|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 9:25:30 GMT -6
Kbanes you were there (and thanks again) so I hope your assessment is right., reading the article in the advocate it looked like Bonine was knighted as a "clone ranger", turned in his manhood, and will finish his tenure being a "yes man" for the bloc of self serving principals to collect the remainder of his pay.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Jul 26, 2016 12:36:31 GMT -6
I don't know. I just don't have the data required to get some idea where these kinds of votes would fall out. An interest note, while getting headcounts prior to the vote for/against the split, Bonine talked to 56 public Principals that indicated that they were against the split, and 51 of them wound up voting in favor of it. I thought that was interesting. I just see a real possibility that Bonine starts to play hardball with the "northern Principals". He is never going to have as much power has he has right now (unless he breaks the back of the split supporters). I think the battle is going to be fought in the Executive Committee over which proposals actually get put on the Agenda for the Annual Convention. If Bonine can maneuver that, there might be a path. It might take a couple of years, done incrementally, but I think that it is proven beyond doubt that a split will never lose with the existing voting procedures and existing principals in place. You can't change the principals, so... I still don't understand why an "Indiana Solution" wasn't put before the convention last time. I don't understand a lot about how the LHSAA works. I particularly don't understand what the role is for an Executive Committee or an Executive Director in the current model. In a large organization such as this, the members typically would elect a committee to manage affairs. Said committee would confer with members to keep a pulse on the feelings about various issues, but their fiduciary duty would be toward the organization and no longer to their individual schools. Policy would come from the EC and be presented at the meetings for a vote. Policy would not be proposed from the floor of the assembly. Such an arrangement would likely have led to a better crafted response than the emotion-driven split. Possibly an Indiana-style plan could have had a chance and maybe even would have been celebrated. In any event, any policy change would have had to be crafted with the best interest of the LHSAA whole rather than a mob mentality. Now, I'm simply an observer so I may be wrong, but I dont think the current LHSAA operates in such a professional manner.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 26, 2016 13:25:07 GMT -6
I don't know. I just don't have the data required to get some idea where these kinds of votes would fall out. An interest note, while getting headcounts prior to the vote for/against the split, Bonine talked to 56 public Principals that indicated that they were against the split, and 51 of them wound up voting in favor of it. I thought that was interesting. I just see a real possibility that Bonine starts to play hardball with the "northern Principals". He is never going to have as much power has he has right now (unless he breaks the back of the split supporters). I think the battle is going to be fought in the Executive Committee over which proposals actually get put on the Agenda for the Annual Convention. If Bonine can maneuver that, there might be a path. It might take a couple of years, done incrementally, but I think that it is proven beyond doubt that a split will never lose with the existing voting procedures and existing principals in place. You can't change the principals, so... I still don't understand why an "Indiana Solution" wasn't put before the convention last time. I don't understand a lot about how the LHSAA works. I particularly don't understand what the role is for an Executive Committee or an Executive Director in the current model. In a large organization such as this, the members typically would elect a committee to manage affairs. Said committee would confer with members to keep a pulse on the feelings about various issues, but their fiduciary duty would be toward the organization and no longer to their individual schools. Policy would come from the EC and be presented at the meetings for a vote. Policy would not be proposed from the floor of the assembly. Such an arrangement would likely have led to a better crafted response than the emotion-driven split. Possibly an Indiana-style plan could have had a chance and maybe even would have been celebrated. In any event, any policy change would have had to be crafted with the best interest of the LHSAA whole rather than a mob mentality. Now, I'm simply an observer so I may be wrong, but I dont think the current LHSAA operates in such a professional manner. That was the problem with the first vote. It was not on the agenda and did not come through the EC. They threw out the constitution and bylaws to pass a direct vote. The EC should have declared the vote illegal and vacated the decision. Instead, because it was supported by the then ED, it was allowed to stand in direct violation of the rules of order. Now this private organization which has MAJOR financial problems and an obvious IRS and bookkeeping problem is in disarray. If private schools leave the LHSAA and the publics are the only ones left, I fully expect a N. LA legislator or group of legislators to sponsor a bill to strip the LHSAA of its memberships by establishing a mandatory public school association run and controlled by the government. Or the state's accountability office will or Attorney General or Inspector General should investigate how fees paid to this private organization are being spent.