Rez

3 hours ago, navydawg31 said:

Yeah let me try and find it again, It was yesterday when I saw it. Interesting enough a lot of what’s discussed during this thread was brought up… but more. 
 

 I did see remember someone say when the head THSCA president turns down your job that has better facilities and a lot more pay says a lot about your school district… 

I’d also like to see that 

What sticks out to me is the way the BH admin seems to be going about the hiring process. It smacks of (1) extreme overconfidence, (2) incompetence, or both. I may be wrong, but don’t schools usually proceed with some kind of system? That is, they announce the opening, put together a hiring committee, hire a consultant (if they want a consultant), interview the candidates, narrow down to a few finalists, and make a decision. BH doesn’t seem to be doing that. It all seems pretty haphazard. 

2 hours ago, purpleeagle said:

So sensitive. 

I was agreeing with you, in case there’s any confusion 

7 hours ago, TC2020 said:

It’s a football forum. Let us talk football!

Exactly - Words don’t cost money. We can talk about it again in six months if people want to (RIP @purple eagle) 

I don’t have any insight into why Abseck left. But my two cents: Based on watching my family members deal with the BH administration (I’ve got nieces and nephews in BH school district), I wouldn’t want to be employed there. It’s all petty politics and people letting power go to their heads. I’m getting this secondhand, but the “I can’t believe we have to deal with this” kind of stories I’ve heard add up to a giant red flag. 

PNG loses Jackson Christian on the o-line. He’s irreplaceable. We’ll still have a good o-line, but unless we have another D1 caliber guy to fill his spot i think we’ll see a slight decline on the o-line. 
 

I expect we’ll be more physical and a little faster on defense next year. We were young in certain areas, and we’ve got some good guys coming up from jv. 
 

We’re getting our qb and Rb back. We’ll be at least decent there. 
 

overall, this next season feels like a “new” team without these seniors, some of whom have been with the team for three year (or more, in Jackson’s case). We’ve got a great coaching staff (I think we over performed in the playoffs, even with the loss to SOC. The coaches took a team that simply didn’t have the horses in certain key areas and got us to the 4th round). We probably were at least the third or fourth best team in the state (I think we would have beaten Argyle and Boerne). So, not a bad season. I expect we’ll be solid next year, but there’s a ton of question marks. I’m just glad we get a season to go in humble — No “defending state champion” nonsense. Just hard work and focus on the next game.
 

As far as district goes, Huntsville looks like the unquestioned favorite on paper. We’ll be in the mix for the championship. Nederland is going to take another step forward. I have no idea what Lake Creek has coming up (they were pretty senior heavy last year). Montgomery is a question mark. Dayton will be better. West fork will be better (they impressed me all season - they might be scary soon). As a whole, our district will be tougher from top to bottom (except for splendora, who will be the exact same level of unfortunate as before). 

For all Texas made mistakes and there are serious weaknesses, in the past two games we’ve beaten the ACC champion and the Big 12 champion (and were three points shy of an SEC championship) three weeks ago. With all the mistakes and missed opportunities, we’re doing a lot right too. 

1 hour ago, navydawg31 said:

I wish UIL could look at each school avg numbers from the year before and a significant increase of kids from say 5A D2 to 6A numbers make them not eligible for the playoffs. Only fair… if they move up just 1 it’s ok. But having numbers that make you jump up 2 classifications isn’t a good look.  

I have a simpler solution : Don’t do a single day count. Every day, every school in the state counts their attendance and sends that number to the state. That number results in money received from the state. Why not just take the average of those numbers the school has submitted from the beginning of the year up to the end of October? In other words, let’s use the numbers the schools use when they have every incentive for the numbers to be high, rather than have one snapshot day? Having the one snapshot day invites cheating and is a waste of time. The schools and the state already know the numbers the school uses, and the school should have to use that number.  

2 hours ago, Matthew328 said:

That's a tough kick for a HS kid in Week 1 in the 1st Qtr after a timeout 

 

Much less in the state championship game, as time is running out on a fire drill

Almost no one was making that kick, especially outside a range he’s ever made. 

Randle mismanaged their last drive. Soc mismanaged clock and special teams. Two great teams who did each other too many favors. 

Reminds me of Christian McCaffrey. 

