Jump to content

Waco La Vega (42) vs West Orange-Stark (20) - FINAL


jdawg03

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, ladybug33 said:

I heard that the practices are not as strong as they were in the past years on the defensive side and it showed tonight.

They don't really tackle in practice but the dline has been a problem all year.no dogs on defense!!what w.o has stood for over 35 yrs it's not there at all.so in the next few months gonna be very interesting!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Mustang fans it's time for my annual end of season rant. I've had so much company up here on the soapbox that I may have to start charging rent. After 3 years I don't think anything needs to be said. We all know what's wrong. We all know why. So what's the decision at the next board meeting?

IMO, there's been enough imaginary success for the board to rubber stamp the Superintendent's vision for our future student athletes.

#make every second count

Due to soft scheduling and a weaker than normal district. The luck of knocking off 2 ranked opponents early when they were not healthy or still trying to figure it out. Also led to a premature ranking and a hollow DCTF weekly award. The 2 late season losses vs ranked teams proves what we know has been the biggest problem. 

Football 19-15 .559

Baseball 9-35 .205

Basketball 19-35 .352

GBB 11-29 .275

Softball 1-22 .043

Volleyball 0-38 .000

Overall 59-174 .253

 

For anyone living in the district, I ask that you contact you're elected board members publicly and privately. Don't let them think this is exceptable. Be the solution to the equation. Not the divisor. This starts at the top and falls heavily upon those walking the halls. They deserve better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Well Mustang fans it's time for my annual end of season rant. I've had so much company up here on the soapbox that I may have to start charging rent. After 3 years I don't think anything needs to be said. We all know what's wrong. We all know why. So what's the decision at the next board meeting?

IMO, there's been enough imaginary success for the board to rubber stamp the Superintendent's vision for our future student athletes.

#make every second count

Due to soft scheduling and a weaker than normal district. The luck of knocking off 2 ranked opponents early when they were not healthy or still trying to figure it out. Also led to a premature ranking and a hollow DCTF weekly award. The 2 late season losses vs ranked teams proves what we know has been the biggest problem. 

Football 19-15 .559

Baseball 9-35 .205

Basketball 19-35 .352

GBB 11-29 .275

Softball 1-22 .043

Volleyball 0-38 .000

Overall 59-174 .253

 

For anyone living in the district, I ask that you contact you're elected board members publicly and privately. Don't let them think this is exceptable. Be the solution to the equation. Not the divisor. This starts at the top and falls heavily upon those walking the halls. They deserve better.

Wow powerful words !!

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

    • 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
    • This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up   GCCISD paid a firm called PASA to compile this report ahead of them closing/consolidating some schools and redrawing attendance zones.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...