OlDawg

I kind of like the idea of having a DEC type committee from another classification reviewing interdistrict transfers with a UIL rep included. If the number of requested interdistrict transfers is more than 10 per school year, kick it to a specifically funded UIL panel where coaches and others don’t get overwhelmed. UIL would need a little more funding as I understand there’s somewhere around 15,000+ transfer requests per year. If the requests are within a multi school ISD, split them up & have them be reviewed by another ISD, or the UIL panel. Still require a PAPF for all transfer requests just like the new rules stipulate. Don’t need to go back to the pre-1981 blanket policy. Just me thinking out loud based on my limited knowledge.

Yes. 1981 it changed from the ‘sit a year’, possibly more policy that had been around since the ‘40’s. Not saying I agree or disagree. I can see good & bad for both. Just providing you the facts you kind of asked about. I think money has infected the game more than at any time in the past from varying parties. Well aware of the 60’s & 70’s. LOL

1940’s - 1981 is your proof. No winning lawsuit changed it. (UIL just got tired of fighting over it.) Liberal ideas in the schools changed it. In an effort to be more accommodating, a can of worms was opened wider as was predicted. In my previous post, I linked to four articles that provided the history of this argument. Informative. I dare say the situation has gotten a lot worse since the articles were written in 2015 which is why UIL & partners/stakeholders have decided something needs to change.

[Hidden Content] Old articles (2015), but still apply. Four part series. Just select 1-4 for full story. Good info. It does also say—as I thought I remembered when I played sports in HS in the 70’s—that prior to 1981, automatic sit out a year. Period.

Agree. But, that’s just me.

That’s what I’m saying though. Participation in a UIL governed activity isn’t a right. It’s a privilege. And, they’re not forcing anyone to do—or not do—anything. The student could participate in any number of private leagues/organizations. So, I’d be curious if the courts would actually consider it discrimination. I honestly don’t know. But, it would seem to be a gray area to me. Of course, school vouchers may make a lot of this moot. School transportation is gonna be a nightmare though. I can see a bunch of lawsuits over lack of bussing. Typically, when people get one thing, they’ll want more. Human nature.

I agree with most of the points you’ve made. But, not sure on this one. Extracurricular participation isn’t guaranteed by the State. Only education at a public school. While the UIL has recently been ruled a pseudo government agency & thus protected from lawsuits, it doesn’t mean they—or their regulated activites— are a part of the ‘education of every child’ guarantee. Prior to 1981, wasn’t there a blanket policy? I seem to remember there being one when I was in school in the 70’s.

It appears BMT ISD does have open enrollment according to this registration link. They just set deadlines as any other open enrollment district. [Hidden Content] I can understand students transferring out as BMT ISD is rated 1140 out of 1201 school districts in Texas. Not sure if they’re a PEG school district or not. Would have to check. Definitely seem to be borderline. If they are, the State allows transfers out with basically no questions asked. [Hidden Content]

Any personnel having direct contact with students are required to undergo a background check by TEA. A district doesn’t leave this legal requirement up to a coach. If they do, they’re culpable of a lot more than what we’re discussing here. Again, he was with the program for 2 years. He was sanctioned for 3 years for recruiting (attempting). He said no one else knew. These are facts and admissions. I happen to think he was protecting someone. But, that’s just conjecture on my part. Overall, this episode doesn’t affect me at all. As I said earlier, NS may be a sacrificial lamb to make a point. No way to confirm. But—obviously—this issue runs a lot deeper than just a single incident at one school.

This is really kind of silly or naive of you. You expect people to believe that an administration that approves hires didn’t do a background check thorough enough to know that a coach they were hiring was running an outside recruiting service, that there would be no conflict of interest, and there was no chance of ‘bleed-over’ knowing that recruiting of high school athletes was against the rules. Got it. 😂😂😅 Also, he was with the program for 2 years. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against NS. People that know me can vouch for that fact. But, this whole episode was UIL whitewashing over something they knew they had a problem with for years, and just finding the easiest scapegoat that wouldn’t also put them on the hook for lax enforcement.

One year they had a title. Yes. No dominating after that until Kay. I’m well aware of their history.

NS hasn’t been dominating for 20+ years. Didn’t even win district in 2011 or 2012. In fact, finished 3rd.

I believe NS had a major microscope on their program due to recruiting violations that were caught. Seriously doubt if they’d be doing much right away. They’re the Astros of TXHSFB. An example.

Not every school district with open enrollment uses it as a ‘recruiting tool’. Some use it for the correct reason, which is to allow kids to get to a better, safer education experience. Some schools offer a lot more in the way of advanced placement opportunities, early college classes while still attending high school (with free college tuition included), and more vocational programs. Some of these vocational programs also offer UIL competitions, and are also regulated by the transfer rules. I know kids at La Porte can actually graduate with a HS diploma & an Associates or Certificate of Specialization in a Tech field at the same time & have the college/tech at no charge due to a co-curriculum arrangement. It’s a big draw for some. Just keep this in mind.

[Hidden Content]