Open/closed enrollment, transfers, recruiting….Help me UNDERSTAND?

[Boyz N Da Hood]

8 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

The word is "moot". Just an FYI.

Preciate it! Edit this one also 🥸

[OlDawg]

26 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Discrimination against a kid for financial reasons goes well beyond state law. UIL cannot maintain a system that forces families to "stay down" or "not provide" for their families with the threat of not playing sports. 

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.

[Rez]

9 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

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.

I don’t think simply establishing uniform rules for participation in optional secondary activities would rise to the level of discrimination. It’s simply, “If you want to play, here’s how things have to be,” which is already a fair way to describe the current rules. Having heightened standards for a school to show they aren’t violating the “no transfers solely for sports” rule is hardly some kind of targeted attack on a specific group, unless the specific group we’re talking about is “people who import new players every year” (in which case, they should be targeted). 

[OlDawg]

3 minutes ago, Rez said:

I don’t think simply establishing uniform rules for participation in optional secondary activities would rise to the level of discrimination. It’s simply, “If you want to play, here’s how things have to be,” which is already a fair way to describe the current rules. Having heightened standards for a school to show they aren’t violating the “no transfers solely for sports” rule is hardly some kind of targeted attack on a specific group, unless the specific group we’re talking about is “people who import new players every year” (in which case, they should be targeted). 

Agree. But, that’s just me.

[SmashMouth]

28 minutes ago, Boyz N Da Hood said:

Preciate it! Edit this one also 🥸

Ok:

Appreciate or ‘Preciate

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

People move all the time for a variety of reasons. The overwhelming majority of people in the state do not work for schools but still experience job changes and frequently have corresponding moves. Many of them have kids that go with them.

The UIL cannot discriminate against kids because their families take new jobs. It is not constitutionally possible to have a "blanket" and "no exception" sit out for one year from sports.

There is nothing in the constitution about this. Lol. 

[CardinalBacker]

4 hours ago, bullets13 said:

Or at least “job related.” Dad takes a new coaching job there… allow it. Dad transfers from the Arlington McDonald’s to the one in South Oak Cliff for no reason, maybe not.  

Here’s the thing… Izzy is right-we don’t understand these communities. You can have a league like the stjfl where a city like BC has just enough kids to field a team… you just have to play the hand that’s dealt to you. You have a city like Ned also playing in the STJFL, but they’ve got two or three teams. And thanks to dad coaches getting together, you end up with somewhat unbalanced team. PNG white is better than png purple this year because they kind of stacked the talent through loopholes or whatever. 
 

Then you have a squad from PA having tryouts, cutting kids, etc, and fielding a single super team filled with the cream of the crop across their entire city which is much, much larger than any of their fellow cities in the league. 
 

While most civilized communities would see this as a perversion, the simple-minded, loud-mouthed Izzys of the world see this as a good thing, because this is the only chance most often these young will ever have to make out of the hood. 
 

And if you disagree with him, you’re a racist. 
 

Nobody should be stacking teams in the UIL. It’s easier in metro areas than in the rest of the state.

[89Falcon]

8 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

There is nothing in the constitution about this. Lol. 

“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". 

[bullets13]

2 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

“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". 

Except this is usually what happens: 

Kid from area A (low socioeconomic area) moves to area B (low socioeconomic area) that just so happens to have one of the best football or basketball teams in the state, where they’re immediately a starter, along with multiple other kids doing the same thing. I’ve been to South Oak Cliff. It’s not an affluent area, and people aren’t moving there for better job opportunities. But if somehow someone does, and they want their kid to play sports, it should be pretty easy to prove that they’re improving their financial situation with the move. Likewise, if they moved houses and are now commuting an hour to work, or moved to a parallel dead end job, well…

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, 89Falcon said:

“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". 

Wait… that’s what they say about transgenders getting to compete against girls, too, lol. 
 

I’m sure SOC would have just as many transfers of top tier athletes if they were 1-9 and missed the playoffs. 

The whole thing comes down to thjs. If you ask MOST communities “would you accept 40 out-of-the area transfers if it guaranteed a deep playoff run, even if all of the kids who grew up here lost their “right” to play?” they would say “nah… we want our own.”  Some communities would be like “yes… we’ll take that. We want to win if that means suiting up ALL transfers… even those up to 24 years old, academically ineligible, etc… we want to win.”  This second type of teams should be facing each other, not the ones who play by the rules. 
 

 

[CardinalBacker]

4 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

But you’re forgetting the most common example: 

Kid from area A (low socioeconomic area) moves to area B (low socioeconomic area) that just so happens to have one of the best football or basketball teams in the state, where they’re immediately a starter, along with multiple other kids doing the same thing. 

I like what happened to that WR from N Houston that tried to transfer into Tomball with his AAU best friend the QB, “because his old school was unsafe,” except all of his siblings were left back in the unsafe school.  He ended up forgoing this senior season on the field, then played at TAMU. 

That’s what happens when the system works like it should. 
 

