Jump to content

Westbrook Eligibility

Football52

By Football52
in High School Boys Basketball

 Share

Recommended Posts

TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

That's a possibility. But the post stated one was ruled eligible, the other ineligible. Can't see the older Parquet being ruled eligible and the younger ruled ineligible.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

kingjames
kingjames

Unfortunate for the kid that was ruled ineligible. Parents should educate themselves on the rules better so that the kids want have to lose a year of varsity sports no one lose her but the kid.

Mamba
Mamba

Sometimes just keeping your mouth shut isnt so bad 

BLUEDOVE3
BLUEDOVE3

I wonder if I can go back and sue UIL. Reinstate them at the varsity level with grade exception waiver. Talking about a ground-breaking precedence. 

TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

That would be pretty petty.

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
winwin

winwin

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

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."

The only way anyone could even know you were moving your kid for athletic reasons, would be if you verbalize it. Otherwise, if you say it's academics, it's academics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AggiesAreWe

AggiesAreWe

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

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."

If both kids play varsity basketball, then both moved for athletic reasons. UIL or DEC doesn't rule on if one brother is better than the other. Allowing one brother to play just because he was only moved due to the other brother having moved, would be petty in my book. They both left a school for same school, play athletics, live under same roof. The rule should apply to both, no matter how much better one is over the other.

The parents should take that into consideration when making those decisions. Otherwise, don't transfer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

If both kids play varsity basketball, then both moved for athletic reasons. UIL or DEC doesn't rule on if one brother is better than the other. Allowing one brother to play just because he was only moved due to the other brother having moved, would be petty in my book. They both left a school for same school, play athletics, live under same roof. The rule should apply to both, no matter how much better one is over the other.

The parents should take that into consideration when making those decisions. Otherwise, don't transfer.

 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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BLUEDOVE3

BLUEDOVE3

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

If both kids play varsity basketball, then both moved for athletic reasons. UIL or DEC doesn't rule on if one brother is better than the other. Allowing one brother to play just because he was only moved due to the other brother having moved, would be petty in my book. They both left a school for same school, play athletics, live under same roof. The rule should apply to both, no matter how much better one is over the other.

The parents should take that into consideration when making those decisions. Otherwise, don't transfer.

Correct, UIL looks at both brothers equally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AggiesAreWe

AggiesAreWe

Posted
Posted

Ruling one sibling eligible and not the other, though both left school for same school, live in same household, would make no sense. The fact that one of the brothers is not projected to improve his situation by the move is immaterial.

What would be the reasoning for not ruling the other sibling eligible but allowing the other to play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, winwin said:

Probably not a good idea to argue legal issues with txhoops :)

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Ruling one sibling eligible and not the other, though both left school for same school, live in same household, would make no sense. The fact that one of the brothers is not projected to improve his situation by the move is immaterial.

What would be the reasoning for not ruling the other sibling eligible but allowing the other to play?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Ruling one sibling eligible and not the other, though both left school for same school, live in same household, would make no sense. The fact that one of the brothers is not projected to improve his situation by the move is immaterial.

What would be the reasoning for not ruling the other sibling eligible but allowing the other to play?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TxHoops

TxHoops

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BLUEDOVE3

BLUEDOVE3

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, TxHoops said:

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 wonder if I can go back and sue UIL. Reinstate them at the varsity level with grade exception waiver. Talking about a ground-breaking precedence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BLUEDOVE3

BLUEDOVE3

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, TxHoops said:

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.

I agree, let them all play.Coaches have free will to move about to better their situations.

I've read that 65 year old plus UIL ruling back and forth and up and down. In some cases it depends on the DEC. You scratch my back and I will do the same when your turn comes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,202
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CHSFalcon
    Newest Member
    CHSFalcon
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...