UIL State Exec Committee to Meet on Rankin

[granger]

Here's the press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUSTIN, Texas — The State Executive Committee of the University Interscholastic League will convene at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 11 at the Austin Marriott North in Round Rock to determine the eligibility of student athletes and discuss alleged rule violations.

A schedule of tomorrow’s hearings follows.

HEARING (AA-HH)
9:00 a.m. AA. Alvin Shadow Creek High School: Appeal of District 24-5A Executive Committee Decision Regarding Eligibility of a Student Athlete, Section 443, Changing Schools for Athletic Purposes.
9:45 a.m. BB. Lewisville The Colony High School: Appeal of District 11-5A Executive Committee Decision Regarding Eligibility of a Student Athlete, Section 443, Changing Schools for Athletic Purposes.
10:30 a.m. CC. Pasadena Rayburn High School: Appeal of District 22-6A Executive Committee Decision Regarding Eligibility of a Student Athlete, Section 443, Changing Schools for Athletic Purposes.
11:15 a.m. DD. Dickinson High School: Appeal of District 24-6A Executive Committee Decision Regarding Eligibility of a Student Athlete, Section 443, Changing Schools for Athletic Purposes
12:30 p.m. EE. Rankin High School: Appeal of District 10-1A Executive Committee Decision Regarding Eligibility of a Student Athlete, Section 443, Changing Schools for Athletic Purposes.
1:15 p.m. FF. Valley View High School: Appeal of District 12-2A Executive Committee Decision Regarding Eligibility of a Student Athlete, Section 443, Changing Schools for Athletic Purposes.
1. Student A
2. Student B
2:00 p.m. GG. Consideration of Penalties for Violations of Section 50(a)(3), Student Violations, Section 51(b)(1), School District Personnel Violations, and Section 52(b), UIL School Violations
1. Involved Student-Athletes
2. Coach Terina Heedum, San Antonio Gervin Academy
3. Coach Marcus Greene, San Antonio Brooks Academy
4. San Antonio Gervin Academy
5. San Antonio Brooks Academy
2:45 p.m. HH. Houston Yates High School: Appeal of District 12-4A Division I Executive Committee Decision Regarding Section 51(a)(1), School District Personnel Violations, Coach Michael Watkins

The State Executive Committee meeting is an open meeting and all interested parties are welcome to attend.

 

[wths]

I wonder how this went....

 

[granger]

UIL State Executive Committee Meeting Results

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AUSTIN, Texas — The State Executive Committee of the University Interscholastic League met Tuesday to hand down decisions on eligibility of student-athletes and issue penalties for UIL rule violations.

Student-athletes from Alvin Shadow Creek High School, Pasadena Rayburn High School, Dickinson High School, Rankin High School, and Valley View High School were denied appeals for varsity eligibility, upholding the previous rulings of the district executive committees.

A student-athlete from Lewisville The Colony High School was granted an appeal for varsity eligibility. After hearing testimony from all parties, it was determined that this student did not change schools for athletic purposes.

San Antonio Gervin Academy and San Antonio Brooks Academy girls basketball programs were given two years probation and a public reprimand for fighting with opponents.

Houston Yates High School football coach Michael Watkins was denied an appeal of a ruling of a district executive committee, and was placed on two years probation and issued a public reprimand.

--END--

 

[Broberts431]

The hearing lasted for about an hour. Testimony was given by the Burkhart’s, representatives from sterling city, representatives from rankin, and a representative from the DEC. Came down to a vote in which the Burkhart’s lost 5-1.

 

[Longhorn85]

Unfortunate situation for Landon. As I understand it, that means he will not be able to play at Rankin on any varsity team until he reaches 1 year from his enrollment date there.

Though, as this rarely happens... does anyone know for certain that the 1 year would apply if Coach Burkhardt were to take a Head Coaching job somewhere else next season and Landon transferred with his family as a move-in for non-athletic purposes?

 

[FCSA football]

I think normally if he took a head coaching job and moved Landon would be eligible. But it appears that nothing having to do with Burkhart is considered “normal”. He seems to be a lightning rod and no one considers the kid. I believe it’s WAY PAST TIME that the powers that be take a long hard look at the UIL. Unlimited, unsupervised power can lead to abuse of that power.
Just saying.........

 

[coachsatcher]

Though, as this rarely happens... does anyone know for certain that the 1 year would apply if Coach Burkhardt were to take a Head Coaching job somewhere else next season and Landon transferred with his family as a move-in for non-athletic purposes?

