PartyBear said:

---

I don't understand the rules. You can live in a school district and not be eligible to play because they think you moved there to play ball for that specific school? So what? So what if you explicitly say it is because you want your kid to learn under their coach?

If you move to the Midway district and explicitly say it is because the kids tend to end up doing well enough academically to go to a nice college and they all get an IPAD while there, you are not ineligible to enroll in classes.

Again we aren't talking about kids who do not live there and are commuted in to the school as I understand it.

---

The purpose of the rule was originally to prevent schools and coaches from "recruiting" players into the district or high school attendance zone. In the distant past, especially during the Depression Era and post-WWII, it was common for schools to find a job for a star athlete's father so the family could move into the district. Schools in the Oil Patch were notorious for it. The rule was not designed to prevent PARENTS from independently moving into a district to improve the educational opportunities of their children.

There used to be a rule that required every student-athlete to play a year of sub-varsity football (Frosh or JV) in Texas before they were allowed to play on the varsity. The prerequisite was satisfied with the end of the JV or Frosh season, meaning that if the varsity squad qualified for the playoffs, the player could be moved up to the varsity for the remainder of their playoff run.

When I was in junior high, a family moved in down the street from Louisiana. The father worked for Haliburton and was transferred. They had a son who was going into his senior year in high school and was a highly-recruited LB. Because he had never played HS football in Texas, he was required to play his senior season on the JV, even though he had played 3 years of varsity football in LA. Because the varsity team was bad and didn't make the playoffs (only the district champ qualified back then), his senior season ended on the JV. He then went to Mississippi State on scholarship.

This rule must no longer exist since these kids moved from CO and were immediately eligible for varsity football.

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which is centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which is centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

Rumor of case in Midway ISD:
Student lives in MISD for several years, but attends private school that plays 6 man football.
Student transfers to MISD (the attendance zone in which he has lived for years) and private school says it was for athletic purposes.
Student ruled ineligible for varsity for 1 year.

Jacques Strap said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which are centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

It's a stupid rule. If the fundamental idea is you play with kids in your district, then if a kid lives in the district the kid should be able to play.

---

It's not a stupid rule at all. And the fact that you lot a) didn't know it was a rule and b) only have an opinion on it now because Art Briles is in hot water because of it says it all.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone actually involved in high school athletics -- other than the few shady coaches skirting it -- that think this is a stupid or unnecessary rule.

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which is centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

Rumor of case in Midway ISD:
Student lives in MISD for several years, but attends private school that plays 6 man football.
Student transfers to MISD (the attendance zone in which he has lived for years) and private school says it was for athletic purposes.
Student ruled ineligible for varsity for 1 year.

---

I'm skeptical that such a case actually exists. The UIL wouldn't typically get involved in transfers between public and private schools.

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which is centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

Rumor of case in Midway ISD:
Student lives in MISD for several years, but attends private school that plays 6 man football.
Student transfers to MISD (the attendance zone in which he has lived for years) and private school says it was for athletic purposes.
Student ruled ineligible for varsity for 1 year.

---

I'm skeptical that such a case actually exists. The UIL wouldn't typically get involved in transfers between public and private schools.

---

It may be an urban legend, but it is possible.
The school from which the student is transferring must fill out a form. A question on the form asks if the transfer is for an athletic purpose. If the answer is 'yes', then generally the student is ruled ineligible, but there is an appeals process.

And just for the sake of edification, players deemed to have transferred for athletic purposes aren't disqualified from sports altogether or ineligible forever. They just can't play varsity athletics that school year. They're allowed to play JV sports.

bear2be2 said:

---

And just for the sake of edification, players deemed to have transferred for athletic purposes aren't disqualified from sports altogether or ineligible forever. They just can't play varsity athletics that school year. They're allowed to play JV sports.

---

That is my understanding. They are ineligible to play varsity for one year.

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which is centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

Rumor of case in Midway ISD:
Student lives in MISD for several years, but attends private school that plays 6 man football.
Student transfers to MISD (the attendance zone in which he has lived for years) and private school says it was for athletic purposes.
Student ruled ineligible for varsity for 1 year.

---

I'm skeptical that such a case actually exists. The UIL wouldn't typically get involved in transfers between public and private schools.

---

It may be an urban legend, but it is possible.
The school from which the student is transferring must fill out a form. A question on the form asks if the transfer is for an athletic purpose. If the answer is 'yes', then generally the student is ruled ineligible, but there is an appeals process.