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 18:48:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kbanes on Jul 26, 2016 21:52:05 GMT -6
Banes, I honestly think you are misreading the outcome of yesterday if you believe Mr Bonine has the most power he will ever have this morning. He is now basically an overpaid administrative assistant for the executive committee. Listen to the interview on 104.5 this morning and I think you will understand. Totally hat in hand. Well, I just listened to the 17 minute segment from 104.5 ESPN Radio this morning. I did not, in any way, see "Totally hat in hand". To me, he was only marginally more apologetic than during the meeting on Monday. Maybe. As I remember, he didn't even apologize for the Memo during the radio interview. Other than explaining the purpose of the memo and the intended audience, he only noted that it was unfortunate that the memo was released to the public. Not a real big apology there. I was at the press conference last year where he announced the constitutional issue that allowed for improper approval of the original split. In that press conference, I thought that he was deferential, apologetic, and meek. "Uncle Fluffy". He was not Uncle Fluffy yesterday.And I didn't hear Uncle Fluffy on the radio from today. I may be wrong, in that I am totally misreading the situation. But there are some opinions that I can't be shaken on. These are: He absolutely believes that there was nothing wrong with the NHSF memo, assuming its intended audience. He is sorry that the memo was released to the public. Bonine feels that the memo was released to the public in an effort to embarrass him. This failed. it just pissed him off. I'm pretty sure that he thinks it was leaked by someone on the executive committee. He is going to continue to try to find out who released it. He is sure that he has been doing what he was told to do during the hiring interview. He is sure that he is doing what he was asked to do by Bonnaffee, and Guice, along with the Director of Finance. The only thing that he appeared to regret is a lack of communication with some (most?) on the Executive Committee. And to me, this appeared to be more about Bonnaffee not communicating what he has directed Bonine to do. So given all of that, what did I see yesterday? Bonine gave an initial apology for the memo. Then spent the next 20 minutes explaining why he has done what he has done, why it was the correct thing to do, and how some people have been doing things behind his back intended to prevent him from doing what he thinks that he was supposed to do. He had support from Bonnaffee and Guice. He had 6 members of the Executive committee that didn't even bother to show up for the meeting (so they can't be very pissed). You had 4 members that were clearly angry at him. And you had about 10 that didn't comment during the entire open meeting. I saw a call to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Then I saw them come out of executive session and close the meeting. Now, of all possible scenarios what is most likely? A) That they called an unapologetic Bonine into a meeting to chew him out some more and then do nothing? B) That they failed to get a motion and a second to vote for his removal? C) That they got a motion and a second to vote for his removal, and the vote for removal failed? D) That the lawyer in the room told them that they had no grounds to fire him and the Director of Finance told them that the $3000 dollars in the bank wouldn't even be enough to respond to a lawsuit, much less pay Bonine his $500,000 buyout. I'm going with option D. Given that, who do you think holds the advantage right now? A committee that can't fire a guy, nor can they buy him out? Or the guy that has just publicly demonstrated that he has done nothing in that last 18 months that would lead to his dismissal? I'm going to go with that guy. And while I know that he will cease to try to remove the split, I anticipate that he is going to try to change the voting procedures for the convention. If he is successful, the split will crumble of its own accord. But thats just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 26, 2016 22:04:18 GMT -6
It was leaked by wiki leaks. More to come after the DNCC.
|
|
|
Post by kbanes on Jul 26, 2016 22:27:34 GMT -6
Damn you Julian Assange!
