Jump to content

DISTRICT 22-4A STANDINGS- GAMES REMAINING


KF89

Recommended Posts

District- Overall
             

 

Orangefield Bobcats

10 2                                                     21 2 1
Silsbee Tigers 7 4   18 6 0
Bridge City Cardinals 7 4   17 9 0
Little Cypress-Mauriceville Bears 6 5   14 12 0
Vidor Pirates 5 6   16 10 2
Lumberton Raiders 4 7   15 13 0
West Orange-Stark Mustangs 0 11   0 24 0

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.FIELD REMAINING DISTRICT GAMES

Apr. 26 - @ Vidor  7:00 PM

 

SILSBEE REMAINING DISTRICT GAMES

**Apr. 26 - @ Little Cypress-Mauriceville  7:00 PM

**Apr. 29 - Vidor  7:00 PM 

 

BRIDGE CITY REMAINING DISTRICT GAMES

**Apr. 26 - @ West Orange-Stark  7:00 PM

**Apr. 29 - @ Little Cypress-Mauriceville  7:00 PM

 

LCM REMAINING DISTRICT GAMES

**Apr. 26 - Silsbee  7:00 PM

**Apr. 29 - @ Bridge City  7:00 PM

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • KF89 changed the title to DISTRICT 22-4A STANDINGS- REMAINING 2 WEEKS SCHEDULES
  • KF89 changed the title to DISTRICT 22-4A STANDINGS- REMAINING GAMES
  • KF89 changed the title to DISTRICT 22-4A STANDINGS- GAMES REMAINING

Orangefield (10-1) - #1 Seed, District Champs

Silsbee (7-3)- in playoffs; #2 seed if win last two games 

Bridge City (6-4) - not in playoffs; make playoffs with one win; #2 seed if win last two games and Silsbee lose last two games

LC-M (5-5) - not in playoffs; make playoffs with two wins; #3 seed if win last two games and BC lose last two game. 

Vidor (4-6) - not in playoffs; make playoffs if win last two game and LCM lose last two games. 

Lumberton (4-7) - out of playoffs

WO-S (0-10) - out of playoffs

If a tie:

Silsbee and BC split series

BC and Vidor split series

Vidor and LCM split series

LC-M won series over Lumberton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, STiger85 said:

Orangefield (10-1) - #1 Seed, District Champs

Silsbee (7-3)- in playoffs; #2 seed if win last two games 

Bridge City (6-4) - not in playoffs; make playoffs with one win; #2 seed if win last two games and Silsbee lose last two games

LC-M (5-5) - not in playoffs; make playoffs with two wins; #3 seed if win last two games and BC lose last two game. 

Vidor (4-6) - not in playoffs; make playoffs if win last two game and LCM lose last two games. 

Lumberton (4-7) - out of playoffs

WO-S (0-10) - out of playoffs

If a tie:

Silsbee and BC split series

BC and Vidor split series

Vidor and LCM split series

LC-M won series over Lumberton

Not saying you are wrong by any means but I need clarification on Vidor and lcm...

Vidor wins out (6-6 in district)

lcm splits last 2 games (6-6 in district)

Making both teams 6-6 in district and a district split between both teams (1-1).  Wouldn't a head to head, 1 game playoff OR play in game come into play?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PirateNole984 said:

Not saying you are wrong by any means but I need clarification on Vidor and lcm...

Vidor wins out (6-6 in district)

lcm splits last 2 games (6-6 in district)

Making both teams 6-6 in district and a district split between both teams (1-1).  Wouldn't a head to head, 1 game playoff OR play in game come into play?

Did you see at the bottom “If a tie”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PirateNole984 said:

I did...lcm goes to playoffs due to winning series against lumberton?  Did not think it worked like that but....

Could be wrong but I think he was referencing the hypothetical situation of LCM and Lumberton being tied after district play. LCM would advance to the playoffs in that instance because they beat Lumberton both times. Its a moot point now because LCM won last night and Lumberton can't catch them anymore.

I believe you are correct in that LCM and Vidor would play a win-or-go-home game for 4th place if they end up tied after this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BEARCPA said:

Could be wrong but I think he was referencing the hypothetical situation of LCM and Lumberton being tied after district play. LCM would advance to the playoffs in that instance because they beat Lumberton both times. Its a moot point now because LCM won last night and Lumberton can't catch them anymore.

I believe you are correct in that LCM and Vidor would play a win-or-go-home game for 4th place if they end up tied after this week.

☝️ makes sense!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LC-M and Vidor did what they needed to do to make things way more interesting in 22-4A.

Orangefield (10-2) - #1 seed District Champs

Silsbee (7-4) - in playoffs; #2 seed with a win and BC loss; two way tie for #2 seed if Silsbee win, BC win; #3 seed with a loss and BC win; three way tie for #2 seed if Silsbee loss, BC loss, LCM win

Bridge City (7-4) - in playoffs; #2 seed with a win and Silsbee loss; two way tie for #2 seed if Silsbee win, BC win; two way tie for #3 seed with a BC loss, LCM win, Silsbee win; three way tie for #2 seed with a BC loss, LCM win, Silsbee loss

LC-M (6-5) - not in playoffs; in playoffs if win; #4 seed if loss, Vidor loss; two way tie for #3 seed if a win, BC loss; three way tie for #2 seed if LCM win, BC loss, Silsbee loss

Vidor (5-6) - not in playoffs; in playoffs if win and LCM loss; two way tie for #4 seed if a win, LCM loss

Lumberton (4-7) - out of playoffs

WO-S (0-11) - out of playoffs

IF a tie

Silsbee and BC split series

Silsbee and LCM split series

LCM and Vidor split series

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2022 at 6:55 PM, STiger85 said:

LC-M and Vidor did what they needed to do to make things way more interesting in 22-4A.

Orangefield (10-2) - #1 seed District Champs

Silsbee (7-4) - in playoffs; #2 seed with a win and BC loss; two way tie for #2 seed if Silsbee win, BC win; #3 seed with a loss and BC win; three way tie for #2 seed if Silsbee loss, BC loss, LCM win

Bridge City (7-4) - in playoffs; #2 seed with a win and Silsbee loss; two way tie for #2 seed if Silsbee win, BC win; two way tie for #3 seed with a BC loss, LCM win, Silsbee win; three way tie for #2 seed with a BC loss, LCM win, Silsbee loss

LC-M (6-5) - not in playoffs; in playoffs if win; #4 seed if loss, Vidor loss; two way tie for #3 seed if a win, BC loss; three way tie for #2 seed if LCM win, BC loss, Silsbee loss

Vidor (5-6) - not in playoffs; in playoffs if win and LCM loss; two way tie for #4 seed if a win, LCM loss

Lumberton (4-7) - out of playoffs

WO-S (0-11) - out of playoffs

IF a tie

Silsbee and BC split series

Silsbee and LCM split series

LCM and Vidor split series

This is wild!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • KF89 featured and unfeatured this topic

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...