rockhard Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 You people have no idea what kind of mistake you just made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLEEDINHORNETBLUE01 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 i reallky dont think u have any idea what u are talking about.our boards morals and ethicis won out last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles93 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 What u may not understand is that he was not committe's first choice and the super went over the committe and hired his brother-n-law. If he had been committe first choice there would not have been this much constroversy. This is not a strike against Hooker, this a hit against the super. There is a right and wrong in business practices. Hooker would be a great selection, but this became a referendum on the super, not Hooker. THIS WAS NOT A VOTE AGAINST HOOKER, IT WAS A VOTE AGAINST THE SUPER!!! That is who is to blame. He is who put the board in this horrible situation, and they were in a tough spot. People were gonna be mad one way or another, and you would have to think the Super would be smarter than that!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockhard Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 I have way more of an idea than what you know. What you may not understand is that there was a committe of 4, two for Hooker, the other two with Hooker as their second choice, therefore you cannot say he was not their first choice. There was no first choice. Do you seriously not think that the Super went to each board memeber BEFORE the meeting? Do you really NOT think had these board members given the Super any indication that they were being put "in a horrible situation", then the Super would have let Hooker know that it wasn't going to work out and keep from putting him and his familiy through hell? You people questioned the integreity, loyality, morality of someone that you have no clue about. And what you did know.. the state championships, the succcess as a 3A coordniator, the success at the 4A level, meant nothing. Everyone was too worried about the bro-in-law thing to even try and see what kind of job he could have done. The board did not vote on merit or for the most qualified applicant, which is sad for the athletic program because you are not going to get anyone better. If there was someone better interested, I'm pretty sure watching the debacle that just took place around there waned their interest. The kids best interest was NOT in mind... simply a small town getting your way. But hey, that's Hooks' loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles93 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Wow, little bitter, u must be family to. If the super would have bothered to ask board members what they thought. He may have had a better clue. You can be mad at Hooks community and board, but you still dont see who is to blame. I know of at least two board members who had strong questions about the decision two weeks ago. Question that could should have been answered a long time ago. Dont know where u get you info, but you dont know the whole truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneStardom5 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I have way more of an idea than what you know. What you may not understand is that there was a committe of 4, two for Hooker, the other two with Hooker as their second choice, therefore you cannot say he was not their first choice. There was no first choice. Do you seriously not think that the Super went to each board memeber BEFORE the meeting? Do you really NOT think had these board members given the Super any indication that they were being put "in a horrible situation", then the Super would have let Hooker know that it wasn't going to work out and keep from putting him and his familiy through hell? You people questioned the integreity, loyality, morality of someone that you have no clue about. And what you did know.. the state championships, the succcess as a 3A coordniator, the success at the 4A level, meant nothing. Everyone was too worried about the bro-in-law thing to even try and see what kind of job he could have done. The board did not vote on merit or for the most qualified applicant, which is sad for the athletic program because you are not going to get anyone better. If there was someone better interested, I'm pretty sure watching the debacle that just took place around there waned their interest. The kids best interest was NOT in mind... simply a small town getting your way. But hey, that's Hooks' loss. completely 100% agree.... best candidate for job got voted down... shame.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles93 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I have way more of an idea than what you know. What you may not understand is that there was a committe of 4, two for Hooker, the other two with Hooker as their second choice, therefore you cannot say he was not their first choice. There was no first choice. Do you seriously not think that the Super went to each board memeber BEFORE the meeting? Do you really NOT think had these board members given the Super any indication that they were being put "in a horrible situation", then the Super would have let Hooker know that it wasn't going to work out and keep from putting him and his familiy through hell? You people questioned the integreity, loyality, morality of someone that you have no clue about. And what you did know.. the state championships, the succcess as a 3A coordniator, the success at the 4A level, meant nothing. Everyone was too worried about the bro-in-law thing to even try and see what kind of job he could have done. The board did not vote on merit or for the most qualified applicant, which is sad for the athletic program because you are not going to get anyone better. If there was someone better interested, I'm pretty sure watching the debacle that just took place around there waned their interest. The kids best interest was NOT in mind... simply a small town getting your way. But hey, that's Hooks' loss. Your giving the super a lot of credit!!! This was just not smart on his part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarnackKing Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Classic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coop13 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Coach Hooker is a very lucky man today!!! God was smiling down on him last night. He should be thankful to not be going to BUBBAVILLE!!! It's a small town run by small minded folks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornetfan88 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Coach Hooker is a very lucky man today!!! God was smiling down on him last night. He should be thankful to not be going to BUBBAVILLE!!! It's a small town run by small minded folks!!! actually the small minded ones have been on the board. the community has just finally stood up and said this cant happen any longer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles93 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Coach Hooker is a very lucky man today!!! God was smiling down on him last night. He should be thankful to not be going to BUBBAVILLE!!! It's a small town run by small minded folks!!! Realy!!! Bubbaville, shows you level of intelligence. See the big picture, not about hooker.. about super lack of morals!!! Dont be blind, this is not personal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornetfan88 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 wow bubbaville is doing really well at texas high arent they. we must have something to offer Coaches at THigh with Hooks ties House-Graduated from Hooks Birdwell-Graduated and coached at Hooks Welch-Coached at Hooks Pennington-Coached at Hooks Mallett-Coached at Hooks Norton-Graduated from Hooks Trotter-Graduated and coached at Hooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DingleBerryLarry Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 This is freaking great about time we got back to our roots on Smoaky!! Now if only someone would get smacked with a purse!