|
Post by bigred4 on May 17, 2016 5:39:14 GMT -6
Here is a breakdown from the state baseball playoffs historically for the last time there will ever be a true High School State Champion in Baseball in the State of Louisiana. 5A Champion Barbe, Runner Up Byrd Two public schools. I know Byrd is a Magnet, but its a public school. Only one private school made the final 4. 4A Champion Teurlings Runner Up W. Ouachita. 50-50 split public vs Private in the final 4 with a Private champion. 3A Champion W. Feliciana, Runner up S. Beuaregard, Only one private school in the final 4. Public champion. 2A Champion St. Thomas Aqunais, Runner up St. Charles Catholic, All private final 4, Three out of the 4 from Metro Areas. 1A Champion Central Catholic MC, Runner up Oak Grove 3 out of 4 private schools in final 4 all rural. B Champion Fairview, Runner Up Grace Christian. Three out of 4 public schools in final 4 all rural. C Champion Claiborne Christian Runner up Downsville, Private champion, Three out of 4 schools were public all rural. How this will change now that the public school have gutted the LHSAA like mullet. 5A will have relatively little change and Barbe will continuing as the dominate baseball program in the state, why even show up. 4A Will have minor changes but will lack real competition next year. W. Ouachita and Neville will dominate the Public school championships moving forward with Sam Houston being a factor if they move back down, Not likely. 3A Will have minor changes but will probably be the most competitive of all the public school baseball championships moving forward. 2A There will be no baseball in 2A going forward. This class will be desolved as it exist now and will be consolidated with 1A. Larger 2A public schools hoping to get a championship ring will be discouraged as they are bumped to 3A. 1A Smaller 1A, B and C will all be consolidated into a single class. Due to lack of numbers and this may very well be the last championship for any B/C class schools. How this will change private schools. If they stay in the LHSAA: Div I will be highly competitive but have few schools true to class size with possibly a few move ups. Div II will consist of move ups but will be dominated by Teurlings, STM and St Michaels if one or two do not move up to Div I, this could be where Notre Dame ends up will consist of 3A and 4A private schools. Div III most competitive but would consist mainly of 3A and 2A private schools. Div IV 1A/B.C Dominated by the 1A schools. You have to classify Byrd as select. They are the biggest select in the state. No tuition either. Most all of their baseball team lives out of district.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 8:22:33 GMT -6
Here is a breakdown from the state baseball playoffs historically for the last time there will ever be a true High School State Champion in Baseball in the State of Louisiana. 5A Champion Barbe, Runner Up Byrd Two public schools. I know Byrd is a Magnet, but its a public school. Only one private school made the final 4. 4A Champion Teurlings Runner Up W. Ouachita. 50-50 split public vs Private in the final 4 with a Private champion. 3A Champion W. Feliciana, Runner up S. Beuaregard, Only one private school in the final 4. Public champion. 2A Champion St. Thomas Aqunais, Runner up St. Charles Catholic, All private final 4, Three out of the 4 from Metro Areas. 1A Champion Central Catholic MC, Runner up Oak Grove 3 out of 4 private schools in final 4 all rural. B Champion Fairview, Runner Up Grace Christian. Three out of 4 public schools in final 4 all rural. C Champion Claiborne Christian Runner up Downsville, Private champion, Three out of 4 schools were public all rural. How this will change now that the public school have gutted the LHSAA like mullet. 5A will have relatively little change and Barbe will continuing as the dominate baseball program in the state, why even show up. 4A Will have minor changes but will lack real competition next year. W. Ouachita and Neville will dominate the Public school championships moving forward with Sam Houston being a factor if they move back down, Not likely. 3A Will have minor changes but will probably be the most competitive of all the public school baseball championships moving forward. 2A There will be no baseball in 2A going forward. This class will be desolved as it exist now and will be consolidated with 1A. Larger 2A public schools hoping to get a championship ring will be discouraged as they are bumped to 3A. 1A Smaller 1A, B and C will all be consolidated into a single class. Due to lack of numbers and this may very well be the last championship for any B/C class schools. How this will change private schools. If they stay in the LHSAA: Div I will be highly competitive but have few schools true to class size with possibly a few move ups. Div II will consist of move ups but will be dominated by Teurlings, STM and St Michaels if one or two do not move up to Div I, this could be where Notre Dame ends up will consist of 3A and 4A private schools. Div III most competitive but would consist mainly of 3A and 2A private schools. Div IV 1A/B.C Dominated by the 1A schools. You have to classify Byrd as select. They are the biggest select in the state. No tuition either. Most all of their baseball team lives out of district. Any school who gets 25% or more of its student enrollment from outside of its assigned LEA zone, will be classified as Select. Byrd included. Move on.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on May 17, 2016 8:51:37 GMT -6
that number shouldn't exist... make it where 1 kid out of zone makes you select.
