Football
Sponsored by

DEC rules Mt. Vernon may forfeit up to 5 games for playing ineligible players

33,007 Views | 274 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by kevinwood
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Malbec said:

bear2be2 said:

Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

This case is a little different in that the kids in question were cleared before being ruled ineligible. But the fact that there were four or five kids that needed DEC hearings should raise flags/eyeballs. That's a huge number in one year for a 3A high school. In Briles' situation, he should be extra cautious when taking on transfers of questionable eligibility. All of the coaches I work with regularly are and they don't have Briles' baggage.
It isn't Briles decision to allow attendance at MV. If kids live in MV attendance zone, it is a right.

Playing athletics is a limited right. Living in the attendance zone doesn't mean you make the varsity.

The determination as to the motive for the transfer belongs to the DEC. The DEC approved before they disapproved. The vote for disapproval was unanimous, meaning the Mt Vernon rep voted 'no'.

5 transfers wanting to play for a coach seems like a positive for the coach.

It may be a positive for the coach. It's also against UIL rules if that was their primary motivation for transferring. I know CAB fans like to absolve him of all responsibility beyond minimum requirements and what is plausibly deniable. But trust me when I tell you that most head coaches and athletic directors don't have these issues because they take a more proactive approach.
Are you actually saying that a coach who had hardly even stepped on the campus before Fall practice orchestrated some illegal transfer of players from across the ocean? Let go of it man.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not accusing Art of recruiting the players. No one is that I'm aware of. What I'm suggesting is he either failed to do his due diligence or intentionally overlooked some pretty big warning signs before putting them on varsity and utilizing their talents, which would follow the exact same pattern that got him in trouble here.
So briles should have actually ignored the DEC ruling that they were eligible and on his own..investigate the kids to determine they were ineligible. Despite being ruled eligible.

Gotcha. You're trying to hard.
I know you guys are content to believe that everyone is out to get Briles, but reporters I have great trust in have concluded that the most recent decision was the result of factors not brought up or considered during the first DEC hearing. Or in other words, new facts were discovered.

What I'm saying is that the coaches I know and respect wouldn't leave the discovery of new facts to chance. They'd already have knowledge of those facts and act accordingly.


I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge "new facts" may have come up. Unless Briles manipulates the first eligibility ruling in any way, he only has the ruling of the DEC to factor in like everyone else. Therefore your need to say "he was loose" is BS.

The "I'm not saying he's guilty..I'm saying he should have known" is BS. Your saying he's guilty. Show where he manipulated the original hearing....or quit saying what you're "not saying".
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

So a HC has to call the parents of all kids who transfer in and sign up for his or her team and what the motives are for moving into the district. What if they lie to the coach? Also does the coach get a list of every kid who transfers into a district to see if any of them have signed up for his or her team? If so I'm sure that keeps the Midway coach busy just on phone calls. Alot of people move into the Midway district.

Or is this someone else at the ISD administration's job?
This isn't nearly as hard as you guys are making it. And most coaches navigate this field with nary a mine.

The fact that you think high school football coaches/athletic directors don't know where their players come from and how they got in their program shows an unbelievable lack of knowledge on this subject.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That is why I'm asking someone holding himself out to at least being a semi expert on this.

Maybe Briles should have a full time special assistant who knows all the procedural off field stuff involving UIL or NCAA literally shadows him like a secret service agent or a chief of staff making sure everything is organized around him well. Actually running the show except game day strategy. Sounds like he is one of these genuis types in his field but doesnt care too much for or is for some reason incapable of doing the bureaucratic stuff.

Too bad Rhoades wasnt the AD over Briles here. We may have had a national title by now.
trey3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Malbec said:

bear2be2 said:

Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

This case is a little different in that the kids in question were cleared before being ruled ineligible. But the fact that there were four or five kids that needed DEC hearings should raise flags/eyeballs. That's a huge number in one year for a 3A high school. In Briles' situation, he should be extra cautious when taking on transfers of questionable eligibility. All of the coaches I work with regularly are and they don't have Briles' baggage.
It isn't Briles decision to allow attendance at MV. If kids live in MV attendance zone, it is a right.

Playing athletics is a limited right. Living in the attendance zone doesn't mean you make the varsity.

The determination as to the motive for the transfer belongs to the DEC. The DEC approved before they disapproved. The vote for disapproval was unanimous, meaning the Mt Vernon rep voted 'no'.

5 transfers wanting to play for a coach seems like a positive for the coach.

