Rez

To the extent students/families have some choice as to which school to attend, I think there is something to be said for past successes providing an incentive for students to go to one school over another, which leads to that school being better in the future, which leads to more success later. I don't think this is the whole explanation, but I think it is a part of it.
If kids know that Westbrook tends to be more stable, organized, funded, supported, and has tended to win more games in the past, kids are more likely to (1) want to go, and (2) buy into whatever system Westbrook has that lead to that success, and then Westbrook has success, which cycles into students wanting to be there and buying into Westbrook's programs. If a school isn't like that, it's the same cycle, just in reverse. Though, I should add: This theory only makes sense to the extent students/families are choosing where to live based on what school they want to attend. There are definitely other things that go into what makes one school more consistently competitive than other schools, but this is one big one that I think helps explain part of it. 
 

To the extent students/families have some choice as to which school to attend, I think there is something to be said for past successes providing an incentive for students to go to one school over another, which leads to that school being better in the future, which leads to more success later. I don't think this is the whole explanation, but I think it is a part of it.
If kids know that Westbrook tends to be more stable, organized, funded, supported, and has tended to win more games in the past, kids are more likely to (1) want to go, and (2) buy into whatever system Westbrook has that lead to that success, and then Westbrook has success, which cycles into students wanting to be there and buying into Westbrook's programs. If a school isn't like that, it's the same cycle, just in reverse. Though, I should add: This theory only makes sense to the extent students/families are choosing where to live based on what school they want to attend. There are definitely other things that go into what makes one school more consistently competitive than other schools, but this is one big one that I think helps explain part of it. 
 

To the extent students/families have some choice as to which school to attend, I think there is something to be said for past successes providing an incentive for students to go to one school over another, which leads to that school being better in the future, which leads to more success later. I don't think this is the whole explanation, but I think it is a part of it.
If kids know that Westbrook tends to be more stable, organized, funded, supported, and has tended to win more games in the past, kids are more likely to (1) want to go, and (2) buy into whatever system Westbrook has that lead to that success, and then Westbrook has success, which cycles into students wanting to be there and buying into Westbrook's programs. If a school isn't like that, it's the same cycle, just in reverse. Though, I should add: This theory only makes sense to the extent students/families are choosing where to live based on what school they want to attend. There are definitely other things that go into what makes one school more consistently competitive than other schools, but this is one big one that I think helps explain part of it. 
 

Yes.  Also factor in Brook is fresh off a state championship appearance and United is fresh off a 2 win season.

Nederland needs to build a giant statute, not to any coach, but to a sprinkler. PNG can make one of an Ipad. 

Well they got a new NT and a new LB who moved over from the O Pattenson is back for his Senior year at end decent sized tackle couple of backers from last year back. Gonna be a fresh coach or two on defense as assistant as well. 

The whole line is back and a year older, bigger, and stronger and experienced 

Huntsville's defensive line had its way with alot of teams last year

The Indians were absolutely I. The Huntsville game until Roschon got hurt

Nederland needs to build a giant statute, not to any coach, but to a sprinkler. PNG can make one of an Ipad. 

Nederland FD just got a new pumper truck ,  I am sure the district can borrow it. 

Nederland needs to build a giant statute, not to any coach, but to a sprinkler. PNG can make one of an Ipad. 

I’m happy for the Bulldogs and their fans.  But being an old timer, and loving tradition, I do hope y’all continue to water it from Thursday night until just before game time.  I realize it won’t help much, but still, I hate to see an old tradition die out  
Congrat Dogs.

Thats Ricky Johnson he's going about 290 now at 6'4" said it earlier hes a stud

I agree -- it is incorrect and disingenuous to suggest that someone is not compassionate or generous or good-hearted simply because they do not support a policy proposal. People can disagree on policy directions and community decisions about how to solve problems without being morally bad. Just because someone doesn't want to see a tax increase doesn't make them selfish -- And being eager to spend money someone else has earned doesn't make you generous. I have no trust for anyone, politician or otherwise, who pretends to be "good" because they have big ideas about how to spend money that someone else earned. Taxes are not a good in and of themselves. They are a necessary evil at best. Those of us fighting for fewer taxes, even on issues of education, are not "selfish" for doing so. They just have different ideas about how to accomplish good things.
Even though I look at the bond proposal as what is probably a good thing, I am glad there are people in the discussion willing to carry the flag for the other side, even if just to play devil's advocate. There is nothing wrong with trying to pump the brakes on massive spending projects and nothing greedy about wanting to keep more of the money you have earned. 

This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up

My reference to an unknown interest rate was directed to the question of the total cost on top of 156,000,000. The unknown tax rate/variance will have little effect on the monthly tax increase. Reality is, you bring 156,000,000 worth of construction and 100+ workers at a time to your community, it increases revenue. More restaurant business, hotels, fuel sold for equipment and individuals, local hardware shopping etc.
I feel your projected monthly cost is inflated quite a bit. JMO. I'll try to provide more info to support my opinion when I have more time.