because if you get the right kid, one kid can skew things
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on May 17, 2016 9:08:08 GMT -6
You have to classify Byrd as select. They are the biggest select in the state. No tuition either. Most all of their baseball team lives out of district. Any school who gets 25% or more of its student enrollment from outside of its assigned LEA zone, will be classified as Select. Byrd included. Move on. Both of you are wrong. Byrd is a public school and has never been a "select" school. So by your standard that you just set, it shows the prejudice and bias that exist within the LHSAA against private schools. Should Byrd be a "select" school, by your definition of select, yes they should be. But in real life by the rules set by the principals, this double standard exists. Byrd is non-select and was the #4 seed in the 5A state non select championships last year. Never will the LHSAA move them to select. We are going to leave them for you to deal with after we are gone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 9:17:36 GMT -6
Any school who gets 25% or more of its student enrollment from outside of its assigned LEA zone, will be classified as Select. Byrd included. Move on. Both of you are wrong. Byrd is a public school and has never been a "select" school. So by your standard that you just set, it shows the prejudice and bias that exist within the LHSAA against private schools. Should Byrd be a "select" school, by your definition of select, yes they should be. But in real life by the rules set by the principals, this double standard exists. Byrd is non-select and was the #4 seed in the 5A state non select championships last year. Never will the LHSAA move them to select. We are going to leave them for you to deal with after we are gone. Look you Rube, Byrd was a select school during the 2013 championships. They played Rummel for the championship and lost by a point. Its morons like you , talking out of their hind end, that makes this entire scenario much more confusing than it really is. The LHSAA "moves" no one. The LHSAA sets the rules and people fall where they may.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 9:18:42 GMT -6
Any school who gets 25% or more of its student enrollment from outside of its assigned LEA zone, will be classified as Select. Byrd included. Move on. Both of you are wrong. Byrd is a public school and has never been a "select" school. So by your standard that you just set, it shows the prejudice and bias that exist within the LHSAA against private schools. Should Byrd be a "select" school, by your definition of select, yes they should be. But in real life by the rules set by the principals, this double standard exists. Byrd is non-select and was the #4 seed in the 5A state non select championships last year. Never will the LHSAA move them to select. We are going to leave them for you to deal with after we are gone. And BTW, the sooner "we" are gone, the better.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 17, 2016 9:23:04 GMT -6
Both of you are wrong. Byrd is a public school and has never been a "select" school. So by your standard that you just set, it shows the prejudice and bias that exist within the LHSAA against private schools. Should Byrd be a "select" school, by your definition of select, yes they should be. But in real life by the rules set by the principals, this double standard exists. Byrd is non-select and was the #4 seed in the 5A state non select championships last year. Never will the LHSAA move them to select. We are going to leave them for you to deal with after we are gone. Look you Rube, Byrd was a select school during the 2013 championships. They played Rummel for the championship and lost by a point. Its morons like you , talking out of their hind end, that makes this entire scenario much more confusing than it really is. The LHSAA "moves" no one. The LHSAA sets the rules and people fall where they may. y'all are both correct & both wrong. Byrd 2013 was select, Byrd 2014 was non-select, Byrd 2015 Byrd was non-select. This is according to the football power rankings on this site.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 9:45:29 GMT -6
Look you Rube, Byrd was a select school during the 2013 championships. They played Rummel for the championship and lost by a point. Its morons like you , talking out of their hind end, that makes this entire scenario much more confusing than it really is. The LHSAA "moves" no one. The LHSAA sets the rules and people fall where they may. y'all are both correct & both wrong. Byrd 2013 was select, Byrd 2014 was non-select, Byrd 2015 Byrd was non-select. This is according to the football power rankings on this site. Yes, however the formula has always been in place since the inception of the new classification playoff system. What changed was the definition of the LEA's zone. Zones went from the local LEA zone, to the parish boundary, back to the local assigned LEA zone. Under the LEA zone, Byrd is select. Under the parish boundary zone (which is now gone) Byrd was Non select.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on May 17, 2016 9:49:02 GMT -6
