Live from Houston...

[Welpe]

...we are in the middle of being lectured about how we need to play ball. More to follow.

[TXMike]

Play ball" with who? ?

[Welpe]

The UIL. Play ball is not an exact quote but it is the feeling I'm getting.

[TXMike]

On a day when we have learned about the court victory and the progress in the legislature?  No doubt we have to co-exist with them and we have to admit they do have some control over the contests. But they need to accept the very limited role THEY have in the officiating of said contests.

[brew95]

The UIL. Play ball is not an exact quote but it is the feeling I'm getting.

It's the feeling I'm getting too.

[Welpe]

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[Arbitrator]

 

Heard from several attendees of the Houston meeting tonight that it was all too apparent that our TASO Football President had heavy fumes of "Manor Road Kool-Aid" on his breath!   Can't quite figure that one out when TASO had both a pre-legislative and a court victory earlier in the day! 

[DallasLJ]

Heard from several attendees of the Houston meeting tonight that it was all too apparent that our TASO Football President had heavy fumes of "Manor Road Kool-Aid" on his breath!   Can't quite figure that one out when TASO had both a pre-legislative and a court victory earlier in the day! 

  TASO Football President is a Public School Board Trustee.  His allegiance is with the UIL, obviously.

[TXMike]

I have heard him speak on our situation and I believe he truly does NOT have a hidden allegiance to UIL. He does see a need to work with them which can sometimes be mistakenly seen as allegiance to UIL

[DallasLJ]

I have heard him speak on our situation and I believe he truly does NOT have a hidden allegiance to UIL. He does see a need to work with them which can sometimes be mistakenly seen as allegiance to UIL

  Then he should be doing everything he can to pass 3028 and stop the UIL from being in our business.  Then we can work with the UIL on our terms and not theirs.  IMHO!

[Arbitrator]

 

Unless, of course, he is privy to some kind of a "hidden agenda!"  It is common knowledge that he was called-out and threatened by the State Football Board at their Spring Meeting. Maybe now, there could be an even more stringent course of action forthcoming.  After all, if we at TASO need to hear a Manor Road Cheerleader, all we really need to do is place a call to the  Good UIL Dr. and have him dispatch his  Dancing Monkey to come on over and strut about the stage for us, much in the same way that the old TASO Houston Basketball Chapter did before they inauspiciously got sucked-in to the UIL fold!   

[refereebrent]

I sort of half way expected him to end the night with him passing out the UIL applications, or registrations, or whatever they are calling them now.
Our District Rep set him straight on several issues - thanks Mark for standing up for TASO!
When they decide to properly and correctly and legally pay us in accordance with 1204 then I will begin to think about possibly signing as long as no fee is charged and TASO is still the big chief.
On the non issue of background checks, I have no problem with that. The cost is a big issue and that does need to be worked out. TASO should not be held responsible for that. I think ultimately it will be up to the individual official to foot their bill.

[TXMike]

On the non issue of background checks, I have no problem with that. The cost is a big issue and that does need to be worked out. TASO should not be held responsible for that. I think ultimately it will be up to the individual official to foot their bill.

It depends.   If the check is a simple name check, it can be done for less than 5 dollars per.   If it is a fingerprint-based check, then the cost goes up to about $50.  If you believe what the UIL has been saying, all they want to have done is a name check.  We can do that very cheaply.  The results are not as reliable as the fingerprint-based check but neither one of them will predict future misconduct by someone who is "clean".  I am all for whichever one is finally agreed upon but everyone needs to understand neither one is a "guarantee" and are really not much more than "feel good" solutions. 

But, as you correctly pointed out, this is a "non-issue".  The UIL has seized upon this as perhaps their best hope for justifying what it is they are trying to do.  We (TASO) can easily implement this if that is what we ultimately have to do.  The part that infuriates me is the inference by the UIL that we (TASO membership) are trying to hide something by  refusing to do the checks.  We need to take that "argument" away from them.

[Welpe]

I sort of half way expected him to end the night with him passing out the UIL applications, or registrations, or whatever they are calling them now.
Our District Rep set him straight on several issues - thanks Mark for standing up for TASO!

Agreed, Mark stood up for TASO's case very well I thought. I also thought that Cooper's response to Pete C. to "stop working subvarsity games" if we didn't like the subvarsity compensation was pretty short sighted.  That's a convenience reserved for Division I's and II's IMO.

To be honest, at one point, it seemed that Cooper was apologizing for Tony Timmons and how much he "regretted" saying what he said at the UIL Houston basketball meeting in 2009. I was waiting for the "He's not really that bad, guys!"

