oldschool2

Maybe noone from Silsbee was nominated.

Uh oh. Did the other coach make the kids run too many triangles and get arrested? (I just had to)

I definitely see another really deep run. Another trip to Dallas is probable...as their region is a joke. But another SC? Yet to be determined. Never know how good Reg 2 will be.

Good luck. That overall record is about to take a hit though.

Maybe not currently. But I can promise you that BH has that appeal. And if not many current athletes then how many move-ins or work transfer parents chose BH instead of GCM before even enrolling? And how many times will it happen in the future? BH girl's basketball has a player that grew up in Crosby that's now in BH. Only reason I know that is because she is like 6'5 or something crazy and committed to UConn. Why didn't she end up in a Baytown school? I think we both know why. And I think that exact reason is why GCCISD will not get any athletes of that caliber (boys or girls) or could possibly lose any great athletes they currently have. And why they will continue to be the type of school where coaches go to benefit their retirement. You guys desperately need for Sterling and/or GCM to be 5A.

There it is ^. And to be honest the last time the school had a coach there that was successful the conditions were a lot different. Like I said earlier...what talent there is is spread between 3 pretty big high schools. That isn't good. Plus factor in that at the drop of a hat a parent could take their kid right down 10 to BH where they're relatively competitive, have fantastic facilities, and is top tier academically. Baytown is in a bind when it comes to athletics. Plain and simple. I don't see anything changing anytime soon.

I would think that it's a double edged sword. Will probably go with the applicant with the best looking resume. Someone with a lot of experience winning or maybe even someone with a reputation of (on paper) turning programs into a positive direction. The flip side to that is you take a chance on someone towards the end of their career. A lot of times it takes time to amass an impressive resume. Especially in the coaching world. Unfortunately, the GCM schools fit the mold of the type of school condusive to build someone's retirement. They have never been successful. Baytown is split into 3 pretty big high schools...none of which have a reputation of being recently successful. And..it's impossible to know if someone is coming there for intentions of riding it out or boosting their salary average. Even if they're in year 10-15 they could still base their salary off of a couple years at GCM. Baytown schools are in a bind. Only thing you have going for you is the fact that it's a competitive/attractive payscale. Otherwise you wouldn't even get a lot of applicants. Just take it for what it is.

Do you blame him? I don't. That's exactly how this business and every other business works. I would venture to say that in whatever profession you do your priorities will or did also shift towards putting yourself in the best position (monetarily) possible.

The less you care, the happier you'll be. Cant please em all

Let me explain: The 30 years after coaching...are more important than the 30 years coaching. A coach retirement is based on the average of the highest 5 years. Let's assume he's making about 75K at Liberty. (I honestly don't know but that seems about par). If his highest 5 years are 75K...his retirement is based on that average. (75K) However.. If he spent 2 years at GCISD. His new average is based on 75K x 3 + 98K x2. Making his 5 year average go from 75K....to 84K. An extra 9K a year retirement for the rest of your life makes the term "Hometown" not mean diddly squat. THAT is why he (and every other coach) would apply for a job making more money even if it means getting your brains beat in for 20 games. There are only about 10-20 schools per classification (roughly) that have a consistent shot at a state title anyway. Coaches know that. I'm will to bet that towards the end of a career it's more about retirement than it is glory.

There's speculation all over it. What justicfication can be given for non renewing the contract? Administrators are non renewed every year but there normally is a reason given. What's the reason here? Want to go a different direction... treating kids poorly...Poor discipline... I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find some kind of proof somewhere that one of the board members said something or texted something or implied something to SOMEbody.

Well. That's...um...AGAINST THE LAW. So.. If I were him, I'd be praying to get nonrenewed because of skin color. If that's the case retirement may come early. He may continue getting paychecks courtesy of Desoto High School for a long time.

Unfortunately, times have changed. While that may still ring true, a coach has to balance opponents that will prepare the team AND opponensts that can be beaten. During the time when what that coach told you was the "norm" there weren't parents running to the school board and crying and whining about every little thing. Like losing.. I personally think that the schedule doesn't make just a huge difference in preparation. Playing tough, close, hard nosed games is also a way to get your starters hurt or worn out. And a way that your subs will get zero game experience. Not to mention...if a coach spends 2 months telling a group of kids that his way is how you win...and then they lose several close games. That's a way to lose your players' confidence in you. There's good and bad with both strategies.