It may be a positive for the coach. It's also against UIL rules if that was their primary motivation for transferring. I know CAB fans like to absolve him of all responsibility beyond minimum requirements and what is plausibly deniable. But trust me when I tell you that most head coaches and athletic directors don't have these issues because they take a more proactive approach.
Are you actually saying that a coach who had hardly even stepped on the campus before Fall practice orchestrated some illegal transfer of players from across the ocean? Let go of it man.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not accusing Art of recruiting the players. No one is that I'm aware of. What I'm suggesting is he either failed to do his due diligence or intentionally overlooked some pretty big warning signs before putting them on varsity and utilizing their talents, which would follow the exact same pattern that got him in trouble here.


So briles should have actually ignored the DEC ruling that they were eligible and on his own..investigate the kids to determine they were ineligible. Despite being ruled eligible.

Gotcha. Good lord. Some of you just can't help it. You're trying to hard.
Or new things may have come to light which led to another investigation into the matter.
Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
BearlySober
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One of the schools that I sell to is going through this right now as well. It happens a lot but is obviously much more sensational when the coach in question has a history and is nationally known.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Malbec said:

bear2be2 said:

Malbec said:

bear2be2 said:

Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

This case is a little different in that the kids in question were cleared before being ruled ineligible. But the fact that there were four or five kids that needed DEC hearings should raise flags/eyeballs. That's a huge number in one year for a 3A high school. In Briles' situation, he should be extra cautious when taking on transfers of questionable eligibility. All of the coaches I work with regularly are and they don't have Briles' baggage.
It isn't Briles decision to allow attendance at MV. If kids live in MV attendance zone, it is a right.

Playing athletics is a limited right. Living in the attendance zone doesn't mean you make the varsity.

The determination as to the motive for the transfer belongs to the DEC. The DEC approved before they disapproved. The vote for disapproval was unanimous, meaning the Mt Vernon rep voted 'no'.

5 transfers wanting to play for a coach seems like a positive for the coach.

It may be a positive for the coach. It's also against UIL rules if that was their primary motivation for transferring. I know CAB fans like to absolve him of all responsibility beyond minimum requirements and what is plausibly deniable. But trust me when I tell you that most head coaches and athletic directors don't have these issues because they take a more proactive approach.
Are you actually saying that a coach who had hardly even stepped on the campus before Fall practice orchestrated some illegal transfer of players from across the ocean? Let go of it man.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not accusing Art of recruiting the players. No one is that I'm aware of. What I'm suggesting is he either failed to do his due diligence or intentionally overlooked some pretty big warning signs before putting them on varsity and utilizing their talents, which would follow the exact same pattern that got him in trouble here.
So, the DEC clears them to play on the varsity. The coach should then punish them and put them on the JV until he can do an investigation to see if the DEC's decision was wrong?
You guys don't know nearly as much as you think you do about the way most athletic programs are run. You can choose to believe me or not, but I'm telling you that all coaches know the circumstances of their players' transfers. All of them. Most are proactive, exercise caution and manage to avoid punishment for playing ineligible players.
You have GOT to be joking.
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

PartyBear said:

So a HC has to call the parents of all kids who transfer in and sign up for his or her team and what the motives are for moving into the district. What if they lie to the coach? Also does the coach get a list of every kid who transfers into a district to see if any of them have signed up for his or her team? If so I'm sure that keeps the Midway coach busy just on phone calls. Alot of people move into the Midway district.

Or is this someone else at the ISD administration's job?
This isn't nearly as hard as you guys are making it. And most coaches navigate this field with nary a mine.

The fact that you think high school football coaches/athletic directors don't know where their players come from and how they got in their program shows an unbelievable lack of knowledge on this subject.


I'm not sure anyone is saying that. What we are saying is the DEC took all that into consideration, where they came from and why, and approved eligibility. That's their job. Briles counted on that ruling. Unless he interfered or manipulated that process. There's nothing to see here..and your saing what "your not saying", that Briles is at fault, is BS.

If he manipulated the process or ruling..fire him. No questions asked.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Malbec said:

bear2be2 said:

Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

This case is a little different in that the kids in question were cleared before being ruled ineligible. But the fact that there were four or five kids that needed DEC hearings should raise flags/eyeballs. That's a huge number in one year for a 3A high school. In Briles' situation, he should be extra cautious when taking on transfers of questionable eligibility. All of the coaches I work with regularly are and they don't have Briles' baggage.
It isn't Briles decision to allow attendance at MV. If kids live in MV attendance zone, it is a right.

Playing athletics is a limited right. Living in the attendance zone doesn't mean you make the varsity.

