oldschool2

Yep...they're not only making recruiting easier, but legal. Nice job law makers.

Heaven forbid a coach make decisions based on what may be best for his family or career.

Unfortunately...most head coaches do not care about fans wanting to play good games...or rival games...or locationally convenient games. Which is in some ways ironic, because... it because of the fans that coaches feel so much pressure to be successful. Which is the reason they try to schedule games that they will probably win. Because if a coach goes 8-2 they will most likely... A: get to keep their job. B: Have a greater likelihood of getting a better job (higher paying) On the other hand, if a coach goes 4-6 they will likely be nonrenewed or ridiculed or both. All that matters is what their resume looks like in the win/loss column. Nobody cares that "but we played really good teams that were really close to the school and easy for the parents to get off work and make it to and are rival games". Again..because of you same fans.

I'm sure people are lining up to go 0-10. I joke...but there probably are people desperately wanting that head job...any head job.

I think most schools may have some kind of policy against seniors playing on JV. But no.. there is no rule saying that it can't happen. I know that if I were coaching I wouldn't want seniors taking minutes away from another kid that could otherwise be improving for next year. Because ultimately, that's what sub-varsity ball is for... Preparation for varsity athletics. When I say a school may have a policy...here's an example. I have a good friend that was an Athletic Director and he had a policy that states "If a kid plays Varsity ball as a junior then they are not allowed to play JV ball as a senior." So, in other words, they at least have to either ride the bench with varsity or not get a uniform at all. It's not an issue that you see very often. More times than not a coach will put seniors on Varsity just because.

Answer to what?.. Yes, I said that. It's not a right if it can be taken away. And when athletics, band, or UIL is taken away from a kid their parents have to still pay the school taxes. So again...paying taxes does not mean you're paying for the right to be an athlete.

Yes, of course. But an education still has to be provided. It's already a law to not deny a child the right to an education. Even prisoners can get educated.

It has nothing to do with faith in the politicians. I have 100% faith in the people that this would effect. First...imagine the pushback from coaches if the state started telling them who to play and how much to play them Then...imagine the reaction of parents. If my kid has to miss out on playing team or if the team suffers because someone else's kid has to play. Even though they aren't good enough to play. Yeah. That's where my faith lies.

That just proves my point that it isn't something that's paid for. If a kid can be removed from it, despite paying school taxes, then it isn't a right. Math class, on the other hand, HAS to be provided to your child if you are paying school taxes and your child is enrolled in the school. Doing something wrong won't permanently get you removed from math class. May get you removed from the campus if you get in enough trouble...but mathematics still has to be provided as long as you are a student of the school district.

So if that were to happen then the coach could very easily put the homeschooled kid on the sub-varsity team. And then play the kid the exact minimum required. Hypothetically. I see what you're saying and I agree that society is heading toward the crapper...but I'm pretty confident in saying that playing time is a power that will never be taken away from public school coaches. That would be the true end to sports competition. Not gonna happen.

Um. NO. Nobody is paying for the guarantee of being in athletics. Paying local taxes to the school guarantees your child and education provided by the school. The Athletic Director at the school does NOT have to let your child be involved in the athletic program. In fact, athletic directors kick kids out of athletics every year and all over this state for various reasons. Extracurricular activities are privileges available to the students that are enrolled in the school. They can also be taken away from certain students at any time. Behavior, failing, whatever.. Just because you pay taxes to a school doesn't mean that your student is "paying" to be in athletics, band, academic UIL, or anything else. And you are obviously not following what I'm saying. The Legislature can pass a bill into law saying that homeschooled students are allowed to play sports for a public school. Yes. I know that. But THE COACH decides who actually is a varsity player and how much playing time a kid gets. The Legislature CAN NOT tell a coach who comes off of the bench. And like I said...if a homeschooled student missed any single thing that the rest of the team did (including athletics class), then they would NEVER come off of the bench. If I were coaching, I mean.

I'm paying plenty of attention. Do you really think that the state could ever legislate who plays and how much they play? What if there are 6 home shool kids in the basketball program. You trying to tell me that it's possible for the state to make it to where the varsity coach has to put all 6 on his/her varsity roster and let all 6 of them be a starter?.. Bottom line. High school coaches can squash this. I guarantee it.

I'll put every dollar I have on it that the state will not decide who a coach has to put on a varsity team or how much they play.

They most certainly are NOT paying for it. School taxes pay for the education. Being a member of the athletic program is a privilege. There are even students enrolled in public schools that can be kicked out of athletics and denied getting back in.

