oldschool2

1 hour ago, UNT-AggieMan said:

Yea that program hasn't been good in some years......

Has it ever been good other than a handful of 1-2 year(s) runs of decent players?  

16 minutes ago, JimAdler said:

Or, get rid of basketball and maybe add soccer or tennis.  Maybe they'll be more competitive in those sports?  Maybe not.  

One act play??

2 hours ago, Gocats90 said:

1a-4a has been released for TSWA

Do you have the link? I'm not seeing it the tswa page.

10 minutes ago, Charlie the Boss said:

No it doesn’t mr teacher knox !!!check your information before you rattle them gums no English majors on here mr!!!!

Nobody's expecting perfect.  Just thrown some periods in there every once in a while... There's no need to seem ignorant when spellcheck can do the work for you.

And it's *those.  Rattle those gums.. not them.

19 minutes ago, Charlie the Boss said:

First all Mr Knox no one ran off Mr Whitmire my understanding he chose to leave and if you knew anything about coaching you would shut your mouth but its obvious you don’t yes buna has too win and Kountze has to lose against Orangefield you have no clue about Coach Wilson if you did you would show a lot of respect for the man that fought for our country and everything he ever got nothing has been free for him hardest worker i know!!!

Punctuation matters. 

8 hours ago, Reagan said:

No, just 1 State Title.  But he did when that 1 at Ennis in 4 years!  

Sam Harrell is a friend of mine.. and arguably one of the most inspiring comeback stories in all of sports... and Alvarez took over a job with a recent history of success at that time. 

There has to be something going on here.. Even though Hardin has been terrible all year, they put up more of a showing than this.  They were at least around 30 in every district game (according to maxpreps).  

9 hours ago, Horton said:

Surratt had the talent of hiring coaches. 
His staff starting from the junior high to high school started teaching kids how to play disciplined football, how to lift weights, film study, pride of the C an how to play a very physical type of football. He said his self, Carthage had good athletes but were not physical. 
By the time you get to the junior varsity, you are playing hard nose physical football. Every little kid in Carthage wants to be a Carthage Dawg. 
No matter if they have to wait until they are seniors for a starting position. 
If you look back at every state championship team, see how many played FBS football (major DI college ball) you won’t find but a small number. 
You will find a whole bunch they landed at smaller colleges. The point is the coaching staff developed those kids and made them the best they could be. 
Carthage has had some of the best high school quarterbacks in Texas but only two played DI football Boggie went to USAT and one is at Tulane now. It is all about the program at Carthage. 
Surratt, Preston, and all the other coaches beat with one heart beat and by the time the players get to the varsity, they have the same heart beat. 

I have no doubt in anything you've typed here.  Do you honestly think that's unique to Carthage? Considering the number of coaches that travel the state over emulating exactly what all successful coaches do in order to bring to their program.. And considering the coaches that may have left Carthage after seeing what success looks like..  I know you don't believe that Carthage is the only school with great coaches down to JH, focuses on small details, and has that type of pride within the young kids in town.  Surely you don't think that.

16 hours ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

222 out of 323

69%

So 31% of Texas high school football coaches are elite coaches?  That seems high...

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

What, you think it's a secret you and Bullets "blame the kids" for the failures of the coach?!  LOL!!  

Who's blaming kids?  It's not the kids' fault when they just smaller, weaker, or slower than state championship caliber athletes.  Now.. a coach can help/motivate them to get bigger, stronger, and faster.  Possibly more so than any other coach.  And some coaches will give those kids a better chance to win than many other coaches.  But sometimes it's not enough.  That's not kid blaming.  That's reality.  There's not a 5'6, 145 kid in the world that realistically blames their old coach that they didn't get into the NFL.

But you.. you're saying that an "elite coach" can win a title with a team full of average to below average kids.

You're the dodo bird in this argument.  

3 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Hard to blame a kid for being small, or unathletic, or for being large and athletic, but going to a school that has few other kids like you.  I'm not a kid blamer, just a realist.  

