TCstinger Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Wow barb, you really are a self-righteous witch. It's one thing to talk about stupid post and posters but to blatantly insinuate this kid is stupid was pathetic. Attacking me is one thing and I really don't care as I'm fair game. But stooping this low is, well it's just low. Hope you feel better. You know Snoball and I have had differences in the past but after today I have to stand united with him in his assessment that you are a hypocrite. PurpleGrad still can't see people attacking the kid? Best post EVER!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
possum Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 His family's residence was in Brainerd when he attended/played at Hixson, Howard, Brainerd, LFO and Signal Mountain. At least his residence has been consistent. The TSSAA has also reportedly looked into reports of coaches who haul kids up the mountain, and various Signal players who have mysteriously taken up residence in apartments on the mountain, that just happen to be owned by....well, why go there. They're in enough trouble already. If that was the case he would have been ineligable to play at Brainerd as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PurpleGrad Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Let me ask some random questions... Not so Hypothetical situation: A kid is a Junior at School A which is in County A. This kid is a decent football and basketball player. The parents of this kid have shopped him around to several schools in the area because they are unhappy with the current coaches (football and basketball) at school A. The kid has a relative that lives in County B. School B, in County B, is relatively new and has excelled in both football and basketball. During basketball season, this kid is invited to "tour" school B with the express purpose of determining if he and school B are a good fit for each other. If all goes well, the relative will file for guardianship, the kid will live with the relative, and the kid will play football and basketball his senior year at school B. While visiting school B, the kid was in conversation with the head football coach as well as the principal and AD concerning a transfer. Ultimately, the kid doesn't transfer because of issues with the guardianship and finishes his high school career with school A. Now the questions... would school B be in violation of TSSAA rules concerning recruiting? what would the penalty be? would he have been eligible play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smeagle1 Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) I did not insinuate anybody was stupid, only that SM wouldn't care as long as they can be made eligible. It's exactly what you did and I will stand by my interpretation. I said, "You certainly prove the sayings "you can't change stupid and you can't fix stupid" to be correct." Then you said, "But if you can play competitive sports at a championship level, we at SMMHS wll take a shot at it..." We have only been talking about one player. Hence the insinuation. Heck PurpleGrad had a more compelling interpretation of what you said than you do. All comes down to interpretation. After all isn't interpretation why we have an appeal in to the TSSAA? You said what you said and two people had different takes on it than what you meant. Funny how that works!!! Edited October 14, 2011 by smeagle1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscience Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Have not heard from Waterboy in a while, also I dont agree with using the young mans name on here, he is still a child and shouldnt be put through the accusation or headlined in the paper. Coach Price, the AD, and the Principle should be the only ones talking to the paper. I say the young man in question should not be talked about, but instead the 3 mentioned above are fair game. They are the ones responsible for this situation, and should be the ones to step up and defend this player. The coaches job is to make these young players into trustworthy men and teach them good morale values through sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indian Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 If that was the case he would have been ineligable to play at Brainerd as well. If true you could make the case lack of a bona fide change of address would make him ineligible for sports, regardless of the local school district's hardship ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indian Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Let me ask some random questions... Not so Hypothetical situation: A kid is a Junior at School A which is in County A. This kid is a decent football and basketball player. The parents of this kid have shopped him around to several schools in the area because they are unhappy with the current coaches (football and basketball) at school A. The kid has a relative that lives in County B. School B, in County B, is relatively new and has excelled in both football and basketball. During basketball season, this kid is invited to "tour" school B with the express purpose of determining if he and school B are a good fit for each other. If all goes well, the relative will file for guardianship, the kid will live with the relative, and the kid will play football and basketball his senior year at school B. While visiting school B, the kid was in conversation with the head football coach as well as the principal and AD concerning a transfer. Ultimately, the kid doesn't transfer because of issues with the guardianship and finishes his high school career with school A. Now the questions... would school B be in violation of TSSAA rules concerning recruiting? what would the penalty be? would he have been eligible play? B would have been recruiting due to inviting. If he didn't enroll, student still would be eligible at A. That's my view of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barb Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) If that was the case he would have been ineligable to play at Brainerd as well. Having read that someone else had guardianship of this boy when he was in Georgia, does this create another eligibility problem? Edited October 14, 2011 by barb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
binns37388 Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Even with the score far out of reach, the coach continued to pound away at concealed foes. With his team leading 69-35, the Eagles went for it on fourth down. With every snap, Phillips was told to hurry to the line of scrimmage. This was the time to escape from the outside world. Not a second was to be wasted http://www.nooga.com/20120_signal-unleashes-frustration-on-ccs/ If you think they tried to run up the score on Chatt Christian is peanuts to what they'll try to do at Sequatchie Co in 2 weeks. Many of their supporters want to blame Sequatchie Co for the mess they're in anyway. That's gonna be a fun game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PurpleGrad Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 Having read that someone else had guardianship of this boy when he was in Georgia, does this create another eligibility problem? Don't know if LFO won the one game that he participated in or not.. but, if they did, shouldn't they have to vacate that win since his permanent residence at the time was in another state? Wow.. think how ugly this can get if GHSA gets dragged into it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingman10 Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 With Cp as their head coach, it is no surprise that SM is in this situation. Price knows what goes on in the football program Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
likearock Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 If you think they tried to run up the score on Chatt Christian is peanuts to what they'll try to do at Sequatchie Co in 2 weeks. Many of their supporters want to blame Sequatchie Co for the mess they're in anyway. That's gonna be a fun game. And it will be their last of 2011! Go out with a blast and No class Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.