The determination as to the motive for the transfer belongs to the DEC. The DEC approved before they disapproved. The vote for disapproval was unanimous, meaning the Mt Vernon rep voted 'no'.

5 transfers wanting to play for a coach seems like a positive for the coach.

It may be a positive for the coach. It's also against UIL rules if that was their primary motivation for transferring. I know CAB fans like to absolve him of all responsibility beyond minimum requirements and what is plausibly deniable. But trust me when I tell you that most head coaches and athletic directors don't have these issues because they take a more proactive approach.
Are you actually saying that a coach who had hardly even stepped on the campus before Fall practice orchestrated some illegal transfer of players from across the ocean? Let go of it man.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not accusing Art of recruiting the players. No one is that I'm aware of. What I'm suggesting is he either failed to do his due diligence or intentionally overlooked some pretty big warning signs before putting them on varsity and utilizing their talents, which would follow the exact same pattern that got him in trouble here.
So briles should have actually ignored the DEC ruling that they were eligible and on his own..investigate the kids to determine they were ineligible. Despite being ruled eligible.

Gotcha. You're trying to hard.
I know you guys are content to believe that everyone is out to get Briles, but reporters I have great trust in have concluded that the most recent decision was the result of factors not brought up or considered during the first DEC hearing. Or in other words, new facts were discovered.

What I'm saying is that the coaches I know and respect wouldn't leave the discovery of new facts to chance. They'd already have knowledge of those facts and act accordingly.
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge "new facts" may have come up. Unless Briles manipulates the first eligibility ruling in any way, he only has the ruling of the DEC to factor in like everyone else. Therefore your need to say "he was loose" is BS.

The "I'm not saying he's guilty..I'm saying he should have known" is BS. Your saying he's guilty. Show where he manipulated the original hearing....or quit saying what you're "not saying".
I'll post whatever the hell I want. Thanks.

And on this particular subject, I can say with almost absolute certainty that I know more than you and 95 percent of others on this board about the way most high school coaches handle these types of cases and the mechanizations behind these DEC hearings/UIL rulings.

The difference between you and me is you are starting at the conclusion that Briles didn't do anything wrong and gathering "facts" to justify that position, while I simply don't give a ***** I'm just calling it like I see it and sharing a unique perspective on this issue because it's one that I have experience with.

I don't have a problem with Briles coaching high school football, and I'm not predisposed in any way to find fault with his post-Baylor actions. Again, I don't give a ***** But what we know here is that Briles played an ineligible player and violated a UIL rule by employing a coach that wasn't a full-time district employee. Those are things that simply don't happen in most well-run programs.
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

That is why I'm asking someone holding himself out to at least being a semi expert on this.

Maybe Briles should have a full time special assistant who knows all the procedural off field stuff involving UIL or NCAA literally shadows him like a secret service agent or a chief of staff making sure everything is organized around him well. Actually running the show except game day strategy. Sounds like he is one of these genuis types in his field but doesnt care too much for or is for some reason incapable of doing the bureaucratic stuff.

Too bad Rhoades wasnt the AD over Briles here. We may have had a national title by now.


Sounds like Bear2b2 is pretty knowledgeable and is trying to explain that most high school coaches do more due diligence. Seems to be a pattern with Briles. SMDH.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

That is why I'm asking someone holding himself out to at least being a semi expert on this.

Maybe Briles should have a full time special assistant who knows all the procedural off field stuff involving UIL or NCAA literally shadows him like a secret service agent or a chief of staff making sure everything is organized around him well. Actually running the show except game day strategy. Sounds like he is one of these genuis types in his field but doesnt care too much for or is for some reason incapable of doing the bureaucratic stuff.

Too bad Rhoades wasnt the AD over Briles here. We may have had a national title by now.
Or maybe he just needs to pretend to care about the program oversight/leadership part of his job description. The vast majority of high school football coaches/ADs handle this without any difficulty at all. But they also take the administrative part of their jobs more seriously than Briles, who just wants to be left alone and coach offense, apparently.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Malbec said:

bear2be2 said:

Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

This case is a little different in that the kids in question were cleared before being ruled ineligible. But the fact that there were four or five kids that needed DEC hearings should raise flags/eyeballs. That's a huge number in one year for a 3A high school. In Briles' situation, he should be extra cautious when taking on transfers of questionable eligibility. All of the coaches I work with regularly are and they don't have Briles' baggage.
It isn't Briles decision to allow attendance at MV. If kids live in MV attendance zone, it is a right.

