tvc184

5,000-6,000

They were 3A back then with 4A being the largest districts. In effect it would be the same as 4A today. In 1980 the UIL added another "A" to each size district to get rid of "B" ball. B moved up to A, so 1A, 2A, 3A and 4A each went up a notch in the numbering system.

Nederland has been to the final game three times. In '56, '57 and '61, winning it all in '57.

Okay, no need to play the season.

I hunt on about a 1,000 acre lease just out of Chester in Tyler county. Lots of deer and we have been managing it for about the last three. Starting to see some nice deer now that we are getting the doe population down a bit. Tyler is a two doe county without permits.

How you compare teams is generally based on who you are talking to and their records lately/overall. I have friends at work that went to Lincoln and love to point out that they beat Nederland in their last year of existence. They hate to mention that Nederland was 10-1 against them in the last 11 years and owns the overall record between the schools. They would rather the discussion be based on the very last game. That year Lincoln won only their first round game. Nederland won three and ended up in the semi-finals. Two weeks after Lincoln had gone home for good, Nederland was still playing ball. Nederland beat WO-S for three straight years, effectively keeping them out of the playoffs for their last three years in 4A. I seem to remember a lot of the banter on the bulletin boards between WO-S and Nederland. The Nederland fans (and I was one) crowed about three straight years of victory. The WO-S fans seemed to care mostly about the overall record that is heavily in favor of WO-S. Now that WO-S has won the last two years, I am sure they don't mind discussing the last two years, much like my friends from Lincoln like to dismiss the 10 straight years of losses to Nederland. WO-S is rightfully proud of their state championships but wasn't their last one like in '88? I doubt any of this year's seniors was even alive the last time WO-S took it all but I still hear a lot of talk about it. The bottom line is, people like to discuss what is in favor of their argument whether it be recent past or overall history. I see it on all sides from supporters of all teams. It is called making an argument for your case. Just remember this, a person could always be a supporter of Vidor or Lumberton and not have anything to defend recent or overall history. Oh yeah, did I mention Nederland won state in 1957..............

Let's see, on July 24, I posted "Call me skeptical but this seems like a marketing ploy", in response to their call for a stadium that didn't give one team an advantage of home field. I said it was a marketing scam by a sports promoter but he did not want to just come out and claim it so it was under the guise of "being fair" to all teams. On July 27, the UIL went ahead with the Alamodome as a preselected site. In their article posted by Coop, they (oops) make the following statements that I highlighted above: "make the most of advance marketing of the games" "FSNS normally only televised the Division I championship games" So now, according to their article, it is to increase attendance "at one of the great sporting events in the United States". It is for marketing and to get another game on television by their own statement. This is pure and simple a money deal and nothing more. Why didn't they just say that to begin with instead of trying to hide it with words like fairness to all teams. It has nothing to do with fairness of travel or home field advantage for one team or the other. I could care less where they play the game, I would just be happy that my team was in it. I just hate the obvious cover up for money instead of just calling it a buyout of the UIL by a marketing firm. It is obvious when a sports marketing promoter comes out and says he is worried about fairness and home field advantages, he has his fingers crossed behind his back. Call me anything you want, just don't lie to me. Okay, off my soapbox.

As you can see in Coop's quote' date=' that is a mighty big "if".

I have said it before but...... why not name about 5 neutral such as Kyle Field, Reliant Stadium, Texas Stadium, Alamodome and DKR (or at Baylor, Texas Tech, etc.). Out of those fields, they are far enough apart that at least one has to be far enough out from both teams so that no team gets a true homefield advantage. That way the championship game would be in a stadium fitting the crowds for 5A championship and also be on a good field. Any team would have the option of waiving that requirement if they would rather play in a certain stadium even if it gives the other team the home field. (and yes I posted that in another thread)

Yeah. As I wrote in a much longer opinion in the other thread, their reasoning was bogus and had a hidden agenda. The premise was so that there would be no home team advantage in the championship game and then they lock in the stadium that almost guarantees some schools will have that very advantage that they claimed is the reason for the new policy. Why not just say the truth, that it is about marketing.

At first I thought Footballblue was serious about his postings but now I see that he is trying to get a rise out of everyone. And all this time I thought he really believed what he was saying.

The district is sure going to be tough. The seniors this year in Nederland were six years old and in the first grade the last time the Bulldogs missed the playoffs. I am looking at this schedule and wondering how we are going to keep it going.

I really wanted to go out on a limb and say 4 but then I would have to vote for the 4-6 option. I just don't think they can win six no matter how the ball bounces.

Maybe Shirley Martin could move to Port Arthur. I hear that they might need a new school board pretty soon if the state takes over and she might fit right in.

Yes, their mascot was a lion.. decked out in purple naturally.