So What's So Bad About Recruiting?

[Drake]

I thought I’d start a new topic about RECRUITING. It doesn’t seem like we talk about this much. ;) I have a few SUB-TOPICS that could be discussed in this thread. The way I ask the question doesn’t necessarily indicate MY position. In fact, I’m asking most of these because I’m on the fence and would like to hear reasoning. It would be cool if they could discussed without the venomous posts that often times cause these threads to degenerate.

SUB-TOPIC 01 – MOVING FOR ATHLETIC PURPOSES
If a student’s most outstanding talent is football (or any athletic sport) why wouldn’t we expect that player’s family to seek out and join programs that would offer that student the best opportunities? Why shouldn’t a great WR move to Southlake if his family knows this will enhance his exposure and chances to continue playing football at the next level? Athletics paves the way for so many students to get college educations and some to become set for life. Why in the heck is moving for “athletic purposes” so taboo?

SUB-TOPIC 02 – ATTENDANCE ZONES
Isn’t it true that the attendance zone argument against private schools is just a red herring? Private school families pay public school taxes and, as U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to the same opportunities afforded by the government as anyone else does. Basically, as a government body, the UIL doesn’t have the right to exclude anyone that wishes to participate. THIS understanding is why UIL allowed private schools in and rightfully so. Regardless, isn’t it true public school districts draw attendance zones according to the enrollment size and demographics they seek in their districts? Isn’t it also true that the public schools make exceptions to the attendance zone restrictions with their magnet schools and in cases where a certain sport or activity isn’t offered at in a particular zone? (for instance, water polo) Assuming that there are already private schools participating in UIL and more may come, does anyone have a reasonable, workable idea (that’s FAIR) to address the concern?

SUB-TOPIC 03 – RECRUITAPHOBIA
What is recruiting? What’s cool and what’s not? I’m assuming you’d say a coach directly contacting a player or player’s guardians about the idea of going to his school would be, but what else? How about a coach visiting youth leagues and having summer camps for area players? How about a conscious effort by districts to draw players by spending district money to maintain top-notch facilities, hire the best coaches, etc.? Would anyone argue with my assumption that in the last ten years many more quality football players have moved INTO the Katy, SLC, La Marque, North Shore, or Woodlands (to name a few) attendance zones than have moved away? Legit or not, SOMETHING is recruiting them to those schools. Isn’t it hypocritical, or at best naïve, to fear the other guy is recruiting when it goes on by some definition in every successful program?

[drgnbkr]

Well reasoned post. I will repeat what I've said many times on this board...many people have chosen to move into the Southlake area for a variety of reasons. To say that the move-ins are coming for athletic reasons alone is almost laughable. The cost of admission is far too high for someone to come here just for sports. Period. Recruiting is also laughable..does anyone who reads this board think that Coach Dodge or any supporter of the Carroll program could subsidize the high cost of living in Southlake? Do some who can afford it include the highly successful athletic situation here in their decision? Of course.....Now private shools like the Jesuit Schools, don't require that you live in thier area, the only barrier being tuition, which can be offset by scholarships..which is more likely to be involved in recruiting?

[The Lone Ranger]

Southlake is an outrageously expensive place to live. It's also worth it.

I do believe that people move to Southlake because of Carroll ISD. It's not just the sports, though (which do help), but the fact that it's consistently ranked as one of the top school districts in the state.

[htownfootball]

Many athletes that go to Strake that are supposedly recruited are originally drawn to the school because of many things.

-The fact that SJ and DJ play UIL is a factor in itself. Competitiveness brings media, coverage, big games to the athletes. Athletes also tend to stand out when they're playing Katy and Elsik, rather than TAPPS schools.
-Campus is a class act. Looks like a mini university with a great stadium and underground gym and the self proclaimed "nicest high school gym in Texas" coming for the 06-07 school year.
-Rich history of division 1-A athletes. Mack Brown has been seen on campus. Coaches and recruiters are on campus during off season and late in the season to see athletees. 2 ex-Jesuit athletes were on the 06 Texas National Championship team as well as many others across the nation at places such as North Carolina, Army, Houston, Fordham, Rice, Yale and others.
-Community is heart warming and very close. I am sure many of you all know about this type of thing also.
-Rich history in athletic success. TCIL days may be over but the championship trophies and big time athletes' pictures still stand by the gym. The 90's served well for SJ basketball with 4 state titles in a row with 3 All-Americans who went on to play at UConn (national championship), Uconn and Wake Forest. Even when Strake had to play independent, they most losses they had in 1 season was 2 and even had a 10-0 team.

This is just my 2 cents, but I may be naive. Since being admitted into the UIL, Strake has attracted some of the best basketball players in the city and the state.
I'm not into January trash talk like this Cinco kid so....

[gldneagles]

so what is wrong with making decisions? decide whether you want your kids to go to private schools or compete in uil sports? if i am not mistaken, the privates have leagues to play in if they want their children to play sports. so what is wrong with making a decision? i did when my son was about to enter 2nd grade. one of the points of consideration was sports. as an egotistical parent, i wanted my son to go have a chance to play in uil sanctioned sports. so i took him out of a private school and put him in public. have never regretted it. i made a choice. why can't the rest of the privates make a choice? privates are not welcome in uil. they have an unfair advantage. any success the privates recognize will be tainted.

[Drake]

so what is wrong with making decisions? decide whether you want your kids to go to private schools or compete in uil sports? if i am not mistaken, the privates have leagues to play in if they want their children to play sports. so what is wrong with making a decision? i did when my son was about to enter 2nd grade. one of the points of consideration was sports. as an egotistical parent, i wanted my son to go have a chance to play in uil sanctioned sports. so i took him out of a private school and put him in public. have never regretted it. i made a choice. why can't the rest of the privates make a choice? privates are not welcome in uil. they have an unfair advantage. any success the privates recognize will be tainted.Unknowingly you make the case for what you are against... Why should you have to choose between the very best education or the very best athletic environment for your child? Especially in this great state? Why should anyone?

[gldneagles]

Unknowingly you make the case for what you are against... Why should you have to choose between the very best education or the very best athletic environment for your child? Especially in this great state? Why should anyone?
because the privates have an unfair advantage in uil sports. you should have to make a decision. like us publics do. "where do i want to move to so my son can play for the right program". but, i guess some just have to have their cake and eat it too. the privates have an unfair advantage and any success they realize will be worthless.

[gldneagles]

Unknowingly you make the case for what you are against... Why should you have to choose between the very best education or the very best athletic environment for your child? Especially in this great state? Why should anyone?
and who is to say publics do not give the best education? my kid happens to be on the dean's list at a&m in human med. i think i got a pretty good deal on my son's education. didn't cost me any extra and he is very well prepared for the world. in fact, i think he is probably better prepared for the real world because he has had to learn how to deal with diversity, just like the real world. he got the best of both worlds! the privates have an unfair andvantage and any success they realize will be questioned.

[DiamondJ2]

Great posts. Isn't it amazing how some of the top athletes in the nation consistently show up at such places as Oak Hill, St. Ignatius, Dematha, etc which just happen to be private schools and those same players have attended more than one high school-some a new school each year--all on scholarship. Of course, it must be the academics. Why would they move across country so often? Again the answer must be academics. I assume you wouldn't object to public schools offering "scholarships". Now, if the private schools are involved in UIL, then I would also assume they must adhere to TEA policies, graduation requirements, TAKS and NCLB guidelines.

[Drake]

gldneagles -

You didn't say a private school education was better, I inferred that... But you did say you made a decision to remove your child from private school because you wanted him to participate in UIL sports... I'm curious, why did you enroll him in private school to begin with?

[Drake]

Great posts. Isn't it amazing how some of the top athletes in the nation consistently show up at such places as Oak Hill, St. Ignatius, Dematha, etc which just happen to be private schools and those same players have attended more than one high school-some a new school each year--all on scholarship. Of course, it must be the academics. Why would they move across country so often? Again the answer must be academics. I assume you wouldn't object to public schools offering "scholarships". Now, if the private schools are involved in UIL, then I would also assume they must adhere to TEA policies, graduation requirements, TAKS and NCLB guidelines.Have you ever considered that the needs and goals of a private school may be different than that of another private school?

Oak Hill, for example, is obviously engaged in offering a place for the very best basketball players, the ones that have shown the best ability and sincerely have a chance to earn a living playing or at least buy a free college education. From what I've seen, they travel the country playing similar programs in tournaments and are providing an atmosphere that is far more suited to these kids needs than their local public schools could. While you think that what Oak Hill does is a bad thing, the truth is they're doing a great thing for these kids...

The Jesuit schools have a different mission and the next private allowed to play UIL may be different than that. Making assumptions about any one of them based on what another has done, especially one 10 states away is closed and simple-minded.

[KT2000]

I don't know what you are trying to insinuate DiamondJ2 but I assure you no one has moved schools like De La Salle, Evangel Christian Academy, DeMatha Catholic, Oak Hill Academy, Mullen Prep, Mount Zion Academy, St. Ignatius, Erie Cathedral Prep or St. Thomas Aquinas for athletic purposes.

This topic has been beaten senseless.

The main reason, in my opinion, that most public school supporters in Texas are against private schools in the UIL is because everyone isn't on equal footing. It opens the door for athletic academies in this state because public and private schools do not "play" by the same rules no matter how you (or the UIL) tries to spin it. Private school athletic factories currently exist all over the country. It's not a big secret.

With the Internet and numerous camp opportunities available, I feel like players can get noticed anywhere if they are good enough. For a current example, just look at Bradley Stephens from McAllen Memorial High School.

Again, parents made the choice/signed the checks for their children to attend private schools and that's who they should compete with athletically in my opinion. I see the private schools' motivation to join the UIL as no more than a business decision. They are education businesses, and have a product to sell. There is big $$$ opportunity with public sports in this state, and I believe that's what the private schools want. Big clash there.

It's not necessarily about Strake or Dallas Jesuit. It is about what it could (and inevitably will in my opinion) lead to down the road. It threatens the purity of high school athletics in this state in my opinion.

[gldneagles]

gldneagles -

You didn't say a private school education was better, I inferred that... But you did say you made a decision to remove your child from private school because you wanted him to participate in UIL sports... I'm curious, why did you enroll him in private school to begin with?
interesting question, drake. you made me think about it. looking back, i guess because i was convinced like others that the only way to get a good education these days was private schools. i guess as things turned out, i was wrong back then.

[Roughrider]

Southlake is an outrageously expensive place to live. It's also worth it.

I do believe that people move to Southlake because of Carroll ISD. It's not just the sports, though (which do help), but the fact that it's consistently ranked as one of the top school districts in the state.


Yeah, must be nice not to have crack babies and students with PO's taking the TAKs:D

[gldneagles]

I don't know what you are trying to insinuate DiamondJ2 but I assure you no one has moved schools like De La Salle, Evangel Christian Academy, DeMatha Catholic, Oak Hill Academy, Mullen Prep, Mount Zion Academy, St. Ignatius, Erie Cathedral Prep or St. Thomas Aquinas for athletic purposes.

This topic has been beaten senseless.

The main reason, in my opinion, that most public school supporters in Texas are against private schools in the UIL is because everyone isn't on equal footing. It opens the door for athletic academies in this state because public and private schools do not "play" by the same rules no matter how you (or the UIL) tries to spin it. Private school athletic factories currently exist all over the country. It's not a big secret.

With the Internet and numerous camp opportunities available, I feel like players can get noticed anywhere if they are good enough. For a current example, just look at Bradley Stephens from McAllen Memorial High School.

Again, parents made the choice/signed the checks for their children to attend private schools and that's who they should compete with athletically in my opinion. I see the private schools' motivation to join the UIL as no more than a business decision. They are education businesses, and have a product to sell. There is big $$$ opportunity with public sports in this state, and I believe that's what the private schools want. Big clash there.

It's not necessarily about Strake or Dallas Jesuit. It is about what it could (and inevitably will in my opinion) lead to down the road. It threatens the purity of high school athletics in this state in my opinion.
very well put. wish i could organize my opinions as well. but then, i went to a public school all my life.:(

[Roughrider]

Unknowingly you make the case for what you are against... Why should you have to choose between the very best education or the very best athletic environment for your child? Especially in this great state? Why should anyone?

Because it is unfair for private schools to load up on talent (buy it) and compete against schools that have to take what's in their attendance zones. So you are saying that you can't get a quaility education through public education?? Just because you can wipe your A$$ with hundred dollar bills doesn't mean you get your cake and eat it to!!

[gldneagles]

Because it is unfair for private schools to load up on talent (buy it) and compete against schools that have to take what's in their attendance zones. So you are saying that you can't get a quaility education through public education?? Just because you can wipe your A$$ with hundred dollar bills doesn't mean you get your cake and eat it to!!
now THAT sounds more like my public school posts.

[Drake]

The main reason, in my opinion, that most public school supporters in Texas are against private schools in the UIL is because everyone isn't on equal footing. It opens the door for athletic academies in this state because public and private schools do not "play" by the same rules no matter how you (or the UIL) tries to spin it. Private school athletic factories currently exist all over the country.Are you trying to say all the public schools are on equal footing in this state? Funny thing, Over the Christmas holidays I attended basketball games at Cinco Ranch HS and Jeff Davis HS... Yeah, everyone but the Jesuits are on equal footing and using the same rules... :rolleyes:

Again, parents made the choice/signed the checks for their children to attend private schools and that's who they should compete with athletically in my opinion. I see the private schools' motivation to join the UIL as no more than a business decision. They are education businesses, and have a product to sell. There is big $$$ opportunity with public sports in this state, and I believe that's what the private schools want. Big clash there.This is somewhat true. But I think it stems from a desire to offer kids the very best they can both academically AND athletically. Why lose a outstanding STUDENT because he's also a good athlete and wants those opportunities too?

[Roughrider]

Are you trying to say all the public schools are on equal footing in this state? Funny thing, Over the Christmas holidays I attended basketball games at Cinco Ranch HS and Jeff Davis HS... Yeah, everyone but the Jesuits are on equal footing and using the same rules... :rolleyes:

This is somewhat true. But I think it stems from a desire to offer kids the very best they can both academically AND athletically. Why lose a outstanding STUDENT because he's also a good athlete and wants those opportunities too?

Life is about choices... You can't buy everything or maybe you can??:rolleyes:

[KT2000]

Cinco Ranch and Davis have to live off of what their community produces, so they do play by the same rules.

As far as your second question, you usually can't have everything.

[Drake]

Cinco Ranch and Davis have to live off of what their community produces, so they do play by the same rules.Interesting. So if the community surrounding Jeff Davis HS can't generate the tax revenues for their schools that, lets say, the Katy ISD does, their kids don't deserve equal facilities, structures, and equipment as the Katy kids enjoy? Doesn't anyone see how that creates an unfair advantage in "drawing" players?

[Redneckn]

The scholorship thing is funny because lots of privates dont offer them and because a kid going to a public is the same thing. The kid isn't paying to go there. I think the private parents take more of a burden because they are paying for their kids to go private and paying for the public kid as well. (taxes)

I still think it's the "we're better than you" attitude that publics feel like the privates have. Which I think is mostly dreamed up.

I think if privates had an attendance zone they had to choose from just like the publics, then so be it and everybody is happy.

[Drake]

I think if privates had an attendance zone they had to choose from just like the publics, then so be it and everybody is happy.I agree. Lets see... They've basically drawn the attendance zones in many Houston area districts so that each public school has enough kids to compete in UIL 5A or the classification they prefer... If you'll use the same considerations, I'm sure the administrators at Strake Jesuit would consider being put into an attendance zone as long as the geographic size of that zone is large enough to insure that they'll continue to get their 400-500 new applicants each year and maintain their enrollment of 870 or so... Start drawing it... The one I come up with is about the size of Harris County...

Of course, I'm being facetious. Just trying to illustrate WHY the UIL agreed that the attendance zones are impractical for private schools.

[Roughrider]

I agree. Lets see... They've basically drawn the attendance zones in many Houston area districts so that each public school has enough kids to compete in UIL 5A or the classification they prefer... If you'll use the same considerations, I'm sure the administrators at Strake Jesuit would consider being put into an attendance zone as long as the geographic size of that zone is large enough to insure that they'll continue to get their 400-500 new applicants each year and maintain their enrollment of 870 or so... Start drawing it... The one I come up with is about the size of Harris County...

Of course, I'm being facetious. Just trying to illustrate WHY the UIL agreed that the attendance zones are impractical for private schools.

You are right, attendance zones for private schools are impractical just like the arguement to allow them to participate with the public schools! As far as the "they are better than we are arguement".. That is in essence what is being stated. You believe that your child can't get a quaility education in public school or shouldn't be socializing with the lower lifes that go to public school?? Six one way, half dozen the other... While all public schools don't provide the best school environment and you make an income that would allow for a private education. #1 Why would you live in that environment? #2 Why wouldn't you move to a better area with a better public school environment??

[JC73]

Well reasoned post. I will repeat what I've said many times on this board...many people have chosen to move into the Southlake area for a variety of reasons. To say that the move-ins are coming for athletic reasons alone is almost laughable. The cost of admission is far too high for someone to come here just for sports. Period. Recruiting is also laughable..does anyone who reads this board think that Coach Dodge or any supporter of the Carroll program could subsidize the high cost of living in Southlake? Do some who can afford it include the highly successful athletic situation here in their decision? Of course.....Now private shools like the Jesuit Schools, don't require that you live in thier area, the only barrier being tuition, which can be offset by scholarships..which is more likely to be involved in recruiting?

I agree with most of what you say, but come on.:rolleyes:

[Drake]

You are right, attendance zones for private schools are impractical just like the arguement to allow them to participate with the public schools! As far as the "they are better than we are arguement".. That is in essence what is being stated. You believe that your child can't get a quaility education in public school or shouldn't be socializing with the lower lifes that go to public school?? Six one way, half dozen the other... While all public schools don't provide the best school environment and you make an income that would allow for a private education. #1 Why would you live in that environment? #2 Why wouldn't you move to a better area with a better public school environment??I'm not completely following you... Are you saying: "if the private school parents don't want their kids going to school with public school kids, they shouldn't be able to compete in athletics either..."?

If that's the case I would say you're off-base. My presumption is that parents that send their kids to private school PERCEIVE it as a better education and stronger foundation for their child's future. Some might just prefer the non-secular environment that is forbidden in public schools. I am certain it has nothing to do with the attitude that anyone is better than anyone else…

As far as wanting to compete in UIL; No doubt UIL competition is the best available in Texas. Inclusion enhances the offering of the school and keeps parents of an athletes that want to send their kids to private school from having to make a tough choice. Winning championships is not required to reap that advantage to the school of being in UIL and that’s why I believe the Jesuits won’t proactively recruit. Just my opinion.

[KT2000]

Interesting. So if the community surrounding Jeff Davis HS can't generate the tax revenues for their schools that, lets say, the Katy ISD does, their kids don't deserve equal facilities, structures, and equipment as the Katy kids enjoy? Doesn't anyone see how that creates an unfair advantage in "drawing" players?

They still don't have the ability to hand pick who they want in their program(s). I have a good hunch the counter you'd bring up to that would deal with private school admissions preventing that. However, we all know there are ways around that.

Heck, just look at the college ranks. Players are admitted to top colleges despite inadequate academic records (in comparison to average of student body) all of the time. This happens at many of the athlete factories around the country already. It's much more of a problem in basketball right now because the numbers involved in putting together a hoops team are much smaller, and that makes building a team much easier.

Again, Strake and Dallas Jesuit may not recruit but it opens the door for other (perhaps less "honorable") institutions down the road.

Might as well agree to disagree before we hit the 20th page. ;)

[Drake]

KT - I realize this debate is an exercise in futility. I still believe it's more engaging (probably because of how passionate some are about the subject) than threads about bleached hair and stuff like that... I know that I've learned alot about the UIL and attitudes in the state since I've started participating in it... You're not running out of hard disk space are ya? ;) And you know what? I don't necessarily disagree with you... I have a son that plays football a Strake Jesuit and the only thing I'd bet my life on is that HE wasn't recruited. Who KNOWS for sure what will happen down the road. I'm only playing devil's advocate in most cases and sometimes pointing out that the "system" was already out of balance before the Jesuit's ever got in...

[Fleeman93]

Drake,

Will you agree that the potential for corruption of the UIL, by privates, is there?

[Drake]

Drake,

Will you agree that the potential for corruption of the UIL, by privates, is there?I will agree that there is potential for violating UIL guidelines and other abuses by every school whose athletics are governed by the UIL, including the Jesuit schools and every other UIL participant. Would you agree with that?

[Fleeman93]

I would respond by saying that you didn't answer my question. My response to you would be that the UIL system that is in place for the public schools has worked for many years without major problem. Yes, there has been incidents and the UIL handles them accordingly.

[Roughrider]

I'm not completely following you... Are you saying: "if the private school parents don't want their kids going to school with public school kids, they shouldn't be able to compete in athletics either..."?

If that's the case I would say you're off-base. My presumption is that parents that send their kids to private school PERCEIVE it as a better education and stronger foundation for their child's future. Some might just prefer the non-secular environment that is forbidden in public schools. I am certain it has nothing to do with the attitude that anyone is better than anyone else…

As far as wanting to compete in UIL; No doubt UIL competition is the best available in Texas. Inclusion enhances the offering of the school and keeps parents of an athletes that want to send their kids to private school from having to make a tough choice. Winning championships is not required to reap that advantage to the school of being in UIL and that’s why I believe the Jesuits won’t proactively recruit. Just my opinion.

