Ive heard some things from a couple of coaches, and I dealt with it when I played against them, too. But hey, according to the other png poster on here, we're just jealous . Seems like the new thing to do out there is to flood the field with cops after the game to make sure it doesn't backfire on them
I doubt the hammering would've been nearly as bad. Kountze has had some pretty close games against average opponents with a starter or two out. And I would be very worried about my player getting hurt. When you're down 60 and your opponent is leaving one of the best players in the state in the game to run his stat line up, there are a lot of high school kids out there without the self control to stop themself from taking a cheap shot if it presents itself. I quit basketball as a freshman because I was a very good soccer player, and there were at least a dozen times in my career where I'd scored 2-3 goals against a bad opponent and my coach took me out of the game or threw me back into defense because the other team started trying to take me out. I set the all-time scoring record at my school, which still stands today, but I could've come close to doubling that number had the coach let me stay in and score as much as I wanted. I have no problem with his decision, because it was the right thing to do, for a multitude of reasons.
I'm not the expert on this, so take what I say with a grain of salt. But I've talked about it a lot with a friend who did finance for one of the presidential campaigns (not the one that was a student here last semester), and this is how I understand it.
Super PACs are, by law, required to be separate from the campaign, and are not allowed to coordinate with the campaign. In reality, though, the line of separation often isn't as absolute as it's supposed to be. It's not uncommon to see people who once worked on the campaign working on the PAC, or who once worked on the PAC taking a position with the campaign, or a top campaign donor founding or holding some kind of leadership position in the PAC, or people who worked with the candidate or a top-ranked campaign official in previous capacities taking a position with the PAC, or something of the like.
In my opinion, PACs are often just there to do the dirty work the campaigns don't want to be directly tied to. If Candidate A wants to be positive, often times the negative attack ads against Candidates B and C will be run by one of the PACs that support Candidate A, instead of by Candidate A's campaign itself. This isn't always the case, but it happens a lot. The PACs try to complement the campaign strategies.
PACs do often take massive donations from companies. The whole reason PACs exist is to absorb the corporate donations that the campaigns themselves can't take because of federal campaign spending limits, so it's not unusual for them to take donations from companies. What stands out to me here is that a "high number" of companies are backing this PAC, but it's raised virtually no money; it's the second worst PAC in terms of fundraising of any of the major GOP candidates. That means lots small donations are coming in from lots of companies, as opposed to large donations coming in from a smaller number of companies, as is usual with PACs. That raises my suspicions about what's going on. Are there just a bunch of mid-sized and small corporations backing Cruz, or are people using shell companies to channel donations to the PAC? I don't know, but I would find it odd if a guy whose wife works for Goldman Sachs, who took out loans from Goldman Sachs and Citibank to finance his original Senate campaign and who I personally know is recruiting former officials with major financial institutions to both donate to and staff his campaign is getting a bunch of small corporate donations as opposed to a few big ones.
Where CNN's concerned, while I understand suspecting bias, CNN can't change the facts, just the way it presents them. At the end of the day, a pro-Cruz PAC with some peculiar characteristics still had an ad attacking Rubio pulled off the airwaves by media group's legal department.
As for who I support, I've said openly that I'm a Rubio fan in prior posts. My mail-in ballot is already filled out and waiting for me to drop it off at the post office with the box beside Rubio's name filled in. He's my candidate. But that's really beside the point. I didn't vote for Cruz in the Republican Senate primary back in 2012. I voted for Dewhurst, in part because I felt Dewhurst had proven himself a capable, policy-oriented legislator during his tenure as Lieutenant Governor, and in part because even back then, I had my own reservations about Cruz, a Bush administration official suddenly turned Tea Party conservative. Since Cruz took office, he's only really done one thing in the Senate that I find praiseworthy, which was defending gun rights after Sandy Hook. Other than that, his term in the Senate, in my (admittedly unpopular on this site) opinion, has been an abysmal failure. Frankly, the only reason I think conservatives have trouble finding blemishes on Cruz's record is because there really isn't that much of a record to find blemishes on. It is completely void of policy achievements. In that sense, he's a conservative Senator Barack Obama circa 2008. Like Obama during his four years in the Senate, Cruz has passed no major legislation, has proposed no real legislative solution to any of the country's pressing problems, and has no objective success to his name. Literally all he's done is filibuster until he was blue in the face, force a government shutdown, change his positions on various issues the moment controversy cropped up around them (another one of Obama's real talents), voted to make massive cuts in defense spending and criticized every element of the national leadership at every available opportunity (something Obama was quite skilled at as a senator as well, though Obama was never as aggravated or direct and played nicer with his own party). Cruz's sole policy initiative was the amendment he proposed to the immigration reform bill, which he now distances himself from as an attempt to kill that same bill, another Cruz claim I find hard to believe having watched Cruz during the debates for that very amendment. And despite not even trying to get something done, he still has the audacity to attack other candidates for trying to find solutions and actually getting things done.
