Jump to content

San Antonio The Site Selected For 5A State Championship

KFDM COOP
 Share

Recommended Posts

tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

I bet Smithson Valley and Judson are happy.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

I used to love the Astrodome for playoff games. Wish they would have kept it up.. :twisted:

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KFDM COOP

KFDM COOP

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The University Interscholastic League's announcement Wednesday that this year's Class 5A Divisions I and II football championship games will be played at a predetermined site was met with rave reviews by a sampling of Southeast Texas coaches.

The decision to play the Dec. 23 title games in San Antonio's Alamodome is part of a two-year trial approved by the UIL's Legislative Council in June. In the past, the games were played on different weekends, and their sites were negotiated upon by participating teams after they qualified for the finals.

"Lord, I rejoice that decision in a New York second," said Memorial coach Ronnie Thompson by cell phone while taking a break from a Wednesday afternoon meeting with his staff. "How much better can it get than to know that you'll get the chance to play a state championship game in a domed stadium?

"The only thing that could work better than that for us would be to get to play it in Reliant (Stadium) in Houston, but that probably wouldn't be fair to any school from West Texas or North Texas that might be in the game."

With this two-year experiment at the Class 5A level, the UIL hopes to increase attendance and make the most of advance marketing of the games.

"We truly believe it's one of the great sporting events in the United States," UIL athletic director Charles Breithaupt, a former West Brook and Hardin-Jefferson head basketball coach told the Associated Press.

With this year's 5A Division I and II title games being played on the same day, they will both be televised by Fox Sports Net Southwest. Previously, FSNS normally only televised the Division I championship games.

Thompson, who guided the 1980 Thomas Jefferson Yellowjackets to a Class 5A runner-up finish against Odessa Permian at College Station's Kyle Field, was one of three Southeast Texas coaches with championship game experience who responded favorably to Wednesday's announcement.

"Playing in a domed stadium guarantees perfect weather," said Thompson. "When you play in a domed stadium that time of year, both teams are on equal footing. It takes the rain out of the equation, the cold out, the sleet out, the snow out.

"The turf will be artificial, and that will be wonderful for both teams. You won't be on a beat-up field. That will be as good as it can get."

While for the time being, Classes 1A-4A will continue using the negotiated-site method between the involved schools for championship games, both Dan Hooks of West Orange-Stark and Port Neches-Groves' Matt Burnett said they would favor soon following in Class 5A's footsteps.

"If I was in Class 5A Division I or Division II, I would be thrilled to death by what the UIL announced today," said Hooks, whose Mustangs now play in Class 3A but previously won two 4A championships and played for two others under his tutelage. "Just think what might happen if we had to play a state championship game on a day like today. The best team might not win."

One of the biggest arguments against having predetermined sites for state title games is that it may force fans from some schools to travel greater distances than may have had to if they could've waited for a negotiated site between the involved teams.

"If you get to the state championship level, your fans are going to follow you no matter where you play," said Hooks. "Usually, the two schools that make it (to the finals) are far apart anyway, and the neutral site they choose is also quite a distance from each school.

"This way the fans from the top teams in the state each year could make advance plans for vacation time or time off and for travel and accommodations. If things don't work out, they'll have plenty of time to cancel their plans and any reservations they may have made.

"Knowing ahead of time that you're going to be playing in one of the best facilities in the state, I think, would be great. It would take a lot of the uncertainties out of the process we now have, and it would probably assure that weather would not be a factor (in the game's outcome). I hope this thing (predetermined sites) drops down to all classifications."

Burnett, whose 1999 Indians played Stephenville for the Class 4A Division II championship in the Astrodome, agreed with Hooks.

"Having one agreed-upon site before a season starts will help a lot," said Burnett. "That would enable you to negotiate corporate sponsors for the games and to attract more print media attention and television coverage.

"I remember the year we played Stephenville (a 28-18 loss) in the Astrodome, Katy and Garland scheduled their 5A Division II game there for the same day. That was pretty smart and pretty neat.

"There was a lot of hype about having two state championship games in the Dome, and it made it pretty inviting not only to the fans from the four schools but to high school football fans from the entire Houston area (estimated attendance for that doubleheader was 39,100). Our 4A game got to be on Fox Sports, because they we able to coordinate it with doing the 5A game from the same site.

"Stephenville (then under the direction of now University of Houston coach Art Briles) had no problem about coming to Houston even though it's a lot closer to us than it is to Stephenville. Coming to Houston to play in an indoor facility is a big plus that time of year."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted

The University Interscholastic League's announcement Wednesday that this year's Class 5A Divisions I and II football championship games will be played at a predetermined site was met with rave reviews by a sampling of Southeast Texas coaches.....

With this two-year experiment at the Class 5A level' date=' the UIL hopes to increase attendance and make the most of advance marketing of the games.

"We truly believe it's one of the great sporting events in the United States," UIL athletic director Charles Breithaupt, a former West Brook and Hardin-Jefferson head basketball coach told the Associated Press.

With this year's 5A Division I and II title games being played on the same day, they will both be televised by Fox Sports Net Southwest. Previously, FSNS normally only televised the Division I championship games.

..........................................................

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,201
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JBarry68
    Newest Member
    JBarry68
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...