TxHoops

The comment was on the football game. But thanks for the direction. I will take it under advisement

Thanks. I hope he is. Awful for the kid to have to miss playoff games his senior year and the Cards are going to need him.

Ok, what's going on with Draper? When is he expected back?

That factored into my thinking as well. On both sides.

Fair enough. Was just curious.

Good game Tigers. Good news is no Silsbee Lite this year. More time to get ready for a championship run.

What happened?

Must have gotten a lot better since they only beat Crosby by 14 then....

Listened to a breakdown this week where aggy was the only team in the top 15-ish that the pundits thought had no path to get into the playoffs (i.e., "zero chance"). But my question is for PhatMack. I've seen you more active on the political board and you were very vested in the election. Got me to thinking - if you could have chosen between Trump winning the election or aggy winning a NC in football, which would you choose? I'm not judging because I thought about that myself but it's impossible to fairly answer because I've actually witnessed one for my Horns. If they'd never plagued for one or won one in mine or my father's lifetimes like aggy, I'm truthfully not sure how I'd answer.

The vast, vast majority of WOS fans (and the program in general) exhibit nothing but class. This is the case even rising above nonsense (which was the case with one game of theirs I saw this year). Every single fan base of every single team has at least one or two knuckleheads. No one should paint any team or school or its fans with a broad brush based upon the words or actions of a few.

I love that lil Johnny! And who better to learn from than old dogs who never stop trying to learn new tricks?

Just an educated guess Or not.

I am quite sure that would have hit me a lot harder than you. But I will admit I'm not omniscient like you.

The election produced about 325 million losers in my opinion. But I hope I'm wrong.

But I won a 10 to 1 bet due to someone I know who I won't call a loser. Because I'm not 12. Let's settle for predictable and humorless.

Yes! Just won a bet. Man I feel like Geppetto...

For many, they just liked him but it was hard to put their finger on why...

Stephen A is dead on

'83 Daingerfield was to this day the best team I ever saw. The Everetts were amazing and that defense was the nastiest I have seen. (The current Mustangs D reminds me of the Tigers in the way they play). You will never convince me Daingerfield wouldn't have beaten Judson that year (Who won 5A). The 88 Carter team put a ridiculous amount of players at the next level, the best being Jesse Armstead. But they weren't especially dominant as has been mentioned. I never saw the 85 Yates team but many of my WOS friends swear that team was the best. The second best team I probably saw was the 86 and 87 Plano teams that won back to back. Their Oline was massive and dominant and would have given most teams fits.

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.