tvc184

Let's see, on July 24, I posted "Call me skeptical but this seems like a marketing ploy", in response to their call for a stadium that didn't give one team an advantage of home field. I said it was a marketing scam by a sports promoter but he did not want to just come out and claim it so it was under the guise of "being fair" to all teams. On July 27, the UIL went ahead with the Alamodome as a preselected site. In their article posted by Coop, they (oops) make the following statements that I highlighted above: "make the most of advance marketing of the games" "FSNS normally only televised the Division I championship games" So now, according to their article, it is to increase attendance "at one of the great sporting events in the United States". It is for marketing and to get another game on television by their own statement. This is pure and simple a money deal and nothing more. Why didn't they just say that to begin with instead of trying to hide it with words like fairness to all teams. It has nothing to do with fairness of travel or home field advantage for one team or the other. I could care less where they play the game, I would just be happy that my team was in it. I just hate the obvious cover up for money instead of just calling it a buyout of the UIL by a marketing firm. It is obvious when a sports marketing promoter comes out and says he is worried about fairness and home field advantages, he has his fingers crossed behind his back. Call me anything you want, just don't lie to me. Okay, off my soapbox.

As you can see in Coop's quote' date=' that is a mighty big "if".

I have said it before but...... why not name about 5 neutral such as Kyle Field, Reliant Stadium, Texas Stadium, Alamodome and DKR (or at Baylor, Texas Tech, etc.). Out of those fields, they are far enough apart that at least one has to be far enough out from both teams so that no team gets a true homefield advantage. That way the championship game would be in a stadium fitting the crowds for 5A championship and also be on a good field. Any team would have the option of waiving that requirement if they would rather play in a certain stadium even if it gives the other team the home field. (and yes I posted that in another thread)

Yeah. As I wrote in a much longer opinion in the other thread, their reasoning was bogus and had a hidden agenda. The premise was so that there would be no home team advantage in the championship game and then they lock in the stadium that almost guarantees some schools will have that very advantage that they claimed is the reason for the new policy. Why not just say the truth, that it is about marketing.

At first I thought Footballblue was serious about his postings but now I see that he is trying to get a rise out of everyone. And all this time I thought he really believed what he was saying.

The district is sure going to be tough. The seniors this year in Nederland were six years old and in the first grade the last time the Bulldogs missed the playoffs. I am looking at this schedule and wondering how we are going to keep it going.

I really wanted to go out on a limb and say 4 but then I would have to vote for the 4-6 option. I just don't think they can win six no matter how the ball bounces.

Maybe Shirley Martin could move to Port Arthur. I hear that they might need a new school board pretty soon if the state takes over and she might fit right in.

Yes, their mascot was a lion.. decked out in purple naturally.

If I remember correctly, the last year that French High School was in existence, they tied for the state championship and were declared co-champions. In Westbrooks first year of existence, they won the state championship. Beaumont can claim that in its consolidation, one team won the state football championship in its last year and another school won it in first year.

Yeah, I think everyone has gotten their thoughts out at least a couple of times. This is one of the situations where they say, "we have to agree to disagree".

No time at all if you buy the same season ticket package you had last year since you have the option. If you buy additional tickets, then you might have to wait in line. I have two season tickets to Nederland games and so I got two tickets to MCM in Port Neches this year. The bidding process starts shortly............

I've said it before but I think the local media provides a service. You don't pay people for the right to provide them with a product. Put the option to the schools, especially the players and their families and see what they say. They have two choices, they will have their names, highlights, coaches, etc on the news or have their games broadcast for everyone to see but nothing goes to the schools or they can stop the media from broacasting games but they then get no exposure. What do you think the choice would be? Are they are going to say "to heck with it, if they don't buy my school a couple of dozen footballs or some new shoes, I don't want my name in the paper"? I don't think so. The kids love the exposure, the families love to read about the kids or see them on TV and the fans in general love to read about the teams or watch the games. The free enterprise system is based on supply and demand. In this case, I think the demand is the exposure of the teams and players and the media meets it with the supply. I don't think the demand is to pay the schools so that the kids can get some exposure. It is not the same for a money making business like pro football where they are obligated to make millions just to pay player salaries. They are in the business to make money, not so with high school football. How about the local stores that sell sports items such as t-shirts with our local teams. Do they give money back to the schools? That is nothing but direct profit, not a service. I have seen local shirts at Wal-Mart, Academy and other stores. Do they kick back money to the schools with their profit? Maybe they do but I doubt it. In any case, how many games are sold for profit by the local media? When Friday Night Experience tries to put a game on the internet, I always hear them saying that they will broadcast the event "IF" then can get enough sponsors to pay for the broadcast. How much money are they making for putting the games on the internet that is free for anyone with internet?

I have mine in hand for Nederland's games.

I can see the problem with a home and home flip that some coaches might take. I can also see a definite problem where a coach picks a small stadium so that the opposing team cannot bring a lot of fans as it could potentially screw over one team. Would WO-S in their title games or PN-G in their most recent title game want to travel to Amarillo or El Paso to play at a stadium with a 500 fan visitor's side? I don't think so. For the final game, everyone wants to have a shot at a nice stadium and a fair chance to bring as many fans as they can. Picking a so called neutral site ahead of time would solve the crowd problem but you still might hammer one team when it comes to home field advantage. There is a good chance that one of the teams will be from the area of the "neutral" site with the other team coming from a long way off. If the UIL is going to step in, they need to make it fair to both teams and having a pre-set site is not it. The article specifically mentions that on 15 occasions, one team had a definite home field advantage. This is a quote from the article " Here are the 15 games in which at least one team (in bold) had a decided home advantage:" It then goes on to list those games and wouldn't you know it, the Alamodome is one of the sites where unfair homefield advantage was given to one team. So their solution is to pick that very site as a permanent title game? DUHHH!! Call me skeptical but this seems like a marketing ploy from Mark Stephenson of TITUS Sports Marketing, not an attempt at fairness. It is only fair is all four teams are coming from a long way from San Antonio, which isn't likely. The article lists the Alamodome as being unfair in four games and then they choose that as a site. Geez. It is interesting that a marketing company owner defines a problem and wouldn't you know it, he has the solution. The only thing is that he didn't solve the problem, he only created his company a marketing tool. If the UIL really wants to be fair, they can solve the problem by setting rules for choosing the title game. It should not be rocket science. There are plenty of good stadiums in Texas with pro teams and colleges. Maybe they could come up with a list of acceptable stadiums with enough capacity for a 5A title game. You could be in the Astrodome (if they still use it), Reliant Stadium, Alamodome, Texas Stadium, Kyle Field at A&M, Memorial Stadium in Austin, Jones Stadium at Texas Tech, Floyd Casey Field at Baylor and maybe a couple of others. Those stadiums are far enough apart and large enough that you can easily get two teams to play that do not have a home field advantage. It would be too easy to say that the championship game has to come from the list of stadiums and has to be a certain distance from the closest finalist. No coach could then force another coach to end up at podunk field that is his backyard and has no visitor capacity. There probably would also need to be a rule that allows a team, at their discretion, to waive the rule. That way, if a team really wanted to play at the Alamodome/Reliant Stadium/etc, even if they gave up the homefield to another school, they could do so. Some teams might rather not worry about it just for the chance play in a pro stadium, no matter the distance or homefield advantage it may give the other team. If they are willing to give up the homefield advantage at their choosing, then let them. That would solve the problem of capacity for a title game and it would solve the problem of potential home field advantage for one team because of a coin flip.