tradertwo

I agree, but most of these folks on here didn't have the pleasure of knowing "the original". He was truly one of the great ones that put the kid before the player. My favorite quote of his..."my job is to mold men of character...men of character win you football games." Just a little side note...when you see Bart, try Drac out to see the response.

You misunderstood. I never critique a coach until he's at least into the second year on the job. I mentioned pitfalls that he'd have to be careful of, as would any other in his exact situation. Sorry to be vague, but no details. I also said that the potential problems were "what some close to the program" thought. For returning talent, they won't b expected to win the region, but should be mid pack in the district.

Not trying to be coy, but a successful season would be determined by the talent available, and the way the team plays. In Marshall's senior season, their region loss was underachieving...last season was no better on the books, but they represented themselves very well by going as deep as they did.

We're going to get into splitting hairs here if not careful, but in my opinion the best coaches know how to coach those "uncoachable" kids. I know one "troubled" young man who has had it rough at home...in trouble at school most of his life and thrown off the middle school football team for attitude and skipping practice. The young man made all region linebacker in his junior season. From grades 9-11 his coach counseled him, and went to his home when he missed practice the first time...turns out his grandparents were "disciplining" him by keeping him from football, which he loved. Long story short, coach and grandparents came to an agreement, and when being disciplined afterward, coach was allowed to pick up the kid. If you could read the letter his coach got the day the young man graduated, thanking him for being the "father" he never had, and giving him the credit for keeping him in school,you would understand the impact a great coach has on those uncoachable kids. Almost forgot. In his senior year, he had a new coach and was thrown off the team for skipping practice.

The roles are flipped here, with the county system having the better academic success ( the city also has no high school). The county board has no restriction regarding city kids enrolling and playing right away...transferring from one county school to another results in losing eligibility for one year. There are stipulations that void the loss of eligibility, but have to be reviewed. Our county also has policy regarding transferring not involving sports, including having both Principals sign off on the transfer. I don't believe that the City has any restrictions for athletes transferring from the county. There are other minor variances involved with our policy, but that's the main area of concern regarding transferring and playing.

I'd never have done it personally nor would suggest that anyone else, but there are personal choices involved. If a season of football (or any other sport) matters enough to forgo graduating with your peers and changing schools, then it's an option.

Actually you can...it's a drastic measure, but he could transfer and repeat his junior year if he's only seventeen. No record of athletic involvement for the prior calendar year. I'm aware of this because someone I know did all the legwork in order to make it happen, then decided not to follow through.

That is per TSSAA. Some county systems (ours does) also have policy to deter students from transferring for athletic purposes.

Not talking about wins and losses, just job performance. Some of the best coaching jobs I've witnessed over the course of a season haven't resulted in championships. I'm talking about making the most of the talent available, and making the most of individuals on the team on a personal level. No coach has control of what he has to work with, but the best of them make their team better than the sum of the parts that they have to work with. The Nick Marshall team that you speak of is a prime example...they lost an elimination game at home to an inferior Ripley team...not a great coaching job in that game, or in that season.

Runyon is a good guy and the kids seem to like him, so he doesn't have to overcome that obstacle. There are some pitfalls that he will have to be careful of though...without "outing" what some close to the program think, it will be an uphill battle to be better than mediocre. The problems will become clear soon enough.

Lots of potential here. Pretty good "farm system" for the high school team in the community, good community support for all school related activities, and good talent. When the "right guy" is hired here, big things can happen in a hurry.

I 'gotta applaud you Booger...I know how far the co-op thing at Lucy-ann burrowed up under your hide, but you still have sympathy for the kids who are sufferin' consequences of adults stupidity. It's all in perspective...do it to have an advantage and TSSAA let's it slide...do it out of necessity and the hammer is dropped...not on the school, but on the kids.

Sometimes it's hard to figure out what you believe. I believe the Bible first, so I can't really believe in karma… I also believe that Dan Bland was a good man, a great coach, and a devoted and loyal employee. I also believe that the administration who railroaded him out of his "job" deserves just what they've gotten since that day. I really hate for the kids and community that a once proud program is now referred to as "a bad job", but I believe that I can put that aside and enjoy the egg on the HHS administrators collective faces for a while longer.

I was told that he was not. Sources said that he wouldn't be considered for the head coaching position, and that he shouldn't apply...didn't sit well.

I don't like to question coaching, but I can't keep this one in. How do you "burn" three pitchers from the winners bracket? Game two for Riverside had them up big, and early. R. Odle was their best pitcher, and threw few enough pitches to have been pulled in time to pitch Friday, unless I'm mistaken. I understand the mentality of "you can't win it if you don't get there", but you have to consider your options should you get there too. Maybe Greeneville pounds them whomever is on the mound, but just maybe not.

