Signal Mountain to appeal

[Yeehaw]

No on Signal Mountain :thumb:Not in Jasper,...To be a manger in McDonald's you must have all your teeth,sorry no crack-heads

 

Maybe in Jasper, they can't afford the volume of Vicodin, Xanax, and Adderal prescriptions like SM can.

Maybe that's it.... too 'legally' stoned at work... It's such a great day... Facebook ROCKS today... paperwork? No, Facebook! I'll do the other stuff later... and later never comes.

Best excuse they could have... It wasn't my fault! I was wasted under my doctors supervision..

.

[Chattcity]

Guys I was watching FOX 61 tonight "The Fifth Quarter" it came on at 10:30. They were talking about the SM situation and had an interview with Childress. The entire interview can be viewed (listened too) on FOX 61 website. Now from what I got out of it you guys are totally on the wrong issue. Childress said rumors had pointed TSSAA at SM because of a assistant coach from LFO had recently took a job at SM and had RECRUITED (he actually said) the kid in question. The part of the interview I heard, mentioned absolutely nothing about what you guys are talking about, TSSAA main focus seemed to be on the recruitment of this kid by an ex-LFO assistant. With everything you guys are argueing answer me one question- If the kid played all year at LFO I would not think it would matter because that is not a TSSAA school and they would have no jurisdiction over the athletes of a Georgia school and as that goes this would have been the first athletic record he would have had with SM in the state of Tennessee. RIGHT OR WRONG Not sure the that SM wants to stir much more up because it sounded like TSSAA gave a minor reason but has much more behind it not to mention he was asked about TSSAA looking into more than this one case both present and past.

 

 

I'd been hearing rumors about the hiring of a an assistant coach from LFO but I hadn't heard that it had anything to do with this situation. The TSSAA letter didn't mention the hiring of the assistant coach, did it?

[lancer10]

Maybe in Jasper, they can't afford the volume of Vicodin, Xanax, and Adderal prescriptions like SM can.

Maybe that's it.... too 'legally' stoned at work... It's such a great day... Facebook ROCKS today... paperwork? No, Facebook! I'll do the other stuff later... and later never comes.

Best excuse they could have... It wasn't my fault! I was wasted under my doctors supervision..

.

My bad I forgot about Polk County being the "CRACK-HEAD" capital of the south thats put yall right there with Jasper

Edited October 13, 2011 by lancer10

[Yeehaw]

My bad I forgot about Polk County being the "CRACK-HEAD" capital of the south thats put yall right there with Jasper

You're thinking of McMinn County - we're better known for banjos and disappearances.

 

Wanna go camping?

[MountainTroll]

Guys I was watching FOX 61 tonight "The Fifth Quarter" it came on at 10:30. They were talking about the SM situation and had an interview with Childress. The entire interview can be viewed (listened too) on FOX 61 website. Now from what I got out of it you guys are totally on the wrong issue. Childress said rumors had pointed TSSAA at SM because of a assistant coach from LFO had recently took a job at SM and had RECRUITED (he actually said) the kid in question. The part of the interview I heard, mentioned absolutely nothing about what you guys are talking about, TSSAA main focus seemed to be on the recruitment of this kid by an ex-LFO assistant. With everything you guys are argueing answer me one question- If the kid played all year at LFO I would not think it would matter because that is not a TSSAA school and they would have no jurisdiction over the athletes of a Georgia school and as that goes this would have been the first athletic record he would have had with SM in the state of Tennessee. RIGHT OR WRONG Not sure the that SM wants to stir much more up because it sounded like TSSAA gave a minor reason but has much more behind it not to mention he was asked about TSSAA looking into more than this one case both present and past.

 

In reference to your question. It does not matter where a student's prior athletic record was established. His athletic record in Georgia still makes him ineligible, unless there is a bonafide change of residence, which there apparantly was. If there is a bonafide change of residence, then there are stipulations placed upon that change. According to the T$$AA, at the conclusion of their investigation, the thing that makes him ineligible is the fact that his new residence is not in the Signal Mountain school "zone". It still amazes me that T$$AA uses the terms "zone" and "territory" interchangeably, when they clearly are not according to their by-laws.

