UIL athletic director in '88, now UIL executive director

Q: When you look at the Carter grade issue 20 years later, where does it fall in terms of other off-the-field issues the UIL has had?

A:  I think it was a landmark issue because of House Bill 72 that was passed in '84 and went into effect in '85. This occurred in '88.

I think it was one of the first, if not the flagship case, where kids were ineligible, indicated they weren't ineligible, went through a process and then they went ahead and played all the way through and had to forfeit the championship.

I don't know that we've had a case like that until the superintendent of Dallas last year indicated that the previous year's South Oak Cliff basketball team had played an ineligible players, so according to the rules he forfeited the championship.

I know there's an ongoing investigation now into some other (SOC) matters, but from Dallas Carter until here I cannot think of a significant case involving the no-pass, no-play.

I think that And as I recall, the principal at Carter at that time was lauded for his efforts to bring Carter up. And eventually they found out that they had a 30-point grade scale and that you got points for attendance and points for tests and whatever, and then at the end of that six weeks they added whatever the average was to 70. So, essentially, unless you just failed to come to school there were no failures involved.

I think that highlighted the significance of what the legislature tried to do with House Bill 72 – and obviously what the UIL was mandated to enforce the academic standards they had passed.

You go back and you think, 'Well, what did Judson do? Did they have the trophy sitting in their trophy case for that game, because theoretically, I guess they could have, as far as forfeiture goes. I guess you could also research that, as to whether Judson counts that as one of their championship.

Q: D.W. Rutledge, the Judson coach, says they didn't want the trophy.

A: We made no attempt to retrieve the trophy and the medals to give the Judson. I think we indicated that the medals should be returned, but I don't think we made a concentrated effort to collect those medals. That would have been another public relations nightmare.

Q: After the title was stripped and Carter was supposed to return the trophy, some time did go by, then the UIL threatened probation because they had not. I believe it was several months after the title was stripped.

A: If I recall when we first inquired about the returning of the trophy, the indication was that they could not locate it at the school.

But if you'll recall, I was the staff member at Texas Stadium, I went out and awarded that trophy with all the grace and dignity that we accord anybody. It was later that all that occurred.

I remember the year the Midland played San Antonio MacArthur and Katy had to forfeit on Friday before the Saturday game. My staff gave the trophies and the kids from MacArthur, they got beat 54 or 56 to nothing, come up to me before I present the trophy as the runner up team, and asked, "The score's not on that thing, is it?'

Q: While we're on the subject of the trophy, Carter did return the trophy. My understanding is the trophy may have sat around the UIL office, but maybe was lost when the league moved to new offices.

A: We were over on campus on Wichita, and then we were over on Lake Austin, and then in '98 we moved over here on Manor. So we've been in two locations since then.

The only thing I know, although I don't know specific details, but we did take some stuff to a storage facility in North Austin – and then we did throw some things away. But I cannot categorize whether the trophy was taken to storage, or whether it was just discarded.

Q: Do you recall seeing it after it was returned?

A: Vaguely, I remember our shipping department indicated to us that we had received it. But I can't remember any discussion about trying to get it to Judson. I don't think we did.

I think, too, a lot of times when you get trophies that are shipped and handled, they're not in pristine condition. That one, I have no idea what condition it was in.

Q: Coach Rutledge joked that all the championship and runner-up trophies look the same, and that maybe you guys just took the plate off of that one and re-used it.

A: Well, they are exactly the same size. But now the runner-up trophies have a kind of silver pewter plate and the winning trophy has kind of an old gold-shining plate. So they're different now, but in those years they were the same, that walnut, dark wood and the plate was silver, for both the runner-up and champion.

Q: When you talk to Carter's players and fans today, one of the biggest questions they have is why the UIL continued to pursue it for so long, that it was so long after the fact that the title was stripped.

A: Well, the UIL represents all the schools. One of the problems is that the only defense that the other schools have when a school gets a court order to override the rules and continues playing, is forfeiture or penalty. Otherwise, you could just rule that, 'No, they don't have to forfeit; they can keep playing' and there would be no reciprocity.

It's not that they were cheating. It's that they weren't in accordance with the rules. And certainly individual players played totally unaware with the fact that they were no in accordance with the academic standards.

So we pursued it because our schools insist that we enforce the rules. And that we follow through with the enforcement procedure. It was done without any vindictiveness. It's also been done in other cases. You work through the process until final adjudication.

Q: I wonder what kind of thought process went into determining how the record book would be altered and how it would be listed. My understanding is it is listed as Converse Judson 1, Dallas Carter 0, but then underneath in parentheses, it says 'On the field score: 31-14.'  

A: I don't know that we had a standard procedure for that. In the NCAA rules book, I believe, the forfeit is 1-0 in basketball and in football. So whatever the NCAA rule was at that time, that's what we would go with.

Putting in the on the field score, I don't think that was in any way meant to massage some feelings. It was just the procedure we used.

Keep in mind, though, we always go back to this: There is no way to completely make things right. Because theoretically, another team – and I think it was South Grand Prairie – should have been in the playoffs, yet they could go because of the lawsuit and court order.

And the fact that all the kids at Carter got the experience of playing for a state championship and really got the euphoria of winning on the field and receiving the trophy. You can't totally ever equalize things. The case that we try to pursue is to enforce the rules.

Q: Does it seem like it has been 20 years, and do you recall how much hopscotching you had to do to various board meetings and courtrooms?

A: I can remember, I was athletic director, the tremendous time that was spent on the case and the various hearings that we had. TEA, to interpret the actual failure or non-failure. And the various trips to the court.

It was a very trying time and in many ways groundbreaking because most of our eligibility questions and court appearances had to do with kids who were too old, or with the residence rule.

This was the landmark case for the new no-pass, no-play rule. And I think it was important because it did emphasize that the state was serious about kids passing all their courses. That, whether you agree with that or not, it was part of the privilege of an individual participating in a team activity in the state playoffs.