oldschool2

You listed some former Tarkington head coaches that were hired with losing records. How do you know they were the most successful coaches from the applicants at the time? How do you not see how what I posted has a lot to do with what you posted?

I think you're assuming that coaches with winning records just inundate all head coaching opportunities with unlimited interest. Big name coaches (or ones with winning records) don't normally apply for this type of job. Are they supposed to just scrap every resume until they get to a winning one? I'd think that most schools try to hire the best candidate of the ones that apply for the job.

There are probably plenty of good football coaches that are interested in the job, but a proven winning football coach isn't likely to be interested in a job like Tarkington. Because coaches that make a name for themselves go on to better jobs that are normally competitive. Or at least high paying. Schools like Tarkington that are neither historically competitive nor high paying will not attract known successful coaches. Sorry.. that's just how it works.

Depends on who you ask I guess.

Community support.

I've advocated to facilities upgrades for forever on this site (since I created an account). I used to catch a lot of ridicule from the old school mentality of, "it was good enough for my grandparents.. it's good enough now".. when in reality, if you're not providing top notch facilities, then your kids will go somewhere that has them. It's recruiting without recruiting. Plus, knowing that these tax rate increases are so small in the grand scheme of things.. it's beyond my level of comprehension why communities wouldn't want a school they're proud to show off. There's an enormous sense of pride associated with knowing that other schools are potentially jealous of what you have when they come to visit. Just pass the bond. Upgraded facilities will have a positive impact on your students' experiences for long after you've died.

Just out of curiosity.. what suggestions do you have to make the district appealing? Money?

I didn't say the coach hasn't done great with what he has. I has that barely breaking .500 THIS YEAR and missing the playoffs isn't great (regarding the basketball team). That's not a knock at the coach at all. When you don't have horses.. you don't have horses. But the season overall for the team overall was not great. Maybe as good as it could have possibly been.. or better. But that doesn't necessarily make it great.

No offense intended. What you mentioned is certainly above Tarkington's historic standard.. for most sports. But mediocre or a step above isn't something I'd ever use the word "Great" with. .. Which I know that you said the year wasn't great. No question that 20+ wins and a playoff appearance is better than many, but other than this recent 6 year stretch you're talking about.. how often were even winning records happening? 6 years is not a long time. They're dropping, right? That'll definitely help.. or should. I don't know..

Great? I mean.. they had a kid that scored a lot of points. But they finished a little better than 50% and missed the playoffs. That's a great year? Plus.. wasn't the scorer a senior? Might be back to the struggle bus next year.

I've truly never had a more aggravating conversation in all of sports than this.. because of your ridiculous mentality on the subject. Hey genius... not me or anyone else is saying that Surratt isn't the best high school football coach to have ever done it. Nor is anyone saying that ANY coach could win if they had the right athletes. Nor is anyone saying that athletes started showing up when he got there. What is actually wrong with you to think that's the argument? How are you not understanding that it takes a combination of coaching AND talent? Not every school has talent... not the talent it takes to win a title. NO TALENT AT ALL. You said, "What in his head coaching history would make you think he couldn't?" That's easy.. it's nothing to do with him, personally. It's the literal countless examples of other coaches that are elite according to your own definition... that never sniffed another championship after reaching your level of elite. Even if you only use high school football examples.. which is stupid.. but whatever. Do you honestly think that Tom Westerburg is the only example? He's being used as the example over and over again just because it was a recent situation. Reaching elite status while at Allen, and then never even getting close to Cowboy Stadium again after leaving. That alone should be all the proof you need that not every coach can win a state championship at any school. But.. I'll give you this. Your heels are dug in to your opinion on this.

Not anyone that doesn't agree with me. Anyone, in this specific case, that believes quality coaching can overcome anything. You seem to be the only one on the opposite side of this argument. True or False: Scott Surratt could take the Warren job right now and win a state championship within 7 years without any out of district transfers.

Hit a nerve? Let me break it down: Player A - High household income, 2 working parents, spending summers at strength/speed camps, not having to work summer jobs, having a reliable vehicle to make it to weight room/school, running with kids in similar situation, access to best facilities money can buy, personal trainer, personal tutor, etc. etc. etc.... Player B - The literal opposite of what Player A has access to. Give any head coach.. or football coach for that matter in the state.. a team full of Player A's. Give Scott Surratt a team full of Player B's. Scott Surratt is losing a vast majority of the times they play each other. Think not? Then you are either Ignorant on the the subject.. or naive.

I would wager that a higher percentage of coaches know what they're dealing with in that regard.. than the percentage of parents that know that their kid is in this situation. Please note: I'm not being judgmental nor am I saying that those kind of obstacles are impossible to overcome.. just stating that statistically it can make quite a difference. Anyone that argues it doesn't is just ignorant on the subject.. or naive.

That matters for sure.. but I think the way it matters is by way of households that are able to provide the tax revenue that contributes to those means of advertising (facilities, salaries, stipends, etc.). Here's a great article outlining the obvious differences in the financial situations of Austin High School and Austin Lake Travis High School: [Hidden Content] Two high schools not very far apart with similar(ish) enrollments. Austin High has roughly 2400 students.. which is much less than LT, but 2400 is plenty to field a decent football team in almost all cases. Vastly different average household incomes, though. You have kids from LT driving BMW's to planet fitness during the summers to meet an ex pro-athlete for a workout.. while Austin High kids might be sitting at home or working a summer job to help put food on the table. This applies at every classification across the state (country). There are always exceptions, but more times than not: High household income, 2 working parents, spending summers at strength/speed camps, not having to work summer jobs, having a reliable vehicle to make it to weight room/school, running with kids in similar situation, access to best facilities money can buy, personal trainer, personal tutor, etc. etc. etc.... A kid with access to the list I just gave will ALWAYS have a leg up on a kid that doesn't. Now multiply that by entire teams/programs. Start looking at the average household income of the schools that are habitually making deep runs. The income translates to living situation.. which translates to property taxes.. which is a huge contributor to how public schools pay for facilities and teachers/coaches/stipends.