 

This is the first I have heard anybody say T$$AA was investigating a 'recruiting' violation. They obviously concluded there was none, or you can bet they would have taken disciplinary action and smoked our rump roast.

 

I believe the eligibility rules of the T$$AA, as they have evolved over time, are trying to stop "recruiting" and parents 'shopping' their child/athlete around. I personally believe that is a noble goal. The problem is that their rules and definition of territory have produced a lot of confusion.

 

If nothing else comes of all of this, I hope the T$$AA and its member schools can have a thorough and rational review of their by-laws and can come up with a process that effectively accomplishes their mission without running counter-current to existing state and federal guidelines. I plan on trying to discuss some of these issues on the plus boards once the current Signal Mountain appeal is resolved. I hope those of you, who are seriously concerned about this issue, will join that discussion. We'll keep the flaming and joking over here on the open forum.

[MountainTroll]

You're thinking of McMinn County - we're better known for banjos and disappearances.

 

Wanna go camping?

 

Yeehaw lookin for a date. I'm gonna tell yer wife.

[PurpleGrad]

Guys I was watching FOX 61 tonight "The Fifth Quarter" it came on at 10:30. They were talking about the SM situation and had an interview with Childress. The entire interview can be viewed (listened too) on FOX 61 website. Now from what I got out of it you guys are totally on the wrong issue. Childress said rumors had pointed TSSAA at SM because of a assistant coach from LFO had recently took a job at SM and had RECRUITED (he actually said) the kid in question. The part of the interview I heard, mentioned absolutely nothing about what you guys are talking about, TSSAA main focus seemed to be on the recruitment of this kid by an ex-LFO assistant. With everything you guys are argueing answer me one question- If the kid played all year at LFO I would not think it would matter because that is not a TSSAA school and they would have no jurisdiction over the athletes of a Georgia school and as that goes this would have been the first athletic record he would have had with SM in the state of Tennessee. RIGHT OR WRONG Not sure the that SM wants to stir much more up because it sounded like TSSAA gave a minor reason but has much more behind it not to mention he was asked about TSSAA looking into more than this one case both present and past.

Athletic Record – A student has an “athletic record†if the student has played in an interscholastic contest at the varsity, junior varsity, ninth grade, or any other level, on behalf a TSSAA member school or a school that is a member of a state athletic association holding membership in the National Federation.

 

Since LFO is a member of GHSA and the GHSA is a member of the National Federation, his participation at LFO counts as having an Athletic Record.

Edited October 13, 2011 by PurpleGrad

[PurpleGrad]

In reference to your question. It does not matter where a student's prior athletic record was established. His athletic record in Georgia still makes him ineligible, unless there is a bonafide change of residence, which there apparantly was. If there is a bonafide change of residence, then there are stipulations placed upon that change. According to the T$$AA, at the conclusion of their investigation, the thing that makes him ineligible is the fact that his new residence is not in the Signal Mountain school "zone". It still amazes me that T$$AA uses the terms "zone" and "territory" interchangeably, when they clearly are not according to their by-laws.

 

This is the first I have heard anybody say T$$AA was investigating a 'recruiting' violation. They obviously concluded there was none, or you can bet they would have taken disciplinary action and smoked our rump roast.

 

I believe the eligibility rules of the T$$AA, as they have evolved over time, are trying to stop "recruiting" and parents 'shopping' their child/athlete around. I personally believe that is a noble goal. The problem is that their rules and definition of territory have produced a lot of confusion.

 

If nothing else comes of all of this, I hope the T$$AA and its member schools can have a thorough and rational review of their by-laws and can come up with a process that effectively accomplishes their mission without running counter-current to existing state and federal guidelines. I plan on trying to discuss some of these issues on the plus boards once the current Signal Mountain appeal is resolved. I hope those of you, who are seriously concerned about this issue, will join that discussion. We'll keep the flaming and joking over here on the open forum.

