Although he was extremely reluctant to admit it publicly, the last two weeks have been a huge emotional drain on Ed Stinson. The newly appointed Hoboken High School principal and long-time head football coach faced his stiffest challenge to date, as an administrator first and a football coach second.
The New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association called a special meeting of its eligibility appeals committee last Tuesday to determine the eligibility of sophomore Ira Guilford, who transferred to Hoboken from St. Peter’s Prep.
In question was the amount of credits that Guilford carried from his freshman year at St. Peter’s and whether he had the sufficient 27.5 credits mandated by the state to matriculate into his sophomore year as an eligible athlete.
If Guilford were ruled ineligible by the NJSIAA, then Hoboken would have been forced to forfeit the three games that the sophomore had played in. In turn, that would have spelled the end of Hoboken’s impressive 29-game winning streak and could possibly have eliminated the Red Wings from contention for a third straight state championship bid.
Stinson was steadfast that all the proper procedures had been met and that Guilford was eligible in the eyes of the district.
“We did all the things we needed to do,” Stinson said. “We were adhering to the rules set forth by the Hoboken Board of Education and the NJSIAA. When we made the determination that he was eligible to play, we had two guidance counselors review it even further and they even contacted the state to clarify it in August. On the strength of the information we had, we knew that this young man was eligible.”
However, the NJSIAA wanted to make sure and called the special hearing, complete with sworn testimony from witnesses from Hudson Catholic, which had filed the complaint, St. Peter’s Prep and Hoboken.
Needless to say, Stinson’s reputation as a principal – a position he had held for only two months – was already at stake. And the team’s standing for the season, as well as the possession of the longest current winning streak in the state, hung in the balance.
After hearing all the testimony, the NJSIAA called Stinson on Wednesday morning to give him the news that the eligibility appeals committee ruled that Guilford was indeed eligible. The threat of possible
forfeitures was removed and the Red Wings could all get on with the business at hand, which is winning football games. After all, Hoboken has merely won 67 of the last 68 games it has played over the last seven seasons.
“We’re very pleased with the decision and we’re very relieved that it’s over,” Stinson said. “We were walking on egg shells for two weeks. I’m not claiming ignorance, but it was not easy for us. We had to press on. I had to run a football team and had to handle other school business. I tried to take the high road. But there was a lot at stake.”
There were a lot of reasons why the NJSIAA ruled in Hoboken’s favor. First, Stinson’s reputation with the state didn’t hurt the situation. Hoboken had never been subjected to any eligibility hearings in the past and never suffered any penalties or sanctions from the state association for any wrongdoings.
“I heard some complimentary statements that were made about our football program, that were either made directly or indirectly to me,” Stinson said. “We weren’t going in there with any anonymity. And they were respectful statements.”
Jim Loper, the associate director of the NJSIAA, said that the ruling was made “based on the testimony of Hoboken and St. Peter’s Prep, that the student was eligible and remains to be eligible.”
The testimony of St. Peter’s Prep principal Jack Raslowsky also went a long way in influencing the members of the committee.
First, a letter was introduced as evidence, written by Raslowsky to the student’s father, stating that if Guilford was intended to transfer to a school that had the grade of 65 as a passing grade, then St. Peter’s would be willing to average his grades accordingly.
It is a policy that St. Peter’s had done in the past for students who intend to maintain their athletic standing, but were not academically able to remain at St. Peter’s.
“It was something that St. Peter’s did for a lot of other kids in the past,” Stinson said. “Not just Ira. It’s something that the school’s administration does when a student leaves.”
Raslowsky told the nine-member committee that he didn’t think there was anything wrong with the transfer, that Guilford had credit and deserved credit for his year at St. Peter’s.
“On the strength of the letter and our policy, we felt that there was nothing wrong as well,” Stinson said. “It was a routine transfer. We applied the policy that our Board of Education has done with any transfer. It’s something that our board customarily does.”
Obviously, the members of the NJSIAA’s eligibility appeals committee agreed, because they ruled in favor of Hoboken.
Stinson said there was never a formal discussion about the process with his team, but they had to know. They endured an emotional 20-14 overtime victory against Emerson last weekend to increase the winning streak to 29 straight games.
“We didn’t have the inclination to discuss it with the players,” Stinson said. “But I would be less than truthful if I said we weren’t worried. Our fate was being determined by someone else. It all depended on who was the ultimate authority. Even though we felt that we did nothing wrong, you always have trepidation.” When Stinson went to the practice field Wednesday afternoon, he felt like a huge burden was lifted off his shoulders, a feeling of vindication.
“I think we all had a little more bounce to our step,” Stinson said. “We felt clearheaded. We can move on now and hopefully have an upbeat end to the week [with a game against Passaic County Tech]. It is a relief.”
Stinson credited the work of the school’s guidance counselors, namely Frank Pachello and John Sivo, who were also called to give testimony at the hearing.
“This ruling is a credit to the professional management of our guidance department,” Stinson said. “Those are two guys with more than 30 years experience each. This was not a frivolous presentation. We presented our case and our reputation has been preserved. There was an inference that we did something wrong and obviously, that was not the case.”