Jump to content

District 12-3A D1 Predictions


Recommended Posts

Simple "no dog in the fight" prediction:
1) Buna,
2) Kirbyville,
3) Kountze,
4) Warren.
Warren the underdog story that starts slow and gets it rolling late. Man EC is always a powerhouse, and I think any of the above mentioned teams could land in the playoffs.

EC is an SETX powerhouse. Not a powerhouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is a powerhouse in setx falcon ?

 

WOS / Newton / Katy /

 

anybody else ?

Newton is a state power. Katy is not in SETX. The criterion for a powerhouse is to win the region periodically.

 

SETX would be considered East of 59, South of 190.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not disagree more. SE Texas is much larger geographically than what you are referring to. Nevertheless, your notion that only Newton represents this community in "powerhouse terms" answers my generalized question, regardless. Thanks, Falcon.

 

TexMex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could not disagree more. SE Texas is much larger geographically than what you are referring to. Nevertheless, your notion that only Newton represents this community in "powerhouse terms" answers my generalized question, regardless. Thanks, Falcon.

 

TexMex

You will find that no one in Katy believes themselves to be in SETX though I am certain that many in the SETX region wish they were. 30 miles West of Houston is not considered SETX.

 

Newton is the only team that is a serious threat on a semi-yearly basis to contend for a title. The facts allow no room for debate. I don't know if you are aware of this or not but there are teams and some districts with multiple teams that contend for state titles EVERY year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will find that no one in Katy believes themselves to be in SETX though I am certain that many in the SETX region wish they were. 30 miles West of Houston is not considered SETX.

 

Newton is the only team that is a serious threat on a semi-yearly basis to contend for a title. The facts allow no room for debate. I don't know if you are aware of this or not but there are teams and some districts with multiple teams that contend for state titles EVERY year.

Before we get this thread talking about what we should be talking about "Kountze & Kirbyville", I would like to know what team/District contends for state every year.  Technically they all do but i assume you mean they reach state EVERY year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before we get this thread talking about what we should be talking about "Kountze & Kirbyville", I would like to know what team/District contends for state every year.  Technically they all do but i assume you mean they reach state EVERY year.

I mean thye are a threat for state each year. As stated previously the criterion is periodically making it out of the region. For starters: Carthage, Gilmer, Argyle, Kilgore, Stephenville, Wimberly, Carroll, Katy, Guyer, Allen, Aledo, Steele, Tenaha, Refugio, Mart, Daingerfield, Euless-Trinity, Goldthwaite, Tatum, Munday, Shiner, Celina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. So EVERY does not mean EVERY.

'Every" means "every". Nowhere did I say that they "reach" state every year. Don't assume, do you know the acronym for assume? Stick to what I said and not what you assume.

 

What I "said" was that there are several teams and some districts with multiple teams that contend for state championships EVERY year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except they don't contend EVERY year. Just often. By the way. I don't know the acronym for assume.

Negative, there are several teams that contend every year. Katy, Carroll, Guyer, Tatum, Carthage, Aledo, Steele, Gilmer, etc. Do you follow high school football?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your list has gone from 22 to 8.  Please provide me the proof that any of these schools has won their region every year of their existence.

Why don't you find where I said "they win the region every year"? Do you read the posts? BTW, are you from Liberty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...