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 8:46:26 GMT -6
Banes, I honestly think you are misreading the outcome of yesterday if you believe Mr Bonine has the most power he will ever have this morning. He is now basically an overpaid administrative assistant for the executive committee. Listen to the interview on 104.5 this morning and I think you will understand. Totally hat in hand. Well, I just listened to the 17 minute segment from 104.5 ESPN Radio this morning. I did not, in any way, see "Totally hat in hand". To me, he was only marginally more apologetic than during the meeting on Monday. Maybe. As I remember, he didn't even apologize for the Memo during the radio interview. Other than explaining the purpose of the memo and the intended audience, he only noted that it was unfortunate that the memo was released to the public. Not a real big apology there. I was at the press conference last year where he announced the constitutional issue that allowed for improper approval of the original split. In that press conference, I thought that he was deferential, apologetic, and meek. "Uncle Fluffy". He was not Uncle Fluffy yesterday.And I didn't hear Uncle Fluffy on the radio from today. I may be wrong, in that I am totally misreading the situation. But there are some opinions that I can't be shaken on. These are: He absolutely believes that there was nothing wrong with the NHSF memo, assuming its intended audience. He is sorry that the memo was released to the public. Bonine feels that the memo was released to the public in an effort to embarrass him. This failed. it just pissed him off. I'm pretty sure that he thinks it was leaked by someone on the executive committee. He is going to continue to try to find out who released it. He is sure that he has been doing what he was told to do during the hiring interview. He is sure that he is doing what he was asked to do by Bonnaffee, and Guice, along with the Director of Finance. The only thing that he appeared to regret is a lack of communication with some (most?) on the Executive Committee. And to me, this appeared to be more about Bonnaffee not communicating what he has directed Bonine to do. So given all of that, what did I see yesterday? Bonine gave an initial apology for the memo. Then spent the next 20 minutes explaining why he has done what he has done, why it was the correct thing to do, and how some people have been doing things behind his back intended to prevent him from doing what he thinks that he was supposed to do. He had support from Bonnaffee and Guice. He had 6 members of the Executive committee that didn't even bother to show up for the meeting (so they can't be very pissed). You had 4 members that were clearly angry at him. And you had about 10 that didn't comment during the entire open meeting. I saw a call to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Then I saw them come out of executive session and close the meeting. Now, of all possible scenarios what is most likely? A) That they called an unapologetic Bonine into a meeting to chew him out some more and then do nothing? B) That they failed to get a motion and a second to vote for his removal? C) That they got a motion and a second to vote for his removal, and the vote for removal failed? D) That the lawyer in the room told them that they had no grounds to fire him and the Director of Finance told them that the $3000 dollars in the bank wouldn't even be enough to respond to a lawsuit, much less pay Bonine his $500,000 buyout. I'm going with option D. Given that, who do you think holds the advantage right now? A committee that can't fire a guy, nor can they buy him out? Or the guy that has just publicly demonstrated that he has done nothing in that last 18 months that would lead to his dismissal? I'm going to go with that guy. And while I know that he will cease to try to remove the split, I anticipate that he is going to try to change the voting procedures for the convention. If he is successful, the split will crumble of its own accord. But thats just my opinion. Thus the problem with any possible reconciliation is that some on Executive Committee are the ones trying to sabotage it, embarrass Bonine and drive out the private schools.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 8:52:25 GMT -6
Are you talking about the LHSAA or the DNC?
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 9:00:12 GMT -6
Are you talking about the LHSAA or the DNC? Who can tell?
|
|
|
Post by kbanes on Jul 27, 2016 9:34:16 GMT -6
Thus the problem with any possible reconciliation is that some on Executive Committee are the ones trying to sabotage it, embarrass Bonine and drive out the private schools. On any committee consisting of 25 people, there are going to be people on either side of each issue, some more strident than others. There will be some in the middle of the road. Bonine is never going to be the favorite of everybody on the Committee. And he doesn't have to be. By the same token, I don't think that anyone wants to drive out the privates schools. They just don't want to play against them in the playoffs. They have legitimate concerns over equity. Would they be happy if a certain set of privates left the LHSAA? I think so. But I don't think that they have a problem with a majority of the private schools. With all of the talk about public vs. privates, it really comes down to publics vs. Curtis, Evangel, and a small number of other schools. The publics don't have a problem with Point Coupee Catholic. They don't have a problem with St. Pauls. They have the same problem that they had with West Monroe when WM dominated the top class. The perception was that Curtis, Evangel and in the past, West Monroe are not following the spirit of the rules. They just can't find a way to write the rules to keep teams within the spirit of the rules. I don't know what the answer is. I think that I know what Bonine is going to try to do. I think that he told us on Monday. He doesn't have to move the people of the edges, he just needs a little movement from those in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 9:51:09 GMT -6
