WOSgrad

The posts were taken down not because of what was said about Coach Berezoski, but what you decided to post about Coach Williams, an account that has been heavily disputed by others.
If you don't like the moderation policies and board rules, you are more than welcome to join OldSchool.  If you wish to ignore those rules that decision will be made for you!

The posts were taken down not because of what was said about Coach Berezoski, but what you decided to post about Coach Williams, an account that has been heavily disputed by others.
If you don't like the moderation policies and board rules, you are more than welcome to join OldSchool.  If you wish to ignore those rules that decision will be made for you!

It looks like the kids do not have as big a problem with the "new" offensive philosophy as some thought would happen.

 
 

 
 

I agree that will probably be the final outcome of the matter.  However, until the probability becomes a reality, we need to be a little more circumspect about successors to replace a coach who has not left yet.

Here is the Top 10 from Saturday:
1.     Brayden Voigtman-Hunter Carter - Kountze - 23.48 lb
2.     Hunter Muncrief-Landen McCary - West Sabine - 22.20 lb
3.     Kaden Duncan-Randy Abate - Bridge City - 21.77 lb
4.     Braden Berryman-Kenneth Pickett - Kirbyville - 18.81 lb
5.     Brandi Posey-Dakota Posey - Little Cypress-Mauriceville - 18.31 lb
6.     Kyler Hebert-Ryan Ford - Little Cypress-Mauriceville - 18.29 lb
7.     Chandler Burgay-Hunter Smith - Center - 17.60 lb
8.     Sean Christy-Carson Leasure - Richmond George Ranch - 16.73 lb
9.     Easton Anderson-Ty Cruse - Lumberton - 16.59 lb
10.   Hunter Nash-Keegan Aurther - Evans - 16.55 lb
 
Voigtman and Carter also brought in the big fish of the day with a 9.4 pounder!

 
 

But there is some sort of limitation in select ball, right.  It may not be pitches but innings are better than nothing.

I agree that will probably be the final outcome of the matter.  However, until the probability becomes a reality, we need to be a little more circumspect about successors to replace a coach who has not left yet.

I am really no more in a mood for your griping than I was his.

You know, if the board rules regarding what should and should not be posted rankle you so much, you are welcome not to post!
But if you do post, I really don't want to hear your griping anymore.

 
 

 
 

Very serious, kicker.  One source said that KIPP called WO-S!

Final: Kennedale 6, Jasper 0
Lady Dogs, even though the ultimate goal wasn't reached, you had an outstanding season.
Congratulations to Coach Carter and her team!

Well, while it is unfortunate that they want to lynch Coach Jehling before his team takes the field, it is fortunate that he, as Chris Babin's assistant, has experience in this matter.  As I recall, there were a number of folks in Lumberton last year who wanted Coach Babin and his staff, including Coach Jehling, hanging from the tallest tree over Village Creek before the Raiders even took a snap.  I am sure Coach observed well what was done to placate those folks and he will surely apply those lessons in Hamshire.
And if the results of last year are not repeated, I hope the Longhorn faithful keep in mind that it has more to do with who is no longer behind center than with who wears the big headset on the sidelines.

Well, while it is unfortunate that they want to lynch Coach Jehling before his team takes the field, it is fortunate that he, as Chris Babin's assistant, has experience in this matter.  As I recall, there were a number of folks in Lumberton last year who wanted Coach Babin and his staff, including Coach Jehling, hanging from the tallest tree over Village Creek before the Raiders even took a snap.  I am sure Coach observed well what was done to placate those folks and he will surely apply those lessons in Hamshire.
And if the results of last year are not repeated, I hope the Longhorn faithful keep in mind that it has more to do with who is no longer behind center than with who wears the big headset on the sidelines.

If you can have both, great!  It has been noted some that have both. 
My point is that, no matter how you spin it, this is an expense and a pretty darned significant one.  One that the various boards of trustees have to examine and examine closely to see if their school districts can absorb such an expense.  Those that have examined the expense and have determined that they can absorb it do deserve kudos.  At the same time, those that have examined the expense and have determined that they can not at this time do not deserve our scorn and to me labeling a school district as "behind the times" (as many posts have done, as well as the guest who chooses to waste my time with reports rather than registering and posting) or "unappreciative of its athletes" or saying that a district hasn't made such an expenditure a priority qualifies as such.

