Jump to content

Argyle @ Melissa


regaleagle

Recommended Posts

Melissa  36

Argyle    7

 

Lots of penalties and a mismatch for Argyle this early in the season.  Looks like the Argyle coaches knew they were up against the wall, so they started 4 sophs.....3 on defense and one on offense.  They are in it for the long run......maybe by the playoffs they can be a heckuva team.  Gailey looked accurate, but had some drops on good balls.  The lines for Melissa are humongous......280 avg. across their O-line and probably close to that on the D-line.  Melissa is just loaded with athletes with experience.....even on the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2023 at 10:28 PM, regaleagle said:

Melissa uses their DE as a RB inside the 20......he's also their punter.  He's a human bowling ball.....5-10/260 and very difficult to stop.  He's very lightfooted for a man his size and forget about stopping him.  

That's P-Nut Abrams moved in from McKinney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, CrankyOldMan said:

I guess I don’t understand UIL transfer rules based on the reason I heard he moved to Melissa.  Can you move for athletic purposes now and be immediately eligible?

Did McKinney check the box that he moved for athletic purposes and if they didnt did someone in the DEC challenge it? If the answer is no then by UIL rules he's eligible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MattStepp said:

Did McKinney check the box that he moved for athletic purposes and if they didnt did someone in the DEC challenge it? If the answer is no then by UIL rules he's eligible

Thanks for the clarification.  They may as well eliminate the rule altogether at this point.  With all the brother-in-lawing between the coaches and AD’s in this state I would imagine that box rarely gets checked.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CrankyOldMan said:

Thanks for the clarification.  They may as well eliminate the rule altogether at this point.  With all the brother-in-lawing between the coaches and AD’s in this state I would imagine that box rarely gets checked.  

No way to know honestly w/o doing a ton of legwork, I just know what goes to the SEC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CrankyOldMan said:

Thanks for the clarification.  They may as well eliminate the rule altogether at this point.  With all the brother-in-lawing between the coaches and AD’s in this state I would imagine that box rarely gets checked.  

It stops a lot of kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, collincountyfootball1 said:

They also had a CB move in from McKinney Boyd that was an all district player and a starting LB is a move in from Allen as well. Lots and lots of transfers at Melissa.

I guess the better question is how is it everybody else in town from where they transferred from and where they transferred to know why they transferred but the AD’s and coaches don’t?  A rule that is ignored is no rule at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, MattStepp said:

Did McKinney check the box that he moved for athletic purposes and if they didnt did someone in the DEC challenge it? If the answer is no then by UIL rules he's eligible

So it's up to the school he moved from or the others in the district to make a complaint?  If no complaint then it's all good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CrankyOldMan said:

I guess the better question is how is it everybody else in town from where they transferred from and where they transferred to know why they transferred but the AD’s and coaches don’t?  A rule that is ignored is no rule at all. 

You still so Cranky, haha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, house said:

So it's up to the school he moved from or the others in the district to make a complaint?  If no complaint then it's all good?

It varies by DEC rules but the vast majority of DECs operate this way...if the PAPF from the sending school is clean then there's no issues its rubber-stamped through....the only way they'd flag a clean PAPF for a hearing is if new information came to light after receipt of the PAPF....most DECs dont have the time to hold hearings on every single PAPF that comes through and they dont want to set a precedent for holding hearings on kids that have clean paperwork

 

If the sending school checks yes on any of questions 1-6 on Section III of the PAPF then that's going to automatically trigger a DEC hearing to review the eligibility of the student athlete

Edited by MattStepp
  • Like 2
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
×
×
  • Create New...