Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Smoaky

Matt Stepp confirmed DEC Meeting (District 7-3A D1) on Mount Vernon...

Recommended Posts

I was under the impression that it was parents from my Vernon who brought new information to the table this time?? No?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kooldown54 said:

Wrong

So can you see into the future? I realize the Superintendents has been quoted as saying he'll file the appeal today? But it hasn't been done yet! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, H3llR4z0r said:

Why would people in this district even care if he coaches again? We have no ties to him. Maybe if here were around Austin or something lol. 

Because he stepped in and became the best coach in district? 

  • Like 1
  • Stinks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Horns85 said:

So can you see into the future? I realize the Superintendents has been quoted as saying he'll file the appeal today? But it hasn't been done yet! 

Go to the other thread from Matt Stepp, he quoted they’ll have a decision Tuesday, the kids will not play this week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire saga at MV has been hard to wrap my mind around.

I hate all this drama for the kids. To be horsewhipped and almost hung due to ineligible players, then to clear them and now to start the mud slinging again. GOOD GRIEF

Live the American Dream- Be a DRAMA MOMMA

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m willing to bet it’s the teams that hasn’t played them that’s coming with the accusations. Especially since they see them as a real threat now, so Jeff,Atl and hooks one if not all I bet are like we can’t let this happen lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sportsguru02 said:

I’m willing to bet it’s the teams that hasn’t played them that’s coming with the accusations. Especially since they see them as a real threat now, so Jeff,Atl and hooks one if not all I bet are like we can’t let this happen lol 

Thankful no one has brought Finney’s name up in this mess again!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sportsfan4life said:

In regards to the ineligibility of the two players, I think most people are missing the bigger picture.  This is a dangerous precedent that this DEC has just set.  Let's say, hypothetically, of course, your team has a move-in or transfer player that was approved by the DEC.  He plays 3 or 4 games, and then a school in the district files a complaint about said player and a hearing is held and said player is again ruled eligible.  A few weeks go by, and your team has won more games with said player, and then another complaint is filed by either that same team or another team in the district for reasons they would probably never admit to,  and this time, your player is ruled ineligible.  So. based on the comments I have been reading here,  most of y'all would have no problem with your team forfeiting your wins with a player who was only playing after being ruled eligible twice, AND you would blame your coach for playing the player.  I truly doubt that you would be okay with it, but I have to assume you would be since most of you seem to think that multiple hearings with different rulings is okay.  This precedent of eligible, eligible, no, wait ineligible just invites schools with a vendetta to file complaints over and over again until they get the ruling they want.  It may be all fun and games to you now because you think you have eliminated a district threat, but I highly doubt it will be as much fun when the shoe is on the other foot.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just Because the DEC made a ruling isn't in fact the UIL that will make the final ruling? Also this happens all the dang time in Texas Coaches are constantly having to go to Austin to get a kid eligible for football or whatever sport. Did these parents move their kid to MV for Briles 100% a fact I am sure heck I would do the same if I had a son!!!!! It does not matter though if the parents can make the UIL see they moved for other reasons which 95% of the time the parent can prove the move. This DEC committee is a bunch of crawfishing MF who made the kids eligible then went back on it because of some other accusation and to me they should not be allowed to do such a thing and that is why we have the UIL because they will make final judgement if I am not wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, regaleagle said:

It's not like Briles needs the job and the money.  Should have been totally transparent up front about these move-ins from the gitgo with the UIL as soon as he knew about it.  Being a new coach in the town......he probably didn't know early on, but had to have known from others telling him at some point.  I wouldn't want to be a MV faithful in that town right now......what a nightmare if you love your community and the football program.

Regal - don’t assume anything on this issue.  Go back and read the comments from last night on this thread, as well as the comments on the MV DEC Meeting thread from last night and you should better understand what the problems are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the parents or MV school truly believe the kids should be eligible to play, along with taking it to the UIL, they could try to get a judge to declare them eligible to play this Friday.  Have heard of similar things happening in the playoffs in the past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny to me that everyone who says "yeah, I would bring my kids over to play for that coach." You just are proving why the UIL has these rules in place. A student is NOT eligible if you move for athletic reasons. 