Playing athletics is a limited right. Living in the attendance zone doesn't mean you make the varsity.

The determination as to the motive for the transfer belongs to the DEC. The DEC approved before they disapproved. The vote for disapproval was unanimous, meaning the Mt Vernon rep voted 'no'.

5 transfers wanting to play for a coach seems like a positive for the coach.

It may be a positive for the coach. It's also against UIL rules if that was their primary motivation for transferring. I know CAB fans like to absolve him of all responsibility beyond minimum requirements and what is plausibly deniable. But trust me when I tell you that most head coaches and athletic directors don't have these issues because they take a more proactive approach.
Are you actually saying that a coach who had hardly even stepped on the campus before Fall practice orchestrated some illegal transfer of players from across the ocean? Let go of it man.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not accusing Art of recruiting the players. No one is that I'm aware of. What I'm suggesting is he either failed to do his due diligence or intentionally overlooked some pretty big warning signs before putting them on varsity and utilizing their talents, which would follow the exact same pattern that got him in trouble here.
So briles should have actually ignored the DEC ruling that they were eligible and on his own..investigate the kids to determine they were ineligible. Despite being ruled eligible.

Gotcha. You're trying to hard.
I know you guys are content to believe that everyone is out to get Briles, but reporters I have great trust in have concluded that the most recent decision was the result of factors not brought up or considered during the first DEC hearing. Or in other words, new facts were discovered.

What I'm saying is that the coaches I know and respect wouldn't leave the discovery of new facts to chance. They'd already have knowledge of those facts and act accordingly.
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge "new facts" may have come up. Unless Briles manipulates the first eligibility ruling in any way, he only has the ruling of the DEC to factor in like everyone else. Therefore your need to say "he was loose" is BS.

The "I'm not saying he's guilty..I'm saying he should have known" is BS. Your saying he's guilty. Show where he manipulated the original hearing....or quit saying what you're "not saying".
I'll post whatever the hell I want. Thanks.

And on this particular subject, I can say with almost absolute certainty that I know more than you and 95 percent of others on this board about the way most high school coaches handle these types of cases and the mechanizations behind these DEC hearings/UIL rulings.

The difference between you and me is you are starting at the conclusion that Briles didn't do anything wrong and gathering "facts" to justify that position, while I simply don't give a ***** I'm just calling it like I see it and sharing a unique perspective on this issue because it's one that I have experience with.

I don't have a problem with Briles coaching high school football, and I'm not predisposed in any way to find fault with his post-Baylor actions. Again, I don't give a ***** But what we know here is that Briles played an ineligible player and violated a UIL rule by employing a coach that wasn't a full-time district employee. Those are things that simply don't happen in most well-run programs.


Don't you know DMan is the moderator of the free site fraternity house. Be careful
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Malbec said:

bear2be2 said:

Osodecentx said:

bear2be2 said:

This case is a little different in that the kids in question were cleared before being ruled ineligible. But the fact that there were four or five kids that needed DEC hearings should raise flags/eyeballs. That's a huge number in one year for a 3A high school. In Briles' situation, he should be extra cautious when taking on transfers of questionable eligibility. All of the coaches I work with regularly are and they don't have Briles' baggage.
It isn't Briles decision to allow attendance at MV. If kids live in MV attendance zone, it is a right.

Playing athletics is a limited right. Living in the attendance zone doesn't mean you make the varsity.

The determination as to the motive for the transfer belongs to the DEC. The DEC approved before they disapproved. The vote for disapproval was unanimous, meaning the Mt Vernon rep voted 'no'.

5 transfers wanting to play for a coach seems like a positive for the coach.

It may be a positive for the coach. It's also against UIL rules if that was their primary motivation for transferring. I know CAB fans like to absolve him of all responsibility beyond minimum requirements and what is plausibly deniable. But trust me when I tell you that most head coaches and athletic directors don't have these issues because they take a more proactive approach.
Are you actually saying that a coach who had hardly even stepped on the campus before Fall practice orchestrated some illegal transfer of players from across the ocean? Let go of it man.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not accusing Art of recruiting the players. No one is that I'm aware of. What I'm suggesting is he either failed to do his due diligence or intentionally overlooked some pretty big warning signs before putting them on varsity and utilizing their talents, which would follow the exact same pattern that got him in trouble here.
So briles should have actually ignored the DEC ruling that they were eligible and on his own..investigate the kids to determine they were ineligible. Despite being ruled eligible.