Thus the problem with any possible reconciliation is that some on Executive Committee are the ones trying to sabotage it, embarrass Bonine and drive out the private schools. On any committee consisting of 25 people, there are going to be people on either side of each issue, some more strident than others. There will be some in the middle of the road. Bonine is never going to be the favorite of everybody on the Committee. And he doesn't have to be. By the same token, I don't think that anyone wants to drive out the privates schools. They just don't want to play against them in the playoffs. They have legitimate concerns over equity. Would they be happy if a certain set of privates left the LHSAA? I think so. But I don't think that they have a problem with a majority of the private schools. With all of the talk about public vs. privates, it really comes down to publics vs. Curtis, Evangel, and a small number of other schools. The publics don't have a problem with Point Coupee Catholic. They don't have a problem with St. Pauls. They have the same problem that they had with West Monroe when WM dominated the top class. The perception was that Curtis, Evangel and in the past, West Monroe are not following the spirit of the rules. They just can't find a way to write the rules to keep teams within the spirit of the rules. I don't know what the answer is. I think that I know what Bonine is going to try to do. I think that he told us on Monday. He doesn't have to move the people of the edges, he just needs a little movement from those in the middle. How many titles does Kinder, Haynesville, Neville, and Lutcher have to win before they "break the spirit of the rules"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2016 10:09:02 GMT -6
Thus the problem with any possible reconciliation is that some on Executive Committee are the ones trying to sabotage it, embarrass Bonine and drive out the private schools. On any committee consisting of 25 people, there are going to be people on either side of each issue, some more strident than others. There will be some in the middle of the road. Bonine is never going to be the favorite of everybody on the Committee. And he doesn't have to be. By the same token, I don't think that anyone wants to drive out the privates schools. They just don't want to play against them in the playoffs. They have legitimate concerns over equity. Would they be happy if a certain set of privates left the LHSAA? I think so. But I don't think that they have a problem with a majority of the private schools. With all of the talk about public vs. privates, it really comes down to publics vs. Curtis, Evangel, and a small number of other schools. The publics don't have a problem with Point Coupee Catholic. They don't have a problem with St. Pauls. They have the same problem that they had with West Monroe when WM dominated the top class. The perception was that Curtis, Evangel and in the past, West Monroe are not following the spirit of the rules. They just can't find a way to write the rules to keep teams within the spirit of the rules. I don't know what the answer is. I think that I know what Bonine is going to try to do. I think that he told us on Monday. He doesn't have to move the people of the edges, he just needs a little movement from those in the middle. Mr Bonine has agreed to quit trying to get rid of the split. And to change his "tone".
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 10:15:44 GMT -6
On any committee consisting of 25 people, there are going to be people on either side of each issue, some more strident than others. There will be some in the middle of the road. Bonine is never going to be the favorite of everybody on the Committee. And he doesn't have to be. By the same token, I don't think that anyone wants to drive out the privates schools. They just don't want to play against them in the playoffs. They have legitimate concerns over equity. Would they be happy if a certain set of privates left the LHSAA? I think so. But I don't think that they have a problem with a majority of the private schools. With all of the talk about public vs. privates, it really comes down to publics vs. Curtis, Evangel, and a small number of other schools. The publics don't have a problem with Point Coupee Catholic. They don't have a problem with St. Pauls. They have the same problem that they had with West Monroe when WM dominated the top class. The perception was that Curtis, Evangel and in the past, West Monroe are not following the spirit of the rules. They just can't find a way to write the rules to keep teams within the spirit of the rules. I don't know what the answer is. I think that I know what Bonine is going to try to do. I think that he told us on Monday. He doesn't have to move the people of the edges, he just needs a little movement from those in the middle. Mr Bonine has agreed to quit trying to get rid of the split. And to change his "tone". So he sold his pair for $500k. Not bad. Judas only got a few coins!
|
|
|
Post by kbanes on Jul 27, 2016 13:38:33 GMT -6
How many titles does Kinder, Haynesville, Neville, and Lutcher have to win before they "break the spirit of the rules"? Interesting question, and one that makes the problem so difficult. (Data I'm using is through 2014) Kinder has won 3 championships since 1967. I am going to ignore them in this conversation. Neville has won 11 since 1955. Lutcher has 6 since 1975. Haynesville has 17 since 1924. I'm not really concerned with what happened in 1950, so I want to set a boundary date here. I'm going to limit this since 1981, the start of the Prep Classic era. Neville has 6, Lutcher has 4, and Haynesville has 12. In the same time period, Curtis has 22 and Evangel has 13 (they have only been in existence since 1985) I think that it is pretty obvious why folks are angry at Curtis and Evangel. They are private schools that have not had attendance zone issues to deal with. And if we discount Haynesville for a second, no one is even close to being able to compete with Curtis and Evangel. Now, I have no personal knowledge of how Curtis and Evangel run their programs. But I can say that the PERCEPTION of a lot of people is that they recruit athletes. Haynesville is an outlier. They have a fantastic record, on par with Curtis and Evangel, but they are a public school, and you wouldn't expect them to be this successful. I have no idea why. We don't here much about Haynesville down here in Baton Rouge, so I can't really tell you what the perception is of them. So, to give you an answer, in the spirit in which the question is asked, the number is 13 in the time period since 1981. And I would be willing to drop it to 12 if I had more information.
