Jump to content

UPDATE: UIL gives two-year playoff ban to Alto


Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Mox4 said:

Fine the school district, put the people at hand on probation, but don’t punish the kids.

A fine does absolutely no good in this situation. What they did wasn’t done for monetary gain. It was done for success on the football field. In addition, kids are going to be punished by this one way or the other. If a school that should rightfully be D1 is allowed to compete in D2, D2 kids are being punished. The right decision was made, however painful it may be. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dropkick said:

I may have missed it but does the penalty apply to all sports for two years or only football?

Football only. Football is the only thing that is divided into D1 and D2. It would only make a difference if the numbers were the difference in keeping them in 2A instead of moving to 3A. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, grinder said:

if we know it was 3 people we should know 3 names. if said 3 people don't play sports at all then where do you stand?

 

Do all of the students at any school participate in athletics? No. The classification numbers aren’t set based on athletic participation. They’re set based on overall enrollment. That’s the rule, it’s been that way for decades, and it was broken. That’s why the punishment was handed down. Rules without enforcement are useless. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, grinder said:

i realize not all kids play sports. my deal is why not go by numbers that actually play sports then classify by that number other than total kids in school

Garrison ended up in a higher classification several recent alignments because of transfer students that the majority of which didn’t participate in sports ... The last two realignments that we ended up in what is now 3ADII we were pushed up into 3A due to 35-40 transfer students we "inherited" ... I see what you are saying, but basing realignment on sports participation would be practically impossible to forecast  ...  the UIL sets the guidelines and the schools have to abide by it .... the one thing I believe they should change and makes 100% sense, at least to me, is basing the new alignment on 8th grade through 11th grade instead of 9th through 12th grade .... the 12th grade class they are counting won’t be there the next two years during the new realignment ...

Edited by KirtFalcon
yo mama
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of students in each sport varies....some schools have a large number out for football but minimal out for volleyball or basketball.  Which sport would be the driver for realignment and what do you do if more or less come out than anticipated?  Would girls' sports be tied to the number of football players? 

I think the enrollment process used by the UIL is the best way to keep the field level.  Even if students choose not to participate, they at least have the same opportunity as schools of their relative same size.  It is up to the coaches, parents, peers, and other stakeholders to get the participation level up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, grinder said:

i realize not all kids play sports. my deal is why not go by numbers that actually play sports then classify by that number other than total kids in school

Because school isn’t about football. Athletics is part of the school experience. What if a school has low participation numbers for football but their girls basketball program gets 25-30 kids that play AAU ball year round? What about band kids? Band contest are divided by classification just like football is. Queen City would rule 2A band contests. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PostSurfer said:

To me the "head scratcher" in this whole thing is the timing of the letter submitted containing the allegation.

Whomever submitted it had to have knowledge of this event, they were either close to it or gained it from someone that was and did so out of retaliation or had an axe to grind against the district. Six month window in between keeps everyone in play.

Solve this "who done it" and that will help everyone understand why this can of worms was opened. I suspect it is known privately.

I do look forward to seeing how the Yellowjackets fare with their seemingly Div 1 / Div 2 schedule.

“AD/HFB left, counselor gone, anonymous letter in April, Hearing in August.”  

This line is from your previous post.  I’d say you likely named the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 7:34 AM, TomBrady said:

You’re an embarrassment to the Joaquin community saying stuff like this. 

I'm 100% sure the Joaquin Community all know who I am and realize it was severe sarcasm. I do have to get better at expressing sarcasm on the Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KirtFalcon said:

Garrison ended up in a higher classification several recent alignments because of transfer students that the majority of which didn’t participate in sports ... The last two realignments that we ended up in what is now 3ADII we were pushed up into 3A due to 35-40 transfer students we "inherited" ... I see what you are saying, but basing realignment on sports participation would be practically impossible to forecast  ...  the UIL sets the guidelines and the schools have to abide by it .... the one thing I believe they should change and makes 100% sense, at least to me, is basing the new alignment on 8th grade through 11th grade instead of 9th through 12th grade .... the 12th grade class they are counting won’t be there the next two years during the new realignment ...

I think the problem with counting kids in 8th grade is larger school districts that pool from several junior high schools. If that can be done, then, counting 8 through 11th grade would be a more accurate representation of your high school the following two years

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lambo said:

I'm 100% sure the Joaquin Community all know who I am and realize it was severe sarcasm. I do have to get better at expressing sarcasm on the Internet.

Yes we all know you. No it didn’t look like sarcasm. Yes you need to get better. That is all. 

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2022 at 9:56 AM, PostSurfer said:

To me the "head scratcher" in this whole thing is the timing of the letter submitted containing the allegation.

Whomever submitted it had to have knowledge of this event, they were either close to it or gained it from someone that was and did so out of retaliation or had an axe to grind against the district. Six month window in between keeps everyone in play.

Solve this "who done it" and that will help everyone understand why this can of worms was opened. I suspect it is known privately.

I do look forward to seeing how the Yellowjackets fare with their seemingly Div 1 / Div 2 schedule.

They know who posted the letter,annonimity was preserved 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time I can remember anything remotely like this was probably 2006? A school allowed a student to suit up and play against Joaquin like 2 days after he was enrolled or something to that effect. They had to forfeit that game for sure and I wanna say a few others but I'm not positive on that. I don't think Alto did this intentionally trying to dodge 2a-d1 but that's how the cookie crumbles. Sad situation for those kids who weren't responsible regardless if it was Intentional or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...