Perspective

No need to study that now, Jambun. Just go on Facebook and you'll learn all you need to know. Everyone posting there now is a constitutional law scholar.

No, I don't. In fact, I added the parenthetical in hopes of avoiding any speculation along those lines. But, I can see how a reader could think otherwise. I don't even do THAT area of the law . . . if I did, you would have all known it by my third post on this site.

Hmmm, let's see . . . "Smartest man alive" - likely a 'false statement of fact.' Check. By posting the comment on this Board we can assume that at least one other person (likely DarterBlue) will read it, so it probably constitutes a 'communication to a third party.' Check. There was a time when being a smart person was a good thing, but I'm not so sure about that any more. Now, being smart just opens you up to ridicule and the stigma of being a nerd. So, I think I could convince a jury that a comment to the effect that you're the smartest man in the world could 'harm your reputation or financial well-being.' So, Check. In conclusion, I'm pretty sure you just defamed yourself. Today only, I'll offer to represent you -- both as the plaintiff and the defendant , although I'll need both of you to sign a conflict waiver. I also will need substantial fee retainers from 'both' of you. But don't worry about my astronomically high hourly rates; once you prevail against yourself, we can go after the losing party to recover those fees. Perspective For the People (as long as I'm one of the people).

Peezy, A couple of quick thoughts/observations: We have a common friend who undoubtedly knows this area of the law better than I do. It might be worth reaching out to him if you happen to know any wild Turkey calls? In short, I think you are correct. But let’s break this down a little, as we have a couple of different potential issues. The first issue is whether a defamatory statement has been made (and, just in case you wondering, libel is simply defamation in written form). Under Florida law, defamation is basically defined as a false statement of fact communicated to a third party that is intended to harm the reputation or financial well-being of a person or business. To repeat, for a comment to be defamatory, it would have to be a statement of fact and not an opinion. Also remember what you no doubt have often heard: truth is a defense. In other words, if I say “Jim is a thief” and it turns out that Jim has been convicted of theft, my comment would not be defamatory because my statement is a truthful one, not a false one, however embarrassing it may be to Jim. If I were to say “Hawkwood High School fans pay money to Hawkwood High School players,” there is a question in my mind as to who, if anyone, would have the right to bring a defamation lawsuit against me. I didn’t make reference to a particular fan/person, nor did I say that anyone at the school was a guilty party. So, I might be able to get away with that comment, even if it were not true. Recall a couple of weeks ago when President Trump was refusing to sign the spending bill to keep the military funded? One of his stated reasons for doing so was because Congress was refusing to repeal Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Say what? In short, this is the law that companies like Facebook are able to use as a shield to avoid defamation claims when someone posts a false negative review or makes a statement on their Internet site that would otherwise rise to the level of defamation. To be precise, here’s what Section 230 says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In my humble opinion, and based on limited facts and research, Section 230 would provide immunity to Josh’s website for defamatory statements made by forum posters. And, arguably, even if it became known that a particular comment was defamatory, the site would not be obligated to take it down. See, Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997). With all that said, I would go through the following analysis: Was the statement made a statement of fact or an opinion? If an opinion, the analysis stops as the website and its owner will have no exposure to liability. If the statement was one of fact, can the person who made the statement establish that the statement is true? If so, it’s not defamation. If not (i.e., the statement is a false statement), was it intended to harm the reputation or financial status of a person or legal entity? If so, the person who made the statement – assuming that person could be identified – could be sued for defamation (and a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit might be able to use discovery/subpoena powers to uncover the true identity of a poster). However, under Section 230, it is unlikely that the website or its owner could be held responsible for the defamatory statement. But, here’s the critical last step of the analysis for someone like Josh: even if he is confident that he cannot successfully be sued for defamation, does he really want to take that chance? More importantly, is he prepared to spend his limited time and resources defending himself/his company against people who likely have superior resources. That’s a call only he can make. It’s easy to say “C’mon, hold your ground; fight the fight!” when it’s not your money or business at risk. Last, but not least, to cover my own butt, this post is not intended as legal advice for Josh, this website or anyone who might read it. While I believe it is accurate, it’s just intended to further the conversation, not to be relied upon by anyone who might face the issues addressed above.

In my mind, that would constitute a slightly more aggressive post or accusation.

