UIL State Exec Committee to Meet on Rankin

[One _pac2018]

Well of course it’s athletic reasons . His dad coaches for a living ! So I guess each job jb takes, his son will have too sit out a year ?

 

[Pedant1969]

The sad thing about this whole ordeal is that everyone is missing the forest for the trees. The intent of the UIL’s ruling/regulations on the eligibility of transferring students is to prevent the recruiting of high school athletes for the purpose of winning. They are trying to reassure parents that the playing field will not be tilted in someone’s favor who is gaming the system. While I feel for Landon, an innocent child in this, his father had to know there could be possible “stink eye” on whether he was trying to commit defactorecuiting here. Regardless of his original intent or reasons, he had to be aware this could be a possibility. He would not be very intuitive if he didn’t. On the other hand, the UIL should be making decisions on Landon’s participation based on whether he was being “moved” to put him in a situation where he would make a predictable positive difference for the Rankin team. If the UIL kept him from playing when there would be no consequence in him participating, they should be ashamed of themselves and they would definitely be putting themselves in a position for litigation whether any of us on this message board like it or not. The thing that puzzles me are those who want to crucify the UIL in this. I would ask those individuals if they would feel the same way if they heard that a student athlete was recruited and brought to a school so they could win. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

The thing that puzzles me are those who want to crucify the UIL in this. I would ask those individuals if they would feel the same way if they heard that a student athlete was recruited and brought to a school so they could win. You can’t have it both ways.

SHOW ME SOME PROOF OTHER THAN THE WORD OF BITTER AND BIAS COACHES AND ADMINISTRATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[j_kane13]

Here is my 2 cents on it. 1. You actually do have to prove your innocence at a SEC meeting. Reason why is they are not the equivalent of a criminal court. More like an appeals court. They are appealing the decision of the DEC. 2. If Landon's original move was not for athletic purposes, and instead just to get him away and into a smaller school, then why not take him to Grady? Grady is 13 Miles out of Stanton and Sterling is 61. Obviously they shopped around a bit before taking him somewhere. If it was just for a different school, why not Big Springs, Greenwood, Forsan, or Coahoma? We are quick to feel bad for the kid and I do. However, decisions were made that were probably outside of Landons control that made him ineligible. As far as the Katrina issue, there is a specific rule in place for any student that is or becomes homeless.

Texas Education Code §25.001 (b) (5) ensures that homeless children (individuals who lack a fixed, regular
and adequate residence or whose primary nighttime residence is a shelter, an institution providing temporary
residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized, or a place not ordinarily used as a regular sleeping
accommodation for human beings) are eligible for prompt access to enrollment. Residency requirements,
guardianship requirements, or school record requirements cannot be used to prohibit or delay the enrollment
of homeless children and youth.

Homeless students need their school administrator to apply to the UIL for a waiver of residence if the student
plans to participate in varsity athletics.
Residence rules for athletic varsity eligibility are found in Section 440 (b) and 442 of the Constitution and
Admission
Academic Requirements (No Pass No Play)
8
Contest Rules. They are applicable to UIL varsity athletic eligibility the first year the student attends the school.
Student athletes could be eligible for varsity athletics their first year of attendance if their parents have
abona fide residence (Section 442 [h]) within that school’s attendance zone, or if the student fulfills one of the
exceptions in Section 440, or is granted a hardship waiver (Section 465) of the residence rule through the UIL
office. Otherwise the student is ineligible for all varsity sports for one calendar year from the time of initial enrollment
in the school.

 

[True Shot]

The Burkhart boys only fault was being a great athlete. If he was an average Joe, no one would have cared.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Here is my 2 cents on it. 1. You actually do have to prove your innocence at a SEC meeting. Reason why is they are not the equivalent of a criminal court. More like an appeals court.

While I admire you for being honest about your views and the views of the process overall, a person is entitled to the same presumption of innocence at a civil trial as they are at a criminal trial. What changes, however, is the burden of proof, which ranges in laymen's terms from 51% to 99%; it is 99.99% at a criminal trial. Comparing the process to an appeal is incorrect because the person in question does not get to defend themselves until the UIL gets involved, which is one of my biggest objections to the process.

