Football
Sponsored by

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

33,033 Views | 274 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by kevinwood
jbbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jacques Strap said:

Weird how you can live in a district and not be eligible to play football for the local HS.

Contrast with Big State U football.
You can take 5 luxurious trips on private jets and collect who knows how much off the books goodies. Sign up to to play for Georgia for a year. Things don't work out so you get a transfer waiver to play QB for Ohio State without sitting out a year.
In high school, it's still all about the academics...../s
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

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.


I am a Bear and the guy who started the joke is a loyal Bear and a Marine chopper pilot. I apologize for the oversight.
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

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.


This is CRAZY. You literally have no answer..just your opinion. No facts...just your hyperbole. "He should have known." Do you know that he didn't ask the players why they were transferring?

It was a very low bar. SHOW ME 1 coach who got a DEC ruling of eligibility and still benched his players...predicting the future that another one was Coming. . Show me one that didn't take that ruling at their word. OR SHOW ME BRILES did something wrong!

Cause all you have is Briles should have done a better job than the DEC did. And that's crap! That's feeding your narrative. You have no evidence that Briles didn't do his job right and that he's not getting blindsided by their "new" ruling. You have only assumptions to feed your position.

There are eligibility issues throughout Texas high schools every year.

Again..SHOW US 1 coach who didn't take the DEC at their word. Show me 1 who benched players after a ruling of eligibility. Waiting...
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

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"



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.


And for the record. This is ALL the prof I need that you're the one twisting scenarios to fit a Pre-conceived narrative.

Your only two options are Briles is at fault in some way. (Yet you spent 2 pages telling us that's not what you were saying..but you "were saying)

There is a totally legitimate 3rd option. He did what he was supposed to do. The DEC did what they were supposed to do. The kids were ruled eligible with the data everyone had. They played. New data has emerged. Now everyone is getting surprised. This is a very logical and plausible scenario

That didn't come up as a scenario for you..because It didn't fit your narrative .

Still waiting on 1 example where a high school coach ignores a DEC ruling of eligibility...and still benched his players

trey3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

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.


This is CRAZY. You literally have no answer..just your opinion. No facts...just your hyperbole. "He should have known." Do you know that he didn't ask the players why they were transferring?

It was a very low bar. SHOW ME 1 coach who got a DEC ruling of eligibility and still benched his players...predicting the future that another one was Coming. . Show me one that didn't take that ruling at their word. OR SHOW ME BRILES did something wrong!

Cause all you have is Briles should have done a better job than the DEC did. And that's crap! That's feeding your narrative. You have no evidence that Briles didn't do his job right and that he's not getting blindsided by their "new" ruling. You have only assumptions to feed your position.

There are eligibility issues throughout Texas high schools every year.

Again..SHOW US 1 coach who didn't take the DEC at their word. Show me 1 who benched players after a ruling of eligibility. Waiting...


Perhaps he should have known that the family they moved to be near was the illegal coach they employed, and that the HS transfer laws state that the residence in a former ISD needs to be sold or listed as sold prior to their playing. It was listed midway through September.

Perhaps
Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This documentary is as stupid and goofy as Galloway's embarrassing fake reward.

Mt. V was dumb like their head coach thinking they wouldn't be watched and reported.

Some of you guys are gullible when it comes to Art.
AvrgBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here's the uil form that specifies exactly the amount of investigation required for a transfer student:

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/forms/PAPF_17-18_revised.pdf

If the new coach signs the form, the residence criteria is met, and the old coach doesn't answer yes to any of the transfer questions, there is rarely going to be even a DEC investigation, much less two DEC hearings.

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

bear2be2 said:

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"



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.


And for the record. This is ALL the prof I need that you're the one twisting scenarios to fit a Pre-conceived narrative.

Your only two options are Briles is at fault in some way. (Yet you spent 2 pages telling us that's not what you were saying..but you "were saying)

There is a totally legitimate 3rd option. He did what he was supposed to do. The DEC did what they were supposed to do. The kids were ruled eligible with the data everyone had. They played. New data has emerged. Now everyone is getting surprised. This is a very logical and plausible scenario

That didn't come up as a scenario for you..because It didn't fit your narrative .

Still waiting on 1 example where a high school coach ignores a DEC ruling of eligibility...and still benched his players
When you can cite one other example of a case that required two separate DEC hearings, your question will be relevant. Until then, it's textbook obfuscation. If all pertinent information is reported and taken into account in the original DEC ruling, as is the case in the overwhelming majority of these cases, there's no reason to go against it. That clearly was not the case here. And had it been the case, the two players in question would have never been ruled eligible, much less played in a varsity game.