I've said this already: It would be an easy fix for me..if I were coaching. The state may say who is allowed to participate in UIL activities, but has ZERO control over who plays on what team or how much they play. A homeschooled kid CAN absolutely play...as long as they are in attendance for every single athletic period, team meeting, team meal, practice, etc.. There's also nothing to stop a coach from having a tryout... Or not letting a homeschooled kid play a single second in any single varsity game. I mean...if a kid isn't held to the same standards as the rest of the varsity team (dress code, discipline, showing up on time, actually waking up for school, having to pass and stay out of trouble for multiple classroom settings) then why would the coach let them be a varsity player. You guys are missing the most important point. No matter what legislation says, the varsity head coach is still 100% in control over who gets a varsity uniform. If homeschooled kids play enough JV games they'll start rethinking what's actually important.

I'm thinking that you missed the point of my comment.

I'm paying school taxes in a town that my kids not only didn't go to...but aren't in school at all. Can they play school ball for the school?

Honestly that's the biggest thing to me. Public school students have to wake up at a certain time, adhere to certain dress codes and behavior standards, get along with students and teachers well enough to stay out of trouble, learn to succeed under the umbrella of several different teachers with several different teaching styles, showing up on time for an athletic class...then to the next class while sweaty and tired, making it to practice on time after having school all day, juggle the stresses of homework and testing despite having extracurricular activities day of, day after, and week of..., juggling social issues, etc. etc. etc... And everything I just listed is monitored by one parent for homeschooled kids. I think that's it's a little unfair.

I love how the first thing to happen is place blame or success on a coach. Didn't Johnson have a really good group of mostly upper classmen...that were fairly successful in all sports all the way up to that year? And when the next coach came in wasn't that group gone? It's not a coincidence. Good players = success. Colmesneil didn't have a good year last year?.. Yeah well, it's because there wasn't a whole lot of talent relative to their competition. Sorry. And the parents were no different. Winning is a cure all. And winning hides complaints. Under Fancy the parents were parents of a group of kids that were good enough to win games. That's the difference.

So administrators aren't allowed to wait to resign from a job after they have another job secured? There's one thing I can assure you...when it comes to finance and job security, they are looking out for numero uno. As they should. And I would too. And FYI head coaches leave in March, April, May, and later all of the time.

I hear you.. but what's the alternative? No guarantee that you replace teams on the schedule that you'll actually beat. I know that it's probably stressful because you only get 10 games per year and there is a lot of pressure to succeed, but, at the same time I feel as though the games should be honored. The other coach that agreed to play doesn't have anything to do with the school haveing a job change. I don't think that when football coaches create schedules they say "Alright. We're going to play next year at my place during week 3 and the year after at your place week 3. Unless one of us gets fired or finds a better job...in which case the opposite will get screwed and have to find someone else to play. Even though everybody else's schedules will be done"

I'm thinking the only way around it is to not take the job. Double edged sword. Someone applies wanting to be a head coach but the schedule is already set. So...take the job knowing you're going to get embarrassed? Because let's face it...we all have a pretty good idea (most of the time) which teams are good and which aren't. We at least know what they had the previous year, how many returning, and how many lost.So have to weigh being an AD/HC vs getting your brains beat in. Don't know..

Well, I was thinking that... Just making sure I didn't miss something.

I didn't say that...did I? Nor did I imply it. But I do have enough that work in the school system to know that even if he had it on good authority that there would be a job available to him around the holidays...it doesn't get announced until there is actually a piece of paper with a name signed to it. Plain and simple..if he hadn't signed a letter of intent to hire or a contract then he didn't know for a fact he had a job. Are you saying that he should've had enough confidence in "someone's word" that he had another job lined up? Enough confidence to put his family at risk (potentially) by not being employed? Because I can assure you that had he announced in December that he was leaving for Newton then Kirbyville would not have renewed his contract. Then a chance is taken on not having a job...You did say "It's BS if he knew he was leaving way after the holidays and just told his staff last week". Did you not? Ask your family and friends that work in the school system if that would have been the best thing to do.

I read that. But there is a difference between thinking a job would come open and a job actually being open. If the Newton AD speculated that a job would open he could've approached Neece about it, but I'm willing to bet that there wasn't actually a job opening to be filled around the holidays. If Neece new for a fact that he had a job (offered, approved by the board, accepted, signed a contract) then he would've in fact BEEN at Newton after the holidays. I don't think educators can legally be under more than one contract at the same time. Which means he didn't know for a fact until now. Hence the reason that maybe he didn't tell anyone until his name was actually signed on a contract or intent to hire at Newton. My first wife was a teacher and I have enough friends and family in it to know how it works. Trust me...they don't resign (most of the time) until their name is on a contract somewhere else.