TSSAA strips Signal Mountain of its six wins

[CoachT]

I didn't expect Signal to appeal the decision in total if that is indeed what they are doing. I thought they were more likely to question the forfeiture of the last two forfeited games based on the fact they might have kept the player out of those games if they had been informed that an investigation was being done.

[BLUEMOM]

I saw the "are considering" but not the "will appeal" by ward gossett at 6:30am. Just saw it now at lunch. Sorry!

 

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/11/signal-mountain-will-appeal-tssaa-decision/

[barb]

There is nothing in the TSSAA by laws that would allow for immediate reinstatement, in fact, it clearly states that when reinstated, he would have to sit out the same number of games that he played as ineligible (6). It's a hard lesson learned, but when SM joined the TSSAA they did agree to abide by the by-laws and TSSAA provides ample opportunity for training and an excellent staff on hand to assist schools with just such procedures. If I were SM administrators I would take a hard look at other athletes who have had hardship or NCLB transfers to ensure similar "mistakes" haven't been made that would endanger their eligibility in other sports.

I just read the TFP piece

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/11/signal-considering-an-appeal/?sports

Can't figure out where Gossett thinks article 6 applies to an appeal. McCullough could have asked for a hearing when the investigators showed up at the school. All he had to do is send an e-mail to Childress in lieu of written correspondance and follow it with a formal request in writing. Then TSSAA would have had to convene a hearing before handing down a decision. This is once again an illustration of SM's lack of understanding of the by-laws and procedures. I guess they assumed that just because it was a "mistake", the violation of protocol would be overlooked and there would be no repercussions. I do however think they have a good chance to get the number of games vacated reduced retroactive to the end of September if they can prove that on 9/22 there was intent to begin an investigation, however TSSAA may counter that at that time, there were no plans to investigate..

[ROCKYTOP3]

I live about 60 miles from Signal Mountain. I don't have a horse in the race either way. I was watching Friday Night Football coverage on the news as I DVR and flip back and forth on multiple channels to get the most coverage. Week 1 it caught my attention how when the media would have coverage of Signal how they (especially channel 9) would refer to the very talented Signal rb as a "former LFO STAR RUNNING BACK...". The thing I have noticed funny is he has never been referred to as just Signal Mountain RB, the local sportscasters feel the need to refer to him as "Former LFO STANDOUT And current Signal Mountain RB". He has been spoke of in this manner since week 1 and every week after, DO YOU THINK THE LOCAL MEDIA GOT THEIR POINT ACROSS? I personally understand the rule for transfer students and sports and was curious if the boy had moved or what for him to be eligible to play. The sports news every friday night referring to him like that made me wonder if they were not pointing a finger or something because I felt like they were definently trying to let it be known that he was a transfer student. If i had not heard them refer to him like that every week I would have never known where the kid came from. Kids are going to go to a school where they can win if they are good at a certain sport and have the chance to go to whatever school. Some parents will do whatever it takes to put their kids in the best opportunity available, That does not mean the school is recruiting them, the winning program is attracting kids not so much the coaches going out and recruiting the kids. Back in the 90's kids were going from as far as Crossville, Jackson, Alabama, Chattanooga and Columbia to play at Riverdale for a ring and exposure, but Rankin did not go looking for them they came looking for him. In saying this it is the coaches responsibility to take care of his team and to make sure all t's are crossed and all i's have a dot!

[rlh]

I didn't expect Signal to appeal the decision in total if that is indeed what they are doing. I thought they were more likely to question the forfeiture of the last two forfeited games based on the fact they might have kept the player out of those games if they had been informed that an investigation was being done.

 

It was vacated wins and not forfeits. A forfeit is entered as a 1-0 loss. However, I agree with you because just some of the vacated wins could put them mathematically back in the play-off picture.

Edited October 11, 2011 by rlh

[PurpleGrad]

Don't blame the TSSAA for any of this mess. The administration at SMMHS is squarely to blame..

 

From the TSSAA Handbook...

Section 7. The principal of each school, in all matters pertaining to the athletic relations of his/her school, is

responsible to this Association. Administrators must realize that they have more responsibilities than the general

public to understand the purpose of high school athletics and the principles behind the TSSAA rules, and they

must maintain that level of understanding and purpose when dealing with the general public and students

 

IF the administration had known and understood the rules, as they are required, they would have known that this was the penalty that would have to be paid by the ineligible athlete...

