oldschool2

I grew up in one as well. There's definitely a lot of benefit to attending rural school districts as opposed to larger, urban school settings. Many of the life experiences can't be replicated... both good and bad. However, I am of the opinion that even rural settings need to be the size of 500-1000 or so for kids to learn what it takes to compete. I don't mean athletically or academically.. I mean in general. If a school has 100 kids (50 boys, 50 girls), and only half of that number participate in athletics, how much do they actually have to compete for their place on the team? If a football team has 5 seniors, 5 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 5 freshmen... those kids aren't getting a good picture of what it takes to actually have to earn anything. That's going to affect everything they do in life.

Don't feel bad. I wouldn't have let my kids go there either.. especially in recent years/decades. But that's not specific to HD. I feel the same way about all tiny schools. There's just not enough in terms of resources to give them a fair shot at the competition of life. Those kids will have to compete for jobs with the same kids from (insert school district). High schools with even a couple hundred kids are at a huge disadvantage.

HI's done it before, right? If so.. HD officially joined the group.

Called it.. although I thought the school would fold simultaneously. There's a lot of growth across the state.. but also a lot of dying areas.

Exceeded my expectations. Well done, Hardin. Definitely still capable of putting points up. How's CC? I don't know. I was assuming they were remotely similar to last year.

10-4

Where are the highlights you saw?

27-7. Hardin I need some convincing still that Hardin will be ok after losing what they lost.

I'm wishing them the best.. honestly.. but I fear there's a, "we did (blank) last year so this year's gonna be awesome" situation. Unfortunately, sometimes it's learned the hard way that personnel matters. But even still.. the blame will be placed everywhere else. That's usually how it goes in the world of sports.

There's an extremely high likelihood that losing two 1000 yard rushers (seniors) is going to hurt. Returning a huge line and a good running quarterback will keep them relatively competitive... Probably contending in their new district... but a hole was left for sure. Very few places can lose that much talent and just pick up right where they left off.

Uh oh. What did you hear? Difficult time adjusting to the ones lost to graduation just yet?

You do know that parents change residences for a large number of reasons, right? Job, cheaper housing, better neighborhood, different school district for their kids, etc. Nobody can stop people from moving. If they actually move, and can prove the change of address.... how is that the kid's fault? Why would a kid be punished by sitting a year if his/her parents made the decision to relocate? You can't prove why the move happened. And honestly.. it's nobody's business. I could sell my house this afternoon if I wanted to... for whatever reason I wanted to.. for however much I wanted to.. and move to wherever I wanted to. And if I still had kids at home, they'd go with me. And there's nothing nobody could do about it. They shouldn't be punished if I as there parent makes a decision to relocate. As long as none of us openly advertised that we were moving so my kids could get an athletic scholarship or play for a potential state champion, then who's to say it was for athletic purposes? There's no question that it has and does happen that kids/parent change schools to potentially be in a better position athletically, but it's not difficult to justify the move for legitimate reasons. Apartment complexes make it easy in metro areas like DFW, Houston, Austin, etc..

Most schools have open enrollment.. but that only means that they accept out of district transfers as STUDENTS. Those kids still have to sit a year to be eligible for UIL competition. Being accepted as a student doesn't change that.

Have they tried transferring to EC?