Gotcha. You're trying to hard.
I know you guys are content to believe that everyone is out to get Briles, but reporters I have great trust in have concluded that the most recent decision was the result of factors not brought up or considered during the first DEC hearing. Or in other words, new facts were discovered.

What I'm saying is that the coaches I know and respect wouldn't leave the discovery of new facts to chance. They'd already have knowledge of those facts and act accordingly.
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge "new facts" may have come up. Unless Briles manipulates the first eligibility ruling in any way, he only has the ruling of the DEC to factor in like everyone else. Therefore your need to say "he was loose" is BS.

The "I'm not saying he's guilty..I'm saying he should have known" is BS. Your saying he's guilty. Show where he manipulated the original hearing....or quit saying what you're "not saying".
I'll post whatever the hell I want. Thanks.

And on this particular subject, I can say with almost absolute certainty that I know more than you and 95 percent of others on this board about the way most high school coaches handle these types of cases and the mechanizations behind these DEC hearings/UIL rulings.

The difference between you and me is you are starting at the conclusion that Briles didn't do anything wrong and gathering "facts" to justify that position, while I simply don't give a ***** I'm just calling it like I see it and sharing a unique perspective on this issue because it's one that I have experience with.

I don't have a problem with Briles coaching high school football, and I'm not predisposed in any way to find fault with his post-Baylor actions. Again, I don't give a ***** But what we know here is that Briles played an ineligible player and violated a UIL rule by employing a coach that wasn't a full-time district employee. Those things don't happen in most well-run programs.


Lighten up big guy. You're getting testy when your "expertise" starts to show big cracks. I'm actually doing the exact opposite. Im not starting with any conclusion..I'm literally saying all we know is they were approved by the DEC. So Art played them. Like 100% of all other high school coaches would have down. You're the one implying he did something wrong. Your starting with a conclusion and filling in the blanks others word.

Even If there is new evidence and they may now be ruled ineligible. That still wouldn't be on Briles..unless he manipulated the original hearing.

And for the record. You're not the only one with "knowledge" on this topic. A Baylor grad who is a high school sent me this story to begin with...and is laughing his ass off on the absurdity of this...until and unless there's evidence Art did something wrong.

Show evidence Briles new the original DEC ruling was wrong or he manipulated the ruling. otherwise..you're the one forcing facts to fit your narrative. .
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.


You need to start paying your $10/month fee for premium site. Maybe you can get your sense of humor back that you lost along the way.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.
What I'm implying is that Rhule would be so on top of the situation that there would be no need for a second DEC hearing. He'd have known all the facts before anyone else did and acted accordingly. Again, you don't have to believe me, but this is how the vast majority of these cases are handled because the stakes of playing ineligible players are so high.

That there are new facts to be discovered tells me that Briles either A) didn't do his due diligence or B) intentionally overlooked pertinent factors in this case. Given his history, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's probably A. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it certainly makes him an inept administrator.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SATXBear said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.


You need to start paying your $10/month fee for premium site. Maybe you can get your sense of humor back that you lost along the way.
You need to stop being a sheep. There are Aggies that lurk in the bushes here.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

SATXBear said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.


You need to start paying your $10/month fee for premium site. Maybe you can get your sense of humor back that you lost along the way.
You need to stop being a sheep. There are Aggies that lurk in the bushes here.


And you live in SA? My Lord.
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SATXBear said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.


You need to start paying your $10/month fee for premium site. Maybe you can get your sense of humor back that you lost along the way.


It's clearly been money wasted for you. Lighten up big guy. Life is good!
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SATXBear said:

Malbec said:

SATXBear said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.


You need to start paying your $10/month fee for premium site. Maybe you can get your sense of humor back that you lost along the way.
You need to stop being a sheep. There are Aggies that lurk in the bushes here.


And you live in SA? My Lord.
If your dog gets in my yard one more time...
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

SATXBear said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.


You need to start paying your $10/month fee for premium site. Maybe you can get your sense of humor back that you lost along the way.


It's clearly been money wasted for you. Lighten up big guy. Life is good!


You never fail to disappoint me.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

SATXBear said:

Malbec said:

SATXBear said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.


You need to start paying your $10/month fee for premium site. Maybe you can get your sense of humor back that you lost along the way.
You need to stop being a sheep. There are Aggies that lurk in the bushes here.


And you live in SA? My Lord.
If your dog gets in my yard one more time...
Fozzie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IT'S THE BOARD OF REGENTS FAULT!!!

