|
Post by eejackets01 on Oct 17, 2012 15:20:32 GMT -6
The only way we could save the football program from going to the SEC is by either getting rid of Solis or having him resign which none of that has yet to happen! It's like the school board and Solis have some ties together and I know it all has something to do with politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 15:25:51 GMT -6
I hope the UIL overturns the decision and lets the Yellowjackets back in the playoff mix. The coach should be suspended by the UIL indefinitely. The E-E School Board should terminate him immediately! JMO.
|
|
|
Post by sandcrabs04 on Oct 17, 2012 22:04:22 GMT -6
I agree, cut the head off the problem, fire Solis..EE would certainly attract a high profile coach, Maube eveb Soza..whom has got to want out of Alice
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 17, 2012 23:12:30 GMT -6
I agree, cut the head off the problem, fire Solis..EE would certainly attract a high profile coach, Maube eveb Soza..whom has got to want out of Alice
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 17, 2012 23:28:42 GMT -6
I'll chime in with my two cents on this.
Yes, the punishment is unfair to the kids, who did nothing more than show up for practice at the times their coach told them to. BUT...
...I think that the punishment, while a bit overboard, is arguably necessary, and not unprecented (as I recall, Permian was barred from the playoffs a couple of times for violating rules on practices.)
The problem I see with only punishing the coach is that, for one thing, as far as I am aware the UIL may not force a school district to terminate a coach. (The UIL might be able to bar him from coaching, I'm not 100 percent sure on this; but the UIL definitely doesn't have the power to force a school district to retain a coach in a non-coaching position at the same salary.) It's not difficult to imagine a school district that might overlook a coach's corner-cutting in the name of winning. It's also not difficult to imagine a coach risking his own job in the name of winning. See, if the team wins 12 games while breaking the rules and doesn't get caught, that's 12 wins that goes on the coach's record.
This is why I think that, even if it's not fair to the kids, it's necessary to punish the kids for the coach's actions. Coaches might bend or break the rules with impunity if it's strictly their own ass on the line, but some might think twice about it if they know their actions could end up hurting the kids.
|
|
|
Post by chs79 on Oct 18, 2012 7:49:05 GMT -6
I'll chime in with my two cents on this. Yes, the punishment is unfair to the kids, who did nothing more than show up for practice at the times their coach told them to. BUT... ...I think that the punishment, while a bit overboard, is arguably necessary, and not unprecented (as I recall, Permian was barred from the playoffs a couple of times for violating rules on practices.) The problem I see with only punishing the coach is that, for one thing, as far as I am aware the UIL may not force a school district to terminate a coach. (The UIL might be able to bar him from coaching, I'm not 100 percent sure on this; but the UIL definitely doesn't have the power to force a school district to retain a coach in a non-coaching position at the same salary.) It's not difficult to imagine a school district that might overlook a coach's corner-cutting in the name of winning. It's also not difficult to imagine a coach risking his own job in the name of winning. See, if the team wins 12 games while breaking the rules and doesn't get caught, that's 12 wins that goes on the coach's record. This is why I think that, even if it's not fair to the kids, it's necessary to punish the kids for the coach's actions. Coaches might bend or break the rules with impunity if it's strictly their own ass on the line, but some might think twice about it if they know their actions could end up hurting the kids. That actually makes sense and I agree. I feel for the kids especially the seniors but rules are there for a reason. Look at Penn State's punishment, not fair to the students and players but do you feel it was necessary to send a statement?
