oldhops10

Wonder away, though I will admit that I'm not a coach/former coach/player for Temple. I'm not in denial. Not at all. And when the penalties come, I think I'll be proved correct as to how the TSSAA is going to handle it. And I think you're missing my point. I'm arguing that the punishment should fit the crime, not that there shouldn't be any form of discipline, etc. Who of us doesn't make mistakes every day that we hope others will overlook? Agreed.

There have been mistakes and misunderstandings, some of which were not blatant. Sure. But who hasn't thought we knew something, only to find out we missed a detail somewhere, albeit an important one. Kind of like reading an instruction manual to put something together only to find out you missed an important step toward the beginning. Ugh! No, just trying to get others to think more broadly and with some humanity.

For all that can be said, and all that will be said once the TSSAA delivers their decision, bear in mind that as outsiders looking in we may never know all of the details. We will likely be told that Temple violated the rules in a sterile, by-the-book fashion with no real comment given to context. Undoubtedly, there have been violations. As I've said before, there is too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere, but I don't think that the violations that will be leveled against Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley are as malicious as they will be made out to be (or as flagrant as some of you are convinced is the case). From what I've gathered, there were some mistakes of ignorance of the rules that were made. That doesn't excuse the mistake, but it is one thing for someone to openly rebel against rules, and it is another to violate rules unwittingly. And again, and please read this carefully, I am in no way saying that the coaches/AD weren't responsible to know the rules. Consider the following scenarios: Scenario #1: Let's say you visit a restaurant with a friend that doesn't allow cell phones to be used at all while dining. The ringer needs to be turned off, set on vibrate only, and if you get a call you are required to talk outside. Violation of this rule can lead to your being asked to leave the restaurant. They have a sign posted in their window as you enter, and the menu provides the same instruction at the bottom of the back page. Well, it is your first time in the restaurant, you didn't see the sign as you walked in the door because you were in deep conversation with your friend, and you never saw the back page of the menu because once the waiter recommended the specials for the day you knew that's what you wanted. A short time later, your phone rings and you answer it, talk for one minute and hang up. Your friend, whose been there before, leans over and tells you the restaurant's policy. You apologize profusely, give a small wave to the manager who is looking at you, and immediately turn your ringer to silent, and put your phone away. Scenario #2: You visit the same restaurant mentioned above with business clients. In fact, their food is so good, that you prefer to take business clients there on a regular basis, and are well-acquainted with their policy regarding cell phone use. Your cell phone rings (you didn't think you needed to turn the ringer off, because, after all, you might receive an important call) and proceed to talk on the phone. This is something that you regularly do. All the of the wait staff knows who you are because of this practice, and the manager has spoken to you on previous occasions about their policy which you think you can ignore. In a very wooden sense, you could say that Scenarios 1 and 2 are identical. No talking on cell phones. Ringers should be turned off. Period. Correct. But given the context of each, doesn't how you view the violators differ between the scenarios? In Scenario 1, if the manager came over and asked you to leave wouldn't you think that was a bit extreme? Going too far? You make your case, apologize, mention that you just found out about the rule, and put your cell phone away. But let's say he sticks to the letter of the law. "No, cell phones aren't allowed. That's the rule, and you've violated the rule and I would like you to leave." Again, strictly speaking he may be well within his authority to ask you to leave, but he wouldn't last very long as a manager if the owner found out this was his regular practice. Given the context of the situation, does the punishment fit the crime? In Scenario 2, the violation is "high-handed." It is a blatant ignoring of the known rules. For the manager to ask you to leave in this case is likely the right interpretation of the law. There's no regard for others, for the rules of the restaurant, and such a punishment would fit the crime. Now, I realize analogies breakdown, but for the sake of discussion, let's say Coaches Beard, Skogen and Wadley fall under a Scenario 1 kind of situation. There was some ignorance or misunderstanding of what the rules were, and when presented with their mistake, they own up to it, apologize for the error, and make it clear that is wasn't a knowing violation of the rules. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? It would be one thing if they were caught and said "Yeah, we just wanted to win at all costs," but that is not the case. My suspicion is that Coach Chastain falls closer to Scenario #2 since he received warnings along the way that what he was doing was a clear violation of the rules (a point made in one of the TFP articles), and evidenced by the player showing up at CSAS with Temple football gear (duh!). Again, the punishment should fit the crime, and people should not be ignored for the sake of policy. Will the TSSAA show such wisdom in their decisions?

Sure. My post was simply for the sake of getting some of the facts straight (I hope) since questions along those lines were asked.

Coach Skogen was not the head coach or co-head coach in Spring '06, as I recall. He was still a volunteer and assistant coach/offensive coordinator. If I had to give a percentage of certainty on this, I'd say I'm 80-85% certain that this was the arrangement. FWIW.

No, I don't think that's quite accurate. If my memory serves me correctly, Coach Skogen wasn't the Head Coach. In fact, he may never have been the head coach. I believe last year he and Coach Beard were "co-head coaches" or something like that. Coach Skogen ran the offense, Coach Chastain was in charge of the defense, and Coach Beard had oversight of the entire team. In previous years, Coach Beard was the Head Coach and in charge of the defense, and Coach Skogen was the offensive coordinator/coach. And for the comment regarding Coach Skogen's playing experience, he played both in high school and college out on the West Coast - and quite a few years ago. Rules vary from state to state, and things have certainly changed over the last 20 some years. So, the line of argument that because he played at one time and should therefore know all transfer rules doesn't hold a lot of water. Perhaps other lines of argumentation regarding rules could be used, but not that one.