No, they definitely have the right to compete athletically! With other PRIVATE SCHOOL athletes! Make your choice and live with it!

[Roughrider]

KT - I realize this debate is an exercise in futility. I still believe it's more engaging (probably because of how passionate some are about the subject) than threads about bleached hair and stuff like that... I know that I've learned alot about the UIL and attitudes in the state since I've started participating in it... You're not running out of hard disk space are ya? ;) And you know what? I don't necessarily disagree with you... I have a son that plays football a Strake Jesuit and the only thing I'd bet my life on is that HE wasn't recruited. Who KNOWS for sure what will happen down the road. I'm only playing devil's advocate in most cases and sometimes pointing out that the "system" was already out of balance before the Jesuit's ever got in...

Sounds like you need to take issue with your coach over lack of recruitment!! College coaches recruit the total athlete and the opponent or lack there of doesn't play a major part of the equation. If a coach takes the time to make phone calls, highlight video, and send in information when colleges request it, then the recruiting will be there!

[Drake]

Sounds like you need to take issue with your coach over lack of recruitment!! College coaches recruit the total athlete and the opponent or lack there of doesn't play a major part of the equation. If a coach takes the time to make phone calls, highlight video, and send in information when colleges request it, then the recruiting will be there!I meant he wasn't recruited to come to Strake Jesuit.

[Drake]

No, they definitely have the right to compete athletically! With other PRIVATE SCHOOL athletes! Make your choice and live with it!Well, the UIL here and most courts that have reviewed the matter in other states don't see that way... So, I guess I don't have to choose between better education or better athletics, I can have what I perceive is the best for my child in both areas, and so can you... Really, that's the way it should be...

[bullrock]

It's too late boys. We didn't cover our flanks well enough and it won't be long, we'll all be POW's. I can assure you I will never attend a mixed game. The only way to beat this is to boycott the games and see how they pay their way with 400 fans in the stadium playing in 19-5A. I can see it now.....Dallas Jesuit and Strake playing for the 5A title and the stands looking like they do at every other private game. It's not that the parents don't back their kids, but when you only have 400 kids in school you don't have a fan base to draw from. The other thing I've noticed about the privates is there is no loyalty after Jr. leaves school. Parents can't wait to get that finacial burden off of their backs and could really care less about the "great education" atmosphere Jr. got when he moves on. That great place Jr. went to school has no value when it has nothing more to offer. Look at Lufkin and Katy and imagine how many fans they would have if only the participants family attended the games. There are a lot more points I could make, but the ones who really need to listen will only make more excuses.

[farmerfan]

Well, the UIL here and most courts that have reviewed the matter in other states don't see that way... So, I guess I don't have to choose between better education or better athletics, I can have what I perceive is the best for my child in both areas, and so can you... Really, that's the way it should be...


It should not be that way. You forfeited your right to play in the UIL when you knew you were sending your kid to Jesuit. If it really was all about academics to the Jesuits then they would not have cared that they did not have a league to play in.
I guess that middle class people who are not satisfied with their 2000 square foot house can go rob a bank or sue the rich man who lives in a 5000 square foot house because it is only fair that everyone is equal right?
If you wanted your kid to play in the UIL you should have sent him to the school he was designated to go to. What kind of lesson does it teach teh kids when all you do is sue the courts to get what you want? there was nothing being violated by not allowing the Jesuits in the UIL. Life is about choices you know what you are getting into when you make your decisions, however you guys whined and sued your way into a league where you were not welcome and had no right to be in, that is a great lesson to send to the kids of your school.

[Drake]

It should not be that way. You forfeited your right to play in the UIL when you knew you were sending your kid to Jesuit. If it really was all about academics to the Jesuits then they would not have cared that they did not have a league to play in.
I guess that middle class people who are not satisfied with their 2000 square foot house can go rob a bank or sue the rich man who lives in a 5000 square foot house because it is only fair that everyone is equal right?
If you wanted your kid to play in the UIL you should have sent him to the school he was designated to go to. What kind of lesson does it teach teh kids when all you do is sue the courts to get what you want? there was nothing being violated by not allowing the Jesuits in the UIL. Life is about choices you know what you are getting into when you make your decisions, however you guys whined and sued your way into a league where you were not welcome and had no right to be in, that is a great lesson to send to the kids of your school.I realize your attitude and prejudice on this issue is the prevailing attitude on this message board. Since this message board is dominated by fans of schools that have seemingly the most to lose if private schools start looking for good players to recruit, I can half-way understand the phobic paranoia.

But please don't tell me what choices I should make and the lessons I should be teaching my kid, okay? He's in the school I want him in and he's playing UIL sports. In my mind I'm doing the best I can for him. Why does him having both opportunities irk you so?

[dragonsdaddy]

I realize your attitude and prejudice on this issue is the prevailing attitude on this message board. Since this message board is dominated by fans of schools that have seemingly the most to lose if private schools start looking for good players to recruit, I can half-way understand the phobic paranoia.

But please don't tell me what choices I should make and the lessons I should be teaching my kid, okay? He's in the school I want him in and he's playing UIL sports. In my mind I'm doing the best I can for him. Why does him having both opportunities irk you so?
last season, i chose a hunting lease that required me and my fellow leasers to hunt with bow and arrows only. after everyone signed on and agreed to the rules, i decided my son would be better served hunting with a gun. therefore i petitioned the owner to let me have different rules than the others. he declined so i went over his head, and my lawyer was able to coerce the state wildlife boys that my family should have our own rules. i promised to only take shots with the rifle that i would have taken with the bow, so every thing stays equal as for as ability to harvest the deer. i can't believe tha rest of the hunters are so upset. i am very honest and wouldn't take advantage of the situation.

[bullrock]

Because your blind to the truth. Take that back....you think you can pull the wool on us because you probably got that same great education and us public school kids are too dumb to see it.
You separated yourself (and your kids) from the masses because you perceived you were too good to socialize with them. Your choice, and I'm not knocking it. Now, go play where you chose to play and don't bring your cancer to our playground. That's the way most of us feel and to be honest you've shown that's your attitude. And we're supposed to like it?

[Drake]

last season, i chose a hunting lease that required me and my fellow leasers to hunt with bow and arrows only. after everyone signed on and agreed to the rules, i decided my son would be better served hunting with a gun. therefore i petitioned the owner to let me have different rules than the others. he declined so i went over his head, and my lawyer was able to coerce the state wildlife boys that my family should have our own rules. i promised to only take shots with the rifle that i would have taken with the bow, so every thing stays equal as for as ability to harvest the deer. i can't believe tha rest of the hunters are so upset. i am very honest and wouldn't take advantage of the situation.I'm surprised that the government got invoved in a private matter between you and the owner of the lease at all. Had it been public hunting grounds that some of your tax dollars go to support and you or your son was denied equal opportunity to hunt there, then certainly you'd have a complaint...

But what's that have to do with recruiting?

[dragonsdaddy]

I'm surprised that the government got invoved in a private matter between you and the owner of the lease at all. Had it been public hunting grounds that some of your tax dollars go to support and you or your son was denied equal opportunity to hunt there, then certainly you'd have a complaint...

But what's that have to do with recruiting?
i'm sorry to say, it is a made up story illustrating a point. i must be losing it. i give up.

[bullrock]

If I'm stupid enough to pay public school taxes and pay to send my kid to a "better school" why should I petition my government for anything? You chose to pay double taxes. Now you're wanting the rest of us to feel sorry you and allow you to make the rules you want play by. Don't think I'm upset at you. I'm only upset at what you stand for and I have no way to defend what I think is an inequity created by a government entity that I have to support.

[farmerfan]

I realize your attitude and prejudice on this issue is the prevailing attitude on this message board. Since this message board is dominated by fans of schools that have seemingly the most to lose if private schools start looking for good players to recruit, I can half-way understand the phobic paranoia.

But please don't tell me what choices I should make and the lessons I should be teaching my kid, okay? He's in the school I want him in and he's playing UIL sports. In my mind I'm doing the best I can for him. Why does him having both opportunities irk you so?


I went to private school. The reason that he gets both opportunities is that you had to go through lawyers for him to do so. You knew before you put him into strake jesuit that you were forgoing UIL sponsored events, you also knew that you would have to continue to pay taxes but chose to do so. When you realized that he could not compete for championships it became a issue. If the Jesuits and other private schools were all about "academics" then playing in a stable legue would not be a big deal. Your 10 game regular season capped off with the Jesuit bowl would be more than enough at the end of the season.
If your kid is in the school you want him in then that is great, it is just sad when you get the best of both worlds. A private education in a secluded environment as well as suing your way into playing against UIL schools in athletics.
Just answer me this, why is it a big deal for the Jesuits to be in the UIL? What was your reasoning for doing so?

[gburgtiger]

But please don't tell me what choices I should make and the lessons I should be teaching my kid, okay? He's in the school I want him in and he's playing UIL sports. In my mind I'm doing the best I can for him. Why does him having both opportunities irk you so?


Strake...I can't say that I blame you. If I had kids in school I would want what's best for them too... and I don't think that anyone(and I know I can't speak for everyone) is "irked" by him having both opportunities.

I see a "different but same" kind of problem. you say it's unfair to keep privates out of public areana...but the public kids who work just as hard and play just as hard are forced to play the hand delt when the privates if they don't like their hand can go get a new one. So I believe it to be unfair to the public school kids who can't pick their teammates and piece together a team with all the best players when a school like Davis...and on a much higher level Katy...are limited to the kids in a 10 square mile radius (not exact...just a "for instance").

[farmerfan]

I realize your attitude and prejudice on this issue is the prevailing attitude on this message board. Since this message board is dominated by fans of schools that have seemingly the most to lose if private schools start looking for good players to recruit, I can half-way understand the phobic paranoia.

But please don't tell me what choices I should make and the lessons I should be teaching my kid, okay? He's in the school I want him in and he's playing UIL sports. In my mind I'm doing the best I can for him. Why does him having both opportunities irk you so?


I never meant for that to sound personal and if you took it that way I do apologize. I was using the schools and their administratos and lawyers as the example that has been sent to the kids at both DJ and SJ.

[Drake]

I went to private school. The reason that he gets both opportunities is that you had to go through lawyers for him to do so. You knew before you put him into strake jesuit that you were forgoing UIL sponsored events, you also knew that you would have to continue to pay taxes but chose to do so. When you realized that he could not compete for championships it became a issue. If the Jesuits and other private schools were all about "academics" then playing in a stable legue would not be a big deal. Your 10 game regular season capped off with the Jesuit bowl would be more than enough at the end of the season.
If your kid is in the school you want him in then that is great, it is just sad when you get the best of both worlds. A private education in a secluded environment as well as suing your way into playing against UIL schools in athletics.
Just answer me this, why is it a big deal for the Jesuits to be in the UIL? What was your reasoning for doing so?To set the record straight. SJ was already competing in UIL when we applied, so I DID NOT have to make the choice. If I had had to, I'm not sure what we would have decided, but it certainly would have a factor to consider. Also, I attended public schools and my first of two sons did as well. So, I certainly have never thought myself or my family too good for public schools (or anything else). I think its unfair to make judgments about people that send their kids to private schools because their reasons have nothing to do with arrogance... Most are just doing what they think is best to prepare their child for college and/or believe religion has a place in their child's education...

If you don't believe the children of people with such attitudes about education deserve the opportunity to compete athletically with the very best the state can offer, which is UIL competition, then so be it. But don't begrudge those of us that want the same athletic opportunities for our kids that your kids enjoy, because in the same situation as me, you'd feel the same way.

[farmerfan]

To set the record straight. SJ was already competing in UIL when we applied, so I DID NOT have to make the choice. If I had had to, I'm not sure what we would have decided, but it certainly would have a factor to consider. Also, I attended public schools and my first of two sons did as well. So, I certainly have never thought myself or my family too good for public schools (or anything else). I think its unfair to make judgments about people that send their kids to private schools because their reasons have nothing to do with arrogance... Most are just doing what they think is best to prepare their child for college and/or believe religion has a place in their child's education...

If you don't believe the children of people with such attitudes about education deserve the opportunity to compete athletically with the very best the state can offer, which is UIL competition, then so be it. But don't begrudge those of us that want the same athletic opportunities for our kids that your kids enjoy, because in the same situation as me, you'd feel the same way.

When I have kids and I want them to compete in UIL athletics, I will send them to the public school in our district. To me it is simple, if you want your kids to have the opportunity play sports in the UIL then you are given that opportunity by sending them to the public HS they are to attend based on where they live. SJ was going to continue to have a football team without the UIL, so they should be happy with that and realize that by attending a private school they forfeit their opportunity to play against UIL schools in district and playoff competition.

[Drake]

When I have kids and I want them to compete in UIL athletics, I will send them to the public school in our district. To me it is simple, if you want your kids to have the opportunity play sports in the UIL then you are given that opportunity by sending them to the public HS they are to attend based on where they live.Has something concerning UIL participation changed in the last day or so that I didn't hear about? :D

[farmerfan]

Has something concerning UIL participation changed in the last day or so that I didn't hear about? :D

no, we are stuck with the privates. goes to show how powerful a lawyer can be and suing is. maybe when i see the opportunities that my rich friends have later in life I can sue them because I chose to be a history major in college limiting my opportunities in life and my friend chose to be a lawyer. Lets always take the easy road in life given to us by the courts.

[whyzat]

No, those who opt for private or homeschooling do not "choose" to pay double taxes, nor do they desire your sympathy. What they petition for is the right to avail themselves of what they already subsidize, participation in an organization created for the enrichment of education. It might benefit the rabid exclusionists to visit the U.I.L. website and refresh their perspective by reviewing its Statement of Purpose. Its emphasis is the growth and development of youth via competition in academic and sports events. Nearly all of the arguements here are predicated on the fear of someone gaining a competitive edge in the lucrative big business that high school football has become. Be advised we don't all worship at that altar, or resign ourselves to choices that compromise the opportunities available to our children. As long as public schools are financed by compulsory taxation, look for more legal challenges to attempts to exclude privates and homeschoolers, and don't expect apologies from those taking that for which they have paid, and are entitled.

[Drake]

Whyzat - as always, brilliantly said...

[gburgtiger]

No, those who opt for private or homeschooling do not "choose" to pay double taxes, nor do they desire your sympathy. What they petition for is the right to avail themselves of what they already subsidize, participation in an organization created for the enrichment of education. It might benefit the rabid exclusionists to visit the U.I.L. website and refresh their perspective by reviewing its Statement of Purpose. Its emphasis is the growth and development of youth via competition in academic and sports events. Nearly all of the arguements here are predicated on the fear of someone gaining a competitive edge in the lucrative big business that high school football has become. Be advised we don't all worship at that altar, or resign ourselves to choices that compromise the opportunities available to our children. As long as public schools are financed by compulsory taxation, look for more legal challenges to attempts to exclude privates and homeschoolers, and don't expect apologies from those taking that for which they have paid, and are entitled.

Texan's tax dollars are used to support all the public universities...why does University of Texas deny some the right to go to school there? That's not fair. If john doe's tax dollars help fund UT and he dropped out of high school he should still be allowed to go to UT becuase he paid for it? right? That arguement doesn't hold water.

My tax dollars pay for wellfair...I can't go collect. That's not fair. I choose to have my job and to make good money. But wait why can't I make good money AND get my wellfair...I paid for it. Anyone know a good Lawyer? Strake Jesuit or Dallas Jesuit?? Anyone?

[farmerfan]

No, those who opt for private or homeschooling do not "choose" to pay double taxes, nor do they desire your sympathy. What they petition for is the right to avail themselves of what they already subsidize, participation in an organization created for the enrichment of education. It might benefit the rabid exclusionists to visit the U.I.L. website and refresh their perspective by reviewing its Statement of Purpose. Its emphasis is the growth and development of youth via competition in academic and sports events. Nearly all of the arguements here are predicated on the fear of someone gaining a competitive edge in the lucrative big business that high school football has become. Be advised we don't all worship at that altar, or resign ourselves to choices that compromise the opportunities available to our children. As long as public schools are financed by compulsory taxation, look for more legal challenges to attempts to exclude privates and homeschoolers, and don't expect apologies from those taking that for which they have paid, and are entitled.

How do they have that right to participation in the UIL when they choose to send their kids to private school?
If you dont worship at the altar that is HS football, then why is it a big deal to be in the UIL, last time I checked the privates have a league and it is TAPPS, why not sue TAPPS for not allowing the Jesuits adminttance into the UIL?
I actually agree that all are entitled to participate in UIL activities, but when you enroll in that private school of choice you are no longer entitled to the activities of the UIL.

[drgnbkr]

How do they have that right to participation in the UIL when they choose to send their kids to private school?
If you dont worship at the altar that is HS football, then why is it a big deal to be in the UIL, last time I checked the privates have a league and it is TAPPS, why not sue TAPPS for not allowing the Jesuits adminttance into the UIL?
I actually agree that all are entitled to participate in UIL activities, but when you enroll in that private school of choice you are no longer entitled to the activities of the UIL.

Absolutely correct Farmerfan...I could'nt add a thing!

[whyzat]

The UT admissions analogy is flawed. The Permanent University Fund is a seperate revenue vehicle from the universal property tax system used to fund public schools. The PUF is more akin to a dedicated endowment, or mature portfolio wherein the principle resides undisturbed. The merit based admission system of PUF member schools would be a worthy model for public schools in a perfect world. Sadly, academic merit in Texas public schools often takes a back seat to the revenue generation capability of large scale football programs. School administrators as well as the most hardcore fans share a common interests in advancing these cash cows.
It is not as much a big deal to be in the U.I.L. as it is a big deal to be denied the benefits of membership given the compulsory nature of funding it. Public education is unique, even among basic government functions. Standards for exclusion which might be acceptable in the conduct of adult affairs may well be viewed in a different ethical and legal light when children are involved, and rightfully so. It will be difficult to compel financial participation in the system for everyone, and then summarily dictate an either/or offering as their dividend.

[Roughrider]

i'm sorry to say, it is a made up story illustrating a point. i must be losing it. i give up.


It's that damn private school education!! :D Us public school boys got it!!!

[Roughrider]

No, those who opt for private or homeschooling do not "choose" to pay double taxes, nor do they desire your sympathy. What they petition for is the right to avail themselves of what they already subsidize, participation in an organization created for the enrichment of education. It might benefit the rabid exclusionists to visit the U.I.L. website and refresh their perspective by reviewing its Statement of Purpose. Its emphasis is the growth and development of youth via competition in academic and sports events. Nearly all of the arguements here are predicated on the fear of someone gaining a competitive edge in the lucrative big business that high school football has become. Be advised we don't all worship at that altar, or resign ourselves to choices that compromise the opportunities available to our children. As long as public schools are financed by compulsory taxation, look for more legal challenges to attempts to exclude privates and homeschoolers, and don't expect apologies from those taking that for which they have paid, and are entitled.

Why are you boys worried about athletics anyway?? You can pay for their "private" education, you should have no problem in paying for their college education... Sounds like you do worship at that "altar".. or you wouldn't be worried about Jr's ability to participate in UIL events???

[farmerfan]

It's that damn private school education!! :D Us public school boys got it!!!


Hey now don't judge all us private school kids by the actions of some. :D I am a private school kid and I completely understood what he was saying.

[farmerfan]

Why are you boys worried about athletics anyway?? You can pay for their "private" education, you should have no problem in paying for their college education... Sounds like you do worship at that "altar".. or you wouldn't be worried about Jr's ability to participate in UIL events???


If you were ever around some of the private schools, you be shocked at the sportsmanship of a lot of them. Why do you think Dallas Jesuit and Bishop Lynch went like 15 years between games? They are kidding you when they say "it's not about athletics".

In fact to share a story with some of yall, when I was a junior we played in a baseball tournament at Ft Worth Eastern Hills. There were 2 private schools in the tournament, the one I attended and one from Ft Worth. We we played this private school in the last game of the tournament, lets just say that they had to stop the game because it got so heated between the players and fans that the FW police department had to get involved and escort each team off the field one by one. We had to stay in our dugout till the other team was completely off the campus. On our way to our bus, some of their fans had stuck around and started talking crap to myself and another player. Our coach made sure to walk out with myself and my teammate since we had short tempers. This parent of a kid in a private school got in my teammates face and had to be restrained by the cops. Neither team was asked back to this tournament the following year and we had to cancel a game we had with this school later in the year. Stories like this happen more than you realize in private schools.

[Drake]

If you were ever around some of the private schools, you be shocked at the sportsmanship of a lot of them. Why do you think Dallas Jesuit and Bishop Lynch went like 15 years between games? They are kidding you when they say "it's not about athletics".