They are appealing the decision of the DEC. 2. If Landon's original move was not for athletic purposes, and instead just to get him away and into a smaller school, then why not take him to Grady? Grady is 13 Miles out of Stanton and Sterling is 61. Obviously they shopped around a bit before taking him somewhere.

The Burkharts moved from Richland Springs to Sterling City, so they never lived in Stanton. Why did they do that? You would have to ask them, but there was no "shopping around" as you allege. Furthermore, I think the cruel irony is Landon could have played at Sterling City without being subjected to this circus show.

As far as the Katrina issue, there is a specific rule in place for any student that is or becomes homeless.

Can we make a rule for Landon? Their situations are very similar if you take out the word "Burkhart."

 

[Blue Bird]

Don't kid yourselves into thinking that the UIL is aimed right at the Burkharts with malice on their minds. It is good to know that the UIL does not make an exception for their rules no matter who applies. I know of two other situations a student had lived in a district for several years, had been transfering out and decided in mid-year to go to the school in his district. Another, who decided in mid-year to move in with his dad who had lived in that district for several years. In both cases the little box was checked for moving for athletic purposes, the district committee voted to keep them enilgible for a year and the UIL upheld that vote in both cases.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Doesn’t sound to me like the UIL is being hard a$$es because of the kids last name. Sounds to me like they are sticking to their guns despite his last name.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

Here is my 2 cents on it. 1. You actually do have to prove your innocence at a SEC meeting. Reason why is they are not the equivalent of a criminal court. More like an appeals court.

While I admire you for being honest about your views and the views of the process overall, a person is entitled to the same presumption of innocence at a civil trial as they are at a criminal trial. What changes, however, is the burden of proof, which ranges in laymen's terms from 51% to 99%; it is 99.99% at a criminal trial. Comparing the process to an appeal is incorrect because the person in question does not get to defend themselves until the UIL gets involved, which is one of my biggest objections to the process.

They are appealing the decision of the DEC. 2. If Landon's original move was not for athletic purposes, and instead just to get him away and into a smaller school, then why not take him to Grady? Grady is 13 Miles out of Stanton and Sterling is 61. Obviously they shopped around a bit before taking him somewhere.

The Burkharts moved from Richland Springs to Sterling City, so they never lived in Stanton. Why did they do that? You would have to ask them, but there was no "shopping around" as you allege. Furthermore, I think the cruel irony is Landon could have played at Sterling City without being subjected to this circus show.

As far as the Katrina issue, there is a specific rule in place for any student that is or becomes homeless.

Can we make a rule for Landon? Their situations are very similar if you take out the word "Burkhart."

Your statement that the Burkharts didn't live in Stanton is wrong. If you listened to the UIL video of the proceedings the Burkharts moved to Sterling City sometime in October and Jerry drove back and forth to Stanton after the move. It would have been very difficult for an AD/Head Coach to meet all his responsibilities and live out of town too.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Here is my 2 cents on it. 1. You actually do have to prove your innocence at a SEC meeting. Reason why is they are not the equivalent of a criminal court. More like an appeals court.

While I admire you for being honest about your views and the views of the process overall, a person is entitled to the same presumption of innocence at a civil trial as they are at a criminal trial. What changes, however, is the burden of proof, which ranges in laymen's terms from 51% to 99%; it is 99.99% at a criminal trial. Comparing the process to an appeal is incorrect because the person in question does not get to defend themselves until the UIL gets involved, which is one of my biggest objections to the process.

They are appealing the decision of the DEC. 2. If Landon's original move was not for athletic purposes, and instead just to get him away and into a smaller school, then why not take him to Grady? Grady is 13 Miles out of Stanton and Sterling is 61. Obviously they shopped around a bit before taking him somewhere.

The Burkharts moved from Richland Springs to Sterling City, so they never lived in Stanton. Why did they do that? You would have to ask them, but there was no "shopping around" as you allege. Furthermore, I think the cruel irony is Landon could have played at Sterling City without being subjected to this circus show.

