oldschool2

I took it as, they all cheat, referring to shady transfers. As that was literally the direction of the conversation. Neither here nor there.. Opinions likely won't change.

It's because EC was mentioned earlier about being the benefactor of transfers from Beaumont ISD and others. For the schools in this coverage area, what school would you want your kid to attend if you could choose? I think of Barbers Hill, East Chambers... Even though Anahuac is slowly replacing EC as the place to be because of facilities and the rumor I heard about Baytown/Mont Belvieu kids creeping that direction. Which makes sense. Why am I laser focusing on transfers? Did you not read the comments leading up to this? I don't have time to give you a reading lesson but scan over the previous page or 2. The only "cheating" I'm talking about (or that has even been eluded to) is when kids transfer schools. By the way.. the Nick Saban mention referred to having the ability to attract talent.

To avoid openly recruiting. I guess they prefer it done secretly.

I didn't say nor imply that it's a prerequisite to being hired. There's no question that transfers happen all over the state every single year and some of those transfers may not be for legitimate reasons. Who is anyone to judge? If a student/athlete finds a loophole in the flawed transfer system because of a school's facilities, team's history, or coach's personality then I guess it is what it is. If a coach can successfully attract quality athletes for the betterment of the program through whatever means.. then I find it a quality. The only viable answer would be for the UIL to make ALL transfers sit a calendar year regardless of the reason for transfer. Otherwise.. like I said.. it is what it is. As long as UIL leaves those many loopholes open, then I say you better keep your quality athletes happy or get ready to lose them. And you better give other quality athletes a reason to come to your school because somebody else is if not. Many of the most well known, successful coaches out there had great years due to the enrolling of new players at the right time. Or a favorable drop in classification. You can't have a problem with kids transferring to East Chambers, Brock, Aledo, Carthage, Celina, etc. etc. etc... and be ok with Nick Saban dominating college football over the last decade or so. You think colleges rely on home grown, local kids exclusively?

According to some posters on here, you aren't qualified to be hired somewhere else if you don't have a history of winning. Suppose a rookie coach takes the first job they can to build experience and it's a talentless team.. what are the chances of them landing a good job down the road if they win 3 games or less at a bad school for a couple years? Even if they have successful assistant experience elsewhere..

A coach told me one time that he'd rather get fired for cheating than fired for losing.

There has been a mix of spread and slot-t ran for a while. I was halfway joking because the comment seemingly implied that those are the only two options. Even so.. I'm sure the new coach will do neither if the kids aren't able (his opinion). Or one or the other.. or both. Or who knows..

Hear me out.. the Spread-T. In all seriousness.. I would think that most coaches prefer one thing or another but ultimately coach to what their kids can do best.

Back to La Porte.

I don't know... no state championships as a head coach? Hmm.. They really should've called Art Briles. Now they'll never win it all.

I'm intrigued. Also, I would love to see the practice schedules.

He's taking the this job and the Tarkington job? That's pretty impressive.

Great career. No state titles? Sorry.. he's no elite coach. That's what I'm told anyway.

What he's probably laughing at is the perception that Silsbee fans just seem to think that Silsbee kids are shafted in every single accolade in the history of sport. Always should've had more on this team or more for that team. They can't fill every award with solely Silsbee kids. Calm down.. the kid's a sophomore? He'll have his time. I swear you guys are like the HD fans of individual awards.

Now we're going to discuss the differences between debating and arguing? Unbelievable.. By the way, I can assure you that I'm not taking anything personal. I'm not the one using exclamation points in my posts.. as if your emotion will make your point stronger. It won't. You should be happy.. I've long since become bored with this debate/argument (whatever you wanna call it). You think that a coach is only elite because of championships. I don't. You think an elite coach (according to your definition) can win anywhere and with anyone. I don't. Signing out of this circus.

You're actually proving my point... that because of fluctuating talent in every opponent (even one's own school), due to graduations, injuries, etc. can and will impact the results of a season. How many coaches out there could have had a state championship if not for losing kids for whatever reason and/or reclassification? Or visa versa. Tell the guy I'm arguing with that there are other factors at play.. other than who the coach is.