So either Briles didn't know that information or he did and hoped it wouldn't be discovered. One's certainly worse than the other, but both are highly unusual.
AvrgBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My niece had two separate DEC hearings, mainly because the prior school coach didn't want to give up the fight.

Of course, she absolutely was recruited and was transferring for athletic purposes. DEC still found her eligible.
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

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"



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.


And for the record. This is ALL the prof I need that you're the one twisting scenarios to fit a Pre-conceived narrative.

Your only two options are Briles is at fault in some way. (Yet you spent 2 pages telling us that's not what you were saying..but you "were saying)

There is a totally legitimate 3rd option. He did what he was supposed to do. The DEC did what they were supposed to do. The kids were ruled eligible with the data everyone had. They played. New data has emerged. Now everyone is getting surprised. This is a very logical and plausible scenario

That didn't come up as a scenario for you..because It didn't fit your narrative .

Still waiting on 1 example where a high school coach ignores a DEC ruling of eligibility...and still benched his players
When you can cite one other example of a case that required two separate DEC hearings, your question will be relevant. Until then, it's textbook of obfuscation. If all pertinent information is reported and taken into account in the original DEC ruling, as is the case in the overwhelming majority of these cases, there's no reason to go against it. That clearly was not the case here. And had it been the case, the two players in question would have never been ruled eligible, much less played in a varsity game.

So either Briles didn't know that information or he did and hoped it wouldn't be discovered. One's certainly worse than the other, but both are highly unusual.


So you have evidence the DEC was given false information? Please provided.

And let be be clear..I've been consistent, if Art manipulated the ruling, they should be suspended and Art is guilty. That's the difference between you and me. Show me facts...not assumptions to fit a narrative. You leave NO room for a scenario 3. You jump to scenarios that only assume guilt. And saying Art should have know, leaves no room for new data that wasn't evident at the time. So no..new information isn't implicitly a negative for Art. But it fits your narrative.

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

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

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"



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.


And for the record. This is ALL the prof I need that you're the one twisting scenarios to fit a Pre-conceived narrative.

Your only two options are Briles is at fault in some way. (Yet you spent 2 pages telling us that's not what you were saying..but you "were saying)

There is a totally legitimate 3rd option. He did what he was supposed to do. The DEC did what they were supposed to do. The kids were ruled eligible with the data everyone had. They played. New data has emerged. Now everyone is getting surprised. This is a very logical and plausible scenario

That didn't come up as a scenario for you..because It didn't fit your narrative .

Still waiting on 1 example where a high school coach ignores a DEC ruling of eligibility...and still benched his players
When you can cite one other example of a case that required two separate DEC hearings, your question will be relevant. Until then, it's textbook of obfuscation. If all pertinent information is reported and taken into account in the original DEC ruling, as is the case in the overwhelming majority of these cases, there's no reason to go against it. That clearly was not the case here. And had it been the case, the two players in question would have never been ruled eligible, much less played in a varsity game.

So either Briles didn't know that information or he did and hoped it wouldn't be discovered. One's certainly worse than the other, but both are highly unusual.


So you have evidence the DEC was given false information? Please provided.

And let be be clear..I've been consistent, if Art manipulated the ruling, they should be suspended and Art is guilty. That's the difference between you and me. Show me facts...not assumptions to fit a narrative. You leave NO room for a scenario 3. You jump to scenarios that only assume guilt.
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said false information. I think it was pretty clearly incomplete information, though, or there'd be no need for a second hearing. That doesn't necessarily mean anything nefarious was done on Briles' part. I just don't buy ignorance as a valid excuse here.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AvrgBear said:

My niece had two separate DEC hearings, mainly because the prior school coach didn't want to give up the fight.

Of course, she absolutely was recruited and was transferring for athletic purposes. DEC still found her eligible.
Was the prior school in the same athletic district as the one she transferred to?
AvrgBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Let this sink in: Kyler Murray transferred in to Allen and never had a DEC hearing. The DEC process is generally a joke, unless you get some administrators or a prior coach with a vendetta.
AvrgBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

AvrgBear said:

My niece had two separate DEC hearings, mainly because the prior school coach didn't want to give up the fight.

Of course, she absolutely was recruited and was transferring for athletic purposes. DEC still found her eligible.
Was the prior school in the same athletic district as the one she transferred to?
No, it was across state and down a division.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AvrgBear said:

bear2be2 said:

AvrgBear said:

My niece had two separate DEC hearings, mainly because the prior school coach didn't want to give up the fight.