I'm quite certain that this is the case. Good post, Zonepirate. Thanks for your moderation of thought and comment.

Nope. I don't know who Noway and Pasture are. Curious, though.

How do you know Coach Skogen didn't warn Chastain of these things? Remember the first article in the TFP. Coaches Beard and Skogen were open about their concerns. I do not believe that coaches have ultimate say who is or not on the staff. Doesn't an AD have to approve, fire, etc?

Coach Skogen's personal finances are none of your business, and you are presumptuous to think that they are. As to Temple's end of it, well, speculation is understandable. Further, in regards to the Skogens paying or not paying the tuition, if that is deemed a violation of the rules, it isn't a major infraction. The boys would have been on the field/court regardless. The punishment should fit the crime, and to take away all records, wins, etc. etc. isn't fair punishment. Of course, if other violations are discovered that's another story. I suppose we'll know soon enough.

For sure. You are not alone.

TNT, Thanks for the clarifications. Well put. Just for the record, they paid their tuitions (apart from the present controversy for 06-07 year). I see your point why some might perceive wrongdoing, but it is also true that success breeds such suspicion. It is inevitable. I am unable to speak to the speculation regarding Dee Newsome, his father, etc. I didn't know anything about that until yesterday when I read it here.

Good post. Very thoughtful and well stated.

Incorrect on both counts. Not revisionist, just the simple facts. I took the time to speak directly to those aforementioned. Nor irrelevant since names and reputations are involved.

This was a clerical/administrative error. Coach Skogen was paid by the school the amount that it would cost his sons to attend the school. The mistake came in that Temple was supposed to write Coach Skogen a check for his coaching services, and then Coach Skogen would turn right around and pay the tuition - which was a completely legitimate arrangement. It is a matter of a technicality, and something that the administration should have handled properly. That's the story regarding the Skogens in this matter. Not nearly as lively as others might want it to be, but the simple truth nonetheless.

Riiiiight. Old Pirate: ARROGANT..............................ANNOYING.........................IGNORANT. Yes, and you continue to prove my point. Do you speak in the third person in person? Try it sometime and see how long it takes people to get annoyed and walk away. Old Pirate said: How much more arrogant,annoying,igorant can one be than to still argue TT has not done wrong............... I didn't say that there wasn't wrongdoing. I simply argued that we do not know all of the facts to be making such grandiose accusations. A little bit of humility and more cautious language might be the better part of wisdom until the TSSAA is finished their investigation. There is too much smoke surrounding Temple for there not to be a fire somewhere, but let's not assume we know where it is. TNT said: You might be right about some of these other issues but all the athletic problems and the atmosphere of wrong doing started under Wadley and Skogen and their desire to win championships. The speculation of wrong doing has been there for the last 4 are 5 years begining with the Skogens and players just showing up when there was a need at certain positions to make the football team and basketball team better. Also the speculation if the tuitions were being payed. Surely you can understand why people would be suspicious Your first statement against the Wadleys and Skogens is completely false, and for you to make such a slanderous accusation without proof is uncalled for and dangerous. You need to retract your statement. You do not have the proof to back it up. You portray Coaches Wadley and Skogen to be men who want to win at all costs, and that is simply not the case. Winning isn't everything to either of them. Further, the Skogens transferring to Temple was completely above board, within the rules, etc. Jacob was in 8th Grade; Caleb in 6th Grade. To my knowledge Coach Wadley and Coach Skogen were always careful about transfers being handled properly, and according to the rules. Some of the language that I am hearing makes it almost sound like every transfer should be viewed with suspicion (someone else noted this as well, as I recall). That's completely unfair. If a student-athlete has the opportunity to transfer to a program that will allow them to showcase their talent, as opposed to riding the bench or getting lost in the shuffle at a larger school, and can transfer within the rules that is perfectly legitimate.

A few points to keep in mind: 1) There is an investigation underway, and that's key. A verdict/decision has not been given because there are plenty of details to sort through, and I'm sure the TSSAA is going to handle this properly. As Mr. Carter is quoted as saying in the paper: "Obviously this is a very serious issue, so we won't drag our feet in coming to a conclusion. But we also won't be rushing because we want to give Temple every opportunity to give us an explanation." (emphasis added) Based on a number of the posts, which are full of speculation and little fact, Temple is guilty, guilty, guilty, and have been for years. Absurd. 2) Interpretation can work a number of different ways. Hargis writes, "After the football season ended in the third round of the playoffs last fall, both Skogen and Beard resigned and Chastain was named head coach. Chastain was later fired by the school after it was discovered the TSSAA was investigating several recruiting allegations. Skogen also resigned as basketball coach shortly after the Crusaders won their third state title, beating Arts & Sciences." Coach Skogen only agreed to coach the basketball team for one year. He made that clear to Temple, to family, friends, and whomever he chose to tell. IF someone were to imply that Coach Skogen resigned because he was somehow afraid of a pending investigation, etc., that is simply untrue. As to the reasons for resigning as a football coach, those were spoken to in the article. 3) The implication that basketball championships won during Coach Wadley's tenure at Temple are now suspect is also completely without merit, and further wild, ignorant and irresponsible speculation. The reputations of fine men are at stake (the Wadleys and the Skogens), and needed to be handled with greater care. Since when is someone guilty until proven innocent? Indicative of the greater problems in our society, I'm afraid. 4) To whomever asked about posting in third person. It is arrogant and annoying, and those who speak in that voice typically make the most ignorant comments. I, for one, wish it would be banned by Coach T. - Oldhops1 (writing as Oldhops10 because my old account is messed up).