Jump to content

UPDATE: UIL gives two-year playoff ban to Alto


Recommended Posts

Just now, trueblue82 said:

I think it shows great character among the Alto faithful here on SDC that none of the ones complaining about this ruling are Yellowjacket fans. 

In fact they've all said it was the right thing.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StillGreezy said:

1658503776102781.jpg

 

What in the hell is wrong with you? 

It was originally a joke... I forget you can't hear sarcasm on the Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PostSurfer said:

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.

Based on the historical trend, you can make a very good guess as to where the number might end up falling. I you end up guessing wrong, well you are where you are supposed to be. If you guess right, then it paid off.

 

The 2A split this time was 164.5

In 2020 it was 165.5

In 2018 it was 161.5

In 2016 it was 158

 

It'd be pretty easy to guess that the cutoff would be around 167.5/168.5 going into this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, neveragain said:

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. 

 

 

I should have said schools instead of coaches. Either way it is a slippery slope if you don't punish at all / don't make it significant. There is a reason why this happening is extremely rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mavchamp said:

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

Haha...I am not arguing with what you are saying.  They are still playing Carlisle, Cushing, Tenaha...

My point is, the cutoff could have easily been above alto's number, then what would the complaint be?

I already said I support the punishment.  Cutoff's are there for a reason, and schools should not subvert it.

Again, my point was they were right at the cutoff, so it isn't going to massively affect 2AD2 as a whole.  I forgot that some of you think making the playoffs as a 4 seed is a huge deal to be celebrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours 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. 

 

I agree.  West Sabine turned in a number that was 1/2 a student over placing them in D1 and in a district with Timpson, Garrison, Joaquin, Shelbyville, SA, and Grapeland.  Gonna be a tough 2 years for West Sabine, but they did the right thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, StillGreezy said:

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

Numbers are numbers and rules are rules. Tough pill, but we’re gonna choke it down, take our punishment and get through it. However, we ARE putting the same number of players on the football field regardless of that 1 student. This will just give a couple schools their “excuse” when we spank them. Whatever makes them feel better……

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JBizzle said:

forgot that some of you think making the playoffs as a 4 seed is a huge deal to be celebrated.

We are 40-6 in district since 2015….. four district titles. No fourth place finishes.  Nice try though.

I forgot some people think certain programs are above the rules and make excuses when they get caught. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the football players are the victims of this corrective action. 

Maybe some of the local posters can share some insight but the timeline of this debacle is what stands out to me.

I'm not a fan of anonymity without credibility, the allegation was proven to be true. The superintendent took responsibility and (as mentioned in the hearing) provided some information to the committee that was not openly discussed. The committee accepted her "guilty plea" and a corrective action was imposed. I believe the committee was astonished as to how this went down and the lack of oversight up the admin. chain. 

AD/HFB left, counselor gone, anonymous letter in April, Hearing in August. Any sense of urgency seemed to slow after each event.

I'm not a local but close enough to see the headlines of the devastating events that have happened in Alto. My question for the locals is does Alto have the leadership at every level to overcome these events and is everyone "rowing the boat" in the same direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Mavchamp said:

We are 40-6 in district since 2015….. four district titles. No fourth place finishes.  Nice try though.

I forgot some people think certain programs are above the rules and make excuses when they get caught. 

Haven't made one single excuse for anyone.  Won't make an excuse for anyone.  You do the crime, you do the time.  Guess the largest enrollment will just be the state champion every year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has coached the largest enrollment school in my division at the end of one realignment and then the next year had the smallest enrollment in the next larger division I can tell you it does make a difference....especially on the subvarsity level which effects how your participation is later on the varsity level.   There is no solution to the issue, someone has to be the smallest in the division, but it is not much fun.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, neveragain said:

As someone who has coached the largest enrollment school in my division at the end of one realignment and then the next year had the smallest enrollment in the next larger division I can tell you it does make a difference....especially on the subvarsity level which effects how your participation is later on the varsity level.   There is no solution to the issue, someone has to be the smallest in the division, but it is not much fun.

This. 
That’s ALL I’ve been saying. 
That 2-3 number fudge makes a difference to those smaller schools who otherwise wouldn’t even be facing said team. 

Downplaying it belittles the entire reason we even bother with alignment and classification.  

If 3 isn’t a big deal… is 15?  30?  80?  When does it become a problem for those that say it’s being blown out of proportion? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mavchamp said:

This. 
That’s ALL I’ve been saying. 
That 2-3 number fudge makes a difference to those smaller schools who otherwise wouldn’t even be facing said team. 

Downplaying it belittles the entire reason we even bother with alignment and classification.  

If 3 isn’t a big deal… is 15?  30?  80?  When does it become a problem for those that say it’s being blown out of proportion? 

Didn't say it doesn't make a difference.

Tell Allen they will be 7A all by themselves...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ChiefRedCloud said:

But you posted what difference does 3 students make. You are saying it doesn't make a difference.

I said it wasn't a huge deal and let's not blow it out of proportion.  Having more kids obviously means there is a larger number of kids to put on the team, but it's not the end-all, be-all.  If that was the case, we would just have an enrollment contest and put enrollment on the scoreboard.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2022 at 3:09 PM, neveragain said:

According to the Alto superintendent, the coach was let go sometime in the winter months...she says no one was aware of the enrollment until May so if everyone is correct on the timeline then Coach Gamble had nothing to do with it.

my thing, the AD wouldn't be the person enrolling or unenrolling students...or 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 10:46 AM, ChiefRedCloud said:

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

Fine the school district, put the people at hand on probation, but don’t punish the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mox4 said:

Fine the school district, put the people at hand on probation, but don’t punish the kids.

The UIL can't fine the school district ... they did the only thing they could do as far as punishment goes ....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the "head scratcher" in this whole thing is the timing of the letter submitted containing the allegation.

Whomever submitted it had to have knowledge of this event, they were either close to it or gained it from someone that was and did so out of retaliation or had an axe to grind against the district. Six month window in between keeps everyone in play.

Solve this "who done it" and that will help everyone understand why this can of worms was opened. I suspect it is known privately.

I do look forward to seeing how the Yellowjackets fare with their seemingly Div 1 / Div 2 schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PostSurfer said:

To me the "head scratcher" in this whole thing is the timing of the letter submitted containing the allegation.

Whomever submitted it had to have knowledge of this event, they were either close to it or gained it from someone that was and did so out of retaliation or had an axe to grind against the district. Six month window in between keeps everyone in play.

Solve this "who done it" and that will help everyone understand why this can of worms was opened. I suspect it is known privately.

I do look forward to seeing how the Yellowjackets fare with their seemingly Div 1 / Div 2 schedule.

If colonel sanders didn’t want his secret recipe revealed then he probably shouldn’t have fired the cook 

  • Like 2
  • LOL! 1
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...