Of course, she absolutely was recruited and was transferring for athletic purposes. DEC still found her eligible.
Was the prior school in the same athletic district as the one she transferred to?
No, it was across state and down a division.
She a softball player?
Dman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

Dman said:

bear2be2 said:

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"



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.


And for the record. This is ALL the prof I need that you're the one twisting scenarios to fit a Pre-conceived narrative.

Your only two options are Briles is at fault in some way. (Yet you spent 2 pages telling us that's not what you were saying..but you "were saying)

There is a totally legitimate 3rd option. He did what he was supposed to do. The DEC did what they were supposed to do. The kids were ruled eligible with the data everyone had. They played. New data has emerged. Now everyone is getting surprised. This is a very logical and plausible scenario

That didn't come up as a scenario for you..because It didn't fit your narrative .

Still waiting on 1 example where a high school coach ignores a DEC ruling of eligibility...and still benched his players
When you can cite one other example of a case that required two separate DEC hearings, your question will be relevant. Until then, it's textbook of obfuscation. If all pertinent information is reported and taken into account in the original DEC ruling, as is the case in the overwhelming majority of these cases, there's no reason to go against it. That clearly was not the case here. And had it been the case, the two players in question would have never been ruled eligible, much less played in a varsity game.

So either Briles didn't know that information or he did and hoped it wouldn't be discovered. One's certainly worse than the other, but both are highly unusual.


So you have evidence the DEC was given false information? Please provided.

And let be be clear..I've been consistent, if Art manipulated the ruling, they should be suspended and Art is guilty. That's the difference between you and me. Show me facts...not assumptions to fit a narrative. You leave NO room for a scenario 3. You jump to scenarios that only assume guilt.
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said false information. I think it was pretty clearly incomplete infomation, though, or there'd be no need for a second hearing. That doesn't necessary mean anything nefarious was done on Briles' part. I just don't buy ignorance as a valid excuse here.


You don't leave room for new data that Art didn't know..or couldn't have known...because it doesn't fit your narrative. At least your admitting you don't believe that scenario. But you have no proof.

Scenario 3 is entirely plausible. Everyone did everything exactly right. New information is now known. New ruling is now in order. Art played the kids based on DEC eligibility.

Facts will come out. People without agendas wait.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SIC EM 94 said:

So the players in question were originally cleared by a unanimous vote. Weeks later, after these superintendent's teams got their asses kicked by Mt. Vernon, they re-vote and arrive at a different decision.

Shocking!
Happened at Chilton in basketball around 1978. Player unanimously ruled eligible by Dist. Supt's, minor player who got into 2 district games with zero points. Chilton wins district with no losses in district. Player at end of year ruled ineligible, kicked out of playoffs. If they would have done their job, it would have been a fun run, as it was we were way disappointed, in reality for no real reason.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In other news, I thought no HS or Briles threads.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AvrgBear said:

My niece had two separate DEC hearings, mainly because the prior school coach didn't want to give up the fight.

Of course, she absolutely was recruited and was transferring for athletic purposes. DEC still found her eligible.
This scenario happens ALL the time with virtually no repercussions.
MommaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have spent 7 years doing enrollments in a Texas public high school. That said, my BS-ometer was pretty good at detecting parents/guardians who were lying about something, usually their legal residence. Y'all would be surprised how many people will knowlingly provide false information for purposes of enrolling their child in a Texas public school even AFTER I made them sign an acknowledgment statement that it was a punishable offense. I've learned to do a lot of detective work in order to submit documentation for a residential investigation. One family had purchased a much bigger home outside of our district while renting their previous home (in our District) and keeping the water service in their name. Since they owned 2 homes, they thought they had the option to enroll in either district. Nope!

Someone moving from out of state didn't generally put up red flags unless one or more parents didn't move here, or they gave educational guardianship to someone else. Are there any other siblings? Where are they enrolled? In Texas, there is a state database that include information about EVERY student who has ever been enrolled in a public school here. If a child has been enrolled in 10 different public schools, we would be able to see that information about them.

The bottom line is, that the parents sometimes lie in order to get their child enrolled in the school of their choice. I'd be curious to see how the parents answered all of the questions on their PAPF (Previous Athletics Participation Form). I would also want to know when it was signed by them, when it was submitted to the DEC. Most schools in Texas start enrolling new students at least 4-5 weeks before school starts, especially the 9-12 levels. When did the previous coach and Administrator sign the form? While CAB would have signed the form for new athletes in MV, the Admin for the school/district are responsible for letting the coach know if there are eligibility issues.

https://www.uiltexas.org/files/athletics/forms/PAPF_17-18_revised.pdf
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So....the second DEC hearing did take place because new evidence came to light. Lynx Hawthorne looks to be in the middle of all of this. Sounds like Briles is trying to lay back....but it's tough to believe he didn't know about these improper connections. This might also burn the MV Supt since the first DEC went off his assurance that Lynx would not coach at MV.