In fact to share a story with some of yall, when I was a junior we played in a baseball tournament at Ft Worth Eastern Hills. There were 2 private schools in the tournament, the one I attended and one from Ft Worth. We we played this private school in the last game of the tournament, lets just say that they had to stop the game because it got so heated between the players and fans that the FW police department had to get involved and escort each team off the field one by one. We had to stay in our dugout till the other team was completely off the campus. On our way to our bus, some of their fans had stuck around and started talking crap to myself and another player. Our coach made sure to walk out with myself and my teammate since we had short tempers. This parent of a kid in a private school got in my teammates face and had to be restrained by the cops. Neither team was asked back to this tournament the following year and we had to cancel a game we had with this school later in the year. Stories like this happen more than you realize in private schools.I haven't seen any of the posters that believe private schools deserve to compete in UIL say that the people associated with private schools are any different than anyone else... That prepossession has only been espoused by those that, for lack of a better argument, would stoop to any level to get their way. Aren't these the types that are the real threat to fairness in the UIL?

[whyzat]

Why are you boys worried about athletics anyway?? You can pay for their "private" education, you should have no problem in paying for their college education... Sounds like you do worship at that "altar".. or you wouldn't be worried about Jr's ability to participate in UIL events???

I am not "worried" about athletics, nor am I obsessed with them to the degree which some opponents of the proposition under discussion here appear to be. What is at issue here is a simple matter of principle defined in the mission statement of the U.I.L., equity in the administration of public funds, and basic fairness. None of the naysayers have addressed this point directly, or offered a linear progression in defense of a position for exclusion. Frankly, the majority of arguements seem to be grounded in emotion or resentment rather that logic. I respect everyone's right to an opinion, but an issue of this importance will not ultimately be decided on the basis of what a majority may "feel" about it. That is as it should be. Interesting thread.

[Down n' Out]

Getting off the private vs. public thing a minute and going to your original comment about moving for athletics.
There is a senior basketball player named Nic Wise, very talented and playing for Kingwood. He has also played for Bellaire and Cinco Ranch in the past. Now, how does a kid move into three different districts and not be made to sit out a year?

[Drake]

Getting off the private vs. public thing a minute and going to your original comment about moving for athletics.
There is a senior basketball player named Nic Wise, very talented and playing for Kingwood. He has also played for Bellaire and Cinco Ranch in the past. Now, how does a kid move into three different districts and not be made to sit out a year?Don't know anything about him, but in general...

If a player’s guardian(s) and former coach sign off that the move was NOT for athletic purposes, then I believe the UIL pretty much rubber stamps his eligibility... Like I said previously, coaches are left to police each other. Even if his former coach KNEW it was an athletic based choice, there's nothing to be gained by interfering at that point.

[Fleeman93]

Should I be able to sue the private schools to allow my son or daughter access to a "religious" education which the public schools do not offer even though he / she does not meet the academic "rules" set by the schools..............?

[Drake]

Should I be able to sue the private schools to allow my son or daughter access to a "religious" education which the public schools do not offer even though he / she does not meet the academic "rules" set by the schools..............?No.

[Fleeman93]

Interesting! Why not?

[whyzat]

Should I be able to sue the private schools to allow my son or daughter access to a "religious" education which the public schools do not offer even though he / she does not meet the academic "rules" set by the schools..............?

If you were funding the private schools via compulsory taxation, then you would have legal standing to pursue the matter. As you are currently under no such statutory obligation to provide them with financial support, no recourse is available to you. Again, no mention of provision of the educational enrichment function of the U.I.L. for the benefit of ALL Texas schoolchildren. It is all about the children, is it not?

[gburgtiger]

If you were funding the private schools via compulsory taxation, then you would have legal standing to pursue the matter. As you are currently under no such statutory obligation to provide them with financial support, no recourse is available to you. Again, no mention of provision of the educational enrichment function of the U.I.L. for the benefit of ALL Texas schoolchildren. It is all about the children, is it not?


So all of us without kids who still pay taxes should get together a football team and sue to get into the UIL? I pay for it...

[Fleeman93]

In my opinion, when a parent CHOOSES to send their child to a private school they should do so under the impression that they are also CHOOSING to lose the beneficial rights associated with the taxes they paid. The option for said parent to take advantage of those taxes is and will always be there if they CHOOSE to place their child back in a public school. The state did not make the decision for the parent to CHOOSE a private school and therefore, the state should not have to stand by a notion that the rights associated with that CHOICE should be honored. Bottom line is that private schools should not have the right to have their cake and eat it also.

[Drake]

Fleeman - I respect your right to an opinion. I'm just glad you aren't the one making the rules. I guess I could try and change your opinion or, I can put on my coat, go outside, and beat a tree with a stick the rest of the afternoon... Um... I'll be back tonight. :)

[Fleeman93]

Let me make a comparison for argument. Let's say I lived in TX and paid taxes for 10 years, then I CHOSE to move to Louisiana. Should I have the right to sue TX for lost taxes because I won't be able to take advantage of the products of those taxes? Now keep in mind that it was MY CHOICE to move to Louisiana.

[Fleeman93]

Fleeman - I respect your right to an opinion. I'm just glad you aren't the one making the rules. I guess I could try and change your opinion or, I can put on my coat, go outside, and beat a tree with a stick the rest of the afternoon... Um... I'll be back tonight. :)

So you disagree with my opinion to a degree that will have you go and beat a tree, yet you can't give an argument as to why you disagree?

[farmerfan]

In my opinion, when a parent CHOOSES to send their child to a private school they should do so under the impression that they are also CHOOSING to lose the beneficial rights associated with the taxes they paid. The option for said parent to take advantage of those taxes is and will always be there if they CHOOSE to place their child back in a public school. The state did not make the decision for the parent to CHOOSE a private school and therefore, the state should not have to stand by a notion that the rights associated with that CHOICE should be honored. Bottom line is that private schools should not have the right to have their cake and eat it also.


Fleeman
I like the way you think. To some it goes beyond choices, they fail to see that they gave up their right to benefits offered from their taxes that allow their kids the right to participate within the public school in their zone. To them they feel as if they are being deprived when in all reality they are slapping the system in the face by saying your academics offered to us is not good enough but your athletics is. This coming from a base that says they are not in it for the athletics. Go figure.

[Drake]

Let me make a comparison for argument. Let's say I lived in TX and paid taxes for 10 years, then I CHOSE to move to Louisiana. Should I have the right to sue TX for lost taxes because I won't be able to take advantage of the products of those taxes? Now keep in mind that it was MY CHOICE to move to Louisiana.Thats not a comparable analogy...

How about this one: If I live in Houston and join a private golf course because it has better greens than the public courses here, should I be ineligible to compete in the city championship at Memorial Park?

[farmerfan]

Thats not a comparable analogy...

How about this one: If I joined a private golf course because it had better greens should I be ineligible to compete in the city championship at Memorial Park?


well if there is a established league set for the private golf course and a league set for the public course then yes, you chose to go the private route.

Why sue the UIL when you have the SPC and TAPPS to join?

[Drake]

Why sue the UIL when you have the SPC and TAPPS to join?I'm johnny-come-lately on this issue and don't know much about the suit except that it was Dallas Jesuit that filed AFTER making every reasonable effort to convince the UIL they deserved to be part of UIL competitions. Once engaged in litigation, the UIL decided either DJ had a solid complaint or they didn't/couldn't afford to litigate it... Once it was clear that DJ would be allowed to compete, Strake Jesuit asked for, and received, similar consideration. If I'm off on the facts a bit, I don't think it's by much...

I don't have a problem with using a civil action to settle disputes when to sides disagree and all other means of resolving the matter have been exhausted. Isn't that what our civil courts are for?

[whyzat]

So all of us without kids who still pay taxes should get together a football team and sue to get into the UIL? I pay for it...

gburgtiger,

I personally have no objection. Would you like to be the Quarterback?

Seriously, the answer to your question is no. State law dictates that all citizens of Texas contribute to provide for the education of children, whether you have them or not. Think of it as part of the social contract between generations, each in turn reciprocating the benefit they received. Although you have no children to educate, your schooling was funded by those before you, most with children, some without. You are, in effect, doing for a successive generation what was done for you. This method makes sense, and is generally recognized as a longstanding benefit to society. Everyone shares the financial responsibility for providing a universally accessible process for the education of Texas children.
To file suit for the purpose of gaining admission into the U.I.L., it would be necessary for you to prove you suffer harm, or incur disadvantage or inequity as a result of being denied inclusion in the organization. Oversimplified, that is the basis of legal standing required to sue. Your status as a childless taxpayer would not preclude you from suing for inclusion on behalf of any school age child, but it would not permit you to sue on your own behalf for inclusion in an organization in which denial of membership would have no ill effect on your well being. While this is all arcane, it is still the legal precedents and equity issues with which the U.I.L. must consider and contend.

Fleeman93,

I respect your opinion. Your comment that the privates should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too reminds me of how hard some entrenched interests seem to be working to keep us at each others throats in order for them to maintain the status quo in public education. ALL of our children deserve the highest quality education possible, be it public, private, or homeschool. This is all I seek, for your kids and mine....it should be cake all the way around, and let's eat it! None of us should have to choose, or compromise on the quality of a child's opportunity. At the same time, address, reconstitute, or close those schools who consistently fail to bake. The state of education today is far too critical an issue to allow the education bureaucracy to continue comfortably coasting along, shortchanging both students and classroom teachers, while concealed by a diversionary smokescreen of their own manufacture. I don't see it as an issue of money or privledge, but of priorities. I sincerely believe if the current level of resources in underperforming schools was redirected primarily to the classroom and core academics, the improvement would be astounding. One sidebar effect would most likely be a diminished emphasis on large scale athletic budgets, but hey, you can't always have your cake and eat it too.

[farmerfan]

I'm johnny-come-lately on this issue and don't know much about the suit except that it was Dallas Jesuit that filed AFTER making every reasonable effort to convince the UIL they deserved to be part of UIL competitions. Once engaged in litigation, the UIL decided either DJ had a solid complaint or they didn't/couldn't afford to litigate it... Once it was clear that DJ would be allowed to compete, Strake Jesuit asked for, and received, similar consideration. If I'm off on the facts a bit, I don't think it's by much...

I don't have a problem with using a civil action to settle disputes when to sides disagree and all other means of resolving the matter have been exhausted. Isn't that what our civil courts are for?


Our courts are for prosecuting criminals. Not for suing a establishment that has guidelines that had been set for many years in order to participate. DJ being the concerned academic institution that it is felt that they were being wronged because they had no league to play in so they decide to sue their way into a PUBLIC arean being a private institution. Maybe when I graduate with my degree from UNT in the next few months I can sue the company or individual who is making more with his harvard degree since I decided to go to UNT and not Harvard. Is that the way it works? I mean we are all looking for the same playing field right? So who cares if he worked his *** off his whole life to get into Harvard and is smarter than I, he has a advantage that is unfair so I could sue him and his company because he enjoys life's luxuries more than I do.
If it wasnt about athletics they would have been fine with playing a 10 game regular season capped off with the Jesuit bowl at the end of the year.

[gburgtiger]

[QUOTE=whyzat]gburgtiger,

I personally have no objection. Would you like to be the Quarterback?

No thanks...I like D-fense

Seriously, the answer to your question is no. State law dictates that all citizens of Texas contribute to provide for the education of children, whether you have them or not. Think of it as part of the social contract between generations, each in turn reciprocating the benefit they received. Although you have no children to educate, your schooling was funded by those before you, most with children, some without. You are, in effect, doing for a successive generation what was done for you. This method makes sense, and is generally recognized as a longstanding benefit to society. Everyone shares the financial responsibility for providing a universally accessible process for the education of Texas children. And I totally agree with that policy...I do benefit from the education of the masses. In fact I find it hard to put up with the ignorance of some that have been educated, much less the uneducated.
To file suit for the purpose of gaining admission into the U.I.L., it would be necessary for you to prove you suffer harm, or incur disadvantage or inequity as a result of being denied inclusion in the organization. Oversimplified, that is the basis of legal standing required to sue. Your status as a childless taxpayer would not preclude you from suing for inclusion on behalf of any school age child, but it would not permit you to sue on your own behalf for inclusion in an organization in which denial of membership would have no ill effect on your well being. While this is all arcane, it is still the legal precedents and equity issues with which the U.I.L. must consider and contend.


QUOTE]

now...explain why Strake Jesuit and Dallas Jesuit suffer ill effect to their well being by not being included into a public school arena? They seemed to do just fine without being included for what 40+ years... And all this time it has been said that SJ exists for its education not for its athletics.

[Roughrider]

Don't know anything about him, but in general...

If a player’s guardian(s) and former coach sign off that the move was NOT for athletic purposes, then I believe the UIL pretty much rubber stamps his eligibility... Like I said previously, coaches are left to police each other. Even if his former coach KNEW it was an athletic based choice, there's nothing to be gained by interfering at that point.

Depends on where the kid is moving>>> If a coach is going to face him down the road in district or perhaps playoffs, you do not sign off on that transfer!!

[Roughrider]

If you were funding the private schools via compulsory taxation, then you would have legal standing to pursue the matter. As you are currently under no such statutory obligation to provide them with financial support, no recourse is available to you. Again, no mention of provision of the educational enrichment function of the U.I.L. for the benefit of ALL Texas schoolchildren. It is all about the children, is it not?


Yes it is, that is why kids at a public school should not have to compete against a "bought and paid" for team from a private institution! What fairness is that?

[Roughrider]

gburgtiger,

I personally have no objection. Would you like to be the Quarterback?

Seriously, the answer to your question is no. State law dictates that all citizens of Texas contribute to provide for the education of children, whether you have them or not. Think of it as part of the social contract between generations, each in turn reciprocating the benefit they received. Although you have no children to educate, your schooling was funded by those before you, most with children, some without. You are, in effect, doing for a successive generation what was done for you. This method makes sense, and is generally recognized as a longstanding benefit to society. Everyone shares the financial responsibility for providing a universally accessible process for the education of Texas children.
To file suit for the purpose of gaining admission into the U.I.L., it would be necessary for you to prove you suffer harm, or incur disadvantage or inequity as a result of being denied inclusion in the organization. Oversimplified, that is the basis of legal standing required to sue. Your status as a childless taxpayer would not preclude you from suing for inclusion on behalf of any school age child, but it would not permit you to sue on your own behalf for inclusion in an organization in which denial of membership would have no ill effect on your well being. While this is all arcane, it is still the legal precedents and equity issues with which the U.I.L. must consider and contend.

Fleeman93,

I respect your opinion. Your comment that the privates should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too reminds me of how hard some entrenched interests seem to be working to keep us at each others throats in order for them to maintain the status quo in public education. ALL of our children deserve the highest quality education possible, be it public, private, or homeschool. This is all I seek, for your kids and mine....it should be cake all the way around, and let's eat it! None of us should have to choose, or compromise on the quality of a child's opportunity. At the same time, address, reconstitute, or close those schools who consistently fail to bake. The state of education today is far too critical an issue to allow the education bureaucracy to continue comfortably coasting along, shortchanging both students and classroom teachers, while concealed by a diversionary smokescreen of their own manufacture. I don't see it as an issue of money or privledge, but of priorities. I sincerely believe if the current level of resources in underperforming schools was redirected primarily to the classroom and core academics, the improvement would be astounding. One sidebar effect would most likely be a diminished emphasis on large scale athletic budgets, but hey, you can't always have your cake and eat it too.


Well, you need to be realistic, what percentage of High Schools do you think have large scale athletic budgets.. You need to leave the "Golden Dome" and take a tour around the local high schools... You are going to find a heck of alot more junk than treasure!!

[dragonsdaddy]

one major discrepancy is with the unlimited pool of candidates for admission, with the only limit being the commute time. if the privates played under the same guidelines that the publics do, there would be very few complaints. the jesuits are taking the vanguard position and thus are getting all the criticism, but won't be for long. watching the farsical results of football factories across the country, we henny-pennys may seem to be over-sensitive to the falling sky, but it is coming, later or sooner.

[Amused]

Come on now Roughrider. Are implying that the athletic teams of the Jesuits have been "bought and paid for" already? Or are you talking about a hypothetical situation in the future?

[Amused]

The reason that the lawsuit was basically uncontested by the UIL is that it was a slam dunk for Dallas Jesuit (the school who filed the lawsuit). The Jesuit schools were being discriminated against - plain and simple. This would be the result in 49 other states as well if lawsuits were filed.

While this makes for an interesting and emotional thread - the facts are the facts, it was unlawful for the UIL to maintain their position. That is why we have the courts - to interpret the constitution and make "unemotional" conclusions about what the constitution says.

For those of you that spend a lot of time worrying about losing your football dynaties to the Jesuits, you will happy to know that creating a football dynasty is the farthest thing from the minds of Dallas Jesuit or Strake Jesuit. To compete well and fairly - yes. That is clearly an objective. To create football dynasties - no. Worry about something else, like keeping your high schools playing above board so you can continue your dynasties.

[dragonsdaddy]

you'll be amused to know that the larger concern is what will happen when (not if) another school decides winning state titles is more important, or those philosophies change. the minor inconviences like recruiting and scholarships can be de-emphasized by the right group of lawyers. the uil has caved before. pandora's box is open. the slam dunk law suit was made moreso by the threats brought on to the wimps in the uil.

[gburgtiger]

creating a football dynasty is the farthest thing from the minds of Dallas Jesuit or Strake Jesuit.

they why be in the UIL??? you can play anyone you want to schedule and "compete well and fairly" from the outside...if not to win a championship or start a dynasty...why bother? that is, as Strakedrake would say, intellectual dishonesty.

[Amused]

Very simple answer. The Jesuits were too large to be a private school league, not to mention the costs associated with travel. Scheduling opponents was enormously difficult, not to mention the cost. Don't say "getting smaller" was the answer. That was no solution. The solution actually was not complicated, and that was to join the UIL as the Jesuits were legally entitled to do in Texas or any other state in the Union. Join the UIL, follow the rules, compete fairly, and have fun. Not complicated really.

[dragonfootballfan]

Very simple answer. The Jesuits were too large to be a private school league, not to mention the costs associated with travel. Scheduling opponents was enormously difficult, not to mention the cost. Don't say "getting smaller" was the answer. That was no solution. The solution actually was not complicated, and that was to join the UIL as the Jesuits were legally entitled to do in Texas or any other state in the Union. Join the UIL, follow the rules, compete fairly, and have fun. Not complicated really.
why not choose to sue the private school league instead of the UIL?

[Amused]

I suppose that may have been one approach. Problem was they were both too large and would have had to "shrink" to play in the private league, which was clearly not an option. No matter where the Jesuits were placed in the UIL (4A or 5A) there was a size that was approapriate. In the case of the Jesuits they were placed in 5A, which is fine.

[dragonsdaddy]

i expect the next entrant will sue to be placed in a classification based on their enrollment, not arbitrarily 5a.

[gburgtiger]

Very simple answer. The Jesuits were too large to be a private school league, not to mention the costs associated with travel. Scheduling opponents was enormously difficult, not to mention the cost. Don't say "getting smaller" was the answer. That was no solution. The solution actually was not complicated, and that was to join the UIL as the Jesuits were legally entitled to do in Texas or any other state in the Union. Join the UIL, follow the rules, compete fairly, and have fun. Not complicated really.


the compete fairly thing is what gets me...Galveston Ball was removed from the playoffs because a player lived outside of their attendance zone...If galveston Ball high was awarded the same liberties that SJ has and could get players from where ever they wanted to, they would not have been breaking the rules and would have been allowed to play. Is it fair that SJ got to play in the playoffs and galveston ball didn't...they used the same attendance zone...the answer is no...it is not fair to those kids from Ball High

[Amused]

Actully schools are supposed to be place in proper classifications based on their enrollments. Strake Jesuit is 4A size, but was placed in 5A. They are fine with that, just happy to be in the UIL.

[Amused]

Of course its fair. How could you think otherwise? Ball broke a rule that they were clearly informed about. Strake has broken no rules. Don't confuse the issue.

[dragonfootballfan]

Of course its fair. How could you think otherwise? Ball broke a rule that they were clearly informed about. Strake has broken no rules. Don't confuse the issue.
Strake has a different set of rules that they abide by. How is that fair?

[Amused]

They clearly do. For Strake, an athlete must sit out a full athletic year if he transfers. For a public, the parents simply need to relocate. Different rules. Yes.

[farmerfan]

Very simple answer. The Jesuits were too large to be a private school league, not to mention the costs associated with travel. Scheduling opponents was enormously difficult, not to mention the cost. Don't say "getting smaller" was the answer. That was no solution. The solution actually was not complicated, and that was to join the UIL as the Jesuits were legally entitled to do in Texas or any other state in the Union. Join the UIL, follow the rules, compete fairly, and have fun. Not complicated really.


The Jesuits are not entitled to join the UIL just like no other private school is. The kids that make up those institutions were given a right to play in the UIL and chose not to by attending a private school.

If the Jesuits had no one to play so be it. That was their problem not the rest of the states. If football was not that big of a deal and did not matter then why not play a independent schedule. If I'm not mistaken Strake has played the likes of St Pius and some other big private schools in Houston for quite sometime. Or why not sue the schools who formerly made up the TCIL when they abandoned you?
You see you can feed us all this crap about how its not about athletics or competition but you all contradict yourself when you spend any amount of money to sue the UIL to allow your kid to play UIL sports, all because he felt like the academics at Lake Highlands or Richardson Pearce were not good enough for him.

[gburgtiger]

Of course its fair. How could you think otherwise? Ball broke a rule that they were clearly informed about. Strake has broken no rules. Don't confuse the issue.