Now what's the question?
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.
What I'm implying is that Rhule would be so on top of the situation that there would be no need for a second DEC hearing. He'd have known all the facts before anyone else did and acted accordingly. Again, you don't have to believe me, but this is how the vast majority of these cases are handled because the stakes of playing ineligible players are so high.

That there are new facts to be discovered tells me that Briles either A) didn't do his due diligence or B) intentionally overlooked pertinent factors in this case. Given his history, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's probably A. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it certainly makes him an inept administrator.


Again. You're the one having to imply a scenario that is impossible to know..to fit your narrative. And NO. Rhule would have done what all college coaches do..he would have waited for the NCAA ruling, and play them the moment they were cleared. In fact, Baylor would have HAMMERED him for getting involved separately within the admissions process.

I'll be the first to crucify Art, when you show us ANYTHING besides your narrative, that he manipulated the DEC hearing that ALL coaches use to determine eligibility. Otherwise your claim is a coach is supposed to be able to predict the future and know a second DEC ruling is coming that will reverse the first ruling...and they should wait on that ruling..not the first one.
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fozzie said:

IT'S THE BOARD OF REGENTS FAULT!!!

Now what's the question?


Love it! Well done
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
March 20-21, Bears at the Roadrunner Invitational. You going?
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.
What I'm implying is that Rhule would be so on top of the situation that there would be no need for a second DEC hearing. He'd have known all the facts before anyone else did and acted accordingly. Again, you don't have to believe me, but this is how the vast majority of these cases are handled because the stakes of playing ineligible players are so high.

That there are new facts to be discovered tells me that Briles either A) didn't do his due diligence or B) intentionally overlooked pertinent factors in this case. Given his history, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's probably A. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it certainly makes him an inept administrator.
Again. You're the one having to imply a scenario that is impossible to know..to fit your narrative. And NO. Rhule would have done what all college coaches do..he would have waited for the NCAA ruling, and play them the moment they were cleared. In fact, Baylor would have HAMMERED him for getting involved separately within the admissions process.

I'll be the first to crucify Art, when you show us ANYTHING besides your narrative, that he manipulated the DEC hearing that ALL coaches use to determine eligibility.
The facts will come out eventually. And when they do, we'll see who's closer to the truth.

But the coaching thing alone, a clear violation of UIL rules for which Mount Vernon has already admitted guilt, is evidence that Briles' program is being run in an unorthodox manner at the very least.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fozzie said:

IT'S THE BOARD OF REGENTS FAULT!!!

Now what's the question?


Now that is the funniest thing posted on this thread. ...lol.
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.
What I'm implying is that Rhule would be so on top of the situation that there would be no need for a second DEC hearing. He'd have known all the facts before anyone else did and acted accordingly. Again, you don't have to believe me, but this is how the vast majority of these cases are handled because the stakes of playing ineligible players are so high.

That there are new facts to be discovered tells me that Briles either A) didn't do his due diligence or B) intentionally overlooked pertinent factors in this case. Given his history, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's probably A. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it certainly makes him an inept administrator.
Again. You're the one having to imply a scenario that is impossible to know..to fit your narrative. And NO. Rhule would have done what all college coaches do..he would have waited for the NCAA ruling, and play them the moment they were cleared. In fact, Baylor would have HAMMERED him for getting involved separately within the admissions process.

I'll be the first to crucify Art, when you show us ANYTHING besides your narrative, that he manipulated the DEC hearing that ALL coaches use to determine eligibility.
The facts will come out eventually. And when they do, we'll see who's closer to the truth.

.


See..this is a statement that is factual without narrative. Wait. Let's see the facts. Im absolutely fine with waiting on the facts. If he's guilty. He's guilty. That's how it works when you're not trying to run to a corner to support your pre-existing ideology with just assumptions.

But you were feeding a narrative without facts. You were left to feed the narrative that A) He manipulated the first ruling of eligibility and you'd have to have proof, or B) he should have predicted the future and not played the kids, knowing a second ruling was coming...and wait for that outcome.

I
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.
What I'm implying is that Rhule would be so on top of the situation that there would be no need for a second DEC hearing. He'd have known all the facts before anyone else did and acted accordingly. Again, you don't have to believe me, but this is how the vast majority of these cases are handled because the stakes of playing ineligible players are so high.

That there are new facts to be discovered tells me that Briles either A) didn't do his due diligence or B) intentionally overlooked pertinent factors in this case. Given his history, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's probably A. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it certainly makes him an inept administrator.
Again. You're the one having to imply a scenario that is impossible to know..to fit your narrative. And NO. Rhule would have done what all college coaches do..he would have waited for the NCAA ruling, and play them the moment they were cleared. In fact, Baylor would have HAMMERED him for getting involved separately within the admissions process.

