Stop the presses! I have agreed with ragman, and he has agreed with me, ALL IN THE SAME DAY?
Mercy, the sky must be falling!

It would seem only logical that having the football players participate in track would help the Football program. Speed and strength. I don't know if it has to be a great track program, but that wouldn't hurt. It didn't hurt Bob Hayes. Now that ages you.

How did you do that? By naming a few good football teams who haven't won state in track? My original statement is correct: A successful track program is very important to a successful football program. Ask people in Calhoun, Refugio, Gregory-Portland, Calallen, College Station, Lufkin, Austin Westlake, El Campo, ....
If it is not important, then why does every major college football coach send scouts to the state track meets?
And why does Finley demand football players to participate in track?

I guess I'm a "stooge" by actually supporting my opinions with fact, while all you do is violate the Advocate posting policy of name-calling.

I supported my opinion that track success or failure has nothing to do with football success or failure.

This is becoming an ever-increasing problem. Finley has been very open about his stance on multiple sports - he is all for it. This is one area where he and I are in total agreement. He also recognizes the importance of track, as evidenced by the fact that track participation is mandatory for ALL football players.
I think the only way you can get out of it is if you play baseball.
I have always been in favor of multiple sport athletes, but I don't like some coaches who then degrade single sport athletes. If I were a coach, and a kid who only wanted to play baseball could throw 90, I wouldn't give him any crap if he didn't want to play football.

Many schools (5-A mostly ) don't allow kids to be real athletes anymore. Like participating in more than one sport. It's like they want them to specialize. If you try to play football and baseball; it is hard because of fall ball. Baseball during football, basketball during football. They end up having to choose, or being cut because they weren't out there kissing the baseball coaches butt in the fall.

The argument right now is whether or not having a good track program helps your football program. These two stooges think that if a couple of teams win state in one sport and not the other, then it means that track is not important to football.

Seven of last year's football champions -- Katy, Euless Trinity, Lake Travis, Lamar Consolidated, Liberty Hill, Celina, Alto -- have poor to average track teams.

Under your thinking, the best football team in the world would be one consisting of decathletes.

Good track teams prove one of two things. One, your school has amazing talent, or two, your school cares about track.

To suggest that Victoria would have a better football team because they have a good track team is ridiculous, just as the thinking that all good football teams have to be loaded with track stars.

And to suggest that Katy is not a powerhouse is downright dumb. They became good right around the time Southlake became good...is Southlake not a powerhouse?

I guess it depends on what you think the role of a coach is. IMO, part of coaching is recruiting the kids to play tat attend your school. Athleticism is absolutely coachable. Proper drills and workout programs can maximize pure physical ability. Talent is not always physical. The fastest wide receiver in the NFL combines has not been the No.1 drafted receiver in over 20 years.
Speed can he harnessed and enhanced.
Agility can be harnessed and enhanced.
Arm strength can be harnessed and enhanced.
When I say they may not have the athletes, that does not mean they don't have pleyers with raw abilities.
The strongest kid is not always the discus or shotput champ.
The most muscular kid is not always the best blocker or tackler.
What other ridiculous arguments would you like to make?

Comment From: TxHunter

Bundy, You make a very good point on one thing. "It means they don't have athletes". If Victoria doesn't have athletes could anyone coach them into becoming athletes? Some of that is a God given talent and can't be coached so could any coach be winning here?

You can't coach talent. There is also a limit as to what a player can do. Friend of mine is 6-5 and growing up couldn't stand up without triping over his feet. He also had hands of stone. No amount of coaching ever turned him into anything but a yearly donation in our fantasy football league.
Basically he was built like a Witten but played football like an Easter Island statue.
Don't think I've ever seen coaches more frustrated after looking at his size and then seeing his actual athletic prowess or lack there of.

"One question, with McGee at 6'4" and good hands WR---Why does he not play more????"

I'll tell you why? No offense to OJ but his strength is not throwing. He knows that. That is why he runs as much as he does. But he is capable if given protection, he's also proven that. In the Carroll game the O-line did not provide him any pass protection. It starts with the protection and then simplify the pass plays.