I get being anti-establishment. Four years ago, I wasn't particularly happy with the Republican establishment, myself. I still consider myself to be outside the party mainstream, even though it's moved much closer to where I stand than it used to be. On that note, in terms of policy alone, I align more with Cruz than any other candidate except Rubio. But there's a difference between being anti-establishment and being outright obstructionist. Cruz is the latter, and it seems apparent to me that he's assumed that role for no other reason than to lay the groundwork for a campaign for the presidency that rests on that very persona. Throw in suspect campaign practices, and I just plain don't trust the guy. It's for that very reason that despite agreeing with them less, I would vote for Bush, Kasich, and Carson all before I would vote for Cruz if Rubio weren't in the race. As much as I dislike Donald Trump, if it were between he and Cruz, I would still have reservations about voting for Cruz. And if Cruz (or Trump, for that matter) gets the nomination, I may, for the first time in my life, consider supporting someone other than the Republican candidate for the presidency.
Above all else, that's the part that really concerns me. Me, a millennial that's been a Republican literally all his life, being put in a position where I have to entertain the possibility that Gary Johnson could get my vote. I'm not the only one facing that decision.
The GOP has more support among millennials right now than I think it's ever had. The economy sucks, recent college graduates are looking for jobs to pay off all this student loan debt and the social progress fatigue the country had in the late seventies is setting back in. I've personally been surprised at how many people my age have expressed openness to voting for a GOP contender. Rubio and Kasich both have surprising amounts of millennial appeal, and Rand, as we all know, was almost exclusively supported by millennials. Jeb's even managed to get a little of it despite his last name. About a week ago, I was shocked when I gave a Hispanic UT law student a ride home and he, who I would characterize as a moderate, told me out of the blue that if Rubio got the nomination, he'd vote for him in a heartbeat. The number of ostensibly anti-GOP students saying things like that has actually thrown me off; I'm not used to having somewhat popular political opinions among others in my generation. But we're at a point right now where two of the three frontrunners for the GOP nomination would squander every bit of that millennial support. I go on Facebook, Twitter or GroupMe (that's a group messaging app) right now and almost every political meme I see from another millennial is aimed at one of three people: Trump, Cruz and Hillary.
I go to arguably the most conservative major law school in the country (I realize that comes as a surprise in reference to UT; understand that I'm referring to the law school, not the undergraduate campus, where the political climate is very, very different). The UT chapter of the Federalist Society, the organization for conservative lawyers and law school students, is the second largest in the country, behind only Harvard, a law school with three times as many students as UT. The ratio of conservative and liberal law school students, at least in my class, has almost reached parity. UT publishes the nation's most prominent conservative law review, the Texas Review of Law & Politics, and the Federalist Society chapter here has more members than the American Constitutional Society, its liberal counterpart. The only law school in the country that's arguably more conservative is the University of Chicago, which is really more libertarian than anything else because it takes a hardcore economic approach to everything, and which also happens to be the alma mater of our current dean. Needless to say, I come into contact with more conservative law students on a daily basis here than I would anywhere else.
Of all of those conservative students in my 1L class whom I interact with regularly (probably 35-40), only one of them supports Ted Cruz (this isn't the one that worked on the Cruz campaign and got kicked out of UT; I'm not counting him here), and he openly admits that his support is at best lukewarm. Only two are going for Trump, and I feel fairly certain they're just doing it to get on everyone else's nerves. The rest all support Rubio and Kasich, with a few Jeb Bush fans and a fair number of libertarians still trying to get over Rand dropping out. I shake up old GroupMe conversations among my friends at Alabama, which is where I went to undergrad and happens to be one of the most conservative public universities in the country, and the distribution is the same. You look at Cruz's millennial outreach page on Facebook, and he's got less than 3,000 likes. I've seen candidates for student government get more likes than that. It's the worst millennial outreach effort of any of the major candidates except Donald Trump. This general disdain among millennials for Cruz, in my experience, hasn't been over his platform positions; his platform isn't worlds apart from Rubio and bears some similarities to Paul, both of whom enjoy varying degrees of popularity among millennials. It comes down to his personality - the smug smile, the squeamish voice, the condescending tone, the presumptuousness, the unworkable attitude in the Senate and the reputation for suspect tactics practiced by his campaign and its affiliates.