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-train Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Guess people can throw the saying out the window about "gettting hired is about who ya know" I don't have a dog in this hunt, but it's definately tough on the individual who was probably led to believe he had the job and then told "nope"! Good luck to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txkmom Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I've debated whether to wade into this or not since the veto is a done deal. But I feel strongly enough about it to want to say my piece. For WHATEVER reasons, Hooks has passed on a hard-working man with morals, ethics, and family values that have stood as amazing examples to not only my three children, but students and athletes of all races and backgrounds at Liberty Eylau. I'm not a family member, but my husband has worked with him for years and my son played for him. I have the utmost respect for him, his judgement, and his overall demeanor. This is over and beyond the knowledge and experience he would have brought to the position. The veto certainly made a "statement", but at whose cost? Not Hooker's - he'll be fine. Not Thompson's - he has many more decisions to make beyond this one. The cost is to your student athletes and community. You'll find another coach, and many will be happy. Many will not; that's the nature of the beast. But, as a parent and as an educator, my bottom line is what's best for the kids. Jason Hooker is one of the best you could have had, and you vetoed him to make a statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoneblitz Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 All this talk about Hookers is getting me excited!! Cant we just drop this and focus on the bigger picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneStardom5 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I've debated whether to wade into this or not since the veto is a done deal. But I feel strongly enough about it to want to say my piece. For WHATEVER reasons, Hooks has passed on a hard-working man with morals, ethics, and family values that have stood as amazing examples to not only my three children, but students and athletes of all races and backgrounds at Liberty Eylau. I'm not a family member, but my husband has worked with him for years and my son played for him. I have the utmost respect for him, his judgement, and his overall demeanor. This is over and beyond the knowledge and experience he would have brought to the position. The veto certainly made a "statement", but at whose cost? Not Hooker's - he'll be fine. Not Thompson's - he has many more decisions to make beyond this one. The cost is to your student athletes and community. You'll find another coach, and many will be happy. Many will not; that's the nature of the beast. But, as a parent and as an educator, my bottom line is what's best for the kids. Jason Hooker is one of the best you could have had, and you vetoed him to make a statement. well said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeroyJenkins Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 This a big problem that is occuring more and more. Superintendents are paid to hire, fire and superivise their administrators. Problem is, many of them do not have the "guts" to outright hire their own AD/Head Football coach. So, they put a committee together to do this for them. With a committee, you take a chance of having people deciding on a candidate and they have NO clue what to look for. I do not know who was on the committee, but have seen other jobs that this happened with and it turned into chaos. I cant believe board members allow these Sup's to shove the responsibilty of hiring AD/Hd FB coaches among their many other repsonsibilities. It used to be people knew their roles in education and that is where we are failing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles93 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I believe hooker would have been a great AD. The people I have talked to and everything I have read, all have had great things to say about him. I would not have had problem with hooks hiring him, but it still come down to the manner in which it was handled. Several people are bashing the people and board of hooks for not hiring him. I am a firm believer that hooks board would have hired Hooker if Super was up front with community and the whole board, but he wasn't. I know of 5 of the 7 board members that super did not talk to before offering the job. hooker is a great coach and wish him the best. Bashing the board and the community is wrong. If you never take the time to look at the reasoning for non-hire, then you are thinking with your heart and not your mind. It is not a personal thing it is a professional thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jball33 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 This a big problem that is occuring more and more. Superintendents are paid to hire, fire and superivise their administrators. Problem is, many of them do not have the "guts" to outright hire their own AD/Head Football coach. So, they put a committee together to do this for them. With a committee, you take a chance of having people deciding on a candidate and they have NO clue what to look for. I do not know who was on the committee, but have seen other jobs that this happened with and it turned into chaos. I cant believe board members allow these Sup's to shove the responsibilty of hiring AD/Hd FB coaches among their many other repsonsibilities. It used to be people knew their roles in education and that is where we are failing! I totally agree. It is the Supers job to hire and fire employees. If you don't like the Super then it is the boards job to fire him. If you don't want to back him then get rid of him and get somebody that you trust to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneStardom5 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I believe hooker would have been a great AD. The people I have talked to and everything I have read, all have had great things to say about him. I would not have had problem with hooks hiring him, but it still come down to the manner in which it was handled. Several people are bashing the people and board of hooks for not hiring him. I am a firm believer that hooks board would have hired Hooker if Super was up front with community and the whole board, but he wasn't. I know of 5 of the 7 board members that super did not talk to before offering the job. hooker is a great coach and wish him the best. Bashing the board and the community is wrong. If you never take the time to look at the reasoning for non-hire, then you are thinking with your heart and not your mind. It is not a personal thing it is a professional thing. was one of the board members the president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles93 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The president is the only on I knew he talked to.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneStardom5 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The president is the only on I knew he talked to.. do you feel it was necessary for the sup to talk to all the board members? or just the president, like a chain of command sort of thing? obviously the ball was dropped (no reflection of team) in more than one place.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THS82 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 do you feel it was necessary for the sup to talk to all the board members? or just the president, like a chain of command sort of thing? obviously the ball was dropped (no reflection of team) in more than one place.... if thompson wanted to be sure that this hire was a sure thing then i would have talked to every board member......by not doing that he set himself up for failure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagles93 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Yes I do feel it necessary. Especially when u have new members and an election for board president before the voting processes.. U also have to take in consideration that this is a special situation. I do give him the credit that he talked to president, but he is new and u can't place all your faith in one person. But if he recused himself, it would not be an issue. He did not put himself in a position to succeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now