Coaches, UIL and Player eligibility

[LR2014]

When a player or the players parents move to another town within the district, how often do coaches try to prevent that player from being eligible to play? Also, if a coach does this repeatedly, shouldn't that raise a red flag with UIL? Just curious. I know there will be various reason why parents move. Some are ligit and some because of disagreements with coaches etc.  It seems like some coaches think they own these young men. Any comments???

[elhector1]

[quote name="LR2014" post="842527" timestamp="1284062929"]
When a player or the players parents move to another town within the district, how often do coaches try to prevent that player from being eligible to play? Also, if a coach does this repeatedly, shouldn't that raise a red flag with UIL? Just curious. I know there will be various reason why parents move. Some are ligit and some because of disagreements with coaches etc.  It seems like some coaches think they own these young men. Any comments???
[/quote]

This would be a great question for a panel composed of Craig James, his little boy Adam, and the former coach of the Texas Tech Red Raiders...

[the sports guy]

:D

[LR2014]

That's funny Elhector but, I'm talking High School football here.

[sig220]

It happens occasionally.  As a member of a District Executive Committee, we saw a few Previous Athletic Participation Forms that were obviously marked in anger.  In 5A I have not seen it very often.  The players still must go through the residency requirement with UIL before playing varsity.

[elhector1]

I know...I think legitimate moves (work related, family cohesion related) are dealt with pretty fairly with most coaches...they realize that at times, someone's livelihood makes moving necessary, or that situations such as divorce or remarriage of a parent make that a necessity as well.

FOr lack of a better term, "pissy moves" are dealt with harshly, simply because a coach can do it.  If you have a parent who is like a Craig James, threatening to pull his kid and send him to another school for more playing time, a coach will exercise his option to make that kid sit out.  I think that the UIL takes situations on a case by case basis, and due to some towns playing the "job for dad of a good kid" game, they really scrutinize a player's eligibility.

[Guest GCMPats]

You can be the biggest jerk in the world when it comes to this issue. However, you had better be prepared to reap what you sow.

[sig220]

There are always a few in any group that are not in it for the students.  Good coaches, while hating to lose good players, realize that participation in an activity is good the sport as a whole.  The other touchy situation is moving within a district.  A JV player at WB might be a varsity starter at Ozen.

[w]

I think it's one thing for a kid to move because the coach has "recruited" him and another thing if he moves for more playing time at a different school.  If he can't cut it at one school and moves to another, more power to him.  A lot of coaches would use that as a good reason for the kids that stayed to "get after" the other school when they play each other.  That being said, why would a coach want to keep a kid that he knows doesn't want to play for him?

[raideroldtimer]

[quote name="w" post="843054" timestamp="1284138629"]
I think it's one thing for a kid to move because the coach has "recruited" him and another thing if he moves for more playing time at a different school.  If he can't cut it at one school and moves to another, more power to him.  A lot of coaches would use that as a good reason for the kids that stayed to "get after" the other school when they play each other.  That being said, why would a coach want to keep a kid that he knows doesn't want to play for him?
[/quote]Being recruited or moving just to get more playing time are both terrible reasons for a kid to change schools. If the kid isn't getting enough playing time I see only 4 reasons for that. First of all, it could be (and this would be the most likely IMO) that the kid just isn't that good a player. Secondly, if he's not getting playing time and he's actually good, he probably has a major attitude problem that the coach feels warrants keeping his butt on the sidelines. Third, maybe the kid just can't cut it with the schools curriculum, which means he ought to ask the counselor for some help getting a tutor because moving to a school with easier curriculum is the lazy way out. Finally, and this would be the only reason I could see as justifiable to move, there could be an outside chance that he and the coach just can't figure a way to get along. Unfortunately in life there are rare instances when two personalities just can't resolve their differences but a move would only be justifiable AFTER an attempt to resolve the problem through the schools' administration.

