|
Post by wildcat on Jul 27, 2017 10:36:14 GMT -6
Not disagreeing that there was a problem. I do think, though, that a better solution could & should have been found. The principal's are the "leaders" of this association and the "leaders" of their school. I know on another thread the principal's are getting blamed for the low ranking of LA students/schools. But as leaders of a school, business, association, or any other endeavor blowing it up should never be an option. Identify the problem, find a solution, and implement said solution. If blowing up the "whatever" is the only solution you as a "leader" can come up with, then in my opinion your not much of a "leader". Just on this board there were several solutions brought up and discussed, some good, some not so good. But "cooler heads" should have been able to look around the country and use or combine the ways other states have used success metrics, multipliers, and many other to solve LA's problem. I agree with you on all fronts. I am just trying to be realistic about what we have now because looking back will get us no where but angry and frustrated. I am all for a better solution than the unilateral split, but alternatives wont be reached when one side cant see the other's point. You cant find a solution when you can't be agree on, much less be honest about the problem. I dont think they will ever come up with another solution and get it passed. Remember it must take 66% of the vote now for anything to change place. I dont see 66% of all the principals agreeing to change the current format. Like it, love it, or hate it, I dont think the split will ever go away. People can get on here and bellyache and call people names to make themselves feel better, but when they wake up in the morning nothing will have changed, its almost like the definition of insanity.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 27, 2017 11:05:29 GMT -6
Not disagreeing that there was a problem. I do think, though, that a better solution could & should have been found. The principal's are the "leaders" of this association and the "leaders" of their school. I know on another thread the principal's are getting blamed for the low ranking of LA students/schools. But as leaders of a school, business, association, or any other endeavor blowing it up should never be an option. Identify the problem, find a solution, and implement said solution. If blowing up the "whatever" is the only solution you as a "leader" can come up with, then in my opinion your not much of a "leader". Just on this board there were several solutions brought up and discussed, some good, some not so good. But "cooler heads" should have been able to look around the country and use or combine the ways other states have used success metrics, multipliers, and many other to solve LA's problem. I agree with you on all fronts. I am just trying to be realistic about what we have now because looking back will get us no where but angry and frustrated. I am all for a better solution than the unilateral split, but alternatives wont be reached when one side cant see the other's point. You cant find a solution when you can't be agree on, much less be honest about the problem. Not looking back, as I said many solutions talked about on this board and some brought up to membership (I know Exec Committee destroyed them). Rural -- Metro Plan, I think had a possibility of passing before exec comm got involved. Something similar to the Indiana Plan (discussed on here) could be looked at. I agree about not seeing the others side (goes both ways) is the problem right now. If a private principal/coach comes up with a plan some if not most of the public side will think it only benefits the private schools (rural/metro). The main problem I have with the split -- Making the playoffs is no longer earned, more so on the public side, than is being given. When an 0, 1, 2 win team makes the playoffs that's sad, most (wishful thinking) would be embarrassed. If the split was always about fairness on the field then decrease the number of teams in the playoff bracket (non-select) side. I don't think this will ever be brought up, they've had 3 years to see this, because if they do the teams that like "making" the playoffs won't vote the way they are needed to.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 27, 2017 11:08:30 GMT -6
I agree with you on all fronts. I am just trying to be realistic about what we have now because looking back will get us no where but angry and frustrated. I am all for a better solution than the unilateral split, but alternatives wont be reached when one side cant see the other's point. You cant find a solution when you can't be agree on, much less be honest about the problem. I dont think they will ever come up with another solution and get it passed. Remember it must take 66% of the vote now for anything to change place. I dont see 66% of all the principals agreeing to change the current format. Like it, love it, or hate it, I dont think the split will ever go away. People can get on here and bellyache and call people names to make themselves feel better, but when they wake up in the morning nothing will have changed, its almost like the definition of insanity. I hope that you're wrong, but not very optimistic. The only way that I think the "split" side would ever think about changing is if all the "select" schools really do have their own association. However, I don't see this happening anytime soon since the Catholic schools helped start this organization and don't want to be blamed for destroying it.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 11:14:09 GMT -6
