Sequatchie Co. vs. Signal Mnt. (Oct.28)

[realmenwearred]

Winners and losers: obviously Signal is a loser as a result of this scandal/fiasco. Principal comes out of it looking like a snoozing caretaker, the AD like a powerless bystander, Coach Price like a scheming madman, and "mentor-teacher-coach" Shane Roberson like a traveling sideshow.

 

Some people think Tim McClendon and his mother look like angels for seeking a good education, but the evidence of inconsistency and "leaving LFO to get a good education" are not credible. Why would you leave a fine North Ga School with a good reputation "to get a better education" and then say "the tests at LFO were too hard, so we needed to get him into Signal." Wow.

 

Signal parents & boosters also look bad for their hollow "Blind Side" claims that they're only interested in helping a poor kid from the wrong side of the tracks. So much so, they bent every rule and used every bit of central office persuasion and legal firepower to do it. Yet they've been unable to come up with the name of one non-athletic, non-NCLB, out-of-zone "hardship" student they have pulled the same strings for. This was only about football, both to the student, who left an 0-10 football team for a state champ in the middle of summer, and to the coaches/administrators/boosters. Thank you TSSAA for stopping this crap before it got out of hand any further (and no doubt at Signal it would, if it hasn't already in another sport or two).

 

As for the winners: first and foremost, schools that follow the rules. And yes, there are some hard-nosed principals and coaches who actually take this stuff seriously. And also, two schools in particular: Lakeview Ft. Oglethorpe, which has stood by, and watched, in a classy manner, as McClendon and Signal have used LFO as a scapegoat, implying that it's unsafe and provides a poor learning environment. That's BS and everyone knows it. Also Cleveland High, one of the great untold stories in this case. Cleveland's coaches and players spent a great deal of time, money and energy between McClendon's 10th and 11th grade years, taking him to football events, feeding him, practicing him, you name it. He had agreed to attend Cleveland (like his brother, who's there now). The notorious "mentor" then swept him away to LFO, much to the surprise of Cleveland, and the rest is history. Cleveland hasn't said a word, and I admire them for that. But it does serve as another example of the incredible "back-to-school shopping" this family has done, with the "help" of the so-called mentor. The result speaks for itself.

 

As someone else pointed out, Tim's a kid, probably a good kid, who's been victimized by the awful advice of many adults in his life.

 

As someone else pointed out, every team has a player that "may" or "may not" be living where he is listed as living.

 

BOTTOM LINE WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE GUILTY. MAYBE SOMEONE WILL ASK ABOUT OTHERS IN THE AREA:ph34r:

 

Anyone know how to make a formal complaint to the TSSAA? I know SOMEONE one here does!!!!!!

[rlh]

As someone else pointed out, every team has a player that "may" or "may not" be living where he is listed as living.

 

BOTTOM LINE WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE GUILTY. MAYBE SOMEONE WILL ASK ABOUT OTHERS IN THE AREA:ph34r:

 

Anyone know how to make a formal complaint to the TSSAA? I know SOMEONE one here does!!!!!!

 

And I would bet that 99% fall in the MAY NOT category. You guys keep it up and I am sure you can keep that 0-1 lawyer of yours busy with libel and slander suites.

If there are others, they probably aren't doing well enough to draw attention. The primary reason for rules is to keep to minimize Coaches and programs that try to get to the top by hook or by crook. Others in the area have gotten caught for breaking the rules in the past. Example: Tennessee Temple. Call up their principal and AD and ask them. Oh wait, they went so far down the rabbit hole in over all deception not only in athletics but other areas as well that they no longer exist.

 

The point I am getting here is that when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, claiming that there are cookie monsters on the loose as a defense doesn't work well.

Edited October 23, 2011 by rlh

[rlh]

As I understand it. Mostly from reading the articles and discussions with others.

 

Because he had an "Athletic Record" at LFO, he had to move into Signal's "Territory" or sit a year from his "Last Participation Date".

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.

 

Last Participation Date

– the date of the last

interscholastic athletic contest

in which the student participated.

 

Childress initially ruled that he was ineligible at the beginning of the season because his residence was not in Signal's "Territory". He determined that there had in fact been a "Bonafide Change of Residence". The change just didn't satisfy the "Territory" rule. After hearing all of the story, the Board of Control confirmed that there was in fact a "Bonafide Change of Residence". (Contrary to what some posters have alleged on these boards. There are a number of issues surrounding his mother, her job status, and their residence in Chattanooga which were discussed in the initial investigation and in the hearing that lead Childress and the Board to this conclusion.)

