Jump to content

Realignment


DannyShapiroBE

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

I'm glad the decision was made already. Now we can all move on.  This new school will get my utmost support.  I'm interested in how this all pans out...  Academics, athletics, employment, student body, ect.  

I totally agree.  I'm glad the decision was made so that the students, parents and staff can move forward.  You know I'll be supporting the school and kids.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna miss playing central in district, not sure if they feel that way but I always personally felt Central had a whole more in them and never got to see their full potential. Hopefully this fresh start will kickstart the program it should have always been. I’ll be following the new school next season for sure, they left on a painful memory though, spoiling DC number 6 for the Dogs lol bmt fans are probably on the edge of their seats awaiting the new change. Good luck to Central-Ozen in 6A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, this is definitely the best decision for the entire town and for the kids as a whole.

Now let the speculation begin, who coaches what?

The BE articles says that all staff will be retained, but in what capacity?

The BE article also says that there will be some duplicity, well lets see, 2 Head Football Coaches, 2 Head Basketball Coaches.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at the very first West Brook/Central football game at Lamar. Best one of them all. I also remember the West Brook band and the skit they put on. It's hard for me to say this is for the best, but it is. I was never a fan of three high schools in Beaumont because it seemed at one point in time one of the high school was the red headed step child and not all three where given the attention they needed. Will this new school be competitive not only in football and basketball but volleyball, baseball, softball, tennis, golf, ect. Will they bring in coaches to make all sports competitive.  I am looking forward to the football game between the new school and West Brook. I wonder if the football stadium will be sold out and will they move it to Lamar. Maybe it will be moved to a Saturday game. A lot of questions, as far as sports, will be answered on realignment day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, STiger85 said:

I was at the very first West Brook/Central football game at Lamar. Best one of them all. I also remember the West Brook band and the skit they put on. It's hard for me to say this is for the best, but it is. I was never a fan of three high schools in Beaumont because it seemed at one point in time one of the high school was the red headed step child and not all three where given the attention they needed. Will this new school be competitive not only in football and basketball but volleyball, baseball, softball, tennis, golf, ect. Will they bring in coaches to make all sports competitive.  I am looking forward to the football game between the new school and West Brook. I wonder if the football stadium will be sold out and will they move it to Lamar. Maybe it will be moved to a Saturday game. A lot of questions, as far as sports, will be answered on realignment day. 

I doubt it.  I've seen the Katy's, the PN-Gfs, the Nederland's, and the Pearland's, all historically bring huge crowds.  Trust me, there's plenty of room and won't even have a need to use Provost Umphrey due to selling out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2018 at 9:38 AM, BMTSoulja1 said:

I doubt it.  I've seen the Katy's, the PN-Gfs, the Nederland's, and the Pearland's, all historically bring huge crowds.  Trust me, there's plenty of room and won't even have a need to use Provost Umphrey due to selling out...

Unless of course they both are 9-0 with the game between the 2 being the last game in district.  But they still are not using Umphrey.

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...