As far as the Katrina issue, there is a specific rule in place for any student that is or becomes homeless.

Can we make a rule for Landon? Their situations are very similar if you take out the word "Burkhart."

Your statement that the Burkharts didn't live in Stanton is wrong. If you listened to the UIL video of the proceedings the Burkharts moved to Sterling City sometime in October and Jerry drove back and forth to Stanton after the move. It would have been very difficult for an AD/Head Coach to meet all his responsibilities and live out of town too.

According to who? Only the Burkharts know where they lived at the time.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Doesn’t sound to me like the UIL is being hard a$$es because of the kids last name. Sounds to me like they are sticking to their guns despite his last name.

I think there are clear constitutional violations to this process.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

Here is my 2 cents on it. 1. You actually do have to prove your innocence at a SEC meeting. Reason why is they are not the equivalent of a criminal court. More like an appeals court.

While I admire you for being honest about your views and the views of the process overall, a person is entitled to the same presumption of innocence at a civil trial as they are at a criminal trial. What changes, however, is the burden of proof, which ranges in laymen's terms from 51% to 99%; it is 99.99% at a criminal trial. Comparing the process to an appeal is incorrect because the person in question does not get to defend themselves until the UIL gets involved, which is one of my biggest objections to the process.

They are appealing the decision of the DEC. 2. If Landon's original move was not for athletic purposes, and instead just to get him away and into a smaller school, then why not take him to Grady? Grady is 13 Miles out of Stanton and Sterling is 61. Obviously they shopped around a bit before taking him somewhere.

The Burkharts moved from Richland Springs to Sterling City, so they never lived in Stanton. Why did they do that? You would have to ask them, but there was no "shopping around" as you allege. Furthermore, I think the cruel irony is Landon could have played at Sterling City without being subjected to this circus show.

As far as the Katrina issue, there is a specific rule in place for any student that is or becomes homeless.

Can we make a rule for Landon? Their situations are very similar if you take out the word "Burkhart."

Your statement that the Burkharts didn't live in Stanton is wrong. If you listened to the UIL video of the proceedings the Burkharts moved to Sterling City sometime in October and Jerry drove back and forth to Stanton after the move. It would have been very difficult for an AD/Head Coach to meet all his responsibilities and live out of town too.

According to who? Only the Burkharts know where they lived at the time.

According to Mrs. Burkhart's response to the UIL's questions. That's who! Are you going to argue with the coach's wife too? If you are not going to watch the proceedings on the video you don't know what was said, do you?? But you are the expert on this thread.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

Here is my 2 cents on it. 1. You actually do have to prove your innocence at a SEC meeting. Reason why is they are not the equivalent of a criminal court. More like an appeals court.

While I admire you for being honest about your views and the views of the process overall, a person is entitled to the same presumption of innocence at a civil trial as they are at a criminal trial. What changes, however, is the burden of proof, which ranges in laymen's terms from 51% to 99%; it is 99.99% at a criminal trial. Comparing the process to an appeal is incorrect because the person in question does not get to defend themselves until the UIL gets involved, which is one of my biggest objections to the process.

They are appealing the decision of the DEC. 2. If Landon's original move was not for athletic purposes, and instead just to get him away and into a smaller school, then why not take him to Grady? Grady is 13 Miles out of Stanton and Sterling is 61. Obviously they shopped around a bit before taking him somewhere.

The Burkharts moved from Richland Springs to Sterling City, so they never lived in Stanton. Why did they do that? You would have to ask them, but there was no "shopping around" as you allege. Furthermore, I think the cruel irony is Landon could have played at Sterling City without being subjected to this circus show.

As far as the Katrina issue, there is a specific rule in place for any student that is or becomes homeless.

Can we make a rule for Landon? Their situations are very similar if you take out the word "Burkhart."

