Jump to content

Tenaha v Colmesneil


Grayghost

Recommended Posts

Tenaha v Colmesneil, Thursday, 7:00 pm in Shelbyville.

Most of the Tenaha seniors were sophomore starters on a Tiger team that crushed Colmesneil 63-14 in a bi-district match-up in 2015. They are now bigger, stronger and faster and the No 1 ranked 2A team in the state. The 10-0 Tigers are averaging over 50 pts/G while giving up less that 6 pts/G. Many of their games had a running clock in the 2nd half.

You can draw you're on conclusion as to the outcome.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some really great post.  Fact is imo, Evadale & Iola could've put 100 points on several teams in our Dist.  Tenaha will have to get creative - early.

Congratulations to the Bulldogs for making the playoffs though. And I hope they give it 110%.

In 2A-D2 football, playoffs should be limited to two teams, but if the UIL is making money, that isn't going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, 2wedge said:

It's actually a disservice to the kids to allow 4 teams in the lower classifications. This will crush these kids.

There aren't just a whole lot of examples to justify letting 4 teams in in any classification.  I think it's justified when a 4 beats a 1..proving that some districts have 3 or 4 teams that could potentially win other districts.  But that doesn't happen often.  In fact I'd argue that it's happens so few times that the whole thing is more watered down than anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DesertStorm said:

2014 Rice Consolidated finished 4th and won in the first round. 2015 they finished 3rd and made it to the regional semi's. Lots of other examples. I think we need to quit worrying about how many make it and just let the teams play. If you somebody gets whipped so what. Those whippings take place in district also.

Then why have districts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DesertStorm said:

2014 Rice Consolidated finished 4th and won in the first round. 2015 they finished 3rd and made it to the regional semi's. Lots of other examples. I think we need to quit worrying about how many make it and just let the teams play. If you somebody gets whipped so what. Those whippings take place in district also.

Why go watch a play-off game if it is going to be a whoopin? Why should schools divert funds from eduction to go to a play-off butt whooping?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldschool2 said:

There aren't just a whole lot of examples to justify letting 4 teams in in any classification.  I think it's justified when a 4 beats a 1..proving that some districts have 3 or 4 teams that could potentially win other districts.  But that doesn't happen often.  In fact I'd argue that it's happens so few times that the whole thing is more watered down than anything. 

The only time I can really remember around here that this was close to the case was in '14 when Buna, EC, and Kirbyville were all 6-1 in district. I had to look up that kountze was fourth and they got destroyed. This doesn't happen often, since there's only been 2 examples thrown around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PdaddyBball said:

The only time I can really remember around here that this was close to the case was in '14 when Buna, EC, and Kirbyville were all 6-1 in district. I had to look up that kountze was fourth and they got destroyed. This doesn't happen often, since there's only been 2 examples thrown around. 

There are definitely several examples that could be found...but not compared to the number of first-round playoff games there are.  All irrelevant anyway...the UIL has discovered that the more games that are played the more money they'll make.  I wouldn't be surprised if they just start letting everybody in the playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, fishcat said:

I remember one year Jasper came in third in district because we had a lot of players hurt.Got them well played for state that year. So if it wasn't 3 teams going that year Jasper would have stayed home

There will always be teams that miss the playoffs that could probably make it in other districts....and teams that get in or even win their district but probably couldn't make the playoffs in other districts.  Luck of the draw.  Happens on every level.  There are a lot of NFL teams that could win Houston's division but don't make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
    • Both sides...that is, everyone tries to get their people elected. Trump has not weaponized the government to bankrupt and imprison his political opponents. Night and day difference for me.
    • Surely you're aware of the great lengths Trump has gone to disrupt the elections and destroy the careers of republican politicians who haven't supported some of his most outlandish claims, or dared to question him or disagree with him about January 6.  You and I actually agree on this issue, although it must only go one way for you, because Trump's actions against republicans who didn't fall into lockstep with him is one of my biggest concerns about reelecting him.  The fact that he took action to affect literally hundreds of republican primaries from national elections down to municipal levels across the country, is concerning. It would've been one thing had he done it in an effort to help republicans win. Instead his purpose was to push out his perceived detractors and install MAGA politicians at every level of government in as many places as possible, and has resulted in a fractured republican party.
    • Lmao. No doubt. With a name like that, he would've gotten made fun of even if he was home-schooled.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...