Jump to content

Check out this site!!!


Recommended Posts

at Beaumont Central (Beaumont, TX)

[2005] Beaumont Central (Beaumont, TX) 27, [2005] Memorial (Port Arthur, TX) 17

at Memorial (Port Arthur, TX)

[2005] Beaumont Central (Beaumont, TX) 24, [2005] Memorial (Port Arthur, TX) 20

at neutral site

[2005] Beaumont Central (Beaumont, TX) 26, [2005] Memorial (Port Arthur, TX) 19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

lol after ive seen how BC is going to kill every team they play, i thought id see how they matched up against Carroll

at Carroll (Southlake, TX)

[2005] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 42, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 14

at Bridge City (TX)

[2005] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 41, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 17

at neutral site

[2005] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 42, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok heres Vidors results for next year's schedule:

at West Orange-Stark (Orange, TX)

[2005] West Orange-Stark (Orange, TX) 42, [2005] Vidor (TX) 14

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] West Orange-Stark (Orange, TX) 41, [2005] Vidor (TX) 14

at neutral site

[2005] West Orange-Stark (Orange, TX) 41, [2005] Vidor (TX) 14

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] St. Pius X (Houston, TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 26

at St. Pius X (Houston, TX)

[2005] St. Pius X (Houston, TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 22

at neutral site

[2005] St. Pius X (Houston, TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 24

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Vidor (TX) 31, [2005] Jones (Houston, TX) 14

at Jones (Houston, TX)

[2005] Vidor (TX) 28, [2005] Jones (Houston, TX) 17

at neutral site

[2005] Vidor (TX) 28, [2005] Jones (Houston, TX) 14

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Livingston (TX) 28, [2005] Vidor (TX) 22

at Livingston (TX)

[2005] Livingston (TX) 28, [2005] Vidor (TX) 21

at neutral site

[2005] Livingston (TX) 28, [2005] Vidor (TX) 21

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Nederland (TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 19

at Nederland (TX)

[2005] Nederland (TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 17

at neutral site

[2005] Nederland (TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 19

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Vidor (TX) 28, [2005] Lumberton (TX) 12

at Lumberton (TX)

[2005] Vidor (TX) 28, [2005] Lumberton (TX) 13

at neutral site

[2005] Vidor (TX) 28, [2005] Lumberton (TX) 12

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Dayton (TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 21

at Dayton (TX)

[2005] Dayton (TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 21

at neutral site

[2005] Dayton (TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 21

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Beaumont Central (Beaumont, TX) 26, [2005] Vidor (TX) 17

at Beaumont Central (Beaumont, TX)

[2005] Beaumont Central (Beaumont, TX) 27, [2005] Vidor (TX) 14

at neutral site

[2005] Beaumont Central (Beaumont, TX) 27, [2005] Vidor (TX) 17

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Port Neches-Groves (Port Neches, TX) 28, [2005] Vidor (TX) 21

at Port Neches-Groves (Port Neches, TX)

[2005] Port Neches-Groves (Port Neches, TX) 28, [2005] Vidor (TX) 21

at neutral site

[2005] Port Neches-Groves (Port Neches, TX) 28, [2005] Vidor (TX) 21

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Ozen (Beaumont, TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 19

at Ozen (Beaumont, TX)

[2005] Ozen (Beaumont, TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 17

at neutral site

[2005] Ozen (Beaumont, TX) 31, [2005] Vidor (TX) 17

at Vidor (TX)

[2005] Vidor (TX) 27, [2005] Little Cypress-Mauriceville (Orange, TX) 19

at Little Cypress-Mauriceville (Orange, TX)

[2005] Vidor (TX) 24, [2005] Little Cypress-Mauriceville (Orange, TX) 21

at neutral site

[2005] Vidor (TX) 26, [2005] Little Cypress-Mauriceville (Orange, TX) 20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a really cood website

HF vs Soutlake Carroll.....closer than i thought

at Hamshire-Fannett (Hamshire, TX)

[2005] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 52, [2005] Hamshire-Fannett (Hamshire, TX) 3

at Carroll (Southlake, TX)

[2005] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 56, [2005] Hamshire-Fannett (Hamshire, TX) 0

at neutral site

[2005] Carroll (Southlake, TX) 55, [2005] Hamshire-Fannett (Hamshire, TX) 0

at Hamshire-Fannett (Hamshire, TX)

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 60, [2005] Hamshire-Fannett (Hamshire, TX) 0

at De La Salle (Concord, CA)

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 62, [2005] Hamshire-Fannett (Hamshire, TX) 0

at neutral site

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 62, [2005] Hamshire-Fannett (Hamshire, TX) 0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good Cali school..................

