Jump to content

Central Eliminated


AshlyHasBeen

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

You don't even know the details of it but already spewing garbage...

What exactly did I say that you are considering "garbage"?  I'm just simply pointing out that...yet another WHATEVER going on in Beaumont ISD.

she·nan·i·gans
SHəˈnanəɡənz/
noun
informal
 
  1. secret or dishonest activity or maneuvering.
    • silly or high-spirited behavior; mischief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KF89 said:

Anyone know the real story or details?

Not at the moment but the proper thing would be for the AD Ron Jackson or HC Jeff Nelson to address it to stop all the vicious rumors from circulating.  The boys are supposed to be about to have the game day walk through practice...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jag Insider said:

Not at the moment but the proper thing would be for the AD Ron Jackson or HC Jeff Nelson to address it to stop all the vicious rumors from circulating.  The boys are supposed to be about to have the game day walk through practice...

1

Have still yet to see a rumor of any kind.  But ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

What exactly did I say that you are considering "garbage"?  I'm just simply pointing out that...yet another WHATEVER going on in Beaumont ISD.

she·nan·i·gans
SHəˈnanəɡənz/
noun
informal
 
  1. secret or dishonest activity or maneuvering.
    • silly or high-spirited behavior; mischief

You really don't want that today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tigers2010 said:

I heard earlier this week, 2 teams from 22-5A were being investigated and that both would heard on sometime before Friday night. 1 of the teams I knew about was Central. Turns out to be correct. There has been no update on the 2nd team, but it was a current playoff team. Hoping for no more bad news today.

Who was the other playoff team? jw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeDeRlAnD b-DoG fAn said:

Who was the other playoff team? jw

I was told earlier this week that Central and Nederland both were being looked into for ineligible players. I am in no way, shape, or form, saying that Nederland violated any rules. I was told there would be a decision on both by game time Friday night. The Central info I was told came out to be true. I have no knowledge on anything regarding Nederland other than what I was told earlier in the week. That was the last I heard of either school. Then today, the Central story came out. I am not saying anything will come out later today, and I am not confirming Nederland is even being looked at. I am just going off earlier this week, and the Central story confirmed half of what I was told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JagMarine95 said:

I feel sorry for the Seniors. This is really sad. My heart goes out to the fellas.........Looks like im following the Chain Gang on the road this postseason

Exactly. Asked Barrow about that since Nederland went through a similar situation last year w/ Livingston.

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my understanding as to what the situation is:

1.  The ruling by the DEC was based upon an internal investigation by the BISD into allegations made to district AD's earlier in the week about an ineligible player.

2.  The controversy centered around a Jaguar who began the season with insufficient credits to be eligible.

3.  By UIL rule, if a player begins the season with ineligible credits, he is ineligible for the first six weeks of the school year.  If the student is passing after the first six weeks, he regains his eligibility.

4.  By the timeline, which was established after conferring with the UIL in Austin, the student in question would not have been eligible to play for Central until the Oct. 13th game against Nederland.

5.  The student, backup/special teams player, played in 3 district games while ineligible, 9/20 vs. Memorial, 9/26 vs. Vidor, and 10/7 vs. Ozen.  2 of those games, Central lost so no forfeit was required there.  But as Central defeated Ozen 49-14, they had to forfeit that game.

6.  The DEC unaniously determined that there was no intent by Central to play an ineligible player.  However, playing an ineligible player is a ZERO tolerance violation so the forfeiture was mandated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tigers2010 said:

I was told earlier this week that Central and Nederland both were being looked into for ineligible players. I am in no way, shape, or form, saying that Nederland violated any rules. I was told there would be a decision on both by game time Friday night. The Central info I was told came out to be true. I have no knowledge on anything regarding Nederland other than what I was told earlier in the week. That was the last I heard of either school. Then today, the Central story came out. I am not saying anything will come out later today, and I am not confirming Nederland is even being looked at. I am just going off earlier this week, and the Central story confirmed half of what I was told.

2 hours ago, jake94 said:

 

I am under the understanding that the Nederland player will play. He was eligible, however was under investigation for other reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

Here is my understanding as to what the situation is:

1.  The ruling by the DEC was based upon an internal investigation by the BISD into allegations made to district AD's earlier in the week about an ineligible player.

2.  The controversy centered around a Jaguar who began the season with insufficient credits to be eligible.

3.  By UIL rule, if a player begins the season with ineligible credits, he is ineligible for the first six weeks of the school year.  If the student is passing after the first six weeks, he regains his eligibility.

4.  By the timeline, which was established after conferring with the UIL in Austin, the student in question would not have been eligible to play for Central until the Oct. 13th game against Nederland.

5.  The student, backup/special teams player, played in 3 district games while ineligible, 9/20 vs. Memorial, 9/26 vs. Vidor, and 10/7 vs. Ozen.  2 of those games, Central lost so no forfeit was required there.  But as Central defeated Ozen 49-14, they had to forfeit that game.

6.  The DEC unaniously determined that there was no intent by Central to play an ineligible player.  However, playing an ineligible player is a ZERO tolerance violation so the forfeiture was mandated.

FYI - just got this statement from BISD

"It was discovered that a student athlete at Central Medical Magnet High School was one half credit short of eligibility. The District Executive Committee met and it was determined that Central High School will forfeit the game against Ozen High School and therefore will be ineligible for playoffs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WOSgrad said:

Here is my understanding as to what the situation is:

1.  The ruling by the DEC was based upon an internal investigation by the BISD into allegations made to district AD's earlier in the week about an ineligible player.

2.  The controversy centered around a Jaguar who began the season with insufficient credits to be eligible.

3.  By UIL rule, if a player begins the season with ineligible credits, he is ineligible for the first six weeks of the school year.  If the student is passing after the first six weeks, he regains his eligibility.

4.  By the timeline, which was established after conferring with the UIL in Austin, the student in question would not have been eligible to play for Central until the Oct. 13th game against Nederland.

5.  The student, backup/special teams player, played in 3 district games while ineligible, 9/20 vs. Memorial, 9/26 vs. Vidor, and 10/7 vs. Ozen.  2 of those games, Central lost so no forfeit was required there.  But as Central defeated Ozen 49-14, they had to forfeit that game.

6.  The DEC unaniously determined that there was no intent by Central to play an ineligible player.  However, playing an ineligible player is a ZERO tolerance violation so the forfeiture was mandated.

Does this mean you are going to have to go back and correct the "pick'ems" for the Central vs Ozen game ?  

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...
  • 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...