oldschool2

That conversation shifted gears. As far as parents moving their kids to schools that best suit their interests.. that's been happening since long before the talk of vouchers. It can't be stopped. I'm on the fence. I see the arguments for and against.. but I think that maybe a parent's school tax dollars should go to the school of their choosing. Schools should do better job implementing programs and others that A) keep kids there.. B)attract from outside. Competition is good.. why shouldn't schools have to compete?

A rough time in Carthage's district? No way...

At small schools it's difficult to justify paying what it takes to attract a quality football coach without attaching AD to the job. Not only monetarily.. but NOBODY that's any good will go somewhere to be the head football coach while having other duties (classes, etc.). Also, at a small school it's pretty much impossible to justify paying someone to be athletic director only as an administrative salary. Double edged sword. I am personally a fan of AD only positions.. but understand completely why it's not normally seen in smaller schools. Schools the size of Jasper (4A) could probably get away with it. But that deep, "the way it's always been done".. mentality has a stranglehold on a lot of places.

I played 4 years of college basketball... and knew at a very early age that it would be my passion. I also played football.. and baseball in JH/HS. During football/baseball seasons I got in a lot of basketball drills. Before school, after practice, and on weekends. I most definitely have a problem with using time for YOUR sport during time that's allocated for another sport. As I mentioned in an earlier post, focusing on a sport doesn't mean abandoning the others. It just means finding extra time. Players that want to be great will do that.

Roger. I misread your comment. Perhaps the other sports will turn the corner sometime soon.

If there's a specific situation that started this thread, I don't know the details. Nor do I care. But I do have an opinion about what I'm gathering from some of the comments. My opinion: I do believe that an AD should leave the players of a particular sport to their respective head coach during that season. The varsity players of that sport anyway. I believe it's a little different concerning the sub varsity players of that sport. If an AD/HFC decides to grab some JV baseball players for some offseason football stuff during the athletics period, I don't have AS MUCH of a problem with it. I would still consider it a common courtesy to discuss with the head coach of that particular sport to consider their thoughts on it. I also believe that ALL athletes should be lifting and running all year. When in a particular season, I believe that the head coach of that sport should control the reigns on that topic to implement some sport specific lifting/running during their season. But all athletes should be in the weight room year round. As far as playing multiple sports? I'm an advocate. I know that the popular idea is for potentially good/great players in a specific sport to "focus" on that sport. And I agree.. but focusing on one sport doesn't mean stopping the others. It just means prioritizing time in a way that extra work is put into that specific sport. After hours, weekends, holidays/summer, etc.. Just because you plan on making a push into college baseball (for example) doesn't mean you can't work on baseball during other sports seasons. That's exactly what I did.. and countless others. Plus, it's important to maybe learn how to be a role player in a sport that you're not the best at. Because that's coming. That's my opinion. And I come from an era where kids played multiple sports if they knew it would be helping. Helping their classmates.. or just contributing to school pride. I hate knowing that there are schools that could be much more competitive if their kids would just come out. It's hard for me to understand if I'm being honest.

Maybe.. however.. Many athletic director / head football coach have lost their job despite the athletic program as a whole being successful.. if the football team struggles. On the other hand, when football teams are doing great but the rest of the program stinks.. AD/HFC still keeps their job. WOS. Newton. .. programs as a whole were fairly weak during those many years of football power and very few people even knew it. Or cared. Yet, AD/HFC kept their jobs for years. Meanwhile, I remember an AD/HFC at Barbers Hill lost his job after every program in the school won district championships and even had several team sports (baseball, softball, girls hoops, etc.) making runs at state. But the football team was mediocre. Fired. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that perception is reality. And the perception is that your athletic program can suck as long as football wins.. it doesn't matter how strong the athletic program is if football sucks.

Head football coach at Newton or WOS has never been fired because the other sports teams were unsuccessful and/or neglected. It works only one way.

I think that with a lot of "smaller" schools.. in the area for sure.. it's easier to justify giving a higher salary to the head football coach if AD is attached to the job. In turn, being able to attract a higher caliber of applicant for the job. Plus, you won't get a good football coach (in most cases) if they know they have other job responsibilities other than just coaching football. Even if it's a "coaching job" like teaching P.E. or something... but head coaches will want to reserve those kinds of jobs for their coordinators. And yes.. there will be cases where HFC/AD are much more partial to the football program than to the entire athletic program as a whole. To be fair, their job will be on the line based on the success of the football team.. even if every other athletic teams in the school flourishes. So I get it. That's also why I don't really have a problem with hiring an AD only. AD only can be solely responsible for the entire athletic department.. and the HFC can focus solely on the success of the football team.

Just watched the video. Hardin kid slid into 1st as the ball got there, got by or away from 1st baseman, 1st baseman started running in the direction of the missed ball I'm assuming.. as the base runner was getting up to run to 2nd, they ran into each other and got tangled up it looked like. Not sure if the contact was intentional or not.. looked coincidental. In the fray, baserunner struggled to get off of the 1st baseman.. but may have thought the contact was intentional.. so he pushed the 1st baseman while trying to get up. After that, the 2nd baseman ran in and grabbed the baserunner around the waist to prevent him from running. No punches were thrown. Benches definitely cleared.. but Hardin's entire team was in the dugout.

Congrats. Tough place to coach.. hopefully the community leaves him alone. If history holds true, they likely won't. Hopefully it changes in that regard.

Not 100% sure. I've heard but can't confirm.. and don't want to say something that I don't know for sure.

Put his kids in a better situation?

Completely taking Sells out of the offensive equation 2nd half. That’s gonna do it.

Tarkington won by 2. EC came back from down 10 late to tie. Tarkington scored with about 12 seconds to go. EC then turned it over with about 5 seconds left. I think it was 63-61