Jump to content

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


Smoaky

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, soldier1 said:

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?

Can someone elaborate or is this a sore subject as well??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dawg665 said:

Would you like your little Johnny having to take a backseat to an “possible “ in eligible transfer after years of hardwork and dedication to the program? It’s one thing getting beat out by a better player, but it’s a little different when said player shouldn’t even be allowed to play....atleast not here in Texas per UIL. Not being a smart a&& either, it’s a legit question. 

 

If little Johnny took a backseat to a player whether ineligible or eligible, seems that the player outperformed him.    A lot of speculation going around.

The kids that were enrolled into that school had to have paperwork approved at some level, and that does not fall on the football coach, or whatever sport a kid plays.

Athletic program is not the support staff.  Coaches coach the players that come out to play.  that is their job, not determining if someone moved in specifically to play a sport or because the parents or guardians moved for a job.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tiger03lb
4 minutes ago, soldier1 said:

Can someone elaborate or is this a sore subject as well??

Believe they are allowed 2 tries per year. If they fail the first one, they have one more to pass. If they fail both, they can't play any activity for that school year. But they can try out again the next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mustang4life said:

 

If little Johnny took a backseat to a player whether ineligible or eligible, seems that the player outperformed him.    A lot of speculation going around.

The kids that were enrolled into that school had to have paperwork approved at some level, and that does not fall on the football coach, or whatever sport a kid plays.

Athletic program is not the support staff.  Coaches coach the players that come out to play.  that is their job, not determining if someone moved in specifically to play a sport or because the parents or guardians moved for a job.   

So...let’s hypothetically say that you were in the AD’s position. And the same scenario happened to you as MV’s current AD. Whether it was something you did or didn’t have knowledge of, but some things happened that weren’t good when you were coaching at a successful college program. Now fast forward to now, with all the scrutiny would you not make sure all the i’s were dotted and t’s crosses? No, in actuality it is on the Athletic Department to determine these things. There are actually current AD’s that make parents fill out a waiver that say you did not move for athletic purposes. This is a fact! But back to my point, would you not double or triple check every new player since you know everything you do will be looked at underneath a microscope?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tiger03lb said:

Believe they are allowed 2 tries per year. If they fail the first one, they have one more to pass. If they fail both, they can't play any activity for that school year. But they can try out again the next year.

But whats the consequence for failing the first one, one game suspension, no game suspension?  And is it the UIL rule or the school Admin rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dawg665 said:

So...let’s hypothetically say that you were in the AD’s position. And the same scenario happened to you as MV’s current AD. Whether it was something you did or didn’t have knowledge of, but some things happened that weren’t good when you were coaching at a successful college program. Now fast forward to now, with all the scrutiny would you not make sure all the i’s were dotted and t’s crosses? No, in actuality it is on the Athletic Department to determine these things. There are actually current AD’s that make parents fill out a waiver that say you did not move for athletic purposes. This is a fact! But back to my point, would you not double or triple check every new player since you know everything you do will be looked at underneath a microscope?

I buy your position on the players, but there is another component to this latest accusation you are not factoring that is on Briles.  That would be the individual who was acting in a coaching role who is not certified and not an employee of MVISD.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dawg665 said:

So...let’s hypothetically say that you were in the AD’s position. And the same scenario happened to you as MV’s current AD. Whether it was something you did or didn’t have knowledge of, but some things happened that weren’t good when you were coaching at a successful college program. Now fast forward to now, with all the scrutiny would you not make sure all the i’s were dotted and t’s crosses? No, in actuality it is on the Athletic Department to determine these things. There are actually current AD’s that make parents fill out a waiver that say you did not move for athletic purposes. This is a fact! But back to my point, would you not double or triple check every new player since you know everything you do will be looked at underneath a microscope?

I would agree that extra attention should been taken to ensure no appearance of impropriety  is done.   So was the paperwork filled out?  Was it deemed sufficient by someone?  

