Jump to content

Livingston hires new Head Coach/AD


Recommended Posts

I'm sure this guy has forgotten more football than most will ever know. However I just don't see someone at the end of their career as a guy that you want establishing a program for years to come. I know the coaching profession is prone to turnover but that shouldn't be the goal. The goal in my mind would to hire someone that is enthusiastic about the prospect of coaching more the 3-4 years at your high school. I know that older coaches have a wealth of knowledge and experience, but I see many of them late in their career take a job and then retire 2-3 years later. There's something to be said about consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MrUmp1 said:

The man has a plan. Sounds like they hired someone who will install a system if the kids buy into will be successful. Would not be surprised if this leads to a new football stadium. 

He does have a plan, and a challenge. He has taken over at Diboll (2-8 1st year) and Angelton (5-5 first year) as May hires and not been real successful right out of the box. Same way in Ft. Worth and Seminole and Tomball Memorial. Seems that is takes a couple of years to get the program moving in the right direction. I will go out on a limb and predict a 4-6 finish, but he will get them in the playoffs by beating Bridge City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PlayActionPass said:

It is a POLITICAL decision, made by a School Board that can't get out of their own way. 

I'm sure Vanover is a great coach, I've been told he is.

But, is he going to establish something that can last? Can he relate to the kids? 

 

The board asked parents what they wanted and experience and success were high on the list. 

I dont like that they didn't buy out the former coach after the season ended but on paper this hire looks good. He's had success at various levels. The fact he took a new high school and made the playoffs at the highest level shows he can build a program.

I think the kids will turn out. They're excited to play schools their size and smaller. And they're ready to start winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BearEssentials97 said:

 

The board asked parents what they wanted and experience and success were high on the list. 

I dont like that they didn't buy out the former coach after the season ended but on paper this hire looks good. He's had success at various levels. The fact he took a new high school and made the playoffs at the highest level shows he can build a program.

I think the kids will turn out. They're excited to play schools their size and smaller. And they're ready to start winning.

I watched the interview. Sounds like a good guy and probably the best hire this late in the season.  I wish Livingston the best of luck except against my Bears. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a solid hire. Dropping from 5A into an average 4A district they should be instantly competitive. Im not an SETX guy so I dont know much about their non-district opponents other than Jasper and Huntington...but I am going to predict 6-4 and 2nd place in the district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, EnjoyLife said:

Looks like a solid hire. Dropping from 5A into an average 4A district they should be instantly competitive. Im not an SETX guy so I dont know much about their non-district opponents other than Jasper and Huntington...but I am going to predict 6-4 and 2nd place in the district.

2nd  place that’s a little high for the 1st year. I think they will only beat splendora and maybe Bridge City. LCM losing 20 something seniors returning only 6 I think still has shot at beating them unless we are really down 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LC-M said:

I watched the interview. Sounds like a good guy and probably the best hire this late in the season.  I wish Livingston the best of luck except against my Bears. 

Only three more years of defending Livingston and I can go back down bear path on a full time basis. 

I think the lions are going to surprise outside observers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BearEssentials97 said:

Only three more years of defending Livingston and I can go back down bear path on a full time basis. 

I think the lions are going to surprise outside observers. 

I think the first year will be building year and it will be competitive game. I think they could go 4-6 which is a lot better then last year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BearEssentials97 said:

Go look at the schedule.  They should be at or above 500 this year.

I’m not knocking Livingston I just it think it might be hard with a  new coach and a new system. What kind of offense does the new head coach run? I did not see one game last year of Livingstons team. I’m just going by them being 0-9. Other than jasper and liberty predistrict is pretty winnable. Our district is going to be pretty weak compared to east Texas we should win bi district but I don’t see anyone going passed that point. Lumberton and Huffman will probably be at the top in our district 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BearEssentials97 said:

Go look at the schedule.  They should be at or above 500 this year.

Name the 6 wins.

And I know your first two will be Shepherd and Huntington, don't count you chickens before they hatch.

Not beating Liberty or Jasper.

Splendora and Huffman are better programs right now.

Bridge City is probably the only guaranteed win in District. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, PlayActionPass said:

Name the 6 wins.

And I know your first two will be Shepherd and Huntington, don't count you chickens before they hatch.

Not beating Liberty or Jasper.

Splendora and Huffman are better programs right now.

Bridge City is probably the only guaranteed win in District. 

They will beat Huntington lol

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

    • he'll 1000% abuse this if elected and given the chance.  he's like a petulant little kid.  again, I'm voting for his policy, but he's all about revenge against slights and wrongs, both real and perceived.  
    • 3 yrs ago LCM and Vidor played in Vidor for a play in game.  Game was on a Saturday and started around 1 or 2p.
    • It would shock me beyond belief if he tried to. Now, I hope and pray he appoints people that will investigate, charge, and imprison anyone found guilty of the crimes against him...including treason. I would be all for a special task force charged solely with the task of investigating crimes against Trump. Of course the Democrats will be screaming bloody murder that Trump is weaponizing the government against them. We all know the story. From a cursory standpoint, there seems to be a plethora of evidence to lock up many Democrats for a long time. Unless this is done, I see no end to destruction of our political system...and this country.
    • 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…..
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...