Your statement that the Burkharts didn't live in Stanton is wrong. If you listened to the UIL video of the proceedings the Burkharts moved to Sterling City sometime in October and Jerry drove back and forth to Stanton after the move. It would have been very difficult for an AD/Head Coach to meet all his responsibilities and live out of town too.

According to who? Only the Burkharts know where they lived at the time.

According to Mrs. Burkhart's response to the UIL's questions. That's who! Are you going to argue with the coach's wife too? If you are not going to watch the proceedings on the video you don't know what was said, do you?? But you are the expert on this thread.

Sounds like someone is a little touche about the subject. I come on here and kick people's behinds intellectually day after day, and the best you can come up with this I took the word of a poster on this site in regards to where the Burkhart's lived at the time.

Although I like and root for Jerry Burkhart and his son, Landon Burkhart is not the issue at play here. Again, the issues are the presumption of innocence and the UIL overstepping its authority when diving into legal matters.

I went through this as a player about ten years, and it is not a fair process. I never even talked to a school before I went there; I was put in a bad situation from birth and tried to do the best thing for me. Furthermore, no one ever told me "hey, someone said you moved for athletic reasons." That sounds more Soviet-like than American.

For this reason, along with the principal of "guilty until proven innocent" as best and most recently demonstrated by the Brett Kavanaugh situation, is why I post on this site day after day about this issue. You can say whatever you want, but I will not blindly trust the judgement of petty professional educators from Austin, Stanton, Sterling City, Rankin, or anywhere else in between.

 

[Bluecat98]

This is not a constitutional issue. It is a governing body issue. When that box is marked it goes to the DEC and they together make a decision. They are privy to information that others don’t have. You may then appeal to the UIL and they can consider the information as well. Burkhart is well versed on getting these waivers passed, so the fact that his own son’s didn’t may tell you there is more to the situation than you know. If you think one instance of bullying was enough to make them move from a bad job when things were going south, I think you’re missing the forest for the trees....

 

[freeagent]

Having met Mrs. Burkhart on several occasions, she's a sweetheart, but like most coaches wives, I wouldn't cross her

In fact, there are three mothers I have decided that I never want to tick off.

Mary, the Mother of Jesus (because that could result in eternal hell, if you get my drift); My dear sweet wife; and Mrs. Burhkart.

Not necessarily in that order.

 

[oldergoat]

First and fore most Mr. Tebow, this issue has nothing to do with the US Constitution or someone’s rights being violated. Also it has nothing to do with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It is my understanding that public (and some private) schools chose to become members (or be affiliated with) the UIL. This is not a requirement to participate in athletics. And yes I realize to compete for a Championship you must be a member school. There are schools playing “outlaw” schedules on a regular basis for different reasons. Rankin (or any other school) can make that decision. However, if a school elects to become a member of UIL then that school agrees to comply with the rules of the UIL. This is not up for debate.

The second thing is that UIL has no authority to prevent this individual from playing. Of course should he be allowed to play there are repercussions for the coach and school, but it would be their choice.

I have been associated, both individually and professionally, with a number of different organizations and in each case was required to following the rules as established by then. I have learned that if don’t like the rules you have two options. One is to get out (ie take your ball and go home). The other is to work within the organization to make changes that improve the organization. I suppose there is a 3rd option and that would be to accept the decision of the group, based on their rules, and simply move forward.

 

[LBK6manFan]

bump

 

[Deleted member 21909]

First and fore most Mr. Tebow, this issue has nothing to do with the US Constitution or someone’s rights being violated. Also it has nothing to do with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It is my understanding that public (and some private) schools chose to become members (or be affiliated with) the UIL. This is not a requirement to participate in athletics. And yes I realize to compete for a Championship you must be a member school. There are schools playing “outlaw” schedules on a regular basis for different reasons. Rankin (or any other school) can make that decision. However, if a school elects to become a member of UIL then that school agrees to comply with the rules of the UIL. This is not up for debate.

The second thing is that UIL has no authority to prevent this individual from playing. Of course should he be allowed to play there are repercussions for the coach and school, but it would be their choice.

