oldschool2

8 minutes ago, longball24 said:

With that being said and I agree with everything you say. The only recourse some will have is to vote for the school voucher program. This will make it easier for parents to move their children to schools that best suit the interests of their children both academically and athletically.

 

That conversation shifted gears.

As far as parents moving their kids to schools that best suit their interests.. that's been happening since long before the talk of vouchers.  It can't be stopped.  I'm on the fence.  I see the arguments for and against.. but I think that maybe a parent's school tax dollars should go to the school of their choosing.  Schools should do better job implementing programs and others that A) keep kids there.. B)attract from outside.  Competition is good.. why shouldn't schools have to compete?

18 hours ago, purpleeagle said:

Barrier had a rough time at Rusk. The grass is not always greener on the other side.

A rough time in Carthage's district?  No way...

1 hour ago, longball24 said:

This is why I would never make the head football coach the athletic director at a small school. They have a 1 tract mind when it comes to the athletic program as a whole. Jasper is not the only school going through this . Keep in mind they have arguably the best athletes in the state and cannot win in the other sports. A true athlete is good no matter what sport he or she plays. If they have a true athletic program they will all be successful.

At small schools it's difficult to justify paying what it takes to attract a quality football coach without attaching AD to the job.  Not only monetarily.. but NOBODY that's any good will go somewhere to be the head football coach while having other duties (classes, etc.).  Also, at a small school it's pretty much impossible to justify paying someone to be athletic director only as an administrative salary.

Double edged sword.  I am personally a fan of AD only positions.. but understand completely why it's not normally seen in smaller schools.  Schools the size of Jasper (4A) could probably get away with it.  But that deep, "the way it's always been done".. mentality has a stranglehold on a lot of places. 

26 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

well then I'm with you on the other stuff you stated.  I don't at all have an issue with a basketball player getting some jump shots in during football, or some easy BP swings, etc.  But I don't want basketball players doing box out drills, batters facing live pitching, etc during football, and vice versa on football drills during those seasons.  I guess I should've clarified my original post with the caveat that I don't think they should be doing major work in multiple school sports at the same time.

I played 4 years of college basketball... and knew at a very early age that it would be my passion.  I also played football.. and baseball in JH/HS.  During football/baseball seasons I got in a lot of basketball drills.  Before school, after practice, and on weekends.  I most definitely have a problem with using time for YOUR sport during time that's allocated for another sport.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, focusing on a sport doesn't mean abandoning the others.  It just means finding extra time.

Players that want to be great will do that. 

8 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I wasn't arguing the point of how an AD keeps his job. The question was "what has happened to Jasper" as in their whole athletic department. They were much much better in those other sports even when football was successful. Not anymore.

Something definitely has changed.

Roger.  I misread your comment.

Perhaps the other sports will turn the corner sometime soon.

If there's a specific situation that started this thread, I don't know the details.  Nor do I care.  But I do have an opinion about what I'm gathering from some of the comments.

My opinion: I do believe that an AD should leave the players of a particular sport to their respective head coach during that season.  The varsity players of that sport anyway.  I believe it's a little different concerning the sub varsity players of that sport.  If an AD/HFC decides to grab some JV baseball players for some offseason football stuff during the athletics period, I don't have AS MUCH of a problem with it.  I would still consider it a common courtesy to discuss with the head coach of that particular sport to consider their thoughts on it.

I also believe that ALL athletes should be lifting and running all year.  When in a particular season, I believe that the head coach of that sport should control the reigns on that topic to implement some sport specific lifting/running during their season.  But all athletes should be in the weight room year round.

As far as playing multiple sports?  I'm an advocate.  I know that the popular idea is for potentially good/great players in a specific sport to "focus" on that sport.  And I agree.. but focusing on one sport doesn't mean stopping the others.  It just means prioritizing time in a way that extra work is put into that specific sport.  After hours, weekends, holidays/summer, etc..  Just because you plan on making a push into college baseball (for example) doesn't mean you can't work on baseball during other sports seasons.  That's exactly what I did.. and countless others.  Plus, it's important to maybe learn how to be a role player in a sport that you're not the best at.  Because that's coming.

That's my opinion.  And I come from an era where kids played multiple sports if they knew it would be helping.  Helping their classmates.. or just contributing to school pride.  I hate knowing that there are schools that could be much more competitive if their kids would just come out.  It's hard for me to understand if I'm being honest. 

On 4/27/2024 at 12:25 PM, AggiesAreWe said:

In your opinion. Many others would disagree.

The subject was the overall athletic program. Not just football.

Maybe.. however..  Many athletic director / head football coach have lost their job despite the athletic program as a whole being successful.. if the football team struggles.  On the other hand, when football teams are doing great but the rest of the program stinks.. AD/HFC still keeps their job.

WOS.  Newton. .. programs as a whole were fairly weak during those many years of football power and very few people even knew it.  Or cared. Yet, AD/HFC kept their jobs for years.

