didn't think you needed to turn the ringer off, because, after all, you might receive an important call) and proceed to talk on the phone. This is something that you regularly do. All the of the wait staff knows who you are because of this practice, and the manager has spoken to you on previous occasions about their policy which you think you can ignore.

 

In a very wooden sense, you could say that Scenarios 1 and 2 are identical. No talking on cell phones. Ringers should be turned off. Period.

 

Correct. But given the context of each, doesn't how you view the violators differ between the scenarios?

 

In Scenario 1, if the manager came over and asked you to leave wouldn't you think that was a bit extreme? Going too far? You make your case, apologize, mention that you just found out about the rule, and put your cell phone away. But let's say he sticks to the letter of the law. "No, cell phones aren't allowed. That's the rule, and you've violated the rule and I would like you to leave." Again, strictly speaking he may be well within his authority to ask you to leave, but he wouldn't last very long as a manager if the owner found out this was his regular practice. Given the context of the situation, does the punishment fit the crime?

 

In Scenario 2, the violation is "high-handed." It is a blatant ignoring of the known rules. For the manager to ask you to leave in this case is likely the right interpretation of the law. There's no regard for others, for the rules of the restaurant, and such a punishment would fit the crime.

 

Now, I realize analogies breakdown, but for the sake of discussion, let's say Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley fall under a Scenario 1 kind of situation. There was some ignorance or misunderstanding of what the rules were, and when presented with their mistake, they own up to it, apologize for the error, and make it clear that is wasn't a knowing violation of the rules. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? It would be one thing if they were caught and said "Yeah, we just wanted to win at all costs," but that is not the case.

 

My suspicion is that Coach Chastain falls closer to Scenario #2 since he received warnings along the way that what he was doing was a clear violation of the rules (a point made in one of the TFP articles), and evidenced by the player showing up at CSAS with Temple football gear (duh!).

 

Again, the punishment should fit the crime, and people should not be ignored for the sake of policy. Will the TSSAA show such wisdom in their decisions?

[The Drunken Sailor]

Scenario #1: Let's say you visit a restaurant with a friend that doesn't allow cell phones to be used at all while dining. The ringer needs to be turned off, set on vibrate only, and if you get a call you are required to talk outside. Violation of this rule can lead to your being asked to leave the restaurant. They have a sign posted in their window as you enter, and the menu provides the same instruction at the bottom of the back page. Well, it is your first time in the restaurant, you didn't see the sign as you walked in the door because you were in deep conversation with your friend, and you never saw the back page of the menu because once the waiter recommended the specials for the day you knew that's what you wanted. A short time later, your phone rings and you answer it, talk for one minute and hang up. Your friend, whose been there before, leans over and tells you the restaurant's policy. You apologize profusely, give a small wave to the manager who is looking at you, and immediately turn your ringer to silent, and put your phone away.

 

Scenario #2: You visit the same restaurant mentioned above with business clients. In fact, their food is so good, that you prefer to take business clients there on a regular basis, and are well-acquainted with their policy regarding cell phone use. Your cell phone rings (you didn't think you needed to turn the ringer off, because, after all, you might receive an important call) and proceed to talk on the phone. This is something that you regularly do. All the of the wait staff knows who you are because of this practice, and the manager has spoken to you on previous occasions about their policy which you think you can ignore.

 

 

Or scenario #3: You visit the same restaurant mentioned above and fully know the rules. You wait until your meal is finished then have some one call you. You answer, talk loudly until you are kicked out. You leave without paying your bill.

 

Seriously though, you make a good point with your analogies. However; as a coach you are to know the rules. To my understanding, all coaches are required to read the rule book and know the rule book (maybe even sign a piece of paper saying so?). Therefore anything like the allegations against Temple should be known by the coaches to be illegal. But then, I could see some gray area in the coaches minds when it came down to the tuition swap. But IF the QB from SE Whitfield did participate in spring practice while still enrolled at another school then there is no gray area and those coaches should have known the rules. In that case the TSSAA will probably go by the letter of the law since the coaches were supposed to know the letter of the law. Misunderstanding or not.

