BC/LCM watch scandal?

[setxathlete14]

Just now, TheMissingBand said:

Well, if a district is weak because your team is in it, what does that say about your team?

Y’all need to ask yourselves why that state championship caliber coach can’t get the Bears out of the first round. 

Never claimed to be anything but better than bridge city most years. Most have always recognized how weak this district is. And that's why bc wanted to try and take advantage of some more wins.

[LamarCard2011]

4 minutes ago, marshman said:

I’ve read this week that a forfeiture wasn’t ever a real possibility so if that true I’m  left wondering why BC took it to this to this level? I completely understand the ethics issue and totally support that, but if the BC folks knew getting the game results overturned was not going to happen then it makes them look like they just had it out to shed negative publicity on LCM and to discredit Coach Gonzales and Peevey.  LCM definitely didn’t handle this the right way, but if that’s all BC wanted to do then that’s wrong as well and two wrongs don’t make one right. But I don’t have a dog in this fight it’s just my simple observation. 
 

Where did you read a forfeiture was never a possibility? If they would have had more evidence, better quality video it could have been it sounds like from the hearing.

[setxathlete14]

Just now, LamarCard2011 said:

Where did you read a forfeiture was never a possibility? If they would have had more evidence, better quality video it could have been it sounds like from the hearing.

UIL mentioned that.

[setxathlete14]

54 minutes ago, Old Bald Man said:

Do any teams in this  district have a chance to win a game in round 1? Only if you host and only if you get Chapel Hill, all the others will be IN TROUBLE!

Very very little chance regardless lol

[TxHoops]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

no competitive disadvantage could be proven through a preponderance of evidence. Big difference that you guys need to learn. 

I think I could have worked with the preponderance of the evidence here.  Beyond a reasonable doubt, no way.  But convincing 10 of 12 laypeople shenanigans were at work from the video, I like my chances. 

[PhatMack19]

6 minutes ago, setxathlete14 said:

UIL mentioned that.

The district voted on the forfeiture.  The UIL went by what the district said.

[pine curtain]

BC is one of the last schools that should be pointing the finger about ethics.

[AshlyHasBeen]

12 minutes ago, marshman said:

I’ve read this week that a forfeiture wasn’t ever a real possibility so if that true I’m  left wondering why BC took it to this to this level? I completely understand the ethics issue and totally support that, but if the BC folks knew getting the game results overturned was not going to happen then it makes them look like they just had it out to shed negative publicity on LCM and to discredit Coach Gonzales and Peevey.  LCM definitely didn’t handle this the right way, but if that’s all BC wanted to do then that’s wrong as well and two wrongs don’t make one right. But I don’t have a dog in this fight it’s just my simple observation. 
 

The DEC voted to send the assistant coach to face the UIL because he did not follow procedures and turn in the watch immediately. An ethics violation. That's why they met today. The UIL mentioned that they were making a decision on personnel, but they also wanted to give their opinion on competitive advantage. They could not conclude that it made any difference in the outcome of the game. All members had all the video that was presented during the DEC to review before this morning. 

People have to remember that these meetings are also used to clarify things for the future and admitted that making a ruling on the outcome of the game after the DEC chose not to would lead us down a bumpy road. 

[ACTupp]

On 11/5/2025 at 4:12 PM, AggiesAreWe said:

Same

What was the incident?

[Mountain Goat]

4 hours ago, setxathlete14 said:

Someone help me here. I watched the entire thing. NOT 1 single time did BC bring up just wanting their watch back and/or ethical decision making or lack there of, recouping funds. Why they needed the watch back....

 

BCs ONLY discussion and complaint and commments were on lcm competitive advantage. And bringing up stats and their loss since we're talking about tones. Bc only wanted lcm forfeiture here. They didn't expound on anything else complaint wise.

BC responded to the questions that were directly asked to them by the UIL.