What ever happened to that kid?

[89Falcon]

17 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Except this is usually what happens: 

Kid from area A (low socioeconomic area) moves to area B (low socioeconomic area) that just so happens to have one of the best football or basketball teams in the state, where they’re immediately a starter, along with multiple other kids doing the same thing. I’ve been to South Oak Cliff. It’s not an affluent area, and people aren’t moving there for better job opportunities. But if somehow someone does, and they want their kid to play sports, it should be pretty easy to prove that they’re improving their financial situation with the move. Likewise, if they moved houses and are now commuting an hour to work, or moved to a parallel dead end job, well…

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

[CardinalBacker]

9 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

I like what happened to that WR from N Houston that tried to transfer into Tomball with his AAU best friend the QB, “because his old school was unsafe,” except all of his siblings were left back in the unsafe school.  He ended up forgoing this senior season on the field, then played at TAMU. 

That’s what happens when the system works like it should. 
 

What ever happened to that kid?

Nvm! Demond Demas was his name.  Quite a story. Crashed out at A&M, landed at Juco in Kansas, and per his X Account at 6:05pm last night, he’s “FULLY academically eligible and in the portal!!”

 

Some would argue that telling kids that “the rules don’t apply to you” leads them to believe that the rules don’t apply to them.  

[CardinalBacker]

3 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

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

Oh, it will happen. The UIL won’t turn a blind eye just because certain DECS do. 
 

Where did you go to law school, my man?

[Vini vidi]

When talking transfer/recruiting snafus don’t leave out San Marcos a few years back.  In all honesty most coaches don’t actively look to bring kids in(grow your own and develop them) and some well they will poach anybody’s top end kids to win. 
 Then there are the AAU/trainers/parents who will shop their kids around looking for whatever.

  

[aki1994]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

I like what happened to that WR from N Houston that tried to transfer into Tomball with his AAU best friend the QB, “because his old school was unsafe,” except all of his siblings were left back in the unsafe school.  He ended up forgoing this senior season on the field, then played at TAMU. 

That’s what happens when the system works like it should. 
 

What ever happened to that kid?

Been arrested multiple times. Little family violence, assault, and theft.  No education and hoping someone will take a 4th or 5th chance on him. 

[aki1994]

21 hours ago, Coach_Izzy said:

Well PNG folks y’all better hope this law doesn’t  get passed lol 

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

🤣🤣🤣 

[89Falcon]

43 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Oh, it will happen. The UIL won’t turn a blind eye just because certain DECS do. 
 

Where did you go to law school, my man?

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.

[SmashMouth]

3 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

“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". 

I know you’re probably not a lawyer, and neither am I. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express recently. What you’re missing to see is that the same rule applies for everyone no matter their socio-economic status. I’ll use your same example structure. Kid from area A (high socioeconomic area) move to area B (non-affluent area) where parents got a job for whatever reason. That affluent child cannot play sports there either. Equal treatment. 

[89Falcon]

1 minute ago, SmashMouth said:

I know you’re probably not a lawyer, and neither am I. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express recently. What you’re missing to see is that the same rule applies for everyone no matter their socio-economic status. I’ll use your same example structure. Kid from area A (high socioeconomic area) move to area B (non-affluent area) where parents got a job for whatever reason. That affluent child cannot play sports there either. Equal treatment. 

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. 

[CardinalBacker]

48 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

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. 

You should go back and look at your history regarding TXHSFB. Back to the days when teams would suit up roughnecks in places like Overton and HD… and it got brought under control. 
 

When all of the schools in a district fall under one ISD (say, Dallas ISD) it changes things. Do you remember way back to last year when DISD filed an appeal after SOC lost to PNG? Imagine the employment prospects of a DISD coach that protests about another DISD coach’s potential transfer when the ISD is obviously vested in winning at any costs, rules be darned. 
 

There are plenty of schools to play against if you want to field a super team of transfers. Bishop Gorman, IMG Academy, etc… 

 

Unfortunately for schools like SOC, the UIL isn’t going to let Texas High School Football be turned into an 18U showcase for a handful of wannabe coach/agents. 
 

 

[Rez]

4 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

“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". 

This could apply to any uniform application of the rules. That’s not a violation of equal protection. 

[SETX7273]

On 12/17/2024 at 6:04 PM, AggiesAreWe said:

I agree. This has been an issue for many, many years. 

I can see someone seeing this as sour grapes.

The Why they transferred will not matter once this passes or goes into effect, those student/athletes at bad programs and bad school districts in whichever sport or academic endeavor can look for better opportunities. UIL always follows the NCAA so its here.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

Hey @navydawg31 do you remember what date last season in the gripe thread just like this one I said page 20 would happen? Was it by January?? I seriously forgot the date and sure not pulling up that thread, the one in 2022 I do remember lasting awhile though.. I think this one will get close to it. At least it's something to read and laugh at during basketball season 🤷🏾‍♂️ 

[OlDawg]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

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.