Jump to content

Elijah Parquet (West Brook 2018)


Recommended Posts

On 5/5/2016 at 4:12 PM, BLUEDOVE3 said:

It does not make a difference if you play for your father. It's all about residency. A former Ozen player went to play for his father in Houston and wasn't allowed to play varsity his JUNIOR year.

Thanks for the clarity on this...I just figured that the kid would be allowed to move as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Barney Fife said:

Thanks for the clarity on this...I just figured that the kid would be allowed to move as well.

That's because you are thinking about it logically.   You would think if a kid's parent took a job coaching at a school, he would be allowed to play there.  After all, schools allow an exception to the residency requirement in such instances for a teacher's children to attend.  But we are talking about the UIL here.  Logic is not always present in these rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

That's because you are thinking about it logically.   You would think if a kid's parent took a job coaching at a school, he would be allowed to play there.  After all, schools allow an exception to the residency requirement in such instances for a teacher's children to attend.  But we are talking about the UIL here.  Logic is not always present in these rules. 

I was a coach's son that attended a school out of zone for all four of my high school years, and my dad and I had to go before the district committee EVERY year, because the same two coaches (one was from my zoned school) complained EVERY year. It became a running joke after my sophomore year, because it became the shortest DEC committee meeting in the history of DEC meetings those last two years! Waste of time. But its perfectly legal for a kid to play where his father (or mother) is employed no matter where that may be in relation to the residence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dick Vitale said:

I was a coach's son that attended a school out of zone for all four of my high school years, and my dad and I had to go before the district committee EVERY year, because the same two coaches (one was from my zoned school) complained EVERY year. It became a running joke after my sophomore year, because it became the shortest DEC committee meeting in the history of DEC meetings those last two years! Waste of time. But its perfectly legal for a kid to play where his father (or mother) is employed no matter where that may be in relation to the residence.

Well in the case stated above he didnt get to play dickie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Dick Vitale said:

That's because he was not the custodial parent and the student resided with his mother....Big difference.

And because his father didnt live in the schools zone his residency was in Fort Bend had he been living in the North Shore zone he wouldve been able to play ..hadn't established a year of residency which is why he had to play JV..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, BlkMamba24 said:

And because his father didnt live in the schools zone his residency was in Fort Bend had he been living in the North Shore zone he wouldve been able to play ..hadn't established a year of residency which is why he had to play JV..

Yep!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

Wait a minute!! UIL stared these rules because those little hick country schools were not playing by the rules. Show me an inner city school misusing the rules back in the 30's Nash.

Only if you show me the "hick country schools" doing the same in the 30s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

Wait a minute!! UIL stared these rules because those little hick country schools were not playing by the rules. Show me an inner city school misusing the rules back in the 30's Nash.

30s??  I knew Dove and Nash were old but I had no idea THAT old!  Off topic - was it a lot harder to shoot the ball through a peach basket than today's rims and nets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 10:15 AM, BLUEDOVE3 said:

Not sure if anyone is comparing but me personally, all I am saying is that Ozen provided a well-rounded academic program for my kids.

You could...but not for long lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...