An example from another sport:

I hunt in a little town called Avinger.  Their basketball team won a 1A state championship in 2016, going 32-2.  The next season the coach moved down the road to Jefferson, and took several players from Avinger with him (only 7 players suited out the year before for Avinger).  Jefferson had three very good years (3 district titles) under their new coach and with their new players, but only won one playoff game a year each of those three years. despite having a state championship coach, as well as 3 of his starters from his state championship team.  Jefferson couldn't even make it past the second round of the playoffs in all of three of his seasons there.  It's pretty obvious what the problem was: he didn't become a lesser coach when he moved, and if anything, his players would've improved as they got older.  But his 1A talent wasn't nearly enough to compete in the playoffs in 3A.  There is a threshold where coaching ability can't overcome talent disparity.  A great or elite coach will certainly have a much higher threshold than an average or poor coach, but there is a point where no coach can exceed past a certain point without a certain amount of talent and players.

There was mucho sarcasm in my post that you replied to.  A joke, in fact.  Anyone with any sense knows that it isn't the coach's fault when they obviously have nothing to work with. 

3 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Now, again, this is my definition of an Elite coach:  A coach needs to win 2 or more State Titles to qualify.  Winning one doesn't qualify.  

Only in high school football.  You forgot that part..

14 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Let me add some more stats...

505 total state championships

By 323 different coaches

39 = 7.7% have been won in the coach's first season at a new school

22 rookies = 4%

What's the percentage of state champion coaches that only won one?

8 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

@Reagan we need some clarification. I thought the coach needed 2 chips to qualify. Or does winning 1 in the 1st year like coach beatty at china spring make the cut?

Another interesting thing with China Spring. They have 3 titles, and 2 were by 1st year coaches.

Overall, rookie coaches have won 22 state championships. With an additional 17 by a coach in his first year at a new school.

I'm excited to hear the explanation for this stat.... 39 exceptions to the rule is quite a few.

3 minutes ago, Reagan said:

No matter how many examples they give — the end result is the kids ALWAYS get the blame!  

When you win a championship or more.. then come back to the SAME SCHOOL and go 23-21, who's fault is it?  Who should get the blame.. because you know it's gonna be placed somewhere.  I'm curious now.

12 minutes ago, Bigdog said:

Ok, I have an example,  Odessa Permian.   They won 6 championships over 4 decades, only one coach got 2 (Wilkens).   Gary Gaines coached when they won in '89 his fourth year.    He left and returned back in 2009, and didn't even get to the third round in any of the seasons '09 - 2012.   He went 23-21 during that period.  Did he suddenly forget how to coach?  I mean he is an "elite " coach by Reagans standards for the first 'chip but then just fell off??  Or was it that the population shifted in that area due to the fall off of jobs in the oil patch?

No matter how many examples you give, it will be an "exception to the rule".  

1 hour ago, bullets13 said:

absolutely agree with you about how great of a coach he is.  But he didn't take over a team devoid of athletes that routinely goes between 0-10 and 2-8.  If he came here and did that with some of our local schools, he would not be winning state titles in 7 years.  

Sounds like you're a kid blamer.  He would absolutely have West Hardin winning a state title within 7 years.  Max.

56 minutes ago, Separation Scientist said:

So what exactly are you proposing to help the "poor" teams loaded with D1 athletes, so it will be "fair enough" for them to play affluent schools? 

What exactly do you think should be done? Endlessly whining about finacial disparaties is not accomplishing anything. Give us specific examples what you think should be done to help out the poor North Shores, WOS's, and Newtons of the world. Do you suggest the UIL should provide cash payments to help out the "poor" 4.5 40 kids? Should the UIL assign a nutritionist to each "poor" athlete? Maybe a state of the art NFL type training facility be built at every "poor" school? Tell us. 

I'm not proposing anything.  I don't know that anything can be done, actually.  In fact, one could argue that it was all of the things I mentioned that money buys that made it possible for kids without the God given athleticism to be competitive.  It just got out of control in that direction.

Suggestions?  I don't have any.  There will always be haves and have nots unfortunately. 

1 hour ago, JaspD55 said:

But if you were trying to cook a rotten Goat, wouldnt matter who the cook was, if you can understand the comparison?

You can't make a donkey win a race horse... no matter how good the trainer is.

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Why don't you use some local examples.  Say.... WOS and Newton.  Certainly there must have been some affluent school districts in 3A and 4A during those years, right?

People use the "facilities" argument as an excuse. I mean, now that you mention it, Newton claimed that they lost that one year because they had to ride Yellow Dogs to Dallas and the competition (Lord, the Competition) got to ride charters. 

