UIL State Executive Committee to Meet (Strawn)

[Johnny South]

The moderator referred to overheard conversations a few times so hearsay is considered evidence so gossip would fall into that category too. Gordon girlfriends said he said this or that. This was a community involved family with the father being on the Gordon school board and he resigned once the house sold in Gordon and made plans to move to the ranch. Definitely an athletic determined move. Lol May be they didn't want to help fund that new bond that the district finally passed over much resistance. Gordon was out for blood and challenging Robert's transfer was their only way to get even. Gordon made a mistake with this move and knows better.

So Tex, you seem to be very well informed on the situation, Gordon was the only school on the DEC to vote against eligibility for the athlete?
and, by the way, a transfer can not be challenged by the school he is transferring from. He can be denied transfer by the school he is transferring to. He can go to any school he wants to as long as that school accepts him.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

The way I see it is, you need to have overwhelming convincing evidence for the UIL to override and overturn the District Executive Committee’s decision. The DEC had to have something other than the one school’s opinion on the PAPF. It is a committee and they do vote on these decisions. If only one school rep votes for ineligibility, the athlete is eligible. If the majority of the schools reps voted ineligible, they saw something that we haven’t been shown.

But both the district committee and the UIL committee, as agencies of the State of Texas, need to provide the person being charged with the presumption of innocence, as defined by the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1 of the Texas State Constitution. If the student's dad got a job, I don't know how anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he moved for athletic reasons.

At the very least, the kid should be given a chance to play at the school he left "for athletic reasons." You notice Burkhart went back to Richland after the UIL declared his son moved "for athletic reasons." If it isn't feasible to do that for logistical reasons, then the UIL made a bad decision.

 

[Mike]

The way I see it is, you need to have overwhelming convincing evidence for the UIL to override and overturn the District Executive Committee’s decision. The DEC had to have something other than the one school’s opinion on the PAPF. It is a committee and they do vote on these decisions. If only one school rep votes for ineligibility, the athlete is eligible. If the majority of the schools reps voted ineligible, they saw something that we haven’t been shown.

I think this is probably the most accurate description of what happened yesterday, and probably happens in most of these cases. In order for the UIL to overturn one of these they'd basically be saying that the sending school's representative (whoever filled out the PAPF), along with all six members of the district executive committee, were wrong. I'd imagine it's extremely hard, and extremely rare, to see one of these decisions overturned by the UIL, especially when the DEC's decision was unanimous.

 

[GigemSooners]

So Tex, you seem to be very well informed on the situation, Gordon was the only school on the DEC to vote against eligibility for the athlete?

The only connection I see that's was most likely an issue with Reed is the stepdad played for Lee at Strawn, pretty sure QB, and won Strawn their first title with Lee there. Probably thought they were conspiring to bring the kid over for athletic purposes, threw a fit and Gordon got there way.

 

[Johnny South]

But both the district committee and the UIL committee, as agencies of the State of Texas, need to provide the person being charged with the presumption of innocence, as defined by the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1 of the Texas State Constitution. If the student's dad got a job, I don't know how anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he moved for athletic reasons.

At the very least, the kid should be given a chance to play at the school he left "for athletic reasons." You notice Burkhart went back to Richland after the UIL declared his son moved "for athletic reasons." If it isn't feasible to do that for logistical reasons, then the UIL made a bad decision.

In response to the first part, I would say that he was presumed innocent when the DEC opened their meeting. Then evidence of some sort must have been presented and discussed. He must have been proven guilty within a reasonable doubt. Wouldn’t you agree that is how our system is supposed to work? I wasn’t there, but I’ll bet you weren’t there either.

In response to your second part, his son could not and did not play varsity athletics for one full year from the date that he was ruled ineligible.
We don’t always agree with the decisions, but there would be no order if everyone set and followed their own rules.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

In response to the first part, I would say that he was presumed innocent when the DEC opened their meeting. Then evidence of some sort must have been presented and discussed. He must have been proven guilty within a reasonable doubt. Wouldn’t you agree that is how our system is supposed to work? I wasn’t there, but I’ll bet you weren’t there either.

In response to your second part, his son could not and did not play varsity athletics for one full year from the date that he was ruled ineligible.
We don’t always agree with the decisions, but there would be no order if everyone set and followed their own rules.

