coachtconkle
Freshmen Member
"Perfection is not attainable; but, if we chase perfection we can catch excellence" – V. Lombardi
Posts: 70 
|
Post by coachtconkle on Aug 17, 2021 18:29:53 GMT -6
A few weeks ago it was announced that Texas and Oklahoma would be joining the SEC, that sparked a discussion among several of us coaches who were gathered regarding could/should/would the SEC claim the national championships of those 2 schools when they fully join.
That debate quickly changed direction totally in an unexpected direction. Various coaches brought up some situations of which they are/were aware where high schools consolidated or merged, and the consolidated school claimed state championships won by the schools that merged. Each situation occurred in counties with small school combining to make a medium to large size school, ultimately.
It seems that in Situations 1 and 2, 2 schools merged to make a new 3rd school composed of the initial 2 communities of students, which took a school with zero championships to 5. In Situation 2 the same thing happened and the newly formed school has since won a couple more to add to the total.
In the 3rd situation, several dominoes were involved: Schools A & B merged - making C. Schools D & E merged, making School F. Several years later a new state of the art school was built that we will call G (a merger of Schools C & F). As the dominoes fell, apparently it was considered okay to inherit state championship titles (at least that is how they were recognized in the community, by some coaches, and school officials who filled their trophy cases with trophies won by the previous schools). One individual said it caught his attention when School G won its initial state football championship in its 3rd year of existence, yet it was publicized in the media that the school had won its 13th state championship in football.
Suffice to say there were a lot of opinions on the issue I bring before this body. I suspect there will be varied opinions in this group, but I am interested in the thoughts those of you far and wide may have - whether it is the OK/TX/SEC matter, or the 3 scenarios that the high school coaches debated (in which I mostly sat and listened) as things got somewhat tense on the rightness or wrongness of inheriting state championships that were not actually won by a school but by schools that merged to become that school.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2021 19:06:03 GMT -6
A few weeks ago it was announced that Texas and Oklahoma would be joining the SEC, that sparked a discussion among several of us coaches who were gathered regarding could/should/would the SEC claim the national championships of those 2 schools when they fully join.
That debate quickly changed direction totally in an unexpected direction. Various coaches brought up some situations of which they are/were aware where high schools consolidated or merged, and the consolidated school claimed state championships won by the schools that merged. Each situation occurred in counties with small school combining to make a medium to large size school, ultimately.
It seems that in Situations 1 and 2, 2 schools merged to make a new 3rd school composed of the initial 2 communities of students, which took a school with zero championships to 5. In Situation 2 the same thing happened and the newly formed school has since won a couple more to add to the total.
In the 3rd situation, several dominoes were involved: Schools A & B merged - making C. Schools D & E merged, making School F. Several years later a new state of the art school was built that we will call G (a merger of Schools C & F). As the dominoes fell, apparently it was considered okay to inherit state championship titles (at least that is how they were recognized in the community, by some coaches, and school officials who filled their trophy cases with trophies won by the previous schools). One individual said it caught his attention when School G won its initial state football championship in its 3rd year of existence, yet it was publicized in the media that the school had won its 13th state championship in football.
Suffice to say there were a lot of opinions on the issue I bring before this body. I suspect there will be varied opinions in this group, but I am interested in the thoughts those of you far and wide may have - whether it is the OK/TX/SEC matter, or the 3 scenarios that the high school coaches debated (in which I mostly sat and listened) as things got somewhat tense on the rightness or wrongness of inheriting state championships that were not actually won by a school but by schools that merged to become that school.
I dont think it matters because its ultimately not what is happening imo. I dont believe that the sec is collecting ou/tex to say the winner of that conference is the national champ. I think the sec is doing its damdest to bully the other power conference to pick, get the other conference to consolidate into conference, then realign to geographical fit.What is ultimately being pushed by sec is the reformation of college football. I believe the power 5 will be in a league format. 2 “conferences” with 3 divisions in each. 3 division winner, 2 wild card teams in each conference. 10 game season. 16 team playoff. Just an opinion. On the high school level, if you consolidate two schools for athletic reasons, and leave the school names, well that is on you. Just name the entire thing one school county |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 17, 2021 19:52:35 GMT -6
I went to a school that consolidated. Three small towns merged their schools into one new district. Since they didn't keep the name of any of the schools, the lineage died when the school districts did.
|
|
coachtconkle
Freshmen Member
"Perfection is not attainable; but, if we chase perfection we can catch excellence" – V. Lombardi
Posts: 70
|
Post by coachtconkle on Aug 18, 2021 7:19:51 GMT -6
I appreciate the comments. In the case of the initial 2 HS situations, as I understand it, the schools that resulted had entirely new names when they consolidated. In the case of Situation 3, when Schools A & B merged they retained the name of the larger school - making C. When Schools D & E merged, making School F, they retained the name of the larger school D. Several years later a new state of the art school was built that we will call G (a merger of Schools C & F). I am sorry for my confusing lettering of schools. G was given a new and unique name, but assumed all the state titles of all its predecessors, in the minds of many anyway (as it was explained to me, it was a matter of brand, image, pride, reputation, and putting the "fear of God" into all future opponents.
Of course the argument can be made "that was then, this is now" and what you do today is what matters.
I can see the argument both was, really.
More thoughts, anyone?
|
|
