Transfers and high school sports

[Matthew328]

14 minutes ago, CS. said:

I don't want kids punished.  Not at all.  I want to see an even playing field.  Create the new classification and be done with it.  SOC and others have shown that with the talent they bring in, they can compete with 6A schools.  

I'd fascinated by an open division, the issue I think is you create an open division now you gotta let more private schools in...Just my guess at least

[CS.]

I think that would be fine.  I mean, why not? 

[AggiesAreWe]

11 minutes ago, Matthew328 said:

I'd fascinated by an open division, the issue I think is you create an open division now you gotta let more private schools in...Just my guess at least

Question. What would be the criteria for schools that would "have" to play in this open division? I said "have to" instead of "choosing to" because I know some schools would rather play right where the UIL has them playing.

If it's just open enrollment, you would be hurting small schools that have open enrollment. Would this open division have classifications? 

[Matthew328]

12 minutes ago, CS. said:

I think that would be fine.  I mean, why not? 

I wouldnt mind seeing it in an open division at this point....I doubt most private schools would be interested 

[Matthew328]

1 minute ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Question. What would be the criteria for schools that would "have" to play in this open division? I said "have to" instead of "choosing to" because I know some schools would rather play right where the UIL has them playing.

If it's just open enrollment, you would be hurting small schools that have open enrollment. Would this open division have classifications? 

It could for sure..

[89Falcon]

1 hour ago, CS. said:

four-star Baylor pledge Kamauryn Morgan will be playing defensive line for South Oak Cliff after leaving Red Oak

He transferred. Transferring is not illegal. What rule was broken.

[WhoDat]

38 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Question. What would be the criteria for schools that would "have" to play in this open division? I said "have to" instead of "choosing to" because I know some schools would rather play right where the UIL has them playing.

If it's just open enrollment, you would be hurting small schools that have open enrollment. Would this open division have classifications? 

How hard would UIL fight this? They don't want to lose any money, I'm sure. If a school opted out for one sport, would they have to for every UIL event? 

[89Falcon]

1 hour ago, CS. said:

Reggie McNeals kid from Houston-

Dallas Skyline fella.  

Your turn Falcon.  You think they all moved for Academics at Oak Cliff? 

How is he eligible? If he broke a rule? How was he approved by the DEC? I suspect every school in the district submitted PAPFs for transfers. Do you any info on the transfers to the other schools in the district? Or just the teams that are good?

[oldschool2]

On 8/3/2026 at 12:57 PM, CS. said:

That is the understanding of how it's supposed to work in an honest process.  You're assuming everyone is honest, which in itself is naive. 

They are NOT honest.  They are constantly using loopholes and skirting the rules.  This isn't assumption, it's 100% happening.  It's worse in Dallas than any other Region.  I have known many coaches and players in that entire Region - they know it's happening and they know nothing will be done.  You can continue to assume everyone is honest.  I can tell you that I've seen it happen to schools that didn't deserve it, while other schools benefitted from it. One example is a smaller 5A-D2 school at the time had the horses to make a run but the QB decided to go to a larger school with more notoriety.  That left the smaller school with a QB that didn't quite have the ability to take them where they probably would have gone.  That transfer was not an honest one and neither are the majority.

You do know that parents change residences for a large number of reasons, right?  Job, cheaper housing, better neighborhood, different school district for their kids, etc.  Nobody can stop people from moving.  If they actually move, and can prove the change of address.... how is that the kid's fault?  Why would a kid be punished by sitting a year if his/her parents made the decision to relocate?  You can't prove why the move happened.  And honestly.. it's nobody's business.  I could sell my house this afternoon if I wanted to... for whatever reason I wanted to.. for however much I wanted to.. and move to wherever I wanted to.  And if I still had kids at home, they'd go with me.  And there's nothing nobody could do about it.  They shouldn't be punished if I as there parent makes a decision to relocate.  As long as none of us openly advertised that we were moving so my kids could get an athletic scholarship or play for a potential state champion, then who's to say it was for athletic purposes?

There's no question that it has and does happen that kids/parent change schools to potentially be in a better position athletically, but it's not difficult to justify the move for legitimate reasons.  Apartment complexes make it easy in metro areas like DFW, Houston, Austin, etc..  

[WOSdrummer99]

2 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

Question. What would be the criteria for schools that would "have" to play in this open division? 

If any student athlete participating in competition would be ineligible by current rules. Then the team is only qualified for select playoffs.

"Open" is too vague and like u say includes too many small schools.

