WOSgrad

2021 SETXsports.com TEAM PREVIEW SCHEDULE

Recommended Posts

Well, guys (and girls)!  As promised, here is the 2021 SETXsports Preview Schedule!  

You will notice one major change in this year's schedule.  After 13 years, I am tired of waiting until July 1 to start these!  We are moving things up.  Thanks to the coaches for accommodating this change and getting their information to me.

Enjoy folks!

June 1 - Nederland, Hardin

June 2 - Hamshire-Fannett, Colmesneil

June 3 - Vidor, Kingwood Park

June 4 - West Brook, Corrigan-Camden

June 5 - OFF

June 6 - OFF

June 7 - Newton, Deweyville

June 8 - Huffman Hargrave, Timpson

June 9 - Dayton, San Augustine

June 10 - Splendora, Huntington

June 11 - West Orange-Stark, West Hardin

June 12 - OFF

June 13 - OFF

June 14 - Port Arthur Memorial, College Station

June 15 - Goose Creek Memorial, Cleveland

June 16 - Shepherd, Lufkin

June 17 - Liberty, Hull-Daisetta

June 18 - Silsbee, Galveston Ball

June 19 - OFF

June 20 - OFF

June 21 - Carthage, Diboll

June 22 - Tarkington, Kingwood

June 23 - C.E. King, Madisonville

June 24 - Coldspring-Oakhurst, Rusk

June 25 - Livingston, Santa Fe

June 26 - OPEN

June 27 - OPEN

June 28 - Porter, Cushing

June 29 - Orangefield, Center

June 30 - Lumberton, Burkeville

July 1 - Woodville, Monsignor Kelly

July 2 - Beaumont United, Kountze

July 3 - OPEN

July 4 - OPEN

July 5 - Port Neches-Groves, Mt. Enterprise

July 6 - Anahuac, Caney Creek

July 7 - Barbers Hill, Legacy Christian

July 8 - Crosby, Chester

July 9 - Hardin-Jefferson, Magnolia

July 12 - Jasper, Crockett

July 13 - Shelbyville, Tenaha, Overton

July 14 - Atascocita, Trinity

July 15 - Evadale, Elkhart

July 16 - Little Cypress-Mauriceville, Lovelady

July 17 - OFF

July 18 - OFF

July 19 - West Sabine, Magnolia West

July 20 - East Chambers, Texas City

July 21 - Baytown Lee, Anderson-Shiro

July 22 - Buna, Hemphill

July 23 - Bridge City, Humble

July 24 - OFF

July 25 - OFF

July 26 - North Shore, Palestine Westwood, Warren

July 27 - Baytown Sterling, Joaquin, La Porte

July 28 - Kirbyville, High Island, New Waverly

July 29 - New Caney, Friendswood, Garrison

July 30 - Sabine Pass, Summer Creek, Waller

Link to post
Share on other sites
1

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

    42,624
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Hoohead.com
    Newest Member
    Hoohead.com
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Anyone think that hamas, iran, russia and china are being this foolish?! https://welovetrump.com/2021/05/17/us-army-declares-war-on-climate-change/
    • You could view it that way. The real issue in this case was not guns though. The issue that was addressed was the warrantless entry into the home. The most sacred part of the Fourth Amendment is being secure in your home. These cases start out under the premise that all entries into a home are unlawful without a warrant unless with consent. Then there are exceptions all based on an emergency.  This case in my opinion doesn’t deal with firearms but the entry. Let’s say that they unlawfully entered looking for the handguns but didn’t find them. Once inside they seized illegal drugs that they viewed.  In my opinion it is the exact same case. Nothing changes except what was seized. Had the police seized a pound of cocaine, it would have probably have the exact same outcome. It would not change from a gun case to a drug case.  It was a warrantless entry case under the claim of an emergency. SCOTUS said this was not an emergency.  About 3 hours before this thread was started, a detective texted me a link to the case and his opinion was, why such a case took so long to get to the Court as it seemed like a clear cut bad entry. My guess is that they might have been waiting on the right case or the trial courts and lower appeals courts were handling it. I have read and teach a few cases where the lower court makes a ruling and then a unanimous or 8-1 SCOTUS slaps them down. Those are kind of like, how stupid can you be?  One such case was mentioned in this ruling, Brigham City v. Stuart.  In that case the Utah SC ruled against the police.  What did the police witness? A guy getting beat up pretty bad to the point of serious injury or maybe even death.  The police entered to save the guy’s life as they were watching the assault through a glass door.  Utah said, hey you didn’t have a warrant so your warrantless entry into the home was illegal.  SCOTUS then slapped the Utah SC in a unanimous decision saying, what is the heck were you thinking? What were the police going to do, say sorry ma’am but we didn’t have a warrant so we let several guys beat your son to death in front of us.  No, that is a very good example of an exigent circumstance. Just like this case was unanimous for no entry without a warrant, Brigham City was a unanimous case that entry without a warrant was absolutely legal. Time and emergency are the issues.  So sometimes SCOTUS will take almost a no brainer case just to remind the courts that all searches are not prohibited, only unreasonable ones.  
    • This is one of the no-brainer cases. It really does not set much of a precedent and just reaffirms previous court cases. They do that from time to time to remind the government/police what the rules are. In this case they changed nothing. They mention in the opinion that the police could still go into a home without a warrant but for many years there has been the requirement of an exigent or emergency circumstance.  In prior court cases they use the explanation that an emergency is way you do not have to have to get a warrant. The police cannot go around the warrant requirement simply by saying it is an emergency. There has to be some kind of backing (usually described as “articulable facts”). In this case the guy voluntarily submitted himself for an evaluation, the police lied to his wife about what he said and then there was no immediate threat since he was gone. This again just re-affirmed previous cases. There needs to be an emergency and there must be no time for a warrant. Neither of those things existed in this case.  like I said, every once in a while the supreme court will basically rule almost identical to a prior case it seems to me more like a reminder. The reminder might be sent to the lower courts because like in this case the lower federal court sided with the police. Sometimes the SCOTUS rulingS say… duhhhh....  circuit court, did you judges read our prior decisions?  This would not have even made the news had a firearm not been the means by which the police claimed the ability to go into a house without a warrant. SCOTUS Mike issue about 120 decisions per session at most simply do not make the news. This is more like Clickbait. it is interesting but still,.....    
    • I read every word of the case from SCOTUS and the article. I also read you limited comments. What did I miss? 
    • It's funny running back thru district threads like this. Hopefully 2021 is another fun season but with normalcy and no storms. 
  • Topics

×
  • Create New...