Meanwhile, I remember an AD/HFC at Barbers Hill lost his job after every program in the school won district championships and even had several team sports (baseball, softball, girls hoops, etc.) making runs at state.  But the football team was mediocre.  Fired.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that perception is reality.  And the perception is that your athletic program can suck as long as football wins.. it doesn't matter how strong the athletic program is if football sucks. 

15 minutes ago, highsky said:

This is the part I wanted to add to my post but wasn't sure how to say it.  Being AD & HFC together sometimes creates a tunnel focus only on football at the expense of the other sports.  I've been in the coaching game long enough to have seen this happen.  

I also agree with the statement that "To be fair, their job will be on the line based on the success of the football team." However, success (or lack thereof) in other sports will also reflect on the AD because he/she is the director of the entire sports program at a school.  

Head football coach at Newton or WOS has never been fired because the other sports teams were unsuccessful and/or neglected.  It works only one way.

38 minutes ago, PlayActionPass said:

A LOT more that goes into running a football program than just hiring coaches.

But, I get your point.

However, GREAT Football programs and GREAT Football schools will have experienced FOOTBALL guys as AD's. This is even true at the college level. If a school really wants to be GREAT at football, then you need a football guy at the helm.

An AD can make decisions that are in the best interest of all Athletic Programs that HELP football, or an AD can make decisions that are supposedly in the best interest for all Athletic Programs that HINDER football. Only a football guy knows the difference.

I think that with a lot of "smaller" schools.. in the area for sure.. it's easier to justify giving a higher salary to the head football coach if AD is attached to the job.  In turn, being able to attract a higher caliber of applicant for the job.  Plus, you won't get a good football coach (in most cases) if they know they have other job responsibilities other than just coaching football.  Even if it's a "coaching job" like teaching P.E. or something... but head coaches will want to reserve those kinds of jobs for their coordinators.

And yes.. there will be cases where HFC/AD are much more partial to the football program than to the entire athletic program as a whole.  To be fair, their job will be on the line based on the success of the football team.. even if every other athletic teams in the school flourishes.  So I get it.

That's also why I don't really have a problem with hiring an AD only.  AD only can be solely responsible for the entire athletic department.. and the HFC can focus solely on the success of the football team.

Just watched the video.  Hardin kid slid into 1st as the ball got there, got by or away from 1st baseman, 1st baseman started running in the direction of the missed ball I'm assuming.. as the base runner was getting up to run to 2nd, they ran into each other and got tangled up it looked like.  Not sure if the contact was intentional or not.. looked coincidental.  In the fray, baserunner struggled to get off of the 1st baseman.. but may have thought the contact was intentional..  so he pushed the 1st baseman while trying to get up.  After that, the 2nd baseman ran in and grabbed the baserunner around the waist to prevent him from running.

No punches were thrown.  Benches definitely cleared.. but Hardin's entire team was in the dugout.  

Congrats.

Tough place to coach.. hopefully the community leaves him alone.  If history holds true, they likely won't.  Hopefully it changes in that regard.  

On 4/4/2024 at 2:39 PM, navydawg31 said:

That’s what I read… didn’t know about his family situation and him having talented daughters. That’s great he’s a family man first and putting his daughter’s future ahead of his own ambitions. 
 

but I was more asking what position he will hold at BH… on what’s he going to do.

Not 100% sure.  I've heard but can't confirm.. and don't want to say something that I don't know for sure.

On 3/28/2024 at 10:02 PM, navydawg31 said:

What’s he going to do at BH? 

Put his kids in a better situation?  

Completely taking Sells out of the offensive equation 2nd half.  That’s gonna do it.

Tarkington won by 2.  EC came back from down 10 late to tie.  Tarkington scored with about 12 seconds to go.  EC then turned it over with about 5 seconds left.

I think it was 63-61

8 minutes ago, BBfan061 said:

Depends how well Kountze shot the ball vs Silsbee… if Kountze was hitting their 3s consistently they could keep it within 20-25 points IMO.. That’s no disrespect to Kountze but they just would have 0 answers for Harris and Miller and would get dominated on the boards. 

IF they did that.. it might certainly stay somewhat respectable.  IF.  But.. I have a sneaky suspicion that Silsbee's perimeter players would make it a little more difficult to do than the current district foes.  Closeout speed is likely considerably magnified.  

You could theoretically say that about any team.  IF X hits most of their 3's and Y misses... then it could be respectable at least.  And Kountze may have a higher likelihood of that happening than some.. but still doesn't mean it's likely.

It wouldn't be worth betting a playoff warmup game on that likelihood. 

12 hours ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

Their whole season is personal. I hope they play Silsbee in a playoff warm-up game 😎

I'm glad Kountze is having an improved season.  I am.  And I believe the Sells kid is a player.. But.. beating up on their district doesn't mean they could give Silsbee anything competitive.

Like already said.. not gonna happen.  And I personally don't even believe it would be a game.