I agree with you on all fronts. I am just trying to be realistic about what we have now because looking back will get us no where but angry and frustrated. I am all for a better solution than the unilateral split, but alternatives wont be reached when one side cant see the other's point. You cant find a solution when you can't be agree on, much less be honest about the problem. Not looking back, as I said many solutions talked about on this board and some brought up to membership (I know Exec Committee destroyed them). Rural -- Metro Plan, I think had a possibility of passing before exec comm got involved. Something similar to the Indiana Plan (discussed on here) could be looked at. I agree about not seeing the others side (goes both ways) is the problem right now. If a private principal/coach comes up with a plan some if not most of the public side will think it only benefits the private schools (rural/metro). The main problem I have with the split -- Making the playoffs is no longer earned, more so on the public side, than is being given. When an 0, 1, 2 win team makes the playoffs that's sad, most (wishful thinking) would be embarrassed. If the split was always about fairness on the field then decrease the number of teams in the playoff bracket (non-select) side. I don't think this will ever be brought up, they've had 3 years to see this, because if they do the teams that like "making" the playoffs won't vote the way they are needed to. I hear you. What began as as a dingy has turned into a supertanker, those ship are hard to turn around. To quote Michael Corleone, "difficult, but not impossible". It may take a few years, some fresh ideas, and maybe some new voices at the table, but something will give.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2017 11:31:23 GMT -6
If recruiting and zones were the problem before the split why not after. Basically no zones or enforcement. In fact, it is now legal for public schools to RECRUIT up to 25% of their enrollment of out of ZONE students. we have s and hypocrites running the show and s cheering them on. Sorry Indy, adults are trying to have a conversation here. Take your s, , , and other childish comments over to the playpen where it belongs. Lol, struck a nerve? I like when you can't answer you want to wash my mouth out with soap and put me in a corner for saying . You don't answer because their is no answer. If the public school leadership would have set an example of what they fought for they could have earned respect. They could have showed us how to follow zones, self policed for recruiting violations. But instead they chose to void the principles they fought for. The very first thing they did was do away withzones and make recruiting legal (up to 25%) for public schools. If that's not the definition of ignorance and hypocrisy then nothing is. You complain about JC and E beating 6-4 teams but it's ok for Kinder and Nany to beat 0-10 teams, you don't get to 6-4,teams till the quarterfinals. But now that's it's your school it's perfectly ok.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 11:34:11 GMT -6
Sorry Indy, adults are trying to have a conversation here. Take your s, , , and other childish comments over to the playpen where it belongs. Lol, struck a nerve? I like when you can't answer you want to wash my mouth out with soap and put me in a corner for saying . You don't answer because their is no answer. If the public school leadership would have set an example of what they fought for they could have earned respect. They could have showed us how to follow zones, self policed for recruiting violations. But instead they chose to void the principles they fought for. The very first thing they did was do away withzones and make recruiting legal (up to 25%) for public schools. If that's not the definition of ignorance and hypocrisy then nothing is. You complain about JC and E beating 6-4 teams but it's ok for Kinder and Nany to beat 0-10 teams, you don't get to 6-4,teams till the quarterfinals. But now that's it's your school it's perfectly ok. Wait, you're still talking? You can go now.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2017 11:40:37 GMT -6
Lol, struck a nerve? I like when you can't answer you want to wash my mouth out with soap and put me in a corner for saying . You don't answer because their is no answer. If the public school leadership would have set an example of what they fought for they could have earned respect. They could have showed us how to follow zones, self policed for recruiting violations. But instead they chose to void the principles they fought for. The very first thing they did was do away withzones and make recruiting legal (up to 25%) for public schools. If that's not the definition of ignorance and hypocrisy then nothing is. You complain about JC and E beating 6-4 teams but it's ok for Kinder and Nany to beat 0-10 teams, you don't get to 6-4,teams till the quarterfinals. But now that's it's your school it's perfectly ok. Wait, you're still talking? You can go now. Typical non- answer. Great job in proving my point
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 11:43:50 GMT -6
Wait, you're still talking? You can go now. Typical non- answer. Great job in proving my point [br Don't confuse my unwillingness to debate with a child with your point. Now go back to kiddy table where you belong.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2017 11:48:29 GMT -6
Typical non- answer. Great job in proving my point [br Don't confuse my unwillingness to debate with a child with your point. Now go back to kiddy table where you belong. You are on a roll, two no-answers in a row!
