Jump to content

Vidor (12) @ Brazosport (34) FINAL


jdawg03

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Unwoke said:

Thanks for being truthful, your words not mine, an it shows .  “I have no clue” 😂😂
 

Maybe if you cry a little harder with no solution’s you’ll be more than average. 😂

Look dude it's very obvious you are perfectly content with the program and I am not content with it. I can also tell that your football knowledge is not very good so keeping this conversation going is a waste of time. Have a great day brother 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, astros4141078 said:

Look dude it's very obvious you are perfectly content with the program and I am not content with it. I can also tell that your football knowledge is not very good so keeping this conversation going is a waste of time. Have a great day brother 

There you go speculating again. I have enough football knowledge to know you have no answers for the program, just crying. Hope you have a Awesome Day as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, astros4141078 said:

Played a very very young silsbee team got lucky to win, played the worst jasper team I have seen still got lucky to win, lcm missed several big plays that cost them, lumberton completely took there foot off the gas and found a way to lose last yrs great team in reality should have been a 500 team and it shows this yr the program is going in the wrong direction I still stand by Vidor is the only district that will keep a coach 23 yrs with a 500 record and 2 playoff wins in 23 yrs

BINGO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Unwoke said:

Just curious what was Vidor’s winning percentage before Matthews took over? 

You can't really compare the records before and after because his first year we dropped down to 4-A. Before that we were in 22-5A with West Brook , Central, Deer Park, LaPorte, Baytown Lee & Sterling. I still don't think we belonged in that district

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2022 at 8:51 AM, Mr. Thornton Melon said:

You can't really compare the records before and after because his first year we dropped down to 4-A. Before that we were in 22-5A with West Brook , Central, Deer Park, LaPorte, Baytown Lee & Sterling. I still don't think we belonged in that district

Mathews first year was not when Vidor dropped down to 4A.  '96 football season under HC Pat Murphy was Vidor's first year in 4A (20-4A).  Went 5-5, all 5 wins coming at home (W's- Silsbee, WOS, New Caney, Lumberton, Lincoln... L's- Huntsville, BC, PNG, Ned, LCM) .  After the '96 season, Coach Murphy left the program to return back to Louisiana (Monroe, I believe).  So Vidor brought in some reject named coach Johnson (he was friends with the head principle) and that year Vidor went 2-8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,206
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Ceb2000
    Newest Member
    Ceb2000
    Joined



  • Posts

    • You got a LOT more than that, you’ve got Riceland filling up. GCM is dropping down from 23-6A back down to 5A in ‘26.  GCCISD is redrawing attendance zones to make sure of that.  At the same time, BH was only about 100 students under the 6A threshold last time UIL drew districts so BH is definitely going up to 6A when those maps get redrawn, probably right into the empty spot in 23-6A GCM is leaving when they drop down.
    • Like I said, even if it’s only 10% of the 100 kids BHISD takes from GCCISD each year, that’s 10 athletes per year and that’s being generous.  You’re right about the jobs with BHISD, BTW.  There’s more than 1 athlete from Baytown originally who got transferred to BHISD after a job opened up for Mama.
    • Here’s a link to another story about it This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up
    • It’s behind a paywall but here’s Baytown Sun’s story on it.  It was reported on in other papers statewide so if you search by the date I think you’ll find other stories on it. UIL strengthens student transfer rules By Ron McDowell [email protected] Oct 18, 2024   In order to maintain a level playing field for all member schools, the University Interscholastic League strengthened rules regarding transfer student eligibility at its most recent meeting in Austin. Every year thousands of students transfer schools in the state of Texas. A student’s ability to participate in UIL sanctioned activities may be limited base on the reasons for the transfer. A change in family status, work transfers, enrollment in an academic magnet program, or a move across town, receive scrutiny, but only rarely does one of these reasons result in the loss of eligibility. The only reason to automatically cause the loss of participation eligibility is a transfer for athletic purposes. The current rule, which has been in place since 1981, does not require a Previous Athletic Participation Form (PAPFs) to be submitted if the student-athlete does not participate in a varsity level sport during the first year of enrollment. There has been growing concern among some member schools, that other members are breaking the current rule and creating “super teams” with new transfer enrollees, and that the UIL is not doing enough to police, what appear to be, the inordinate number of transfers among high school athletes. To mitigate these concerns, the UIL approved a proposal to expand the power of the State Executive Committee (SEC) and allow it to investigate schools based upon the number of PAPFs submitted. Schools that submit an inordinate number of PAPFs would face heightened scrutiny and possible public reprimand and future sanctions. The UIL has also changed the requirements for PAPF submission, mandating that the form be submitted before a grade 9-12 transfer student may participate at any level of school athletics. This is a marked departure from the current policy which encourages schools not to complete PAPFs for students who transfer in, if the school believes that the student will not play a varsity sport in the first year the student is enrolled at the new school. Some critics of the current system think that the change doesn’t go far enough. Speaking on background, one local school district source suggested that there should be an automatic year wait for transfer students due to the number of loopholes in the waiver process. “If a student transfers, it should be a year out of competition automatically,” the source said. In addition, the UIL also approved a proposal that gives the SEC the power to appoint an independent administrator to oversee the conduct of the local District Executive Committee (DEC) if it is determined that the DEC is not consistently enforcing the rules of the governing body. The change is significant since all appeals that a school brings, starts and usually ends with the DEC. That includes the determination of transfer student eligibility. It is believed that with the implementation of this change, schools in a UIL district will be less likely to face retribution from the DEC chair and other members. The policy changes will go into effect, Aug. 1, 2025 This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up  
    • I was hoping WOS was going to win. To get another chance to redeem ourself. Silsbee did not look good in that game and has not played consistent during the season. Hopefully against La Vega they will play 4quarters of football
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...