I get really nervous when the words "school district" "artificial turf" and "priorities" are used in the same sentence.  The #1 priority of a school district is to provide an education to prepare a child for the world that we all live in.   Anything beyond that should receive support if there is room in the budget, either by general fund or bond, to get that.  And since this thread has turned specifically to WO-S, it is only fair to note that they have attempted to make that room.  In 2007, the district called for a bond election for which about $3.9 million would have been devoted to the overhaul of Dan R. Hooks Stadium.  An overhaul which included not only a turf field, but renovation of the seating (which anybody, home or away, can tell you is the biggest complaint about the stadium), renovation of concession areas and the bathroom facilities.  Narrowly, that bond failed.  A subsequent bond in 2011 passed which took care of some of these issues, but not for the turf or seating.  I know that Nederland has had pretty close to the same history.
I genuinely hope that in the near future either by bond or out of the general fund turf is on the field and I am sure that I not alone.  After all, I agree with oldschool that if anyone has built up the equity to earn such turf, it is the Mustangs.  At the same time, the Mustangs are the poster child for a team that can be, at the very least, relevant without playing its home games on artificial turf.  The program isn't considered an outstanding program because of this:

This is what counts in West Orange, Texas:
 

So to come on and term a program backward because it has it doesn't have this:

when in the last season they got this:

is a little ridiculous, don't you think?
It is especially ridiculous given the cost of such an undertaking might not make the economic sense that we have been lead to believe.  The following link is from FieldTurf, a company that installs artificial turf:
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up As you can see, the base preparations and materials would constitute a $700,000 initial outlay as opposed to $370,000 for base preparations and materials for a grass field.  But remember, the base and materials are already in place for a grass field at D.R. Hooks, so it would be a $700,000 outlay for a turf whose life according to this company's numbers is 8-10 years.  FieldTurf acknowledges the base preparation and materials might be cheaper if competitor installs it ($640,000 initial outlay as opposed to the $700,000 for FieldTurf), but the life of the competitor's field is only 6-8 years.
Then you come to maintenance.  FieldTurf estimates that maintenance (and as I stated earlier, you just don't put this carpet down and play... there is maintenance!) for one of it fields is $5,000 a year as opposed to $20,000 in maintenance for grass (and remember, these aren't my numbers, they're the numbers of the company that is trying to sell you on the idea of artificial turf) which would be a savings of $15,000 a year over the life of the turf which is maximum 10 years according the company.  So it the field lives to its maximum, a school district would save about $150,000 in maintenance costs.  Only to lay out another $380,000 again in 8-10 years.  According to FieldTurf, if you use one of their competitors, that field would take $10,000 a year to maintain.  So if a district were to use one of the competitors, they would enjoy a $10,000 savings on maintenance a years.  So if one of those fields lives to its maximum (8 years), the school district saves a total of $80,000 in maintenance costs over the life of the turf, only to lay out at least $320,000 in another 8 years.  Just for fairness, let's include the materials for the grass field, which FieldTurf estimates at $220,000, as savings as well, since there will need to be periodic resodding for the grass field.
Now, we have heard a whole bunch about monetary benefits that the district could gain by installing artificial turf.  Well, even oldschool acknowledged that location is a big challenge and with WO-S being one of the, if not the, most eastern school in the State of Texas that any sort of playoff rental would be rare, if at all.  Heck, Hardin, which has turf and a reasonable location given its western location in this part of the area, has been able to manage ONE playoff game since it installed turf.  So the idea of rental from playoff is just about out the window.  Then we hear about the idea of renting to youth football.  Well, specific to West Orange-Stark, let's play some Jeopardy. 
Todd: Alex, I will take football fields in Orange for $500. 
Alex: The answer....The entity that owns both of the regulation size football fields in Orange and West Orange.  Yes, Todd!
Todd: What is the West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District?
Alex: Correct, please pick again.
This little exercise, silly as it was, is to let you know that WO-S already gets whatever rentals from whatever youth football is played in Orange (if indeed any of the Youth teams actually play in Orange).  So the increase in revenue for the district would be....well...$0.
So we are now back at the district outlaying anywhere from $640,000 to $700,000 for either $350,000 in decreased cost of maintenance and materials over 10 years in the case of FieldTurf or $340,000 in decreased cost of maintenance and materials over 8 years.  All with the certainty of another payout of at least another $320,000 to $340,000 8 to 10 years from now and the possibility of increased revenue due to turf renovations being negligible, at best.  We all have mentioned what we thought Hillary or Bernie would think.  But I wonder what Donald would think.  Mr. Trump, if one of your subordinates sign off on this deal for one of your companies, what would you tell them?