My point is that there are a certain few people who have these answers and many more who are speculating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Dawg665 said:

Would you like your little Johnny having to take a backseat to an “possible “ in eligible transfer after years of hardwork and dedication to the program? It’s one thing getting beat out by a better player, but it’s a little different when said player shouldn’t even be allowed to play....atleast not here in Texas per UIL. Not being a smart a&& either, it’s a legit question. 

Texas high School football is full of little johnnies parents wrecking programs due to their perceived entitlement to playing time!!! Most of the time you hear it being administrative staffs that destroy a program over this type of stuff. Said staff then resigns and moves shortly after. Not naming names or giving examples just leaving that there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DawgNation2015 said:

I buy your position on the players, but there is another component to this latest accusation you are not factoring that is on Briles.  That would be the individual who was acting in a coaching role who is not certified and not an employee of MVISD.

BINGO!! And trying to hide it or at least make it seem legit by saying he’s filming a documentary!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mustang4life said:

 

If little Johnny took a backseat to a player whether ineligible or eligible, seems that the player outperformed him.    A lot of speculation going around.

The kids that were enrolled into that school had to have paperwork approved at some level, and that does not fall on the football coach, or whatever sport a kid plays.

Athletic program is not the support staff.  Coaches coach the players that come out to play.  that is their job, not determining if someone moved in specifically to play a sport or because the parents or guardians moved for a job.   

No 💩?? That's funny. I can't believe he'd move 1000 miles away from his home if he wasn't certain he'd be the starting QB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DawgNation2015 said:

I buy your position on the players, but there is another component to this latest accusation you are not factoring that is on Briles.  That would be the individual who was acting in a coaching role who is not certified and not an employee of MVISD.

You might be on to something 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..i honestly hate this for the kids has a fan i would love to see them play with what they have been winning with, but all this is because some adults didnt do what was suppose to be done....I believe even if they did play Jefferson still wins big...i think bigger now

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, EastTxFinest said:

You might be on to something 

And according to reports by Mr. Smoak himself there is a connection between the unauthorized individual/coach/film maker and the two ineligible players. Again that kind of falls on Briles since the documentary is about him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DawgNation2015 said:

And according to reports by Mr. Smoak himself there is a connection between the unauthorized individual/coach/film maker and the two ineligible players. Again that kind of falls on Briles since the documentary is about him.

This is a free country Dawg. People don't surrender their right to make documentaries just becuz they are a coach, even if he was the one doing it. Facts before rumors please. Thanks and Goooo Bulldogs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Eagleborn said:

Yea. Dudes been coaching since late 70s/early 80s so naturally I would only be talking about this season. 

Here. This season in high school. The past decade in college. So what kind of coach allows his other kids to be affected by a stupid decision he helped make? Why defend him if we all see hes wrong?

  • Thumbs Down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EastTxFinest said:

Here. This season in high school. The past decade in college. So what kind of coach allows his other kids to be affected by a stupid decision he helped make? Why defend him if we all see hes wrong?

Who are you referring to about defending him? You might wanna quote them instead of me. 
 

I only said he’s the best football coach in district and that’s a fact. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Eagleborn said:

Who are you referring to about defending him? You might wanna quote them instead of me. 
 

I only said he’s the best football coach in district and that’s a fact. 

Not with everything going wrong on his watch he's not. What kind of examples is he setting? It's ok to cheat guys as long as the camera isnt rolling.... miss me with that bs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NightStar11 said:

This is a free country Dawg. People don't surrender their right to make documentaries just becuz they are a coach, even if he was the one doing it. Facts before rumors please. Thanks and Goooo Bulldogs!

Your missing the point.  Briles can’t claim “I didn’t know” if the reason the individual in question is in MV is to film a documentary about Briles.  Briles had to agree before this individual came to MV to start filming right?  And it’s on Briles to ensure that individual is only filming and not coaching right?  Sounds like the DEC called BS.  Mr. Smoak reported that the film maker and the players were connected, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...