In Henderson County, our "tuition" is currently $1,650.00, give or take a few dollars. That sum is reached through a simple formula...our cost of educating each child per year is around $9,200.00. Subtracting federal and state monies (AYP, BEP, ect…) leaves you with the amount of expenditures from the taxpayers of your own county. How can it be deemed unfair for county citizens, when it costs them ZERO for your system to educate out of county kids, and provides employment for residents? Since I've explained the "formula", I feel that I need to stress that the purpose isn't "to pull in more student athletes". The purpose is for in county residents to have the choice of schools foremost (in county students), and secondarily to keep our system at or near capacity by adding out of county students to bolster enrollment numbers when a natural downturn occurs. For every 25 or so students under capacity, someone loses a job in theory. Class sizes dictate somewhat, but state class maximums mandate the number of certified employees (teachers) that our system has...in a hypothetical 200 student downturn, six or eight teachers potentially lose their jobs. I also feel compelled to say that we haven't added a good handful of tuition student athletes at Scotts Hill...ever. For the last several years, we have maintained capacity from in county residents to the point where we have been dangerously close to violating building and Fire Marshal codes, and I have personally witnessed a grandmother give the Principal a "blank check" for tuition, but her grandson ( from an adjoining county) was turned away... The grandson was one of the best baseball players in the county.

I think either two or three can be made to work. With two some of the smaller have to play up, or the same two or three schools fight for the championship every year in 1A. With three it's pretty watered down in 1A, but some of the smaller schools will put more emphasis into winning from knowing that they don't have to battle with CAK, USJ, Friendship Christian, or the likes. Webb and Ensworth were anomalies...small enrollment, but in a typical year would crush other schools of the same size...they now have a classification where they "fit" well, without competing against huge schools or trampling small ones.

I know a guy who probably will apply...if he gets the job, they'll be a contender within three years.

Still in the winners bracket after two...ol' "can't win Quinn" must be sick!

Tells me that your kids didn't enjoy that...way to respond!!! Also suggests that Union City's manager "arranged" his pitching to his season schedule well. They played some tough opposition, but those games were scattered among a mostly weak schedule.

Sounds better, but this coupled with the new pitch count rules would deplete the pitching staff. Throw in some weather to condense the timeframe and everybody except AAA would be pitching kids who hadn't thrown all season. I don't necessarily like seeing one dominant pitcher win the tournament for a mediocre club, but I wouldn't want to try to manage with four or five pitchers through what you describe above, especially from the losers bracket.

Just wanted to let you guys know how delighted that I am to see all you "negotiating solutions" to regulate how much financial aid should be allowed to DIVIDE yourselves and be fair, coming from the same crowd that stood on the "buckle up your chinstraps and play" platform when the publics complained about the fairness of competing against financial aid schools... don't let me interrupt...please continue...I'm having a blast!!!

I wasn't going to post, because truthfully I can sympathize with both sides of this issue. Administrations often maneuver around issues like this for institutional gain, but there are also real concerns for a kid's safety. The portion of your post that I highlighted struck a large nerve with me however. When the reclassification cycle came about, privates currently in DI (due to rule changes) had an early deadline to declare whether they would stay in DI or go to DII. The early deadline was for the purpose of separating the schools before classification assignments determined by enrollment numbers, and regional placement. A certain school in our region decided to remain with the publics, until the regional assignments came out. After the private divisions were split into three classifications instead of two due to the increase in participating schools, said school determined that their schedule would have been more favorable had they chosen DII (1A) than being placed where they were. They promptly petitioned TSSAA to be allowed to switch, which was granted. Here's the problem...after being allowed to switch (immediately, not the following season), their entire regional schedule was edited to accommodate their new region, leaving five of six teams scrambling to find games. Now, here's the HUGE problem that Scotts Hill and one other school had with that outcome. Scotts Hill not only had to find another game at the 11'th hour...but the fact that "we" were the smallest school elevated to AA has resulted in a school with currently 473 students has to compete against schools with two to three times our enrollment, which wouldn't have happened had they chosen to go DII in the timeframe allotted. Same for the AA school who was "bumped" to AAA ( can't remember which it was). Sorry for such a lengthy explanation, just wanted to be clear. After allowing that move with no penalty or compensation immediately after being allowed the choice themselves, why wouldn't TSSAA allow another the exact same privilege, albeit this time with a seemingly appropriate reason for the request?

I'm going out on a limb...Greenback/UC winner in round one vs. ??? If Weathers throws 1'st game I'll take TCA in the other bracket to win it all...If they save Weathers for Trinity, Loretto makes the championship game and Loses to Union City.

I think you nailed the MTC bracket, but you could conceivably have the Riverdale bracket in reverse order. To give you credit, the Loretto, TCA, SP, USJC side looks to be cut and dried (which probably means it's not), and the other is much more subjective. Union City has played a relatively "easy" schedule, with a few very tough teams sprinkled in. Gives them the luxury of managing the pitching rotation to accommodate, but they still won them all (in state). The other three are hard for me to figure, being from the west. I'll take your knowledge of the other three as accurate, but "on paper" they could be in any order.