Personally, I don't disagree with you, regarding the seeding issue. If I were Fairview or Rose Hill, I would vote for the blind draw because, over time, it will serve them better than seeding.

 

As to the issue of the tournament site, please see my post asking for information about the completion of the form.

 

Also, it is my understanding that during that meeting, a phone call was placed to Louis Stout of the KHSAA, and questions about the interpretation were asked directly of him. If I am mistaken on this point, please correct me.

 

If I am correct about the phone call with Louis Stout, am I to take it that he actively participated in the duplicitous "slick move" that was perpetrated?

 

 

Frances

 

 

Much of your post in incorrect. I will merely mention that Louis Stout is no longer commissioner of KHSAA and has not been for several years. There would be no reason to call Mr. Stout. I was at the meeting that you mention. I was the secretary and, in fact, recorded on audio tape the entire meeting. To fully relate all that took place at that meeting and at an earlier meeting would be far too wordy for BGP. I am not finding fault with the "slickor". My problem is with the naive actions of the "slickees".

 

The process worked and was, in fact, a masterful job to watch. I will be happy to fill you in on the facts, completely unbiased, at a more opportune time. Your boys were masterful. My boys were naive. But, then, that is how it works and there are no hard feelings toward anyone.

Are you saying that incorrect information was accidentally put on the form, that the form was worded poorly (asking for irrelevant information), or that someone intentionally lied when filling out the form?

 

From that, I would ask:

A) Who filled out the form?

B) Was there no oversight by the other member schools when the form was completed?

C) If the form itself was poorly structured, was any feedback given to the KHSAA, so that they can revise the process for selecting sites?

 

 

Frances

 

I think scooterbob has answered this as well as should be answered on this forum. Let me just say for the record that it is over and done. I personally have no problem with playing the tournament every year at Boyd but that isn't going to happen regardless of the number of people who want to attend.

Much of your post in incorrect. I will merely mention that Louis Stout is no longer commissioner of KHSAA and has not been for several years. There would be no reason to call Mr. Stout. I was at the meeting that you mention. I was the secretary and, in fact, recorded on audio tape the entire meeting. To fully relate all that took place at that meeting and at an earlier meeting would be far too wordy for BGP. I am not finding fault with the "slickor". My problem is with the naive actions of the "slickees".

 

The process worked and was, in fact, a masterful job to watch. I will be happy to fill you in on the facts, completely unbiased, at a more opportune time. Your boys were masterful. My boys were naive. But, then, that is how it works and there are no hard feelings toward anyone.

 

No hard feelings at all. I'm just trying to get to the root of the "Slick" part of the meeting. In my post, I did not say that Stout was the commissioner of the KHSAA at the time of the call. I am fully aware that Brigid DeVries is sitting in that chair, and has for a few years now.

 

I am not sure what capacity he was filling at the time, but I was under the distinct impression that a letter had been sent to every school in the state, explaining the method for determining what size gym would be required for a school to host a District tournament. I was also told that at that meeting, when the letter was brought up, the result was the phone call being placed to the KHSAA. At that time, Stout fielded the call and explained exactly what the letter said, and what that meant.

 

If I am mistaken about any of those details, please set me straight.

 

 

Frances

I really do not see Boyd being in the top 4.

 

Put your glasses on they just beat Russell:ylsuper:

I think scooterbob has answered this as well as should be answered on this forum. Let me just say for the record that it is over and done. I personally have no problem with playing the tournament every year at Boyd but that isn't going to happen regardless of the number of people who want to attend.

 

I have a problem here.

 

I think that if any of the schools in the 64th region are going to be accused on BGP of making some "Slick" moves regarding the tournament site, then the very least that is owed is an explanation of just how such a thing came to pass. If no explanation should be given in this forum, then no accusation should be made in this forum. If a retraction of the slur is extended, then I'm all for letting it drop. Otherwise, I (for one) would like to get to the bottom of this tomfoolery.

 

If there was wrongdoing, let's get it out in the open - whoever that causes embarrasment for.

 

I'll ask again - was the act intentional? Was the KHSAA (in any form) complicit in the "Slick" move? Was the form completed with false information? IF it was, who completed the form, and who was negligent in the oversight of that process?

 

I find it hard to believe that the KHSAA would send out a form, and allow only one school to complete it, while the other schools in the district had no input or oversight. If that is the case, then I hope that someone gave the KHSAA some feedback so that they can fix it.

 

 

 

Frances

Excellent post bogeyman. The region is Russell's to lose.

 

Boyd started tonight.

No hard feelings at all. I'm just trying to get to the root of the "Slick" part of the meeting. In my post, I did not say that Stout was the commissioner of the KHSAA at the time of the call. I am fully aware that Brigid DeVries is sitting in that chair, and has for a few years now.

 

I am not sure what capacity he was filling at the time, but I was under the distinct impression that a letter had been sent to every school in the state, explaining the method for determining what size gym would be required for a school to host a District tournament. I was also told that at that meeting, when the letter was brought up, the result was the phone call being placed to the KHSAA. At that time, Stout fielded the call and explained exactly what the letter said, and what that meant.

