oldschool2

It's not difficult to go undefeated in 7th or 8th grade with one standout skill player (relative to the competition) and a few role players. Having a good player will often make the other kids play up and/or want to do well. Many teams do well during a junior high year only to find out that 9-12 is a much different animal than 7th only or 8th only. Kids mature differently, kids improve at different rates, kids move out or move in, kids quit, classification changes, and several other variables. Winning an undefeated district championship during a junior high year has zero bearing on what may or may not happen during the upper classmen years. Just like doing poorly in junior high doesn't mean that'll happen when they get to high school.

That's not a new concept. If we're being honest, who would blame either of them? Nobody. Matter of fact.. it's happened at Hardin before.

If this is true about the kid's ability, surely there is no intention of putting him through the trouble of staying all four years. Just saying.. if I had a kid with potential to do well I would put them in a situation where that potential could be best put to use.

Probably a good bet.

I have no clue. You probably know more about them than me.

September games?.. Chances are higher during that part of the season that they'll still be playing. Nothing's guaranteed, though.

Predicting the success/failure based on the previous year's JV results isn't always a good indicator. If a team is very senior heavy, then their JV will be also filled with "older" kids (mostly juniors maybe) so they should win. If a team is relatively young then good younger kids will play varsity, meaning the JV will likely struggle. Or even if there is a stud freshman/sophomore that's pulled up and taken away from the JV, they may struggle. Too many variable to base anything on "last season's JV".

Probably the HFC's son. I think he was an 8th grader last year.

None of that matters. eLiTe CoAcHeS cAn WiN nO mAtTeR wHaT...

A good guess would be that they missed the playoffs last year. 05/06 5-4 06/07 4-7 07/08 4-6 08/09 2-6 09/10 3-7 10/11 5-6 11/12 8-2 12/13 3-7 13/14 3-7 14/15 2-8 15/16 4-7 16/17 10-3 17/18 8-3 18/19 7-5 19/20 4-6 20/21 4-5 21/22 4-6 They aren't world beaters to begin with.. seems based on these records dating back to 05 that they're pretty mediocre. In fact.. of the 4 above average seasons they had in that timeframe, 3 of them were under Taylor. Coaches are only as good as their players.

50% wont cut it. It's state championship or bust.. according to some. I also hear there's a required timeline.

He didn’t just leave La Porte.. he took a DC job at La Porte after being at Liberty for roughly a decade. A job that hasn’t started I’ll add. Taking a head job somewhere after accepting an assistant job within the same spring/summer literally happens all the time.

Definitely good coach and good guy. I personally think it'll be a good fit.

More importantly, Tarkington is getting a coach that'll stay. Taylor is past his resume chaser days.. it'll be good for them to have a consistent face at the helm if they let him.

I took it as, they all cheat, referring to shady transfers. As that was literally the direction of the conversation. Neither here nor there.. Opinions likely won't change.

It's because EC was mentioned earlier about being the benefactor of transfers from Beaumont ISD and others. For the schools in this coverage area, what school would you want your kid to attend if you could choose? I think of Barbers Hill, East Chambers... Even though Anahuac is slowly replacing EC as the place to be because of facilities and the rumor I heard about Baytown/Mont Belvieu kids creeping that direction. Which makes sense. Why am I laser focusing on transfers? Did you not read the comments leading up to this? I don't have time to give you a reading lesson but scan over the previous page or 2. The only "cheating" I'm talking about (or that has even been eluded to) is when kids transfer schools. By the way.. the Nick Saban mention referred to having the ability to attract talent.

To avoid openly recruiting. I guess they prefer it done secretly.

I didn't say nor imply that it's a prerequisite to being hired. There's no question that transfers happen all over the state every single year and some of those transfers may not be for legitimate reasons. Who is anyone to judge? If a student/athlete finds a loophole in the flawed transfer system because of a school's facilities, team's history, or coach's personality then I guess it is what it is. If a coach can successfully attract quality athletes for the betterment of the program through whatever means.. then I find it a quality. The only viable answer would be for the UIL to make ALL transfers sit a calendar year regardless of the reason for transfer. Otherwise.. like I said.. it is what it is. As long as UIL leaves those many loopholes open, then I say you better keep your quality athletes happy or get ready to lose them. And you better give other quality athletes a reason to come to your school because somebody else is if not. Many of the most well known, successful coaches out there had great years due to the enrolling of new players at the right time. Or a favorable drop in classification. You can't have a problem with kids transferring to East Chambers, Brock, Aledo, Carthage, Celina, etc. etc. etc... and be ok with Nick Saban dominating college football over the last decade or so. You think colleges rely on home grown, local kids exclusively?

According to some posters on here, you aren't qualified to be hired somewhere else if you don't have a history of winning. Suppose a rookie coach takes the first job they can to build experience and it's a talentless team.. what are the chances of them landing a good job down the road if they win 3 games or less at a bad school for a couple years? Even if they have successful assistant experience elsewhere..

A coach told me one time that he'd rather get fired for cheating than fired for losing.

There has been a mix of spread and slot-t ran for a while. I was halfway joking because the comment seemingly implied that those are the only two options. Even so.. I'm sure the new coach will do neither if the kids aren't able (his opinion). Or one or the other.. or both. Or who knows..

Hear me out.. the Spread-T. In all seriousness.. I would think that most coaches prefer one thing or another but ultimately coach to what their kids can do best.

Back to La Porte.

I don't know... no state championships as a head coach? Hmm.. They really should've called Art Briles. Now they'll never win it all.

I'm intrigued. Also, I would love to see the practice schedules.