Taking a head coaching job doesn't automatically deem a student eligible, unless they move inside the district lines. If they live outside the district, the student-athlete must go through the waiver process. I was always led to believe, if a coach accepts a full-time job within a district, their children were automatic transfers. Our district has been educated, by UIL, the past two years. Not a fan of a coach's child's eligibility being open to subjectivity, but UIL isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

I think normally if he took a head coaching job and moved Landon would be eligible. But it appears that nothing having to do with Burkhart is considered “normal”. He seems to be a lightning rod and no one considers the kid. I believe it’s WAY PAST TIME that the powers that be take a long hard look at the UIL. Unlimited, unsupervised power can lead to abuse of that power.
Just saying.........

I agree 1000%, and people need to realize this is an example of the direction our country is heading over all if people do not start standing up for the Bill of Rights! Remember UIL, everyone is guilt until proven innocent, and I must have slept through the part of government that gave the UIL that right to act as a court.

While I do not know all the facts for sure, it sounds like Jerry Burkhart was not happy with law enforcement in Stanton. Regardless of the truth, the UIL should NOT be reach conclusions about a citizen's constitutional right to not like the final product of local law enforcement via moving to another jurisdiction AND employer.

Furthermore, I think not letting Landon play the remainder of next year in football was more than "punishment" enough for what happened at Stanton. Additionally, Sterling City is biased in regards to Landon Burkhart as they could and probably would see a Red Devil-version of Landon and Jerry Burkhart in the playoffs next year.

I am sure Coach Burkhart will lawyer up and fight this, but the UIL is full of elitist who send their kids to private schools with gated communities. Although I do not know what happened at Stanton, I know Jerry Burkhart and Mrs. Burkhart have the right to do what is best for their son's safety.

The question about whether Landon could play somewhere else is a fair one. I actually went through this myself as I played and lived in Lohn my freshman year, moved to Abilene for a year, and then came back. The UIL denied my "waiver request" but allowed me to refile the paperwork as a regular new student who moved into the direction. I suspect that is what the Burkhart's and Rankin ISD will do in this situation.

 

[pistol]

y'all can watch the entire hearing, and get all the information you want to

 

[Johnny South]

Is he not living in the District?

 

[Kramer]

Wow, I read some of these posts. First off, Here we go with I don't get my way so let's sue. Secondly, I would believe Coach Burkhardt knew the situation/chances of his son not playing VARSITY level if they moved for WHATEVER REASON.

I for one applaud the UIL, they are put in a very tough situation on EVERY ruling dealing with sports. THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE US.
THEY HAVE TO SET RULES IN WHICH SCHOOLS/ATHLETES/COACHES HAVE TO ABIDE BY.

UIL, DEC's, AD's, Coaches ain't gonna make everyone happy with their decisions.


A rich man sees 5$ on the ground, he will turn it in or walk past it.
A bum living under a bridge sees 5$ he will pick it up and be very happy.
IN SAYING EVERYONE HAS THEIR OUTLOOK ON UIL/SPORTS/LIFE/Etc....


Lastly,
If UIL has to deal with (guessing) over 12,000 PAPF yearly, each one is dealt with differently. And with that some will be told NO and declared ineligible.
So do you go with the ruling or do you take your ball and go home. OR DO YOU DO LIKE TIMTEBOW15 said, get a lawyer and SUE because you were told NO ....

 

[pistol]

I think normally if he took a head coaching job and moved Landon would be eligible. But it appears that nothing having to do with Burkhart is considered “normal”. He seems to be a lightning rod and no one considers the kid. I believe it’s WAY PAST TIME that the powers that be take a long hard look at the UIL. Unlimited, unsupervised power can lead to abuse of that power.
Just saying.........

I agree 1000%, and people need to realize this is an example of the direction our country is heading over all if people do not start standing up for the Bill of Rights! Remember UIL, everyone is guilt until proven innocent, and I must have slept through the part of government that gave the UIL that right to act as a court.

While I do not know all the facts for sure, it sounds like Jerry Burkhart was not happy with law enforcement in Stanton. Regardless of the truth, the UIL should NOT be reach conclusions about a citizen's constitutional right to not like the final product of local law enforcement via moving to another jurisdiction AND employer.

Furthermore, I think not letting Landon play the remainder of next year in football was more than "punishment" enough for what happened at Stanton. Additionally, Sterling City is biased in regards to Landon Burkhart as they could and probably would see a Red Devil-version of Landon and Jerry Burkhart in the playoffs next year.

I am sure Coach Burkhart will lawyer up and fight this, but the UIL is full of elitist who send their kids to private schools with gated communities. Although I do not know what happened at Stanton, I know Jerry Burkhart and Mrs. Burkhart have the right to do what is best for their son's safety.

