Fayetteville to forfeit 6 wins

[Crock1615]

9 minutes ago, 93grad said:

Just added my 2 cents.  Sounds to me like the determination of the investigation was settled before October 5th or officials would not have been privy to that information, but why do they know at that time and more games are played before Fayetteville is notified.  I would have to look at the schedule and see if Fayetteville were told when those officials were, would there be enough region games from Oct 5th on to still get into playoffs.  Your supposition above is black and white, which I wish this whole thing was but I am learning fast that TSSAA is not as clean as your post with investigations and who they choose to enforce which rules.

The cornersville game was the last region game and the last game that was forfeited. This is the game that the official allegedly made the comment.  So even if that game was not forfeited then fayetteville's region record would have been 1-4.   they would have still not qualified for the playoffs. 

[CaptainJackRackam]

8 minutes ago, orngnblk said:

They send a rep out and do investigation in person!FACT.Were in Greenback last year and looked at ALL the kids.Lawyer in Roane County sent them a bunch of lies and they checked all residences.Lawyer got a nice letter back too.They dont like wild goose chases either.

When we transferred the oldest to SP someone came and verified our address as well.

[93grad]

2 minutes ago, Crock1615 said:

The cornersville game was the last region game and the last game that was forfeited. This is the game that the official allegedly made the comment.  So even if that game was not forfeited then fayetteville's region record would have been 1-4.   they would have still not qualified for the playoffs. 

I guess the more definitive question is when was the last investigation opened, decision made, and Fayetteville notified?  If it was weeks earlier, were they not supposed to notify that they were under investigation again?  Was if concluded weeks earlier and "sat on" until region play was complete?  IF so then why?  I am pulling for my Tigers that is not as simple as your previous post.  This just sucks all the way around.

[Orangecountry]

16 hours ago, leadfarmer said:

They'll most likely get a region 5 opponent in the second round. Huntingdon may be the only region 6 team left after round 1.

I really hope region 5 overlooks McEwen. 

[sportsguy22]

1 hour ago, Crock1615 said:

this is all supposition, but it could have gone something like this:

Fayetteville enters transfer information into the portal that the student had a bona-fide change of address into their territory.  

the portal declared him eligible.

Someone reports him for not living in the fayetteville territory.

school is contacted and says his address is in our territory believing that their territory includes all of lincoln county.  The tssaa just takes their word that this is their territory. declares student eligible.

someone else (or the same person again) reports to the tssaa that this address is NOT in fayetteville territory per tssaa definition of territory.

new investigation finds that the address is in fact NOT in the fayetteville territory.  Student is declared ineligible. 

 

 

again, this is all supposition, but i can see how it could have played out this way. 

 

The "portal" declared him eligible! That seems like a ridiculous system. Shouldn't an actual TSSAA official review the portal, research the information, and declare him eligible/ineligible?!

[OLD PIRATE]

Old Pirate had a couple of hunting dogs, Blue & Joe. OP would take them dogs squirrel hunting, blue would tree a squirrel everytime. Ole Joe would bark jest as loud at a nearby empty tree. The TSSAA is like ole Joe, barks as loud but usually barking while pretending to tree the squirrels. The major part of transfers  eligibility ain’t the home residence, it is the orchestration influence & coaches meeting with the transfers before the player is enrolled. Point here, TSSAA relies solely on info provided which leads to a HEEP of empty rabbit holes. Programs where athletic programs thrive  on transfers avoid transparency!  

[Crock1615]

10 minutes ago, sportsguy22 said:

The "portal" declared him eligible! That seems like a ridiculous system. Shouldn't an actual TSSAA official review the portal, research the information, and declare him eligible/ineligible?!

yes on transfers an actual person reviews it but the school is notified of the decision through the portal.

[orngnblk]

8 minutes ago, OLD PIRATE said:

Old Pirate had a couple of hunting dogs, Blue & Joe. OP would take them dogs squirrel hunting, blue would tree a squirrel everytime. Ole Joe would bark jest as loud at a nearby empty tree. The TSSAA is like ole Joe, barks as loud but usually barking while pretending to tree the squirrels. The major part of transfers  eligibility ain’t the home residence, it is the orchestration influence & coaches meeting with the transfers before the player is enrolled. Point here, TSSAA relies solely on info provided which leads to a HEEP of empty rabbit holes. Programs where athletic programs thrive  on transfers avoid transparency!  

Coons are better at it Old Pirate its called markin a tree,i grew up coon,bear and squirrel hunting also.A real good dog knows the difference

[PullinGuard]

2 hours ago, Southtowner said:

 

According to the TSSAA Fayetteville has been eliminated from the playoffs.  So in my mind they are not the legitimate #1 seed.  They're fixing to find that out for themselves as will everyone else. 

And you're right.   It's not up to me.  We are fixing to see if rules matter.  And if every volunteer member has to abide by those rules. 

If the TSSAA declares today that FHS has been eliminated from the playoffs, they are 100% in contempt of court and will pay the price for that.  I'm fairly certain that not only rules, but laws matter.  I don't think you'll get them to publish anything of the sort while the court has specifically ordered them not to.

 

I think what you mean to say is that before the injuction was granted, the TSSAA declared them out of the playoffs.  That's quite a distance from saying it applies today, which is what you seem to be attempting to assert.

Edited October 31, 2019 by PullinGuard

[LetMeHearYA]

1 hour ago, Crock1615 said:

The cornersville game was the last region game and the last game that was forfeited. This is the game that the official allegedly made the comment.  So even if that game was not forfeited then fayetteville's region record would have been 1-4.   they would have still not qualified for the playoffs. 