[blueandgoldfan]

To just make a little point about your first scenario. The customer of the restaurant is not required to sign a form stating he or she has read and knows all the rules and will abide by those rules . The TSSAA requires all head coaches to sign a form stating that they know the rules and will abide by them.

 

 

 

nor was there a lengthy supreme court case that ruled in favor of the manager having full authority in this matter and that no cell phones may be used at all. it is unlawful in their eyes.

 

but i do agree with the notion that there is a difference in a blatant disregard for rules and being ignorant of them.

[Noway]

For all that can be said, and all that will be said once the TSSAA delivers their decision, bear in mind that as outsiders looking in we may never know all of the details.

 

We will likely be told that Temple violated the rules in a sterile, by-the-book fashion with no real comment given to context. Undoubtedly, there have been violations. As I've said before, there is too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere, but I don't think that the violations that will be leveled against Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley are as malicious as they will be made out to be (or as flagrant as some of you are convinced is the case). From what I've gathered, there were some mistakes of ignorance of the rules that were made. That doesn't excuse the mistake, but it is one thing for someone to openly rebel against rules, and it is another to violate rules unwittingly. And again, and please read this carefully, I am in no way saying that the coaches/AD weren't responsible to know the rules.

 

Consider the following scenarios:

 

Scenario #1: Let's say you visit a restaurant with a friend that doesn't allow cell phones to be used at all while dining. The ringer needs to be turned off, set on vibrate only, and if you get a call you are required to talk outside. Violation of this rule can lead to your being asked to leave the restaurant. They have a sign posted in their window as you enter, and the menu provides the same instruction at the bottom of the back page. Well, it is your first time in the restaurant, you didn't see the sign as you walked in the door because you were in deep conversation with your friend, and you never saw the back page of the menu because once the waiter recommended the specials for the day you knew that's what you wanted. A short time later, your phone rings and you answer it, talk for one minute and hang up. Your friend, whose been there before, leans over and tells you the restaurant's policy. You apologize profusely, give a small wave to the manager who is looking at you, and immediately turn your ringer to silent, and put your phone away.

 

Scenario #2: You visit the same restaurant mentioned above with business clients. In fact, their food is so good, that you prefer to take business clients there on a regular basis, and are well-acquainted with their policy regarding cell phone use. Your cell phone rings (you didn't think you needed to turn the ringer off, because, after all, you might receive an important call) and proceed to talk on the phone. This is something that you regularly do. All the of the wait staff knows who you are because of this practice, and the manager has spoken to you on previous occasions about their policy which you think you can ignore.

 

In a very wooden sense, you could say that Scenarios 1 and 2 are identical. No talking on cell phones. Ringers should be turned off. Period.

 

Correct. But given the context of each, doesn't how you view the violators differ between the scenarios?

 

In Scenario 1, if the manager came over and asked you to leave wouldn't you think that was a bit extreme? Going too far? You make your case, apologize, mention that you just found out about the rule, and put your cell phone away. But let's say he sticks to the letter of the law. "No, cell phones aren't allowed. That's the rule, and you've violated the rule and I would like you to leave." Again, strictly speaking he may be well within his authority to ask you to leave, but he wouldn't last very long as a manager if the owner found out this was his regular practice. Given the context of the situation, does the punishment fit the crime?

 

In Scenario 2, the violation is "high-handed." It is a blatant ignoring of the known rules. For the manager to ask you to leave in this case is likely the right interpretation of the law. There's no regard for others, for the rules of the restaurant, and such a punishment would fit the crime.

 

Now, I realize analogies breakdown, but for the sake of discussion, let's say Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley fall under a Scenario 1 kind of situation. There was some ignorance or misunderstanding of what the rules were, and when presented with their mistake, they own up to it, apologize for the error, and make it clear that is wasn't a knowing violation of the rules. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? It would be one thing if they were caught and said "Yeah, we just wanted to win at all costs," but that is not the case.

