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

[navydawg31]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

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 🤷🏾‍♂️ 

lol I do remember… thats actually the first thing I thought of. It was by January you said. This topic here has became a yearly one. Just pin it at the top at this point… 

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

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 🤷🏾‍♂️ 

make your prediction and then i'll lock it the page before 😁

[89Falcon]

2 hours ago, Rez said:

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

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. 
 

[Rez]

4 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

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. 
 

You haven’t shown it impacts any group more harshly, and that’s not only element of the standard - Drug laws also impact poor people more harshly. Try bringing THAT argument into court. “Your honor, I did use those drugs, but as you can see I’m from a poor neighborhood.” 

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

4 hours ago, bullets13 said:

make your prediction and then i'll lock it the page before 😁

At the rate it's going I'm going to say by the 26th, depending on how Friday night goes. 

[89Falcon]

57 minutes ago, Rez said:

You haven’t shown it impacts any group more harshly, and that’s not only element of the standard - Drug laws also impact poor people more harshly. Try bringing THAT argument into court. “Your honor, I did use those drugs, but as you can see I’m from a poor neighborhood.” 

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. 

[OlDawg]

41 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

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. 

1940’s - 1981 is your proof. No winning lawsuit changed it. (UIL just got tired of fighting over it.) Liberal ideas in the schools changed it. In an effort to be more accommodating, a can of worms was opened wider as was predicted.

In my previous post, I linked to four articles that provided the history of this argument. Informative. I dare say the situation has gotten a lot worse since the articles were written in 2015 which is why UIL & partners/stakeholders have decided something needs to change.

[89Falcon]

28 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

1940’s - 1981 is your proof. No winning lawsuit changed it. (UIL just got tired of fighting over it.) Liberal ideas in the schools changed it. In an effort to be more accommodating, a can of worms was opened wider as was predicted.

In my previous post, I linked to four articles that provided the history of this argument. Informative. I dare say the situation has gotten a lot worse since the articles were written in 2015 which is why UIL & partners/stakeholders have decided something needs to change.

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. 

[OlDawg]

2 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

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. 

Yes. 1981 it changed from the ‘sit a year’, possibly more policy that had been around since the ‘40’s.

Not saying I agree or disagree. I can see good & bad for both. Just providing you the facts you kind of asked about.

I think money has infected the game more than at any time in the past from varying parties.

Well aware of the 60’s & 70’s. LOL

[Vini vidi]

The whole issue revolves around a few things

other coaches actively recruiting/poaching kids from other programs

parents shopping kids 

trainers/ aau/ 7 on 7 coaches shopping kids

Sure everyone wants to win and it’s a lot easier to go to currently successful programs than stick it out in a place that is struggling to win. 
 

As Lombardi said. Winning isn’t everything but wanting to is.

Sometimes much more is gained by sticking it out and being part of a team that goes from 0-10 to 8-4. 

 

[Rez]

3 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

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. 

Equal protection absolutely has to do with penal codes. 

[89Falcon]

1 hour ago, Rez said:

Equal protection absolutely has to do with penal codes. 

Did you read the entire sentence? 

[Rez]

38 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Did you read the entire sentence? 

Yes - I’m not sure you understood the analogy I’m drawing. You’re asserting that fairly applying uniform rules across the board is a violation of a vague concept of “equal protection” (though it’s not clear what you mean by the term, as that hasn’t been set out). I’m saying that making rules and fairly applying them regardless of socioeconomic status and other characteristics is the opposite of violating equal protection protections. 

[SmashMouth]

19 hours 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. 

It’s not a constitutional issue sir. 

[SmashMouth]

10 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

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. 

You said penal. 🤣

[89Falcon]

8 hours ago, Rez said:

Yes - I’m not sure you understood the analogy I’m drawing. You’re asserting that fairly applying uniform rules across the board is a violation of a vague concept of “equal protection” (though it’s not clear what you mean by the term, as that hasn’t been set out). I’m saying that making rules and fairly applying them regardless of socioeconomic status and other characteristics is the opposite of violating equal protection protections. 

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. 

[89Falcon]

2 hours ago, SmashMouth said:

It’s not a constitutional issue sir. 

OK

[Rez]

2 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

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. 

It’s not simply that I don’t agree. Your citation of Plessy vs Ferguson is entirely misplaced. I don’t think you’ve understood the meaning or point of that case. Is it your contention that merely requiring that kids and schools follow certain procedures prior to participating in entirely optional non-educational activities is the same as arguing for Jim Crow laws, “separate but equal” facilities, and other racially  driven segregation? What do you have to say for the current rules, wherein kids and schools are required to follow certain procedures in order to participate, the failure of which bars participation? In other words, is your point that it’s not fair to stop cheating because certain people cheat more? 

 As to the “abundance” of cases that agree with you  … What are the cases, what do they say, and how do they apply to the argument you’re making? 
 

As far as “vague” definitions of equal protection, my use of vague referred to the absence of a definition from you — what definition are you using when you say “equal protection?” What “applications” and “broad definitons” are you talking about? To succeed in an equal protection claim, someone would need to show specific discrimination and actual harm to them. Simply saying, “everyone being subject to the same rules is a violation of equal protection” wouldn’t get there, especially when the rules are applied in exactly the same way to everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, etc, and especially when the rules are simply “here’s what everyone has to do to be able to play sports.” We already have such rules — Is a kid being forced to sit because he made bad grades a violation of equal protection? 

[89Falcon]

10 minutes ago, Rez said:

It’s not simply that I don’t agree. Your citation of Plessy vs Ferguson is entirely misplaced. I don’t think you’ve understood the meaning or point of that case. Is it your contention that merely requiring that kids and schools follow certain procedures prior to participating in entirely optional non-educational activities is the same as arguing for Jim Crow laws, “separate but equal” facilities, and other racially  driven segregation? What do you have to say for the current rules, wherein kids and schools are required to follow certain procedures in order to participate, the failure of which bars participation? In other words, is your point that it’s not fair to stop cheating because certain people cheat more? 

 As to the “abundance” of cases that agree with you  … What are the cases, what do they say, and how do they apply to the argument you’re making? 
 

As far as “vague” definitions of equal protection, my use of vague referred to the absence of a definition from you — what definition are you using when you say “equal protection?” What “applications” and “broad definitons” are you talking about? To succeed in an equal protection claim, someone would need to show specific discrimination and actual harm to them. Simply saying, “everyone being subject to the same rules is a violation of equal protection” wouldn’t get there, especially when the rules are applied in exactly the same way to everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, etc, and especially when the rules are simply “here’s what everyone has to do to be able to play sports.” We already have such rules — Is a kid being forced to sit because he made bad grades a violation of equal protection? 

Ok

[OlDawg]

I kind of like the idea of having a DEC type committee from another classification reviewing interdistrict transfers with a UIL rep included. If the number of requested interdistrict transfers is more than 10 per school year, kick it to a specifically funded UIL panel where coaches and others don’t get overwhelmed. UIL would need a little more funding as I understand there’s somewhere around 15,000+ transfer requests per year.

If the requests are within a multi school ISD, split them up & have them be reviewed by another ISD, or the UIL panel.

Still require a PAPF for all transfer requests just like the new rules stipulate. Don’t need to go back to the pre-1981 blanket policy.

Just me thinking out loud based on my limited knowledge.