TSSAA visits Signal Mtn

[rlh]

LFO is in Georgia...a bonified change of residence would have been enough to make him eligible. However he would still be ineligible as he is zoned for Brainerd and SM is not a NCLB optional transfer school. It is up to the HCDE now to explain how he was enrolled in SM instead of Sale Creek or Ooltewah...I'm sure there are plenty of parents who would like the same option.I mean I'm sure all Brainerd parents got the same notice.

http://www.hcde.org/media/brainerd-choice-letter.pdf

 

It doesn't matter that he was in Georgia. The fact that he played in the spring game for LFO matter. Had he not participated with LFO in the spring, he may still have been eligible even though he is in the Brainerd zone. Since he did participate in the spring, he would have to live in the Howard zone to be eligible at Howard and possibly Signal. That spring practice requires 1 year to gain eligibility out of ones zone.

[snoball5278]

at least we get the paperwork right...

 

you can call a poo sandwich what ever you like and even have a lawyer write up some paper work on it, but it's still a poo sandwich.

Edited October 7, 2011 by snoball5278

[anotherback]

your strawman argument is that losing schools don't get caught so why should the rules be enforced on winning schools that do.

Never said that, I just said if anyone thinks Signal is the only one who has done this intentional or not they are kidding them selves ...by the way you can't name them can you, guess I'm not the only strawman, but of course your probably still ticked that Signal hung 65 on your Pirates, oh I guess SP never has players move there to play either. Yeah right Troll on Troll on.

[rlh]

you can call a poo sandwhich what ever you like and even have a lawyer write up some paper work on it, but it's still a poo sandwhich.

 

It is might coincidental that he moved into Brainerd's zone and was listed in Howard's zone since that is the only way he would have been eligible for SM since participating in Spring scrimmage at LFO. Even that would have been in the gray area. Had the boy wanted to play, he could have been eligible for Brainerd or Ooltewah assuming that NCLB satisfies the zone/territory requirement for the TSSAA. This kid may have just learned one of life's hard lessons about reaping what you sow.

[MountainTroll]

At Polk County to watch my Cheatin' Chickens battle the Wildcats.

Hope Coach Price and the team are in a good mood tonight. LMAO.

 

I know they'll be in the mood when when they go to Sequatchie in a couple of weeks.

[rlh]

at least we get the paperwork right...

 

Apparently not! SM just vacated 6 wins.

[snoball5278]

Apparently not! SM just vacated 6 wins.

 

she's a greeneville(open enrollment) fan and she's just giddy about the fact that the best team in 4a just got clipped, because they can't do what her team gets to.

Edited October 7, 2011 by snoball5278

[kidnplay]

word is that this kid lives in the Germantown area and lived there when he played at LFO. Got a ride to school each day with someone that worked at the school. Who gives him a ride to Howard to catch the bus to SM?

 

NCLB and TSSAA have nothing to do with each other. Someone said it earlier, the Supreme Court ruled in the Brentwood Academy case that playing a sport in high school is privilage not a right. Likewise, joining TSSAA is a choice that each school makes. TSSAA is an entity that has the right to establish it's own rules that each school who joins agrees to abide by. There is no way any leagal issue exists between TSSAA's transfer rule and the NCLB failing school transfer rule. NCLB is concerned only with the educational aspect of children, not the athletic aspect. Far too often, fans get these two confused.

 

If this kid was zoned for Brainerd, then he should not be eligible to play for SM if the HCDE hasn't established SM as a partner school for Brainerd. This seems so simple looking from the outside with an unbiased opinion. The only way people at SM wouldn't have known of this is for the parents/guardians of the kid to have lied about their address. Looks like someone, don't know who, tried to slide this in the backdoor and hope no one found out. SM maybe. Parents/guardians maybe. A third party with interest maybe. I think that is why two investigators came.

[drstats]

I seriously doubt the TSSAA holds grudges or vendettas, so I seriously doubt the ruling today has anything at all to do with what happened between SM and SD at the 7-on7 back in July. (If it is, the whole state has a serious problem.)

 

I still am having problems with the fact that the kid was "eligible" according to the TSSAA, not too long ago, but now he's not. And I really don't think the TSSAA re-opened the case on its own accord. Seems apparent to me that someone called the TSSAA and reported it.

 

The three biggest questions still left unresolved:

 

1. Was the paperwork on the kid incorrectly filled out on purpose or was it a legitimate oversight?

2. Why exactly did the TSSAA reverse its initial ruling on the kid's eligibility (and why do it now)?

3. Who turned SM into the TSSAA?

[mj81870]

I seriously doubt the TSSAA holds grudges or vendettas, so I seriously doubt the ruling today has anything at all to do with what happened between SM and SD at the 7-on7 back in July. (If it is, the whole state has a serious problem.)

 

I still am having problems with the fact that the kid was "eligible" according to the TSSAA, not too long ago, but now he's not. And I really don't think the TSSAA re-opened the case on its own accord. Seems apparent to me that someone called the TSSAA and reported it.

 

The three biggest questions still left unresolved:

 

1. Was the paperwork on the kid incorrectly filled out on purpose or was it a legitimate oversight?

2. Why exactly did the TSSAA reverse its initial ruling on the kid's eligibility (and why do it now)?

3. Who turned SM into the TSSAA?

 

1. Someone lied on the paperwork.

2. Someone lied on the paperwork.

3. Does it matter?

[lancer10]

.

I seriously doubt the TSSAA holds grudges or vendettas, so I seriously doubt the ruling today has anything at all to do with what happened between SM and SD at the 7-on7 back in July. (If it is, the whole state has a serious problem.)

 

I still am having problems with the fact that the kid was "eligible" according to the TSSAA, not too long ago, but now he's not. And I really don't think the TSSAA re-opened the case on its own accord. Seems apparent to me that someone called the TSSAA and reported it.

 

The three biggest questions still left unresolved:

 

1. Was the paperwork on the kid incorrectly filled out on purpose or was it a legitimate oversight?

2. Why exactly did the TSSAA reverse its initial ruling on the kid's eligibility (and why do it now)?

3. Who turned SM into the TSSAA?

First I feel bad for the kids .......1 the paperwork They where told what to put down.they were told that it would never be look in that deep..2. Just made aware of it.3.HCDE...THEY WERE TOLD BY A SM PARENT... they feel bad about about turning him in because he is a good kid...i told them that they should have told,when they heard he didnt live where they said he did..talked to them,and a few other SM people today ,they all wish this was done last month.......now they may not make the play-offs....

Edited October 7, 2011 by lancer10

[ChattanoogaCannon]

1. Someone lied on the paperwork.

2. Someone lied on the paperwork.

3. Does it matter?

 

 

The same thing happened last year in girls soccer. SM used a player that transferred from Notre Dame without sitting out the requisite year. The parents definitely knew she played because she scored in a district playoff game for ND against Sequatchie County (she hardly played all year), yet they let wrong paperwork go through and blamed the ND administration once it was found out. There is definitely a pattern here.