I don't agree at all with the first part because how can the superintendents of the schools in the district being unbiased towards the allegation? One should be very supportive while the rest unsupportive. How can the former coach be unbiased towards the kid leaving them? It assumes good intentions on the part of people in power. If everyone was an angel, we would not need a complex government.

Again, I have no skin in the game nor do I know anything about this specific instance. This is just off the top of my head. I think letting him play for Gordon next year would be a solid solution.

 

[Mike]

At the very least, the kid should be given a chance to play at the school he left "for athletic reasons." You notice Burkhart went back to Richland after the UIL declared his son moved "for athletic reasons." If it isn't feasible to do that for logistical reasons, then the UIL made a bad decision.

I've thought about a situation like this after each of these hearings I've seen. For me, if the decision would be made, following this hearing, to send the kid back to the sending school, wouldn't that just provide more proof that the move was, indeed, for athletic purposes? I mean, if the parents moved the kid because it was better for their family and/or the kid(s), then being ineligible to play varsity sports is just an annoying, and understandably frustrating, sidebar. It certainly isn't the end of the world, especially if the kids are in a better place. If any part of the parents, because of the outcome of these hearings, wants to send their kid back, or wishes they would have stayed, for me that just re-affirms the DEC and UIL decisions.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

The only connection I see that's was most likely an issue with Reed is the stepdad played for Lee at Strawn, pretty sure QB, and won Strawn their first title with Lee there. Probably thought they were conspiring to bring the kid over for athletic purposes, threw a fit and Gordon got there way.

I understand your reasoning but the stepfather was on Gordon's school board. If the Hinkson family intended to leave for athletic purposes they certainly could have devised a fool proof method to sneak away. Being on the the school board isn't one of those ways.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

I've thought about a situation like this after each of these hearings I've seen. For me, if the decision would be made, following this hearing, to send the kid back to the sending school, wouldn't that just provide more proof that the move was, indeed, for athletic purposes? I mean, if the parents moved the kid because it was better for their family and/or the kid(s), then being ineligible to play varsity sports is just an annoying, and understandably frustrating, sidebar. It certainly isn't the end of the world, especially if the kids are in a better place. If any part of the parents, because of the outcome of these hearings, wants to send their kid back, or wishes they would have stayed, for me that just re-affirms the DEC and UIL decisions.

While I think you could appeal the decision in court, I have never heard that done before. Once you accept losing, however, you do what you have to do to make the best of a bad situation. In my opinion, they are saying you should play for "Y school" rather than "X school" when a claim of moving for "athletic reasons" is decided upon. Thus, you should be able to rectify the situation by going back to the school you played for last year.

I think you are conflating getting to play for X school because you can win a lot of games and getting to play in general. If he wasn't a senior, playing on JV wouldn't be so bad. Then again, it might be at a sixman school. As a senior, however, the kid is basically done.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

I've thought about a situation like this after each of these hearings I've seen. For me, if the decision would be made, following this hearing, to send the kid back to the sending school, wouldn't that just provide more proof that the move was, indeed, for athletic purposes? I mean, if the parents moved the kid because it was better for their family and/or the kid(s), then being ineligible to play varsity sports is just an annoying, and understandably frustrating, sidebar. It certainly isn't the end of the world, especially if the kids are in a better place. If any part of the parents, because of the outcome of these hearings, wants to send their kid back, or wishes they would have stayed, for me that just re-affirms the DEC and UIL decisions.

I agree with your reasoning about the student returning to sending school if eligibility is not granted. If you watched the proceedings yesterday morning that is probably not the case here. Gordon has really muddied the water and burned a bridge or two.

 

[GigemSooners]

The kid would be shunned at Gordon if he went back, probably wouldnt play a down. Heck, depending on how old the kid is, which grade etc... If the kids birthday is after September 1st (turns 19 after) and he "gets held back" a year without any athetic participation, he wouldnt lose a year of athletic eligibility. Would have to sit out next year but have the following two years with Rigdon. How old is the kid?

 

[Deleted member 21909]

If he's good enough to go to all this trouble, I bet fences could be mended very quickly!

 

[Deleted member 21909]

The kid would be shunned at Gordon if he went back, probably wouldnt play a down. Heck, depending on how old the kid is, which grade etc... If the kids birthday is after September 1st (turns 19 after) and he "gets held back" a year without any athetic participation, he wouldnt lose a year of athletic eligibility. Would have to sit out next year but have the following two years with Rigdon. How old is the kid?