|
|
|
Post by Rick James on Jul 27, 2016 14:21:18 GMT -6
How many titles does Kinder, Haynesville, Neville, and Lutcher have to win before they "break the spirit of the rules"? Interesting question, and one that makes the problem so difficult. (Data I'm using is through 2014) Kinder has won 3 championships since 1967. I am going to ignore them in this conversation. Neville has won 11 since 1955. Lutcher has 6 since 1975. Haynesville has 17 since 1924. I'm not really concerned with what happened in 1950, so I want to set a boundary date here. I'm going to limit this since 1981, the start of the Prep Classic era. Neville has 6, Lutcher has 4, and Haynesville has 12. In the same time period, Curtis has 22 and Evangel has 13 (they have only been in existence since 1985) I think that it is pretty obvious why folks are angry at Curtis and Evangel. They are private schools that have not had attendance zone issues to deal with. And if we discount Haynesville for a second, no one is even close to being able to compete with Curtis and Evangel. Now, I have no personal knowledge of how Curtis and Evangel run their programs. But I can say that the PERCEPTION of a lot of people is that they recruit athletes. Haynesville is an outlier. They have a fantastic record, on par with Curtis and Evangel, but they are a public school, and you wouldn't expect them to be this successful. I have no idea why. We don't here much about Haynesville down here in Baton Rouge, so I can't really tell you what the perception is of them. So, to give you an answer, in the spirit in which the question is asked, the number is 13 in the time period since 1981. And I would be willing to drop it to 12 if I had more information. I doubt you will find anyone who will say something negative about Haynesville, or the Franklins. They do things the right way.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 15:24:17 GMT -6
How many titles does Kinder, Haynesville, Neville, and Lutcher have to win before they "break the spirit of the rules"? Interesting question, and one that makes the problem so difficult. (Data I'm using is through 2014) Kinder has won 3 championships since 1967. I am going to ignore them in this conversation. Neville has won 11 since 1955. Lutcher has 6 since 1975. Haynesville has 17 since 1924. I'm not really concerned with what happened in 1950, so I want to set a boundary date here. I'm going to limit this since 1981, the start of the Prep Classic era. Neville has 6, Lutcher has 4, and Haynesville has 12. In the same time period, Curtis has 22 and Evangel has 13 (they have only been in existence since 1985) I think that it is pretty obvious why folks are angry at Curtis and Evangel. They are private schools that have not had attendance zone issues to deal with. And if we discount Haynesville for a second, no one is even close to being able to compete with Curtis and Evangel. Now, I have no personal knowledge of how Curtis and Evangel run their programs. But I can say that the PERCEPTION of a lot of people is that they recruit athletes. Haynesville is an outlier. They have a fantastic record, on par with Curtis and Evangel, but they are a public school, and you wouldn't expect them to be this successful. I have no idea why. We don't here much about Haynesville down here in Baton Rouge, so I can't really tell you what the perception is of them. So, to give you an answer, in the spirit in which the question is asked, the number is 13 in the time period since 1981. And I would be willing to drop it to 12 if I had more information. lets look at it this way: 5A/D1 State Championships by schools (since 1981): John Curtis 0/0, Evangel 4/0 W. Monroe 8 Acadiana 4 Finalist 5A (since 1981) West Monroe 14 John Curtis 0 Evangel 5 Acadiana 5 4A Championships (since 1981) Neville 6 John Curtis 9 1 Div II Champion in 2013 Ruston 4 Finalist Neville 8 JC 11 Ruston 5 Since play in class 4A in 2005 Neville 4 Championships 5 Finalist Bastrop 3 Championships 1 Forfeiture JC a butt load of championships in 2A Since 2009 in 4A: Neville 5 dome appearances and 4 Championships last 2 back to back Edna Karr 5 appearances 1 Championship. Since 2013 JC 1 State championship Div II Still a play in class year. Seems to me all the problems would be resolved if the LHSAA moved JC and e up to 5A and put into place a play up requirement for repeat offenders both public and private. If not Neville will be putting up JC Championship numbers in the very near future.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 27, 2016 15:36:19 GMT -6
And since 1981, when you throw out JC, only 7 years had a private school finalist with only 2 private school state champions. Shaw in 1987 and Redemptorist which is now closed in 2003. Note that was the year before Zachary and Central moved to ISD status. 5A since 1991 when it was created has only had 7 private school finalist including the e years and only 5 state champions. Rummel and e.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2016 19:35:42 GMT -6
And since 1981, when you throw out JC, only 7 years had a private school finalist with only 2 private school state champions. Shaw in 1987 and Redemptorist which is now closed in 2003. Note that was the year before Zachary and Central moved to ISD status. 5A since 1991 when it was created has only had 7 private school finalist including the e years and only 5 state champions. Rummel and e. I was using those schools (rightly so) as an example, if they kept dominating their class. How would that be perceived and handled? How or why would that be any different than JC or E?