 

Even though money can have less impact the smaller the classification... because one or a handful of stud players can change an entire season.. Let's see who knocked out Newton and WOS going back to 2010

10-11 Newton- C.H. Yoe
11-12 Newton- Crockett
12-13 Newton- C.H. Yoe
13-14 Newton- White Oak
14-15 Newton- Waskom
15-16 Newton- Franklin
16-17 Newton- Arp
17-18 Newton- State Title over Gunter
18-19 Newton- State Title over Canadian
19-20 Newton- Daingerfield
20-21 Newton- Omaha Paul Pewitt
21-22 Newton- Waskom
22-23 Newton- Harmony

10-11 WOS- Brookshire-Royal
11-12 WOS- Coldspring
12-13 WOS- Navasota
13-14 WOS- Carthage
14-15 WOS- Gilmer
15-16 WOS- State Title over Celina
16-17 WOS- State Title over Sweetwater
17-18 WOS- Pleasant Grove
18-19 WOS- Silsbee
19-20 WOS- Silsbee
20-21 WOS- China Spring
21-22 WOS- China Spring
22-23 WOS- Bellville

You really wanna compare facilities of many of these schools that made them exit?  Not all.. but many..

On 2/4/2023 at 7:16 PM, Rez Ipsa said:

I agree with Reagan’s 7-year principle, but I would modify it. Actually winning a state championship is often out of the hands of even the greatest coaches. Under Reagan’s approach, taken to the extreme, if a coach made it to state 7 years in a row but lost all of them, that coach should be fired. No one in the state would want that coach fired. So apply the 7 year rule more broadly : If a coach doesn’t get you to at least the 4th round within 7 years, you can reasonably assume his ceiling doesn’t go that high. In other words, you can know in 7 years if a coach has the ability to get that team in the range of a state championship. If you can get in that range, anything can happen, but it’s not always in the coach’s control. 

How many schools in the state have never been past round 3?  What if a school has never in its history won 2 playoff games in the same year and hardly ever even makes the playoffs?  What if it's a school like Sabine Pass.. or Warren?  You know.. habitual punching bags.  Then a coach starts making the playoffs consistently and maybe wins a playoff game every once in a while.  

Still need to be fired for not getting to at least 4th round in 7 years?

13 hours ago, Separation Scientist said:

So is there any correlation to athleticism???  

I ask because people whine about "money always wins" which is totally false, but never seem to acknowledge that many "poor" school have overwhelming athleticism. Isn't that a huge, huge advantage? Look at North Shore, one of the most impoverished communities around, they won 3 of the last 4 6A Championships. 

Your example should compare a 5'10", 185lb "rich kid" who runs a 5.3 with a 15in. vertical, to a 6'1" 190lb "poor kid" who runs a 4.5 with a 22in. vertical. Who would you start? 

        

In a way, it does correlate to athleticism.  Because players with access to money, state of the art facilities, personal trainers, proper nutrition, adequate sleep habits,  etc. will likely be in better physical shape than a kid without access to those.  It's not the RULE, but it definitely makes it more likely. 

By the way, and I've been clear about this, it's referring to a LIKLIHOOD.  There are always and will always be exceptions.  I don't understand why that's so hard to understand. By the way.. which years are you talking about? 20-21 was Austin Westlake and Katy.  21-22 was Northshore and Austin Westlake.  Include the 5A champions... Aledo, Guyer, Katy Paetow... you not familiar with the areas?  Even if you're correct about 3 out of 4 including this year, look at the last 10 years.  Or 15.. list the football state champions for 4A/5A/6A and tell me the percentage of those communities that have an average household income higher than the state average.  Not to mention the state champs in all other sports.  If you don't see that communities with money have a higher likelihood of success in athletics (not to be confused with athleticism), then your eyes are closed. 

14 hours ago, Mr. Buddy Garrity said:

Dude dumb 🤣 

Yeah, I'm done.  It's like arguing with a wall anyway.

15 minutes ago, Reagan said:

Not agreeing with you.  You agreed with me by me making it easy to understand.  The statement you made that I was talking about will present itself shortly.  

There isn't anything I've posted that's difficult to understand.  If you think I agreed with you then you stopped reading at, "it's most certainly easy".  Because otherwise you would've seen me say that the reason he had a mediocre stretch was because he had mediocre players. 

1 minute ago, Reagan said:

I’m glad you understand it’s easy.  😁.  Also glad you made one statement here.

By agreeing with me, you're admitting that the "7 year program" doesn't work without players good enough to win.  Which is what we've all been saying for several pages now.