That's EXACTLY the issue. the two schools have different rules...hence it is not fair for the two to compete. I think that if you are going to let private schools play in a public league where the public schools have to abide by a set of rules then you must force the private schools to abide by the same rules. SJ should be forced to get all of their athletes from one area not where ever they choose.

[farmerfan]

Something I found interesting, DJ could not sue TAPPS for admittance but they had 5 guys that played in the DFW Tom Hillary all-star football game back in December. If your players are good enough to play with the other privates in a all star game why aren't they good enough to play with them in TAPPS?

[dragonsdaddy]

They clearly do. For Strake, an athlete must sit out a full athletic year if he transfers. For a public, the parents simply need to relocate. Different rules. Yes.
the 8th and 9th grade transfers won't be effected, in general, as they weren't likely to play anyway.

there will be some gnashing of teeth when a kid doesn't pan out and suddenly becomes non-private material. when grace prep(only an example) sees the big dt turn into a band member, will they continue to defer his scholly, or maybe find out his grades are lacking.

the uil rules for privates are not based on attendence figures at all. all admitted will be in 5a regardless. the uil will ignore this rule when the next lawyer shows up at the hearings.

[Amused]

First off, let's remember that Strake Jesuit did not file a lawsuit, Dallas Jesuit did. Please that straight. But Strake did have the right to enter the UIL and that is what was determined.

Strake played an independent schedule for a number of years. Very difficult to schedule games, very expensive to travel out of town to find games. Just not practical, nor fair considering Stake had the right to enter the UIL.

Let me repeat. Creating a football dynasty is not in the Jesuit order. They will compete hard and compete well. Some years will be better than others.

Strake will not recruit. Kids that are looking for this type of Jesuit education will find Strake, with or without football. It is the product that Strake is offering that is attracting kids - not the promise in the future that Strake will be a football dynasty.

My suspiciaon is that a good percentage of the naysayers on this thread are currently associated with football dynasties and want to keep that all to themselves.

[dragonsdaddy]

First off, let's remember that Strake Jesuit did not file a lawsuit, Dallas Jesuit did. Please that straight. But Strake did have the right to enter the UIL and that is what was determined.

Strake played an independent schedule for a number of years. Very difficult to schedule games, very expensive to travel out of town to find games. Just not practical, nor fair considering Stake had the right to enter the UIL.

Let me repeat. Creating a football dynasty is not in the Jesuit order. They will compete hard and compete well. Some years will be better than others.

Strake will not recruit. Kids that are looking for this type of Jesuit education will find Strake, with or without football. It is the product that Strake is offering that is attracting kids - not the promise in the future that Strake will be a football dynasty.

My suspiciaon is that a good percentage of the naysayers on this thread are currently associated with football dynasties and want to keep that all to themselves.i seem to remember that sj had been threatening a similar suit for years, and even had a state rep(joe nixon-r houston) all lined up to submit hb 580 in their favor, had it become necessary.

keeping a dynasty through hard work is very difficult and priceless. buying a dynasty, if that is what a nefarious private chooses to do, will be costly in $$, but very doable. a program like arl grace prep need only sue for admission, and then start stocking up on the many promising 8th and ninth graders in southern dallas cty and eastern tarrant cty. they could , in a few years rule the state, and it'd be completely within the rules by which the jesuits play. if t boone will give 167 mil to the aggs, why not a similar type doing it for agp? any intellectual dishonesty in this scenario?

[farmerfan]

First off, let's remember that Strake Jesuit did not file a lawsuit, Dallas Jesuit did. Please that straight. But Strake did have the right to enter the UIL and that is what was determined.

Strake played an independent schedule for a number of years. Very difficult to schedule games, very expensive to travel out of town to find games. Just not practical, nor fair considering Stake had the right to enter the UIL.
Let me repeat. Creating a football dynasty is not in the Jesuit order. They will compete hard and compete well. Some years will be better than others.

Strake will not recruit. Kids that are looking for this type of Jesuit education will find Strake, with or without football. It is the product that Strake is offering that is attracting kids - not the promise in the future that Strake will be a football dynasty.

My suspiciaon is that a good percentage of the naysayers on this thread are currently associated with football dynasties and want to keep that all to themselves.


It's the sacrifices one makes when he decides to go to private school. There is only one fair in life and it comes every October to East Dallas.

What right did Strake have to enter the UIL? Not one of these kids was ever told by the state of Texas you could not play football in the UIL, not one kid was forced into private school, to me their rights were there they just chose a different road.

If creating a football dynasty is not in the future then why not play football? If the education is what the kids are coming for then football should not be a big deal right? In life you have to make sacrifices, if you want the Jesuit education but not football then go to Jesuit, if you want to play football and settle for that "crappy" public school education then go to the school you are asigned to by your local school district.

[gburgtiger]

First off, let's remember that Strake Jesuit did not file a lawsuit, Dallas Jesuit did. Please that straight. But Strake did have the right to enter the UIL and that is what was determined.

Strake played an independent schedule for a number of years. Very difficult to schedule games, very expensive to travel out of town to find games. Just not practical, nor fair considering Stake had the right to enter the UIL.

Let me repeat. Creating a football dynasty is not in the Jesuit order. They will compete hard and compete well. Some years will be better than others.

Strake will not recruit. Kids that are looking for this type of Jesuit education will find Strake, with or without football. It is the product that Strake is offering that is attracting kids - not the promise in the future that Strake will be a football dynasty.

My suspiciaon is that a good percentage of the naysayers on this thread are currently associated with football dynasties and want to keep that all to themselves.

Well for me it has nothing to do with football dynasty...I am a katy fan I did go to katy...but if they start losing I will still go to the games...it's the best 5 dollar entertainment you can find in houston on a friday night.

For me it's about those kids who have to watch their step all the time to play in UIL. the ones who have to make sure they live on the right side of the street. the ones who's coach has to come by the house to make sure each player is in the attendance zone. the ones who can't have a friends mom buy them a hamburger after school because they forgot their wallet and that is considered a gift from a booster. The UIL has been super strict and I think a little over the top. and then they let private schools in who can have a player from san antonio play at SJ if the player is willing to drive. It's about the team that gets one allstar and 10 5'8 120lb kids and makes a go at it versus the team that could potentially draft a team of allstars from a huge area as long as they can score over 1000 on the SAT.

and the I pay for it so I should get it stuff doesn't fly with me either...I'm still waiting on my astro's tickets since I have stayed at many hotels and rented many cars in the houston area. and since MMP was build by taxing hotels and rental cars...I want my tickets! Doesn't work that way.

[Roughrider]

Come on now Roughrider. Are implying that the athletic teams of the Jesuits have been "bought and paid for" already? Or are you talking about a hypothetical situation in the future?


Future!

[Roughrider]

They clearly do. For Strake, an athlete must sit out a full athletic year if he transfers. For a public, the parents simply need to relocate. Different rules. Yes.

No, not necessarily.. Coach from where the athlete transfers has to sign off. The move cannot be for athletic purposes. Privates may sit out a year but can't they live anywhere and still be eligible?

[whyzat]

[quote=whyzat]gburgtiger,

I personally have no objection. Would you like to be the Quarterback?

No thanks...I like D-fense

Seriously, the answer to your question is no. State law dictates that all citizens of Texas contribute to provide for the education of children, whether you have them or not. Think of it as part of the social contract between generations, each in turn reciprocating the benefit they received. Although you have no children to educate, your schooling was funded by those before you, most with children, some without. You are, in effect, doing for a successive generation what was done for you. This method makes sense, and is generally recognized as a longstanding benefit to society. Everyone shares the financial responsibility for providing a universally accessible process for the education of Texas children. And I totally agree with that policy...I do benefit from the education of the masses. In fact I find it hard to put up with the ignorance of some that have been educated, much less the uneducated.
To file suit for the purpose of gaining admission into the U.I.L., it would be necessary for you to prove you suffer harm, or incur disadvantage or inequity as a result of being denied inclusion in the organization. Oversimplified, that is the basis of legal standing required to sue. Your status as a childless taxpayer would not preclude you from suing for inclusion on behalf of any school age child, but it would not permit you to sue on your own behalf for inclusion in an organization in which denial of membership would have no ill effect on your well being. While this is all arcane, it is still the legal precedents and equity issues with which the U.I.L. must consider and contend.


QUOTE]

now...explain why Strake Jesuit and Dallas Jesuit suffer ill effect to their well being by not being included into a public school arena? They seemed to do just fine without being included for what 40+ years... And all this time it has been said that SJ exists for its education not for its athletics.

gburgtiger,

Sorry for the delay, was blindsided by events at work. Subsequent posts by Amused have probably answered your question, but here's my take.
It needs to be understood that the "ill effects" we discuss will be defined in the legal sense of that phrase, because that is what is relevant here. I point that out simply because the distinction between definitions in the legal sense, and the common sense, seem to be the source of much of the disagreement here. Also keep in mind the universal nature of financing the education of Texas students. We have already agreed to its merit.

Had the matter gone to court to show harm, I doubt it would have been presented in the manner which many people would expect. Specific cases or tangible evidence of harm would frankly be unnecessary. It would have likely been argued on the basis of "potential harm," for example, the possibility that a student's development potential may fail to be fully realized due to denial of participation in, and exposure to, the levels of competition (Academics, Athletics, Music) available within the U.I.L. venue. This would not be a difficult case to make, and legal precedent exists to support the claim. Amused is correct when he characterizes the case as a "slam dunk." The U.I.L. recognized this fact, and acknowledged it by their decision not to contest the petition. They really had no choice. The status quo for the past 40 yrs. or the motivations of the petitioners not withstanding, it is a basic point of law. All Texans contribute financially in order to provide a basic public service for a targeted constituency, Texas students. That which is universally provided must, as a matter of equity, be universally accessable to everyone within the constituent group. It does not matter legally if they "choose" to attend private or homeschools, they are still entitled to avail themselves of any, or all, of the resources provided by the State of Texas. To deny them is to discriminate against them based on a externally applied classsification. As justice is blind, and therefore even-handed, it matters not that the status of the classification may be privledged or positive. Admittedly ironic, but none the less operative. I understand your objection to this outcome, based in commonsense. I'm only thinking aloud about how the official disposition would play out if it is ever litigated. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Amused]

Thanks to all of you for a meaningful and very important debate. We all participate because we all care. We may differ some in our opinion, but we all do care.

[gburgtiger]

[quote=gburgtiger]

gburgtiger,

Sorry for the delay, was blindsided by events at work. Subsequent posts by Amused have probably answered your question, but here's my take.
It needs to be understood that the "ill effects" we discuss will be defined in the legal sense of that phrase, because that is what is relevant here. I point that out simply because the distinction between definitions in the legal sense, and the common sense, seem to be the source of much of the disagreement here. Also keep in mind the universal nature of financing the education of Texas students. We have already agreed to its merit.

Had the matter gone to court to show harm, I doubt it would have been presented in the manner which many people would expect. Specific cases or tangible evidence of harm would frankly be unnecessary. It would have likely been argued on the basis of "potential harm," for example, the possibility that a student's development potential may fail to be fully realized due to denial of participation in, and exposure to, the levels of competition (Academics, Athletics, Music) available within the U.I.L. venue. This would not be a difficult case to make, and legal precedent exists to support the claim. Amused is correct when he characterizes the case as a "slam dunk." The U.I.L. recognized this fact, and acknowledged it by their decision not to contest the petition. They really had no choice. The status quo for the past 40 yrs. or the motivations of the petitioners not withstanding, it is a basic point of law. All Texans contribute financially in order to provide a basic public service for a targeted constituency, Texas students. That which is universally provided must, as a matter of equity, be universally accessable to everyone within the constituent group. It does not matter legally if they "choose" to attend private or homeschools, they are still entitled to avail themselves of any, or all, of the resources provided by the State of Texas. To deny them is to discriminate against them based on a externally applied classsification. As justice is blind, and therefore even-handed, it matters not that the status of the classification may be privledged or positive. Admittedly ironic, but none the less operative. I understand your objection to this outcome, based in commonsense. I'm only thinking aloud about how the official disposition would play out if it is ever litigated. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

I understand the legal issue...well at least I think I do...but what I don't understand is why the publics and privates are grouped together under seperate rules, mainly attendance zone/eligibility. Why did they not create a private classification inside of UIL. The case can be made that the 1A classification schools are not benefiting from the UIL as much as the 5A schools are. Just as SJ and DJ were not benefiting by being excluded from the UIL. The 1A schools get far less exposure and a lower level of competition much like a private school playing in TAPS or TCIL.

So I guess my stance would be that if you are going to let privates play in a public league...you either need to make everyone's rules the same or place the two in seperate classifications so that they can each have their own set of regulations.

[AHS Mustangs]

[quote=gburgtiger]

gburgtiger,

Sorry for the delay, was blindsided by events at work. Subsequent posts by Amused have probably answered your question, but here's my take.
It needs to be understood that the "ill effects" we discuss will be defined in the legal sense of that phrase, because that is what is relevant here. I point that out simply because the distinction between definitions in the legal sense, and the common sense, seem to be the source of much of the disagreement here. Also keep in mind the universal nature of financing the education of Texas students. We have already agreed to its merit.

Had the matter gone to court to show harm, I doubt it would have been presented in the manner which many people would expect. Specific cases or tangible evidence of harm would frankly be unnecessary. It would have likely been argued on the basis of "potential harm," for example, the possibility that a student's development potential may fail to be fully realized due to denial of participation in, and exposure to, the levels of competition (Academics, Athletics, Music) available within the U.I.L. venue. This would not be a difficult case to make, and legal precedent exists to support the claim. Amused is correct when he characterizes the case as a "slam dunk." The U.I.L. recognized this fact, and acknowledged it by their decision not to contest the petition. They really had no choice. The status quo for the past 40 yrs. or the motivations of the petitioners not withstanding, it is a basic point of law. All Texans contribute financially in order to provide a basic public service for a targeted constituency, Texas students. That which is universally provided must, as a matter of equity, be universally accessable to everyone within the constituent group. It does not matter legally if they "choose" to attend private or homeschools, they are still entitled to avail themselves of any, or all, of the resources provided by the State of Texas. To deny them is to discriminate against them based on a externally applied classsification. As justice is blind, and therefore even-handed, it matters not that the status of the classification may be privledged or positive. Admittedly ironic, but none the less operative. I understand your objection to this outcome, based in commonsense. I'm only thinking aloud about how the official disposition would play out if it is ever litigated. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

How are private school students harmed by not participating in UIL, but still having the athletic programs in place? No one said they couldn't play Katy in a non-district game or whoever in a non district game for the UIL sanctioned school. No one told them to get rid of their football or basketball programs, they just said they cannot participate in UIL sanctioned games. Much like TAPPS said they couldn't participate and TAPPS says that publics cannot participate in their games. So can a public school sue TAPPS because they said they couldn't join because they are too big? That is discrimination based on size of the school which the school cannot just shove students off to other schools. The same thing told to the already private Strake and Dallas Jesuit. I pay my 10%+ to the Catholic church and sometimes more, so can I sue to get my child into the Catholic school at my parish because I am paying to the church, just like the Private school parents pay to Public education via taxes.

[Drake]

[QUOTE=whyzat]

I understand the legal issue...well at least I think I do...but what I don't understand is why the publics and privates are grouped together under seperate rules, mainly attendance zone/eligibility. Why did they not create a private classification inside of UIL. The case can be made that the 1A classification schools are not benefiting from the UIL as much as the 5A schools are. Just as SJ and DJ were not benefiting by being excluded from the UIL. The 1A schools get far less exposure and a lower level of competition much like a private school playing in TAPS or TCIL.

So I guess my stance would be that if you are going to let privates play in a public league...you either need to make everyone's rules the same or place the two in seperate classifications so that they can each have their own set of regulations.I understand your reasoning? Don't you think they should modify the rules in instances where it would be more equitable or fit the situation better? And if they did so, who says they can't modify them again in 5 years if things get out of kilter?

[gburgtiger]

I understand your reasoning? Don't you think they should modify the rules in instances where it would be more equitable or fit the situation better? And if they did so, who says they can't modify them again in 5 years if things get out of kilter?

no, I don't think rules should be modified...rules are rules for a reason, whether you can change them in 5 years of not. I don't believe it's fair to say ok school A you are allowed to break rule 1 but school B we are disqualifying you because you broke rule 1.

[Drake]

no, I don't think rules should be modified...rules are rules for a reason, whether you can change them in 5 years of not. I don't believe it's fair to say ok school A you are allowed to break rule 1 but school B we are disqualifying you because you broke rule 1.Good thing you're not in charge then because the girls that live in Baytown Lee attendance zone that go to Baytown Sterling through a UIL exemption because Lee doesn't offer swimming/water polo, or all the students that live outside the attendance zones of magnet public schools, or all the students that need special education programs not offered at the school in their zone would just be SOL as far as UIL competition is concerned, wouldn't they?

Thank goodness we have people running things that know we need rules, but also understand that certain circumstances justify modifying or waving them in the spirit of fairness... (Yes farmerfan, I trapped him :D )

[gburgtiger]

Good thing you're not in charge then because the girls that live in Baytown Lee attendance zone that go to Baytown Sterling through a UIL exemption because Lee doesn't offer swimming/water polo, or all the students that live outside the attendance zones of magnet public schools, or all the students that need special education programs not offered at the school in their zone would just be SOL as far as UIL competition is concerned, wouldn't they?

Thank goodness we have people running things that know we need rules, but also understand that certain circumstances justify modifying or waving them in the spirit of fairness... (Yes farmerfan, I trapped him :D )

yes I am trapped because it's apples and oranges...if Baytown Lee had a waterpolo team and the girls were still going to Baytown Sterling then it would be unfair...

I also believe that you can only attend a magnet school if you live in that School district's attendance Zone. So someone from katy could not go to HSPVA and expect to play <enter whatever sport here>. But a kid from Katy can go to SJ just like the kid from the woodlands just like the kid (who likes to drive a lot) from san antonio.

[gburgtiger]

and water polo is not a UIL sanctioned event

[Drake]

yes I am trapped because it's apples and oranges...if Baytown Lee had a waterpolo team and the girls were still going to Baytown Sterling then it would be unfair...

I also believe that you can only attend a magnet school if you live in that School district's attendance Zone. So someone from katy could not go to HSPVA and expect to play <enter whatever sport here>. But a kid from Katy can go to SJ just like the kid from the woodlands just like the kid (who likes to drive a lot) from san antonio.By the way, I said water polo which is not UIL sanctioned, but many of the Sterling water polo players that live in the Lee attendance zone also swim for Sterling, which IS UIL sanctioned.

Regardless, the point is... In these cases the UIL has made exemptions and exceptions so that a child can live in one public attendance zone, and go to a a different public school and still compete in UIL sanctioned events... They did so in the name of fairness and equal opportunity, right?

Have you considered that that's what they did (make an exception) to be equitable in the case of the Jesuit school's too? You may not see the parallel because it doesn't fit with your opinion, but to say its not fair because the Jesuit's don't have the EXACT same rules is disingenuous when public schools aren't all adhering to the standard you expect either...

[whyzat]

[quote=whyzat]

How are private school students harmed by not participating in UIL, but still having the athletic programs in place? No one said they couldn't play Katy in a non-district game or whoever in a non district game for the UIL sanctioned school. No one told them to get rid of their football or basketball programs, they just said they cannot participate in UIL sanctioned games. Much like TAPPS said they couldn't participate and TAPPS says that publics cannot participate in their games. So can a public school sue TAPPS because they said they couldn't join because they are too big? That is discrimination based on size of the school which the school cannot just shove students off to other schools. The same thing told to the already private Strake and Dallas Jesuit. I pay my 10%+ to the Catholic church and sometimes more, so can I sue to get my child into the Catholic school at my parish because I am paying to the church, just like the Private school parents pay to Public education via taxes.

AHS Mustang,

The point you make about the privately educated having TAPPS as an alternative governing body to the U.I.L. raises the old "separate but equal" contention, which I promise you will not stand in court. There is no doubt whatsoever about the established legal precedent involved. As to suing your parish, you have no case or legal standing. The state of Texas has the statutory power to compel you to contribute financially to the education of Texas children. The Church, on the other hand, must rely on the angels of your better nature for the provision of financial assistance. It is the compulsory taxing authority of government which creates the legal demand for absolute standards of equity in participation, while support of your Church is done on a voluntary basis. The same applies to the analogy of the public school suing TAPPS for inclusion. Unlike the U.I.L., TAPPS is not a publicly funded body with the capability to exclude Texas students from taxpayer provided opportunities for educational enrichment.

For whatever it's worth, the U.I.L. is engaged in a process of damage control. They are attempting to order and prioritize a number of unpalatable options in order to minimize legal liability and adapt the organization to rapidly changing social mores. To their credit, they had the vision to choose inclusion rather than fight a legal battle they realized they could never win. They also recognized it would be far easier to deal with potential problems of rule infractions and enforcement than to face litigation and the public perception of discriminatory practices which the status quo would guarantee. Given the circumstances, I think they have done an admirable job. Just my opionion.