For example last year Louisiana 5A had 36 select (Edna Carr 14-0) and 41 non (Quachita Parish 11-4)

Would more coaches check a box and DEC do their job? I think if they would. Especially if they know they dont have to face Carthage or DeSotOakinVille in December

[AggiesAreWe]

9 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

If any student athlete participating in competition would be ineligible by current rules. Then the team is only qualified for select playoffs.

"Open" is too vague and like u say includes too many small schools.

For example last year Louisiana 5A had 36 select (Edna Carr 14-0) and 41 non (Quachita Parish 11-4)

Would more coaches check a box and DEC do their job? I think if they would. Especially if they know they dont have to face Carthage or DeSotOakinVille in December

I like that.

And I love DesotOakinVille. LOL!!

[PNGFaithful]

7 hours ago, Matthew328 said:

It could for sure..

Why does the UIL ignore SOC recruiting? No one moves to SOC for academics. 

[89Falcon]

8 hours ago, PNGFaithful said:

Why does the UIL ignore SOC recruiting? No one moves to SOC for academics. 

How do you know? How many people moved to or from SOC in the past year? And what were each of their reasons? (been waiting on someone with direct knowledge like yourself). 

Why did the DEC not reject the SOC transfers? Since it would directly hurt their schools? Did PNG submit any PAPFs this year?  

[Matthew328]

8 hours ago, PNGFaithful said:

Why does the UIL ignore SOC recruiting? No one moves to SOC for academics. 

What evidence of recruiting is out there that the UIL has? If someone has it I'm sure they'd be happy to take it and make an example of someone. 

If the kids that go there have clean PAPFs the UIL's not going to intervene unless there's evidence of recruiting...the only time I can recall a kid transferring to SOC and there actually being a hearing was the kid from Corsicana who signed with A&M and he was cleared....

[aki1994]

16 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

He transferred. Transferring is not illegal. What rule was broken.

Your stance on the subject shows just how much you choose to not acknowledge kids are moving into SOC every single year strictly for football and they are being recruited there by SOC coaches. You are making a fool of yourself. But please, carry on. 

[aki1994]

1 hour ago, 89Falcon said:

How do you know? How many people moved to or from SOC in the past year? And what were each of their reasons? (been waiting on someone with direct knowledge like yourself). 

Why did the DEC not reject the SOC transfers? Since it would directly hurt their schools? Did PNG submit any PAPFs this year?  

The poster already laid out numerous ones and you chose to ignore that post. 

[89Falcon]

51 minutes ago, aki1994 said:

The poster already laid out numerous ones and you chose to ignore that post. 

Have not seen an answer yet. Just that a few kids transferred. There is not a school in Texas that did not gain new students or lose new students. 
 

**worthy of note that no one is mentioning the schools that do not win big and anything about their “transfers”. 

[WOSdrummer99]

21 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Have not seen an answer yet. Just that a few kids transferred. There is not a school in Texas that did not gain new students or lose new students. 
 

**worthy of note that no one is mentioning the schools that do not win big and anything about their “transfers”. 

Its impossible to lose new students. And nobody talks about them because we want fair competition. Recruit 22 move ins and go 0-10... might make headlines

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

Gotta love the traditional "yell at clouds" season before football season starts. 

[Matthew328]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

Gotta love the traditional "yell at clouds" season before football season starts. 

A tale as old as time 

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

Have not seen an answer yet. Just that a few kids transferred. There is not a school in Texas that did not gain new students or lose new students. 
 

**worthy of note that no one is mentioning the schools that do not win big and anything about their “transfers”. 

i have mixed feelings on the topic at hand, but having read through this thread it's definitely worth noting that you're being a bit obtuse on this one (intentionally, no doubt, as you're no dummy). While it is inarguable that schools gain and lose students every year, it's also inarguable that there are a few schools who consistently gain new students who "coincidentally" happen to be D1 football recruits. It's obvious what happens at several of these schools, but in some it's provable through common sense. Let's take SOC, for example, which is a C-rated campus, and is located in South Oak Cliff, an F-tier community to live in.  it's kind of hard to find a really valid reason why the recruits (i mean transfers) have moved from A or B rated school districts, generally MUCH safer neighborhoods, and areas with more job opportunities and housing other than football.

As for your **, generally transfers who are transferring for non-football reasons aren't transferring to schools that have great football programs, and also aren't transferring to schools getting large numbers of obvious football related transfers. If shepherd gets a stray running back move-in here or there, or some kid from beaumont moves out to HF, etc, it's one thing. But something tells me if half of the D-1 recruits from around SETX started moving into HF every season and were allowed to play lots of folks would have lots to say about it, including the coaching staff of Shepherd (regardless of what their PAPFs say). 