BC holds their own haha.

at Poly (Long Beach, CA)

[2005] Poly (Long Beach, CA) 31, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 17

at Bridge City (TX)

[2005] Poly (Long Beach, CA) 28, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 20

at neutral site

[2005] Poly (Long Beach, CA) 31, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2005 WO-S vs. 2001 DeLaSalle

at De La Salle (Concord, CA)

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 46, [2005] West Orange-Stark (Orange, TX) 17

at West Orange-Stark (Orange, TX)

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 44, [2005] West Orange-Stark (Orange, TX) 20

at neutral site

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 44, [2005] West Orange-Stark (Orange, TX) 19

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! Well Coop! We know this thing ain't COMPLETELY accurate!

Here is 2005 Bridge City vs. 2001 DeLaSalle

at De La Salle (Concord, CA)

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 42, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 10

at Bridge City (TX)

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 42, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 12

at neutral site

[2001] De La Salle (Concord, CA) 42, [2005] Bridge City (TX) 12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read on their website that other factors will be thrown in there after this season to make it even more accurate.

Yeah' date=' I read that as well. An example is a projection that I ran last year when we this was on wo-s.com:

at Newton (TX)

[2005'] Newton (TX) 42, [2005] Memorial (Port Arthur, TX) 14

at Memorial (Port Arthur, TX)

[2005] Newton (TX) 41, [2005] Memorial (Port Arthur, TX) 14

at neutral site

[2005] Newton (TX) 42, [2005] Memorial (Port Arthur, TX) 14

I don't see where Newton could put that wide a margin on Memorial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am sure you two pony's wont be happy unless it shows WOS beating everyone that you put them up against.................Shoot I a bet if ya could put them up against the Texans they would have played a close game on that one as well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,then we really would never here the end of it.................... :bs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    45,978
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • Exactly Lum. Right is still right regardless which way the wind blows. 
    • High Point walks it off.  Vandy Whistler headed home!
    • Tomball takes wild 2nd game 8-6. Both teams had 3 E's. Tomball gave up a late lead but first game pitching star Sampson nailed a 3 run homer to push Tomball to victory. 
    • My understanding is that the falsification of records was the crime that he was convicted of… but for it to have been a felony act, it had to have occurred in the furtherance of another criminal act. The prosecution had to first prove that the criminal act of falsifying documents had occurred. IF the jury believed that records were falsified, they were given three possible criminal acts… any one of the three would allow a felony conviction. The instructions stated that for any of the 34 charges, all twelve of the jurors had to agree that records were falsified, but they also had to believe that the records were falsified in the furtherance of at least one other, different crime. Six jurors could believe that Trump was falsifying records to avoid paying taxes… the other six could believe that it was skirt around election laws. The jurors didn’t have to agree on which of the three alleged criminal acts Trump was trying to further by falsifying records, just so long as they agreed that a) the falsification occurred and that it b) occurred to help him cover up another crime (for which he wasn’t charged and never proven to have committed or to have even occurred, for that matter).     Complete pile of crap as a prosecution, in my opinion.     But, we shouldn’t cry if our nominee is the kind of man who bangs porn stars while his wife is at home with the kid, then tries to buy her silence, then breaks the law in regards to falsifying documents to hide the evidence of the coverup.    If you’re wondering why falsifying those records might be illegal, it’s this. Money paid to your attorney for services performed can be deducted from one’s taxes as a legal expense. If the money is paid to a person to settle a personal claim, then the amount would be taxable-the falsification would have been done to avoid taxation. On the other hand, if campaign funds were spent to pay hush money and the records were falsified to hide the violation of campaign laws, then the felony occurred.    The bottom line is this…. They didn’t have enough evidence to indict trump on any of those three things that allegedly happened… but they DID have evidence that the financial records were falsified, so they point at these other acts which can’t be proven to bump the charges on falsification to a felony.    And the reason Trump didn’t take the stand is that he can’t go on the record about whether or not he had sex with Daniels… I’m certain that they can prove it and hang him up on perjury too.    The most delicious irony is this… Trump gave his supporters too much credit for their integrity. He thought they’d turn on him if they found out what he’d done, when in reality they wouldn’t have given a care… Trump’s whole falsifying records and quest for secrecy wasn’t even needed… his followers don’t have moral objections to his sinful acts.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...