Jambun, I'll stick my neck out and take a shot at summarizing what I know (with the caveat that, as my wife often reminds me, I don't know everything): Leading up to the Bloomingdale/St. Thomas Aquinas game, tickets were sold online. I do not know the details of how or when the tickets sales announcement was first made. In any event, I believe one or more Board members purchased tickets. At some point that week, the tickets sold out. An announcement was made a few days later (and a day or two before the game) that a determination was made that STA fans had not had a fair chance to buy tickets. As a result, some of the ticket sales that already had been made were 'reversed' and money was refunded. Again, I don't know how the process worked. Did the purchasing system go back and reverse the last couple hundred transactions or was it done randomly? I don't know. However, I believe one or two of the Board members who had purchased tickets had their transactions reversed (and their money refunded). That created a new allotment of tickets that were then scarfed up by STA fans. Those Board members who had their transactions reversed were not particularly happy about that. They had stood in the (virtual) ticket line, and had made their purchases, only to be told that their tickets would be invalidated because STA fans didn't know where the line was and, therefore, did not have the (same?) opportunity to stand in the virtual line and buy their tickets. I now return to my caveat and state for the record that I do not know the particulars regarding how some people knew where the virtual line was and when the virtual ticket window opened while others did not. Some of the folks who had purchased tickets, only to have the purchases reversed, used this forum as a means of . . . shall we say, 'expressing their dissatisfaction' with the quality of service they were provided. Some, rightfully or wrongfully, suggested that STA had started swinging its weight around, perhaps with the FHSAA, in order to secure ample tickets after tickets had been sold out. As I recall, some even suggested that STA had threatened legal action. I even went so far as to pen a light-hearted, satirical checklist of all the things the STA fans had to do before making the trip across the state and that somehow, purchasing the game tickets had failed to show up on the list. If memory serves me correct, I posted my post Wednesday or Thursday afternoon before the Friday night game. I then left my office and went home. On a personal note, I don't typically check this site from home. By the time I got to work the next morning, all hell had apparently broken loose. By all appearances, forum posters became a little more 'aggressive' with their posts and accusations. I'm assuming one or more posters leveled some serious allegations against STA/STA fans, which appear to have resulted in one or more posts/DM's/faxes/certified letters/overnight deliveries/process servers, etc. from embarrassed/outraged STA personnel and/or fans threatening legal action against this site and its owner. Not wanting to go to war with the 800-pound gorilla, Josh made the business decision to take down the thread. For reasons that are not clear to me, he also made the decision to terminate administrator rights of some or all of the site administrators. Perhaps Josh or someone can explain that decision. Or perhaps all that needs to be said has been said. Again, as you can see, there is big gap in my timeline between what happened and what was posted after I left my office the one day of game week and the next morning when I came in and checked the site. Perhaps someone else can fill in the missing information. But, from what I have seen and heard, the bottom line is that a few posters (some of whom may have been members and/or administrators) suggested that STA and/or its fans acted in a heavy-handed manner to the detriment of those who already had purchased tickets to the game. When called out, STA and/or its fans doubled down. Not wanting to go to war with a heavily-armed and well-funded enemy, Josh made the decision to pull the whole 'discussion' off the site. I hope that what I have said is both accurate and non-confrontational. As with many of my posts, this post contains both my factual recitations and my opinions. Hopefully, I have not stepped over any lines. I guess we'll see. Josh, if you believe that I've crossed the line, DM me and I'll take this post down.

And a Happy New Year to all.

Just out of curiosity, what is their "agenda?"

I'm pretty sure that all the teams in the Mexpreps final top 25 are from Texas, Arizona and California.

So, it looks like OldSchool last posted (and reacted to other posts) on December 10th. I have a theory that sometime the following day, he and Jesse went up to Madison County High School to do research for the sequels to his Greatest State Championship Team Ever thread and his Best FL HS Offense of each Decade thread. The sequels are "Greatest State Championship Team from Madison County" and "Best FL HS Offense of each Decade from Madison County." He and Jesse wandered into the Madison County Public Library the morning of December 11th, armed with enough canned Vienna sausages, pork rinds and NeHi sodas to last them for weeks, as they knew the task before them would take many hours. They are currently holed up in a dusty basement looking at something called microfiche, which has yellowish-orangish images of stories from something the people used to call 'the sports section of a newspaper.' They'll emerge with enough information to supply MadCo Trivia Questions until football starts up again next fall. (At least that's what I'm hoping).

Nice updates/info. Appreciate the posts.

Marketing genius! They need to repaint the wording on the water tower! PLANT HIGH SCHOOL HOME OF STATE CHAMPIONS (AND BIG 10 TITLES)

I don't know, Darter. I could easily see Central being up 32-0 in the second quarter.

Just like old times . . . the Gators winning in Doak Campbell Stadium. OK, friendly jabs aside, I was always under the understanding that the FHSAA didn't want to hold football championship games in the stadium of a college team, as that might give said college team an unfair recruiting advantage. That's the reason, for example, that UCF's centrally-located stadium was never considered as a host venue (so I've been told). Is this just a Covid-exception year? At the risk of sounding a little ticky-tack, if games are going to be played in a college stadium and if the college team has completed their home schedule, why wouldn't the FHSAA/host venue repaint the endzones to eliminate the reference to the college? In other words, when I watch highlights of this year's state championship games, why do I have see "Florida State" painted in a garnet-colored endzone?

For any team that wins a State Championship - No. For any team that was unable to compete in the playoffs - Yes. For any team that was able to compete in the playoffs, but lost - Maybe.

I thought recruiting was illegal???

That was the only thing I could think of . . . but that only made sense (to me) if the school was named after the city (Kissimmee) instead of the county (Osceola). Maybe that was the case many years ago?

