tradertwo

Looks like your method of "finding out" is to make accusations and wait for someone prove you wrong. Get called out, and it's no big deal... you may have a career in law enforcement awaiting.

I wholeheartedly agree...H'town usually gets their wins by simply overwhelming whomever they're playing with raw talent and depth. Even in their losses, you can't really ever say that the other team was more talented. Again, not trying to bash the coaches but running the "best option" 100% of your snaps just takes away half of the opposing coaches headaches when implementing a defensive gameplan.

Agree...can't always judge by W's. What's available to work with has an enormous amount of impact on the results you produce, and he seems to have gotten absolutely all you could ask for with what he was given. When hiring a coach, you can get the home run, take a chance on someone, or usually can get that "solid" mediocre guy,...not many are in position to name their coach of choice, and choosing from the latter, I'll take a chance on potential every day of the week. No matter how respected any coach in any sport is, someone took a chance and hired them to their first job. The "mediocre" coach reminds me of a life stance I learned from my grandfather...do as you've always done, you'll get what you've always got". Hire someone because they can get you seven or eight wins, and one or two playoff wins a season...be prepared to do no better than that.

You're right in your statement but throwing the ball to the middle of the field was working. Not criticizing the staff for not going into the game with that offense in place, but when the game situation forced your offense into it, and you moved the ball better that the entire first half, why go back to what had not worked all game? It also stands to reason that if the offense had been more balanced in the regular season, that the team would execute it even better. I'm not here to argue or criticize, just engaging in a discussion where my viewpoint is meaningless to the Mustang coaches. Sometimes the obvious to one isn't necessarily correct, but it seems obvious to me that your chances of success would be better with more options. I hope that the young man has a 100% recovery...I've been there (long ago) and it ain't no picnic rehabbing a reconstructed knee. Not minimizing what he'll have to go through, but methods and practices have evolved light years since my 10 weeks in a cast, year long suffrage to build back muscle, years before full range of motion procedure. Had family experience the same not too long ago, and she walked next day with a short period before "fully" back to normal. I will remember him before my head hits the pillow, and I'm sure that he'll be in good hands. Elite doing the job?

Doubt if you care what I (or any 'Ter's) think, but I like it. If you can't get the big gun, this type of hire is excellent...offensive production at Shelbyville looks like he can score, and he's young enough to connect on that level with kids. I wouldn't hold the mediocre success at Obion against him either, as a 6 win season there is exceptional. Only downside would be keeping him if he's a success...all the factors are there to chase the money.

I get that it would be hard to change what you believe in when you've had as much success with it as Huntingdon has...there are a ton of programs who wish that they could average as many W's over the time that Swenson has been there as they have. The two big questions that I'd have if I were a Mustang fan would be are we satisfied enough with our results to be afraid to change? And do we really think we could get that one or two extra wins if we took more chances? I honestly don't know if Riverside or Huntingdon wins that game with the same balance of run/pass between them...Riverside was solid everywhere and would have been tough for anyone to beat. After watching in person, I can't make the argument that Huntingdon loses if they throw the ball on every possession like they did...they didn't march down the field and score, but they moved the chains with it when they had to.

Huntingdon tried to get around the corner on Riverside without much success, and they're as good at it as anyone...not saying that maybe they shouldn't have tried it more, but you can't just assume that it would have worked. The one big yardage play that went to the outside was defended, kid just pulled out of the tackle before help arrived. Unless ER had better speed on the line to pull the guards than anyone else on the Panthers' schedule, they wouldn't have had more success than them either, and you already said that the line "failed" Groves with missed assignments. Credit where it's due...Riverside's defense was stout against the run, both up the gut and around the edge.

I can buy that, but Huntingdon really needs to incorporate something of a passing game. Not counting throwing the ball on third down behind the sticks either...just an occasional first & 10, or better yet 2'nd and 2 or 3. If they can just keep the defense from absolutely playing the run on virtually every down, they'll be even more of a threat to score on any snap on offense. I doubt that at the point they started passing against Riverside that it would have changed the outcome, but looked like it could have changed the final score if they'd just stuck with it because they moved the ball as well as anyone I saw against Riverside with it. Still haven't got a clue why they went away from it when they did.

When I was at the most formative point in growing up, I loved sports at every level...playing at home and in the local park with my friends, in school from 5'th grade until graduation, watching college, NFL, NBA, ECT... I am very appreciative that I lived in the greatest era of pure competitive sports. My school was MY school and I wouldn't have dreamed of going someplace else (rather lose by 50 than play for anyone else) to play. My favorite teams were comprised of a certain set of players, and they stayed with their team for their career for the most part (I can still tell you who played for who and at what position). I'm sad for the state of all sports above school level, and the "instant gratification" generation of players who are only concerned about their image and the immense wealth that comes with being a successful athlete, who have ruined pro sports, are well into ruining college athletics, and have set in motion the cogs that will ruin high school too. These kids now will never be able to recall their "favorite team", because there isn't "team" anymore...just a bunch of people wearing the same uniform trying to stand out from the crowd.

Sorry to rant with multiple posts on the subject, but you're looking (from the highlighted text) at this from a logical perspective. The Voucher Bill will not affect the kids who perform poorly on tests. The bill simply allows any student to apply the state portion of educational funding toward private school tuition. Private schools reserve the right to restrict their enrollment through a selection committee...meaning they have no obligation to enroll a "poor student". Privates will have the luxury of enrolling whomever they choose (best students, best athletes, ect...) while excluding "undesirable" applicants. If this in any way would benefit underachieving students by placing them in a better environment for them to be educated, I would wholeheartedly support it. Fact is that it's an avenue for private schools to select the most beneficial students from public education, and to be paid by taxpayers to do it.