Best game of the week. Wow. Heartbreaker for that kicker. 

I don’t love that holding call. It was holding , but I’m not sure it sprung the runner 

RR shouldn’t have punted 

Both teams’ offensive tackles are putting on a lead-blocking clinic 

Refs just missed a massive RR hold. Second half feels a little more equal in the no-calls.

Just now, gary-us-bonds said:

Randle got a TD called back on a very suspect holding call. SOC got s TD where their guy tackled the defender for Randle. Randle should be up 10 right now 

No ticky tacky holding calls on SOC. The holds are there. Guess the refs don’t want the six months of false allegations and baseless complaints. 

No reason to throw that pass that was picked. Randle acting like they have to hit a home run when all they needed to do was keep getting first downs. 

5 minutes ago, Matthew328 said:

Both teams are doing it...thought the hold on the Williams-Callis touchdown run was very shaky...we didnt see it 

What about the one just now where they basically threw number 4 out of bounds well after the whistle? 

That holding call was so ticky tacky. Refs just missed the exact same call on SOC. And when are the refs going to call SOC for all the standing over the ball carriers after the play? 

Randle is putting on a show right now. 

2 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

There is an abundance of case history where the SC has ruled specifically in favor of targeted socioeconomic groups. The "vague" and "broad" definition of "equal protection" has been utilized in many different applications. 

Your mentioned logic is similar to that which was utilized in Plessy vs Ferguson. Civil rights legislation exists to protect populations from blanket rules that unfairly impact targeted populations. 

There is no scenario where the UIL will prevent a kid who lives in the same area as other kids from participating in the same activities as other kids, simply for the reason of "time not served". That scenario will impact underserved communities more harshly than the others and it the reason why no such policy currently exists or will exist.

I understand you dont agree with it. 

It’s not simply that I don’t agree. Your citation of Plessy vs Ferguson is entirely misplaced. I don’t think you’ve understood the meaning or point of that case. Is it your contention that merely requiring that kids and schools follow certain procedures prior to participating in entirely optional non-educational activities is the same as arguing for Jim Crow laws, “separate but equal” facilities, and other racially  driven segregation? What do you have to say for the current rules, wherein kids and schools are required to follow certain procedures in order to participate, the failure of which bars participation? In other words, is your point that it’s not fair to stop cheating because certain people cheat more? 

 As to the “abundance” of cases that agree with you  … What are the cases, what do they say, and how do they apply to the argument you’re making? 
 

As far as “vague” definitions of equal protection, my use of vague referred to the absence of a definition from you — what definition are you using when you say “equal protection?” What “applications” and “broad definitons” are you talking about? To succeed in an equal protection claim, someone would need to show specific discrimination and actual harm to them. Simply saying, “everyone being subject to the same rules is a violation of equal protection” wouldn’t get there, especially when the rules are applied in exactly the same way to everyone regardless of race, gender, religion, etc, and especially when the rules are simply “here’s what everyone has to do to be able to play sports.” We already have such rules — Is a kid being forced to sit because he made bad grades a violation of equal protection? 

38 minutes ago, 89Falcon said:

Did you read the entire sentence? 

Yes - I’m not sure you understood the analogy I’m drawing. You’re asserting that fairly applying uniform rules across the board is a violation of a vague concept of “equal protection” (though it’s not clear what you mean by the term, as that hasn’t been set out). I’m saying that making rules and fairly applying them regardless of socioeconomic status and other characteristics is the opposite of violating equal protection protections. 

3 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

Penal codes have nothing to do with equal opportunities for those targeted in equal protection and various civil rights legislation. Like I said, it is the reason no such rule has been or will be implemented. There is no scenario where a kid that lives in an area with other kids will not have access to the same opportunities simply because of "time not served" in the area. 

As mentioned previously, feel free to correct me when/if it happens. 

Equal protection absolutely has to do with penal codes. 

4 hours ago, 89Falcon said:

It does apply to “any uniform application of rules” because some “uniform application of rules” impact certain populations more harshly. That is the purpose of the protections both constitutionally and statutory. 
 

You haven’t shown it impacts any group more harshly, and that’s not only element of the standard - Drug laws also impact poor people more harshly. Try bringing THAT argument into court. “Your honor, I did use those drugs, but as you can see I’m from a poor neighborhood.”