I agree with you Troll. The letter never mentioned the "R" word and we all know that if they had any evidence to support that claim, they would have made sure that it was in the forefront of this issue. Eligibility due to current residence being out of SM zone and an incorrectly checked box on the online eligibility form is what got SM into this mess.

 

One thing that did catch my attention when I re-read the letter yesterday was the mention that the mom had maintained her residence in Chattanooga while the son was attending and playing for LFO. If the residence was "maintained" for that period of time, it would be impossible to have a bonafide change of residence transferring back from LFO. How does this weigh into the equation? or does it?

[MountainTroll]

I agree with you Troll. The letter never mentioned the "R" word and we all know that if they had any evidence to support that claim, they would have made sure that it was in the forefront of this issue. Eligibility due to current residence being out of SM zone and an incorrectly checked box on the online eligibility form is what got SM into this mess.

 

One thing that did catch my attention when I re-read the letter yesterday was the mention that the mom had maintained her residence in Chattanooga while the son was attending and playing for LFO. If the residence was "maintained" for that period of time, it would be impossible to have a bonafide change of residence transferring back from LFO. How does this weigh into the equation? or does it?

 

 

IDK. Sounds like there was some question about that; but I assume since it wasn't mentioned in their final decision, they concluded there wasn't a problem.

[MountainTroll]

Interesting how Bernie is crawfishin on the issue of when the investigation was actually begun, since they clearly did not notify Signal and give us an opportunity to sit the kid. I think they know they have a problem with that; because, their handling of this investigation deviated from their established precedent, and that deviation had such a profound effect on whether Signal could still get in the playoffs.

 

Sounds like chicken litter to me. They knew Sept. 22, they were going to investigate and should have told our AD.

 

Furthermore, one would hope that an administrator or AD, who had concerns of this severity, would notify their counterpart and give them an opportunity to internally investigate and self report if they concurred. Considering who was involved and what their alterior motive was, I'm not suprised. Little flecks of chicken litter abound.

Edited October 13, 2011 by MountainTroll

[Chattcity]

Interesting how Bernie is crawfishin on the issue of when the investigation was actually begun, since they clearly did not notify Signal and give us an opportunity to sit the kid. I think they know they have a problem with that; because, their handling of this investigation deviated from their established precedent, and that deviation had such a profound effect on whether Signal could still get in the playoffs.

 

Sounds like chicken litter to me. They knew Sept. 22, they were going to investigate and should have told our AD.

 

Furthermore, one would hope that an administrator or AD, who had concerns of this severity, would notify their counterpart and give them an opportunity to internally investigate and self report if they concurred. Considering who was involved and what their alterior motive was, I'm not suprised. Little flecks of chicken litter abound.

Any confirmation as to who was involved; at one time, folks seemed to be pointing the finger at Notre Dame, then at SQ--does anyone know or is it still speculaton?

[PurpleGrad]

Interesting how Bernie is crawfishin on the issue of when the investigation was actually begun, since they clearly did not notify Signal and give us an opportunity to sit the kid. I think they know they have a problem with that; because, their handling of this investigation deviated from their established precedent, and that deviation had such a profound effect on whether Signal could still get in the playoffs.

 

Sounds like chicken litter to me. They knew Sept. 22, they were going to investigate and should have told our AD.

Do you really think that they decided on the 22nd that they were going to investigate? They are meeting in Chattanooga, someone gives them some information and they immediately decide they are investigating???? I don't buy it. Gillespie said that they receive 100's of complaints and accusations each year. Do you really want it to be as simple as calling TSSAA on Thursday to make an accusation about a stud player that you are opposing the next night and the TSSAA calling your opponent to tell them that there is an investigation and the stud should sit? I don't.

 

I think that they may have known early the following week that they had enough information to warrant an investigation and they should have notified SMMHS at that point. I don't understand why it took two weeks, even with the Golf State Tourney and West Tn admin meetings..