SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Bluffton HS - Eligible for Playoffs?

as far as seeding goes...

it may only be fair to give bluffton the 4 seed, but then the one seed from another region gets punished by having to play a tough team when a luxury of winning your region is getting to play a weaker team.

anyway you put it someone somewhere is going to be unhappy

Wow! My question is why is this just being addressed now? Has Bluffton known something for a while about being eligible for the playoffs? And why is the High School League allowed to arbitrarily decide who is eligible or not this late in the season? Regardless of the "calendar year" rule that was cited in the SCHSL Handbook, that is simply bush league. Everyone with a brain knows that it should impact the entire ensuing season, but maybe I'm expecting too much from our folks in public education.

Seems to me that the other region members would blackball BHS from participating in the postseason this spring. I can't imagine a fourth-place team that played by the rules and earned the right to participate in the playoffs will be happy about sitting at home next month when another team that displayed despicable behavior and acted like a bunch of malcontents gets to play in their spot.

Ditto Always Right...
If the universe was balancing itself out then the teams who received outlandishly over the top punishments and missed the playoffs in situations where the COACH was at fault at not the KIDS would have benefited from this beyond retarded, only in south carolina, could have only been made up by an incompetent inbred, loophole. Not a team that showed disrespect for their school, team, coach, and the game of soccer. THAT'D be justice. DF's coach GAVE UP HIS JOB AS COACH over a situation in which he allowed two players to kick around with an assistant coach not realizing he had allowed an "illegal practice". And now this team gets to waltz in the playoffs after this kind of incident. Looks to me like the universe is leaning towards thugs and hooligans rather than balancing itself out.

So South Aiken would play Bluffton 1st round??

Well, just for the sake of argument (and because it is the rational conclusion) we will agree that last year's fracas as it was described was a much worse incident than others that have been punished severely by the League. Who, precisely, would you like to see reap this well-deserved punishment?

1. The coach who, by accounts and reputation, is bringing the program on track in a respectable manner?

2. The current players who were not involved in last year's moment of idiocy and who have, again by reports, have performed a relatively spotless season?

3. The perpetrator of the incident, who is graduated and gone and will likely not be affected one way or the other by any sanctions against the current Bluffton squad?

Please be specific.

Bear in mind these are not judgments, but simply ideas put forth for debate, in the style of my apparent alter ego, James Kilpatrick.

(I always thought Point-Counterpoint was a great exercise.)

Coach, kick rocks!

Ad hominem argument, Zeek...completely avoids the issue at hand by use of a personal attack; usually used to attempt deflection of attention from logic. Try again...

With all due respect Coach Chass,, James Kilpatrick would have been a little more balanced in the presentaion of issues for debate. More importantly, I did not take any of the outrage previously expressed as being directed at Coach Cook or the Bluffton squad - just outrage at the apperant "hypocrisy" of the SCHSL in the interpretaion of the probation or lack thereof.

Fair or not, from the handbook passage quoted above, it is the clear intention of the SCHSL to hold the member schools responsible for the actions of its fans, players and coaches. The issue now is, does the recent interpretation offered by Mr. Hazel further the leagues' intention?

To start the debate, I will throw out the point that the handbook does not state when a suspension should begin (i.e. - at the time of the infraction, upon the rendering of a decision by the Executive Council or upon the exhaustion of any appeals by the school).

P.S. - I'm a little slow, what does "kick rocks" mean?

I think Bluffton deserves to be in the playoffs. The players are simply kids, they are not fully matured to make fully rational decisions. When you are down in the playoffs your emotions for the game are at an all time high and sometimes it gets let go in unnecessary aggression. I do not believe the actions of the Bluffton team should costs them their chance to play in the playoffs. They are being punished for a kid losing his cool; I believe the game deserves something much more worrisome to get worked up about.

Ah, now there's a good counterpoint. Perhaps my options were a little slanted--a reaction to previous posts. Specifically, for example, "This is horse crap!! Its ok to assult people."

Of course it's not OK to assault people...one question is, though, would anyone who assaulted someone, or is responsible for an assault, be punished by keeping this year's Bluffton squad out of the playoffs?

Strong point, though, about the intention of the rule to hold member schools responsible for the actions of their constituency. I might counterpoint, though, that the overarching intention is to modify the behavior of fans, coaches and players to reflect sportsmanlike behavior, which (and I only have reports to go on, no personal experience) seems to have been achieved based on this year's accounts of Bluffton's behavior. Punishment has already been incurred in the loss of preseason and invitational tournament ineligibility, along with the inability to hold a region title regardless of performance, which proves that there are consequences for poor sportsmanship regardless of who actually commits the offense. Would it further this cause (or increase the League's credibility) if they were to extend the punishment past their stated expiration date?

I was a little bemused by "kick rocks" myself.