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 11:49:51 GMT -6
[br Don't confuse my unwillingness to debate with a child with your point. Now go back to kiddy table where you belong. You are on a roll, two no-answers in a row! Atleast you can count. Good job little man.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2017 11:51:11 GMT -6
You are on a roll, two no-answers in a row! Atleast you can count. Good job little man. 3
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 12:00:41 GMT -6
Atleast you can count. Good job little man. 3 "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" -Mark Twain I'm done arguing with you Indy. I will continue to call you out when you take your rediculous pot shots at Kinder, but you have shown time and time again that you are too ignorant and blinded by your own hate to have any resemblance of an intelligent conversation. I know you're gonna respond with some sort of "I know you are, but what am I comment, as per your MO, so I'll save you the trouble...oh yeah, principals, s, , all that good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2017 12:09:21 GMT -6
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" -Mark Twain I'm done arguing with you Indy. I will continue to call you out when you take your rediculous pot shots at Kinder, but you have shown time and time again that you are too ignorant and blinded by your own hate to have any resemblance of an intelligent conversation. I know you're gonna respond with some sort of "I know you are, but what am I comment, as per your MO, so I'll save you the trouble...oh yeah, principals, s, , all that good stuff. You are not arguing with me, you are dodging answering. But that's expected, with and all.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 12:12:24 GMT -6
"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" -Mark Twain I'm done arguing with you Indy. I will continue to call you out when you take your rediculous pot shots at Kinder, but you have shown time and time again that you are too ignorant and blinded by your own hate to have any resemblance of an intelligent conversation. I know you're gonna respond with some sort of "I know you are, but what am I comment, as per your MO, so I'll save you the trouble...oh yeah, principals, s, , all that good stuff. You are not arguing with me, you are dodging answering. But that's expected, with and all. Haha, , I knew it! You're predictably limited if nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Jul 27, 2017 15:22:23 GMT -6
It's starting to sound that the biggest problem you have is that you don't like private schools. If this is the problem that's a "you" problem. Some of us have tried to point out several things wrong with the split and suggested better ways to solve the problem for everyone (all schools), but you don't seem to want to understand or can't. I went to a public school, Many High to be exact, but sent my son to private schools. We struggled with the tuition, that goes up every year it seemed, so tuition is a big part of it. Like you, I graduated from a public school. Also, like you, I put two children through private school and one through a private college. I have no problem with private schools. They are great for many reasons. What I am saying is that tuition has no merit when discussing the "split". The "split" divided schools that play by a certain set of rules vs a group that doesn't. Yes, there will always be schools that bend the rules, so please don't use the exception to prove the rule. Is the split a perfect solution, NO. Am I proponent of the split, NO. Do I understand the logic behind it, yes. Until people are willing to acknowledge the facts here, we will never get anywhere.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I am certain it lies somewhere between what is going on today and John Curtis playing against a six win 2A team with 175 lb lineman in the playoffs.
The solution is using some kind of metric so as to move teams who use whatever advantage THEY have to create inordinate success into a more appropriate level of competition. Identify problem (inordinate success), craft solution to fit said problem as precisely as possible, implement solution, enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 15:35:27 GMT -6
Like you, I graduated from a public school. Also, like you, I put two children through private school and one through a private college. I have no problem with private schools. They are great for many reasons. What I am saying is that tuition has no merit when discussing the "split". The "split" divided schools that play by a certain set of rules vs a group that doesn't. Yes, there will always be schools that bend the rules, so please don't use the exception to prove the rule. Is the split a perfect solution, NO. Am I proponent of the split, NO. Do I understand the logic behind it, yes. Until people are willing to acknowledge the facts here, we will never get anywhere.
I don't know what the best solution is, but I am certain it lies somewhere between what is going on today and John Curtis playing against a six win 2A team with 175 lb lineman in the playoffs.
