Jump to content

Woodville vs. San Augustine Game Thread/San Augustine wins/Comments


WOSgrad

Recommended Posts

etbb, you weren't around at this time, I think it was 72.........Huntington was the huge favorite to go to Austin. Thats when Arther Johnson and Brookshire were playing.....They played Garrison in a warm up game and beat them 40+..........Kennard upset Huntington and Garrison beat the team that beat Kennard. Garrison lost to Pottsboro in the championship game by one point!.....the playoffs aren't always fair...lol...  Most teams that get there have to be good and lucky and have some things go your way....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name="east texas bb" post="949324" timestamp="1295204496"]
It is as good a district as the Kountze and EC district, which too could win alot of 3A districts.
[/quote]I gotta disagree with this one.Kountze and EC are very close this year but I don't see anyone in the north district playing with those 2.Anahuac is improving everyday and would be in the thick of the north district race.No Look Huntington must have got it figured out by 1974,they were in our district that year and they were as good as any club I ever played against.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I wasnt around at that time no look, but you are absolutly right that you got to be good and lucky.  My junior year we had with out a doubt the best 2A team in the state and got upset in the Regionals. If we would have played the same team 10 more times we would have beat them everytime, but they came out hot and stayed hot, shot 71 percent from the field and shot 31 out of 32 fts and they were so up to beat us they got beat by a team that shouldnt have that ended up going to state.  That team was cheering for our opponent because they didnt want to have to play us. We were ranked 1 all year, had beat 5A and 4A teams by 15-20 points.  We were loaded.  The game before we got beat in the Area round we beat a team 104-44 and we were hot.  That old saying about having a down night after being hot proved true. We just werent lucky enough.  Anything can happen when you get in the playoffs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="east texas bb" post="949324" timestamp="1295204496"]
It is as good a district as the Kountze and EC district, which too could win alot of 3A districts.
[/quote] Got to disagree here...the top 3 in the north would finish 4, 5 and 6th if they were in the south district...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="88Warrior" post="949664" timestamp="1295269730"]
[quote author=east texas bb link=topic=78784.msg949324#msg949324 date=1295204496]
It is as good a district as the Kountze and EC district, which too could win alot of 3A districts.
[/quote] Got to disagree here...the top 3 in the north would finish 4, 5 and 6th if they were in the south district...
[/quote]
If you played half the 3A teams in the South you would lose

Vs. Silsbee    = Loss
Vs. H-J        = Loss
Vs. WOS      = Loss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is amazing to me that other people dont take the time to read other posts.  They take one or two words and then post and end up sounding dumb.  I didnt say they could win any district or beat any 3A team.  I said they could beat most, that is a majority or more than 50 percent and i would carrying it even further and say all but 4-5 districts in this region and that is cushion room.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="east texas bb" post="949763" timestamp="1295287847"]
It is amazing to me that other people dont take the time to read other posts.  They take one or two words and then post and end up sounding dumb.  I didnt say they could win any district or beat any 3A team.  I said they could beat most, that is a majority or more than 50 percent and i would carrying it even further and say all but 4-5 districts in this region and that is cushion room.
[/quote]

I dont know why they are bashing 22-2A because Kountze and EC cannot even beat those teams. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="SAWolverine" post="949834" timestamp="1295297891"]
[quote author=utfan06 link=topic=78784.msg949827#msg949827 date=1295297143]
Kountze would beat any team in that district!
[/quote]

Kountze sucks
[/quote]

Says the fan whose team gets manhandled everytime they play Kountze.... :D :D

12/22/09: Kountze - 109, SA - 61
12/29/09: Kountze - 103, SA - 56
2/27/09: Kountze - 49, SA - 41
12/23/09: Kountze - 78, SA - 62
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="KHSAlum400" post="949852" timestamp="1295300117"]
[quote author=SAWolverine link=topic=78784.msg949834#msg949834 date=1295297891]
[quote author=utfan06 link=topic=78784.msg949827#msg949827 date=1295297143]
Kountze would beat any team in that district!
[/quote]

Kountze sucks
[/quote]

Says the fan whose team gets manhandled everytime they play Kountze.... :D :D

12/22/09: Kountze - 109, SA - 61
12/29/09: Kountze - 103, SA - 56
2/27/09: Kountze - 49, SA - 41
12/23/09: Kountze - 78, SA - 62
[/quote]


Got manhandled two games, but you call the last two games manhandled?  Kountze is overrated and will have a early exit in the playoffs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="east texas bb" post="951540" timestamp="1295496963"]
From every person I have talked to in the SeTexas area, Kountze is nothing to what they were in the past.
[/quote]

I would call that an accurate statement. This year's team doesn't have the "flash" as the others but overall as a TEAM I would say they're more complete.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="utfan06" post="951610" timestamp="1295527394"]
[quote author=east texas bb link=topic=78784.msg951546#msg951546 date=1295497211]
No, you are wrong.
[/quote]
East texas we beat Crockett by like 10?? CH got blown away... so what team is better than Kountze in that district?? Lol
[/quote]

You evidentally dont understand the control of tempo of game or style one team plays and matchups.  Yall are ranked 17 in the state and CH 23, so I would say it would be a good game.  I can promise you, it would be a different game than yall are used to, it would not be in the 70's nor 80 like Crockett allowed it to get.  We can argue back and forth but I say we just wait and see until the playoffs get here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="KHSAlum400" post="951763" timestamp="1295546465"]
[quote author=east texas bb link=topic=78784.msg951540#msg951540 date=1295496963]
From every person I have talked to in the SeTexas area, Kountze is nothing to what they were in the past.
[/quote]

I would call that an accurate statement. This year's team doesn't have the "flash" as the others but overall as a TEAM I would say they're more complete.
[/quote]More complete ? I gotta question that one, the teams that had Powell,Busby,Walker, Brey etc were about as complete as they get.They had speed and quickness on the press and size to go with it.Tough to pass over that press.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member Statistics

    45,994
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    janaxad4
    Newest Member
    janaxad4
    Joined



  • Posts

    • If your point was to lie about me, you succeeded. Congratulations. You must feel like a winner, aka Harry Reid.
    • Read it all - good info - thanks
    • Two political opponents pointing to each other and calling each other a liar…..  Is like two roosters fighting  and then pointing to the other and calling him a chicken. 
    • Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6. He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity. The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity. The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive).  What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country. The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity. A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove. As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work.  The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide. So…. For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity. For an official act, he has presumed immunity. Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity. In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established. Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime. Therefore…. Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court  has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act. Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out. If you don’t want to read all of that……  To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...