I have been associated, both individually and professionally, with a number of different organizations and in each case was required to following the rules as established by then. I have learned that if don’t like the rules you have two options. One is to get out (ie take your ball and go home). The other is to work within the organization to make changes that improve the organization. I suppose there is a 3rd option and that would be to accept the decision of the group, based on their rules, and simply move forward.

I never saw this post. While I agree with 100% of your post, let me ask you this: what rule did Landon Burkhart break? What gives the UIL the power to make arbitrary and capricious decisions without due process?

I never agreed to be an American citizen, so the government cannot deprive me of "life, liberty, and property" without due process as defined by Amendments 4-8 (and a few of the others in some cases.) The one that I think the UIL violates is a jury of the peers. These UIL bueracrats are out of touch with reality.

 

[pistol]

First and fore most Mr. Tebow, this issue has nothing to do with the US Constitution or someone’s rights being violated. Also it has nothing to do with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It is my understanding that public (and some private) schools chose to become members (or be affiliated with) the UIL. This is not a requirement to participate in athletics. And yes I realize to compete for a Championship you must be a member school. There are schools playing “outlaw” schedules on a regular basis for different reasons. Rankin (or any other school) can make that decision. However, if a school elects to become a member of UIL then that school agrees to comply with the rules of the UIL. This is not up for debate.

The second thing is that UIL has no authority to prevent this individual from playing. Of course should he be allowed to play there are repercussions for the coach and school, but it would be their choice.

I have been associated, both individually and professionally, with a number of different organizations and in each case was required to following the rules as established by then. I have learned that if don’t like the rules you have two options. One is to get out (ie take your ball and go home). The other is to work within the organization to make changes that improve the organization. I suppose there is a 3rd option and that would be to accept the decision of the group, based on their rules, and simply move forward.

I never saw this post. While I agree with 100% of your post, let me ask you this: what rule did Landon Burkhart break? What gives the UIL the power to make arbitrary and capricious decisions without due process?

I never agreed to be an American citizen, so the government cannot deprive me of "life, liberty, and property" without due process as defined by Amendments 4-8 (and a few of the others in some cases.) The one that I think the UIL violates is a jury of the peers. These UIL bueracrats are out of touch with reality.

He answers your question in the first paragraph

"this issue has nothing to do with the US Constitution or someone’s rights being violated. Also it has nothing to do with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. "

 

[Deleted member 21909]

First and fore most Mr. Tebow, this issue has nothing to do with the US Constitution or someone’s rights being violated. Also it has nothing to do with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It is my understanding that public (and some private) schools chose to become members (or be affiliated with) the UIL. This is not a requirement to participate in athletics. And yes I realize to compete for a Championship you must be a member school. There are schools playing “outlaw” schedules on a regular basis for different reasons. Rankin (or any other school) can make that decision. However, if a school elects to become a member of UIL then that school agrees to comply with the rules of the UIL. This is not up for debate.

The second thing is that UIL has no authority to prevent this individual from playing. Of course should he be allowed to play there are repercussions for the coach and school, but it would be their choice.

I have been associated, both individually and professionally, with a number of different organizations and in each case was required to following the rules as established by then. I have learned that if don’t like the rules you have two options. One is to get out (ie take your ball and go home). The other is to work within the organization to make changes that improve the organization. I suppose there is a 3rd option and that would be to accept the decision of the group, based on their rules, and simply move forward.

I never saw this post. While I agree with 100% of your post, let me ask you this: what rule did Landon Burkhart break? What gives the UIL the power to make arbitrary and capricious decisions without due process?

I never agreed to be an American citizen, so the government cannot deprive me of "life, liberty, and property" without due process as defined by Amendments 4-8 (and a few of the others in some cases.) The one that I think the UIL violates is a jury of the peers. These UIL bueracrats are out of touch with reality.

He answers your question in the first paragraph

"this issue has nothing to do with the US Constitution or someone’s rights being violated. Also it has nothing to do with the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. "

Pistol, I feel sorry for your wife, assuming you're married and a male, because you seem like one of those guys that says the same thing over and over yet expects a different result.