Question: why does Osceola spell Kowboy with a "K?"

Especially if sponsorship agreements require brand new balls be used for the game. I can't remember if I've told this story on this site before or not. My dad was a basketball ref. He was calling a high school all-star or state playoff basketball game (I can't remember which) in Gainesville one year, circa late 60's early 70's. As the game began, it was apparent that neither team could hold onto the brand new ball that was being used. Shots and passes were slipping right through the hands of the players from both teams. During the first timeout, a University of Florida basketball player, who happened to be in attendance, came down to the scorer's table and begged my dad and the other ref to switch out balls and replace the new ball with a 'slightly used' ball that the players could handle. Both coaches agreed. The request seemed reasonable, especially since it was coming from a neutral, yet expert source, who had no dog in the fight and just wanted the kids to be able to play good basketball. As my dad was walking over to the ball rack to get a replacement ball, Floyd Lay, the director of the FHSAA at the time, and who was sitting right behind the scorer's table, yelled down with instructions to continue using the new ball. Thinking he was unaware of the rationale behind switching balls, my dad started to explain why the new ball needed to be replaced. Lay cut him off mid-sentence and said, "I don't care; the new ball will look better in the pictures in tomorrow morning's Gainesville Sun." So, back to my point: if the FHSAA's deal with Wilson requires that brand new, right out of the box, balls be used for state title games, and the temperatures fall into the 40's, expect to see some slippery balls.

So, getting back to the upcoming games: will weather be a factor? It's raining in Tallahassee right now, but the rain will move through and it should be dry the rest of the week. I don't know how much rain is falling -- just enough to give the field a good watering or enough to soak the field and create a muddy track for tomorrow's games? I'm already on record about my concerns of a soft field getting chewed up the first few games and the effect that might have on the remaining games. But the temperatures could be an issue, too, especially for teams that have played in 80 plus degree weather all season. For Thursday, the high is projected to be 53 degrees with a low of 32. For Friday, high of 58 and low of 34. It warms up a little on Saturday with a high of 62 and low of 43. Reminds me a bit of World Series baseball where teams play in hot weather all season long and then end up playing playoff games and World Series games in cold (and often wet) weather. It's just a different game in those conditions. Will this weather affect any of the South Florida teams? Will it affect passing teams more than running teams?

I saw footage of the Bloomingdale QB against Tampa Bay Tech. Whenever a passing play started to break down and the pocket started to collapse, both of the QB's hands dropped down by his side (with his right hand holding onto the football) and then he would take off with the hands down by his side, ball unprotected, for his first few steps. He has Lamar Jackson-type quickness and escapability, but for me, it was just a matter of time before one of the defensive linemen stuck his arm out at the right time and knocked the ball out of the QB's hands. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened on Bloomingdale's 3rd quarter drive. That was the turning point of the game. If Bloomingdale scores on that drive - which they should have - who knows what happens the rest of the way.

Agreed, Darter. I saw them play against Bloomingdale last week. They have typical STA size and depth and their junior RB (Hankerson?) was impressive. Not surprisingly, STA simply runs through, over and around most high school defenses. But I was not impressed with STA's passing game. If Edgewater has a stout front 7 on defense and puts STA in a position where they have the throw the ball to move the ball downfield and win the game, Edgewater has a good shot at holding STA to under 20 points. Bloomingdale also elected to pooch kick every kickoff, so STA typically started its drives with good field position (own 40 or better). STA's defense was good, but not great. Bloomingdale was able to drive on them multiple times over the course of the game. If Edgewater can capitalize on a good scoring drive in the first half and then again in the second half, and then mix in a special team or turnover/short field score, I could see them winning a 21-17 game. The betting man in me would still be tempted to put my money on the Raiders, but I won't be the least bit surprised if Edgewater gets the W.

I feel compelled to give Plant a little love, especially for their performance in the second half of the decade. They won three state championships ('06, '08, and '09; runners up in '10, but that's probably the start of the next decade anyway). In each of those 3 state championship years, they averaged right around 38 points a game over the course of the full season. In '06 and '08, their scoring dropped off a few points per game in the playoffs, but in 2009, their scoring average jumped up a couple of points in the playoffs to over 40 points per game. In those 3 championship years, Plant was a combined 42-2. Perhaps not the most offensive team in any given year, but from 2005 until the end of the decade, they put quite a few points on the board.

So when you say "the best offense of each decade," you're referring to the best offensive performance by a single team in one particular year within a given decade, is that right? In other words, you're not comparing the offenses of teams over the course of the decade, right?

No apology needed. The issue is very similar. There is one big distinction: in the Ohio game, it appears the refs made the decision to end the game (while, presumably, the decision was within their jurisdiction to make). In the Texas game, it appears the refs allowed the game to be completed and some governing body (similar to the FHSAA or the county AD's office) came along after the fact and made the decision to disqualify the team from any future play. But, to your point, in both situations, it's a team being punished based on the actions of an individual.