 

If I am mistaken about any of those details, please set me straight.

 

 

Frances

 

 

Just to clear things up alittle the phone call was fielded by Julian Tackett. The letter that was sent out was a suggested guideline for each district to determine their site. The key thing is guideline, not a mandate. Unfortunately Rose Hill and Fairview just believed their district brethern and lead with their chin.

Boyd started tonight.

 

Nice win for Boyd but Russell is still the team to beat.

Nice win for Boyd but Russell is still the team to beat.

 

Yes they are,and that they did.:banana:

Just to clear things up alittle the phone call was fielded by Julian Tackett. The letter that was sent out was a suggested guideline for each district to determine their site. The key thing is guideline, not a mandate. Unfortunately Rose Hill and Fairview just believed their district brethern and lead with their chin.

 

Thanks, RickyP. I just got off the phone, and was about to post that I had mispoken, that it was Julian Tackett (assistant commissioner) and not Louis Stout.

 

That said, as I understand it, the purpose of the phone call was to clarify what the position of the KHSAA was. If all four AD's were privy to the conference call (which, I am told that they were), how does it follow that either Ashland or Boyd somehow "hoodwinked" anyone? The statement has been made that a "slick" move has ensured that only Ashland or Boyd can ever host the district tournament. If I'm missing something here, please help me out.

 

The letter written by the KHSAA, and sent to EVERY school in the Commonwealth stated the criteria by which a school would be allowed to host a district tournament, unless it was overridden by a majority vote of the member schools. A phone call to the KHSAA confirmed what the letter said, and the decision was made to hold the tournament at Boyd, since the Rose Hill gym did not have adequate seating. Am I wrong about this? If I am, please tell me.

 

 

Frances

Boy, you did get a good report of the meeting and I obviously know the source of your information as it was from one of the, shall we say, participants. However, some of your information is not correct. As I said, I'm not going to write an essay on BGP to give the details. However, I will state that the "letter" was not a directive from KHSAA but merely a recommendation. The "letter" did not dictate a procedure. The final decision was to be made by the district members. I cannot relate what was said in the telephone call to KHSAA. However, I did read the letter and it did not "direct" anything.

 

As I said, at the proper time, I'll be happy to give you or anyone else a full and unbiased report of that meeting and the earlier meeting which is also material in the outcome.

 

Actually, your source of information was very smooth in how it was all handled. As I said, my boys were naive. I believe it was William F. Buckley who opined that one who is naive usually finishes second at best.

Thanks, RickyP. I just got off the phone, and was about to post that I had mispoken, that it was Julian Tackett (assistant commissioner) and not Louis Stout.

 

That said, as I understand it, the purpose of the phone call was to clarify what the position of the KHSAA was. If all four AD's were privy to the conference call (which, I am told that they were), how does it follow that either Ashland or Boyd somehow "hoodwinked" anyone? The statement has been made that a "slick" move has ensured that only Ashland or Boyd can ever host the district tournament. If I'm missing something here, please help me out.

 

The letter written by the KHSAA, and sent to EVERY school in the Commonwealth stated the criteria by which a school would be allowed to host a district tournament, unless it was overridden by a majority vote of the member schools. A phone call to the KHSAA confirmed what the letter said, and the decision was made to hold the tournament at Boyd, since the Rose Hill gym did not have adequate seating. Am I wrong about this? If I am, please tell me.

 

 

Frances

 

 

Actually, it took two slick moves. One was at the meeting in question and the other one was at an earlier meeting to which I have alluded. Apparently, you and I have different definitions of "slick'. You find it negative. I don't.

 

At least we have reached an agreement that the "letter" was not a directive. As I said, the decision was up to the locals. Let me try a summary of the facts. It appears that the two larger schools decided that they would not allow the two smaller schools to host the tournament on their home courts. The justification would be the need to insure that the fans could get in to enjoy the games. Now, if that were really their purpose, the obvious result would be to agree to hold the tournament at the largest facility which, in fact, seats well over twice as many as does the second largest venue. However, that was never the real purpose and that was not the outcome.

 

However, you need the facts from both meetings to get the whole picture and I'll be happy to relate it to you sometime.

 

If you don't like the term "slick" (it really is best), maybe we can say that your boys were "cunning". Regardless, as Rickyp stated, my boys did lead with their chins.

Boy, you did get a good report of the meeting and I obviously know the source of your information as it was from one of the, shall we say, participants. [/Quote] Not a problem. We can say it was one of the participants.

 

 

However, some of your information is not correct. As I said, I'm not going to write an essay on BGP to give the details. [/Quote] I'm sure that I will make some misstatements as we work through this (i.e. Louis Stout instead of Julian Tackett), but I'm sure that with your help, we can get to the bottom of the issue.

