Jump to content

UPDATE: UIL gives two-year playoff ban to Alto


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lambo said:

I bet they where supposed to be 2a when they where winning 1a titles. Not a shocker at all everyone who played them knew.

Brilliant statement. You seem like an expert. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lambo said:

You wonder how long alto been doing this? Strip them of all wins in program history. Atleast strip them of the state championships

You’re an embarrassment to the Joaquin community saying stuff like this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lambo said:

You wonder how long alto been doing this? Strip them of all wins in program history. Atleast strip them of the state championships

More literary excellence from the more genetically isolated region of Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously it’s horrible for the kids and new coaching staff. The real issue is the UIL punishing kids for adult mistakes, they were one kid over the limit not 50. 2 year post season ban is harsh and unfair. If the UIL claims to really be about the kids like they say they do they wouldn’t take 2 post seasons from kids. Find a way to punish the adults responsible is what should have happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • LOL changed the title to UPDATE: UIL gives two-year playoff ban to Alto
2 hours ago, Mox4 said:

Obviously it’s horrible for the kids and new coaching staff. The real issue is the UIL punishing kids for adult mistakes, they were one kid over the limit not 50. 2 year post season ban is harsh and unfair. If the UIL claims to really be about the kids like they say they do they wouldn’t take 2 post seasons from kids. Find a way to punish the adults responsible is what should have happened.

Oh wow.  It ended up being 1 kid over?  So....basically they ARE 2ad2.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mox4 said:

Obviously it’s horrible for the kids and new coaching staff. The real issue is the UIL punishing kids for adult mistakes, they were one kid over the limit not 50. 2 year post season ban is harsh and unfair. If the UIL claims to really be about the kids like they say they do they wouldn’t take 2 post seasons from kids. Find a way to punish the adults responsible is what should have happened.

Exactly how is the UIL going to punish the adults responsible? UIL has zero power over school employees. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mox4 said:

Obviously it’s horrible for the kids and new coaching staff. The real issue is the UIL punishing kids for adult mistakes, they were one kid over the limit not 50. 2 year post season ban is harsh and unfair. If the UIL claims to really be about the kids like they say they do they wouldn’t take 2 post seasons from kids. Find a way to punish the adults responsible is what should have happened.

If UIL would have let them play and make the playoffs then how is it fair to whoever finishes 5th and should be in the playoffs?  What's the coach supposed to tell his team? "Sorry kids, we should be playing another week in the playoffs, but a team that should be in the next division up gets to take your spot."  UIL made the right call.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mavchamp said:

These "who tattled" and "who cried foul" comments boggle my mind.

IF......IF... this was done purposely.... it's the VERY definition of cheating.

The UIL has Classification and alignment for a reason.   It's to enforce competitive balance.

IF Alto fudged their numbers so that they would be a big fish in a little pond instead of a little fish in a big pond..... that's cheating. 

Why vilify the whistleblower?  If this was done purposely..... the villains were the ones that thought it was ok to lie to the UIL.

Not arguing against the ruling at all.

It wasn't proven that this was done on purpose.  We don't have records, emails, texts that say someone decided to remove 3 students from the roll to get in D2.  For all we know it was a mistake.

I agree that there are classifications for a reason, but It's 3 kids.  It's not like that gave them a significant advantage over the other teams in the division.  Let's not blow it out of proportion.

That being said, I agree with the punishment.  I believe also that Alto ISD should hire people to get to the bottom of what happened and if it was intentional, there should be some jobs lost.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you would need to hire people to come in and "investigate".  It's a small school, there are only a handful of people that would have access and be responsible for counting and submitting.  Could probably figure out in 10 minutes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched/listened to the meeting live out of pure interest simply because this is a landmark case for the UIL. As they said, nothing like this has ever happened before at this time. The UIL was painted into a corner. I believe it was Dr Harrison who said that the UIL purposefully has safeguards in place in November and December to let schools reconfirm their numbers in case a mistake was made. For the timing of this to happen in August, it’s too late. They had no choice. If they had let Alto compete in 2A-D2 with the right to advance, then what would stop a large number of schools from “making a mistake” and not notifying the UIL until May or whenever it was the allegations came to light. 
 

As was said in the meeting, rules are rules and no matter what the intent was, rules were broken and there are consequences. 
 

Personally, I think Alto dodged a bullet. Based on what I heard in the meeting, I thought the UIL might carry the punishment across all sports due to the obvious lack of concern on Altos part on getting the process correct. There were, according to Alto ISD themselves, literally no procedures or processes in place to make sure what they presented to the UIL was factually correct. As the NCAA would so fondly put it, that’s “Lack of Institutional Control” if I’ve ever seen it. The UIL relies on schools to do their due diligence to make sure that number they turn in is correct, and Alto failed. Whether you think it was intentional or not, as someone in the meeting said, that is a whole lot of strange coincidences and we just don’t believe in coincidences here. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JBizzle said:

I agree that there are classifications for a reason, but It's 3 kids.  It's not like that gave them a significant advantage over the other teams in the division.  Let's not blow it out of proportion.

You may very well be correct for the schools in that district also near the top end of the cutoff…… but what about those on the bottom end?  That’s were the disparity can be glaring. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hate to be cynical but if Alto does not receive that punishment, how many schools in the future submit a number they think will be under whatever the cutoff might be to either stay down or move down a division or classification to gain an advantage?

 

At what point is it an issue, if you submit a number three kids off or 10 or 15?

