Re: CMass D3 selection controversy -- Central Mass Football Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:06:08 12/03/02 Tue
Author: cmsportsfan
Subject: Re: CMass D3 selection controversy
In reply to: The Lucky One 's message, "Re: CMass D3 selection controversy" on 08:37:28 12/03/02 Tue

I read reports and I read opinions. Opinions are biased, but the reports I read in both the T & G and the Middlesex news were the facts of the matter. The editorial writers express opinions, the reporters give the facts and let the reader form his/her own opinions.

There is such a thing as the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law".....one being the strict interpretation of the law, the other being what the law, or rule, was meant to achieve. It's possible that this controversy has exposed flaws in the tie-breaker rule. Perhaps the best thing is for a "disinterested" person, such as a mediator or judge who has no affiliation whatsoever with the CMFC, MIAA, Hudson, or Clinton, to decide the matter. While I think it's a little over the top to take the matter to court, I would think that the two parties (Hudson and Clinton) would welcome the opportunity to end the controversy once and for all. The selection would be validated rather than tainted with controversy. If the CMFC changes its collective mind to allow Hudson to participate in the game, then Hudson's selection would be tainted with controversy as well.

Personally, I don't think it would be right to tell one group of kids that they are going to the Superbowl, then change it to "No, we've changed our minds, someone else is going". It's the old saying, "It's easier to change a "no" to a "yes" than it is a "yes" to a "no", and I don't believe that telling the kids from Clinton that "no, you arent going" after being told that they are. It may very well be that Clinton would be the selection as a result. But, Clinton's selection would be validated.

I think that the CMFC needs to amend the tie-breaker rules to state what the process would be if there were more than two teams tied for first place in the division. There is nothing in the head to head rule that states how head to head can be determined with more than two teams tied. In order to go by the "letter" of the rule, the rule has to be more specific and clearly defined.

Amendments to the tie-breaker rule ought to be considered after the Superbowl, not before. Therefore, I think it's proper that the Clinton team represent D3 in the Superbowl, but I also believe that the four teams that tied for first place all be considered Division Three Co-Champions.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> Re: CMass D3 selection controversy -- LookOutBelow, 17:54:47 12/03/02 Tue

Here's an unorthodox solution to this problem that will probably get this posting laughed at...

Send the seniors from all 4 teams to Springfield to represent CMASS in Division 3.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: CMass D3 selection controversy -- Footballer, 18:14:56 12/03/02 Tue

I have to say that I feel bad for the kids at all the schools - including Clinton. I have read quite a few posts on masslive that are starting to show anamosity {spelling} toward the Clinton team. Clinton is not the problem here, the central mass governing body AND Mr. Rich Garvin are to blame. Clinton was awarded the berth, be it right or wrong, and is anticipating the trip to springfield. Honestly, if Murdock were asked to go do you think they would say no? I too read Garvins columns and what I see is that he didn't really know what he was talking about and since Clinton was awarded the berth, his article is written like some 6th grader who didn't get his way. I like to watch football, on the high school, college, and professional levels, but ADULTS have created this situation that the kids have to go through...heaven help them.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> MetroWest Daily News Online -- cmsportsfan, 11:47:56 12/04/02 Wed

I couldn't put the link to this article which appeared today in the MetroWest News......go to keyword "MetroWest Daily News Online" and from there go to "sports"....You'll see the article about Hudson dropping it's appeal and why. The T&G writer, Garven, had basically the same facts, but threw in a couple of editorial comments.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: CMass D3 selection controversy -- cmsportsfan, 20:12:03 12/03/02 Tue

FootBaller, Clinton wasn't "asked" to go to the bowl game....Clinton has supposedly earned the berth as a result of a tie-breaker that may or may not have been decided upon mistakenly. However, I feel the same as you do....once Clinton was told by the CMFC officials that it was selected to go to the game as a result of the tie-breaker, that should not be reversed. But, the controversy will remain because the selection process will continue to appear flawed. And yes, adults created the controversy but the kids will have to live with the consequences, and that's the sad part.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]