[AHS Mustangs]

AHS Mustang,

The point you make about the privately educated having TAPPS as an alternative governing body to the U.I.L. raises the old "separate but equal" contention, which I promise you will not stand in court. There is no doubt whatsoever about the established legal precedent involved. As to suing your parish, you have no case or legal standing. The state of Texas has the statutory power to compel you to contribute financially to the education of Texas children. The Church, on the other hand, must rely on the angels of your better nature for the provision of financial assistance. It is the compulsory taxing authority of government which creates the legal demand for absolute standards of equity in participation, while support of your Church is done on a voluntary basis. The same applies to the analogy of the public school suing TAPPS for inclusion. Unlike the U.I.L., TAPPS is not a publicly funded body with the capability to exclude Texas students from taxpayer provided opportunities for educational enrichment.

For whatever it's worth, the U.I.L. is engaged in a process of damage control. They are attempting to order and prioritize a number of unpalatable options in order to minimize legal liability and adapt the organization to rapidly changing social mores. To their credit, they had the vision to choose inclusion rather than fight a legal battle they realized they could never win. They also recognized it would be far easier to deal with potential problems of rule infractions and enforcement than to face litigation and the public perception of discriminatory practices which the status quo would guarantee. Given the circumstances, I think they have done an admirable job. Just my opionion.

But, that still doesn't answer the question of how the students of the Jesuit schools are harmed by not being allowed to participate in UIL sanctioned events. They can still play football, but in their own league or independent. Why should public schools have to go out of their way to allow them in their league, when the reverse is not applicable? We either all play together, that is get rid of TAPPS and make smaller private schools participate in UIL sanctioned events based on enrollment, or we play seperate, and private schools have their own thing and publics their own. If the court ruled that, that would be fair to all because then no one is better than anyone else in the eyes of the court. Of course, that does not answer recruiting of private schools or public schools for that matter. I don't mind them being in the UIL, but if the Jesuits are going to be there, then the rest need to be there too.

[Drake]

I can think of one way they could be hurt... Is a college recruiter more apt to scout a 5A playoff game or a TAPPS playoff game? If recruiting, would you give a stronger look at 5A All-Stater or TAPPS All-State selection?

[gburgtiger]

By the way, I said water polo which is not UIL sanctioned, but many of the Sterling water polo players that live in the Lee attendance zone also swim for Sterling, which IS UIL sanctioned.I know...I did both in high school.

Regardless, the point is... In these cases the UIL has made exemptions and exceptions so that a child can live in one public attendance zone, and go to a a different public school and still compete in UIL sanctioned events... They did so in the name of fairness and equal opportunity, right?Yes you are right...but they limit where you can go. They didn't say here girls pick a school. They kept the kids in the School District.

Have you considered that that's what they did (make an exception) to be equitable in the case of the Jesuit school's too? But that still doesn't cover the issue that the kids who go to SJ had an option to play the sport of their choice at the public school. In the sterling/lee case there was no option at the school they were aligned to go to. So if privates were the only schools to play football then that would make sense. Or if a kid lived in houston Lee's attendance zone (lee doesn't play football) then the kid should be eligible to play in a different HISD School or private school within HISD's zone. You may not see the parallel because it doesn't fit with your opinion, but to say its not fair because the Jesuit's don't have the EXACT same rules is disingenuous when public schools aren't all adhering to the standard you expect either...

I see the parallel but I don't believe it's exactly parallel...maybe a few degrees off. it may look parallel but miles down the road the two intersect.

[Drake]

I see the parallel but I don't believe it's exactly parallel...maybe a few degrees off. it may look parallel but miles down the road the two intersect.Well, they're similar in the sense that the UIL looked at it and said THIS is what's fair... Opponents of private school participation will say ONLY exactly the same rules are fair because they have no other arguments, but they haven't ever taken that position before the privates came in, and the UIL has been making exceptions forever... That's why I believe to use such reasoning now is disingenuous...

[gburgtiger]

Well, they're similar in the sense that the UIL looked at it and said THIS is what's fair...Just because the UIL said it is fair doesn't make it fair Opponents of private school participation will say ONLY exactly the same rules are fair because they have no other arguments, but they haven't ever taken that position before the privates came in, and the UIL has been making exceptions forever... where have they ever let a student that is not from a district play in that district (other than children of district employees) That's why I believe to use such reasoning now is disingenuous...

you argue your case well...but I am not convinced.

the exceptions in other cases never envolved scholarships, or going to any school a player wants.

the scholarship thing has even been taken to the length that a player can not recieve a gift from another player's parents worth any monetary value...and then to let a school that offers scholarships and financial aid play is just beyond me.

can you conceed that the "financial aid" could be used as bait to get someone to attend SJ or gifts be labeled as "financial aid" or jobs around campus like stand there on the corner and say hi to everyone that walks by and we'll give you "financial aid." -- I know SJ and DJ do not do that now (that anyone know's of or can prove) but it could happen? maybe not by SJ or DJ, but by setting the court precedent any private could potentially be allowed in the UIL and then the football factories have begun. That kind of thing happens in college all the time...can't prove it, but it does. The reason why that doesn't happen in public high school is because there is no label to hide the money with...katy high can't give a gift to a student and label it "financial aid." Does that make sense?

[Roughrider]

What Drake? Is your opinion correct because you believe it to be??? Just because UIL gave in doesn't mean it is justified!! You guys want everything to work in your favor, period!! Man, must be a nice life you guys live. If something doesn't work in your favor, sue!! Somewhat like the little kid that throws a temper tantrum so that mom will eventually give in to his/her desire!! Even if she gives in, doesn't mean it is right!!

[Amused]

Big difference gburgtiger. The Katy kid already has the education paid for. It's called public schools, paid by taxes. You are talking apples and oranges.

[farmerfan]

I can think of one way they could be hurt... Is a college recruiter more apt to scout a 5A playoff game or a TAPPS playoff game? If recruiting, would you give a stronger look at 5A All-Stater or TAPPS All-State selection?


Interesting point. I played in TAPPS 4A which is now Div 2. I did not get a full ride, as a senior I rushed for 1600 yards scored 24 TD's and had 300 receiving with 2 TD's. I did not get a rull ride to a D1 school, however the starting FB at LHS that year got a full ride to Rice. Since I chose to go to a TAPPS school, I wonder if I could now sue either my school or the UIL since I was deprived of a full scholorship to play football.

[gburgtiger]

Big difference gburgtiger. The Katy kid already has the education paid for. It's called public schools, paid by taxes. exactly...which means every kid at each school gets the same exact thing for the same price. there is no, hey...school kid A has to pay $10K but if you play football we'll only make you pay $3K but since that pesky UIL is watching us, we will give you a job(standing at the front door saying hi to your 5 friends when they get to school). You are talking apples and oranges.

apples and oranges are my whole point. public and privates both can't exist with the same rules...they need to be seperated.

[whyzat]

gburgtiger,

The case you make for the privates using financial aid as a recruitment incentive could only happen on a significant scale if they suspended or altered the academic admission standards for these recruits that are applied to the rest of their student body. If the student receiving the financial aid meets the same high standards to which all others are obligated, then where is the disparity? Unlike major college football factories, top drawer prep schools will not offer classes in basket weaving. That would never happen, as it defeats the whole purpose for attending an academically rigorous private school in the first place. Even if some institution attempted to take liberties, would it not be a simple task for compliance enforcement to compare cirriculum and performance. Given the uniformity of course requirements in private schools, I would think they would be far more transparent for monitoring purposes than public schools. The concerns about academically legitimate private schools morphing into football powerhouses are blown out of proportion. Even if that was the objective, how likely is it that a sufficient number of top athlete recruits could meet the admission requirements? It doesn't compute.

[dragonsdaddy]

gburgtiger,

The case you make for the privates using financial aid as a recruitment incentive could only happen on a significant scale if they suspended or altered the academic admission standards for these recruits that are applied to the rest of their student body. If the student receiving the financial aid meets the same high standards to which all others are obligated, then where is the disparity? Unlike major college football factories, top drawer prep schools will not offer classes in basket weaving. That would never happen, as it defeats the whole purpose for attending an academically rigorous private school in the first place. Even if some institution attempted to take liberties, would it not be a simple task for compliance enforcement to compare cirriculum and performance. Given the uniformity of course requirements in private schools, I would think they would be far more transparent for monitoring purposes than public schools. The concerns about academically legitimate private schools morphing into football powerhouses are blown out of proportion. Even if that was the objective, how likely is it that a sufficient number of top athlete recruits could meet the admission requirements? It doesn't compute.i guess i was unaware that there is a set of standards by which all private schools set up their academics. i felt that there were all different reasons for sending kids to privates, and thus all different academic standards.

you are wrong if you don't think there are people in this football crazy state who would like to improve their chances of getting to buy jr a state ring. the same ones who set evangel on their way would be glad to teach the next win quick and at all costs parents how it is done.

[Drake]

gburg -

So you agree that the UIL makes exceptions to the rules in the spirit of being fair, reasonable, and accommodating to public schools with special circumstances. I agree that the special circumstances and subsequent accommodations to be fair to the Jesuit schools were unlike any they’ve had to deal with in the past.

I also agree that the rules set up for both public and private schools in the realm we discuss are susceptible to violation and in either case depend primarily on the integrity and ethos of the parents and coaches involved at the school level.

That said, can you agree that perhaps we, as stakeholders (fans, parents, etc) should not ASSUME that those charged with maintaining integrity and a level playing field would automatically tilt it to their advantage given the chance. Just because you believe it’s easier for the Jesuits to cheat doesn’t mean they have, do, or will.

If we’re going to trust a system that has coaches and parents policing themselves, it makes no sense to automatically assume they will cheat given the opportunity. It also makes no sense for you to worry about what other schools are doing. Under the “honor” system the UIL has in place, I should be watching the school my son attends and you should be watching the one you support, not the other way around.

Just my opinion.

[gburgtiger]

gburgtiger,

The case you make for the privates using financial aid as a recruitment incentive could only happen on a significant scale if they suspended or altered the academic admission standards for these recruits that are applied to the rest of their student body.why? Isn't most of the financial aid need based? so Someone who is weathy and a good athlete could not be offered free tuition or something of the sort to play football? If the student receiving the financial aid meets the same high standards to which all others are obligated, then where is the disparity? let's say a kid is trying to choose between SJ and faith west and lets just sat tuition is = at 10K at both SJ and faith west. Faith west says well we are only going to give you $2K to come to school here because we don't play in the UIL and could care less about how great you are in football. So the player visits SJ and SJ knows he's a star FB player who's to say that SJ gives him $3k and claims oh that's normal...but the extra $1000 really comes from the fact the kid can play ball. which now opens another can of worms...all the private school kids who are star athletes are going to pick SJ or DJ because they get to play UIL sports. now you have a private school allstar team playing against a team assembled from a neighborhood. Unlike major college football factories, top drawer prep schools will not offer classes in basket weaving. That would never happen, as it defeats the whole purpose for attending an academically rigorous private school in the first place. Even if some institution attempted to take liberties, would it not be a simple task for compliance enforcement to compare cirriculum and performance. Given the uniformity of course requirements in private schools, I would think they would be far more transparent for monitoring purposes than public schools. The concerns about academically legitimate private schools morphing into football powerhouses are blown out of proportion. Even if that was the objective, how likely is it that a sufficient number of top athlete recruits could meet the admission requirements? It doesn't compute.

they are blown out of proportion only if you think all FB players are stupid...that is not the case. I know several who were very good students and could have easily been a student at SJ.

[Drake]

Goob... I've read your last few posts and if inclined I could spend all night writing hundreds of scenarios that would be considered cheating in public schools... Whats the point? Refer to my last post. The system is based on integrity. If don't believe anyone has any, then einstein couldn't figure a workable solution... I think I summed it up best last post... You'll just have to trust that our coaches and all the other coaches in the state won't cheat... At least until you can show that one has, then get him removed..

[whyzat]

they are blown out of proportion only if you think all FB players are stupid...that is not the case. I know several who were very good students and could have easily been a student at SJ.

I made no such presumption, and I suspect you are aware of that. Generalizations of that nature are useless, and serve no purpose in understanding each other's position.

I'm about to the point where I wish it were possible to separate high stakes athletics from schools. Let those so inclined declare for the creation of an open super classification where they are no longer prohibited from recruiting, or any other constraints beyond the age of the participants. Why not? We already have the tail wagging the dog. This situation has progressed to the point of absurdity, and the saddest casualty of the entire travesty is the loss of focus on the original intent....academic excellence.

[farmerfan]

I made no such presumption, and I suspect you are aware of that. Generalizations of that nature are useless, and serve no purpose in understanding each other's position.

I'm about to the point where I wish it were possible to separate high stakes athletics from schools. Let those so inclined declare for the creation of an open super classification where they are no longer prohibited from recruiting, or any other constraints beyond the age of the participants. Why not? We already have the tail wagging the dog. This situation has progressed to the point of absurdity, and the saddest casualty of the entire travesty is the loss of focus on the original intent....academic excellence.


so are you saying that Strake and DJ are guilty of this? because if those schools were all about academic excellence, why would it matter if they were in the UIL or not?

[Drake]

so are you saying that Strake and DJ are guilty of this? because if those schools were all about academic excellence, why would it matter if they were in the UIL or not?Alright... Here we go again... LOL... I'm not going around in this circle anymore...

The Jesuits schools are IN the UIL, the Jesuit schools want to be in the UIL, the Jesuit schools deserve and appreciate the opportunity to compete there, and... if the Jesuit schools screw it up, shame on them...

'nuff said! (learned this from katy people)

[Drake]

Oh, one more thing... ;)

[gburgtiger]

Goob...cute here I though were having a fun discussion and you obviously are taking offense and have been reduced to personal attacks I've read your last few posts and if inclined I could spend all night writing hundreds of scenarios that would be considered cheating in public schools... Whats the point? Refer to my last post. The system is based on integrity. sure it's based on integrity...but the privates don't think they are breaking a rule and in the present system they are not...but if galveston ball gets kicked out because one of their players drives 10 miles to school then SJ should be kicked out because they have players from all over houston. If don't believe anyone has any, then einstein couldn't figure a workable solution... I think I summed it up best last post... You'll just have to trust that our coaches and all the other coaches in the state won't cheat... At least until you can show that one has, then get him removed..

aside from the cheating references. How fair is it that every private school type kid that is good at football will now want to go to strake so they can play in the UIL making SJ a houston private school all star team. Seriously...would you go to st. pius if you were a star athlete looking to go to private school...only if you didn't get into SJ and couldn't play in the UIL right?

[gburgtiger]

Alright... Here we go again... LOL... I'm not going around in this circle anymore...

The Jesuits schools are IN the UIL, the Jesuit schools want to be in the UIL, the Jesuit schools deserve and appreciate the opportunity to compete there, and... if the Jesuit schools screw it up, shame on them...

'nuff said! (learned this from katy people)

I agree with everything except the deserve part.

[Oiler1]

Ok, thats it. Since it is all about equal access under the law, then I recommend we create a home school team for the Houston area. Heck, lets just go for broke and make the all Texas home school team. No transfer requirements, no attendance zones, no tests, no gift guidelines, no nothing required because its called equal access under the law. We all pay taxes and it should be that way, because its what we home school parents want. Its an exception to the rules that the UIL has laid down for the public schools but the UIL must comply because I have the money to sue and put the facilities together to make this happen. We made a choice to home school because its a better education for our kids and we deserve the same access as the privates without attending a private religious school. This would be harmful to us since we do not suscribe to that denomination. The public schools would be harmful to our kids well being if we participate with them but present the best competition for our kids to be recruited to Div. 1 colleges by competing against them. Its all about equal access under the law and we pay taxes along with sacrificing our time at home to do the work ourselves.

Obviously I'm being facetious with this argument and the legal stance that is being place behind it could easily be twisted. I'm sure you will pick out flaws and tear apart my argument since this will be considered not a true analogy. Dismiss it since you disagree with my opinion and I assure you this has nothing to do with emotion, just as the original case brought had nothing to do with emotion. You don't feel like you belong in UIL do you?

I must have missed the law that was passed that granted this access to the privates. I'm sure you can dig up and site the legal precedence made by some judge's interpretation but not a direct law which specifically provided for this exception. Once again your arguments are backed up by the opinion of someone that laid his interpretation down as fact, when if shopped around could be overturned by someone else with a differing opinion. Unless both parties are exactly equal in all the rules then its an apple to oranges comparison and nothing else. As in most cases big money usually wins in legal cases unless the jury pool is deemed to be tainted, in which case a change of venue is necessary so you can get what you believe (opinion) is the correct outcome. This obviously did not make it to a jury because of costs involved and its just YOUR opinion that it would have been a slam dunk. You may be right or you may not be and if it had been litigated, it would have been a juries or a judge's opinion to whether you were right. Guess we won't know but I am disinclined to aqueous to your arguments since I disagree with your opinion. The only way I'd even consider your arguments would be if the public school students were granted vouchers. Then the rules would have to be modified for everyone.

I hate having to type all sophisticated for you private boys because it slows down my typing 60 words a minute and not using all my chat format short cuts. Typing largely preformatted messages to show your more sophisticated in your arguments just gives the impression of arrogance.

[Drake]

aside from the cheating references. How fair is it that every private school type kid that is good at football will now want to go to strake so they can play in the UIL making SJ a houston private school all star team. Seriously...would you go to st. pius if you were a star athlete looking to go to private school...only if you didn't get into SJ and couldn't play in the UIL right?Naw, wasn't an attack or even a slight... Everytime I see your screename I think "gooburg" (dont ask) and i just shortened it... i actually appreciate that you've been civil and even concede a point once in awhile... been a good conversation... the only problem i have with your takes is they're founded on "what ifs" which could be used against public schools just the same... i think at this point we should all just not borrow trouble and hope it all works out well... don't you?

[Drake]

Oiler -

You make some good points... The one I like best is that different people, or courts, will see things differently than others... Like I just said, since the UIL let the Jesuits schools in, don't you think its best for all to make the best of it that we can? Or do you believe perpetuating the animosity this issue has created is better for Texas HS football?

[dominoeplayer]

On a different note (here it comes! here it comes!) Why would a certain high school in a district that has many other schools in the district (with a feeder system in place) have the need to have a dry erase board where the top middle school players in the city and area are listed by their middle school(this includes all of the middle schools in that ISD) and ranked and have coaches assigned to them? Just curious. There is no way that this could possibly be construed as recruiting? Just Maybe? Nah! Never! Guess who? Ready, set, go!!!!!! You loyal diehard win at all cost supporters(you know who you are) jump on it! Who will be the first to respond?

[Drake]

On a different note (here it comes! here it comes!) Why would a certain high school in a district that has many other schools in the district (with a feeder system in place) have the need to have a dry erase board where the top middle school players in the city and area are listed by their middle school(this includes all of the middle schools in that ISD) and ranked and have coaches assigned to them? Just curious. There is no way that this could possibly be construed as recruiting? Just Maybe? Nah! Never! Guess who? Ready, set, go!!!!!! You loyal diehard win at all cost supporters(you know who you are) jump on it! Who will be the first to respond?Well, you said "ISD", I'm hoping it's NOT Strake Jesuit... But I don't know... Who?

[whyzat]

[quote]I am disinclined to aqueous to your arguments since I disagree with your opinion. The only way I'd even consider your arguments would be if the public school students were granted vouchers. Then the rules would have to be modified for everyone.

Bravo, and congratulations on the only ultimate solution that will provide universal improvement in academic performance, a greater measure of equity in athletic competition, and the only hope for the future effectiveness of public education by the introduction of competition and real accountability. Where do I go to sign up?

[Roughrider]

[quote=Oiler1]

Bravo, and congratulations on the only ultimate solution that will provide universal improvement in academic performance, a greater measure of equity in athletic competition, and the only hope for the future effectiveness of public education by the introduction of competition and real accountability. Where do I go to sign up?

Neverland Ranch!

[Roughrider]

On a different note (here it comes! here it comes!) Why would a certain high school in a district that has many other schools in the district (with a feeder system in place) have the need to have a dry erase board where the top middle school players in the city and area are listed by their middle school(this includes all of the middle schools in that ISD) and ranked and have coaches assigned to them? Just curious. There is no way that this could possibly be construed as recruiting? Just Maybe? Nah! Never! Guess who? Ready, set, go!!!!!! You loyal diehard win at all cost supporters(you know who you are) jump on it! Who will be the first to respond?


Depends??? GISD is open enrollment... Can live anywhere and go to any of the high schools as long as the preset ethnic numbers haven't been skewed.. Even with that being said, the special programs allow students access even when the numbers say no!!

[whyzat]

[quote=whyzat]

Neverland Ranch!

Witty. Would you prefer to continue to squabble ad infinitum over hypothetical detail, or finally address the source of the disease rather than the symptoms? Why the reluctance to deny EVERY student the CHOICE currently so roundly condemned on the grounds of its availability only to a privledged few? The naysayers seem more diligent in the effort to restrict the few than to free the many. Whyzat?

[Drake]

Depends??? GISD is open enrollment... Can live anywhere and go to any of the high schools as long as the preset ethnic numbers haven't been skewed.. Even with that being said, the special programs allow students access even when the numbers say no!!Hmmm... What does GCID stand for? (the G part) Are you saying GISD plays by different attendance zone rules than other public UIL governed districts? And you're responding to a post that claims one of the Texas powerhouses makes a list of all the best players jr. high players from feeder schools other than their own and assigns coaches to recruit them? And yet the Jesuits are being lambasted for having modified attendance zone rules and the possibility that they MAY recruit sometime in the future? Just doesn't seem right...