Both of you are wrong. Byrd is a public school and has never been a "select" school. So by your standard that you just set, it shows the prejudice and bias that exist within the LHSAA against private schools. Should Byrd be a "select" school, by your definition of select, yes they should be. But in real life by the rules set by the principals, this double standard exists. Byrd is non-select and was the #4 seed in the 5A state non select championships last year. Never will the LHSAA move them to select. We are going to leave them for you to deal with after we are gone. Look you Rube, Byrd was a select school during the 2013 championships. They played Rummel for the championship and lost by a point. Its morons like you , talking out of their hind end, that makes this entire scenario much more confusing than it really is. The LHSAA "moves" no one. The LHSAA sets the rules and people fall where they may. Ok, I made a mistake and I am not perfect. But, it makes it more atrocious. Byrd, Scotlandville and Edna Carr were all at one time Select, but moved to Non Select. I can recall the EC principal said some pretty disparaging things when his school was included as a select school. It shows that the LHSAA and the executive committee is willing to allow a public schools that meet its select criteria to play as a non select, but does not allow private schools who meet its non select criteria to play Non Select. The LHSAA by this example has stopped working in fairness to all its members and has selected exclusivity over inclusion. The LHSAA no longer meets its charter and it could very well be facing a challenge to it's non profit status. It does not treat all members equally, it does not promote fair competition and is discriminatory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 10:14:52 GMT -6
Look you Rube, Byrd was a select school during the 2013 championships. They played Rummel for the championship and lost by a point. Its morons like you , talking out of their hind end, that makes this entire scenario much more confusing than it really is. The LHSAA "moves" no one. The LHSAA sets the rules and people fall where they may. Ok, I made a mistake and I am not perfect. But, it makes it more atrocious. Byrd, Scotlandville and Edna Carr were all at one time Select, but moved to Non Select. I can recall the EC principal said some pretty disparaging things when his school was included as a select school. It shows that the LHSAA and the executive committee is willing to allow a public schools that meet its select criteria to play as a non select, but does not allow private schools who meet its non select criteria to play Non Select. The LHSAA by this example has stopped working in fairness to all its members and has selected exclusivity over inclusion. The LHSAA no longer meets its charter and it could very well be facing a challenge to it's non profit status. It does not treat all members equally, it does not promote fair competition and is discriminatory. Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. Private schools by definition can and do deny enrollment base on their one criteria for entry. No school was moved into or out of either league without adherence to the rules. Simply because you dont understand the rules, does not mean they are enforced incorrectly or in fact, are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 17, 2016 10:20:31 GMT -6
Ok, I made a mistake and I am not perfect. But, it makes it more atrocious. Byrd, Scotlandville and Edna Carr were all at one time Select, but moved to Non Select. I can recall the EC principal said some pretty disparaging things when his school was included as a select school. It shows that the LHSAA and the executive committee is willing to allow a public schools that meet its select criteria to play as a non select, but does not allow private schools who meet its non select criteria to play Non Select. The LHSAA by this example has stopped working in fairness to all its members and has selected exclusivity over inclusion. The LHSAA no longer meets its charter and it could very well be facing a challenge to it's non profit status. It does not treat all members equally, it does not promote fair competition and is discriminatory. Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. Private schools by definition can and do deny enrollment base on their one criteria for entry. No school was moved into or out of either league without adherence to the rules. Simply because you dont understand the rules, does not mean they are enforc ed incorrectly or in fact, are wrong. By your own admission you said publics deny too, on a minimal basis, so by definition you are a Hippocrate. You said this shortly after you revealed that you are a record setting coach! Geez
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 11:22:09 GMT -6
Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. Private schools by definition can and do deny enrollment base on their one criteria for entry. No school was moved into or out of either league without adherence to the rules. Simply because you dont understand the rules, does not mean they are enforc ed incorrectly or in fact, are wrong. By your own admission you said publics deny too, on a minimal basis, so by definition you are a Hippocrate. You said this shortly after you revealed that you are a record setting coach! Geez Nope, never said that publics deny enrollment to anyone in their assigned zones, because they dont. However, very Hillary of you. Thanks for lieing
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 17, 2016 11:44:45 GMT -6
bigbobjohnsonmagnum said:Not disagreeing with you, however, in both scenarios the likelihood of a exclusion from public schools is minimal. Socialism.....maybe, but as a coach, student, or player, thats not our call. All we can do is deal with the laws as they stand now.