This will continue to put BU in the headlines since a former player also seems to be implicated

https://www.wfaa.com/article/sports/high-school/hs-football/art-briles-mount-vernon-under-scrutiny-after-star-players-ruled-ineligible/287-a35339cf-08ff-4038-8c30-5d2f9f939e54

Why two star players at Art Briles' Mount Vernon were ruled ineligible

With new evidence coming to light, the DEC held a second hearing on Oct. 8 and ruled the players ineligible.


DALLAS In his first year as head coach, Art Briles has led Mount Vernon High School football to a 5-0 record.

On Tuesday, two of Briles' star players were ruled ineligible by the District Executive Committee (DEC), which is comprised of the district's superintendents. The committee voted 6-0 that the varsity starters transferred to Mount Vernon for athletic purposes.

Multiple sources tell WFAA's Jonah Javad that the ruling stemmed from the players' relationship with Lynx Hawthorne -- one of Briles' former players at Baylor.

Hawthorne and the brothers are related by marriage.

The brothers were ruled eligible at their first hearing because their parents and the Mount Vernon superintendent told the DEC that Hawthorne would not be coaching. The DEC was told Hawthorne was in town to film a documentary.

This is important because the UIL is strict about kids transferring schools if a family member is employed by that athletic department.

RELATED: Art Briles' Mount Vernon football team will not forfeit any games, officials say

Hawthorne is not employed by Mount Vernon ISD, but he had been seen wearing coaching attire and a headset during a team scrimmage this year. He's also been seen serving in a coaching manor, per source.

Furthermore, the bothers listed an inaccurate address on the UIL's Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPF), which is required to transfer.

The brothers lived in an RV park with Hawthorne, per multiple sources. The address listed on the PAPF belongs to the owner of the RV park.

"New facts came out that were not presented or blatantly misrepresented at the first hearing," per source.

With new evidence coming to light, the DEC held a second hearing on Oct. 8 and ruled the brothers ineligible.

Since the brothers were initially ruled eligible, Mount Vernon does not have to forfeit previous games.

This case now moves to the UIL State Exec Committee, which can uphold or overturn the DEC's decision. The State Exec Committee can also institute further punishments for Mount Vernon.

It's worth noting: Art Briles did not show up to either hearing. His name is not on any paperwork. He never showed up to answer questions. He has, by all accounts, distanced himself from this whole thing.
RegentCoverup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller said:

In other news, I thought no HS or Briles threads.
I've got zero interest in defending Briles, but it's fascinating that the media and Hoftra grad dbags like Mike Leslie, who reads this site, focus on Briles, while a university president that drugs students and forces them into sex against their will isn't worth mentioning.

https://nondoc.com/2019/10/08/james-lankford-wants-report-boren-investigation/

#fthebig12

Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That BLACK CLOUD will follow some folks their entire lives. I've heard this cloud followed our little friend at a number of his previous coaching stops.

How could MV administrators not prevent even a popcorn fart to rise out of Fanning Springs is beyond me. They knew when they hired him that trouble follows him and that the microscope was going to be on the mighty Tigers all year long.

Is this a Lynx problem? Living in a RV park with his boys????

Some people never learn their lesson I suppose.



"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boren and his cronies rape employees while Briles makes his fake documentary. Two losers!

Will the documentary cover this latest Briles blowout?

How does this effect the spread this week in the hamlet's road challenge?
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AvrgBear said:

Let this sink in: Kyler Murray transferred in to Allen and never had a DEC hearing. The DEC process is generally a joke, unless you get some administrators or a prior coach with a vendetta.
In Texas there are thousands of transfers each year in grades 8 through 12. Less than 100 are denied athletic eligibility.

If the school from which the player does not object, there is no problem. The vast majority don't object.

If the school claims the transfer is for athletics, that is a problem.

I don't know the facts in MV (and none on this thread do), but the DEC's first ruling was in favor of the transferees.

The second ruling was 6-0 against the transferees. That means the MV representative ruled against MV so obviously more information was obtained. The DEC ruled that no forfeiture would occur.