How do you guys live with yourselves? :D

[gburgtiger]

Oiler -

You make some good points... The one I like best is that different people, or courts, will see things differently than others... Like I just said, since the UIL let the Jesuits schools in, don't you think its best for all to make the best of it that we can? Or do you believe perpetuating the animosity this issue has created is better for Texas HS football?

I think we have all "accepted" the fact that the Jesuits are in the UIL...or there would be plaenty of law suits to try to remove them. But as we have accepted it we don't have to like it and what it potentially can do to texas high school football.

Can you concede that strake even without recruiting can now become the football factory of private schools due to the fact that a private school kid and parents now how a choice to either A.)go to a private school that plays TAPS or TCIL or B.)go to a jesuit school that plays 5A UIL football? and given that choice many will choose the UIL and it's inherent exposure?

[Roughrider]

Hmmm... What does GCID stand for? (the G part) Are you saying GISD plays by different attendance zone rules than other public UIL governed districts? And you're responding to a post that claims one of the Texas powerhouses makes a list of all the best players jr. high players from feeder schools other than their own and assigns coaches to recruit them? And yet the Jesuits are being lambasted for having modified attendance zone rules and the possibility that they MAY recruit sometime in the future? Just doesn't seem right...

How do you guys live with yourselves? :D

Nope, the same rules appy with transfers and what not.. The students do have choices to make when they leave middle school. They are not being "bought and paid" for as would be the case in your little private school "dream".. You boys need to stick with your own kind!! We wouldn't want any of this nasty public ed to rub off on you...

[Drake]

I think we have all "accepted" the fact that the Jesuits are in the UIL...or there would be plaenty of law suits to try to remove them. But as we have accepted it we don't have to like it and what it potentially can do to texas high school football.

Can you concede that strake even without recruiting can now become the football factory of private schools due to the fact that a private school kid and parents now how a choice to either A.)go to a private school that plays TAPS or TCIL or B.)go to a jesuit school that plays 5A UIL football? and given that choice many will choose the UIL and it's inherent exposure?Concede? I've always contended that UIL inclusion added value to the school in many ways. If academically eligible student athletes who could afford the tuition were not applying because SJ wasn't UIL, then UIL inclusion is of great value to the school. If good coaches weren't applying because of the scheduling headaches and lack of recognition not being in UIL causes, then of course it is important...

My contention has also been that because UIL inclusion is such a value to the school, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd allow it to get screwed up by recruiting, offering athletic scholarships, housing athletes, or lowering their entrance requirements... I hope I'm right about that...

[Drake]

Nope, the same rules appy with transfers and what not.. The students do have choices to make when they leave middle school. They are not being "bought and paid" for as would be the case in your little private school "dream".. You boys need to stick with your own kind!! We wouldn't want any of this nasty public ed to rub off on you...Roughrider, you are a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices...

[dragonfootballfan]

Concede? I've always contended that UIL inclusion added value to the school in many ways. If academically eligible student athletes who could afford the tuition were not applying because SJ wasn't UIL, then UIL inclusion is of great value to the school. If good coaches weren't applying because of the scheduling headaches and lack of recognition not being in UIL causes, then of course it is important...

My contention has also been that because UIL inclusion is such a value to the school, it doesn't make sense to me that they'd allow it to get screwed up by recruiting, offering athletic scholarships, housing athletes, or lowering their entrance requirements... I hope I'm right about that...
Like I have stated previously, I have no problem with the Jesuits being in the UIL. I know many people who have attended Jesuit schools and I know about their strict admissions policies and high integrity. I do not feel that the Jesuits will partake in unsavory practices. The problem I have is that they allowed these two privated schools to join the UIL, and that potentially opens up the door to private schools that may not have the same priorities as the Jesuits.

[Drake]

Like I have stated previously, I have no problem with the Jesuits being in the UIL. I know many people who have attended Jesuit schools and I know about their strict admissions policies and high integrity. I do not feel that the Jesuits will partake in unsavory practices. The problem I have is that they allowed these two privated schools to join the UIL, and that potentially opens up the door to private schools that may not have the same priorities as the Jesuits.That's legitimate. Like KT2000 said, far greater risk of it happening in basketball... Would be difficult for most private schools to afford the number of scholarships it would take to create a guaranteed winner in football...

[dragonfootballfan]

That's legitimate. Like KT2000 said, far greater risk of it happening in basketball... Would be difficult for most private schools to afford the number of scholarships it would take to create a guaranteed winner in football...
Its not the scholarships that scare me. They only need to give out a few to the elite players in the area, and more people will pay for their kid to go there in order to be on a winning team.

[AHS Mustangs]

I can think of one way they could be hurt... Is a college recruiter more apt to scout a 5A playoff game or a TAPPS playoff game? If recruiting, would you give a stronger look at 5A All-Stater or TAPPS All-State selection?


Strake,
Then can't smaller classification schools (1A, 2A) also sue to be included in 5A because their students aren't getting "recognized" as much as the 5A students. It isn't the schools fault no one wants to live in their small town, or it isn't the schools fault that there aren't that many jobs in and around their school to attract more people to move in the area. It isn't the schools fault that they live 150 miles away from a large city. Smaller schools don't have a choice, they have to deal with it. Unlike private school students, those students have to go to that school because it is the only one around. Private school students can go to their public 5A school and get recognized if they want. My parents gave me an option when I was leaving middle school to go to a private school or go on to Aldine. I chose Aldine, not because of the athletics there, but because that is where I was suppose to go. My mother even worked for Aldine ISD and she could have put me in any othe four high schools, but we lived in the Aldine zone, so I was going to go to Aldine. I could have gone to Eisenhower, which, ironically, was closer to my house, and I could have go to the state championship game with them in 99, but I chose to go where I was suppose to go.

[Drake]

Its not the scholarships that scare me. They only need to give out a few to the elite players in the area, and more people will pay for their kid to go there in order to be on a winning team.You think? You think winning state is as important at SJ as it is in Katy or Southlake? Considering an SJ education requires passing an entrance exam, a $50K (4 years) commitment, and a very tough academic regimen, do you really believe those whose #1 consideration is "playing on a winning team" would go through all of that? Besides, wouldn't SJ need to win state or come close to create such an inticement? How are they going to do that?

No, I think those that would go to such lengths to be involved with a winning football team would first try to move to Katy, North Shore, the Woodlands, or Southlake... where they are guaranteed the priority is football, and they'll be assured of playing for a contender... Don't you?

[dragonfootballfan]

You think? You think winning state is as important at SJ as it is in Katy or Southlake? Considering an SJ education requires passing an entrance exam, a $50K (4 years) commitment, and a very tough academic regimen, do you really believe those whose #1 consideration is "playing on a winning team" would go through all of that? Besides, wouldn't SJ need to win state or come close to create such an inticement? How are they going to do that?

No, I think those that would go to such lengths to be involved with a winning football team would first try to move to Katy, North Shore, the Woodlands, or Southlake... where they are guaranteed the priority is football, and they'll be assured of playing for a contender... Don't you?
I was not talking about Jesuit in that example. In almost all the other states the football programs are dominated by private schools. It is not out of line to think that the same thing could happen here in Texas.

[Drake]

Strake,
Then can't smaller classification schools (1A, 2A) also sue to be included in 5A because their students aren't getting "recognized" as much as the 5A students. It isn't the schools fault no one wants to live in their small town, or it isn't the schools fault that there aren't that many jobs in and around their school to attract more people to move in the area. It isn't the schools fault that they live 150 miles away from a large city. Smaller schools don't have a choice, they have to deal with it. Unlike private school students, those students have to go to that school because it is the only one around. Private school students can go to their public 5A school and get recognized if they want. My parents gave me an option when I was leaving middle school to go to a private school or go on to Aldine. I chose Aldine, not because of the athletics there, but because that is where I was suppose to go. My mother even worked for Aldine ISD and she could have put me in any othe four high schools, but we lived in the Aldine zone, so I was going to go to Aldine. I could have gone to Eisenhower, which, ironically, was closer to my house, and I could have go to the state championship game with them in 99, but I chose to go where I was suppose to go.I'm not an attorney... I suppose you can sue for any reason if you feel you've been wronged. The courts will determine if you have a legitimate case or throw it out as frivolous. I suspect that Dallas Jesuit had a pretty strong case judging by the way the UIL settled with them... Don't you agree?

[AHS Mustangs]

I'm not an attorney... I suppose you can sue for any reason if you feel you've been wronged. The courts will determine if you have a legitimate case or throw it out as frivolous. I suspect that Dallas Jesuit had a pretty strong case judging by the way the UIL settled with them... Don't you agree?

I have a feeling this will go on forever. So, I think we should just agree to disagree. It is true that nothing can be done about it now because they are in the UIL. Maybe we should just keep an eye on them to make sure they don't recruit, just as they should keep an eye on the publics.

[Drake]

I was not talking about Jesuit in that example. In almost all the other states the football programs are dominated by private schools. It is not out of line to think that the same thing could happen here in Texas.Whats the difference? We currently have football being dominated by a school with all the advantages, that gets all the best players moving there to be a part of the winning tradition, that has the best facilities money can buy, and is so brazen about it that instead of being embarrassed, their fans trumpet the news of the next great prospect that has moved in to join the team...

[dragonfootballfan]

Whats the difference? We currently have football being dominated by a school with all the advantages, that gets all the best players moving there to be a part of the winning tradition, that has the best facilities money can buy, and is so brazen about it that instead of being embarrassed, their fans trumpet the news of the next great prospect that has moved in to join the team...
The school that you are referring to has all of the same rules as all of the other schools competing except for two.

[gburgtiger]

That's legitimate. Like KT2000 said, far greater risk of it happening in basketball... Would be difficult for most private schools to afford the number of scholarships it would take to create a guaranteed winner in football...

but I think the football will take care of its self because of the fact that it becomes more attractive to go to a jesuit school than any other private school. that's why I think they need to let all privates in and create a classification for them so we'd had 5a and 5b classes were a is public and b is private then their could be a seperate set of rules.

[gburgtiger]

Whats the difference? We currently have football being dominated by a school with all the advantages, that gets all the best players moving there to be a part of the winning tradition, that has the best facilities money can buy, and is so brazen about it that instead of being embarrassed, their fans trumpet the news of the next great prospect that has moved in to join the team...

because the family had to move...the family couldn't stay in conroe and go to school in uptown. that's the difference

[Drake]

The school that you are referring to has all of the same rules as all of the other schools competing except for two.Charles Manson and Billy Graham had the same rules too...

[Drake]

And my point here wasn't to characterize SLC as either... Just to make the point that character and integrity aren't replaced by rules... Any of the public schools could cheat and so could the Jesuits...

The attendance zone rules were modified in both directions to be fair to the Jesuit schools and to the public schools. The Jesuit schools have an attendance zone and designated feeders. Kids that live in it pretty much have the same rules as publics. Kids from outside it or from a non-feeder school are allowed to compete (a modification) but not until they have sat out of varsity competition for 1 year (another modification). This was designed to discourage upper-classmen transfers.

But your whole point was that the private's could hypothetically dominate Texas High School football at some point down the road... I don't like the idea either but how come nobody is concerned with how it is that the same handful of programs dominate Texas High School football now? It just seems a little two-faced.

[dragonfootballfan]

Charles Manson and Billy Graham had the same rules too...
now this analogy makes no sense at all

[dragonsdaddy]

And my point here wasn't to characterize SLC as either... Just to make the point that character and integrity aren't replaced by rules... Any of the public schools could cheat and so could the Jesuits...

The attendance zone rules were modified in both directions to be fair to the Jesuit schools and to the public schools. The Jesuit schools have an attendance zone and designated feeders. Kids that live in it pretty much have the same rules as publics. Kids from outside it or from a non-feeder school are allowed to compete (a modification) but not until they have sat out of varsity competition for 1 year (another modification). This was designed to discourage upper-classmen transfers.

But your whole point was that the private's could hypothetically dominate Texas High School football at some point down the road... I don't like the idea either but how come nobody is concerned with how it is that the same handful of programs dominate Texas High School football now? It just seems a little two-faced.the same programs haven't always been the same programs. cycles being what they are, i expect new faces to show up and take over in due time. until then, it'll be either hard work and great coaching, rather than better recruiting that puts rings on the fingers.

[Drake]

the same programs haven't always been the same programs. cycles being what they are, i expect new faces to show up and take over in due time. until then, it'll be either hard work and great coaching, rather than better recruiting that puts rings on the fingers.So you're saying that your coaches are smarter, work harder and your players work harder than all the other schools that don't win state championships?

[dragonsdaddy]

So you're saying that your coaches are smarter, work harder and your players work harder than all the other schools that don't win state championships?
if you have a better plan or explanation, let's hear it. no one thinks slc out athletes many in the po's. i expect your cheek is getting tired of being irritated by your tongue.

[Tut]

I'm going back to post #1 and give my opinions on the sub-topics one at a time. These will be somewhat brief as I don't go by the "baffle 'em with bull$#!+" theory.

SUB-TOPIC 01 – MOVING FOR ATHLETIC PURPOSES
If a student’s most outstanding talent is football (or any athletic sport) why wouldn’t we expect that player’s family to seek out and join programs that would offer that student the best opportunities? Why shouldn’t a great WR move to Southlake if his family knows this will enhance his exposure and chances to continue playing football at the next level? Athletics paves the way for so many students to get college educations and some to become set for life. Why in the heck is moving for “athletic purposes” so taboo?

I totally agree with Drake's assessment of this issue. People should be
permitted to move into whatever district they want and participate in all
of that school's activities.
Key word - "move"

SUB-TOPIC 02 – ATTENDANCE ZONES
Isn’t it true that the attendance zone argument against private schools is just a red herring? Private school families pay public school taxes and, as U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to the same opportunities afforded by the government as anyone else does. Basically, as a government body, the UIL doesn’t have the right to exclude anyone that wishes to participate. THIS understanding is why UIL allowed private schools in and rightfully so. Regardless, isn’t it true public school districts draw attendance zones according to the enrollment size and demographics they seek in their districts? Isn’t it also true that the public schools make exceptions to the attendance zone restrictions with their magnet schools and in cases where a certain sport or activity isn’t offered at in a particular zone? (for instance, water polo) Assuming that there are already private schools participating in UIL and more may come, does anyone have a reasonable, workable idea (that’s FAIR) to address the concern?

My opinion on this is very different. Everybody does have the right to participate by going to their neighborhood public school. By choosing to attend a private school, you're waving the right for a public education and all that goes with the public school forum. If the local school does not offer an activity or program, they are allowed to participate elsewhere. The "administration of public funds" should be for "public", not "private" schools. In my opinion, the UIL caved in to the cost of a lawsuit. I believe it was fair and reasonable before. After all, athletics are said to not be a Jesuit priority. If someone wanted “exposure”, they could attend a public school. They don’t even have entrance exams.

SUB-TOPIC 03 – RECRUITAPHOBIA
What is recruiting? What’s cool and what’s not? I’m assuming you’d say a coach directly contacting a player or player’s guardians about the idea of going to his school would be, but what else?

In my opinion, recruiting means a coach (or representative) actively pursuing players to "move" into their attendance zone. Also, if a move is subsidized by a supporter, that would be recruiting. As for the "phobia", people have seen what has gone on in other states. I've seen it myself in Michigan. While I don't believe the Jesuits are recruiting athletes, the concern is real for the future. Other private schools will surely want in now that the door is open.

How about a coach visiting youth leagues and having summer camps for area players? How about a conscious effort by districts to draw players by spending district money to maintain top-notch facilities, hire the best coaches, etc.? Would anyone argue with my assumption that in the last ten years many more quality football players have moved INTO the Katy, SLC, La Marque, North Shore, or Woodlands (to name a few) attendance zones than have moved away? Legit or not, SOMETHING is recruiting them to those schools. Isn’t it hypocritical, or at best naïve, to fear the other guy is recruiting when it goes on by some definition in every successful program?

This doesn’t fit my description of recruiting. Holding summer camps is an extra means of income (mostly for local youth).If a coach is luring the best athletes to move into his attendance zone…that’s a no-no, and he would eventually get caught.
As for facilities and salaries (coaches & teachers), certain school districts are better off than others. I can only speak of Katy, since that’s where my limited knowledge lies. New state of the art facilities and upgrades of existing ones are rampant with the area’s growth. The KISD school system is what draws many people to the area (including me 23 years ago). On picking the exact school to attend, see sub-topic “1”.

Okay, that was longer than I thought. :o

Public and private schools are inherently different and should be separate. Sending children to a private school is a parental choice. As with most everything, there are plusses and minuses involved. (imo)

[gburgtiger]

I'm going back to post #1 and give my opinions on the sub-topics one at a time. These will be somewhat brief as I don't go by the "baffle 'em with bull$#!+" theory.

SUB-TOPIC 01 – MOVING FOR ATHLETIC PURPOSES
If a student’s most outstanding talent is football (or any athletic sport) why wouldn’t we expect that player’s family to seek out and join programs that would offer that student the best opportunities? Why shouldn’t a great WR move to Southlake if his family knows this will enhance his exposure and chances to continue playing football at the next level? Athletics paves the way for so many students to get college educations and some to become set for life. Why in the heck is moving for “athletic purposes” so taboo?

I totally agree with Drake's assessment of this issue. People should be
permitted to move into whatever district they want and participate in all
of that school's activities.
Key word - "move"

SUB-TOPIC 02 – ATTENDANCE ZONES
Isn’t it true that the attendance zone argument against private schools is just a red herring? Private school families pay public school taxes and, as U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to the same opportunities afforded by the government as anyone else does. Basically, as a government body, the UIL doesn’t have the right to exclude anyone that wishes to participate. THIS understanding is why UIL allowed private schools in and rightfully so. Regardless, isn’t it true public school districts draw attendance zones according to the enrollment size and demographics they seek in their districts? Isn’t it also true that the public schools make exceptions to the attendance zone restrictions with their magnet schools and in cases where a certain sport or activity isn’t offered at in a particular zone? (for instance, water polo) Assuming that there are already private schools participating in UIL and more may come, does anyone have a reasonable, workable idea (that’s FAIR) to address the concern?

My opinion on this is very different. Everybody does have the right to participate by going to their neighborhood public school. By choosing to attend a private school, you're waving the right for a public education and all that goes with the public school forum. If the local school does not offer an activity or program, they are allowed to participate elsewhere. The "administration of public funds" should be for "public", not "private" schools. In my opinion, the UIL caved in to the cost of a lawsuit. I believe it was fair and reasonable before. After all, athletics are said to not be a Jesuit priority. If someone wanted “exposure”, they could attend a public school. They don’t even have entrance exams.

SUB-TOPIC 03 – RECRUITAPHOBIA
What is recruiting? What’s cool and what’s not? I’m assuming you’d say a coach directly contacting a player or player’s guardians about the idea of going to his school would be, but what else?

In my opinion, recruiting means a coach (or representative) actively pursuing players to "move" into their attendance zone. Also, if a move is subsidized by a supporter, that would be recruiting. As for the "phobia", people have seen what has gone on in other states. I've seen it myself in Michigan. While I don't believe the Jesuits are recruiting athletes, the concern is real for the future. Other private schools will surely want in now that the door is open.

How about a coach visiting youth leagues and having summer camps for area players? How about a conscious effort by districts to draw players by spending district money to maintain top-notch facilities, hire the best coaches, etc.? Would anyone argue with my assumption that in the last ten years many more quality football players have moved INTO the Katy, SLC, La Marque, North Shore, or Woodlands (to name a few) attendance zones than have moved away? Legit or not, SOMETHING is recruiting them to those schools. Isn’t it hypocritical, or at best naïve, to fear the other guy is recruiting when it goes on by some definition in every successful program?

This doesn’t fit my description of recruiting. Holding summer camps is an extra means of income (mostly for local youth).If a coach is luring the best athletes to move into his attendance zone…that’s a no-no, and he would eventually get caught.
As for facilities and salaries (coaches & teachers), certain school districts are better off than others. I can only speak of Katy, since that’s where my limited knowledge lies. New state of the art facilities and upgrades of existing ones are rampant with the area’s growth. The KISD school system is what draws many people to the area (including me 23 years ago). On picking the exact school to attend, see sub-topic “1”.

Okay, that was longer than I thought. :o

Public and private schools are inherently different and should be separate. Sending children to a private school is a parental choice. As with most everything, there are plusses and minuses involved. (imo)


Bravo tut...seems we see pretty eye to eye

[Drake]

if you have a better plan or explanation, let's hear it. no one thinks slc out athletes many in the po's. i expect your cheek is getting tired of being irritated by your tongue.is that a YES or a NO?

[Drake]

Tut - Very well stated and reasonable...

Not clear on one point though; How do you conclude that once a student enters a private school, they should be automatically forced to give up the right to any state-sponsored educational opportunities? Can you give examples where that is applied in practice or where courts have concluded that this is justified? Or is that just your opinion about the way it SHOULD be?

[dragonsdaddy]

is that a YES or a NO?
of course i do.

