bear2be2 said: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.Dman said: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.bear2be2 said: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.Malbec said: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.bear2be2 said:Osodecentx said:It isn't Briles decision to allow attendance at MV. If kids live in MV attendance zone, it is a right.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.
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.
Gotcha. You're trying to hard.
What I'm saying is that the coaches I know and respect wouldn't leave the discovery of new facts to chance. They'd already have knowledge of those facts and act accordingly.
I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge "new facts" may have come up. Unless Briles manipulates the first eligibility ruling in any way, he only has the ruling of the DEC to factor in like everyone else. Therefore your need to say "he was loose" is BS.
The "I'm not saying he's guilty..I'm saying he should have known" is BS. Your saying he's guilty. Show where he manipulated the original hearing....or quit saying what you're "not saying".