I'll be the first to crucify Art, when you show us ANYTHING besides your narrative, that he manipulated the DEC hearing that ALL coaches use to determine eligibility.
The facts will come out eventually. And when they do, we'll see who's closer to the truth.

.


See..this is a statement that is factual without narrative. Wait. Let's see the facts. Im absolutely fine with waiting on the facts. If he's guilty. He's guilty. That's how it works when you're not trying to run to a corner to support your pre-existing ideology with just assumptions.

But you were feeding a narrative without facts. You were left to feed the narrative that A) He manipulated the first ruling of eligibility and you'd have to have proof, or B) he should have predicted the future and not played the kids, knowing a second ruling was coming...and wait for that outcome.
Not true. I was giving my opinion based on the facts available and the way such things usually play out. I don't have a preexisting ideology. I am and was content to let Art Briles coach in East Texas obscurity and wouldn't be talking about him at all if not for today's news.

But I think you -- and many others here -- are under the false impression that these things are common and strictly procedural. But that is not so. I've covered the same area now for 12 years. It spans a 200 mile radius and roughly 40 11-man schools. We have never in my time here had a school threatened with forfeiture for playing an ineligible player or reprimanded for using an illegal assistant. Those things just don't happen very often, and when they do they're almost always a product of poor oversight/compliance.
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.
What I'm implying is that Rhule would be so on top of the situation that there would be no need for a second DEC hearing. He'd have known all the facts before anyone else did and acted accordingly. Again, you don't have to believe me, but this is how the vast majority of these cases are handled because the stakes of playing ineligible players are so high.

That there are new facts to be discovered tells me that Briles either A) didn't do his due diligence or B) intentionally overlooked pertinent factors in this case. Given his history, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's probably A. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it certainly makes him an inept administrator.
Again. You're the one having to imply a scenario that is impossible to know..to fit your narrative. And NO. Rhule would have done what all college coaches do..he would have waited for the NCAA ruling, and play them the moment they were cleared. In fact, Baylor would have HAMMERED him for getting involved separately within the admissions process.

I'll be the first to crucify Art, when you show us ANYTHING besides your narrative, that he manipulated the DEC hearing that ALL coaches use to determine eligibility.
The facts will come out eventually. And when they do, we'll see who's closer to the truth.

.


See..this is a statement that is factual without narrative. Wait. Let's see the facts. Im absolutely fine with waiting on the facts. If he's guilty. He's guilty. That's how it works when you're not trying to run to a corner to support your pre-existing ideology with just assumptions.

But you were feeding a narrative without facts. You were left to feed the narrative that A) He manipulated the first ruling of eligibility and you'd have to have proof, or B) he should have predicted the future and not played the kids, knowing a second ruling was coming...and wait for that outcome.
Not true. I was giving my opinion based on the facts available and the way such things usually play out. I don't have a preexisting ideology. I am and was content to let Art Briles coach in East Texas obscurity and wouldn't be talking about him at all if not for today's news.

But I think you -- and many others here -- are under the false impression that these things are common and strictly procedural. But that is not so. I've covered the same area now for 12 years. It spans a 200 mile radius and roughly 40 11-man schools. We have never in my time here had a school threatened with forfeiture for playing an ineligible player or reprimanded for using an illegal assistant. Those things just don't happen very often, and when they do they're almost always a product of poor oversight/compliance.


I'm not debating the assistant.

You were hanging MOST of your "non-biased" opinion on the eligibility.

Please show me 1....just 1..other high school coach who got a DEC ruling of eligibility, and still benched those kids, because they could predict the future and know another one was coming. Just 1. And I'll walk away. Eligibility Issues happen all the time. The DEC is the authority. They ruled one way. Now they are looking at ruling another way. NONE OF THAT IS ON Briles. Unless he manipulated. So again..you're the expert. Show us 1 coach who ignored the DEC ruling..and benched the kids despite the being ruled eligible by the DEC. 1 is a VERY low bar to clear since this is "how it happens"
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.
I get it you dont like Briles, but this never happened. Had Briles played the guys accused after accusations came out, like every other HC with similar incidents was doing over the same time period, you might have a point. But honestly we were not actually winning at all cost. Teaff would not have come around over the years as more info came out to being in Briles corner if so.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.


