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.

 

Rickyp is referring to the first meeting which, as I have said, is material to the outcome. I tip my hat to your boys and reaffirm my belief that they were slick in how they worked the situation. That is a compliment and it is intended as a compliment. I find no fault with your boys. They are fine "advocates". It is merely my purpose to try to get my boys to use caution, to refrain from unearned trust, and to perform in the same slick manner. Unfortunately, as the unwise (in my opinion) scheduling this year of the one game only at Ashland indicates, that lesson has not been learned. Nonetheless, the effort continues. But, then, this is merely one person's observation.

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

 

Ah, Frances, we do finally agree. Actually, the form, generated at the first meeting, covers the district sites through, I believe, 2012. For the two smaller schools to sign the form knowing what it meant would be unconscionable. Nonetheless, and regardless of what was stated to be the purpose of the form, it was signed by both of the smaller schools.

 

The whole process took both meetings for completion. That cannot be described in any other way but "slick".:thumb:

Frances, it is true that I was in the room with the AD's during the meeting. The forms was signed the previous year, 2005, and there was no chance that Rose Hill was going to be the host sight last year. To give you a deeper explainatioin, all 4 schools have to agree on the site. If 1 school objects then the KHSAA would have to step in and make the decision. At that time they (the KHSAA) would use their guidelines, that were presented in the memo to determine the site. Since the form that was signed in 2005 listed the site for 2006 as TBA then a vote of all 4 schools was necessary in 2006. Now understand that in 2008 when Ashland is hosting no vote will be taken due to form that has them, not TBA, written in as the host site, regardless of past attendance. The purpose of he phone call was to see what would happen if all 4 schools could not come to an agreement on the site. If there was no objection to Rose Hill hosting then there would have been no reason for a phone call to the KHSAA. Once Tackett gave his explaination then there was no need to draw it out to a vote. The only decision was whether to move it to Boyd or Raceland. All 4 schools were fine with either and Rose Hill choose Boyd as the site.

 

I'm like scooterbob, my hat is off to them. Rose Hill and Fairview were outsmarted. I said it once and I will say it again in the 2005 district meeting Rose Hill and Fairview walked directly into a haymaker. Give credit where it is due. I take exception the the playing dumb position. Quite honestly it is an insult to the intelligence of those who where there, and please understand I don't mean this to be directed at you. I just wish that someone would take credit for a very shrewd job.

 

If you want to hear it first hand I'm sure scooterbob would be happy to let you listen to the tape. Then you won't have to rely on my word or anyone else's.

Anyone hearing the tape will conclude that "slick" really is the proper term to describe the process leading to the desired outcome. It was a calculated setup and it was...........slick. I, too, tip my hat. My purpose is not to complain but merely to suggest that my boys learn from the costly experience. We need to be educated and to act accordingly in the future. To be successful, one must be able to compete in the meeting room as well as on the hardwood.

I guess no one wants to hear the tape.

I guess no one wants to hear the tape.

 

Send me a copy. Of course, if the tape doesn't include the first meeting, the second meeting, and the conference call, all in their entirety, would I be safe in saying that I would only be hearing part of the story?

 

 

Frances

From what I can gather from your source and your posts, you have already heard only part of the story.

From what I can gather from your source and your posts, you have already heard only part of the story.

 

LOL - fair enough, Scooterbob. I'll settle for hearing another third of the total, and I'll try to guess at the rest ...

 

 

Frances

To give you a deeper explainatioin, all 4 schools have to agree on the site. If 1 school objects then the KHSAA would have to step in and make the decision. At that time they (the KHSAA) would use their guidelines, that were presented in the memo to determine the site. Since the form that was signed in 2005 listed the site for 2006 as TBA then a vote of all 4 schools was necessary in 2006. Now understand that in 2008 when Ashland is hosting no vote will be taken due to form that has them, not TBA, written in as the host site, regardless of past attendance.

 

It seems to me that based on the guidelines set forth by the KHSAA, if the average attendance over the past 5 years were to be 2500 after this year & Ashland holds only 2000, you could request that it be moved next year so all who want to attend can be accomodated...You simply approach it with the argument that Ashland's gym was deemed adequate at the time but because of the higher attendance totals in recent years the decision needs to be revisited...If all 4 schools cannot agree at that point, would it not go to the KHSAA for final consideration?? I can understand why it would be assumed that the larger schools will always be able to handle the crowds but with a potential boost in interest and Boyd getting to host more due the smaller schools inability to handle the crowds, there could potentially come a time where average attendance exceeds Ashland's capacity...If Boyd is hosting 3 out of 4 years, it would not take long for this to occur...

 

Wait a minute, Ashland always gets blamed for being the "slick" one...Maybe, Boyd had a plan to get the tournament every year and knew that if they host 3 out of 4, eventually they will be the only gym large enough to host???:sssh:

 

The plot thickens!!!!

Why complain about host school for district when you can pick and choose who attends your school and plays on your team on a yearly basis?

When did the thread title change ??????I havent seen anything about the title thread since page 1..........

It seems to me that based on the guidelines set forth by the KHSAA, if the average attendance over the past 5 years were to be 2500 after this year & Ashland holds only 2000, you could request that it be moved next year so all who want to attend can be accomodated...You simply approach it with the argument that Ashland's gym was deemed adequate at the time but because of the higher attendance totals in recent years the decision needs to be revisited...If all 4 schools cannot agree at that point, would it not go to the KHSAA for final consideration?? I can understand why it would be assumed that the larger schools will always be able to handle the crowds but with a potential boost in interest and Boyd getting to host more due the smaller schools inability to handle the crowds, there could potentially come a time where average attendance exceeds Ashland's capacity...If Boyd is hosting 3 out of 4 years, it would not take long for this to occur...

 

Wait a minute, Ashland always gets blamed for being the "slick" one...Maybe, Boyd had a plan to get the tournament every year and knew that if they host 3 out of 4, eventually they will be the only gym large enough to host???:sssh:

 

The plot thickens!!!!

 

I hope it happens as you describe. However, it will have to be after 2012 because that has already been settled.

 

Why did you conclude that Ashland is considered as the "slickster". That possibility has never been mentioned above since no names were stated. Can I assume that you looked at the facts reached an obvious conclusion?

 

The tournament this year will be at Boyd County. This will serve as a good advantage for the Lions since the district is fairly competitive from top to bottom.

 

Of course, in the near future, Fairview and Rose Hill, when each is host, can hold the tournament wherever they choose. It doesn't have to be Boyd County or Ashland. In fact, last year's district almost ended up at Raceland. I would think that, in years when one of the smaller schools is host and also a solid contender, that school would move the tournament to a neutral facility out of the district in an effort to better their chances. After all, the "chess game" in the meeting room seems to be as important as the game on the hardwood.

When did the thread title change ??????I havent seen anything about the title thread since page 1..........

 

I agree.