If he can get protection here's what they Vipers need to do. Are you listening Taylor? Throw the ball up and McGee go get it. If he can't out jump the defensive backs then I pray for the basketball team's season. :)

There are more holes to be poked in your assertions than I have time for. If you are trying to make the point that because a good football school doesn't win district every year in track, that is a stupid argument.
I don't quite understand, because Cuero hasn't won a state title in 20 years, they don't have a good program?
Maybe you should learn a little about SL Carroll as well:
http://www.directathletics.com/result...

If some of you would go to a few track meets, you would see that typically the good football programs also have a good track program.
How a team fares at the state meet is also not an indicator of how good their TEAM is. In track ,you could win every single event at your district meet, and not have a single state qualifier. Conversely, a team with only one district champ in one event could have a state qualifier.
Katy has also not been a powerhouse for very long.

Hmm, Bundy, let me see...right off the top of my head:
1. Southlake (known for distance runners, not speed)
2. Katy (terrible track program)
3. Liberty Hill
4. Highland Park (distance)
5. Plano
6. Alto
7. Euless Trinity

And let's take a look at some good track teams, how well do they do in football?
1. Garland Rowlett (defending 5A champ)
2. Lewisville (runner-up, haven't had a good football team since '96)
3. Cuero (won state track numerous times, haven't won a state football title since '87)
4. Katy Cinco Ranch (won 5A track title two years in a row, lose to Katy in district each year by about 40)

Speed kills, but the direct correlation between track success and football success does not hold up under even slight scruitiny.

Bundy denied.

If they don't habe kids that can do these things, it means they don't have athletes.
Look at Calhoun's recent success...it's no accident that their track team is on the rise as well.
If track isn't important to football, then why did Finley force every football player to participate?

Noone cares about track? Name me a football program, upper-echelon year in and year out, that does not have a successful track program.
Look no further than Cuero and El Campo. Or Judson. Or Austin Westlake.......

Bundy: Nobody cares about track. Finley wasn't brought in to improve the track program. Victoria -- like every other city in this state -- wants a winning football team. How well they do in other sports is just secondary. Is it fair? No. That's just the way it is.

The Vipers were oh-so-bad that it's going to take a while to get them back to respectability. (I guess at some point you have to ask if they were ever really great.) That means you probably won't see this team reach its potential until kids that were in junior high when Finley came on board are juniors and seniors.

I was a bit surprised that the Vipers went to the spread, or as I like to call it, the we-can't-run-anything-else-with-this-level-of-talent-so-lets-spread-the-defense-and-hope-for-the-best offense. It's a good strategy, not a lot of South Texas teams run that offense (unlike North Texas, where 90% of teams run it). I know Finley must not have liked having to go this route, but with lack of size and talent compared to their competition, his hopes of running the ball like he wants is wishful thinking.

A team of pre schoolers could beat South San...pick a school, any school in that district.

Defense is awesome!!!! But some of those kids also go offense too. So what changes---you think maybe the coaches philosphy. Maybe for one game SWITCH --- Yes, SWITCH the Off Cord and the Def Cord. One question, with McGee at 6'4" and good hands WR---Why does he not play more????

Maybe since he plays Varsity Basketball also. So what! Get your wide bodies in the game for short yardage which killed the Vipers more than once. Just have them move people out of the way. GO VIPERS GO.....OJ keep your head up, smile.

i believe he has 1 or 2 pe's and rest are conference times...not really a academic teacher at all...but probably pd. like a div. 2 coach.

he was recommended I bet...

Bundy I did not say head CC coach. You need a chill pill.

Get your facts straight: he splits the Cross Country job, and if you want to call him a track coach - go ahead.
Under his tutilage, the MHS track team has become a very sad joke. Finley takes the boys to 3A track meets, and only enters them in the JV events. He can't even win doing that.
What a disgrace!

He is also PE teacher,cross country coach, and head track coach along with being the DC. Hmmmmmmmmm?

Talk to me more than 3 games in.