|
|
|
Post by eag on Jul 28, 2016 10:59:41 GMT -6
Thus the problem with any possible reconciliation is that some on Executive Committee are the ones trying to sabotage it, embarrass Bonine and drive out the private schools. On any committee consisting of 25 people, there are going to be people on either side of each issue, some more strident than others. There will be some in the middle of the road. Bonine is never going to be the favorite of everybody on the Committee. And he doesn't have to be. By the same token, I don't think that anyone wants to drive out the privates schools. They just don't want to play against them in the playoffs. They have legitimate concerns over equity. Would they be happy if a certain set of privates left the LHSAA? I think so. But I don't think that they have a problem with a majority of the private schools. With all of the talk about public vs. privates, it really comes down to publics vs. Curtis, Evangel, and a small number of other schools. The publics don't have a problem with Point Coupee Catholic. They don't have a problem with St. Pauls.They have the same problem that they had with West Monroe when WM dominated the top class. The perception was that Curtis, Evangel and in the past, West Monroe are not following the spirit of the rules. They just can't find a way to write the rules to keep teams within the spirit of the rules. I don't know what the answer is. I think that I know what Bonine is going to try to do. I think that he told us on Monday. He doesn't have to move the people of the edges, he just needs a little movement from those in the middle. I think this is the crux of the controversy. The schools that no one has a problem with are the bulk of the schools moved, and no one in the LHSAA seems to give a tinker's damn that they cannot compete with the big guns either. Success metric is the way to go. Solves the problem you mentioned and the one I just mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by pinion on Jul 28, 2016 11:21:31 GMT -6
All this chatter about making it fair and success metric and which schools have more titles and are the cause of all this.
None of that is the problem. The problem is that a private school is private. That's the problem. The whole of this goes back to public schools have a problem with private schools.
I can remember being in grade school (attended a private school) and having kids in the neighborhood talking smack about how the local public schools taught XYZ and Trinity Heights didn't teach XYZ, his mom told him.
This is about people getting some kind of inferior complex and wanting to punish private schools because they feel inadequate. Why do you think any time these discussions get going, eventually it comes around to who's paying for little Johnny to attend MostAwesomePrivateSchoolEVAR! and how that's just not fair.
ECA, Curtis, NotreDame, ParkviewBaptist, and whomever else is perceived as being "suspiciously good", could all close their doors today and the split goes nowhere. What's worse is that when all the private schools abandon the LHSAA, the split still won't go anywhere. The targets will then become the magnet schools. Because. I mean, we've got to keep it fair and all.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 28, 2016 11:32:06 GMT -6
All this chatter about making it fair and success metric and which schools have more titles and are the cause of all this. None of that is the problem. The problem is that a private school is private. That's the problem. The whole of this goes back to public schools have a problem with private schools. I can remember being in grade school (attended a private school) and having kids in the neighborhood talking smack about how the local public schools taught XYZ and Trinity Heights didn't teach XYZ, his mom told him. This is about people getting some kind of inferior complex and wanting to punish private schools because they feel inadequate. Why do you think any time these discussions get going, eventually it comes around to who's paying for little Johnny to attend MostAwesomePrivateSchoolEVAR! and how that's just not fair. ECA, Curtis, NotreDame, ParkviewBaptist, and whomever else is perceived as being "suspiciously good", could all close their doors today and the split goes nowhere. What's worse is that when all the private schools abandon the LHSAA, the split still won't go anywhere. The targets will then become the magnet schools. Because. I mean, we've got to keep it fair and all. If they closed the doors, how fast would their coaches get offers from the public schools?