---

Again, I don't think that would apply in the scenario you present here. Kids transfer back and forth between public and private schools all the time. The UIL is only typically interested in transfers between member schools.

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which is centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

Rumor of case in Midway ISD:
Student lives in MISD for several years, but attends private school that plays 6 man football.
Student transfers to MISD (the attendance zone in which he has lived for years) and private school says it was for athletic purposes.
Student ruled ineligible for varsity for 1 year.

---

I'm skeptical that such a case actually exists. The UIL wouldn't typically get involved in transfers between public and private schools.

---

It may be an urban legend, but it is possible.
The school from which the student is transferring must fill out a form. A question on the form asks if the transfer is for an athletic purpose. If the answer is 'yes', then generally the student is ruled ineligible, but there is an appeals process.

---

Again, I don't think that would apply in the scenario you present here. Kids transfer back and forth between public and private schools all the time. The UIL is only typically interested in transfers between member schools.

---

In my opinion the rule shouldn't apply in the hypothetical (private to public school transfer), but I believe it does.

Private schools must complete the form. The usual custom and practice is the following:
If transferring school answers that transfer isn't for athletic purpose, the district executive committee allows the student to participate (99.999% of the time).
If the transferring school answers that the transfer is for an athletic purpose, then the DEC can declare the student eligible or ineligible.
Appeal would be to UIL committee in Austin.

It offends me that a student who has lived in a public school attendance zone for years can be declared ineligible for athletics when he/she wants to attend the public school.

fadskier said:

---

fredbear said:

---

AB is a win at all costs guy. He compromised at BU to win, he'll compromise at Mt. V. I knew he would fall back to his sewage ways, just surprised how quickly he did it. No repentance at BU. Same leopard, Same spots.

---

False. It is apparent that you no nothing of the previous situation or this one.

---

I betcha' he "nos" more than you.

and they won't have to forfeit 5 games

Enjoy some Black Cloud from Trapeze. Wherever I go black cloud followin me!

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which is centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

Rumor of case in Midway ISD:
Student lives in MISD for several years, but attends private school that plays 6 man football.
Student transfers to MISD (the attendance zone in which he has lived for years) and private school says it was for athletic purposes.
Student ruled ineligible for varsity for 1 year.

---

I'm skeptical that such a case actually exists. The UIL wouldn't typically get involved in transfers between public and private schools.

---

It may be an urban legend, but it is possible.
The school from which the student is transferring must fill out a form. A question on the form asks if the transfer is for an athletic purpose. If the answer is 'yes', then generally the student is ruled ineligible, but there is an appeals process.

---

Again, I don't think that would apply in the scenario you present here. Kids transfer back and forth between public and private schools all the time. The UIL is only typically interested in transfers between member schools.

---

In my opinion the rule shouldn't apply in the hypothetical (private to public school transfer), but I believe it does.

Private schools must complete the form. The usual custom and practice is the following:
If transferring school answers that transfer isn't for athletic purpose, the district executive committee allows the student to participate (99.999% of the time).
If the transferring school answers that the transfer is for an athletic purpose, then the DEC can declare the student eligible or ineligible.
Appeal would be to UIL committee in Austin.

It offends me that a student who has lived in a public school attendance zone for years can be declared ineligible for athletics when he/she wants to attend the public school.

---

Seems like the parents would have an easy out here. Just show up the appeal and say we couldn't justify the price of the Private School anymore or we couldn't afford it. Not like the UIL can look at your bank account...

Might be more of an issue if the family moved and were at a Private School and then the student went to a Public School at the new location. That still seems like a simple out cause you could claim money issues or that the Public Schools in the new location were more satisfactory in your opinion than the old location.

Agree. Nice recipes. Already shared with my wife.

TheAgentGrant said:

---

Agree. Nice recipes. Already shared my wife.

---

Ewww.

MilliVanilli said:

---

TheAgentGrant said:

---

Agree. Nice recipes. Already shared my wife.

---

Ewww.

---

Agree. Nice recipes. Already shared with my wife. Thank you for correcting my grammar.

TheAgentGrant said:

---

MilliVanilli said:

---

TheAgentGrant said:

---

Agree. Nice recipes. Already shared my wife.

---

Ewww.

---

Agree. Nice recipes. Already shared with my wife. Thank you for correcting my grammar.

---

Welcome. Enjoy the grub.

sahen said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which is centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

Rumor of case in Midway ISD:
Student lives in MISD for several years, but attends private school that plays 6 man football.
Student transfers to MISD (the attendance zone in which he has lived for years) and private school says it was for athletic purposes.
Student ruled ineligible for varsity for 1 year.

