bullets13

To a degree we’re in agreement. Lorena lost to 4A world beaters China Spring last year by 8 and won the 3A D1 championship. Franklin won the 3A D2 championship, and actually beat Lorena. If you go 9-1 and lose to one of those teams in the second round, or LRA or Columbus for that matter, I don’t know that I’d call that “melting like a sno-cone.” So we’re in agreement that it isn’t a great district, but I feel you’re seriously downplaying how difficult the competition they’ve been running into is

High end bottom quartile maybe. I think there are several places in the state you could move this district and they’d have a team or two getting 3 rounds deep most years. It just absolutely won’t happen with the teams they have to face in the first and second rounds currently. EC lost a close one to Little River Academy this year in the second round. Woodville had to face Lorena second round. Anahuac ran into Columbus. This district is unfortunate to have to play top-10 schools in the second round of the playoffs, and now you can add Franklin to the mix, who was the 3A d-2 champ last year.

I really don't have time to deal with some of the stupidity in this thread today. Please remember that multiple accounts are not allowed, and both can be banned. Insults will get a warning, and can lead to a ban. Settle it down.

I'm not saying they're great, but there are 32 3A districts in the state, and this is not "one of the worst". bottom half probably, but there are several districts who are weaker. This district also has the great misfortune of having to face teams out of what is by far the best district in the state in the early rounds of the playoffs every year. There won't be many deep runs out of this district when you're running into Lorena, LRA, and next season Franklin in the first 2 rounds.

there's a whole thread to talk about this. hijacking topics is against forum rules. When it's at least semi-related, no big deal, and we allow a lot of leeway in the political forum for obvious reasons, but this is way out of line. No need for a response.

Bingo. I don't know this coach, don't know unwoke, don't know the relationship they have. But one guy telling another guy something and then that guy putting it online doesn't necessarily have anything to do with facts. The coach could've been 100% truthful, could've been mostly truthful but shaded things to support his own narrative or viewpoint, could be a little butthurt and is misrepresenting things to make himself out to be a victim, or any other number of scenarios.

she wasn't really my jug of tea.

Orangefield was a 7-4 playoff team in 4A last year, Anahuac went 9-3 last year and is on the rise in pretty much every sport, and East Chambers is always good. Kirbyville was mediocre last year, but seems to be coming up. Buna was bad and Hardin was worse, but half the district will be pretty good. Regardless of what you think of the district, Tarkington was by far the worst team in the district last season, and they were a long way from even stepping over the bar to next to worst. 6 of the 9 teams Tarkington played last season (0-9, 0-6) are on their schedule this year, and only one of their nine losses was by less than 30. The only game that I can look at on this schedule and think they may have some realistic shot at winning is Hardin. I think a great season is 2-8 and the majority of the 8 losses being by less than 30 points.

I'm all for fairness and equal opportunity. Nobody should be held back or intentionally disadvantaged for arbitrary reasons like race or gender. That said, this movement to level the playing field by cutting the legs out from under overachievers to bring them back towards the middle of the pack instead of just making sure everyone has the same opportunities to start with is a movement destined for mediocrity.

2wedge covered it better than I could, but made the point I was going to make. Anytime you have a community that buys into a certain coach or program, or even sport in general, you can see extended success. Little boys in Hardin don't have much to look forward to for football, but little girls who are athletic can start working towards that volleyball goal at an early age, and softball in Liberty is even easier with a great club program locally. One can even look at a school like WOS to see how one sport might be elite while others are average or bad. It's pretty mind blowing that with the athletes WOS has they can hardly put a .500 record together in basketball most years, even though their football team is perpetually in the running for a state championship. Another example, and one I grew up in. HJ has a really good basketball team pretty much every year, but the football team is usually bad. I remember playing little dribblers out there and each age group would have 10 or more teams. The average school class over there was around 125 students, and each little dribblers age group covers two classes. So two classes is around 250 students, and approximately 125 boys. Each little dribblers team would have 8-9 players. So out of 125 possible kids, close to 90 would play. By the time we got to high school most of us had been playing together for nearly 10 years. Out there it was just expected that you would play basketball, and we did. We actually had a special group of athletes while I was there, and our football team was pretty good for 3-4 years, but basketball stayed strong and football faded back into mediocrity until the next special group came along about 15 years later.

literally was getting on here to post this. pretty insane.