Quote above from bigbob.
You a lier and a Hippocrate, but at least you can do it sitting down in the comfort of the restroom of your choice.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on May 17, 2016 11:44:50 GMT -6
Ok, I made a mistake and I am not perfect. But, it makes it more atrocious. Byrd, Scotlandville and Edna Carr were all at one time Select, but moved to Non Select. I can recall the EC principal said some pretty disparaging things when his school was included as a select school. It shows that the LHSAA and the executive committee is willing to allow a public schools that meet its select criteria to play as a non select, but does not allow private schools who meet its non select criteria to play Non Select. The LHSAA by this example has stopped working in fairness to all its members and has selected exclusivity over inclusion. The LHSAA no longer meets its charter and it could very well be facing a challenge to it's non profit status. It does not treat all members equally, it does not promote fair competition and is discriminatory. Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. Private schools by definition can and do deny enrollment base on their one criteria for entry. No school was moved into or out of either league without adherence to the rules. Simply because you dont understand the rules, does not mean they are enforced incorrectly or in fact, are wrong. I understand the rule perfectly with its intended meaning and spirit. We just disagree on the interpretation. That means it will take a judge to rule on what it stands for or an outside arbiter. If it were as you say, to provide a separate bracket for schools based on enrollment selection, than ANY school with a CHOICE programs such as EVERY PUBLIC high school in Lafayette, EVERY magnet school in the state and EVERY charter school would be included. But it is ONLY the private schools and the University Laboratory schools that have been ISOLATED and segregated out. Schools such as Zacahary, W. Monroe and Central all SELECTED their students when they removed themselves from the local school board control and exist in an independent school district. Yet, they are not included in the select schools. They ALL select, deny and retain enrollment based on their own criteria for entry as you say. Schools such as STM which pulls 99% of its enrollment from within its feeder system is not offered that same courtesy yet they get fewer students from out of zone than Lafayette high, Comeaux or Acadiana. Same goes for Teurlings, Opelousas Catholic, Hanson Memorial and Catholic of New Iberia. And that is a bias in the rule.
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 17, 2016 11:51:08 GMT -6
Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. Private schools by definition can and do deny enrollment base on their one criteria for entry. No school was moved into or out of either league without adherence to the rules. Simply because you dont understand the rules, does not mean they are enforced incorrectly or in fact, are wrong. I understand the rule perfectly with its intended meaning and spirit. We just disagree on the interpretation. That means it will take a judge to rule on what it stands for or an outside arbiter. If it were as you say, to provide a separate bracket for schools based on enrollment selection, than ANY school with a CHOICE programs such as EVERY PUBLIC high school in Lafayette, EVERY magnet school in the state and EVERY charter school would be included. But it is ONLY the private schools and the University Laboratory schools that have been ISOLATED and segregated out. Schools such as Zacahary, W. Monroe and Central all SELECTED their students when they removed themselves from the local school board control and exist in an independent school district. Yet, they are not included in the select schools. They ALL select, deny and retain enrollment based on their own criteria for entry as you say. Schools such as STM which pulls 99% of its enrollment from within its feeder system is not offered that same courtesy yet they get fewer students from out of zone than Lafayette high, Comeaux or Acadiana. Same goes for Teurlings, Opelousas Catholic, Hanson Memorial and Catholic of New Iberia. And that is a bias in the rule. Big bob agrees with you, his quote from a couple weeks ago . bigbobjohnsonmagnum said:Not disagreeing with you, however, in both scenarios the likelihood of a exclusion from public schools is minimal. Socialism.....maybe, but as a coach, student, or player, thats not our call. All we can do is deal with the laws as they stand now.