Yep...they're not only making recruiting easier, but legal. Nice job law makers.

Heaven forbid a coach make decisions based on what may be best for his family or career.

Unfortunately...most head coaches do not care about fans wanting to play good games...or rival games...or locationally convenient games. Which is in some ways ironic, because... it because of the fans that coaches feel so much pressure to be successful. Which is the reason they try to schedule games that they will probably win. Because if a coach goes 8-2 they will most likely... A: get to keep their job. B: Have a greater likelihood of getting a better job (higher paying) On the other hand, if a coach goes 4-6 they will likely be nonrenewed or ridiculed or both. All that matters is what their resume looks like in the win/loss column. Nobody cares that "but we played really good teams that were really close to the school and easy for the parents to get off work and make it to and are rival games". Again..because of you same fans.

I'm sure people are lining up to go 0-10. I joke...but there probably are people desperately wanting that head job...any head job.

I think most schools may have some kind of policy against seniors playing on JV. But no.. there is no rule saying that it can't happen. I know that if I were coaching I wouldn't want seniors taking minutes away from another kid that could otherwise be improving for next year. Because ultimately, that's what sub-varsity ball is for... Preparation for varsity athletics. When I say a school may have a policy...here's an example. I have a good friend that was an Athletic Director and he had a policy that states "If a kid plays Varsity ball as a junior then they are not allowed to play JV ball as a senior." So, in other words, they at least have to either ride the bench with varsity or not get a uniform at all. It's not an issue that you see very often. More times than not a coach will put seniors on Varsity just because.

Answer to what?.. Yes, I said that. It's not a right if it can be taken away. And when athletics, band, or UIL is taken away from a kid their parents have to still pay the school taxes. So again...paying taxes does not mean you're paying for the right to be an athlete.

Yes, of course. But an education still has to be provided. It's already a law to not deny a child the right to an education. Even prisoners can get educated.

It has nothing to do with faith in the politicians. I have 100% faith in the people that this would effect. First...imagine the pushback from coaches if the state started telling them who to play and how much to play them Then...imagine the reaction of parents. If my kid has to miss out on playing team or if the team suffers because someone else's kid has to play. Even though they aren't good enough to play. Yeah. That's where my faith lies.

That just proves my point that it isn't something that's paid for. If a kid can be removed from it, despite paying school taxes, then it isn't a right. Math class, on the other hand, HAS to be provided to your child if you are paying school taxes and your child is enrolled in the school. Doing something wrong won't permanently get you removed from math class. May get you removed from the campus if you get in enough trouble...but mathematics still has to be provided as long as you are a student of the school district.

So if that were to happen then the coach could very easily put the homeschooled kid on the sub-varsity team. And then play the kid the exact minimum required. Hypothetically. I see what you're saying and I agree that society is heading toward the crapper...but I'm pretty confident in saying that playing time is a power that will never be taken away from public school coaches. That would be the true end to sports competition. Not gonna happen.

Um. NO. Nobody is paying for the guarantee of being in athletics. Paying local taxes to the school guarantees your child and education provided by the school. The Athletic Director at the school does NOT have to let your child be involved in the athletic program. In fact, athletic directors kick kids out of athletics every year and all over this state for various reasons. Extracurricular activities are privileges available to the students that are enrolled in the school. They can also be taken away from certain students at any time. Behavior, failing, whatever.. Just because you pay taxes to a school doesn't mean that your student is "paying" to be in athletics, band, academic UIL, or anything else. And you are obviously not following what I'm saying. The Legislature can pass a bill into law saying that homeschooled students are allowed to play sports for a public school. Yes. I know that. But THE COACH decides who actually is a varsity player and how much playing time a kid gets. The Legislature CAN NOT tell a coach who comes off of the bench. And like I said...if a homeschooled student missed any single thing that the rest of the team did (including athletics class), then they would NEVER come off of the bench. If I were coaching, I mean.

I'm paying plenty of attention. Do you really think that the state could ever legislate who plays and how much they play? What if there are 6 home shool kids in the basketball program. You trying to tell me that it's possible for the state to make it to where the varsity coach has to put all 6 on his/her varsity roster and let all 6 of them be a starter?.. Bottom line. High school coaches can squash this. I guarantee it.