89Falcon

Probably 2028 unless the cut gets lowered.

Lewisville not like the rest of the ones you mentioned.

Football participation is down 14% in the last decade due to changing demographics and a population base that prefers to play soccer.

“Dynamics” are not relevant. Only good coaching, leadership and management skills.

OK, Westlake and SLC are single most affluent areas in the state. PNG is not close to them and is lower than BH. The "dynamics" disparity did not impact Joseph and it will have nothing to do with the success of BH next coach.

Is PNG "different dynamics" than Katy, Austin Westlake, and Southlake Carroll?

“Vouch”? What would the vouch for? Would they say you are football guru? I bet they appreciate you putting their names out. I am just a guy on SETX, who knows very little. Just a fan.

Nowhere near your “experience”. Just curious about your role on the State Championship Teams? Are you still with the program?

How many years did you coach? What position? Did you call plays? Did you coach on Varsity? Still coaching?

What is your "background"? what is everyone else's "background"?

If someone has to "tell you how much they know" it is usually an indicator that they know very little. In his case, he randomly spews nonsensical rhetoric that is devoid of point and then proceeds to claim some type of victory of making a point.

DFW had almost identical numbers this year to the year it was held at NRG.

They get many.

If you count the move ins, you might be right. "Home grown", not a big difference.

Ok

OK

There is an abundance of case history where the SC has ruled specifically in favor of targeted socioeconomic groups. The "vague" and "broad" definition of "equal protection" has been utilized in many different applications. Your mentioned logic is similar to that which was utilized in Plessy vs Ferguson. Civil rights legislation exists to protect populations from blanket rules that unfairly impact targeted populations. There is no scenario where the UIL will prevent a kid who lives in the same area as other kids from participating in the same activities as other kids, simply for the reason of "time not served". That scenario will impact underserved communities more harshly than the others and it the reason why no such policy currently exists or will exist. I understand you dont agree with it.

Did you read the entire sentence?

There were a lot of things changing in the 1960s and 1970s. For clarification: it changed in 1981? Let me know when the proposed change happens. If the change happens you will be right, if it does not happen, I will be right.

Penal codes have nothing to do with equal opportunities for those targeted in equal protection and various civil rights legislation. Like I said, it is the reason no such rule has been or will be implemented. There is no scenario where a kid that lives in an area with other kids will not have access to the same opportunities simply because of "time not served" in the area. As mentioned previously, feel free to correct me when/if it happens.

It does apply to “any uniform application of rules” because some “uniform application of rules” impact certain populations more harshly. That is the purpose of the protections both constitutionally and statutory.

Making a rule that is equally discriminatory is not relevant. The protection and statutes exist to protect those in the example I described. As stated, no such rule has been created nor will be created for that reason. Feel free to correct me when it happens.

Ok, check back when it happens. The UIL has not created the mentioned rule before and they will not create any such rule for the reasons I mentioned.

Understood, but the scenario and factors I described is why there will not be a rule as the one suggested will be passed.

“Equal protection”? You cannot single kids out because of their social status and this is exactly what could be claimed if the rule was changed eliminating all kids because their parents move. It is also the reason that the rule is currently written the way it is. There are also multiple Federal statutes that would come into play. Example: Kid from area A (low socioeconomic area) moves to area B (affluent area) where parents got a job that improves their standard of living. School in area A says, "your kids can attend our school, and even though you live here just like our other kids, your kids are not allowed to participate in any activities with other kids".