That's an interesting thought! I would worry the UIL would claim he "failed academically for athletic reasons." Gordon Word allowed my dad to repeat the 7th grade twice, but I think those days are over.

 

[Mike]

While I think you could appeal the decision in court, I have never heard that done before. Once you accept losing, however, you do what you have to do to make the best of a bad situation. In my opinion, they are saying you should play for "Y school" rather than "X school" when a claim of moving for "athletic reasons" is decided upon. Thus, you should be able to rectify the situation by going back to the school you played for last year.

I think you are conflating getting to play for X school because you can win a lot of games and getting to play in general. If he wasn't a senior, playing on JV wouldn't be so bad. Then again, it might be at a sixman school. As a senior, however, the kid is basically done.

My point is simply why would anyone want to go back? Just for sports? That just proves the entire point of the hearing. Like I said, if a parent is taking their kid to a new school because that's what is best for the family and kid(s), they're not going to want to go back just so their kids can play varsity sports and especially not in a case like this one where it was, obviously, taken quite personal.

 

[Jones26]

The kid would be shunned at Gordon if he went back, probably wouldnt play a down. Heck, depending on how old the kid is, which grade etc... If the kids birthday is after September 1st (turns 19 after) and he "gets held back" a year without any athetic participation, he wouldnt lose a year of athletic eligibility. Would have to sit out next year but have the following two years with Rigdon. How old is the kid?

This is false. If a student "sits out a year" they lose that year. Once a student enters 8th grade, they have five years of eligibility....period.

 

[Deleted member 21909]

My point is simply why would anyone want to go back? Just for sports? That just proves the entire point of the hearing. Like I said, if a parent is taking their kid to a new school because that's what is best for the family and kid(s), they're not going to want to go back just so their kids can play varsity sports and especially not in a case like this one where it was, obviously, taken quite personal.

I am assigning you homework: go watch Friday Night Lights the Movie.

 

[Texlonghorn75]

While I think you could appeal the decision in court, I have never heard that done before. Once you accept losing, however, you do what you have to do to make the best of a bad situation. In my opinion, they are saying you should play for "Y school" rather than "X school" when a claim of moving for "athletic reasons" is decided upon. Thus, you should be able to rectify the situation by going back to the school you played for last year.

I think you are conflating getting to play for X school because you can win a lot of games and getting to play in general. If he wasn't a senior, playing on JV wouldn't be so bad. Then again, it might be at a sixman school. As a senior, however, the kid is basically done.

Good points. It's possible or even probable that what the student said to fellow Gordon students was used against him. Coach Reed's sons getting on the varsity was mentioned as a possible factor as far as playing time (or lack of) went. The narrative of the discussion hinted that the student was not interested in driving back and forth to Gordon after making the move to continue playing there. If you watched the proceedings it seemed obvious that there would be no going back to a toxic situation.

 

[GigemSooners]

This is false. If a student "sits out a year" they lose that year. Once a student enters 8th grade, they have five years of eligibility....period.

There was a kid from Ira in the early 2000s that was ruled ineligible his senior year because he repeated 8th grade BUT also played 7th, 8th, and 8th again before he went to HS. Cant remember the kids name but he was a stud athlete. If he didnt repeat his 8th grade year (playing athletics) wouldnt he have been granted his senior year to play? That's what I was told

 

[Jones26]

There was a kid from Ira in the early 2000s that was ruled ineligible his senior year because he repeated 8th grade BUT also played 7th, 8th, and 8th again before he went to HS. Cant remember the kids name but he was a stud athlete. If he didnt repeat his 8th grade year (playing athletics) wouldnt he have been granted his senior year to play? That's what I was told

Yes, he played 8th twice, and then three years of HS. That's five years. If he didn't repeat 8th grade, then he would have played once in 8th, then 4 in HS.

 

[GigemSooners]

Yes, he played 8th twice, and then three years of HS. That's five years. If he didn't repeat 8th grade, then he would have played once in 8th, then 4 in HS.

Correct, that is why I was told he was ineligible because he played 7th and 8th twice. However, I was told that if he did repeat 8th grade and DIDN'T play any athletics or affiliated with them, he would have been eligible to play 9-12. That's what I was told anyways. Isnt that what happened with Tyler Ethridge. Hermleigh to RS. Played 6th grade too at Hermleigh