As you kNow I'm a HUGE fan of Rhules..but you're implying Rhule wouldn't play a player that was ruled eligible for transfer from another school by the ncaa? And by playing him he's "winning at all costs"? Interesting position to take. Your opinion. And as we've learned. Everyone is entitled to their own. Cheers.
What I'm implying is that Rhule would be so on top of the situation that there would be no need for a second DEC hearing. He'd have known all the facts before anyone else did and acted accordingly. Again, you don't have to believe me, but this is how the vast majority of these cases are handled because the stakes of playing ineligible players are so high.

That there are new facts to be discovered tells me that Briles either A) didn't do his due diligence or B) intentionally overlooked pertinent factors in this case. Given his history, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's probably A. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it certainly makes him an inept administrator.
Again. You're the one having to imply a scenario that is impossible to know..to fit your narrative. And NO. Rhule would have done what all college coaches do..he would have waited for the NCAA ruling, and play them the moment they were cleared. In fact, Baylor would have HAMMERED him for getting involved separately within the admissions process.

I'll be the first to crucify Art, when you show us ANYTHING besides your narrative, that he manipulated the DEC hearing that ALL coaches use to determine eligibility.
The facts will come out eventually. And when they do, we'll see who's closer to the truth.

.


See..this is a statement that is factual without narrative. Wait. Let's see the facts. Im absolutely fine with waiting on the facts. If he's guilty. He's guilty. That's how it works when you're not trying to run to a corner to support your pre-existing ideology with just assumptions.

But you were feeding a narrative without facts. You were left to feed the narrative that A) He manipulated the first ruling of eligibility and you'd have to have proof, or B) he should have predicted the future and not played the kids, knowing a second ruling was coming...and wait for that outcome.
Not true. I was giving my opinion based on the facts available and the way such things usually play out. I don't have a preexisting ideology. I am and was content to let Art Briles coach in East Texas obscurity and wouldn't be talking about him at all if not for today's news.

But I think you -- and many others here -- are under the false impression that these things are common and strictly procedural. But that is not so. I've covered the same area now for 12 years. It spans a 200 mile radius and roughly 40 11-man schools. We have never in my time here had a school threatened with forfeiture for playing an ineligible player or reprimanded for using an illegal assistant. Those things just don't happen very often, and when they do they're almost always a product of poor oversight/compliance.


I'm not debating the assistant.

You were hanging MOST of your "non-biased" opinion on the eligibility.

Please show me 1....just 1..other high school coach who got a DEC ruling of eligibility, and still benched those kids, because they could predict the future and know another one was coming. Just 1. And I'll walk away. Eligibility Issues happen all the time. The DEC is the authority. They ruled one way. Now they are looking at ruling another way. NONE OF THAT IS ON Briles. Unless he manipulated. So again..you're the expert. Show us 1 coach who ignored the DEC ruling..and benched the kids despite the being ruled eligible by the DEC. 1 is a VERY low bar to clear since this is "how it happens"
The fact that there is a second DEC hearing at all makes this a truly unique case, which is why you guys need to stop pretending this is normal. It's not.

And it's not about predicting the future, man. It's about doing the right thing the first time to avoid future surprises. It is the coach's job IMO to know all the circumstances of a player's transfer before playing him in a varsity game. And I think if you asked most high school coaches, they would agree with me. There shouldn't be new facts to discover. Those should have all been determined and reported before the player(s) in question ever stepped foot on the field.

So whether facts were manipulated or Briles was just asleep at the wheel is really irrelevant. Either way, he shares some culpability here. It's his program and he doesn't know what the hell's going on inside of it, which is just way too damn familiar.
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

SATXBear said:

I wish Baylor had a football coach who would win at all costs like Mt. Vernon. Wait a minute, this whole story sounds familiar.
I get it you dont like Briles, but this never happened. Had Briles played the guys accused after accusations came out, like every other HC was doing at that same time, you might have a point. But honestly we were not actually winning at all cost. Teaff would not have come around over the years as more info came out to being in Briles corner if so.


Dude turn on your sarcasm meter. I am kidding. A poster on the premium site uses this all the time as a joke. Sorry this flew over your head. It is just like the "blame the BOR" joke.

...and no, I do NOT hate Briles. I have two of his books at home. I do think he is an incompetent manager and seems to have proved it again now. We will see. Not a big deal either way at Mt Vernon, but it was a big deal in Waco at the D1 level.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well.....I dont go to the premium site so I'm not in on the inside jokes. There was a Aggie back in those days who always accused Briles of that on Baylorfans. Their hiring Jimbo Fisher, not our firing Briles, is what shut him up.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.