 

My suspicion is that Coach Chastain falls closer to Scenario #2 since he received warnings along the way that what he was doing was a clear violation of the rules (a point made in one of the TFP articles), and evidenced by the player showing up at CSAS with Temple football gear (duh!).

 

Again, the punishment should fit the crime, and people should not be ignored for the sake of policy. Will the TSSAA show such wisdom in their decisions?

 

 

 

Good post- I think it is important that some of these respectable men are viewed, as mistake making men-like the rest of us...no blatant cheaters and liars...too bad their mistakes 1) are so public 2) affect so many people 3) get talked about on a message board...

[oldhops10]

Again, what has happened here is not a mistake or misunderstanding for at least one person and maybe more!

There have been mistakes and misunderstandings, some of which were not blatant.

Seriously though, you make a good point with your analogies. However; as a coach you are to know the rules. To my understanding, all coaches are required to read the rule book and know the rule book (maybe even sign a piece of paper saying so?). Therefore anything like the allegations against Temple should be known by the coaches to be illegal. But then, I could see some gray area in the coaches minds when it came down to the tuition swap. But IF the QB from SE Whitfield did participate in spring practice while still enrolled at another school then there is no gray area and those coaches should have known the rules. In that case the TSSAA will probably go by the letter of the law since the coaches were supposed to know the letter of the law. Misunderstanding or not.

Sure. But who hasn't thought we knew something, only to find out we missed a detail somewhere, albeit an important one. Kind of like reading an instruction manual to put something together only to find out you missed an important step toward the beginning. Ugh!

Circling the wagons?

No, just trying to get others to think more broadly and with some humanity.

[oldhops10]

First it is post like these that make you wonder who the person that wrote this really is. Then again with this thread it is like please enjoy the music while your penalty is found.Like I said 30 pages ago and purple grad said a few pages ago denial is what keeps this thread alive and kicking.We also noted earlier that Wadley was a tssaa rep so once again ignorance can not excuse the crime.I will continue to enjoy the music while I wait but cant quit thinking what post like this will say when penalties are set that this is your outline for excuse.Innocent people and kids pay for mistakes of others every day thats not fair but what if we went through life saying well its not there mistake wiill just over look it.

Wonder away, though I will admit that I'm not a coach/former coach/player for Temple. I'm not in denial. Not at all. And when the penalties come, I think I'll be proved correct as to how the TSSAA is going to handle it. And I think you're missing my point. I'm arguing that the punishment should fit the crime, not that there shouldn't be any form of discipline, etc. Who of us doesn't make mistakes every day that we hope others will overlook?

Good post- I think it is important that some of these respectable men are viewed, as mistake making men-like the rest of us...no blatant cheaters and liars...too bad their mistakes 1) are so public 2) affect so many people 3) get talked about on a message board...

Agreed.

[zonepirate]

First let me say that if we want to keep this thread going the name calling and taunting from the last page will have to ease up.

 

I hope to hear something on time frames soon. It may be awhile since more items to investigate surfaced last week. We will see???

 

taydizzle and oldhops make some good points. I don't know how much the TSSAA will spell out who did what in their decision but I'm pretty sure this whole situation is a mix of a few violations made knowingly and even more made by not knowing the rules. IMO, the TSSAA will probably look at the facts and not worry too much over the under lying causes. Since none of the violations were self-reported and some things have no paper trail to show that maybe mistakes instead of willful actions they will only have so much leniency they can offer. How hard will it be to determine if some violations were incidental and how many were willful. That they happened will be much easier to show than why in most cases. Temple had some experienced people who should have known better and a bunch of volunteer, inexperienced, interim, and new folks over the course of a few years. We may never know who did what with 100% certainty.

 

Most Temple fans have come to the realization that things were done wrong but I don't blame them for not throwing in the towel on everything just yet. Too many conflicting statements on most things. As I understand it the things that are pretty much nailed down are the CSAS kids at spring, Skogen and Chastains sons tuition being paid and no self-reporting. Those alone, regardless of willfulness, should result in big penalties. Any other items will just add to the penalties