Tennessean: Ensworth Star May be Next John Henderson

[itzme]

I hope we can put this to rest soon. What is it that makes people so mad about these things? No one forced this kid to go to Ensworth. He wasn't hauled away from Mt. Pleasant kicking and screaming. He left because he and his dad wanted him to do so. He states that he is happier, that there are more African-American kids there, that the facilities are better, that he is getting a lot of close academic attention, and that the athletic coaching is good. This is not to slight Mr. Pleasant, it is just what he and his dad report. So why are people mad? If I read the replies here correctly, and all the inferences, it is because a really good athlete was lost to Mt. Pleasant. That's it. For some of these people, this young man was just a big dude who could play ball for Mt. Pleasant. There has been far too little "I'm really happy for this kid that he had this chance, and took it. I wish him well." And yes, there a whole lot of kids who come from far distances to Ensworth, kids who aren't 6' 6", who aren't athletes. They fit in well, too, and some of them get scholarships, and some of the friends and parents they "left behind" are actually proud of them and happy for them.

 

I was rolling along--believing what you said--right up until you made the statement that there were more African-Americans at Ensworth than at MPHS. I don't believe that. I also think you might be missing the point. We aren't mad that we lost an athlete--Antonio didn't play much football until high school--we lost a great kid. Where was Ensworth when he was in elementary school and couldn't play Pop Warner Football because was too big? We are proud and happy-------and feel robbed!

 

In order to feel robbed, someone must take your property away. That's what public school fans don't get. The kid was not your property to begin with. Never was.

[tigersfan]

I hope we can put this to rest soon. What is it that makes people so mad about these things? No one forced this kid to go to Ensworth. He wasn't hauled away from Mt. Pleasant kicking and screaming. He left because he and his dad wanted him to do so. He states that he is happier, that there are more African-American kids there, that the facilities are better, that he is getting a lot of close academic attention, and that the athletic coaching is good. This is not to slight Mr. Pleasant, it is just what he and his dad report. So why are people mad? If I read the replies here correctly, and all the inferences, it is because a really good athlete was lost to Mt. Pleasant. That's it. For some of these people, this young man was just a big dude who could play ball for Mt. Pleasant. There has been far too little "I'm really happy for this kid that he had this chance, and took it. I wish him well." And yes, there a whole lot of kids who come from far distances to Ensworth, kids who aren't 6' 6", who aren't athletes. They fit in well, too, and some of them get scholarships, and some of the friends and parents they "left behind" are actually proud of them and happy for them.

 

 

I was rolling along--believing what you said--right up until you made the statement that there were more African-Americans at Ensworth than at MPHS. I don't believe that. I also think you might be missing the point. We aren't mad that we lost an athlete--Antonio didn't play much football until high school--we lost a great kid. Where was Ensworth when he was in elementary school and couldn't play Pop Warner Football because was too big? We are proud and happy-------and feel robbed!

 

In order to feel robbed, someone must take your property away. That's what public school fans don't get. The kid was not your property to begin with. Never was.

 

 

Ensworth has now invested quite a bit of time in him and have grown to love him for the special human that he is--wonder how they would feel if his "dad took the advice of fans in the crowd" and decided that it would be in his best interest to attend another really good school that could offer him what Ensworth can't? Say a boarding school in the Chattanooga area? Would Ensworth sign the proper paperwork so that he could play immediately? Would they wish him well? I'm sure they will say they would--but really--would they maybe feel "robbed"?

[tigersfan]

I hope we can put this to rest soon. What is it that makes people so mad about these things? No one forced this kid to go to Ensworth. He wasn't hauled away from Mt. Pleasant kicking and screaming. He left because he and his dad wanted him to do so. He states that he is happier, that there are more African-American kids there, that the facilities are better, that he is getting a lot of close academic attention, and that the athletic coaching is good. This is not to slight Mr. Pleasant, it is just what he and his dad report. So why are people mad? If I read the replies here correctly, and all the inferences, it is because a really good athlete was lost to Mt. Pleasant. That's it. For some of these people, this young man was just a big dude who could play ball for Mt. Pleasant. There has been far too little "I'm really happy for this kid that he had this chance, and took it. I wish him well." And yes, there a whole lot of kids who come from far distances to Ensworth, kids who aren't 6' 6", who aren't athletes. They fit in well, too, and some of them get scholarships, and some of the friends and parents they "left behind" are actually proud of them and happy for them.