Someone else hit on the other issue of the coach/photographer/documentary producer. Again, UIL has these rules in place to where you cannot just come off the streets and be a coach. (Hearing pretty solid evidence on this one)

As far as other schools are scared of playing MV or butt hurt about getting beat. What was Finney's record last 2 seasons at MV? Double digit wins in both seasons?  Were any accusations brought up then? NONE!

DEC is doing their job. That is why they are there. Yes it is being appealed. And I wouldn't be surprised on either ruling. I believe that MV is a good team with or without those kids. 

MV will weather the storm and bounce back. I 100% believe that. But when you hire someone like this coach and his reputation (either true or false) you have to expect these things to happen.

  • Like 4
  • Stinks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're really trying hard to bring this man down...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ANTI said:

They're really trying hard to bring this man down... 

Please explain.  They are not doing anything to him only the kids who moved in illegally.  Unless youre saying he had his hand in that??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eagleborn said:

Because he stepped in and became the best coach in district? 

Is he the best coach? I could make an argument that Ed is doing a hell of a job in HS this season. I mean realistically speaking. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EastTxFinest said:

Is he the best coach? I could make an argument that Ed is doing a hell of a job in HS this season. I mean realistically speaking. 

With homegrown boys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MattStepp said:

If its a witch hunt, I'm confident the evidence will come to light and the UIL will rule accordingly...if the DEC ruled correctly that'll come out as well...can't wait to watch the SEC meeting and see what happens

I'd say now that the media is involved,uil gets serious 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kooldown54 said:

Go to the other thread from Matt Stepp, he quoted they’ll have a decision Tuesday, the kids will not play this week

Im very aware of Stepp's comments but my point is you can't plan a meeting BEFORE the appeal is even started. Horse in front of the wagon 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me change gears here, whats the rule, policy on failing a drug test?  Is it the particular school to set the punishment for failing a drug test? Is it the UIL that sets the punishment for a player’s 1st time failing a drug test?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MattStepp said:

If its a witch hunt, I'm confident the evidence will come to light and the UIL will rule accordingly...if the DEC ruled correctly that'll come out as well...can't wait to watch the SEC meeting and see what happens

Matt, haven't they ruled on this twice already? Didn't the State rule in MV's favor already? If the State rules in MV's favor is the case closed or can another whistleblower bring another accusation and this starts all over again. Curious how this keeps coming up. Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Horns85 said:

Im very aware of Stepp's comments but my point is you can't plan a meeting BEFORE the appeal is even started. Horse in front of the wagon 

I dont believe its the cart before the horse.  Im sure The UIL committee has an agenda and schedule and they have scheduled the MV case for Tuesday. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eagle34 said:

Matt, haven't they ruled on this twice already? Didn't the State rule in MV's favor already? If the State rules in MV's favor is the case closed or can another whistleblower bring another accusation and this starts all over again. Curious how this keeps coming up. Thanks 

The first "ruling" was just the DEC getting the PAPFs (which were clear)

The second ruling was only a DEC ruling; and this ruling is only DEC

It can come up multiple times if new evidence is presented....now that its being appealed to Austin this will be it...once UIL rules it'll be final

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MattStepp said:

The first "ruling" was just the DEC getting the PAPFs (which were clear)

The second ruling was only a DEC ruling; and this ruling is only DEC

It can come up multiple times if new evidence is presented....now that its being appealed to Austin this will be it...once UIL rules it'll be final

Dumb question, but can you elaborate on the new accusations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this a case of Little Johnny's mommy and daddy mad that Little Johnny isn't getting the playing time they want so they are going after their own school? or is this the anti-briles side of the community trying to get him removed?

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thumbs Down 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...