 

 

However, I will state that the "letter" was not a directive from KHSAA but merely a recommendation. The "letter" did not dictate a procedure. [/Quote] Okay. The "letter" or "memo" or whatever verbiage we want to use was not a directive. It was merely a suggestion for determining who could host the tournaments. Now we're getting somewhere.

 

 

I cannot relate what was said in the telephone call to KHSAA because no one other than the participant calling the "letter" a directive was privy to the conversation. [/Quote] The version that I heard said that all four AD's along with David Thompson were in the room when the teleconference took place, and that all four AD's heard the explanation of the "letter" directly from the mouth of Tackett. Again, please let me know if this is incorrect.

 

 

The final decision was to be made by the district members. [/Quote] Exactly. As I understand it, there was never a vote taken by the four AD's as to whether or not Rose Hill could host (a vote which could have been held). The only vote taken was where to move the tournament to (with Summit Middle School being the final decision). If no vote was even taken by the four AD's regarding not having the tournament at Rose Hill, I'm having trouble understanding how all of this can be layed at the feet of one AD.

 

 

 

However, I did read the letter and it did not "direct" anything.[/Quote] I don't dispute that the letter did not "direct" anything. I would submit that it was written to provide guidelines for every district in the state on who should be able to host the district tournaments, based on the prior five years' worth of attendance. As I understand it, had last year been Ashland's turn to host, they too, would not have had adequate seating. As it turns out, it was Rose Hill's turn, and like Ashland, their seating capacity was inadequate. Again, please tell me if I am wrong.

 

 

As I said, at the proper time, I'll be happy to give you or anyone else a full and unbiased report of that meeting and the earlier meeting which is also material in the outcome. [/Quote] I can't remember how many times I've read your posts on this site, stating that we all have biases. I agree with you on this point. We are all human, and that is our nature. As I said in response to RickyP's earlier post - if this is the time and place to make an accusation, then this should be the time and place to defend or retract it.

 

 

Actually, your source of information was very smooth in how it was all handled.[/Quote] I would submit that others have been pretty smooth in how it has been "spun".

 

 

Frances

Thanks, RickyP. I just got off the phone, and was about to post that I had mispoken, that it was Julian Tackett (assistant commissioner) and not Louis Stout.

 

That said, as I understand it, the purpose of the phone call was to clarify what the position of the KHSAA was. If all four AD's were privy to the conference call (which, I am told that they were), how does it follow that either Ashland or Boyd somehow "hoodwinked" anyone? The statement has been made that a "slick" move has ensured that only Ashland or Boyd can ever host the district tournament. If I'm missing something here, please help me out.

 

The letter written by the KHSAA, and sent to EVERY school in the Commonwealth stated the criteria by which a school would be allowed to host a district tournament, unless it was overridden by a majority vote of the member schools. A phone call to the KHSAA confirmed what the letter said, and the decision was made to hold the tournament at Boyd, since the Rose Hill gym did not have adequate seating. Am I wrong about this? If I am, please tell me.

 

 

Frances

 

 

Let me ask this question. If the true purpose of the letter was to set the criteria then why will Ashland be hosting regardless of the average attendance for the previous 5 years? Ashland will play the tournament in their gym even if the average attendance numbers are too high for their gym. That is where the slick move came in. The form that every school signed off on has the host site as TBA when Fairview and RH host but clearly states Ashland as the host site when it comes their turn. As an example is the attendance average for the 5 years preceeding Ashland's turn to host was 2000 then in theory their gym would not be big enough. However, due to the form that the schools signed they will have the tournament at their gym anyway.

 

So in essence it wasn't about following any guideline set forth by the KHSAA, if that were the case then the site would have been listed at TBA every year not just when Rose Hill and Fairview are the host school.

 

I hope that makes sense. I'm not sure I have done a very good job explaining the situation.

Let me ask this question. If the true purpose of the letter was to set the criteria then why will Ashland be hosting regardless of the average attendance for the previous 5 years? Ashland will play the tournament in their gym even if the average attendance numbers are too high for their gym. That is where the slick move came in. The form that every school signed off on has the host site as TBA when Fairview and RH host but clearly states Ashland as the host site when it comes their turn. As an example is the attendance average for the 5 years preceeding Ashland's turn to host was 2000 then in theory their gym would not be big enough. However, due to the form that the schools signed they will have the tournament at their gym anyway.

 

So in essence it wasn't about following any guideline set forth by the KHSAA, if that were the case then the site would have been listed at TBA every year not just when Rose Hill and Fairview are the host school.

 

I hope that makes sense. I'm not sure I have done a very good job explaining the situation.

 

I think you've done a pretty good job. I'll check with my source, and get back to you. I would ask one question though, while I'm doing my homework - why in the world would the two smaller schools sign a form that had that on it? I can see signing one that had all tournaments listed as TBA, or one that had the schools hosting it in turn. I could see signing it if it said that a new decision would be made each year. But for the life of me, I can't imagine signing a form that says that, in perpetuity, only Ashland and Boyd could host, and that Rose Hill and Fairview would never host. I just can't imagine how that would make sense, in any circumstances.

 

 

Frances