[Hidden Content]

Liberty is no-man's land. you lose athletes to the big city in one direction and the nicer rural areas in the other. apart from softball they don't do much in any sports out there on a consistent basis. with a little more talent during a 3-year stretch they had a decent run of seasons, but they're a mediocre (or bad, depending on the year) program that's had to play elite teams in district or early in the playoffs. Taylor didn't do badly at Liberty with what he had. If he can bring stability to Tarkington and create a little interest in the program, there will be some improvement. look at Tarkington's football history, and if Taylor does exactly the same at Tarkington that he did at Liberty I'd call it an overwhelming success. If he stays 10 years, goes 45-50 with a few 8-9 win seasons and a playoff win or two they'll be ready to name the stadium after him, and for good reason.

I gotta quit coming back on here and reading y'all's responses. The pro-life crowd certainly spends a lot of money trying to make sure these babies are born. i'm referring to after they're born. The same folks who are pro-life are typically anti-handout and anti-government support. There's no debating that. It wouldn't take a whole lot to go through old political threads on here and find quotes from the majority of your pro-lifers in this thread disparaging government aid and handout programs, all of which would have to be massively expanded when you start adding a few million mouths a year to the government teat. And let me just add this here because I really don't want to come back onto this thread: I'm all for added support to expectant mothers, counseling (for those who want it), etc. And I especially would like to see adoption not be a big money operation. Make it an easier process and you'll see abortions drop, and you'll find more families for more unwanted kids. Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I celebrate abortion. I'm happy to see the numbers greatly decrease, but there's got to be a plan in place to support these kids. Getting them born is the first, easiest, and cheapest step.

I support this wholeheartedly (and this really is my last post on the thread). A big part of the exception I take with the pro-life crowd is how seldom most of them put their money and time where their mouth is. Even being pro-choice, I want abortions to be cheap, safe, and most importantly, rare. Anything states can do to improve the situations and mindset of pregnant women in bad spots is a win in my book.

I'd really like to have a conversation with this guy, just so he can explain a few things to me

Security footage shows suspected lawn mower thief mowing victim's grass with it | KFDM

anywho, i'm done on this thread. The same usual folks made the same tired arguments (myself included), nobody's mind was changed, and nothing was accomplished. It's always kind of a waste of time when 90% of people in the conversation are coming from the same demographic, as it leads to an inflated belief of how representative your viewpoints are to the majority of the country. That said, carry on, and we can find something else to agree on (Biden sucks)

well, by your point, the fetus and the egg are in the same predicament as well, because a small dose of medicine renders both inert. But there's still a much larger difference than "one is in the womb, and one is out". while in the womb at an early stage, the fetus is still fully reliant on the mother, and will die without her, and not just without her, but without her body. The baby outside of the womb (and even a fetus of 24 weeks or so) will die without care, but can be cared for by anyone. That child no longer needs the mother's body to survive, and at that point (IMO) there is no argument to be made for "my body, my choice". I get that many on here don't agree with me (this board is overwhelmingly old, male, white, and conservative, and that's by far the #1 anti-abortion demographic), and i honestly don't care. but his comparison was as equally outlandish as my rebuttal.

I could be wrong, but I think perhaps Lumberton's growth has not kept up with the growth of the cutoffs for higher divisions. I really don't want to go back and research enrollment cutoffs for 5A for the last, let's say 10 years, but I would assume it has risen dramatically.

I think you missed the point I was making there. He compared the near instantaneous termination of a tiny fetus inside of the womb that has no chance of surviving on it's own to letting a fully formed baby that has actually been born starve to death by not taking care of it. I was simply countering with an equally preposterous comparison.

If you're against abortion then why are you okay with birth control? same thing, right?

My mind won't be changed any more than yours will.

that is correct. I still consider it a fetus or an embryo, depending on the stage of development.

Age of viability is well-established. If the baby can live outside of the womb, or even has a chance to, it's viable. That's my moral cutoff, whereas some of y'all are at heartbeat and some are at conception. I don't know why nobody chooses at egg. Seems as reasonable a standard as some of the others.