---

I'm skeptical that such a case actually exists. The UIL wouldn't typically get involved in transfers between public and private schools.

---

It may be an urban legend, but it is possible.
The school from which the student is transferring must fill out a form. A question on the form asks if the transfer is for an athletic purpose. If the answer is 'yes', then generally the student is ruled ineligible, but there is an appeals process.

---

Again, I don't think that would apply in the scenario you present here. Kids transfer back and forth between public and private schools all the time. The UIL is only typically interested in transfers between member schools.

---

In my opinion the rule shouldn't apply in the hypothetical (private to public school transfer), but I believe it does.

Private schools must complete the form. The usual custom and practice is the following:
If transferring school answers that transfer isn't for athletic purpose, the district executive committee allows the student to participate (99.999% of the time).
If the transferring school answers that the transfer is for an athletic purpose, then the DEC can declare the student eligible or ineligible.
Appeal would be to UIL committee in Austin.

It offends me that a student who has lived in a public school attendance zone for years can be declared ineligible for athletics when he/she wants to attend the public school.

---

Seems like the parents would have an easy out here. Just show up the appeal and say we couldn't justify the price of the Private School anymore or we couldn't afford it. Not like the UIL can look at your bank account...

Might be more of an issue if the family moved and were at a Private School and then the student went to a Public School at the new location. That still seems like a simple out cause you could claim money issues or that the Public Schools in the new location were more satisfactory in your opinion than the old location.

---

The child can attend the public school, just can't participate in athletics if the previous school says the transfer was for athletics.

Osodecentx said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Jacques Strap said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

PartyBear said:

---

I think that is a stupid rule. Parents want to try to do what is best for their kid. If someone wants to move to Mt Vernon or into the Lake Travis or Midway districts because they think that will give their kid a good shot at getting into college and with a free ride at that as a ball player, the parent should be allowed to do that.

---

It's not a stupid rule. It keeps coaches from recruiting players and schools from stealing talent from neighboring schools and districts. It's a necessary rule for the mission of high school athletics, which are centered around the fundamental idea that you play with the kids in your district -- not those you can recruit to move there for athletic purposes.

---

It's a stupid rule. If the fundamental idea is you play with kids in your district, then if a kid lives in the district the kid should be able to play.

---

It's not a stupid rule at all. And the fact that you lot a) didn't know it was a rule and b) only have an opinion on it now because Art Briles is in hot water because of it says it all.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone actually involved in high school athletics -- other than the few shady coaches skirting it -- that think this is a stupid or unnecessary rule.

---

Not picking a fight, but this isn't on Briles. It's between parents, the transferring school and the DEC.

---

I don't care to fight on this issue either, but it further illustrates the lack of importance Briles places on the oversight, administrative and leadership parts of his job, which was ultimately his undoing here.

I've covered high school sports for almost 15 years and talk with coaches almost daily. Believe me when I tell you that these folks know where their players come from -- especially transfers. Because taking chances on the wrong kid(s) can wipe out your entire season.

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.

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.

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.

And just for the record, I'm not saying Art is or is not guilty of anything here -- at least with the transfers. The coach thing is fishy and amateurish. But the fact that we're on a second round of DEC hearings leads me to believe there is more to this particular transfer process than normal and that more caution should have been exercised than was in this case.

I know a lot of head coaches who would have gotten to the bottom of that situation themselves and put those kids on JV until all suspicions were thoroughly addressed and any possibility of impropriety had been looked into and dismissed. That's never really been Art's style.

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.

Good idea. That was a pretty bad first post for your alt nick anyways.

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?

Malbec said:

---

TellMeYouLoveMe said:

---

You'll never convince me of the need for eligibility rules when a family lives in the district. The reasons people move are irrelevant.

That s- has gone on for decades. I'd like to see these politicians send their kids to the crap inner city schools these kids leave...

---

I think realtors are complicit in this obviously illegal activity. They are always touting the schools in the neighborhood when showing you houses. And schools should not be allowed to put their awards and accolades on signs around the school and in literature they disseminate or websites they maintain. We don't need to be enticed into moving by exemplary ratings and the like. That stuff about advertising championships on water towers and such has got to go! We have also got to stop police departments from compiling crime statistics. Don't they know that safe schools and neighborhoods are like crack to a soccer mom? People with kids should have to live in their original place until all of their kids are out of school. /s

---

Nice

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.

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.