[TxGrayhat]

I havent heard anyone not willing to do a background check. the only comments i recall is who pays for it...

[Etref]

Agreed, Mark stood up for TASO's case very well I thought. I also thought that Cooper's response to Pete C. to "stop working subvarsity games" if we didn't like the subvarsity compensation was pretty short sighted.  That's a convenience reserved for Division I's and II's IMO.
To be honest, at one point, it seemed that Cooper was apologizing for Tony Timmons and how much he "regretted" saying what he said at the UIL Houston basketball meeting in 2009. I was waiting for the "He's not really that bad, guys!"

Unless you are in a smaller chapter then even the I &II's are needed to cover the subvarsity games.

[Arbitrator]

 

As long as the inexpensive version of the background check is implemented and either paid for individually by each official, or by TASO, I would think that is a win-win situation. But the Manor Road Crowd is using this strictly as a "red herring" so that they can implement other items from their very well-hidden agenda!   

[rsquare]

Quite frankly I was extremely disappointed by his unprofessional addressing the issue.
It was akind to the teacher lecturing the class on expectations.
The "julie" references worn out early.
What was even more disheartening was his adequate lack of presentation of the new rule changes.
He didn't even know what he was trying to convey.
Looked nice with the white shirt and tie but really miss the mark and sounded like a lobbyist for UIL 
IMHO + 2.5 cents worth
 

[JasonTX]

Regarding the point about background investigations.  As it have been pointed out before by others.  I have seen more people get suspended for legal issues for which that was their first offense.  A background check would have done no good for those first timers.  We can weed out those who have offended in the past, but what about those that have no record and then commit a crime? 

[TXMike]

Background checks work!!  You never hear about school employees having illicit relationships with school kids anymore do you?    

They were a typical political response to a real problem.  Politicians think they have to do something whenever something bad happens so they can show they are taking action.  The checks are a "feel good" way the politicians can convince themselves they have done something.  I am all for them myself but only with the complete understanding of all that they are NOT going to prevent anything bad happening.  Bad things will still happen and we need to do what we can to find other ways to try to limit them or deal with them when they happen.  I say that if an adult sexually assaults a kid, he/she gets life in prison, no parole, even if it is 1st offense.  

And re Cooper...we need to remember, he was elected by a majority of the votes cast.  You can try to argue that "not enough" votes were cast, or that people may not have known he was going to try to work something out with UIL, or whatever.  Bottom line is that OUR system was used for his election and he IS the President.  Until he takes an action that is contrary to our organization's policies, he deserves the respect that office should carry with it.  He is only 1 man and cannot arbitrarily take the organization or our Division somewhere the majority of our other elected officials do not want us to go.

[rsquare]

I agree with that sentiment.
Not out of disrespect to the position or personally -
At the same time I expected somewhat of a more professional and at least prepared approach to the presentation of the rule changes.
Leadership should know the basics when conveying to their associates.
I would not last a minute in my company with a PP presentation and not being prepared and knowing what I was presenting to my associates.
He was clueless about the blocking below the waist.
If anyone should have known he HAD BETTER KNOW or just don't present that portion.
He also struck me as a "I know better than you" type.
Heck what do I know    - I just a 13 yr D2 working Mon-Sat games.
Not part of the "good ole boy" network. 

[JasonTX]

As we have all seen in the past years of rule changes I have learned not to read too much into the preliminary changes.  By the time we get the rule book it may read different that these preliminary changes so I wouldn't blame Coop too much for not putting on a rules session.  I hate teaching rules this early without having a rule book with the exact wording myself.

[texref]

As we have all seen in the past years of rule changes I have learned not to read too much into the preliminary changes.  By the time we get the rule book it may read different that these preliminary changes so I wouldn't blame Coop too much for not putting on a rules session.  I hate teaching rules this early without having a rule book with the exact wording myself.

The 2011 rule changes have been approved and the wording is final according to Rogers Redding. I know we don't have "the" rulebook published yet but the wording and changes are readily available.

[JasonTX]

The 2011 rule changes have been approved and the wording is final according to Rogers Redding. I know we don't have "the" rulebook published yet but the wording and changes are readily available.

This will be the first year the wording would be "final" then.  I have never seen that I can recall, the rule book match exactly to what has been stated as being "final".  It seems there have always been some last minute tweeks to the book.

[texnewref]

It’s really amusing that I got accused of slamming and accusing Fitch of something and now you guys are slamming & accusing Castleberry, and nobody says anything.  It looked like it was a plan of a dozen or so guys at the meeting to raze him.  I’m sure you are really proud.