The solution is using some kind of metric so as to move teams who use whatever advantage THEY have to create inordinate success into a more appropriate level of competition. Identify problem (inordinate success), craft solution to fit said problem as precisely as possible, implement solution, enjoy. I'm all for something along those lines. Especially if it could apply to football districts only.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 27, 2017 15:40:05 GMT -6
The solution is using some kind of metric so as to move teams who use whatever advantage THEY have to create inordinate success into a more appropriate level of competition. Identify problem (inordinate success), craft solution to fit said problem as precisely as possible, implement solution, enjoy. I'm all for something along those lines. Especially if it could apply to football districts only. The success metric would only apply to that one sport at that school. You may be 2A in football, 3A in baseball & softball, & 2A in basketball. Your more successful sports will have to play up, but the ones that inordinately successful will stay where the numbers fall for classification.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 15:51:04 GMT -6
I'm all for something along those lines. Especially if it could apply to football districts only. The success metric would only apply to that one sport at that school. You may be 2A in football, 3A in baseball & softball, & 2A in basketball. Your more successful sports will have to play up, but the ones that inordinately successful will stay where the numbers fall for classification. I could see that, win two consecutive state championships and you are required to move up in classification for two years minimum, with an escalated requirement. Let's say A school starts out in class A, wins 2 state championships and has to play in AA for two years. If from there they must play in 3A for a minimum of four years or consecutive championships, which ever comes first, and escalate that accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on Jul 27, 2017 16:00:04 GMT -6
The success metric would only apply to that one sport at that school. You may be 2A in football, 3A in baseball & softball, & 2A in basketball. Your more successful sports will have to play up, but the ones that inordinately successful will stay where the numbers fall for classification. I could see that, win two consecutive state championships and you are required to move up in classification for two years minimum, with an escalated requirement. Let's say A school starts out in class A, wins 2 state championships and has to play in AA for two years. If from there they must play in 3A for a minimum of four years or consecutive championships, which ever comes first, and escalate that accordingly. Yes similar to that theory, the one I like (Indiana Plan) has points for different rounds of playoffs. Accumulate enough points over 2 years, move up to next class for 2 years. If not enough points accumulated at that level move back down or continue to move up until your are at the correct level for competition. Doing it this was doesn't punish the sports that aren't at the same level of success as the one moving that team up.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Jul 27, 2017 16:07:04 GMT -6
I'm all for something along those lines. Especially if it could apply to football districts only. The success metric would only apply to that one sport at that school. You may be 2A in football, 3A in baseball & softball, & 2A in basketball. Your more successful sports will have to play up, but the ones that inordinately successful will stay where the numbers fall for classification. So if a team breaks the rules in order to win the punishment is moving up? So now they have to recruit even more to win, and they will. To me this method intices rule breaking, it might even encourage it. I'm in favor of stiff penalties for repeated violations. No system will work with a Wild West rule system, we need law and order first. Then maybe a success metric may work.
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Jul 27, 2017 16:08:30 GMT -6
I could see that, win two consecutive state championships and you are required to move up in classification for two years minimum, with an escalated requirement. Let's say A school starts out in class A, wins 2 state championships and has to play in AA for two years. If from there they must play in 3A for a minimum of four years or consecutive championships, which ever comes first, and escalate that accordingly. Yes similar to that theory, the one I like (Indiana Plan) has points for different rounds of playoffs. Accumulate enough points over 2 years, move up to next class for 2 years. If not enough points accumulated at that level move back down or continue to move up until your are at the correct level for competition. Doing it this was doesn't punish the sports that aren't at the same level of success as the one moving that team up. I would love to see something like that in play. I get a lot flack on here (from one person in particular) who thinks that because Kinder has had more success than anyone under the split, that I must be a selfish proponent of it. It's just not true. I have no problem with realistic competition, but when there is no chance of competing with a team who is head, shoulders, knees, and toes above the rest AND wants to play up, but isn't allowed, I obviously think Something has to change. This kind of plan is a realistic and fair option for all parties.
|
|