|
|
|
Post by eag on May 17, 2016 15:25:35 GMT -6
Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. This statement is incorrect. It is at best misleading. How a school obtains students is the WHAT, but not the WHY. The WHY is very definitely( and appropriately) competitive imbalance. While trying to fix that WHY, the people on your side came up with this particular WHAT. No one would have had a single thought of splitting if public schools would have to play against privates that selected all the best clarinet players in a region then put pads on them and sent them out to play football. Still every bit as select, but you'd be lying if you assert that public schools would still have wanted them split off. The split was accepted because it happens to include most of the out of balance schools but that doesn't make it the best solution. The same result can be accomplished in a more directed manner. The problem is that such a plan would by nature be more objective and based on criteria. This removes emotion from the equation, and it is much easier to get the mob thinking ' let's get rid of those private schools, they all cheat!!!' rather than to get everyone actually looking closely at criteria that could be used. Emotion sells, as does group identity. Look at the posts here disparaging private schools as rich, etc.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on May 17, 2016 16:06:27 GMT -6
Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. Private schools by definition can and do deny enrollment base on their one criteria for entry. No school was moved into or out of either league without adherence to the rules. Simply because you dont understand the rules, does not mean they are enforced incorrectly or in fact, are wrong. I understand the rule perfectly with its intended meaning and spirit. We just disagree on the interpretation. That means it will take a judge to rule on what it stands for or an outside arbiter. If it were as you say, to provide a separate bracket for schools based on enrollment selection, than ANY school with a CHOICE programs such as EVERY PUBLIC high school in Lafayette, EVERY magnet school in the state and EVERY charter school would be included. But it is ONLY the private schools and the University Laboratory schools that have been ISOLATED and segregated out. Schools such as Zacahary, W. Monroe and Central all SELECTED their students when they removed themselves from the local school board control and exist in an independent school district. Yet, they are not included in the select schools. They ALL select, deny and retain enrollment based on their own criteria for entry as you say. Schools such as STM which pulls 99% of its enrollment from within its feeder system is not offered that same courtesy yet they get fewer students from out of zone than Lafayette high, Comeaux or Acadiana. Same goes for Teurlings, Opelousas Catholic, Hanson Memorial and Catholic of New Iberia. And that is a bias in the rule. the public schools you mention are mandated by state law to educate every kid that shows up. how do you think an independent school district is governed? the catholic and private schools you mention can ask some undesirable parents not to come back, and don't have to accept kids who don't have grades or good behavior.
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 17, 2016 16:17:01 GMT -6
I understand the rule perfectly with its intended meaning and spirit. We just disagree on the interpretation. That means it will take a judge to rule on what it stands for or an outside arbiter. If it were as you say, to provide a separate bracket for schools based on enrollment selection, than ANY school with a CHOICE programs such as EVERY PUBLIC high school in Lafayette, EVERY magnet school in the state and EVERY charter school would be included. But it is ONLY the private schools and the University Laboratory schools that have been ISOLATED and segregated out. Schools such as Zacahary, W. Monroe and Central all SELECTED their students when they removed themselves from the local school board control and exist in an independent school district. Yet, they are not included in the select schools. They ALL select, deny and retain enrollment based on their own criteria for entry as you say. Schools such as STM which pulls 99% of its enrollment from within its feeder system is not offered that same courtesy yet they get fewer students from out of zone than Lafayette high, Comeaux or Acadiana. Same goes for Teurlings, Opelousas Catholic, Hanson Memorial and Catholic of New Iberia. And that is a bias in the rule. the public schools you mention are mandated by state law to educate every kid that shows up. how do you think an independent school district is governed? the catholic and private schools you mention can ask some undesirable parents not to come back, and don't have to accept kids who don't have grades or good behavior. Well I can tell you that in ACADIA parish they deny students for many reasons, grades, drugs, and fighting. Some drop out, some go to the alternative school, and some to ND or Northside Christian. They also do not enforce any zones. So shouldn't they be select as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 7:06:47 GMT -6
Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. This statement is incorrect. It is at best misleading. How a school obtains students is the WHAT, but not the WHY. The WHY is very definitely( and appropriately) competitive imbalance. While trying to fix that WHY, the people on your side came up with this particular WHAT. No one would have had a single thought of splitting if public schools would have to play against privates that selected all the best clarinet players in a region then put pads on them and sent them out to play football. Still every bit as select, but you'd be lying if you assert that public schools would still have wanted them split off. The split was accepted because it happens to include most of the out of balance schools but that doesn't make it the best solution. The same result can be accomplished in a more directed manner. The problem is that such a plan would by nature be more objective and based on criteria. This removes emotion from the equation, and it is much easier to get the mob thinking ' let's get rid of those private schools, they all cheat!!!' rather than to get everyone actually looking closely at criteria that could be used. Emotion sells, as does group identity. Look at the posts here disparaging private schools as rich, etc. Nope, not misleading at all. Playoff brackets are based on the ability to Attain, deny, and retain enrollment. Many states nationwide are going to this idea. You guys can whine all you want, its a done deal boys. Now, lets tweak it to improve the situation for all involved.
|
|
|
Post by eag on May 18, 2016 7:09:40 GMT -6
Your statement is correct. It very accurately explains what is happening.