 

I was rolling along--believing what you said--right up until you made the statement that there were more African-Americans at Ensworth than at MPHS. I don't believe that. I also think you might be missing the point. We aren't mad that we lost an athlete--Antonio didn't play much football until high school--we lost a great kid. Where was Ensworth when he was in elementary school and couldn't play Pop Warner Football because was too big? We are proud and happy-------and feel robbed!

I have no idea what the racial balance is at ensworth. I will say that "EHS Parents'" posts are always reasonable and seem to hold up well under scrutiny.

 

There's a point that gets missed in the discussion over whether Ensworth (or any of the other Pariahs in Div II) would be interested in a 5-5 kid with no athletic interests. Mr. Richardson's skills were on display on a football field where presumably most of Mt. Pleasant could see him. Someone in that crowd recommended his family look into Ensworth, and the rest is history. Here's where the analogy breaks down. The 5-5 kid is a 14 year old math whiz, and his or her endeavors occur in a classroom, and the only people who are aware of the talent are his teachers. They are hardly likely to recommend that he go elsewhere. That would be the equivalent of the Mt. Pleasant line coach recommending young Mr. Richardson go to Ensworth.

 

Along the same lines, would there be a lot of outrage if one of your 5-5 nerdy kids left Mt. Pleasant to go to Ensworth? I'm guessing you wouldn't feel nearly so offended, if you even noticed.

 

Where was Ensworth when he was too big to play Pop Warner football? Right where it is now, just waiting for students to express an interest. Doing anything else would be recruiting.

 

 

We lose several "5-5 nerdy kids" to privates every year--but as far as I know there are no message boards for that particular topic--otherwise we'd gripe about them too. Why would you assume we don't notice those kids?

[owlbooster]

Several already have expressed my sentiments exactly. However, nobody called "1234" on the comment about what the MP principal did being "honorable." To assume that the boy, his parents, the admissions people and coach at EHS all were LYING is NOT an "honorable" thing to do.

 

I am a graduate of MUS. I met a man, who has since become a best friend, back in early 2000s when his son was a star athlete at MUS. I noticed his son had suddenly appeared as a ninth grader and asked how that happened. In a nearby public "middle school" he had been the "stud" and QB/DB of the undefeated 8th grade team. The high school was "licking its chops" over the prospect of having him for 4 years. They were the established perennial HS football power in the area and had been MUS #1 rival for decades, but now were no longer a regular season league opponent due to the public-private split. "Junior" was already getting the "perks" of being the "stud" and becoming lazy in the classroom. His MS principal told his parents, both professionals and able to afford a private school, that he should transfer to MUS if they had any aspirations for him outside a football stadium. His father, who had played college ball at a major FBS school, knew his son would also benefit from athletic advantages also, like superior coaching. When the boy transferred, the HS principal "cried foul" and refused to sign a release so he could play the following year, despite the MS principal telling him SHE had recommended the transfer for academic reasons AND the boy and his parents swearing that he had NOT been recruited by anybody at MUS. He, like the Mt Pleasant principal, basically called all those involved liars, and spread his own lie about recruiting to the many people willing to believe his lie. They have not played MUS since. Many of their supporters to this day have bitter feelings about this assumed "robbery." I have no doubt it still plays a part in their boycott against playing us, even though we are their nearby neighbor AND usually have a good team. The boy went on to play football on scholarship at a FBS school and now is a young professional but also a volunteer coach at a private school.

[tigersfan]

Several already have expressed my sentiments exactly. However, nobody called "1234" on the comment about what the MP principal did being "honorable." To assume that the boy, his parents, the admissions people and coach at EHS all were LYING is NOT an "honorable" thing to do.

 

I am a graduate of MUS. I met a man, who has since become a best friend, back in early 2000s when his son was a star athlete at MUS. I noticed his son had suddenly appeared as a ninth grader and asked how that happened. In a nearby public "middle school" he had been the "stud" and QB/DB of the undefeated 8th grade team. The high school was "licking its chops" over the prospect of having him for 4 years. They were the established perennial HS football power in the area and had been MUS #1 rival for decades, but now were no longer a regular season league opponent due to the public-private split. "Junior" was already getting the "perks" of being the "stud" and becoming lazy in the classroom. His MS principal told his parents, both professionals and able to afford a private school, that he should transfer to MUS if they had any aspirations for him outside a football stadium. His father, who had played college ball at a major FBS school, knew his son would also benefit from athletic advantages also, like superior coaching. When the boy transferred, the HS principal "cried foul" and refused to sign a release so he could play the following year, despite the MS principal telling him SHE had recommended the transfer for academic reasons AND the boy and his parents swearing that he had NOT been recruited by anybody at MUS. He, like the Mt Pleasant principal, basically called all those involved liars, and spread his own lie about recruiting to the many people willing to believe his lie. They have not played MUS since. Many of their supporters to this day have bitter feelings about this assumed "robbery." I have no doubt it still plays a part in their boycott against playing us, even though we are their nearby neighbor AND usually have a good team. The boy went on to play football on scholarship at a FBS school and now is a young professional but also a volunteer coach at a private school.

