Jump to content

Transferring trend

hsforlife89

By hsforlife89
in High School Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Peppermint Patty

Peppermint Patty

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

Well, technically every school district in the state has a border.  And every border has property that might be right across the street.  And most people (if they know how the system works) do not need family members in neighboring cities.  Especially because of rental properties and apartment building.  Like I stated earlier.

And also, like I stated earlier.  The only sure-fire way to keep people from "working the system" is to just have everyone sit a year.

BG, someone needs a mailbox, stat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldschool2

oldschool2

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, GCMPats said:

It's very rare that a coach will deny the PAPF. It's the old "do unto others" code.

Just not a fan of all the transferring. Too much focus on the "me" and not the "team". Just an old school opinion.

 

 

It's not that that people have to worry about.  The previous AD will likely check off on it.  And, the district committee will likely approve it.  AFTER that it still goes to UIL.  If the student didn't change address or the new address isn't in the new school district.  Then it will probably result in sitting a year.  But like I've said...so easy to get around it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
409ANALYST

409ANALYST

Posted
Posted

If every student athlete has to sit out a year, then every coach should have to sit out a year also.  For instance, the stuff that Suggs pulled at Ozen.  Not having an offseason, resigning at the very last minute when he knew he was going to leave, and pretty much abandoning the kids and that football program was wrong.  He should have to sit out a year also.  I ask this question again!  Why should the kids be loyal to a football program when no one is loyal to them?  And also, I would not want a student athlete to play in my program if he really didn't want to be there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bigdog

Bigdog

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, 409ANALYST said:

If every student athlete has to sit out a year, then every coach should have to sit out a year also.  For instance, the stuff that Suggs pulled at Ozen.  Not having an offseason, resigning at the very last minute when he knew he was going to leave, and pretty much abandoning the kids and that football program was wrong.  He should have to sit out a year also.  I ask this question again!  Why should the kids be loyal to a football program when no one is loyal to them?  And also, I would not want a student athlete to play in my program if he really didn't want to be there. 

Pretty much the same argument that is made for college kids transferring after signing an LOI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
milkguy21

milkguy21

Posted
Posted

I went to 3 different school my Jr year all for sports and everyone knew it was for sports.... all we did was move my Fathers camper in the school dist and say we were living there..... which we never did, i would drive back and forth from my house to school. Than my Sr year my home town school got a new coach was i "Moved" back there..... If the kid or parents want there kid to go somewhere better for sport there really is no stopping them, its to easy.... and like someone said earlier "it will never change"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

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


  • Posts

    • Reagan
      America lost. The Kangaroo Court won.

      By Reagan · Posted

      BOOM!!
    • Mr. Buddy Garrity
      Road to Omaha

      By Mr. Buddy Garrity · Posted

      We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • PhatMack19
      Road to Omaha

      By PhatMack19 · Posted

      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 
    • tvc184
      West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin leaves Democratic Party, registers as independent

      By tvc184 · Posted

      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? 
    • Separation Scientist
      Bridgeland vs Tomball

      By Separation Scientist · Posted

      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...