Now:
Why did this move get made? Why was it deemed necessary?
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 18, 2016 7:14:04 GMT -6
This statement is incorrect. It is at best misleading. How a school obtains students is the WHAT, but not the WHY. The WHY is very definitely( and appropriately) competitive imbalance. While trying to fix that WHY, the people on your side came up with this particular WHAT. No one would have had a single thought of splitting if public schools would have to play against privates that selected all the best clarinet players in a region then put pads on them and sent them out to play football. Still every bit as select, but you'd be lying if you assert that public schools would still have wanted them split off. The split was accepted because it happens to include most of the out of balance schools but that doesn't make it the best solution. The same result can be accomplished in a more directed manner. The problem is that such a plan would by nature be more objective and based on criteria. This removes emotion from the equation, and it is much easier to get the mob thinking ' let's get rid of those private schools, they all cheat!!!' rather than to get everyone actually looking closely at criteria that could be used. Emotion sells, as does group identity. Look at the posts here disparaging private schools as rich, etc. Nope, not misleading at all. Playoff brackets are based on the ability to Attain, deny, and retain enrollment. Many states nationwide are going to this idea. You guys can whine all you want, its a done deal boys. Now, lets tweak it to improve the situation for all involved. So you believe if you say it enough it will be true. We have a split because those who can't compete hid behind a multitude of excuses till enough of you believed it. When you say How we get or deny students sounds the same as cluck, cluck, cluck. Record setting coach, what a joke!
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 18, 2016 7:14:46 GMT -6
This statement is incorrect. It is at best misleading. How a school obtains students is the WHAT, but not the WHY. The WHY is very definitely( and appropriately) competitive imbalance. While trying to fix that WHY, the people on your side came up with this particular WHAT. No one would have had a single thought of splitting if public schools would have to play against privates that selected all the best clarinet players in a region then put pads on them and sent them out to play football. Still every bit as select, but you'd be lying if you assert that public schools would still have wanted them split off. The split was accepted because it happens to include most of the out of balance schools but that doesn't make it the best solution. The same result can be accomplished in a more directed manner. The problem is that such a plan would by nature be more objective and based on criteria. This removes emotion from the equation, and it is much easier to get the mob thinking ' let's get rid of those private schools, they all cheat!!!' rather than to get everyone actually looking closely at criteria that could be used. Emotion sells, as does group identity. Look at the posts here disparaging private schools as rich, etc. Nope, not misleading at all. Playoff brackets are based on the ability to Attain, deny, and retain enrollment. Many states nationwide are going to this idea. You guys can whine all you want, its a done deal boys. Now, lets tweak it to improve the situation for all involved. So you believe if you say it enough it will be true. We have a split because those who can't compete hid behind a multitude of excuses till enough of you believed it. When you say How we get or deny students sounds the same as cluck, cluck, cluck. Record setting coach, what a joke!