No.. the debate is whether or not an "elite coach" can make a school like Tarkington (with zero relative success in their past) into an elite program. Then the debate turned into what makes a coach an elite coach. Your opinion, as stated multiple times, is that having won a state title or more makes you an elite coach. It is argued by me.. and everyone else in this thread.. that it takes much more than just being a good coach to win a state title. It is also argued that not Art Briles.. nor Scott Surrat.. nor Buchanan.. nor Tom Westerberg could go to Tarkington and win a state title in the relative future without a substantial influx of above average ability. I'd bet every dollar I have that they couldn't go there at the same time and win it all within 6 years with the kids Tarkington ISD has right now. Will they get tremendously better? No question.. Will they improve? Without a doubt? But I'll bet on Tarkington's football history over those coaches' histories every time. It makes no difference to me what your opinion is regarding that. If a person believes that ANY coach can go to ANY school with ANY level of talent and win a state championship then they're an idiot. If you fall into that category.. it is what it is. Now for the Westerberg comment. He won 3 consecutive state titles with the most prolific high school quarterback that the state of Texas has ever had, along with countless other very highly skilled football players, plus the best overall support staff that money could buy (at the high school level), plus arguably one of the biggest pools of players to choose from in the country, and finally the nicest high school facilities in the state of Texas (at that time). Someone commented above that there were around 50 D1 football players from Allen during his coaching tenure.. Know what? Maybe he should've won a state championship every year that he was there. And the fact that he didn't .. might mean that he's not as good a coach as you're arguing. If it was only about coaching.. then the same exact coach would have the same exact results every year. Every single year.

People believing that a state championship doesn't make you a good coach doesn't require expertise. It requires common sense.

When a head coach goes 8-2 one year.. graduates 80% of the team but retains the exact same coaching staff.. then goes 2-8 the next year, is it the coach's fault? Because that actually happens all the time. If a coach goes 8-2 one year.. the team goes up in classification but retains the same coaching staff and most of the players.. then goes 2-8 the next year, is it the coach's fault? Because that also happens all the time. By the way.. if a coach has a team with limited talent but improves speed, strength, and work ethic of each player.. it still may have not been enough improvement to win more games.

I can't believe that nobody's disgruntled about a Silsbee player that didn't make the list. Never mind... just scrolled up.

I already told you.. it's the lack of faith I have in what Tarkington has had on the field over what Briles would be able to do. I also told you.. Stephenville won AT LEAST 8 games in a season... ten different seasons before Briles took the job. Tarkington has never won more than 7 games in a season. Not even once. It takes an extreme level of ignorance to believe that coaches can just win championships no matter the level of talent they have to work with. You, my guy, are displaying that level of ignorance. I'm also waiting on a response about my question concerning Westerberg. Did he win the state championships because of his ability to coach?.. or because Kyler Murray was taking snaps? Or a combination of the two?.. which is what literally everyone in this conversation thinks except you. My opinion.. Murray had more to do with Westerberg's titles than Westerberg did. But I believe players > coaches.. Countless examples of subpar coaches winning championships with great players but very few (if any) great coaches winning championships with subpar players. I swear.. I'm halfway starting to believe that you believe that Art Briles could win a state championship with a junior high team.

I would hire Briles.. because Briles is still coaching. However, I would in zero way expect for him to win more than one playoff game unless he's bringing kids with him. I most definitely would not expect for him to win a state championship..because I'm not an idiot. And if my job depended on the success of the next football coach at Tarkington, I'd be ready to find a new job after my hire didn't meet whoever's criteria of whatever is deemed as success. Unless they have some realistic goals for a school that has won less than 5 playoff games (TOTAL) in it's history.

Are you going to reply to my earlier comment?.. or just ignore it because it makes you argument dumb? By the way.. nobody is saying that coaching doesn't matter. But even "elite coaches" as you say have to have some talent. They have to have big time talent to win titles (future college athletes) and you're comparing the talent at Tarkington to that of.. let's see.. Aledo, Carthage, Stephenville, Southlake Carrol, Austin Westlake.. um.. are you seriously that clueless? Not a single coach to have ever won a state championship is going to Tarkington High School and winning a state championship in the relative future without some serious transfers.

Aledo previously had some years with the 2nd leading Texas rusher in the history of Texas High School football. Carthage previously went through some years with a kid that went on to start at UT. Are you saying that their coaches weren't more fortunate at Aledo and Carthage than they would've been at Tarkington? Let's throw Westerberg in the conversation. Elite coach?.. or fortunate to have the greatest high school quarterback to ever take a snap. I mean.. he won as many titles at Allen as Briles did at Stephenville. How did he do at Barbers Hill, by the way? I forget.

Stephenville won at least 8 games in a season.. 10 times before Briles got there. Tarkington has won 8 games in a season.. NEVER. Do you know how many 10 win seasons that Stepheville has had since Briles left? A bunch. Including 2 more state titles. They don't have the same level of players. You can be mad about that if you want.. still doesn't change anything.