As far as the "people without kids having to pay for the education of people with kids" argument -- That complaint just doesn't hold water. The very foundation of taxation involves the government taking money from you to spend it on things that may or may not benefit you directly, but which do benefit you indirectly in the long run. It's not a perfect system and I am 100% for lowering taxes across the board, but every time we pay taxes we are sending our money off to be spent on who knows what -- At least with this bond we know exactly what it will be spent on. And those kids you pay for now are going to be in the workforce in a few years and state, local, and federal taxes will come out of their pockets, and some/many of the benefits from those taxes will go to a bunch of people who either don't work or are two old to work anymore in the form of roads, law enforcement, welfare, etc. Those kids are joining a workforce that is disproportionately small compared to the enormous -- and expensive -- population of retiring Baby Boomers, and they will spend the rest of their lives facing tax increase after tax increase to help provide benefits for, among other things, a bunch of people who may or may not have complained about getting those kids a decent school building and a football field that doesn't look like a water buffalo mating ground. The older generation worked hard and was taxed and those taxes went to things the taxpayers probably didn't want to pay for and in a few years the high school generation will enter that universally unfair system. I say, God Bless Texas -- everyone on this thread already benefits from low state taxes. You can always move to New York and watch the tax collectors destroy your take-home money. 

As far as the "people without kids having to pay for the education of people with kids" argument -- That complaint just doesn't hold water. The very foundation of taxation involves the government taking money from you to spend it on things that may or may not benefit you directly, but which do benefit you indirectly in the long run. It's not a perfect system and I am 100% for lowering taxes across the board, but every time we pay taxes we are sending our money off to be spent on who knows what -- At least with this bond we know exactly what it will be spent on. And those kids you pay for now are going to be in the workforce in a few years and state, local, and federal taxes will come out of their pockets, and some/many of the benefits from those taxes will go to a bunch of people who either don't work or are two old to work anymore in the form of roads, law enforcement, welfare, etc. Those kids are joining a workforce that is disproportionately small compared to the enormous -- and expensive -- population of retiring Baby Boomers, and they will spend the rest of their lives facing tax increase after tax increase to help provide benefits for, among other things, a bunch of people who may or may not have complained about getting those kids a decent school building and a football field that doesn't look like a water buffalo mating ground. The older generation worked hard and was taxed and those taxes went to things the taxpayers probably didn't want to pay for and in a few years the high school generation will enter that universally unfair system. I say, God Bless Texas -- everyone on this thread already benefits from low state taxes. You can always move to New York and watch the tax collectors destroy your take-home money. 

As far as the "people without kids having to pay for the education of people with kids" argument -- That complaint just doesn't hold water. The very foundation of taxation involves the government taking money from you to spend it on things that may or may not benefit you directly, but which do benefit you indirectly in the long run. It's not a perfect system and I am 100% for lowering taxes across the board, but every time we pay taxes we are sending our money off to be spent on who knows what -- At least with this bond we know exactly what it will be spent on. And those kids you pay for now are going to be in the workforce in a few years and state, local, and federal taxes will come out of their pockets, and some/many of the benefits from those taxes will go to a bunch of people who either don't work or are two old to work anymore in the form of roads, law enforcement, welfare, etc. Those kids are joining a workforce that is disproportionately small compared to the enormous -- and expensive -- population of retiring Baby Boomers, and they will spend the rest of their lives facing tax increase after tax increase to help provide benefits for, among other things, a bunch of people who may or may not have complained about getting those kids a decent school building and a football field that doesn't look like a water buffalo mating ground. The older generation worked hard and was taxed and those taxes went to things the taxpayers probably didn't want to pay for and in a few years the high school generation will enter that universally unfair system. I say, God Bless Texas -- everyone on this thread already benefits from low state taxes. You can always move to New York and watch the tax collectors destroy your take-home money. 

There's no way to accurately know that information until the bonds are actually sold. Realistically, if the bond passes, bonds won't be sold for possibly a year or more. I think it would be irresponsible to try and project an accurate interest rate that far in advance. Even then they will probably be sold in phases so the tax payer potentially may not see an increase for two years and the increase may be in increments. Tax payers will not be hit with an immediate total tax increase. 

We are beyond restless, the new super is single handedly putting Crosby in the hole for years to come with his stubbornness. I mean the dude was literally walking up and down the sidelines during games in the way. Not to mention firing all the coaches wives and cutting the staff mid season. Just read Rios exit interview, he was furious with the guy and said he wasn’t allowed to make any decisions since early October. Crosby had plenty of talent to make the playoffs even after loosing their star qb to injury but if I was in rios shoes I would have tanked the season too and told them to kiss my a$$ on the way out the door. Which is exactly what happened. Lost the best coach Crosby ever had. 

It was my first time to see them live.  It was very impressive, or depressive lol.  And yes, they got beat in the playoffs, but I’ve no doubt in a rematch, Silsbee could have won.  Good team - good Coach, tough combination.

For topic, I’d say beating WOS in football.
Now to respond to the above post.  This year, my G’sons team had “two chances” at Silsbee in basketball.  We actually had the lead over them in the second game (1-0).  Somehow, after the first butt whipping, chance was not what came to mind for the second - let’s see, game?  No, that’s not good either.  More like the My Lai massacre.
 
 

I think based on the fact that in a given season you might have one chance at West Orange, where in basketball you might get at least two chances at Silsbee, it is a bigger deal. Also, it is easier to beat a team in basketball than it is in football. That's why in the pros you have to win a series. Great teams lose to bad teams in basketball all the time.