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 18, 2016 8:43:45 GMT -6
Ok, I made a mistake and I am not perfect. But, it makes it more atrocious. Byrd, Scotlandville and Edna Carr were all at one time Select, but moved to Non Select. I can recall the EC principal said some pretty disparaging things when his school was included as a select school. It shows that the LHSAA and the executive committee is willing to allow a public schools that meet its select criteria to play as a non select, but does not allow private schools who meet its non select criteria to play Non Select. The LHSAA by this example has stopped working in fairness to all its members and has selected exclusivity over inclusion. The LHSAA no longer meets its charter and it could very well be facing a challenge to it's non profit status. It does not treat all members equally, it does not promote fair competition and is discriminatory. Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. Private schools by definition can and do deny enrollment base on their one criteria for entry. No school was moved into or out of either league without adherence to the rules. Simply because you dont understand the rules, does not mean they are enforced incorrectly or in fact, are wrong. Not sure if everyone read this but here it is again.....this is from the interesting read thread.... Under the current LHSAA classification guidelines, in classes 5A-1A, 13 teams in girls basketball and 15 teams in boys basketball made the playoffs this past season with losing records. Bookers new proposal, if in place this year, would allow 87 teams in girls basketball and 80 teams in boys basketball to enter the playoffs with losing records. Softball would have increased from 31 to 70; baseball 24 to 60. This proposal would increase the number of losing teams in the playoffs from 83 to 297! Is this preserving the game? Without making some changes to the split as it is now it would be an embarrassment to go from less than 100 to almost 300 teams with losing records to make the playoffs. I know some of the split supporters will say that they haven't had time to tweak the brackets because the split is being fought, back door'ed, or whatever at every turn, but please defend this. Mr. Booker had time to make this right with his proposal this year because he was going to propose this last year but pulled when Bonine asked for a year to work on split/bringing association back together. I know Bonine didn't do what he said, but that doesn't excuse Mr. Booker from doing his due diligence.
This should be the first thing "tweaked" to try to fix split if it stays in place and the private schools don't leave.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 8:48:48 GMT -6
Once again, incorrect. The rule is in place to provide seperate playoff brackets based on a schools ability to Deny and how they ATTAIN enrollment. Private schools by definition can and do deny enrollment base on their one criteria for entry. No school was moved into or out of either league without adherence to the rules. Simply because you dont understand the rules, does not mean they are enforced incorrectly or in fact, are wrong. Not sure if everyone read this but here it is again.....this is from the interesting read thread.... Under the current LHSAA classification guidelines, in classes 5A-1A, 13 teams in girls basketball and 15 teams in boys basketball made the playoffs this past season with losing records. Bookers new proposal, if in place this year, would allow 87 teams in girls basketball and 80 teams in boys basketball to enter the playoffs with losing records. Softball would have increased from 31 to 70; baseball 24 to 60. This proposal would increase the number of losing teams in the playoffs from 83 to 297! Is this preserving the game? Without making some changes to the split as it is now it would be an embarrassment to go from less than 100 to almost 300 teams with losing records to make the playoffs. I know some of the split supporters will say that they haven't had time to tweak the brackets because the split is being fought, back door'ed, or whatever at every turn, but please defend this. Mr. Booker had time to make this right with his proposal this year because he was going to propose this last year but pulled when Bonine asked for a year to work on split/bringing association back together. I know Bonine didn't do what he said, but that doesn't excuse Mr. Booker from doing his due diligence.
This should be the first thing "tweaked" to try to fix split if it stays in place and the private schools don't leave.
Obviously the playoffs need to be cut down. I have yet to hear one person say otherwise. Thats easily enough done, however, instead of tweaking the format as is, we have continued to argue a mute point. If and/or when the "private schools leave", had not bearing on the fact that with the increase in brackets, there needs to be a decrease in playoff participants. However, the fact that losing teams are getting in the playoffs (and are quickly defeated) has no bearing on the larger reason for the split.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 8:49:47 GMT -6
Nope, not misleading at all. Playoff brackets are based on the ability to Attain, deny, and retain enrollment. Many states nationwide are going to this idea. You guys can whine all you want, its a done deal boys. Now, lets tweak it to improve the situation for all involved. So you believe if you say it enough it will be true. We have a split because those who can't compete hid behind a multitude of excuses till enough of you believed it. When you say How we get or deny students sounds the same as cluck, cluck, cluck. Record setting coach, what a joke! Do as all a favor, and list those schools who in your opinion "cant compete" under the old playoff format. Be specific and site instances.