Troy Aikman volunteers as a coach at a private school in DFW.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:


Troy Aikman volunteers as a coach at a private school in DFW.
Most private schools are the most corrupt in the nation.
"The education of a man is never completed until he dies." - General Robert E. Lee
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who are the executive producers for the documentary? All this Caber knowledge on this forum and no one answers.
I love the fact Art had Lynx shacked up in a camper with high school aged boys whose parents thought that was a good idea in a critical period in their lives.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

Osodecentx said:


Troy Aikman volunteers as a coach at a private school in DFW.
Most private schools are the most corrupt in the nation.
Aikman's school is corrupt? People who volunteer at private schools are corrupt?

Or you can't reason your way through a simple logic paradigm?
SATXBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

So....the second DEC hearing did take place because new evidence came to light. Lynx Hawthorne looks to be in the middle of all of this. Sounds like Briles is trying to lay back....but it's tough to believe he didn't know about these improper connections. This might also burn the MV Supt since the first DEC went off his assurance that Lynx would not coach at MV.

This will continue to put BU in the headlines since a former player also seems to be implicated

https://www.wfaa.com/article/sports/high-school/hs-football/art-briles-mount-vernon-under-scrutiny-after-star-players-ruled-ineligible/287-a35339cf-08ff-4038-8c30-5d2f9f939e54

Why two star players at Art Briles' Mount Vernon were ruled ineligible

With new evidence coming to light, the DEC held a second hearing on Oct. 8 and ruled the players ineligible.


DALLAS In his first year as head coach, Art Briles has led Mount Vernon High School football to a 5-0 record.

On Tuesday, two of Briles' star players were ruled ineligible by the District Executive Committee (DEC), which is comprised of the district's superintendents. The committee voted 6-0 that the varsity starters transferred to Mount Vernon for athletic purposes.

Multiple sources tell WFAA's Jonah Javad that the ruling stemmed from the players' relationship with Lynx Hawthorne -- one of Briles' former players at Baylor.

Hawthorne and the brothers are related by marriage.

The brothers were ruled eligible at their first hearing because their parents and the Mount Vernon superintendent told the DEC that Hawthorne would not be coaching. The DEC was told Hawthorne was in town to film a documentary.

This is important because the UIL is strict about kids transferring schools if a family member is employed by that athletic department.

RELATED: Art Briles' Mount Vernon football team will not forfeit any games, officials say

Hawthorne is not employed by Mount Vernon ISD, but he had been seen wearing coaching attire and a headset during a team scrimmage this year. He's also been seen serving in a coaching manor, per source.

Furthermore, the bothers listed an inaccurate address on the UIL's Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPF), which is required to transfer.

The brothers lived in an RV park with Hawthorne, per multiple sources. The address listed on the PAPF belongs to the owner of the RV park.

"New facts came out that were not presented or blatantly misrepresented at the first hearing," per source.

With new evidence coming to light, the DEC held a second hearing on Oct. 8 and ruled the brothers ineligible.

Since the brothers were initially ruled eligible, Mount Vernon does not have to forfeit previous games.

This case now moves to the UIL State Exec Committee, which can uphold or overturn the DEC's decision. The State Exec Committee can also institute further punishments for Mount Vernon.

It's worth noting: Art Briles did not show up to either hearing. His name is not on any paperwork. He never showed up to answer questions. He has, by all accounts, distanced himself from this whole thing.


Sounds like Briles, Hawthorne, and the superintendent should have known better. Not a great look.
DioNoZeus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In addition to his role as head football coach, Briles is also the MV athletic director, correct?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know if he ever would've been able to rehab his image enough for a college to take a chance on him again....but if these things turn out to be true....those chances are going down in flames
trey3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:

I don't know if he ever would've been able to rehab his image enough for a college to take a chance on him again....but if these things turn out to be true....those chances are going down in flames


Flames...????

Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Dallas Morning News has just reported that Art and Mt Vernon will NOT forfeit any games because they were previously told the players were cleared to play. The players will be eligible again based on whatever rules apply to them, and the residence requirements. Art played them only after they were cleared by the DEC at the beginning of the season.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Timbear said:

The Dallas Morning News has just reported that Art and Mt Vernon will NOT forfeit any games because they were previously told the players were cleared to play. The players will be eligible again based on whatever rules apply to them, and the residence requirements. Art played them only after they were cleared by the DEC at the beginning of the season.
That's not good enough. Each kid should have their thumb amputated (surgically, of course, with anesthesia) for not being omniscient. After all, we are civilized

AGFEVER
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"been seen serving in a coaching manor"

Wus it like tha Butler? At Stately WAne Manor?

All I no is my cousn Urlana was living in MISS that plac what has moss on trees and with her cousin uncle Jake. And her baby don look nothING like no body but her. We all know what team she playd for then. Airbotty know in small town.

FEV
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.