[CS.]

11 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

i have mixed feelings on the topic at hand, but having read through this thread it's definitely worth noting that you're being a bit obtuse on this one (intentionally, no doubt, as you're no dummy). While it is inarguable that schools gain and lose students every year, it's also inarguable that there are a few schools who consistently gain new students who "coincidentally" happen to be D1 football recruits. It's obvious what happens at several of these schools, but in some it's provable through common sense. Let's take SOC, for example, which is a C-rated campus, and is located in South Oak Cliff, an F-tier community to live in.  it's kind of hard to find a really valid reason why the recruits (i mean transfers) have moved from A or B rated school districts, generally MUCH safer neighborhoods, and areas with more job opportunities and housing other than football.

As for your **, generally transfers who are transferring for non-football reasons aren't transferring to schools that have great football programs, and also aren't transferring to schools getting large numbers of obvious football related transfers. If shepherd gets a stray running back move-in here or there, or some kid from beaumont moves out to HF, etc, it's one thing. But something tells me if 5 D-1 recruits from around SETX moved into HF for next season and were allowed to play lots of folks would have lots to say about it, including the coaching staff of Shepherd (regardless of what their PAPFs say). 

Bingo

[AggiesAreWe]

I think this subject can be viewed in many ways. But what I believe 89Falcon is trying to say is that these student athletes that are mentioned were all ruled eligible. The coaches that the player transferred from didn't check the box, the DEC the player is transferring to didn't rule ineligible (and that matters the most since it's comprised of schools that will be competing against said player(s) ), or these players sat out the necessary time before being allowed to play varsity sports.

Like Matt stated, UIL will most times not step in on these type situations and will just about always rule the same as the DEC.

Should policy change? I say it should. But until then as long as players are ruled eligible, the schools can carry on. 

Stating that schools recruit can be viewed as sour grapes. Not saying that's the case here but most of the complaining normally comes from the losing teams.

In the case of SOC, all their players were ruled eligible so they have done no wrong. 

[bullets13]

14 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I think this subject can be viewed in many ways. But what I believe 89Falcon is trying to say is that these student athletes that are mentioned were all ruled eligible. The coaches that the player transferred from didn't check the box, the DEC the player is transferring to didn't rule ineligible (and that matters the most since it's comprised of schools that will be competing against said player(s) ), or these players sat out the necessary time before being allowed to play varsity sports.

Like Matt stated, UIL will most times not step in on these type situations and will just about always rule the same as the DEC.

Should policy change? I say it should. But until then as long as players are ruled eligible, the schools can carry on. 

Stating that schools recruit can be viewed as sour grapes. Not saying that's the case here but most of the complaining normally comes from the losing teams.

In the case of SOC, all their players were ruled eligible so they have done no wrong. 

I agree with everything bolded.

As for the sour grapes, sometimes they're warranted. My team will never lose to SOC in a state final game, so while I have an opinion on the matter, it doesn't affect me the same way it's affected PNG. If I lived there I'm sure I'd be a lot more passionate about the subject. I'm also sure there have been plenty of sour grapes in Silsbee over the last decade when their basketball teams deserving of being state champions have lost out to houston teams or Faith Family because of a broken system. And i personally don't blame anyone from Silsbee a bit if they're still upset.

As for SOC, there's a difference between having done no wrong and not having been caught doing wrong. Is it possible that every D1 player that transfers in is doing so on their own with no encouragement or interference from the coaching staff? I suppose it is. But that seems unlikely, and I'm not sure how anyone could be confident saying that it's happening that way.

[89Falcon]

1 hour ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I think this subject can be viewed in many ways. But what I believe 89Falcon is trying to say is that these student athletes that are mentioned were all ruled eligible. The coaches that the player transferred from didn't check the box, the DEC the player is transferring to didn't rule ineligible (and that matters the most since it's comprised of schools that will be competing against said player(s) ), or these players sat out the necessary time before being allowed to play varsity sports.

Like Matt stated, UIL will most times not step in on these type situations and will just about always rule the same as the DEC.

Should policy change? I say it should. But until then as long as players are ruled eligible, the schools can carry on. 

Stating that schools recruit can be viewed as sour grapes. Not saying that's the case here but most of the complaining normally comes from the losing teams.

In the case of SOC, all their players were ruled eligible so they have done no wrong. 

Yes