|
|
|
Post by kbanes on Jul 28, 2016 12:38:27 GMT -6
All this chatter about making it fair and success metric and which schools have more titles and are the cause of all this. None of that is the problem. The problem is that a private school is private. That's the problem. The whole of this goes back to public schools have a problem with private schools. I can remember being in grade school (attended a private school) and having kids in the neighborhood talking smack about how the local public schools taught XYZ and Trinity Heights didn't teach XYZ, his mom told him. This is about people getting some kind of inferior complex and wanting to punish private schools because they feel inadequate. Why do you think any time these discussions get going, eventually it comes around to who's paying for little Johnny to attend MostAwesomePrivateSchoolEVAR! and how that's just not fair. ECA, Curtis, NotreDame, ParkviewBaptist, and whomever else is perceived as being "suspiciously good", could all close their doors today and the split goes nowhere. What's worse is that when all the private schools abandon the LHSAA, the split still won't go anywhere. The targets will then become the magnet schools. Because. I mean, we've got to keep it fair and all. Wow, you make a strong argument there. This is all caused by some kids being mean to you in grade school. I can't fault your logic. You win.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 28, 2016 13:27:40 GMT -6
And since 1981, when you throw out JC, only 7 years had a private school finalist with only 2 private school state champions. Shaw in 1987 and Redemptorist which is now closed in 2003. Note that was the year before Zachary and Central moved to ISD status. 5A since 1991 when it was created has only had 7 private school finalist including the e years and only 5 state champions. Rummel and e. I was using those schools (rightly so) as an example, if they kept dominating their class. How would that be perceived and handled? How or why would that be any different than JC or E? It goes deeper than that, Since 1981 Neville has one 5A state championship and three finals appearances I did not count. That ups the Neville take to 7 state championships and 11 appearances in the finals. Should we dig deeper and start counting championships by region or Parish?
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Jul 28, 2016 13:29:35 GMT -6
All this chatter about making it fair and success metric and which schools have more titles and are the cause of all this. None of that is the problem. The problem is that a private school is private. That's the problem. The whole of this goes back to public schools have a problem with private schools. I can remember being in grade school (attended a private school) and having kids in the neighborhood talking smack about how the local public schools taught XYZ and Trinity Heights didn't teach XYZ, his mom told him. This is about people getting some kind of inferior complex and wanting to punish private schools because they feel inadequate. Why do you think any time these discussions get going, eventually it comes around to who's paying for little Johnny to attend MostAwesomePrivateSchoolEVAR! and how that's just not fair. ECA, Curtis, NotreDame, ParkviewBaptist, and whomever else is perceived as being "suspiciously good", could all close their doors today and the split goes nowhere. What's worse is that when all the private schools abandon the LHSAA, the split still won't go anywhere. The targets will then become the magnet schools. Because. I mean, we've got to keep it fair and all. Amen Brother. But it is fun punching holes in the falsies.
|
|
|
Post by pinion on Jul 29, 2016 10:41:59 GMT -6
All this chatter about making it fair and success metric and which schools have more titles and are the cause of all this. None of that is the problem. The problem is that a private school is private. That's the problem. The whole of this goes back to public schools have a problem with private schools. I can remember being in grade school (attended a private school) and having kids in the neighborhood talking smack about how the local public schools taught XYZ and Trinity Heights didn't teach XYZ, his mom told him. This is about people getting some kind of inferior complex and wanting to punish private schools because they feel inadequate. Why do you think any time these discussions get going, eventually it comes around to who's paying for little Johnny to attend MostAwesomePrivateSchoolEVAR! and how that's just not fair. ECA, Curtis, NotreDame, ParkviewBaptist, and whomever else is perceived as being "suspiciously good", could all close their doors today and the split goes nowhere. What's worse is that when all the private schools abandon the LHSAA, the split still won't go anywhere. The targets will then become the magnet schools. Because. I mean, we've got to keep it fair and all. Wow, you make a strong argument there. This is all caused by some kids being mean to you in grade school. I can't fault your logic. You win. No, it had nothing to do with me personally. And I never suggested anything of the sort. But it's that feeling of inadequacy that's driving public schools to push this nonsense. Not all of it, but a lot of it. It's the internet, I'm not trying to win.
|
|
|
Post by chalmetteowl on Jul 30, 2016 10:01:50 GMT -6
i posted this on tigerdroppings, but people forget that Winnfield, before they lost to John Curtis in the Dome, beat three select schools in a row in the playoffs just to get there...
|
|