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 18, 2016 8:52:51 GMT -6
So you believe if you say it enough it will be true. We have a split because those who can't compete hid behind a multitude of excuses till enough of you believed it. When you say How we get or deny students sounds the same as cluck, cluck, cluck. Record setting coach, what a joke! Do as all a favor, and list those schools who in your opinion "cant compete" under the old playoff format. Be specific and site instances. 1. Yours, if it actually exist 2. All the ones who voted for the split
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 8:54:31 GMT -6
Do as all a favor, and list those schools who in your opinion "cant compete" under the old playoff format. Be specific and site instances. 1. Yours, if it actually exist 2. All the ones who voted for the split Ahhh, a post that matches your intelligence
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 18, 2016 15:44:44 GMT -6
Not sure if everyone read this but here it is again.....this is from the interesting read thread.... Under the current LHSAA classification guidelines, in classes 5A-1A, 13 teams in girls basketball and 15 teams in boys basketball made the playoffs this past season with losing records. Bookers new proposal, if in place this year, would allow 87 teams in girls basketball and 80 teams in boys basketball to enter the playoffs with losing records. Softball would have increased from 31 to 70; baseball 24 to 60. This proposal would increase the number of losing teams in the playoffs from 83 to 297! Is this preserving the game? Without making some changes to the split as it is now it would be an embarrassment to go from less than 100 to almost 300 teams with losing records to make the playoffs. I know some of the split supporters will say that they haven't had time to tweak the brackets because the split is being fought, back door'ed, or whatever at every turn, but please defend this. Mr. Booker had time to make this right with his proposal this year because he was going to propose this last year but pulled when Bonine asked for a year to work on split/bringing association back together. I know Bonine didn't do what he said, but that doesn't excuse Mr. Booker from doing his due diligence.
This should be the first thing "tweaked" to try to fix split if it stays in place and the private schools don't leave.
Obviously the playoffs need to be cut down. I have yet to hear one person say otherwise. Thats easily enough done, however, instead of tweaking the format as is, we have continued to argue a mute point. If and/or when the "private schools leave", had not bearing on the fact that with the increase in brackets, there needs to be a decrease in playoff participants. However, the fact that losing teams are getting in the playoffs (and are quickly defeated) has no bearing on the larger reason for the split. If it was a mute point about the private schools leaving then why hasn't any of the principals put forward an amendment to change the brackets? Could it be that the teams that are getting in with losing records are easy wins plus extra gate money? What was the larger reason for the split, I've heard a bunch of different ones: attain, retain, deny, competitive imbalance,...etc? If the largest reason is competitive balance then a formula similar to the Indiana Plan would come the closest to leveling the playing field (split or not-split), with a committee for appeals.
|
|
|
Post by btown on May 18, 2016 20:51:02 GMT -6
Obviously the playoffs need to be cut down. I have yet to hear one person say otherwise. Thats easily enough done, however, instead of tweaking the format as is, we have continued to argue a mute point. If and/or when the "private schools leave", had not bearing on the fact that with the increase in brackets, there needs to be a decrease in playoff participants. However, the fact that losing teams are getting in the playoffs (and are quickly defeated) has no bearing on the larger reason for the split. If it was a mute point about the private schools leaving then why hasn't any of the principals put forward an amendment to change the brackets? Could it be that the teams that are getting in with losing records are easy wins plus extra gate money? What was the larger reason for the split, I've heard a bunch of different ones: attain, retain, deny, competitive imbalance,...etc? If the largest reason is competitive balance then a formula similar to the Indiana Plan would come the closest to leveling the playing field (split or not-split), with a committee for appeals. What extra money? First a team with a losing record bring no fans. The higher seed team's fan do not come out to the game because of who they are playing. So take those issue with the following and tell me what money.
LHSAA gets 10% Pay officials Pay travel for the traveling team
If you do not make enough at the gate it starts in reverse. Travel team does not get travel. Not enough money for Officials both pays the bill. But LHSAA always get their 10%. There is no money in playing teams with losing record.
|
|
|
Post by btown on May 18, 2016 20:52:37 GMT -6
If it was a mute point about the private schools leaving then why hasn't any of the principals put forward an amendment to change the brackets? Could it be that the teams that are getting in with losing records are easy wins plus extra gate money? What was the larger reason for the split, I've heard a bunch of different ones: attain, retain, deny, competitive imbalance,...etc? If the largest reason is competitive balance then a formula similar to the Indiana Plan would come the closest to leveling the playing field (split or not-split), with a committee for appeals. What extra money? First a team with a losing record bring no fans. The higher seed team's fan do not come out to the game because of who they are playing. So take those issue with the following and tell me what money.
LHSAA gets 10% Pay officials Pay travel for the traveling team
If you do not make enough at the gate it starts in reverse. Travel team does not get travel. Not enough money for Officials both pays the bill. But LHSAA always get their 10%. There is no money in playing teams with losing record.
Also with all the teams in the area in the playoffs you get no out of town people until their team is out.
|
|