 

 

There should have been no release paperwork involved in the scenario you discribe--unless the player had played or practiced with the high school team as a middle school student. There is no zoning restriction on incoming freshmen.

[owlbooster]

The actual transfer happened in the late 90s. Either the rules were different then OR I have misunderstood the specific details and will check with my friend about it. Maybe he had already started the ninth grade or had practiced briefly with the public school team. I don't know. I do know that the boy had to sit out a year, that my friend said it was because of something the principal did or didn't do, and that he had considered taking legal action. Implied in my comment was that even though it caused a big stink, imagine how much worse it would have been had the boy needed and received financial aid.

[owlbooster]

For what it's worth, this public school principal was a real "head job" when it came to the public vs private controversy and had led efforts here to vote for the separation. Every year, there are Memphis City School championships in basketball at the end of the regular season, before the playoffs. Shelby County and Private schools were excluded. Several prospective sponsors tried to start a County Championship for the excluded schools. Bartlett, the County league champion, was to play MUS, the Private school champion, in the inaugural game, BUT it had to be approved by both leagues' principals. This school's principal vetoed it, so it never has happened.

[tigersfan]

The actual transfer happened in the late 90s. Either the rules were different then OR I have misunderstood the specific details and will check with my friend about it. Maybe he had already started the ninth grade or had practiced briefly with the public school team. I don't know. I do know that the boy had to sit out a year, that my friend said it was because of something the principal did or didn't do, and that he had considered taking legal action. Implied in my comment was that even though it caused a big stink, imagine how much worse it would have been had the boy needed and received financial aid.

 

 

I imagine you are right. I imagine the rules were different then. It never seems fair when someone has to sit out. It almost always feels punitive when something like that happens.

[owlbooster]

Tigersfan - I spoke with my friend. I did have some of the details wrong, and they are really quite a remarkable example of the animosity involved in the public/private issue. I mean, this all initially involved the eligibility of a 13 year old! As his father said, what if I had moved him to a private school when he was 8 or 9? What would they have done 5 or 6 years later???

 

The boy was the "stud" of the 7th grade football team at the public school. When he transferred to MUS, he entered as a 7th grader (even though he had almost straight A's at the public school). The TSSAA approved him to play without a layout year, so he played 7th and 8th grade football at MUS uneventfully. However, the first game his 9th grade year was (as you might have guessed) against this school where he would have been playing had he not transferred. As QB and DB, he practically singlehandedly led MUS to victory on a Thursday afternoon. Then the next night, their varsity lost at home in OT. The following Monday, the principal, angered by the losses to the local rival who he thought were "stealing" "his" players, contacted the TSSAA and challenged the boy's eligibility to play 9th grade football, arguing he had already played 3 years in "junior high." This principal had clout and got the issue reopened. Meanwhile, the boy had to sit out the rest of the football season and the entire basketball season. In fact, he had considered avoiding the issue by finishing out the season playing DB for the varsity, but his father decided not to complicate the issue (or pursue litigation) and simply held him out until they finished deliberations, which ultimately were in his favor and in time for him at least to play baseball.

[tigersfan]

Tigersfan - I spoke with my friend. I did have some of the details wrong, and they are really quite a remarkable example of the animosity involved in the public/private issue. I mean, this all initially involved the eligibility of a 13 year old! As his father said, what if I had moved him to a private school when he was 8 or 9? What would they have done 5 or 6 years later???

 

The boy was the "stud" of the 7th grade football team at the public school. When he transferred to MUS, he entered as a 7th grader (even though he had almost straight A's at the public school). The TSSAA approved him to play without a layout year, so he played 7th and 8th grade football at MUS uneventfully. However, the first game his 9th grade year was (as you might have guessed) against this school where he would have been playing had he not transferred. As QB and DB, he practically singlehandedly led MUS to victory on a Thursday afternoon. Then the next night, their varsity lost at home in OT. The following Monday, the principal, angered by the losses to the local rival who he thought were "stealing" "his" players, contacted the TSSAA and challenged the boy's eligibility to play 9th grade football, arguing he had already played 3 years in "junior high." This principal had clout and got the issue reopened. Meanwhile, the boy had to sit out the rest of the football season and the entire basketball season. In fact, he had considered avoiding the issue by finishing out the season playing DB for the varsity, but his father decided not to complicate the issue (or pursue litigation) and simply held him out until they finished deliberations, which ultimately were in his favor and in time for him at least to play baseball.