You're right on all points...what was I thinking? The clincher was me realizing that more governmental control from higher levels always leads to the betterment of whatever has their current interest. It's a shoo-in that Nashville can run my local agenda better than county government, and that goes double for the school system and local BOE. I'm also appreciative of your minimal input without supplying any of the "data" that you suggest is readily available (I've already researched the topic from the onset, and more empirical data could possibly confuse me). It is an emotional subject for me because I actually care about our local education, and since you'd prefer not to delve deeper into the subject with someone who does I will gladly abstain from further debate. One last thing before you detach yourself...if in the future you'd rather not engage in a discussion you might think about using a common technique to avoid it, and simply don't interject yourself.

Here's some material for research...first leg of the voucher program that passed was SPED. Within 6 months a scam operation was busted in Nashville running in a garage where one individual was "babysitting" ten or twelve SPED students and receiving all their educational funding that previously went to a public school. You can also research Representative Ted Cassada from Franklin...FBI is investigating him/his office for bribery regarding securing the votes needed to pass the Voucher Bill. One last bit... Nashville and Memphis Metro systems have entered into litigation to block the Voucher Program.

Biggest argument I ever had with our Principal was his statement to me "I don't respect anyone forced to make a living with their hands"...I told him that if everyone in our community received a law or medical degree, that the plumbers, carpenters, and electricians would end up with all the wealth.

Keep your shirt on...those numbers will be advertised after the privates cherry pick the top 10% of your public school students.

Which has been legislated by the State Board of Education in the past...money is control, and college acceptance rates were tied to state funding. At Scotts Hill roughly ten years ago our graduation rate was at 100% for two consecutive years and averaged 97/98 % for the duration that the formula was used, and during that time our college acceptance rate was between 91% and 94%. Our senior classes were around 125-130 students per year, so that translates to 113 of the 127 or so of incoming Freshmen who enrolled in a community college or university after graduation. We weren't privy to any stats, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority were out by their 3'rd semester.

Not just the ability...the intent is for taxpayers to pay for their tuition. Problem (for the public) is, private schools will only accept those they choose to. The tagline is "give the people a choice of where their kids go to school", when it should be "give the privates the ability to enroll students without scholarships", and without playing restrictions. Add NIL money and schools will have the unrestricted ability to assemble super teams handpicked from as large of a radius as they wish.

Cardinal rule...all or none. We have 2 high schools and 7 middle schools...some could be classified as "feeder schools" but others routinely split where they choose to attend high school. Big question is, do you allow open recruitment and a free for all, or do you allow for the feeders and exclude the others? Or, do you allow other systems to play and disallow systems like ours. Seems like we're trending towards just letting kids transfer at will and play without restriction no matter the circumstances in high school...might as well include everyone! I don't like where we're headed with high school sports...vouchers, unrestricted transfers, ect... will soon have the large privates sorting through everyone else's rosters and cherry picking whomever they want...small privates get the leftovers, and publics get the table scraps. Proponents dangle the words and phrases "school choice", "power to the parents", "equality", and "transparency". The truth is that they (privates) have all the cards, some in plain view (premise of selecting for parents), but most (NIL, privilege of selecting at will) up their sleeves. 4.0 students and great athletes will select where they attend...everyone else can apply and be denied admission at the discretion of the school.

BZZZT....POOF!!! LOL!!! I noticed that the original account reappeared too BPM. Thought my bug zapper had misfired for a minute until I examined the problem, but it only took a minute to update my settings.

Or, he could be both!

Creasy is just a good coach... the one you reference "retired" from HS football at Maryville a couple or three years back.

Job well done Riverside! Got lots of friends and a little family represented on the field, and I couldn't be happier for y'all. I had the feeling last year watching the Panthers walk away with the silver ball that the job wasn't quite done yet with everyone returning...nothing like some good experience to go with a heavy dose of determination to finish off a career for this group of Seniors. Been a fan in the playoffs, but back to business now...go Lions!!!lol.

True, but not all that matters. I'm not big on moral victories, but Upperman proved today that they're right there with anyone in the classification...didn't quite go their way today, but I personally don't want to read another negative thing about the program. They play the right way, lost the right way, and I'm sure if they had won they would have shown the same class as winners. The ball that will go in the trophy case at UHS is a lighter tone than they wanted, but they gained just as much respect today as they would have with a W. Congratulations to UHS and their fans for showing everyone your true colors...I am now a fan.

Best to just let this one drift into obscurity, but I'll bite. It's my opinion that a post like this (throwing it out there without even contributing anything yourself) is simply flame baiting and tacky. To do it on the day (or day after) that these kids win a state championship in the program's 100'th year ratchets the level of hate and jealousy to the pinnacle of stupidity and pettishness. Absolutely a contender for worst first post on coachT ever...crawl back under your rotten log.

Really? Take a reading comprehension course and try reading it again...slowly. I'm not even going to justify it by answering.

I get where you're coming from (and I won't argue against it), but not Comer's fault...he took what he had, got where he was with it, and lost by hypothetically one play to a very stout undefeated team. I already "went there" about where I would or wouldn't rank McKenzie on talent alone in another post.