 

His "Last Participation Date" would have been the LFO game in which he was injured in early September 2010. They believe he would have therefore been eligible after Signal's third game.

 

Article II

Section 11. 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.

Childress and the Board therefore believe that he was ineligible for nine games (the first three and an additional six). He played in seven, and thus the six vacated wins. They believe that he is now eligible for the tenth game, which is Sequatchie.

 

The issue that Childress and Signal are now trying to sort out relates to:

 

Article II

Section 14. Practice Rules.

Only students who are enrolled and in regular attendance at a school may participate in practice.

 

A student who engages in three or more days of practice with a school in which the student is enrolled shall be ineligible in that sport for that season if the student enrolls in another school without a corresponding change in the residence of the student's parents.

 

A student who engages in three or more days of off-season practice with a school in which the student is enrolled shall be ineligible in that sport the following season if the student enrolls in another school without a corresponding change in the residence of the student's parents.

It is believed that he only participated in two days of spring practice. If it was three or more days, he is ineligible the remainder of the season. If two days, he is eligible for the Sequatchie game.

 

I know, clear as mud; but that is where they are. Tim and his teamates apparantly want him to be able to play in what is the last game of many of them's high school football career. T$$AA wants to make certain that if he is in fact eligible for that game (according to their By-Laws); that he and his team have an opportunity to make that decision.

 

I got mixed feelings about him playing, given all of the vitriol that has spewed forth from the multiple orifices of some posters and the resultant hype surrounding this game, but I will leave that decision to the involved parties.

 

Suspect, either way, there will be more than one satellite truck and lots of camcorders in Dunlap Friday night.

 

 

You are correct except you forget one little detail. He participated in spring practice games and Ringold and another coach reported that to Childress. I believe scrimmage games count as much as 2 practices.

[rlh]

They would never play the kid if he has been ruled ineligible by TSSAA. I know that Signal Mountain has asked itself this question. Who is liable if #3 does play against Sequatchie County and gets hurt? If he is ineligible would he still be covered under the school's insurance, TSSAA catastrophic insurance or his own insurance policy?

 

#3 has to sit out one calendar year from his last participation in practice or game from LFO or one calendar year from the last game LFO played last year?

 

Even if he is now eligible, he still would have to sit out 2x the 6 vacated wins. Furthermore, I suspect that the head official would drop a flag and enter a 1-0 loss in SM's column from the get go and eject the coach from the game. Then various bad things from the office in Hermitage would hit.

[pigskin00]

I heard a couple of our boys killed a child and raped a goat at Polk too. You guys are so full of crap!!

I wouldn't put it past em....

[PurpleGrad]

Even if he is now eligible, he still would have to sit out 2x the 6 vacated wins. Furthermore, I suspect that the head official would drop a flag and enter a 1-0 loss in SM's column from the get go and eject the coach from the game. Then various bad things from the office in Hermitage would hit.

One minor correction... he has to sit out 2X the number of contests that he illegally participated in.. if he played in the loss to Blackman plus the 6 vacated wins, he now has 12 games remaing that he must sit out. I don't think that if I were SMMHS I would take a chance of having to go back to "meet" with the TSSAA over this matter.. It could get very ugly and very costly..

[MountainTroll]

Even if he is now eligible, he still would have to sit out 2x the 6 vacated wins. Furthermore, I suspect that the head official would drop a flag and enter a 1-0 loss in SM's column from the get go and eject the coach from the game. Then various bad things from the office in Hermitage would hit.

 

 

One minor correction... he has to sit out 2X the number of contests that he illegally participated in.. if he played in the loss to Blackman plus the 6 vacated wins, he now has 12 games remaing that he must sit out. I don't think that if I were SMMHS I would take a chance of having to go back to "meet" with the TSSAA over this matter.. It could get very ugly and very costly..

 

Hey, I'm just reporting what I have heard. Apparantly, Childress and the Board are the ones who brought this up. They felt that the spring practices and scrimmage did not make him ineligible for the entire season under Article II, Section 14, and that his "Last Participation Date" was the Sept 2010 game in which he was injured. They (Childress and the Board) are the ones who said he might be eligible for game 10 based upon Article II, Section 11. They have said that they are looking into it and will let us know.

