Jump to content

Anyone know the score from the 11 yr old BC and Groves game?

Guest gladiator2

By Guest gladiator2
in SETXsports Archived Threads

 Share

Recommended Posts

TradinUp BH

TradinUp BH

Posted
Posted

Just heard 11-1 B.C. over Groves for the 11 year olds and 9 to 1 B.C. over P.N. for the ten year olds

9-1 BC over Groves for 10's I was there. BC teams are always tough. Congrats and hopefullt Groves can meet up with ya'll again.  The Groves 12's play BC tonight in BC, hopefully have better luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest bigbaddog

Guest bigbaddog

Posted
Posted

groves plays FHWS sat 730 in groves (11 yr olds). Don't count out FHWS I WAS AT THE NEDERLAND GAME WHEN THOSE TWO PLAYED AND  FHWS PLAYS GREAT DEFENSE AND HAS SOME REAL GOOD PITCHING

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twilyms

twilyms

Posted
Posted

groves plays FHWS sat 730 in groves (11 yr olds). Don't count out FHWS I WAS AT THE NEDERLAND GAME WHEN THOSE TWO PLAYED AND  FHWS PLAYS GREAT DEFENCE AND HAS SOME REAL GOOD PITCHING

Pitching and defense were solid for us. However, we never thought offense would be our problem. We are going to have to pick up the sticks if FHWS wants to compete. There are some tough teams out there we are going to have to face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest bigbaddog

Guest bigbaddog

Posted
Posted

TRUE BUT I HAVE SEEN THESE KIDS PLAY AND THEY CAN HIT THE BALL  NOT SURE WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS AGAINST NEDERLAND. THAT INFIELD FOR FHWS WAS VERY GOOD. DO U HAVE ONE ON THE TEAM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twilyms

twilyms

Posted
Posted

TRUE BUT I HAVE SEEN THESE KIDS PLAY AND THEY CAN HIT THE BALL  NOT SURE WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS AGAINST NEDERLAND. THAT INFIELD FOR FHWS WAS VERY GOOD. DO U HAVE ONE ON THE TEAM

Yes, he was the pitcher for FHWS. You are right. These kids do swing good bats. The Nederland kid kept them off balance. He did a great job. Hopefully we will hit to our capabilities against Groves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

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


  • Posts

    • Reagan
      America lost. The Kangaroo Court won.

      By Reagan · Posted

      BOOM!!
    • Mr. Buddy Garrity
      Road to Omaha

      By Mr. Buddy Garrity · Posted

      We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • PhatMack19
      Road to Omaha

      By PhatMack19 · Posted

      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 
    • tvc184
      West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin leaves Democratic Party, registers as independent

      By tvc184 · Posted

      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? 
    • Separation Scientist
      Bridgeland vs Tomball

      By Separation Scientist · Posted

      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...