|
|
|
Post by valleyfan on Oct 18, 2012 7:52:05 GMT -6
I'll chime in with my two cents on this. Yes, the punishment is unfair to the kids, who did nothing more than show up for practice at the times their coach told them to. BUT... ...I think that the punishment, while a bit overboard, is arguably necessary, and not unprecented (as I recall, Permian was barred from the playoffs a couple of times for violating rules on practices.) The problem I see with only punishing the coach is that, for one thing, as far as I am aware the UIL may not force a school district to terminate a coach. (The UIL might be able to bar him from coaching, I'm not 100 percent sure on this; but the UIL definitely doesn't have the power to force a school district to retain a coach in a non-coaching position at the same salary.) It's not difficult to imagine a school district that might overlook a coach's corner-cutting in the name of winning. It's also not difficult to imagine a coach risking his own job in the name of winning. See, if the team wins 12 games while breaking the rules and doesn't get caught, that's 12 wins that goes on the coach's record. This is why I think that, even if it's not fair to the kids, it's necessary to punish the kids for the coach's actions. Coaches might bend or break the rules with impunity if it's strictly their own ass on the line, but some might think twice about it if they know their actions could end up hurting the kids. while agree with you the one thing lacking from alot of this discussion is the advantage gained by those kids even though I recognize they have no power in how much they practice..... look at it this way.....if throughout the season you are allowed to practice 16 hours while another team is only allowed to practice 8...who do you think will be stronger, who will be more prepared, who will have more stamina..... their is a distcint advantage in practicing for 16 hours while another team practices for 8 hours
|
|
otter
Varsity
Posts: 1,038
|
Post by otter on Oct 18, 2012 7:55:45 GMT -6
I agree, cut the head off the problem, fire Solis..EE would certainly attract a high profile coach, Maube eveb Soza..whom has got to want out of Alice To far from San Antonio
|
|
|
Post by gpking on Oct 18, 2012 9:34:45 GMT -6
keeping Solis on as the head coach makes the E-E school district look bad. You have to not stand for rule breaking and cutting corners. Teach the kids right from wrong!
|
|
|
Post by sotex on Oct 18, 2012 12:06:07 GMT -6
I agree, cut the head off the problem, fire Solis..EE would certainly attract a high profile coach, Maube eveb Soza..whom has got to want out of Alice I don't think Soza is going anywhere soon. He just built a new house.
|
|
|
Post by gametime on Oct 19, 2012 13:28:43 GMT -6
I'll chime in with my two cents on this. Yes, the punishment is unfair to the kids, who did nothing more than show up for practice at the times their coach told them to. BUT... ...I think that the punishment, while a bit overboard, is arguably necessary, and not unprecented (as I recall, Permian was barred from the playoffs a couple of times for violating rules on practices.) The problem I see with only punishing the coach is that, for one thing, as far as I am aware the UIL may not force a school district to terminate a coach. (The UIL might be able to bar him from coaching, I'm not 100 percent sure on this; but the UIL definitely doesn't have the power to force a school district to retain a coach in a non-coaching position at the same salary.) It's not difficult to imagine a school district that might overlook a coach's corner-cutting in the name of winning. It's also not difficult to imagine a coach risking his own job in the name of winning. See, if the team wins 12 games while breaking the rules and doesn't get caught, that's 12 wins that goes on the coach's record. This is why I think that, even if it's not fair to the kids, it's necessary to punish the kids for the coach's actions. Coaches might bend or break the rules with impunity if it's strictly their own ass on the line, but some might think twice about it if they know their actions could end up hurting the kids. That actually makes sense and I agree. I feel for the kids especially the seniors but rules are there for a reason. Look at Penn State's punishment, not fair to the students and players but do you feel it was necessary to send a statement? but the ncaa allowed the players to transfer to another school to play if they wanted to. this is not an option for ee players.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 19, 2012 20:29:13 GMT -6
That actually makes sense and I agree. I feel for the kids especially the seniors but rules are there for a reason. Look at Penn State's punishment, not fair to the students and players but do you feel it was necessary to send a statement? but the ncaa allowed the players to transfer to another school to play if they wanted to. this is not an option for ee players. Difference there is that Penn State's punishment spans multiple years, so the freshmen and sophomores would not have the chance to play in a bowl game, ever, at Penn State (if I remember the punishment correctly.) The seniors at E-E don't get that, but the underclassmen will still get their chance.
|
|
|
Post by gametime on Oct 20, 2012 16:25:13 GMT -6
but the ncaa allowed the players to transfer to another school to play if they wanted to. this is not an option for ee players. Difference there is that Penn State's punishment spans multiple years, so the freshmen and sophomores would not have the chance to play in a bowl game, ever, at Penn State (if I remember the punishment correctly.) The seniors at E-E don't get that, but the underclassmen will still get their chance. and the players had no knowlege, nor participated in the charges levied at the coaching staff, that had no factor in the playing of the actual football games by the players. ee plyers participated in the practices which do have a direct as you pointed out impact of the games.
|
|
|
Post by sandcrab22 on Oct 31, 2012 5:39:07 GMT -6
D-day for EE
|
|
|
Post by CC_Varmints on Oct 31, 2012 5:50:01 GMT -6
So will Jason Voorhees show up with a Machete and slash the EE 2012 season? Or will Wayne Brady (Monte Hall) pop up and say, "Let's Make a Deal"
|
|