TxHoops

And by the way (and as you know), I am NOT a big fan of how the UIL handles these cases the vast majority of the time. I fall under the blackmamba "let them play," school of thought. I certainly have been vocal in at least a couple of scenarios where kids were ruled ineligible or whose eligibility was being challenged when the moves were made for non-athletic reasons in my opinion. I would be more upset in this situation if the Carpenter kid was ruled ineligible because I do know first hand the reasons in his situation and it had ZERO to do with basketball. My input is merely informational here. I don't have enough specific information on either of the other two to say with any certainty whether any decisions made by UIL on either or both brothers was warranted.

To me, your logic fails where you imply that one brother moving for athletic purposes should be automatically imputed to the other brother. If you separate them and deal with them individually, the question is whether each child was moved for their OWN athletic purposes.

I thought I explained it above in two separate posts but I probably did a poor job of it. To put it simply, if the move is deemed to have been solely motivated by one child's athletic prospects and the other child is just a tag along for convenience, then the move is not made for child 2's athletic purposes. Merely being related does not mean you necessarily even considered HIS athletic prospects when making that decision. However, I am merely speculating in this particular case. As I say, I DO know of another case where the UIL made a similar ruling based on the scenario I laid out.

By the way, this is not unprecedented with the UIL. Again, I don't know the specifics here, but I do know of a similar situation at a FBISD school a few years ago. One brother was cleared, the other wasn't. The one that wasn't cleared is now playing football in the Big 12 and his brother is playing DIII basketball.

Incorrect.

Very incorrect. The opposite is true. Every child's case is supposed to be taken on an individual basis. If they didn't do that with your boys, they did not follow proper protocol.

I would use "naíve" instead of "petty" if you think one of the kid's athletics was a factor in deciding to move. Has nothing to do with ability, it is all about intent. I am hesitant to lump kids together, even if they are in the same household. That is, in general, a dangerous and short-sighted path. As for your second paragraph, couldn't agree more.

I'm with you. I like the electoral college because I do believe (and mathematically I'm supported) it does give the little state "more" of a voice than a straight up popular vote.

Follow me logically, for one to make a move for athletic purposes, that person has to have the move made on his behalf. To say it another way, IF (and I'm not suggesting this is the case and do not know this is the case) a family chooses to move their kid to another school due to basketball, that would be against the rules. But what IF because of that move, they send their other kid so that they merely will be at the same school. Should the two kids not have their cases examined individually by the UIL? Or are you suggesting siblings should automatically be lumped together? Again, I'm not suggesting I know why any particular rulings were made. But I certainly can logically understand how such a decision can be arrived at without being "petty."

I can't be expected to read every line of every one of your blathering posts! I kid, I kid!

As you know, we simply don't have runoffs for President. Probably good we don't considering the history of runoffs, although it could be different in a race for the highest office. But still would be essentially two elections and I prefer it as we have it. As far as completely different goes, to me they are simply two separate concepts. Apples and oranges. You can certainly make the "mandate" or "no mandate" argument but also is certainly different from winning while receiving less votes than your competitor.

I actually hope he does. I'm not a fan of chaos and would prefer the popular vote and electoral college to be aligned.

It could if a decision was made that one brother moved for athletic purposes and the other didn't. I can envision scenarios where that might be the case, including this one.

Completely different than receiving less votes than another candidate. I'm a believer in our system so don't take this as a criticism of the electoral college. But to try to equate someone not receiving 50% or more of the votes with someone who lost the popular vote. However, the latter HAS happened 5 times, the most recent and only modern examples being Trump-Clinton and Bush-Gore.

I can't speak for his family but I don't think many who understand the process are surprised with the ruling on Parquet. Most expected him to be on JV this year. I applaud the decision on Carpenter though. That move had zero to do with basketball.

My mistake. You are too right. I thought I remembered the term being bantered re: Reagan's initial run. But definitely coined during the Nixon era.

Well, I know many of you are happy, many guardedly optimistic, and some just relieved. Whatever the case, for those voting Trump, congrats. Most expected a historic election and we got one. I don't think the prognosticators have ever gotten it so wrong. BSWildcats and I enjoyed watching some basketball last night and saw some early returns. We both spoke about how Trump might have a chance if there were a lot of people out there who were voting for him but not admitting to it. The old Reagan "silent majority." I will say that while I was by no means a Trump supporter, I am now truly pulling for him. No matter who our President is, he represents us all and we should all hope for the best. And while I was quite surprised last night, I hope I am pleasantly surprised during his term in office.

Sam Richard is a player. They have another junior by the name of Aaron (Cole) Thompson who is apparently a cousin of Angel Bullock. He can light it up. Another kid who is the nephew of JoJo from last year's team can also shoot it and is pretty athletic. And Coach Foster's son is a freshman that is already one of their better players. He's going to be a really good one for the Wildcats. They're not the same team they were last year but I think they will be plenty good. Exceptionally coached as always.

Kentucky beat Mississippi St....

FIFY

Meh, I don't bet period. Well, except for a friendly wager every now and then... 20 seems crazy to me too. Must mean aggy going to roll them.

No doubt in my mind. That's what I tried to explain to some folks. As EIGHTH GRADERS, they would have been on most varsities in this area and been the best players on several teams. Not like it would have been a stretch either - heck you know better than anyone Devon has been playing against kids 2, 3 or 4 years older than him his whole life and rarely wasn't one of the best players on the floor.

He's got to finish 7-5 to have a chance. 8-4 he's back for sure. 7-5 is not as certain (but my guess is absent some late embarrassing losses, he has a good chance). 6-6 or less is sayonara.

West is pretty weak this year too. Had an LSU goober arguing with me last night that the Big 10 was garbage and LSU and Bama would beat every team in that conference. Until I reminded him that they lost to the 3rd or 4th best Big 10 team. Then he looked really confused and starting spitting SEC platitudes. Which basically boils down to "my conference is the best because Bama is in my conference..."

Nonsense! Give that Stumblin Sumblin an extension STAT! #zerochance