[dominoeplayer]

If parents want to pay for the kid to go to a private school then so be it. Let them play. They should be allowed to play. If they live in the attendance of a public school that is in their district and transfer to the private school then they should be ineligible for one calendar year. As long as the school does not scholarship the kid then let'em play.

I have problems with the public schools who recruit kids away from other public schools. Strictly forbidden by the UIL (no matter if there is freedom of choice in the district) The UIL specifically requires a feeder system in place that restricts other coaches from recruiting kids who are not at their own feeder school.

Apparantly the coaches aren't good enough to rely on their on teaching abilities and feel the need to cheat. The ones who do that will never win the big one in the first place.

Now, there is the topwater bait! Jump on it! Let's hook'em and reel them in. Come on in. Where a-a-a-r-r-r-r-e-e- yo-u-u-u-u-u-? Do I have to call you out by name? I bet ole' Roughy could.

[gburgtiger]

So you're saying that your coaches are smarter, work harder and your players work harder than all the other schools that don't win state championships?

Maybe not all of those...but one or any combination of one and a slightly better tallent pool. talent pools do get better and worse in an area for different years.

[dragonsdaddy]

Maybe not all of those...but one or any combination of one and a slightly better tallent pool. talent pools do get better and worse in an area for different years.
there's a certain amount of luck involved too, esp as pertaining to injuries. otherwise, the above pretty much explains chronic success.

[Drake]

of course i do.So there you have it... SLC's coaches are smarter than other coaches and their kids work harder... THAT is why they succeed where others don't...

[drgnbkr]

So you're saying that your coaches are smarter, work harder and your players work harder than all the other schools that don't win state championships?

One word answer...Absolutely! Well maybe two words...Duh......?

[Drake]

If parents want to pay for the kid to go to a private school then so be it. Let them play. They should be allowed to play. If they live in the attendance of a public school that is in their district and transfer to the private school then they should be ineligible for one calendar year. As long as the school does not scholarship the kid then let'em play.

I have problems with the public schools who recruit kids away from other public schools. Strictly forbidden by the UIL (no matter if there is freedom of choice in the district) The UIL specifically requires a feeder system in place that restricts other coaches from recruiting kids who are not at their own feeder school.

Apparantly the coaches aren't good enough to rely on their on teaching abilities and feel the need to cheat. The ones who do that will never win the big one in the first place.

Now, there is the topwater bait! Jump on it! Let's hook'em and reel them in. Come on in. Where a-a-a-r-r-r-r-e-e- yo-u-u-u-u-u-? Do I have to call you out by name? I bet ole' Roughy could.I can't stand the suspense! No one will fess up... Who is it?

[dragonsdaddy]

So there you have it... SLC's coaches are smarter than other coaches and their kids work harder... THAT is why they succeed where others don't...
the results speak loudly enough for all concerned.

[Drake]

Read this somewhere... Thought it appropriate to post at this point:

Those to whom much has been given sometimes suffer from arrogance; or rather the people around them suffer. Arrogance is doubly a pity, because the talents of the arrogant serve primarily themselves. The arrogant assumes his views and opinions are The Truth. In arrogance, natural confidence goes sadly awry. Rather than the self-assurance born of knowing his own strengths and limitations, arrogance admits no limits. The arrogant brooks no weakness in himself and may even secretly rejoice to find flaws in others. But imperfections are inherent in being human, so the arrogant, like everyone else, always has feet of clay, however well hidden they may be. Fearing exposure, haughtiness forms a hard shell masking inner emptiness.

[Tut]

Tut - Very well stated and reasonable...

Not clear on one point though; How do you conclude that once a student enters a private school, they should be automatically forced to give up the right to any state-sponsored educational opportunities? Can you give examples where that is applied in practice or where courts have concluded that this is justified? Or is that just your opinion about the way it SHOULD be?
What I mean is UIL activities. My opinion is that UIL should be for public schools. However, the Jesuit schools are in. We'll see who follows, as the box has been opened.

[dragonsdaddy]

Read this somewhere... Thought it appropriate to post at this point:

Those to whom much has been given sometimes suffer from arrogance; or rather the people around them suffer. Arrogance is doubly a pity, because the talents of the arrogant serve primarily themselves. The arrogant assumes his views and opinions are The Truth. In arrogance, natural confidence goes sadly awry. Rather than the self-assurance born of knowing his own strengths and limitations, arrogance admits no limits. The arrogant brooks no weakness in himself and may even secretly rejoice to find flaws in others. But imperfections are inherent in being human, so the arrogant, like everyone else, always has feet of clay, however well hidden they may be. Fearing exposure, haughtiness forms a hard shell masking inner emptiness.
i agree completely. if and when the coaches and players at any successful program begin to believe the hype, their championship days are numbered.

[gwdaddy]

So there you have it... SLC's coaches are smarter than other coaches and their kids work harder... THAT is why they succeed where others don't...

You can reverse that and still be telling the truth--we are blessed with some very bright kids at Carroll, and the coaches work their tails off (both their own and the players).

[drgnbkr]

Read this somewhere... Thought it appropriate to post at this point:

Those to whom much has been given sometimes suffer from arrogance; or rather the people around them suffer. Arrogance is doubly a pity, because the talents of the arrogant serve primarily themselves. The arrogant assumes his views and opinions are The Truth. In arrogance, natural confidence goes sadly awry. Rather than the self-assurance born of knowing his own strengths and limitations, arrogance admits no limits. The arrogant brooks no weakness in himself and may even secretly rejoice to find flaws in others. But imperfections are inherent in being human, so the arrogant, like everyone else, always has feet of clay, however well hidden they may be. Fearing exposure, haughtiness forms a hard shell masking inner emptiness.
Arrogance, the word, has been thrown around here for a long time..your point is nothing new or revealing...if you have anything relevant to add, bring it...this thread has been mostly a discussion between you & yourself. It is quite clear that you are very defensive about the privates being allowed, through court order, into the UIL...

[Drake]

Arrogance, the word, has been thrown around here for a long time..your point is nothing new or revealing...if you have anything relevant to add, bring it...this thread has been mostly a discussion between you & yourself. It is quite clear that you are very defensive about the privates being allowed, through court order, into the UIL...What court order? At least get the facts straight... The UIL fought the suit by DJ for three years and finally settled when it appeared the 5th Circuit MIGHT rule in DJ's favor... At the time of the settlement the Jesuit school's agreed to special provisions, like having to play top classification and out of zone transfers sitting out a year. THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER. Your ARROGANCE causes you to believe your ASSUMPTIONS are always correct! And I wouldn't have to be so defensive or talk to myself so much if talking to you ever elicited any information that could be relied upon as sensible or accurate! So PUT THAT in your pipe and smoke it! :D

[CCHS77]

So you're saying that your coaches are smarter, work harder and your players work harder than all the other schools that don't win state championships?


RE: The above

SD,

Not wanting to assume we know the answer from the many posts you have since you brought up the p/p issue. what's your explaination?

[dragonsdaddy]

What court order? At least get the facts straight... The UIL fought the suit by DJ for three years and finally settled when it appeared the 5th Circuit MIGHT rule in DJ's favor... At the time of the settlement the Jesuit school's agreed to special provisions, like having to play top classification and out of zone transfers sitting out a year. THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER. Your ARROGANCE causes you to believe your ASSUMPTIONS are always correct! And I wouldn't have to be so defensive or talk to myself so much if talking to you ever elicited any information that could be relied upon as sensible or accurate! So PUT THAT in your pipe and smoke it! :D
your assumptions are haunting us all. talk about arrogance. have you met the man? have you any training in the field of psychology giving you some esp by which you make this assumption? i somehow sense that your kettle and your pot may be equally blackened.

[dragonsdaddy]

RE: The above

SD,

Not wanting to assume we know the answer from the many posts you have since you brought up the p/p issue. what's your explaination?
sorry cchs, sd is more prone to ask questions than answer them. i have asked numerous, and have yet to get anything like an answer.

[Drake]

RE: The above

SD,

Not wanting to assume we know the answer from the many posts you have since you brought up the p/p issue. what's your explaination?I don't have an explanation... BUT, if I were lucky enough to be part of, or even just a fan of a high school football program that has been as successful as SLC, or Katy, or some of the others, I don't see myself EVER PRESUMING, let alone BOASTING that it was because my team is more virtuous, or that our coaches are more competent, than others I compete with across the state... ESPECIALLY when my program has so many built in advantages in other areas... To do so is ARROGANT, whether the boasts are accurate or not.

[Drake]

your assumptions are haunting us all. talk about arrogance. have you met the man? have you any training in the field of psychology giving you some esp by which you make this assumption? i somehow sense that your kettle and your pot may be equally blackened.I don't know what this means... What assumption? And why are you talking like Yoda? ;)

[dragonsdaddy]

I don't have an explanation... BUT, if I were lucky enough to be part of, or even just a fan of a high school football program that has been as successful as SLC, or Katy, or some of the others, I don't see myself EVER PRESUMING, let alone BOASTING that it was because my team is more virtuous, or that our coaches are more competent, than others I compete with across the state... ESPECIALLY when my program has so many built in advantages in other areas... To do so is ARROGANT, whether it's true or not.
i get the idea that you assume slc has so many advantages due to our wealth and facilities, that we win without having the hardest working kids and coaches. your frequent citing of nebulous complaints or vague misrepresentations as to dynastic programs tends to make me believe you can't accept hard work and dedication as a recipe for success. you seem to believe that kt and slc and lp and coju and sv etal are simply very fortunate to repeatedly play in december po games. i hope the sj kids and parents don't all take the "don't blame me" attitude you seem to exude. i guess in one sense you are right about the dynasties. it is their fault as they generally out-work, out-prepare, and out-perform their opponents. so if you choose to accept the idea that the consistent winners have something unreachable that makes them so, accept mediocrity too.

[Drake]

By the way... I once thought I might have ESP so I sent $5 away for this newsletter for people that have it... After checking the mail for months and not receiving it, I called... They told they'd been sending it every month since receiving my $5... telepathically :(

[Drake]

i get the idea that you assume slc has so many advantages due to our wealth and facilities, that we win without having the hardest working kids and coaches. your frequent citing of nebulous complaints or vague misrepresentations as to dynastic programs tends to make me believe you can't accept hard work and dedication as a recipe for success. you seem to believe that kt and slc and lp and coju and sv etal are simply very fortunate to repeatedly play in december po games. i hope the sj kids and parents don't all take the "don't blame me" attitude you seem to exude. i guess in one sense you are right about the dynasties. it is their fault as they generally out-work, out-prepare, and out-perform their opponents. so if you choose to accept the idea that the consistent winners have something unreachable that makes them so, accept mediocrity too.Wow... I'm speechless... Like Tom Cruise was after he got Jack Nicholson to SAY IT at the end of "A Few Good Men"...

[CCHS77]

Wow... I'm speechless...


If only it were true.

[farmerfan]

Strake

You have not adressed a issue I brought up a few pages back.
If DJ felt they could not get enough competition in TAPPS or that they were to big to join, then why is it that DJ sent 5 players to play in the DFW Tom Hillary All Star classic for private schools back in December? So TAPPS as a league is not good enough to join becauyse of the competition, but they still play in a all-star game that consists of nothing but private school kids from all over DFW. Maybe the players from public school can sue the all-star game since they are being discriminated against by not getting to play in this game.

[Roughrider]

I can't stand the suspense! No one will fess up... Who is it?


Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! You would have to be talkin' about he Ollies:D They seem to be better at it than some college coaches:eek:

[drgnbkr]

What court order? At least get the facts straight... The UIL fought the suit by DJ for three years and finally settled when it appeared the 5th Circuit MIGHT rule in DJ's favor... At the time of the settlement the Jesuit school's agreed to special provisions, like having to play top classification and out of zone transfers sitting out a year. THERE WAS NO COURT ORDER. Your ARROGANCE causes you to believe your ASSUMPTIONS are always correct! And I wouldn't have to be so defensive or talk to myself so much if talking to you ever elicited any information that could be relied upon as sensible or accurate! So PUT THAT in your pipe and smoke it! :D

Cough..Cough..I'm a non-smoker but you seem to be smokin pretty good...Why let a few facts get in the way of a good story....without the courts involvement, there would be no private school in the UIL, and everyone would be playing by the same rules...

[Fleeman93]

I am starting accept the fact that privates are in because I really believe that the second the UIL allowed them in there was turning back. What I want to look at now is a resolution to the problem at hand which is an uneven playing field. All of us that have unbiased opinions on the matter realize that if things are left the way they are then TX become what every other state that has allowed privates and publics to mix and that is a private dominated system. So what can the UIL do to resolve this problem they have created? Here are a couple of my ideas:

1. Create a new classification for the privates. All private schools regardless of size will fall into that class. The new structure would look like this:

5A
4A
3A
2A
1A - 11man
1A - 6man
a - Private

The privates would be allowed to play any team in any classification for a regular season game. As of now, with only two private teams in the league, there would be one playoff game for the state title.


2. Since rules were "altered" or "sidestepped" to get the privates into the league then I don't see why the UIL couldn't create a rule that says if it is determined that a school does not meet current UIL requirements (such as, you must have a girl's sport for every boy's sport) then that school may not be eligible for any district championships or playoffs. This rule adaptation would give the privates what they want in that they could compete in UIL which is what the main issue is.


So what does everyone think?

[AHS Mustangs]

I am starting accept the fact that privates are in because I really believe that the second the UIL allowed them in there was turning back. What I want to look at now is a resolution to the problem at hand which is an uneven playing field. All of us that have unbiased opinions on the matter realize that if things are left the way they are then TX become what every other state that has allowed privates and publics to mix and that is a private dominated system. So what can the UIL do to resolve this problem they have created? Here are a couple of my ideas:

1. Create a new classification for the privates. All private schools regardless of size will fall into that class. The new structure would look like this:

5A
4A
3A
2A
1A - 11man
1A - 6man
a - Private

The privates would be allowed to play any team in any classification for a regular season game. As of now, with only two private teams in the league, there would be one playoff game for the state title.


2. Since rules were "altered" or "sidestepped" to get the privates into the league then I don't see why the UIL couldn't create a rule that says if it is determined that a school does not meet current UIL requirements (such as, you must have a girl's sport for every boy's sport) then that school may not be eligible for any district championships or playoffs. This rule adaptation would give the privates what they want in that they could compete in UIL which is what the main issue is.


So what does everyone think?


The only problem is you have schools like St Thomas or St Agnes(*sp) that are all one gender. They would be screwed to join this league because they don't have boys and girls sports, thus they could be the best team in the state at their sport, but they won't win anything. What would the school gain from that?

[Drake]

Strake

You have not adressed a issue I brought up a few pages back.
If DJ felt they could not get enough competition in TAPPS or that they were to big to join, then why is it that DJ sent 5 players to play in the DFW Tom Hillary All Star classic for private schools back in December? So TAPPS as a league is not good enough to join becauyse of the competition, but they still play in a all-star game that consists of nothing but private school kids from all over DFW. Maybe the players from public school can sue the all-star game since they are being discriminated against by not getting to play in this game.I missed that, but I couldn't have responded because I don't know anything about that anyway. (I know, hasn't stopped me before :o )

To comply with the amended rules of the UIL, a private school must show there is no private league comparable to what the UIL competition offers, so I assume it was determined that there isn't. Also, i was under the impression that TAPPS didn't invite the Jesuits when the league was formed.

In general, I do believe if you feel you've been harmed or discriminated against the courts are one alternative or avenue for you... Who do you know that wants in that game?

[farmerfan]

The only problem is you have schools like St Thomas or St Agnes(*sp) that are all one gender. They would be screwed to join this league because they don't have boys and girls sports, thus they could be the best team in the state at their sport, but they won't win anything. What would the school gain from that?


Well isn't that discriminatory? What if a girl dosent want to attend Ursaline or Hockaday, why can't she get into DJ? seems like that could be very harmful to the girl in the near future, I see another lawsuit coming up.

[Fleeman93]

Very good point, but just don't mix the two rules. If you create a private classification under rule one then they can do as they please. If you go with rule two then they would have the option to compete in UIL athletics but would not have the option to compete in any playoff system. If a private school does not like the idea of being able to compete in the current UIL playoff systems then they probably shouldn't chose to join UIL. You have to keep in mind that the privates only wanted the opportunity to compete in UIL athletics and I have not once heard that they wanted the opportunity to win state championships.

[farmerfan]

I missed that, but I couldn't have responded because I don't know anything about that anyway. (I know, hasn't stopped me before :o )

To comply with the amended rules of the UIL, a private school must show there is no private league comparable to what the UIL competition offers, so I assume it was determined that there isn't. Also, i was under the impression that TAPPS didn't invite the Jesuits when the league was formed.

In general, I do believe if you feel you've been harmed or discriminated against the courts are one alternative or avenue for you... Who do you know that wants in that game?


I dont know anyone who wants in, but Im just saying since members of a UIL school get to play in a allstar game not but 4 weeks after their season is over the same standard should apply to all kids who play in the UIL who had their season ended before this game.

[dragonfootballfan]

I dont know anyone who wants in, but Im just saying since members of a UIL school get to play in a allstar game not but 4 weeks after their season is over the same standard should apply to all kids who play in the UIL who had their season ended before this game.
those players were invited by the all star selection committee. The committee can choose anybody that they want, so I think that they could just say that it was not limited to just private school participants, but that was all that got invited.

[farmerfan]

those players were invited by the all star selection committee. The committee can choose anybody that they want, so I think that they could just say that it was not limited to just private school participants, but that was all that got invited.


Kind of like the UIL, when it is open for all individuals who live in the state of Texas. Why does their event get to exclude public school kids but allow one UIL school to play but not the rest in the metroplex?

As far as it being a private school thing, trust me they would never invite a public school kid to play in that game, which would be fine, but by doping that they need to no longer include Jesuit. It just cracks me up when TAPPS as a league is not good enough for Jesuit, but the all star game is.

[Drake]

There is a concept that these latest posts seem to be forgetting;

The UIL is a publicly funded entity, therefore, they cannot make rules that are discriminatory or create inequities in educational opportunities, even against kids that attend private schools, without violating the Constitution... At least that's what the UIL was convinced of when it decided to amend its rules...

Private schools are not publicly funded, so they can pray in school, limit enrollment, test for admittance, and choose to be single gender institutions without violating the Constitution...

We're going 'round and 'round about stuff thats already settled... If you READ the UIL rules you'll see that the rules are such that it's unlikely any other private schools will petition for inclusion and it's my feeling the Jesuit schools are so thrilled to be part of UIL that they won't allow any of the things you are so worried about to ever be a realization.

[dragonsdaddy]

as we have seen conclusively, uil rules are made to be litigated against, and thus are like the liberals would have us believe the constitution is, a living document. nothing is set in stone.

[farmerfan]

There is a concept that these latest posts seem to be forgetting;

The UIL is a publicly funded entity, therefore, they cannot make rules that are discriminatory or create inequities in educational opportunities, even against kids that attend private schools, without violating the Constitution... At least that's what the UIL was convinced of when it decided to amend its rules...

Private schools are not publicly funded, so they can pray in school, limit enrollment, test for admittance, and choose to be single gender institutions without violating the Constitution...
We're going 'round and 'round about stuff thats already settled... If you READ the UIL rules you'll see that the rules are such that it's unlikely any other private schools will petition for inclusion and it's my feeling the Jesuit schools are so thrilled to be part of UIL that they won't allow any of the things you are so worried about to ever be a realization.

Thus giving it a unfair advantage not present in public schools and also being discriminatory against girls who wish to attend Jesuit because she doesnt want to go to Ursaline. What is the difference in that and saying I dont want to go to Lake Highlands I want to go to Jesuit but still be able to play in the UIL?
I would think since it is joining a publicly funded league it should have to give up it's status of single gender and privately financed or else it is not a level playing field with the rest of its competition.

[gburgtiger]

Very good point, but just don't mix the two rules. If you create a private classification under rule one then they can do as they please. If you go with rule two then they would have the option to compete in UIL athletics but would not have the option to compete in any playoff system. If a private school does not like the idea of being able to compete in the current UIL playoff systems then they probably shouldn't chose to join UIL. You have to keep in mind that the privates only wanted the opportunity to compete in UIL athletics and I have not once heard that they wanted the opportunity to win state championships.


not only that...but what if the UIL made them forfeit all the games they use inelligible players in which would mean every game. then SJ and DJ wouldn't have a problem scheduling games...everyone would want the "w" in the win column win or lose. They would still get what they petitioned for...inclusion in the UIL and they would be playing by the same rules everyone else plays by.

[Amused]

Not very good Fleeman. All you did was "wash" your hands of the privates. You accomplished nothing else.

So are you saying a Strake Jesuit of 850 boys would be forced to play against, say, Faith West of 100-200 boys (not sure of their enrollment)?

Just curious as to your thought process.

[dragonfootballfan]

not only that...but what if the UIL made them forfeit all the games they use inelligible players in which would mean every game. then SJ and DJ wouldn't have a problem scheduling games...everyone would want the "w" in the win column win or lose. They would still get what they petitioned for...inclusion in the UIL and they would be playing by the same rules everyone else plays by.
why would they have to forfeit. They could just say that their attendance zone is the entire state of Texas.