 

 

That's sad!! Definately malicious!

[big red big blue]

Tigersfan - I spoke with my friend. I did have some of the details wrong, and they are really quite a remarkable example of the animosity involved in the public/private issue. I mean, this all initially involved the eligibility of a 13 year old! As his father said, what if I had moved him to a private school when he was 8 or 9? What would they have done 5 or 6 years later???

 

The boy was the "stud" of the 7th grade football team at the public school. When he transferred to MUS, he entered as a 7th grader (even though he had almost straight A's at the public school). The TSSAA approved him to play without a layout year, so he played 7th and 8th grade football at MUS uneventfully. However, the first game his 9th grade year was (as you might have guessed) against this school where he would have been playing had he not transferred. As QB and DB, he practically singlehandedly led MUS to victory on a Thursday afternoon. Then the next night, their varsity lost at home in OT. The following Monday, the principal, angered by the losses to the local rival who he thought were "stealing" "his" players, contacted the TSSAA and challenged the boy's eligibility to play 9th grade football, arguing he had already played 3 years in "junior high." This principal had clout and got the issue reopened. Meanwhile, the boy had to sit out the rest of the football season and the entire basketball season. In fact, he had considered avoiding the issue by finishing out the season playing DB for the varsity, but his father decided not to complicate the issue (or pursue litigation) and simply held him out until they finished deliberations, which ultimately were in his favor and in time for him at least to play baseball.

 

I'm not sure I see the big problem here...the rules used to be pretty straight forward in these matters. You have 3 years to play "junior high" sports (at least, that's the way it was back in the day). That includes 7th, 8th, and 9th grade. I know we had a kid on our team at MBA who did 8th grade twice (once elsewhere, then again at MBA). He got to play on the 7th-8th grade team as a second-time 8th grader, but couldn't play on the freshman team the following year. Had to play varsity (where, of course, he was on the bench the entire time). Sounds to me like MUS dropped the ball on this one.

[tigersfan]

Tigersfan - I spoke with my friend. I did have some of the details wrong, and they are really quite a remarkable example of the animosity involved in the public/private issue. I mean, this all initially involved the eligibility of a 13 year old! As his father said, what if I had moved him to a private school when he was 8 or 9? What would they have done 5 or 6 years later???

 

The boy was the "stud" of the 7th grade football team at the public school. When he transferred to MUS, he entered as a 7th grader (even though he had almost straight A's at the public school). The TSSAA approved him to play without a layout year, so he played 7th and 8th grade football at MUS uneventfully. However, the first game his 9th grade year was (as you might have guessed) against this school where he would have been playing had he not transferred. As QB and DB, he practically singlehandedly led MUS to victory on a Thursday afternoon. Then the next night, their varsity lost at home in OT. The following Monday, the principal, angered by the losses to the local rival who he thought were "stealing" "his" players, contacted the TSSAA and challenged the boy's eligibility to play 9th grade football, arguing he had already played 3 years in "junior high." This principal had clout and got the issue reopened. Meanwhile, the boy had to sit out the rest of the football season and the entire basketball season. In fact, he had considered avoiding the issue by finishing out the season playing DB for the varsity, but his father decided not to complicate the issue (or pursue litigation) and simply held him out until they finished deliberations, which ultimately were in his favor and in time for him at least to play baseball.

 

I'm not sure I see the big problem here...the rules used to be pretty straight forward in these matters. You have 3 years to play "junior high" sports (at least, that's the way it was back in the day). That includes 7th, 8th, and 9th grade. I know we had a kid on our team at MBA who did 8th grade twice (once elsewhere, then again at MBA). He got to play on the 7th-8th grade team as a second-time 8th grader, but couldn't play on the freshman team the following year. Had to play varsity (where, of course, he was on the bench the entire time). Sounds to me like MUS dropped the ball on this one.

 

I can honestly say that I know very little about middle school rules these days, but I wonder if changes have been made since many public middle schools are now 5-8. I do know that some of those 5-8 middle schools don't allow 5th graders to try out for teams (I would imagine size and maturity are most often the cause)--I wonder if the rule is still 3 years to play?