Who is to say the official got the information from the TSSAA. The official may have known the person that was going to turn them in and got the information from that person and when they were going to turn them in to make sure they missed the playoffs. 

[PullinGuard]

2 hours ago, Crock1615 said:

this is all supposition, but it could have gone something like this:

Fayetteville enters transfer information into the portal that the student had a bona-fide change of address into their territory.  

the portal declared him eligible.

Someone reports him for not living in the fayetteville territory.

school is contacted and says his address is in our territory believing that their territory includes all of lincoln county.  The tssaa just takes their word that this is their territory. declares student eligible.

someone else (or the same person again) reports to the tssaa that this address is NOT in fayetteville territory per tssaa definition of territory.

new investigation finds that the address is in fact NOT in the fayetteville territory.  Student is declared ineligible. 

 

 

again, this is all supposition, but i can see how it could have played out this way. 

 

I think this is fairly likely, in general.  Still, there are significant questions. 

Number one, the player was ruled eligible before the season (I think all have to be) and then this was ruled on again in September.  Seems likely that was due to a complaint.  The first time through involves a relatively large volume of players (all transfers), so it's easier to imagine how a mistake could be made there.  But, surely, the second time around, presumably after an actual complaint, the home address would be considered in detail (TSSAA would have considered 'territory' independently and in detail, I would think).  Why didn't the TSSAA have an issue with it then?  I have seen published reference by Childress to a system that they enter the address into to resolve territory issues.  Can't imagine why that wouldn't have been used for the September review.  If it was used, why did it seemingly generate the 'wrong' answer, acc'd the the TSSAA (now).

This all hinges on definition of 'territory'.  That's it.  It says the territory for a public school is the geographic boundaries and bus routes as defined by the school board.

What the definition doesn't do is give any guidance regarding how to proceed when the two listed criteria do not agree.  To correctly evaluate that, we'd need to know why the 'bus route' specification is included - what's the intent?  Best way to discover that would be to find the legislative council agenda and minutes from whenever that was added to the rules.  There is almost always a 'rationale' listed for new proposals.

Menees' logic seems to be that if they are in disagreement, bus routes govern.  (Does Tullahoma have no 'territory' at all since it has no buses?  Is Fayetteville proper out of LCHS's territory since they don't pick up in town?  Are either of these applied in practice, and if not, why not?)  That could be the original intent, and it very well may not be.  Bus routes might have been intended to discriminate between zones within a system - who knows? 

It does seem likely that the overriding intent of the rule is to not grant immediate eligibility for areas outside the customary and normal area from which the school and system draws students.  I think FHS typically has 20-30% of its students who live outside the city limits and that's been the case within the school since it started and within the system for decades, so it's pretty clear the spirit of the rule was satisfied.  We are merely trying to tease out the very precise meaning of the definition of 'territory'.  Need the history and intent of that definition/rule in order to do that. 

Does anyone know when the current 'territory' definition appeared in the handbook?  That's important in evaluating the intent of the 'bus route' specification and how it relates and interacts with the 'geographic boundary' specification.

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by PullinGuard

[rlh]

20 minutes ago, PullinGuard said:

I think this is fairly likely, in general.  Still, there are significant questions. 

Number one, the player was ruled eligible before the season (I think all have to be) and then this was ruled on again in September.  Seems likely that was due to a complaint.  The first time through involves a relatively large volume of players (all transfers), so it's easier to imagine how a mistake could be made there.  But, surely, the second time around, presumably after an actual complaint, the home address would be considered in detail (TSSAA would have considered 'territory' independently and in detail, I would think).  Why didn't the TSSAA have an issue with it then?  I have seen published reference by Childress to a system that they enter the address into to resolve territory issues.  Can't imagine why that wouldn't have been used for the September review.  If it was used, why did it seemingly generate the 'wrong' answer, acc'd the the TSSAA (now).

This all hinges on definition of 'territory'.  That's it.  It says the territory for a public school is the geographic boundaries and bus routes as defined by the school board.

What the definition doesn't do is give any guidance regarding how to proceed when the two listed criteria do not agree.  To correctly evaluate that, we'd need to know why the 'bus route' specification is included - what's the intent?  Best way to discover that would be to find the legislative council agenda and minutes from whenever that was added to the rules.  There is almost always a 'rationale' listed for new proposals.

Menees' logic seems to be that if they are in disagreement, bus routes govern.  (Does Tullahoma have no 'territory' at all since it has no buses?  Is Fayetteville proper out of LCHS's territory since they don't pick up in town?)  That could be the original intent, and it very well may not be.  Bus routes might have been intended to discriminate between zones within a system, who knows?  It does seem likely that the overriding intent of the rule is to not grant immediate eligibility for areas outside the customary and normal area from which the school and system draws students.  I think FHS typically has 20-30% of its students who live outside the city limits and that's been the case for decades, so it's pretty clear the spirit of the rule was satisfied.  We are merely trying to tease out the very precise meaning of the definition of 'territory'.  Need the history and intent of that definition/rule in order to do that. 

Does anyone know when the current 'territory' definition appeared in the handbook?  That's important in evaluating the intent of the 'bus route' specification and how it relates and interacts with the 'geographic boundary' specification.

 

The issue MAy lie in the fact that Lincoln County School Board considers the county their territory.  This could be a snafu the way Fayetteville defined it when the opened in 2010 or there about.  Now, if the kid was under review, I think the TSSAA should have given Fayetteville warning so they wouldn't be playing the kid in the mean time.  He doesn't appear to be an impact player so it really makes this whole thing unfortunate.