89Falcon

“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".

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.

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.

It is usually job related.

There are reasons other than academic and athletic that kids switch schools. Most moves are not related to either of those but are the result of changing family situations.

His definition of “fact” is: “whatever thought arrives in his mind”. Anything he doesn’t like is called: “not a fact”. Example: The UIL issuing a multi year ban to a NS coach is not considered a fact, even though it happened and is settled record.

Searching for your answer? Are you not wanting to answer? Because it invalidates your position?

Being that you are an arbiter of facts, Is it a “fact” that the coach received a “multi year UIL ban”? Did UIL issue the ban for non-UIL infractions?

My research reveals that he received a "multi-year" UIL ban. Did he receive the "UIL" ban for private endeavors not related to high school athletes and "not" under UIL jurisdiction?

Did NS have a coach receive a "multi-year ban" for recruiting?

How is that relevant for Livingston? There is no chance they could be in 3AD1.

Not many 4AD1 districts that are weaker. If they get the right coach they will be more than able to compete.

Teneha is closer and Timpson is the same distance as Joaquin.

Tax revenue

A more “simple” solution is to make open enrollment “state law”.

Definitely could not say the others have not benefitted from transfers.

Perhaps, I know Atascocita beat them by a point. They have quite a few young guns coming up. Will be interesting if they can replace the RB

This year or last year? Kid from Kingwood has done it twice.

I think they have at least one “race horse”. He led the district in rushing for two straight years.

Did they have the leading rusher in the District for the last two years? They have several D1 players on the team.

Anyone know if they are taking passes at this game? Several this year have not.

I would be shocked if the current HC would want to stick around much longer. I doubt he is worried about "saving his job".

The coaches at Crosby are well respected in the coaching community. The forum peanut gallery, not so much.

I think I will attend this one.

They “lost” you a while back. I imagine they are good with it.