 

If Alto is allowed to participate in the playoffs, you are just asking coaches to skirt the rules for a competitive advantage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, JasonDellaRosa said:

You hate to be cynical but if Alto does not receive that punishment, how many schools in the future submit a number they think will be under whatever the cutoff might be to either stay down or move down a division or classification to gain an advantage?

 

At what point is it an issue, if you submit a number three kids off or 10 or 15?

 

If Alto is allowed to participate in the playoffs, you are just asking coaches to skirt the rules for a competitive advantage

Just to be clear, coaches do not submit the realignment numbers nor are they involved in the enrollment of students.  The superintendent (or their designee) submits the numbers to the UIL and there should be numerous people who know the number....principal, secretary, PEIMS clerk, attendance clerk, etc.  and yes, even small schools have most of these positions so there can be accountability. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, villagegenius said:

I watched/listened to the meeting live out of pure interest simply because this is a landmark case for the UIL. As they said, nothing like this has ever happened before at this time. The UIL was painted into a corner. I believe it was Dr Harrison who said that the UIL purposefully has safeguards in place in November and December to let schools reconfirm their numbers in case a mistake was made. For the timing of this to happen in August, it’s too late. They had no choice. If they had let Alto compete in 2A-D2 with the right to advance, then what would stop a large number of schools from “making a mistake” and not notifying the UIL until May or whenever it was the allegations came to light. 
 

As was said in the meeting, rules are rules and no matter what the intent was, rules were broken and there are consequences. 
 

Personally, I think Alto dodged a bullet. Based on what I heard in the meeting, I thought the UIL might carry the punishment across all sports due to the obvious lack of concern on Altos part on getting the process correct. There were, according to Alto ISD themselves, literally no procedures or processes in place to make sure what they presented to the UIL was factually correct. As the NCAA would so fondly put it, that’s “Lack of Institutional Control” if I’ve ever seen it. The UIL relies on schools to do their due diligence to make sure that number they turn in is correct, and Alto failed. Whether you think it was intentional or not, as someone in the meeting said, that is a whole lot of strange coincidences and we just don’t believe in coincidences here. 

wow, great post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mavchamp said:

You may very well be correct for the schools in that district also near the top end of the cutoff…… but what about those on the bottom end?  That’s were the disparity can be glaring. 

Again, they are competing against a school that at least has Alto's number minus 3 right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JBizzle said:

Again, they are competing against a school that at least has Alto's number minus 3 right now...

That didn't address my point.... sure there may be schools in the district close to Alto's numbers.  But what about the teams in that district that are significatly smaller than Alto?

What if one of those small 2A Div II schools LOST to Alto and missed the playoffs because of it?  What if it were 2 smaller schools that lost to Alto?

Every single win Alto would have had over a smaller school would have been illegitimate.  Especially if there was a big discrepancy between Alto and the smaller school/schools. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Mavchamp said:

That didn't address my point.... sure there may be schools in the district close to Alto's numbers.  But what about the teams in that district that are significatly smaller than Alto?

What if one of those small 2A Div II schools LOST to Alto and missed the playoffs because of it?  What if it were 2 smaller schools that lost to Alto?

Every single win Alto would have had over a smaller school would have been illegitimate.  Especially if there was a big discrepancy between Alto and the smaller school/schools. 

 

And again, they are playing teams that have the same number of students as Alto -3 already.  Let's not act like it's a huge deal.  The discrepancies used to be much higher.  I agree it's for balance and is the right thing to do, but the splits are somewhat arbitrary based on number of schools in the range and not just top to bottom difference.  Those smaller schools are gonna have to beat some larger schools along the way to win it all.

I already said they should be punished.  Let's not make it like they had 60 extra kids or 5 JUCO athletes on the squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GraysonFan said:

I don't think you would need to hire people to come in and "investigate".  It's a small school, there are only a handful of people that would have access and be responsible for counting and submitting.  Could probably figure out in 10 minutes.

Obviously they can't count to 165, so I think they may need to hire someone.

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snapshot numbers were submitted October 30.

Cutoff numbers for realignment were announced December 8.

Was this ever mentioned during the hearing? Never heard it while watching the video that KLTV posted.

Pretty good guessing to know to reduce number by 3 if this was intentional.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JBizzle said:

And again, they are playing teams that have the same number of students as Alto -3 already.  Let's not act like it's a huge deal.  The discrepancies used to be much higher.  I agree it's for balance and is the right thing to do, but the splits are somewhat arbitrary based on number of schools in the range and not just top to bottom difference.  Those smaller schools are gonna have to beat some larger schools along the way to win it all.

I already said they should be punished.  Let's not make it like they had 60 extra kids or 5 JUCO athletes on the squad.

Snapshot Numbers
Alto 163 (actually 166)
Carlisle 163
Cushing 157
Tenaha 152
Mount Enterprise 130
Overton 120

Not all the teams in that district are close to Alto's numbers..... there IS a big discrepancy between Alto and the two smallest schools.  Therefore it IS a huge deal.  Especially if one of those smaller schools missed out on the playoffs due to losing to Alto.

And yes...they may have to beat some bigger schools to win it all....but it shouldn't be Alto.

And no...they didn't have 60 extra kids.... they had 46... which is pretty significant when you are talking about numbers as small as 120 and 160.

I get it....the difference for Carlisle, Cushing, and Tenaha is no big deal competitively

But wouldn't Overton and Mt. Enterprise have a legit gripe?  Alto has about 23% more students than ME..... and 28% more than Overton.  Seems pretty significant.  Especially if a loss to Alto kept you out of the playoffs....  that's not blowing things out of proportion.  That's a pretty big deal if it had gone unnoticed and/or unchecked.

JMHO

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...