oldschool2

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.

I'll put every dollar I have on it that the state will not decide who a coach has to put on a varsity team or how much they play.

They most certainly are NOT paying for it. School taxes pay for the education. Being a member of the athletic program is a privilege. There are even students enrolled in public schools that can be kicked out of athletics and denied getting back in.

I've said this already: It would be an easy fix for me..if I were coaching. The state may say who is allowed to participate in UIL activities, but has ZERO control over who plays on what team or how much they play. A homeschooled kid CAN absolutely play...as long as they are in attendance for every single athletic period, team meeting, team meal, practice, etc.. There's also nothing to stop a coach from having a tryout... Or not letting a homeschooled kid play a single second in any single varsity game. I mean...if a kid isn't held to the same standards as the rest of the varsity team (dress code, discipline, showing up on time, actually waking up for school, having to pass and stay out of trouble for multiple classroom settings) then why would the coach let them be a varsity player. You guys are missing the most important point. No matter what legislation says, the varsity head coach is still 100% in control over who gets a varsity uniform. If homeschooled kids play enough JV games they'll start rethinking what's actually important.

I'm thinking that you missed the point of my comment.

I'm paying school taxes in a town that my kids not only didn't go to...but aren't in school at all. Can they play school ball for the school?

Honestly that's the biggest thing to me. Public school students have to wake up at a certain time, adhere to certain dress codes and behavior standards, get along with students and teachers well enough to stay out of trouble, learn to succeed under the umbrella of several different teachers with several different teaching styles, showing up on time for an athletic class...then to the next class while sweaty and tired, making it to practice on time after having school all day, juggle the stresses of homework and testing despite having extracurricular activities day of, day after, and week of..., juggling social issues, etc. etc. etc... And everything I just listed is monitored by one parent for homeschooled kids. I think that's it's a little unfair.

I love how the first thing to happen is place blame or success on a coach. Didn't Johnson have a really good group of mostly upper classmen...that were fairly successful in all sports all the way up to that year? And when the next coach came in wasn't that group gone? It's not a coincidence. Good players = success. Colmesneil didn't have a good year last year?.. Yeah well, it's because there wasn't a whole lot of talent relative to their competition. Sorry. And the parents were no different. Winning is a cure all. And winning hides complaints. Under Fancy the parents were parents of a group of kids that were good enough to win games. That's the difference.

So administrators aren't allowed to wait to resign from a job after they have another job secured? There's one thing I can assure you...when it comes to finance and job security, they are looking out for numero uno. As they should. And I would too. And FYI head coaches leave in March, April, May, and later all of the time.

I hear you.. but what's the alternative? No guarantee that you replace teams on the schedule that you'll actually beat. I know that it's probably stressful because you only get 10 games per year and there is a lot of pressure to succeed, but, at the same time I feel as though the games should be honored. The other coach that agreed to play doesn't have anything to do with the school haveing a job change. I don't think that when football coaches create schedules they say "Alright. We're going to play next year at my place during week 3 and the year after at your place week 3. Unless one of us gets fired or finds a better job...in which case the opposite will get screwed and have to find someone else to play. Even though everybody else's schedules will be done"

I'm thinking the only way around it is to not take the job. Double edged sword. Someone applies wanting to be a head coach but the schedule is already set. So...take the job knowing you're going to get embarrassed? Because let's face it...we all have a pretty good idea (most of the time) which teams are good and which aren't. We at least know what they had the previous year, how many returning, and how many lost.So have to weigh being an AD/HC vs getting your brains beat in. Don't know..

Well, I was thinking that... Just making sure I didn't miss something.

I didn't say that...did I? Nor did I imply it. But I do have enough that work in the school system to know that even if he had it on good authority that there would be a job available to him around the holidays...it doesn't get announced until there is actually a piece of paper with a name signed to it. Plain and simple..if he hadn't signed a letter of intent to hire or a contract then he didn't know for a fact he had a job. Are you saying that he should've had enough confidence in "someone's word" that he had another job lined up? Enough confidence to put his family at risk (potentially) by not being employed? Because I can assure you that had he announced in December that he was leaving for Newton then Kirbyville would not have renewed his contract. Then a chance is taken on not having a job...You did say "It's BS if he knew he was leaving way after the holidays and just told his staff last week". Did you not? Ask your family and friends that work in the school system if that would have been the best thing to do.

I read that. But there is a difference between thinking a job would come open and a job actually being open. If the Newton AD speculated that a job would open he could've approached Neece about it, but I'm willing to bet that there wasn't actually a job opening to be filled around the holidays. If Neece new for a fact that he had a job (offered, approved by the board, accepted, signed a contract) then he would've in fact BEEN at Newton after the holidays. I don't think educators can legally be under more than one contract at the same time. Which means he didn't know for a fact until now. Hence the reason that maybe he didn't tell anyone until his name was actually signed on a contract or intent to hire at Newton. My first wife was a teacher and I have enough friends and family in it to know how it works. Trust me...they don't resign (most of the time) until their name is on a contract somewhere else.

Most coaches wait until they actually have a job (on paper) before they announce to ANYONE that they are leaving. Would you announce to the world that you were leaving your current job before you had another one?

So you're ok with a kid not being held to the same behavior standard? Behaving in a classroom/lunch/hallway setting pulls a lot of weight when it comes to whether or not a kid is allowed to take part in athletics. Conforming to school policy is something that shouldn't be allowed to be avoided if you're taking part in a school athletics program.

Shocker.

Maybe he just wanted to leave. And maybe he didn't want to be HC anymore. Being an asst at Newton Football isn't a bad choice if he wanted out of head coaching.. Hard to put a value on winning.

Seems to be turning into a common thing. It will come back to get them.

I would love nothing more than Coach Stark to head back to WS. And then schedule Hardin....and then beat Hardin 70-0. I'm sure he wouldn't do that because he's probably a better coach than I would be. In terms of being professional, I mean. But it sure would bring some satisfaction to me.

LOL!

You would think.

6 applicants? That's it? What an embarrassment...

That's a negative, ghost rider. But I care plenty about kids. Most important thing they need sometimes is tough love. Teach accountability. They can either learn young, or as an adult. But it will be learned. Promis you that. I read the whole thing. I have no problem with reading comprehension or understanding what you said. I understood it. But after you said they should do the athletics class you spent a paragraph explaining why they should be given a "first chance" because of so many others who were given second chances. Just exactly HOW am I holding anything against anybody because of their parents? If they miss a work out / practice, they don't play. Period. I don't care what the reason is. If a kid has 2 parents neither of whom own a car..they are still required to show up to practice? "I know you were all required to be here at a certain time, and stay the whole time. But Johnny's parents couldn't get him here on time. So we're gonna give him a pass." You can't have leniency for someone because of something they can't control. And are you kidding me? Would I bench a kid if their father committed murder? What does that have to do with anything the kid did? Bad situation no doubt. But to assume I would bench a kid because of some kind of vendetta against a parent is really kind of stupid. In my opinion a parent must not want their kids involved in school sports very bad if they homeschool them. I understand completely why they would homeschool them...but then don't get mad when they can't do what public school students get to do.