[thetragichippy]

[quote name="raideroldtimer" post="843079" timestamp="1284140870"]
[quote author=w link=topic=72692.msg843054#msg843054 date=1284138629]
I think it's one thing for a kid to move because the coach has "recruited" him and another thing if he moves for more playing time at a different school.  If he can't cut it at one school and moves to another, more power to him.  A lot of coaches would use that as a good reason for the kids that stayed to "get after" the other school when they play each other.  That being said, why would a coach want to keep a kid that he knows doesn't want to play for him?
[/quote]Being recruited or moving just to get more playing time are both terrible reasons for a kid to change schools. If the kid isn't getting enough playing time I see only 4 reasons for that. First of all, it could be (and this would be the most likely IMO) that the kid just isn't that good a player. Secondly, if he's not getting playing time and he's actually good, he probably has a major attitude problem that the coach feels warrants keeping his butt on the sidelines. Third, maybe the kid just can't cut it with the schools curriculum, which means he ought to ask the counselor for some help getting a tutor because moving to a school with easier curriculum is the lazy way out. Finally, and this would be the only reason I could see as justifiable to move, there could be an outside chance that he and the coach just can't figure a way to get along. Unfortunately in life there are rare instances when two personalities just can't resolve their differences but a move would only be justifiable AFTER an attempt to resolve the problem through the schools' administration.
[/quote]

What if he is good, a nice kid but is behind a real good group of players?  What if he can change schools and the talent pool at the new school puts him on top? Now he's first string and playing under the lights......  just a what if!

[Guest LR1969]

[quote name="thetragichippy" post="843101" timestamp="1284142590"]
[quote author=raideroldtimer link=topic=72692.msg843079#msg843079 date=1284140870]
[quote author=w link=topic=72692.msg843054#msg843054 date=1284138629]
I think it's one thing for a kid to move because the coach has "recruited" him and another thing if he moves for more playing time at a different school.  If he can't cut it at one school and moves to another, more power to him.  A lot of coaches would use that as a good reason for the kids that stayed to "get after" the other school when they play each other.  That being said, why would a coach want to keep a kid that he knows doesn't want to play for him?
[/quote]Being recruited or moving just to get more playing time are both terrible reasons for a kid to change schools. If the kid isn't getting enough playing time I see only 4 reasons for that. First of all, it could be (and this would be the most likely IMO) that the kid just isn't that good a player. Secondly, if he's not getting playing time and he's actually good, he probably has a major attitude problem that the coach feels warrants keeping his butt on the sidelines. Third, maybe the kid just can't cut it with the schools curriculum, which means he ought to ask the counselor for some help getting a tutor because moving to a school with easier curriculum is the lazy way out. Finally, and this would be the only reason I could see as justifiable to move, there could be an outside chance that he and the coach just can't figure a way to get along. Unfortunately in life there are rare instances when two personalities just can't resolve their differences but a move would only be justifiable AFTER an attempt to resolve the problem through the schools' administration.
[/quote]

What if he is good, a nice kid but is behind a real good group of players?  What if he can change schools and the talent pool at the new school puts him on top? Now he's first string and playing under the lights......  just a what if!
[/quote]

I agree tragichippy dude! Nothing wrong with a kid wanting to be first string instead of a bench warmer and, in that case, it shouldn't matter to the coach since he wasn't going to play the kid anyway. Of course, should the kid become a "super star", he may change his mind and start doing some investigating...HA!

But, in regards to raideroldtimers comment, I also would hate to see a kid put his education on the back burner. I have no problem with moving to a different school with comparable academics to be able to play football but it would seem like a waste to go to a poor academic school for that reason. Guess it really depends on the situation and the kid. God bless!

[w]

I'd like to just throw something out there regarding the "poor academic school" situation. (I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, just making a comment here.)  I know that WOS, to say the least, does not "show well" on TAAKS testing and is rated below "acceptable" or whatever their ratings are.  They may be acceptable this year, I'm not sure.  But, just for the record, there are great teachers at WOS.  There are teachers still at the school who were there when WOS was ranked high in the academia charting statistics.  The problem is the kids.  The kids have changed and it's whether or not a kid WANTS to learn.  You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.  Same with kids.  If a kids WANTS to learn, he/she will do so.  Moving for "academic reasons" doesn't set well with me, unless there are truly inadequate teachers in a school district.  Measuring teachers according to the TAAKS test doesn't fly by me.

[whsalum]

The residency rules are pretty cut and dried as far as the UIL goes.Kids who move can be required to set out for a calendar year but then the old coach has no control over them being released.The ones that don't move are the ones that are usually not given the opportunity to play.FYI kids who move repeatedly looking for a place to play usually find out why they aren't playing in the first place.

[sig220]

The TAKS is one week out of 37.  I agree that the label placed on a school by the state for that one week is ridiculous.  At WB, for instance, they push four areas: involvement, fine arts, academics, athletics.  Then they define themselves based on that, not on the label by the state.  Even though they are "recognized" the administration there believes TAKS is a part of school, school is not a part of TAKS. 

I have seen athletes move because of coaching.  It can be legitimate in my mind if the new coach is better able to get opportunities for a student to receive scholarships.