TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 22 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said: That's a possibility. But the post stated one was ruled eligible, the other ineligible. Can't see the older Parquet being ruled eligible and the younger ruled ineligible. It could if a decision was made that one brother moved for athletic purposes and the other didn't. I can envision scenarios where that might be the case, including this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, TxHoops said: It could if a decision was made that one brother moved for athletic purposes and the other didn't. I can envision scenarios where that might be the case, including this one. That would be pretty petty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said: That would be pretty petty. Follow me logically, for one to make a move for athletic purposes, that person has to have the move made on his behalf. To say it another way, IF (and I'm not suggesting this is the case and do not know this is the case) a family chooses to move their kid to another school due to basketball, that would be against the rules. But what IF because of that move, they send their other kid so that they merely will be at the same school. Should the two kids not have their cases examined individually by the UIL? Or are you suggesting siblings should automatically be lumped together? Again, I'm not suggesting I know why any particular rulings were made. But I certainly can logically understand how such a decision can be arrived at without being "petty." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winwin Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, TxHoops said: Follow me logically, for one to make a move for athletic purposes, that person has to have the move made on his behalf. To say it another way, IF (and I'm not suggesting this is the case and do not know this is the case) a family chooses to move their kid to another school due to basketball, that would be against the rules. But what IF because of that move, they send their other kid so that they merely will be at the same school. Should the two kids not have their cases examined individually by the UIL? Or are you suggesting siblings should automatically be lumped together? Again, I'm not suggesting I know why any particular rulings were made. But I certainly can logically understand how such a decision can be arrived at without being "petty." The only way anyone could even know you were moving your kid for athletic reasons, would be if you verbalize it. Otherwise, if you say it's academics, it's academics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, TxHoops said: Follow me logically, for one to make a move for athletic purposes, that person has to have the move made on his behalf. To say it another way, IF (and I'm not suggesting this is the case and do not know this is the case) a family chooses to move their kid to another school due to basketball, that would be against the rules. But what IF because of that move, they send their other kid so that they merely will be at the same school. Should the two kids not have their cases examined individually by the UIL? Or are you suggesting siblings should automatically be lumped together? Again, I'm not suggesting I know why any particular rulings were made. But I certainly can logically understand how such a decision can be arrived at without being "petty." If both kids play varsity basketball, then both moved for athletic reasons. UIL or DEC doesn't rule on if one brother is better than the other. Allowing one brother to play just because he was only moved due to the other brother having moved, would be petty in my book. They both left a school for same school, play athletics, live under same roof. The rule should apply to both, no matter how much better one is over the other. The parents should take that into consideration when making those decisions. Otherwise, don't transfer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said: If both kids play varsity basketball, then both moved for athletic reasons. UIL or DEC doesn't rule on if one brother is better than the other. Allowing one brother to play just because he was only moved due to the other brother having moved, would be petty in my book. They both left a school for same school, play athletics, live under same roof. The rule should apply to both, no matter how much better one is over the other. The parents should take that into consideration when making those decisions. Otherwise, don't transfer. I would use "naíve" instead of "petty" if you think one of the kid's athletics was a factor in deciding to move. Has nothing to do with ability, it is all about intent. I am hesitant to lump kids together, even if they are in the same household. That is, in general, a dangerous and short-sighted path. As for your second paragraph, couldn't agree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDOVE3 Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 5 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said: Was in the BISD middle schools, then went to HJ for his freshman year (last year). He is now back at West Brook. Gotcha!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDOVE3 Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Football52 said: I was more thinking of a move to a private like we saw with Mayfield in football. I can't imagine a situation where the kid will just eat a year sitting out doing nothing. he's able to play JV. Football52 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDOVE3 Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 18 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said: If both kids play varsity basketball, then both moved for athletic reasons. UIL or DEC doesn't rule on if one brother is better than the other. Allowing one brother to play just because he was only moved due to the other brother having moved, would be petty in my book. They both left a school for same school, play athletics, live under same roof. The rule should apply to both, no matter how much better one is over the other. The parents should take that into consideration when making those decisions. Otherwise, don't transfer. Correct, UIL looks at both brothers equally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, BLUEDOVE3 said: Correct, UIL looks at both brothers equally. Very incorrect. The opposite is true. Every child's case is supposed to be taken on an individual basis. If they didn't do that with your boys, they did not follow proper protocol. Team Game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, TxHoops said: Very incorrect. The opposite is true. Every child's case is supposed to be taken on an individual basis. If they didn't do that with your boys, they did not follow proper