On 1/23/2024 at 2:17 PM, Guitar Man said:

Not to be a negative Nancy, but having some good groups come through in JH usually doesn't translate to HS success. Back when I was in JH school, we destroyed everyone, went undefeated and were "district champs". Senior year in HS we went 5-5 and our coach got canned at the end of the year. 🤷‍♂️

The list of things that can change between JH and HS is vast.  It's more likely than not that JH success won't be the same in HS.  1st and foremost.. 7th grade kids playing against everyone else's 7th grade kids and 8th grade kids playing against everyone else's 8th grade kids is not evenly remotely the same as 9-12th against 9-12th.  A grade level of kids playing with either the grade above them or below them.. or both can dramatically change the success/failure compared to when it was just them.  Not only do kids mature, gain strength, gain speed, gain size, and gain skill (both physically and mentally) at completely different levels and pace individually, but kids actually WORK and/or gain/lose interest completely different.  Forget about the other obvious variables.. like: academic eligibility, transferring (both losing and gaining kids), quitting, reclassification, coaching change, etc. etc. etc.

The situation for a Senior IS NOT THE SAME as that same kid's situation was when they were a 7th grader.  To think so is idiotic.  

It's truly funny to me to hear people make predictions based on what happened in JH... might as well add little league as a predictor lol.

5 hours ago, Ty Cobb said:

You are correct on the years but Coach Smalley was the head coach.  Coach Huckaby's last year was the 2011 football season.

According to Maxpreps.. OF beat EC, Woodville, and Jasper in 2011.  And played Silsbee within 4.

I'm pretty sure Huckaby was a Slot-T guy if I remember correctly.

41 minutes ago, navydawg31 said:

The “Best that SeTx” had to offer was PNG and they won a state championship… 

I put it in parenthesis for a reason.  Every week leading up to that week.. Silsbee was supposedly too good to be knocked off by BV.  

On 1/13/2024 at 10:05 AM, navydawg31 said:

what school that runs the slot t won a ship this year? 

My mistake.. Franklin (Slot-T team) made the finals this year.. after winning two consecutive.  And Bellville (Slot-T team) made the state finals.. after running through the "best" that SeTx had to offer.

My mistake.  They only made the finals running the Slot-T.  That's terrible.

5 hours ago, Mr. Thornton Melon said:

Some coaches know how to coach, others run the Slot-T

So the coaches who run Slot-T that won state championships this year and the years before don’t know how to coach? Interesting take.. 

18 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

Understood. What do you do in the Fall with a kid who claims he is going to be on a team in the Spring that he has not made? Keep him in athletics till February and when he doesnt make the team or doesnt show up, just keep him? Because it is too late to do a schedule change. He effectively consumed resources that could have been utilized on a player who is actually playing and wants to play. 

That can be a tricky situation to say the least.  I would imagine that it happens more often than people think.. especially in bigger schools.  I would say that if one kid plans on being "baseball only" then during the fall we need to make sure that kid is as prepared (strength and speed) wise as possible for when baseball does roll around.  Any kid willing to go through an intense offseason regime for one sport wouldn't be that much of a detriment to the program.  The ones that will be "in the way" or taking reps from others.. will likely show themselves out rather than go through an intense training.

In small schools.. you don't see it as often because there are probably more multisport athletes.  I've seen AD's in the past pretty much make it mandatory (in small schools) that if you're going to be in athletics, then you're going to do SOMETHING athletics related in the fall as well as SOMETHING in the spring. Reason being the number of available coaches.  People often forget than for every group of individual athletes has to be a coach available to at least monitor them.  During football/volleyball season.. most small school coaches are involved with the big fall sport.  Can't have a bunch of different "offseason" groups.  And when I say anything.. Anything from one of the sports to even manager, help with practice, help at home games, concessions, something..  I personally like the idea.  

10 minutes ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

Fully understand your position and actually agree. My gripe is not allowing students in the athletic period because the student doesn't play football and/or basketball.  

Discipline problems, grade problems, quitting in the past, etc....heck no...you aren't in the program young man. 

Students should be in the athletic period for any team sport for sure.. including baseball/softball.  I could see the argument for not letting kids in that play individual type, after school sports (golf, tennis, etc.) even though I don't necessarily agree with it.  I think all athletes should be lifting/running/training for their sport outside of its season.  And even sometimes during season.. depending on what the coach of that sport deems best.

20 hours ago, myrecordwashorrible said:

As a former coach, I actually do that very thing.  Again, we will disagree about the elimination of kids from athletic class periods. 

Allowing all kids into athletics just because they want to or sign up for it is a huge mistake.  There are numerous reasons for removing kids from an athletics class.  Including but not limited to: A senior finished with sports, a student/athlete that doesn't play anything, behavior reasons, academic reasons, and probably many more.  

Make it public which schools just allow any kid into athletics that want to be.. because I'm sure there are other coaches that would like to schedule them.