 

Also from the TSSAA Handbook...

Participation While Ineligible. If a student who is ineligible, under these provisions regarding students

changing schools, competes in a contest while ineligible, then the student upon becoming eligible under these

provisions will nonetheless be ineligible to participate in twice the number of contests in which he/she participated

as an ineligible student or will be ineligible for the remainder of the season, whichever is less.

 

This is why it is imperative for the administration to have a clear understanding of the rules by which they have agreed to abide!

Edited October 11, 2011 by PurpleGrad

[smeagle1]

Don't blame the TSSAA for any of this mess. The administration at SMMHS is squarely to blame..

 

From the TSSAA Handbook...

Section 7. The principal of each school, in all matters pertaining to the athletic relations of his/her school, is responsible to this Association. Administrators must realize that they have more responsibilities than the general public to understand the purpose of high school athletics and the principles behind the TSSAA rules, and they must maintain that level of understanding and purpose when dealing with the general public and students

 

 

Again our principle stands by what was submitted. I would also like to hear what you believe the purpose of high school athletics is. I really don't think it's penalizing someone that didn't do anything wrong.

 

But what do I know? Go ahead let me hear it.

[Yeehaw]

Again our principle stands by what was submitted. I would also like to hear what you believe the purpose of high school athletics is. I really don't think it's penalizing someone that didn't do anything wrong.

 

But what do I know? Go ahead let me hear it.

 

Spoke to one of my lawyer clients today and asked what he would do in SM's position. In his opinion, were he an SM lawyer, would to obfuscate every little detail and fight as hard as he could to deflect parent's anger from SM's administration to TSSAA, to protect his clients from parental lawsuits.

I thought that very interesting and pretty much par for the course - in layman's terms, if you are on fire (in trouble), start a bigger one somewhere else.

FWIW

[rlh]

Spoke to one of my lawyer clients today and asked what he would do in SM's position. In his opinion, were he an SM lawyer, would to obfuscate every little detail and fight as hard as he could to deflect parent's anger from SM's administration to TSSAA, to protect his clients from parental lawsuits.

I thought that very interesting and pretty much par for the course - in layman's terms, if you are on fire (in trouble), start a bigger one somewhere else.

FWIW

 

Is he aware that Brentwood Academy spent 3 to 10 million dollars and in the in the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the TSSAA 9-0 in 2007? Deflecting heat to the TSSAA isn't going to accomplish as much as he may think.

 

However, he is right in that some of the mountain parents may come after some folks.

Edited October 12, 2011 by rlh

[Yeehaw]

Is he aware that Brentwood Academy spent 3 to 10 million dollars and in the in the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the TSSAA 9-0 in 2007? Deflecting heat to the TSSAA isn't going to accomplish as much as he may think.

 

However, he is right in that some of the mountain parents may come after some folks.

Actually he did - said Brentwood has more money than sense - draw your own parallels.

[LewisCoPanthers]

Just throwin this out there...NO ONE, and I do mean NO ONEEEEE CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[binns37388]

Don't blame the TSSAA for any of this mess. The administration at SMMHS is squarely to blame..

 

From the TSSAA Handbook...

Section 7. The principal of each school, in all matters pertaining to the athletic relations of his/her school, is

responsible to this Association. Administrators must realize that they have more responsibilities than the general

public to understand the purpose of high school athletics and the principles behind the TSSAA rules, and they

must maintain that level of understanding and purpose when dealing with the general public and students

 

IF the administration had known and understood the rules, as they are required, they would have known that this was the penalty that would have to be paid by the ineligible athlete...

 

Also from the TSSAA Handbook...

Participation While Ineligible. If a student who is ineligible, under these provisions regarding students

changing schools, competes in a contest while ineligible, then the student upon becoming eligible under these

provisions will nonetheless be ineligible to participate in twice the number of contests in which he/she participated

as an ineligible student or will be ineligible for the remainder of the season, whichever is less.

 

This is why it is imperative for the administration to have a clear understanding of the rules by which they have agreed to abide!

What does that say about congress, when they voted for Obama Care and didn't understand fully what was in the bill?