oldschool2

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.

One of too many examples to give. There's only one person here that believes it's only about coaching.. and that "elite" coaches can win a state championship no matter where they are.

That's typical of how I figured you respond. But.. I didn't give you my thoughts. I asked you why so many coaches have won a title or more and then never got close again. That doesn't sound like the actions of an elite coach to me. I would think an elite coach would just keep being elite every year after reaching elite status.

You still didn't answer the question.. or any of the other questions that prove the same exact point.

I've asked you this before and you have never given an explanation.. Why are there so many coaches that have won multiple state championships and then never got close again? How many players did SS have that went on to play major D1 football? How many did Phil D. have? Is coaching responsible for that? How many super bowls did Bill Belichick win without Tom Brady? How many state championships did Tom Westerberg win without Kyler Murray? How many NBA championships did Phil Jackson win without MJ or Kobe in the lineup? You're pro "coaching matters".. and I agree, it does. But you will never convince me that coaching matters more than the players on the team. Never. And I know that it could never be proven, but I'd bet that several coaches could reach your definition of elite if they'd had the right players.

Sometimes you just say the right things in the interview.

Phil Danaher is the winningest head coach in the history of Texas high school football coaches. 41 consecutive playoff appearances... since you brought up losing seasons. However, he never won the title. So.. is he elite? Some people (cough cough) would say no, because he never won the state championship. What are your thoughts?

I actually went to the game.. (invited by an old friend). Orangefield's defense is much more aggressive in person than I saw each time I watched them play on NFHS. I'm impressed with how they get in your pocket.. so to speak. And. I really like 24's game. His ability to penetrate the paint at the end was one of the differences in the game. However.. could someone tell him that it's not necessary to have a conversation with an official literally every dead ball situation? I'm surprised OF didn't catch a tech because of that annoyance alone. There were a couple times I thought for sure they would've gotten one but didn't. Either way, congrats on the hard fought win. Definitely a positive that WW went small. That'll make it more attainable.. but Madison won't be a pushover by any stretch should you get this win over London. Best of luck, guys.

That's every school, right? They all have D1 running backs... if the coaches would just use the correct blocking schemes with the linemen. Every team has a D1 quarterback... if the coaching staff would just call the correct offensive plays. Every team should've won the state championship... if the coaches would've just implemented the right system. Right? Isn't that the way it works every year? Sideline coaches are genuinely hilarious to me. Genuinely.

What's funny about this, is the amount of people that feel this way about coaches that have poor seasons. Even coaches that don't have 3 state titles under their belts.. Team loses - Coach is terrible. Nobody would ever dare say that the talent level is just subpar or nonexistent. Warren football is actually a good example. But there are many others. When there's no industry that brings in people, there's no history of athleticism in anyone's lineage, there's no motivation whatsoever for the players to work the extremely long/hard hours that it takes to improve... I mean, what is really expected? Or maybe the kids aren't able to. Maybe they work jobs during the summers. I don't know. But even at a school with an entire history of mediocrity at best, no matter how many coaches come in, the coach will be at fault for not performing miracles.

This is the exact reason I asked if Elite coaches existed outside of football. Because you have a man that won a state championship in high school, and then won 3 state championships as a head coach running the same exact system that his school has been running since before he took the job. And then less than one calendar year after winning his 3rd state title as a head coach.. his team didn't finish better than 5th in a district that isn't impressive at all. "Elite coaches can win anywhere" is an invalid argument.

True or False: "Elite" coaches can exist in any sport according to what is being defined as elite?

So... turf the fields so the school uses less water? Maybe..

Is nobody going to talk about what happened here? Was HF missing someone? Injuries? Or did they just play awful? Or did Tarkington play lights out? It's be nice to know what happened.

Makes sense.

It's tough being a one-trick pony after others figure out the trick. The other kids might have to get more involved whether they want to or not...

I'm sure his average dropped from what it was pretty noticeably. More importantly, this may have laid a groundwork for what other teams should be doing.. assuming they aren't trying already.

You're right. I knew it was something, though....