oldschool2

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

In 7 years or less they'd be ordering rings.

Depends on who you’re asking I guess.

Several “elite” coaches on that list have had seasons AFTER reaching his elite status where they not only didn’t win it all, but didn’t get close. If it was only about coaching then that wouldn’t be the case. Coaches don’t get worse over time.. they have different players.

I can't even get him to explain to me why Bill Belichick is sub .500 without Tom Brady.. or hasn't won a playoff game since Brady left NE. Or why some is his elite coaches (by his definition) didn't win another state title after reaching elite status (according to his definition). So.. again. You're wasting your time. Might as well just let him believe that any coach could go to any team and win it all eventually. Wait.. I think 7 years is his timeframe.