Yeah me, too, Mr. Trump.
I can't come on here and say that laying artificial turf is cost prohibitive as we have seen districts in this area pull it off, but the cost question is not the no-brainer that some would like us to believe.  That is why I rankle when folks want to come on here and call this area backwards or stuck in the past simply because there is grass on their field and not artificial turf.  To do so reminds me of a small child that throws a tantrum and proclaims that their parents don't love him because he didn't get the latest, hottest toy.
I hope that most, if not all, of the school districts in Southeast Texas find the means to purchase artificial turf fields for their stadiums by the time we are in the 2020's.  But if that does not happen, I certainly won't belittle them as some folks here have been prone to do.
 

If you can have both, great!  It has been noted some that have both. 
My point is that, no matter how you spin it, this is an expense and a pretty darned significant one.  One that the various boards of trustees have to examine and examine closely to see if their school districts can absorb such an expense.  Those that have examined the expense and have determined that they can absorb it do deserve kudos.  At the same time, those that have examined the expense and have determined that they can not at this time do not deserve our scorn and to me labeling a school district as "behind the times" (as many posts have done, as well as the guest who chooses to waste my time with reports rather than registering and posting) or "unappreciative of its athletes" or saying that a district hasn't made such an expenditure a priority qualifies as such.

Well, while it is unfortunate that they want to lynch Coach Jehling before his team takes the field, it is fortunate that he, as Chris Babin's assistant, has experience in this matter.  As I recall, there were a number of folks in Lumberton last year who wanted Coach Babin and his staff, including Coach Jehling, hanging from the tallest tree over Village Creek before the Raiders even took a snap.  I am sure Coach observed well what was done to placate those folks and he will surely apply those lessons in Hamshire.
And if the results of last year are not repeated, I hope the Longhorn faithful keep in mind that it has more to do with who is no longer behind center than with who wears the big headset on the sidelines.

I get really nervous when the words "school district" "artificial turf" and "priorities" are used in the same sentence.  The #1 priority of a school district is to provide an education to prepare a child for the world that we all live in.   Anything beyond that should receive support if there is room in the budget, either by general fund or bond, to get that.  And since this thread has turned specifically to WO-S, it is only fair to note that they have attempted to make that room.  In 2007, the district called for a bond election for which about $3.9 million would have been devoted to the overhaul of Dan R. Hooks Stadium.  An overhaul which included not only a turf field, but renovation of the seating (which anybody, home or away, can tell you is the biggest complaint about the stadium), renovation of concession areas and the bathroom facilities.  Narrowly, that bond failed.  A subsequent bond in 2011 passed which took care of some of these issues, but not for the turf or seating.  I know that Nederland has had pretty close to the same history.
I genuinely hope that in the near future either by bond or out of the general fund turf is on the field and I am sure that I not alone.  After all, I agree with oldschool that if anyone has built up the equity to earn such turf, it is the Mustangs.  At the same time, the Mustangs are the poster child for a team that can be, at the very least, relevant without playing its home games on artificial turf.  The program isn't considered an outstanding program because of this:

This is what counts in West Orange, Texas:
 

So to come on and term a program backward because it has it doesn't have this:

when in the last season they got this:

is a little ridiculous, don't you think?
It is especially ridiculous given the cost of such an undertaking might not make the economic sense that we have been lead to believe.  The following link is from FieldTurf, a company that installs artificial turf:
This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up As you can see, the base preparations and materials would constitute a $700,000 initial outlay as opposed to $370,000 for base preparations and materials for a grass field.  But remember, the base and materials are already in place for a grass field at D.R. Hooks, so it would be a $700,000 outlay for a turf whose life according to this company's numbers is 8-10 years.  FieldTurf acknowledges the base preparation and materials might be cheaper if competitor installs it ($640,000 initial outlay as opposed to the $700,000 for FieldTurf), but the life of the competitor's field is only 6-8 years.
Then you come to maintenance.  FieldTurf estimates that maintenance (and as I stated earlier, you just don't put this carpet down and play... there is maintenance!) for one of it fields is $5,000 a year as opposed to $20,000 in maintenance for grass (and remember, these aren't my numbers, they're the numbers of the company that is trying to sell you on the idea of artificial turf) which would be a savings of $15,000 a year over the life of the turf which is maximum 10 years according the company.  So it the field lives to its maximum, a school district would save about $150,000 in maintenance costs.  Only to lay out another $380,000 again in 8-10 years.  According to FieldTurf, if you use one of their competitors, that field would take $10,000 a year to maintain.  So if a district were to use one of the competitors, they would enjoy a $10,000 savings on maintenance a years.  So if one of those fields lives to its maximum (8 years), the school district saves a total of $80,000 in maintenance costs over the life of the turf, only to lay out at least $320,000 in another 8 years.  Just for fairness, let's include the materials for the grass field, which FieldTurf estimates at $220,000, as savings as well, since there will need to be periodic resodding for the grass field.
Now, we have heard a whole bunch about monetary benefits that the district could gain by installing artificial turf.  Well, even oldschool acknowledged that location is a big challenge and with WO-S being one of the, if not the, most eastern school in the State of Texas that any sort of playoff rental would be rare, if at all.  Heck, Hardin, which has turf and a reasonable location given its western location in this part of the area, has been able to manage ONE playoff game since it installed turf.  So the idea of rental from playoff is just about out the window.  Then we hear about the idea of renting to youth football.  Well, specific to West Orange-Stark, let's play some Jeopardy. 
Todd: Alex, I will take football fields in Orange for $500. 
Alex: The answer....The entity that owns both of the regulation size football fields in Orange and West Orange.  Yes, Todd!
Todd: What is the West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District?
Alex: Correct, please pick again.
This little exercise, silly as it was, is to let you know that WO-S already gets whatever rentals from whatever youth football is played in Orange (if indeed any of the Youth teams actually play in Orange).  So the increase in revenue for the district would be....well...$0.
So we are now back at the district outlaying anywhere from $640,000 to $700,000 for either $350,000 in decreased cost of maintenance and materials over 10 years in the case of FieldTurf or $340,000 in decreased cost of maintenance and materials over 8 years.  All with the certainty of another payout of at least another $320,000 to $340,000 8 to 10 years from now and the possibility of increased revenue due to turf renovations being negligible, at best.  We all have mentioned what we thought Hillary or Bernie would think.  But I wonder what Donald would think.  Mr. Trump, if one of your subordinates sign off on this deal for one of your companies, what would you tell them?

Yeah me, too, Mr. Trump.
I can't come on here and say that laying artificial turf is cost prohibitive as we have seen districts in this area pull it off, but the cost question is not the no-brainer that some would like us to believe.  That is why I rankle when folks want to come on here and call this area backwards or stuck in the past simply because there is grass on their field and not artificial turf.  To do so reminds me of a small child that throws a tantrum and proclaims that their parents don't love him because he didn't get the latest, hottest toy.
I hope that most, if not all, of the school districts in Southeast Texas find the means to purchase artificial turf fields for their stadiums by the time we are in the 2020's.  But if that does not happen, I certainly won't belittle them as some folks here have been prone to do.
 