This likability problem isn't limited to millennials, either. Cruz has banked his entire campaign on winning evangelical and Tea Party voters, basing the strategy in a study done by the RNC after Mitt Romney lost suggesting that several million such voters stayed home in 2012. The thinking in the Cruz campaign is that if they can organize a grassroots effort to get those voters, they can win the primary and the general election. The problem with that strategy is that (1) there's not enough voters out there who fall in those categories to win with them alone, (2) Cruz has so over-leveraged himself with that specific element of the GOP that he's got no crossover appeal, and (3) he doesn't even do that well among those voters. The fact that there aren't enough evangelicals to carry the Cruz campaign alone is exactly why he didn't win New Hampshire and why he's not in first place in South Carolina right now. It's also evident in the polls pitting him against Democrat nominees in a general election. In addition to making a play for millennials that's failed in epic proportions, Cruz also tried to make a play for libertarians in the last days of the Rand Paul campaign. He did such a poor job that Rand's wife called him "two-faced," and, after Rand had already dropped out, Ron Paul went on a speaking tour not to urge libertarians to vote for anyone specifically, but instead to urge them to vote for anyone but Ted Cruz, echoing Iowa's governor in the days leading up to the Iowa primary. Cruz can't seem to get a single endorsement from any elected Republican official except a handful of Congressmen and Texas state officials. Nobody in the Senate - not even close Cruz friends and, in the past at least, political allies Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions - has endorsed Ted Cruz. And perhaps worst of all, despite his almost singular focus on evangelicals, Cruz can't even win a majority among them. In Iowa, the most evangelical-dominated state in the first four GOP primary states, Cruz only won 26% of evangelical voters. Trump, who is perhaps the worst candidate for evangelicals of all time, and Rubio, who hasn't emphasized his evangelical bona fides nearly as much as Cruz has, both came within five points of Cruz's lead. One of the other longtime evangelical candidates in this race, Rick Santorum, endorsed Marco, not Ted, upon dropping out of the race, and the other major evangelical player in the GOP race, Ben Carson, is caught in the middle of a blood feud with Cruz over Cruz's dirty tactics. All of this leads me to believe that Cruz's status as a frontrunner is purely a function of the GOP field being so jam-packed; if it weren't for so many other candidates being in the race and slicing up other voting bases within the party so many ways, I don't think Cruz would be a serious contender. I come to that conclusion before even beginning to take into account my own experiences with Cruz campaign officials.
So, long story short, when I boil this down to the facts, I don't see a "consistent conservative" or a strong presidential candidate. I see a candidate with no real record, no real experience, a reputation for brinkmanship behavior and inflammatory rhetoric, a serious likability problem, no crossover appeal to speak of and problems getting support even within his own base. He's got electability issues, favorability issues, consistency issues, personality issues, and if I'm being totally frank, authenticity issues. I see him as neither capable of winning the presidency, nor the right person to be president.
I am going to make a statement about Ted Cruz that may offend some people so here it is. Mr. Cruz made a big effort to support the Kountze Cheerleader Case, but never spoke of. or asked for justice about the Kountze Church Burning. Can someone help make sense of this?
Dang. He took it down. Only video I've ever seen with such a diverse group of musical stylings - from "Old MacDonald" to "Kickstart My Heart." It was poetry with a drone.
I think y'all have 9 more players close to his level. Maybe not quite as good, but a minimal drop off. If you're saying the same outcome as in Silsbee wins, then I agree. If you're saying it's still a blowout, I completely disagree. Silsbee has two starting fives worth of all-district players. HJ has three players of that caliber. When one of those three is missing, it's a HUGE difference maker. Also considering that parquet is tall, fast, and an excellent ball handler, he'd make a huge difference in HJs press break against the Tigers. HJ had 37 turnovers tonight. If parquet plays that number is greatly reduced, plus he is HJs second best scorer. If McCain plays, he takes minutes from 8-9 other guys capable of doing pretty much what he can do. If Parquet plays, he takes minutes from several role players that probably combined for 5 points and 15 turnovers.
my two cents from the game tonight: Silsbee is the real deal. Their pressure is incredible, their athleticism is unmatchable, and they can really fill it up from deep. I thought HJ did a really nice job in the first half of holding their own against the press, and finding easy points after breaking it. In the second half they started to wear down, and in the end they got run over, which is a shame because they put in a really nice performance for three quarters. Not having 2 of their best ball handlers really hurt them, and it would've been a lot different game had Parquet and Bernard been able to suit up. HJ only had 2-3 guys tonight that they could rely on to break the press, and one of them really struggled with the ball, and they all were worn out by the end of the 3rd quarter. Saladin showed up to play, but Jamerson didn't have nearly the impact he did in the first meeting. He didn't play poorly, but silsbee did a nice job of keeping HJ from getting him good looks, and also of adjusting their shots so that he didn't block too many of them. As for Silsbee, i was very impressed with them in the second half. they never seem to slow down, and they have a ton of guys off the bench with no drop off. There are only two things that can stop the tigers from getting to state IMO. The first is shot selection. They took several contested and off balance threes tonight. In the first half they missed almost all of them, which is part of the reason that HJ was able to hang around. In the second half they also shot quite a few ill-advised threes, off balance, not set, with a hand in their face, but they actually made many of them. So while many of those shots led to the giant win margin down the stretch, had they kept missing them, HJ could have gotten back into the game. The second thing that could slow them down is going to be refs who call a tight game. I don't have any criticism for the refs tonight, as they were consistent, and they let both teams play. But for every reach-in and hand check they called on silsbee, they let 2 or 3 go. The refs dictate play, and they let them go tonight, but had they been calling them silsbee would've had some problems. they're deep enough to overcome foul trouble, but had HJ been in the double bonus in the 3rd quarter the game could've changed quite a bit. Again, i AM NOT saying the refs were bad, and I AM NOT using them as an excuse. I'm merely pointing out that Silsbee could struggle against a quality playoff opponent if the refs call it tight due to the extreme pressure they apply and the fact that they reach and bump a lot on D. All that having been said, super impressive win tonight by a super impressive team. Congrats to the tigers on a great win. I hope we meet you guys again in a few weeks.