The question about whether Landon could play somewhere else is a fair one. I actually went through this myself as I played and lived in Lohn my freshman year, moved to Abilene for a year, and then came back. The UIL denied my "waiver request" but allowed me to refile the paperwork as a regular new student who moved into the direction. I suspect that is what the Burkhart's and Rankin ISD will do in this situation.

??? UIL wasn't acting as a court of law.. nobody was convicted of anything. I'm wondering what this has to do with the Bill of Rights as well

 

[Texlonghorn75]

Pistol, Will you disregard TebowTime's comments, he is emotionally involved.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

I for one applaud the UIL, they are put in a very tough situation on EVERY ruling dealing with sports. THEY DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE US.
THEY HAVE TO SET RULES IN WHICH SCHOOLS/ATHLETES/COACHES HAVE TO ABIDE BY.

They crossed the line between "rules for athletics" and "laws" when they told Jerry Burkhart he violated the "rules for athletics" by deciding to change employers/enroll his son in a different school because he feared for his son's life. Like I said, Landon was "punished" enough for missing several football games his sophomore year of school.

What if someone threatened your son? Would you want the ability to switch schools? Would you want UIL elites, whose kids go to rich private schools in Austin, passing judgement on you for a decision you made? It is getting old having elites tell the common folk that they should not be able to do what is in their best interest; I think they should be made to have their kids go to Stanton if they are going to pass judgement on others.

Furthermore, he will probably be declared eligible anyways. Why does he even need a waiver if he lives in the school district? I am sure they live in one of those nice school houses right by Rankin ISD. Jerry could also leave Rankin, and his son would be declared eligible next year without going through this ridiculous waiver process.

Again, I went through this, and it is so arbitrary and capricious that it is begging for a law suit! Those UIL types only answer to power, but they will not want to spend a dime to enforce their decision.

A rich man sees 5$ on the ground, he will turn it in or walk past it.
A bum living under a bridge sees 5$ he will pick it up and be very happy.
IN SAYING EVERYONE HAS THEIR OUTLOOK ON UIL/SPORTS/LIFE/Etc....

Everyone has an OPINION on things, but let me give you some FACT! We will NOT have a country if we do not quit assuming people guilty until proven innocent! The same principal applies whether it is Landon Burkhart or Brett Kavanaugh.

If Jerry really did not like the way the police handled the situation, which is what he told the San Angelo Standard Times, then who on earth can judge him for that? His clean record, despite unfounded allegations, in conjunction with the presumptuous of innocence, as defined by the Constitution of the United States, scream for his son to be given a scintilla of mercy.

Did Cosmo Krammar skip government class? If so, let me know and I will be happy to help fix that error.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

I think normally if he took a head coaching job and moved Landon would be eligible. But it appears that nothing having to do with Burkhart is considered “normal”. He seems to be a lightning rod and no one considers the kid. I believe it’s WAY PAST TIME that the powers that be take a long hard look at the UIL. Unlimited, unsupervised power can lead to abuse of that power.
Just saying.........

I agree 1000%, and people need to realize this is an example of the direction our country is heading over all if people do not start standing up for the Bill of Rights! Remember UIL, everyone is guilt until proven innocent, and I must have slept through the part of government that gave the UIL that right to act as a court.

While I do not know all the facts for sure, it sounds like Jerry Burkhart was not happy with law enforcement in Stanton. Regardless of the truth, the UIL should NOT be reach conclusions about a citizen's constitutional right to not like the final product of local law enforcement via moving to another jurisdiction AND employer.

Furthermore, I think not letting Landon play the remainder of next year in football was more than "punishment" enough for what happened at Stanton. Additionally, Sterling City is biased in regards to Landon Burkhart as they could and probably would see a Red Devil-version of Landon and Jerry Burkhart in the playoffs next year.

I am sure Coach Burkhart will lawyer up and fight this, but the UIL is full of elitist who send their kids to private schools with gated communities. Although I do not know what happened at Stanton, I know Jerry Burkhart and Mrs. Burkhart have the right to do what is best for their son's safety.

The question about whether Landon could play somewhere else is a fair one. I actually went through this myself as I played and lived in Lohn my freshman year, moved to Abilene for a year, and then came back. The UIL denied my "waiver request" but allowed me to refile the paperwork as a regular new student who moved into the direction. I suspect that is what the Burkhart's and Rankin ISD will do in this situation.

??? UIL wasn't acting as a court of law.. nobody was convicted of anything. I'm wondering what this has to do with the Bill of Rights as well

Read my post I just made; apparently we posted at the same time.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Pistol, Will you disregard TebowTime's comments, he is emotionally involved.

I have nothing to do with Rankin, Stanton, or Sterling City, nor do I live anywhere around there currently. In case I get the Jeff Session's treatment, I did go to college in San Angelo which is relatively close to the area. That was like 6 years ago, however.