[gburgtiger]

There is a concept that these latest posts seem to be forgetting;

The UIL is a publicly funded entity, therefore, they cannot make rules that are discriminatory or create inequities in educational opportunities, even against kids that attend private schools, without violating the Constitution... At least that's what the UIL was convinced of when it decided to amend its rules...

Private schools are not publicly funded, so they can pray in school, limit enrollment, test for admittance, and choose to be single gender institutions without violating the Constitution...

We're going 'round and 'round about stuff thats already settled... If you READ the UIL rules you'll see that the rules are such that it's unlikely any other private schools will petition for inclusion and it's my feeling the Jesuit schools are so thrilled to be part of UIL that they won't allow any of the things you are so worried about to ever be a realization.

For now...but that wears off when you've been playing for a while and don't have a trophy. then it becomes a drive for the trophy...then what??

[gburgtiger]

why would they have to forfeit. They could just say that their attendance zone is the entire state of Texas.

If the UIL leveled the playing field by restricting SJ to HISD's attendance zone or something comparable...so that the rules are the same for everyone.

[Amused]

My opinion of quality, seriousness, and intelligence of the comments on this board varies. My opinion right now is at an all time low. Many comments I am reading in this particular thread are alsolute nonsense and foolishness and I don't think some of you guys believe the statements that you write. Your obvious goal is just to stir up bad feelings.

[gburgtiger]

My opinion of quality, seriousness, and intelligence of the comments on this board varies. My opinion right now is at an all time low. Many comments I am reading in this particular thread are alsolute nonsense and foolishness and I don't think some of you guys believe the statements that you write. Your obvious goal is just to stir up bad feelings.


My opinion of the jesuit community (based on the posters comments in this thread) have moved even furthur to the side of "I am always right and you're stupid for having a different opinion!" it seems to be the SJ and DJ supports against everyone else. I guess everyone is wrong and you alone are right?

[gburgtiger]

one thing I do know is that 220 posts into this and no one has changed their stance so to me this is all trivial anyway...I enjoy the discussion, but do you really think you are going to win...I know I'm not going to win. it either ends in a draw when everyone gets bored or goes on forever.

[Drake]

Why don't we all wait and see what happens. In my opinion the stakeholders at Strake Jesuit are more concerned with maintaining its' academic reputation, and good standing with the UIL, than they are with winning football championships in Texas 5A. Why? Because the first two are much more crucial to attracting the kind of students Strake Jesuit is looking for.

[gburgtiger]

Why don't we all wait and see what happens. In my opinion the stakeholders at Strake Jesuit are more concerned with maintaining its' academic reputation, and good standing with the UIL, than they are with winning football championships in Texas 5A. Why? Because the first two are much more crucial to attracting the kind of students Strake Jesuit is looking for.

Then why petition to be in the UIL? real answers not "wouldn't you?" stuff

[dragonfootballfan]

Then why petition to be in the UIL? real answers not "wouldn't you?" stuff
he said that they want to be in the UIL in order to attract kids to the school.

[The Lone Ranger]

For those asking why Dallas Jesuit had 5 players in the Tom Hillary Private School All Star Game, the answers can be found here:

http://p212.ezboard.com/fprivateschoolfootball2000frm17.showMessage?topicI D=1547.topic

JCP's Coach Wunderlick actually has stopped organizing the game because the UIL asked him to. We have UIL permission for our players to play.

So stop complaining--we STILL haven't broken any rules.

I know it's surprising...

[Drake]

one thing I do know is that 220 posts into this and no one has changed their stance so to me this is all trivial anyway...I enjoy the discussion, but do you really think you are going to win...I know I'm not going to win. it either ends in a draw when everyone gets bored or goes on forever.Just a debate that's actually moot because the issue has been settled... Some never accept things that don't go as they had hoped... Remember the chads and recounts? Only residual from these long circular give and takes are that I believe there are some open-minded people that just read whats posted and if thats the case, perhaps getting the truth out there will ease some of the biases... Who knows?

[The Lone Ranger]

Thus giving it a unfair advantage not present in public schools and also being discriminatory against girls who wish to attend Jesuit because she doesnt want to go to Ursaline. What is the difference in that and saying I dont want to go to Lake Highlands I want to go to Jesuit but still be able to play in the UIL?
I would think since it is joining a publicly funded league it should have to give up it's status of single gender and privately financed or else it is not a level playing field with the rest of its competition.

I have never heard of a girl being rejected by our school...to the best of my knowledge, no female has ever applied for admissions. If you'd like to know more, please contact Mr. Tim Host, our admissions director.

It isn't discriminatory against girls because they have equal options offered by the Ursuline sisters. The Jesuits run the school for young men.

The Diocese of Dallas wouldn't allow Jesuit to admit girls for one reason: it would take girls away from the Diocesan schools BL, BD, and JPII.

However, if you know of any young ladies in the 8th grade, encourage them to apply for admission. I'm sure your legal challenge would be laughed out of the courtroom, but go ahead.

[The Lone Ranger]

he said that they want to be in the UIL in order to attract kids to the school.

No, that's not why our schools want to be in the UIL. We wanted to be in the UIL to actually have a league to compete in.

Do you realize how hard it was for our athletic staff to fill out schedules once UIL district play started? Nearly impossible. Our football team played schools from El Paso, Kansas City, and Monterey, Mexico.

It has nothing to do with admissions...if the UIL is the only thing drawing the kid to Jesuit, then the school won't be a great fit for him--and the school wouldn't admit him.

[dragonfootballfan]

No, that's not why our schools want to be in the UIL. We wanted to be in the UIL to actually have a league to compete in.

Do you realize how hard it was for our athletic staff to fill out schedules once UIL district play started? Nearly impossible. Our football team played schools from El Paso, Kansas City, and Monterey, Mexico.

It has nothing to do with admissions...if the UIL is the only thing drawing the kid to Jesuit, then the school won't be a great fit for him--and the school wouldn't admit him.
I am just going by what StrakeDrake posted. It would probably become easier for Jesuit to schedule games now that there are probably going to be a lot more 7 team districts in the new realignment.

[Drake]

No, that's not why our schools want to be in the UIL. We wanted to be in the UIL to actually have a league to compete in.

Do you realize how hard it was for our athletic staff to fill out schedules once UIL district play started? Nearly impossible. Our football team played schools from El Paso, Kansas City, and Monterey, Mexico.

It has nothing to do with admissions...if the UIL is the only thing drawing the kid to Jesuit, then the school won't be a great fit for him--and the school wouldn't admit him.You are right ranger, this is a big reason that i omitted... But I also believe that academically qualified students apply to the school(s) and then refuse acceptance because they have athletic abilities and goals that the school(s) couldn't help them meet without being in a league like UIL...

[dragonsdaddy]

he said that they want to be in the UIL in order to attract kids to the school.
it is obvious to all that more students will be attracted to the privates after uil admission than before. i wonder if the potential ball players are told that they should be satisfied with just competing, and that expecting to win is not what they are after? do the coaches have a post game conciliatory speech written for them? i have heard several great coaches pregame talks, and never have they approached it the way i've been hearing the jesuit reps on here. it certainly takes lots of pressure off all concerned when to simply compete is good enough. i heard some of these same weaknesses brought up when the 2 school losers were expounding before the cisd 4 years ago.

i feel certain that the above scenario isn't happening and i am equally sure the coaches and officials at both jesuits are beating a path to every eligible and qualified 8th and ninth grade ball player with significantly above average ability, extolling the virtues and values of a preparatory education, and the chance to be the one that kicks the doors down. if they aren't, they need to be fired, and replaced by someone who will.

[The Lone Ranger]

I am starting accept the fact that privates are in because I really believe that the second the UIL allowed them in there was turning back. What I want to look at now is a resolution to the problem at hand which is an uneven playing field. All of us that have unbiased opinions on the matter realize that if things are left the way they are then TX become what every other state that has allowed privates and publics to mix and that is a private dominated system. So what can the UIL do to resolve this problem they have created? Here are a couple of my ideas:

1. Create a new classification for the privates. All private schools regardless of size will fall into that class. The new structure would look like this:

5A
4A
3A
2A
1A - 11man
1A - 6man
a - Private

The privates would be allowed to play any team in any classification for a regular season game. As of now, with only two private teams in the league, there would be one playoff game for the state title.


2. Since rules were "altered" or "sidestepped" to get the privates into the league then I don't see why the UIL couldn't create a rule that says if it is determined that a school does not meet current UIL requirements (such as, you must have a girl's sport for every boy's sport) then that school may not be eligible for any district championships or playoffs. This rule adaptation would give the privates what they want in that they could compete in UIL which is what the main issue is.


So what does everyone think?

For idea 2, it wouldn't work. Jesuit would just offer the sports, and not have any students play them. If no female wants to play on our women's soccer team, then we couldn't be punished.

For idea 1, that would cause an uneven playing field. Should Podunk Christian Community School with 34 students in the K-12 population really have to compete against Metropolis West Central Catholic Preparatory Academy with 1000 boys in 9-12? I don't think that's fair.

However, the idea 1 was really what Jesuit proposed in 1997. We suggested being placed in UIL districts so that we could schedule games, but then having a seperate playoff series with the 4 remaining TCIL teams for the state championship. The UIL said no.

[Drake]

dragondaddy - I didn't say they wouldn't try to win, I just said their priorities would keep them from allowing coaches to circumvent the spirit of the agreement with the UIL...

Are you trying to be obstinate?

[drgnbkr]

dragondaddy - I didn't say they wouldn't try to win, I just said their priorities would keep them from allowing coaches to circumvent the spirit of the agreement with the UIL...

Are you trying to be obstinate?

Determined is a better word.....:rolleyes:

[The Lone Ranger]

I missed that, but I couldn't have responded because I don't know anything about that anyway. (I know, hasn't stopped me before :o )

To comply with the amended rules of the UIL, a private school must show there is no private league comparable to what the UIL competition offers, so I assume it was determined that there isn't. Also, i was under the impression that TAPPS didn't invite the Jesuits when the league was formed.

In general, I do believe if you feel you've been harmed or discriminated against the courts are one alternative or avenue for you... Who do you know that wants in that game?

TAPPS was formed in 1973 by the head coach of St. Pius X High School in Houston. I believe his team was elevated a classification in the TCIL, and didn't want to play up, so he took his team independent. A few independent schools banded together to have a playoff series. It began to expand and eventually all but 4 all-boys schools were in TAPPS (excluding the SPC schools). 2 of them moved into TAPPS. The other two (the Jesuit schools) were refused entry because they were simply too large.

Jesuit took our case to court against the UIL, and when the UIL saw that Jesuit had a decent chance of winning, they allowed us in. They also established the rule that the school must not be eligible for enrollment in any private school league. Jesuit is 2x as large as the biggest TAPPS school and 3x as large as the biggest in the SPC, so we qualify under the rule. Unless TAPPS decides to start kicking existing schools out, there won't be any problem with schools trying to get in (I've never heard of a private school starting with 1600 students).

The only time there will be a problem with other privates trying to join is if and when TAPPS disbands.

[The Lone Ranger]

Well isn't that discriminatory? What if a girl dosent want to attend Ursaline or Hockaday, why can't she get into DJ? seems like that could be very harmful to the girl in the near future, I see another lawsuit coming up.

Like I said, no girl has ever applied.

We'll tackle that when it happens.

[dragonsdaddy]

dragondaddy - I didn't say they wouldn't try to win, I just said their priorities would keep them from allowing coaches to circumvent the spirit of the agreement with the UIL...

Are you trying to be obstinate?
not doing everything within the regs to win is not trying to win. the kids are plenty smart enough to know when adults are being duplicitous. they know when they are given everything necessary to be successful, and when they aren't. coaches that aren't trying to put the best team on the field ought to be fired. the rules allow both sj and dj to recruit 8th graders using the attributes i mentioned, just like dodge can go to carroll middle school and try to get a soccer player to come out for fg kicker, or a high jumper to play wr.

[dragonsdaddy]

TAPPS was formed in 1973 by the head coach of St. Pius X High School in Houston. I believe his team was elevated a classification in the TCIL, and didn't want to play up, so he took his team independent. A few independent schools banded together to have a playoff series. It began to expand and eventually all but 4 all-boys schools were in TAPPS (excluding the SPC schools). 2 of them moved into TAPPS. The other two (the Jesuit schools) were refused entry because they were simply too large.

Jesuit took our case to court against the UIL, and when the UIL saw that Jesuit had a decent chance of winning, they allowed us in. They also established the rule that the school must not be eligible for enrollment in any private school league. Jesuit is 2x as large as the biggest TAPPS school and 3x as large as the biggest in the SPC, so we qualify under the rule. Unless TAPPS decides to start kicking existing schools out, there won't be any problem with schools trying to get in (I've never heard of a private school starting with 1600 students).

The only time there will be a problem with other privates trying to join is if and when TAPPS disbands.
is that such a wildly unbelieveable scenario? were tapps to have several members decide they were ready to litigate their way into the uil, and not just into 5a, then disbanding is a done deal. or the league rules could be rewritten so as to disqualify some schools from entry.

[Drake]

is that such a wildly unbelieveable scenario? were tapps to have several members decide they were ready to litigate their way into the uil, and not just into 5a, then disbanding is a done deal. or the league rules could be rewritten so as to disqualify some schools from entry.Well, thats the reason the clause that says they have to play 5A is in their... I doubt Faith West will enjoy 5A very long.... (for example)

[The Lone Ranger]

The biggest new private school that I know of in recent history is Pope John Paul II High School in Plano. They have 300 kids in grades 9-11 right now.

2 current TAPPS members have enrollments of over the TAPPS cap of 1600: Houston St. Agnes and Dallas Ursuline (the sister schools of Strake and Dalls Jesuit, respectively). They've been this way for the last 2 or 3 TAPPS alignments. TAPPS doesn't look like they're going to kick them out.

The only way it could happen is if several schools gained control of TAPPS and decided to disband to purposefully enter the UIL.

I really can't see it happening. It would take several schools to do so, and very few schools strike me as the kind that might do so.

[dragonsdaddy]

Well, thats the reason the clause that says they have to play 5A is in their... I doubt Faith West will enjoy 5A very long.... (for example)
the 5a exclusion is ripe for litigating into obscurity. it was a face -saving reg, not without its weakness in courtrooms. will go away at the first challenge.

[The Lone Ranger]

not doing everything within the regs to win is not trying to win. the kids are plenty smart enough to know when adults are being duplicitous. they know when they are given everything necessary to be successful, and when they aren't. coaches that aren't trying to put the best team on the field ought to be fired. the rules allow both sj and dj to recruit 8th graders using the attributes i mentioned, just like dodge can go to carroll middle school and try to get a soccer player to come out for fg kicker, or a high jumper to play wr.

Dodge is encouraging a student in his feeder zone to play football. I think that might be borderline on illegal.

Jesuit's coaches can't do that. We don't have middle schools. We can't contact athletes in any way until they are admitted, or we're recruiting. Coach Wunderlick doesn't know who is going to play football until incoming freshmen return their course selection sheets in April or May. There is a rule against freshmen being on the varsity. Only one freshman has played on JV in recent times. The rest play on the freshman teams, which do very well. However, our Varsity/JV coaches really don't pay much attention to the freshmen.

There is an obvious double standard in the recruiting business. But there is a huge system of checks and balances. For every advantage you say private schools have, I can easily tell you of an advantage a public school has.

[dragonfootballfan]

Dodge is encouraging a student in his feeder zone to play football. I think that might be borderline on illegal.Is it also ilegal for a teacher to encourage a kid to join the UIL academic team because he/she is good at math?

Jesuit's coaches can't do that. We don't have middle schools. We can't contact athletes in any way until they are admitted, or we're recruiting. Coach Wunderlick doesn't know who is going to play football until incoming freshmen return their course selection sheets in April or May. There is a rule against freshmen being on the varsity. Only one freshman has played on JV in recent times. The rest play on the freshman teams, which do very well. However, our Varsity/JV coaches really don't pay much attention to the freshmen.
So the coaches could not find the best jr high football players and then have the school add them to some sort of mailing list where they are mailed information of the quality and value of a Jesuit education?

There is an obvious double standard in the recruiting business. But there is a huge system of checks and balances. For every advantage you say private schools have, I can easily tell you of an advantage a public school has.
That is why they should not be playing each other, because each has different distinct rules that they have to follow.

[The Lone Ranger]

My opinion of the jesuit community (based on the posters comments in this thread) have moved even furthur to the side of "I am always right and you're stupid for having a different opinion!" it seems to be the SJ and DJ supports against everyone else. I guess everyone is wrong and you alone are right?

Actually, if you read the first 220 posts, many people have said that they are fine with the Jesuit schools being in the UIL.

Many are afraid of the doors that they think it will open to other private schools (Arlington Grace Prep was mentioned most often).

I don't think that you are stupid for having a different opinion. You are free to think that the Jesuit schools shouldn't be in the UIL.

However, you are not free to slander my school. We do NOT recruit, have never recruited, and have never been reported to the UIL for recruiting. Jesuit has never been forced to forefit games for playing ANY inelligible players. I can think of at least 3 public high schools who have (Katy, Mesquite Horn, and Galveston Ball).

I feel that you are welcome to any opinion you want. I'm also free to have my own opinion. Many public school supporters (including yourself, as I can tell from your post) seem to accuse the Jesuit schools of cheating. Where's your evidence? Because otherwise, it's slander, and I don't appreciate it.

Eloquentia Perfecta at it's finest...and I'm just 3/8 of the way through the finest education offered in the world...a Jesuit education.

[The Lone Ranger]

Is it also ilegal for a teacher to encourage a kid to join the UIL academic team because he/she is good at math?

If the student is a high school student, there is no problem. I don't think that high school coaches could go for the middle school students, though.

So the coaches could not find the best jr high football players and then have the school add them to some sort of mailing list where they are mailed information of the quality and value of a Jesuit education?

No. Jesuit doesn't do mailers. They go to public school "High School Nights" and offer public school Preview Days. However, the middle school student is the one who makes first contact.

That is why they should not be playing each other, because each has different distinct rules that they have to follow.
No, it just shows that neither has an advantage. There's a perfectly level playing field. So why SHOULDN'T they play each other.

Besides, you're from CARROLL. Why do you care? Carroll is good at every sport. They really don't have any challenge from private schools. So why does it bother you so much?

[farmerfan]

No, that's not why our schools want to be in the UIL. We wanted to be in the UIL to actually have a league to compete in.Do you realize how hard it was for our athletic staff to fill out schedules once UIL district play started? Nearly impossible. Our football team played schools from El Paso, Kansas City, and Monterey, Mexico.

It has nothing to do with admissions...if the UIL is the only thing drawing the kid to Jesuit, then the school won't be a great fit for him--and the school wouldn't admit him.


So you are saying it was all about athletics.

You also act like those kids never had a option to play in the UIL, last time I checked every single kid had the luxury to play in the UIL, Jesuit just thought they were to good and could change the rules. Once again a great and valuable lesson to teach the kids of that school, we will get what we want even though we already gave up that option when we enrolled you in JCP.

[farmerfan]

Besides, you're from CARROLL. Why do you care? Carroll is good at every sport. They really don't have any challenge from private schools. So why does it bother you so much?


That could change with the growth of Grapevine Faith the and location of Liberty from Denton to Argyle.

[yankee]

Besides, you're from CARROLL. Why do you care? Carroll is good at every sport. They really don't have any challenge from private schools. So why does it bother you so much?
Last time i checked, our basketball team wasnt doing so well..

[dragonfootballfan]

farmerfan,

what number post was that quote on? I am looking for it, but just can't find it. I want to quote it so that I can go on another rant about how bad the basketball coach is at carroll.

nevermind I found it. It is hard to read posts when people post back to back. I know that I am guilty of this now.

[dragonfootballfan]

Besides, you're from CARROLL. Why do you care? Carroll is good at every sport. They really don't have any challenge from private schools. So why does it bother you so much?
Carroll is far from good at every sport. Their basketball team is one of the worst that I have ever seen at the varsity 5A level. In two games that I have seen they scored 4 points and two points in the first quarter of each game.

[dragonfootballfan]

If the student is a high school student, there is no problem. I don't think that high school coaches could go for the middle school students, though. It is the coaches duty to get the best kids to play football, and it is their responsibility to make sure that every kid excels. If a coach thinks that one kid would be good at football or any other sport it is that coaches duty to encourage them to participate.

No. Jesuit doesn't do mailers. They go to public school "High School Nights" and offer public school Preview Days. However, the middle school student is the one who makes first contact.
So they would not make sure that they visit certain schools and make sure that they meet certain kids?

No, it just shows that neither has an advantage. There's a perfectly level playing field. So why SHOULDN'T they play each other.How can you say that public school advantages are equal to different advantages for private schools and that public school disadvantages are equal to different disadvantages that private schools face?

[yankee]

Carroll is far from good at every sport. Their basketball team is one of the worst that I have ever seen at the varsity 5A level. In two games that I have seen they scored 4 points and two points in the first quarter of each game.
yeah i just said that. everyone thinks that because we have a great football team and the district and town itself has money to spare, doesnt mean we win everything. look at my yankees. steinbrenner could buy several franchises with all the money hes got! but that doesnt gaurantee a championship.