By request, here is the list I mentioned above.  Again, these are the records and results of teams who play on natural grass:
21-6A
All teams play on artificial turf.
21-5A
All teams play on artificial turf.
22-5A
Lumberton - 7-4 - Eliminated in bi-district
Nederland - 8-4 - Eliminated in area
Vidor - 3-7 - Missed playoffs
10-4A-I
Bridge City - 7-4 - Eliminated in bi-district
Cleveland - 1-9 - Missed playoffs
Jasper - 7-5 - Eliminated in area
Little Cypress-Mauriceville - 3-7 - Missed playoffs
Silsbee - 11-3 - Eliminated in State Quarterfinals
Splendora - 3-7 - Missed playoffs
8-4A-II
Coldspring-Oakhurst - 7-5 - Eliminated in area
Diboll - 7-4 - Eliminated in bi-district
Huntington - 3-7 - Missed playoffs
Shepherd - 8-3 - Eliminated in bi-district
Tarkington 4-7 - Eliminated in bi-district
9-4A-II
Hamshire-Fannett - 8-4 - Eliminated in area
Hardin-Jefferson - 2-8 - Missed playoffs
Liberty 4-7 - Eliminated in bi-district
Orangefield - 6-6 - Eliminated in area
West Orange-Stark - 15-1 - State Champions
12-3A-I
Anahuac - 3-7 - Missed playoffs
Buna - 5-6 - Eliminated in bi-district
East Chambers - 10-2 - Eliminated in area
Kirbyville - 10-2 - Eliminated in area
Kountze - 2-8 - Missed playoffs
Warren - 2-8 - MIssed playoffs
11-3A-II
Corrigan-Camden - 8-5 - Eliminated in Regional Semifinals
Deweyville - 3-7 - Missed playoffs
Garrison - 5-6 - Eliminated in bi-district
Hemphill - 3-7 - Missed playoffs
Newton - 8-5 - Eliminated in Regional Semifinals
10-2A-I
Cushing - 4-6 - Missed playoffs
Joaquin - 5-5 - Missed playoffs
West Sabine - 5-6 - Eliminated in bi-district
12-2A-I
Anderson-Shiro - 4-7 - Eliminated in bi-district
Centerville - 6-7 - Eliminated in Regional Semifinals
Groveton - 3-8 - Eliminated in bi-district
Hull-Daisetta - 2-8 - Missed playoffs
Lovelady - 15-1 - Eliminated in State Semifinals
West Hardin - 2-8 - Missed playoffs
12-2A-II
Burkeville - 2-8 - Missed playoffs
Colmesneil - 3-8 - Eliminated in bi-district
Evadale - 6-5 - Eliminated in bi-district
Iola - 9-3 - Eliminated in area
Normangee - 9-4 - Eliminated in Regional Semifinals
Sabine Pass - 0-10 - Missed playoffs
16-1A-I
Apple Springs - 4-6 - Eliminated in bi-district
Chester - 10-1 - Eliminated in area
Leverett's Chapel - 1-8 - Missed playoffs
16-1A-II
Buckholts - 1-9 - Missed playoffs
Calvert - 11-1 - Eliminated in area
High Island - 5-6 - Eliminated in bi-district
Prairie Lea - 1-9 - Missed playoffs
TAPPS 3-I
Beaumont Kelly Catholic - 4-7 - Eliminated in first round
Houston St. Pius X - 10-3 - Eliminated in State Semifinals
Katy Pope John XXIII - 0-9 - missed playoffs
Tomball Concordia Lutheran - 5-7 - Eliminated in second round
TAPPS 4-III
Beaumont Legacy Christian - 10-3 - Eliminated in State Semifinals
Bryan Brazos Christian - 6-5 - Eliminated in First Round
Bryan St. Joseph - 3-7 - Missed playoffs
Houston Lutheran North - 2-8 - Missed playoffs
League City Bay Area Christian - 0-10 - Missed playoffs
Magnolia Legacy Prep - 5-5 - Missed playoffs
Tomball Rosehill Christian - 5-6 - Eliminated in First Round
TAPPS 3-I (Six man)
Baytown Christian - 8-3 - Eliminated in second round
Houston Emery-Weiner - 12-2 - State Champions
Huntsville Alpha Omega - 5-5 - Missed playoffs
Katy Faith West - 6-5 - Eliminated in first round
Pasadena First Baptist - 11-2 - Eliminated in State Semifinals
Sugar Land Logos Prep - 5-6 - Eliminated in First Round
TAPPS 4-II (Six man)
Conroe Covenant Christian - 8-3 - Eliminated in second round
Lake Jackson Brazosport Christian - 2-8 - Missed playoffs
Orange Community Christian - 4-6 - Eliminated in first round
Spring Providence Classical - 4-4 - Missed playoffs
 
Thus, of the 73 schools who play on grass, only 3 (4.1%) played in December while 48 (67.6%) missed the playoffs or lost in the first round of the playoffs.

I think it would be foolish to believe that the results of the individual teams from either list I posted would have been different if they had played on another surface.  The teams that won a lot, and for that matter the teams that lost a lot, did so because of what happened from the feet up not from what was below the feet.