Edited October 23, 2011 by MountainTroll

[ROCKYTOP3]

You are correct except you forget one little detail. He participated in spring practice games and Ringold and another coach reported that to Childress. I believe scrimmage games count as much as 2 practices.

 

 

If Ringold was involved that is funny. They have recruited MY KID. What a joke some of this is amazing how coaches point fingers, but given the same opportunity they would jump at a chance to get a difference maker on their team.

[rlh]

Hey, I'm just reporting what I have heard. Apparantly, Childress and the Board are the ones who brought this up. They felt that the spring practices and scrimmage did not make him ineligible for the entire season under Article II, Section 14, and that his "Last Participation Date" was the Sept 2010 game in which he was injured. They (Childress and the Board) are the ones who said he might be eligible for game 10 based upon Article II, Section 11. They have said that they are looking into it and will let us know.

 

Even so, they will have to wave the rule that says an ineligible player has to sit out 2x number of games he participated in illegally.

[rlh]

If Ringold was involved that is funny. They have recruited MY KID. What a joke some of this is amazing how coaches point fingers, but given the same opportunity they would jump at a chance to get a difference maker on their team.

 

There were 2 Georgia coaches mentioned by Childress in the original statement he made to TFP. Maybe SM needs to play Ringold and hang 100 on them.

[barb]

Even so, they will have to wave the rule that says an ineligible player has to sit out 2x number of games he participated in illegally.

and they may very well waive it if they feel it is in the player's best interest...which in this case, it is.

[smeagle1]

He was ruled ineligible because he lives in Brainerd's territory not because he played at LFO last year. He has never lived in Signal's territory, according to the TSSAA. He could have theoretically played for Brainerd (or Ooltewah) in game 1, because it was a bona fide change in residence (allegedly, assuming he really lived in LFO's district in the first place).

 

I don't really care. Just find it fascinating how long this story with simple facts keeps going. A kid was given bad advice to play for a school that he wasn't ever eligible to play for.

 

Remember the TSSAA makes their rules and interprets their rules.

 

Here is my take on what they are now saying.

 

In this section it says twelve months from last participation date.

 

Section 13. Ineligible Transfer Students.

The following transfer students are ineligible for a period of twelve months from the student's last participation date (these provisions do not apply to students who have no athletic record for the previous or current school year):

 

This is under section 13 and what they hung us on.

 

b. A student who transfers as a result of a change of residence is ineligible unless (1) the old residence is outside the territory of the new school, and (2) the new residence is both outside the territory of the old school and inside the territory of the new school;

 

They have clearly said he didn't live in our territory but that only matters for twelve months from his past participation date.

 

Also just want to put this out there for good measure.

 

Section 12. Eligible Transfer Students.

Except as otherwise provided in Section 13 below (which I posted above), the following transfer students are eligible:

a. The student has no athletic record in the previous twelve months in any sport sponsored by TSSAA;

b. There has been a bona fide change of residence by the student's parents or guardian. If such a change of residence occurs between school years, the student must transfer at the beginning of the school year to be eligible. If the change of residence occurs during the school year, the student may transfer without loss of eligibility (1) at the time his/her parents change residence; (2) at the end of the next report card period; (3) at the close of the semester or term; or (4) at the close of the school year;

c. The student changes schools as a direct result of re-zoning or reassignment of students by the local school system;

 

So he had a bona fide move then he was reassigned to SM, which by section 12c, makes him eligible. Except you have section 13b. Question is why do you have section 12c if 13b overrides it? IMO a re-zone redefines the territory because of the bus routs but a reassignment is just that a reassignment and it wouldn't redraw the bus routes. Important to note the TSSAA sees a difference between a re-zone and a reassignment in so much that they put it in their handbook. One last question. If he had lived in Brainerd and played there last year and applied for a hardship and was reassigned to SM as a result, would he be eligible? The answer is no because Section 13a says you must have a bona fide change of address. So again what is section 12c for? I can't see where it would ever apply if section 13 overrides section 12. With that said we had a bunch of ineligible players our first year as they were re-zoned here and the kids didn't have a bona fide change of address. Oh, I guess that goes for East Hamilton as well. I think it even goes for Ooltewah with all their new Brainerd NCLB kids they got this year.

 

I hope this helps clear things up a little more.