protocol. Individual household Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 1 minute ago, AggiesAreWe said: Individual household Incorrect. Team Game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winwin Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, TxHoops said: Incorrect. Probably not a good idea to argue legal issues with txhoops TxHoops 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 Ruling one sibling eligible and not the other, though both left school for same school, live in same household, would make no sense. The fact that one of the brothers is not projected to improve his situation by the move is immaterial. What would be the reasoning for not ruling the other sibling eligible but allowing the other to play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, winwin said: Probably not a good idea to argue legal issues with txhoops I know the guy is a lawyer. winwin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, winwin said: Probably not a good idea to argue legal issues with txhoops By the way, this is not unprecedented with the UIL. Again, I don't know the specifics here, but I do know of a similar situation at a FBISD school a few years ago. One brother was cleared, the other wasn't. The one that wasn't cleared is now playing football in the Big 12 and his brother is playing DIII basketball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said: Ruling one sibling eligible and not the other, though both left school for same school, live in same household, would make no sense. The fact that one of the brothers is not projected to improve his situation by the move is immaterial. What would be the reasoning for not ruling the other sibling eligible but allowing the other to play? I thought I explained it above in two separate posts but I probably did a poor job of it. To put it simply, if the move is deemed to have been solely motivated by one child's athletic prospects and the other child is just a tag along for convenience, then the move is not made for child 2's athletic purposes. Merely being related does not mean you necessarily even considered HIS athletic prospects when making that decision. However, I am merely speculating in this particular case. As I say, I DO know of another case where the UIL made a similar ruling based on the scenario I laid out. Team Game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 8 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said: Ruling one sibling eligible and not the other, though both left school for same school, live in same household, would make no sense. The fact that one of the brothers is not projected to improve his situation by the move is immaterial. What would be the reasoning for not ruling the other sibling eligible but allowing the other to play? To me, your logic fails where you imply that one brother moving for athletic purposes should be automatically imputed to the other brother. If you separate them and deal with them individually, the question is whether each child was moved for their OWN athletic purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxHoops Posted November 10, 2016 Report Share Posted November 10, 2016 And by the way (and as you know), I am NOT a big fan of how the UIL handles these cases the vast majority of the time. I fall under the blackmamba "let them play," school of thought. I certainly have been vocal in at least a couple of scenarios where kids were ruled ineligible or whose eligibility was being challenged when the moves were made for non-athletic reasons in my opinion. I would be more upset in this situation if the Carpenter kid was ruled ineligible because I do know first hand the reasons in his situation and it had ZERO to do with basketball. My input is merely informational here. I don't have enough specific information on either of the other two to say with any certainty whether any decisions made by UIL on either or both brothers was warranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDOVE3 Posted November 11, 2016 Report Share Posted November 11, 2016 17 hours ago, TxHoops said: Very incorrect. The opposite is true. Every child's case is supposed to be taken on an individual basis. If they didn't do that with your boys, they did not follow proper protocol. I wonder if I can go back and sue UIL. Reinstate them at the varsity level with grade exception waiver. Talking about a ground-breaking precedence. winwin, TxHoops and Tyler Dixson 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDOVE3 Posted November 11, 2016 Report Share Posted November 11, 2016 17 hours ago, TxHoops said: And by the way (and as you know), I am NOT a big fan of how the UIL handles these cases the vast majority of the time. I fall under the blackmamba "let them play," school of thought. I certainly have been vocal in at least a couple of scenarios where kids were ruled ineligible or whose eligibility was being challenged when the moves were made for non-athletic reasons in my opinion. I would be more upset in this situation if the Carpenter kid was ruled ineligible because I do know first hand the reasons in his situation and it had ZERO to do with basketball. My input is merely informational here. I don't have enough specific information on either of the other two to say with any certainty whether any decisions made by UIL on either or both brothers was warranted. I agree, let them all play.Coaches have free will to move about to better their situations. I've read that 65 year old plus UIL ruling back and forth and up and down. In some cases it depends on the DEC. You scratch my back and I will do the same when your turn comes. TxHoops 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearWolf Posted November 11, 2016 Report Share Posted November 11, 2016 19 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said: That would be pretty petty. Its my understanding that they denied Elijah and upheld the older brother. Team Game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggiesAreWe Posted November 11, 2016 Report Share Posted November 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, BigPanther said: Its my understanding that they denied Elijah and upheld the older brother. Wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUEDOVE3 Posted November 12, 2016 Report Share Posted November 12, 2016 We would gave to understand the reason why the brother was accepted by UIL/DEC for this to maybe make some sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winwin Posted November 12, 2016 Report Share Posted November 12, 2016 1 hour ago, BLUEDOVE3 said: We would gave to understand the reason why the brother was accepted by UIL/DEC for this to maybe make some sense. Maybe he didn't play varsity last year at HJ. Does that matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.