 

[Vincent J. Davis]

Now I see why Coach Henry promotes the independents so much. You don’t have to worry about these types of things... may be time for schools to go that route instead of staying in UIL.. the kid was threatened and fear for his life.. put it anyway you want to put it but if it was my son I would do the exact same thing... god bless that young man and I hope he gets to be on the field for week 1 of next season. Let the kid play and just go out there and HAVE FUN because at the end of the day that is what it is all about.. hate when adults take the joy away from these kids man.. really hurts my heart.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

Some people are confusing the issue here. Simply Burkhart made a few decisions, yes it involved a unique set of circumstances, and the UIL made their decision. Burkhart could have called UIL up front before hand and ask what about his situation and I'm sure the UIL would have given him the same answer he got Tuesday. He might have been able to modify his response(moving) somehow as to not prevented his son's participation somewhere, but isn't his son's safety is what this was all about anyhow??? The UIL has to be consistent with its response regardless of status. If the UIL approved this, it would open up a can of worms for everyone to ask to transfer whenever there was a problem. Remember the District executive committee ruled against Burkhart so what do you think the State committee was going to do? The facts and the depositions did not change from the District review to the State review. Hopefully Landon can play next year. I'm sure Abilene Christian High would take him and UIL can't touch him there. Happy Trails...

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Some people are confusing the issue here. Simply Burkhart made a few decisions, yes it involved a unique set of circumstances, and the UIL made their decision. Burkhart could have called UIL up front before hand and ask what about his situation and I'm sure the UIL would have given him the same answer he got Tuesday. He might have been able to modify his response(moving) somehow as to not prevented his son's participation somewhere, but isn't his son's safety is what this was all about anyhow??? The UIL has to be consistent with its response regardless of status. If the UIL approved this, it would open up a can of worms for everyone to ask to transfer whenever there was a problem. Remember the District executive committee ruled against Burkhart so what do you think the State committee was going to do? The facts and the depositions did not change from the District review to the State review. Hopefully Landon can play next year. I'm sure Abilene Christian High would take him and UIL can't touch him there. Happy Trails...

You are confusing the issue, my friend. For one thing, I bet the UIL wouldn't have even responded to Jerry Burkhart had he called them about this situation! For another, I remember the UIL bending over backwards to let students displaced by Hurricane Katrina play in Texas. What's the difference? The UIL thinks one is more important than the other.

Why do they get to decide what is more important than anyone else? While I understand it totally in the federal system, the State of Texas is weird because the Members of the State Board of Education are part of the state's plural executive branch.

Either way, the UIL should either A. not be able to make determinations about a player's status if extraneous circumstances led to the action in question or B. not let anyone play unless they sit out a year whether they live in the district or not. I say this because they are qualified to answer questions about UIL RULES not life threatening situations. Doing so, in my opinion, violates their mandate and separate of powers, whether it comes from the Texas Constitution or the delegation doctrine (like it does in the federal system.)

Think of it like border patrol agent not being able to arrest citizens or police not being able to arrest non-citizens. Basically, they are outside the course and scope of their jurisdiction by telling Mr. and Mrs. Burkhart that their son's live means nothing in the grand scheme of things. To me, the dangerous precedent starts when they tell Hurricane Katrina Victims that they can play, yet tell Landon Burkhart he cannot play. Both, in their minds, have legitimate reasons why the rule should not apply to them. The regulation of hearts and minds is a cancer in our society as demonstrated by this situation and Brett Kavanaugh ordeal.

Again, this is probably a mute point since Landon can simply fill out the paperwork as a new student (like I did) or Jerry takes a job at another public school. It just irritates me that the elites in Austin can tell, us, the people, how to live our lives!

 

[Vincent J. Davis]

And if Landon is ineligible and can’t play because of transferring then the UIL needs to have that same energy towards these 6a schools out here in DFW.... schools like Desoto, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, Dallas ISD schools all of these kids get recruited to play at these schools out here.. no homegrown talent at all!! Kids living 35-45 minutes away from the 6a schools that they play at.. and don’t give me that “open enrollment” stuff ... but the UIL doesn’t want to come down on those schools because they can’t lose money $$$ because that’s all it’s about with these folks down in Austin.. I am willing to fight this for Landon!! IF HE CANT PLAY THEN PLAYERS FROM ALLEN, DUNCANVILLE, DESOTO, and all these other 6a schools out here that recruit shouldn’t be allowed to play either then!!!! Why don’t you rule them ineligible UIL???
Don’t worry Landon, I promise you that you will be playing 6man football week 1.. if anyone wants to discuss this matter with me I will be at AT&T next Wednesday!!!

God bless,

Coach Davis
Dallas Lutheran