Almost proves your point? You asked what team slowed it down but yet Silsbee came out victorious like you never thought they could win a slow down game. Well I gave you an example.Then #2 state ranked Argyle. It only disproved your point that Silsbee could not beat a team that slowed the game down with exceptional guard play with good post play. Argyle had both but yet Silsbee won.
LOL. I almost changed mind and picked Awty +28. I knew we were starting our seniors, Canon Broussard wasn't playing and the starters wouldn't get much action. I couldn't bet against us covering in my heart. But then again, I am rarely right against the spread if you look at my overall standings lol
my two cents from the game tonight: Silsbee is the real deal. Their pressure is incredible, their athleticism is unmatchable, and they can really fill it up from deep. I thought HJ did a really nice job in the first half of holding their own against the press, and finding easy points after breaking it. In the second half they started to wear down, and in the end they got run over, which is a shame because they put in a really nice performance for three quarters. Not having 2 of their best ball handlers really hurt them, and it would've been a lot different game had Parquet and Bernard been able to suit up. HJ only had 2-3 guys tonight that they could rely on to break the press, and one of them really struggled with the ball, and they all were worn out by the end of the 3rd quarter. Saladin showed up to play, but Jamerson didn't have nearly the impact he did in the first meeting. He didn't play poorly, but silsbee did a nice job of keeping HJ from getting him good looks, and also of adjusting their shots so that he didn't block too many of them. As for Silsbee, i was very impressed with them in the second half. they never seem to slow down, and they have a ton of guys off the bench with no drop off. There are only two things that can stop the tigers from getting to state IMO. The first is shot selection. They took several contested and off balance threes tonight. In the first half they missed almost all of them, which is part of the reason that HJ was able to hang around. In the second half they also shot quite a few ill-advised threes, off balance, not set, with a hand in their face, but they actually made many of them. So while many of those shots led to the giant win margin down the stretch, had they kept missing them, HJ could have gotten back into the game. The second thing that could slow them down is going to be refs who call a tight game. I don't have any criticism for the refs tonight, as they were consistent, and they let both teams play. But for every reach-in and hand check they called on silsbee, they let 2 or 3 go. The refs dictate play, and they let them go tonight, but had they been calling them silsbee would've had some problems. they're deep enough to overcome foul trouble, but had HJ been in the double bonus in the 3rd quarter the game could've changed quite a bit. Again, i AM NOT saying the refs were bad, and I AM NOT using them as an excuse. I'm merely pointing out that Silsbee could struggle against a quality playoff opponent if the refs call it tight due to the extreme pressure they apply and the fact that they reach and bump a lot on D. All that having been said, super impressive win tonight by a super impressive team. Congrats to the tigers on a great win. I hope we meet you guys again in a few weeks.
bullets13 got a reaction from rhino1877 in Port Neches-Groves Boys 3 Beaumont Central 1/Final
bullets13 got a reaction from 24 over par in Kountze 124 Deweyville 38/Final
bullets13 got a reaction from winwin in Kountze 124 Deweyville 38/Final
bullets13 got a reaction from no-look in *Pickem results for Friday, Feb. 12 and season standings*
bullets13 got a reaction from Silsbee92 in Silsbee 95 Hardin-Jefferson 64/Final
bullets13 got a reaction from TxHoops in Bridge City 45 Orangefield 30/Final
bullets13 got a reaction from DXTR in Silsbee 95 Hardin-Jefferson 64/Final
bullets13 got a reaction from ST413 in Silsbee 95 Hardin-Jefferson 64/Final
bullets13 got a reaction from BADSANTA in Silsbee 95 Hardin-Jefferson 64/Final
bullets13 got a reaction from exsoftballplayer in Hardin-Jefferson Boys 2 Hamshire-Fannett 1/Final - OT