|
Post by gridiron on Jun 11, 2018 18:47:26 GMT -6
I got my answer I'm off this thread because I'm stooping down to your level and calling you names and I'm totally against that. I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Jun 11, 2018 20:33:47 GMT -6
Your like a Philadelphia lawyer, you concentrate on the little specifics and the way the question is asked to keep from answering the root question because you don't know the answers or you don't want to go there. Six answered the question in one post that you haven't answered in 20 years. Oh wait, what if it was 21 years. Dope
All that little temper tantrum just because you don't want to answer the question of how that little bitty Haynesville school beat a school of "2000 kids and excellent coaches".
I did answer the question, I just did not give you the answer you were looking for. It is hard when reality slaps you in the face.
As far as the 20 or 21 years, if you missed it as much as you did Evangel attendance numbers ..... it would be 53 years. Of course in your mind 20 and 53 is really the same thing.
As far as calling me a dope ..... that may be the most intelligent thing you have said.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Jun 11, 2018 21:10:46 GMT -6
It's the part about playing within LSHAA rules that is the root of 20 years of discussions and an eventual split. Just because nobody had the resources or inclination to investigate and interview everyone that was ever associated with e doesn't mean it was all legit. That is just incorrect.
Back when the public-private athletic split was first brewing the problem was not about private schools breaking LHSAA rules. It was about the rules themselves. Back then public schools were limited by mandated school zones and that's where they had to get their athletes. Private schools had no mandated school zones when it came to athletics. That was a private school advantage and I don't think anyone would deny that. So if you want to talk about the split put the blame on the rules themselves and not on the idea that private schools were cheating. In fact the very private schools who were considered by the publics to be the problem in athletics (football) had the LHSAA approve any incoming transfers ahead of time before the transfer was ever allowed to play. Private schools like Evangel and Curtis were under a microscope back then so to imply they did something wrong because of some perceived unwillingness by the LHSAA to investigate is just wrong.
I believe in public education and saying public school principals are s is an ic thing to say. But regardless of what you believe about public school education Evangel did not build a football powerhouse by cheating. They utilized the open border rules they were given, accepted the gifted athletes who CHOSE to be part of an outstanding program, coached them up and WON. And that is legit.
I am one of those s that thinks the public school principals of the LHSAA are s. I am not questioning their collective intelligence, they may all have Masters and Doctorates and even be members of MENSA for all I know, but when they do ic things it is fair to call them out.
Like you, I am a product of the public school education system as is everyone in my family except my daughter. I think the concept of a free public education for everyone is a noble and worthy idea, but it is inherently flawed because of government bureaucracy. It is no secret that you and I are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, and that may be why we have different views of the state of public education.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Jun 11, 2018 22:28:22 GMT -6
I got my answer I'm off this thread because I'm stooping down to your level and calling you names and I'm totally against that. I apologize.
I would expect nothing less from you. Blame your actions on me and then act as if you are taking the high road.
|
|
|
Post by Southplaq on Jun 11, 2018 23:01:57 GMT -6
I'm interested in knowing how those transfers last season (during the season) are progressing since their arrival, and also if they will contribute this season. Any other "transfers" come in recently? How are the Eagles looking heading into next season? Can they overcome last year's monumental underachieving season? Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedAttachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Jun 12, 2018 13:56:04 GMT -6
What I originally said was private schools back in the years before the split had no mandated zones for athletic purposes and athletics is what we are talking about. The zones the private schools were assigned were not binding from an athletic point of view because of the sit out rule. For instance the zone Evangel shared with Huntington was not an equal offset with Huntington. Huntington was not allowed to get athletes from anywhere outside the zone and play them after they sat out a year. Evangel was allowed to do that. Let's be real, that is an advantage. It allowed successful private programs like Evangel and Curtis to use their success to legally draw the best athletes from all over. Huntington could not have done that that even if they had a great successful program which they didn't. Any athletic team that can utilize an open border for getting athletes, even with a sit out rule, has a distinct advantage over a school that can only get athletes from within a mandated area. That is just common sense and it is what eventually led to the split.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Jun 12, 2018 14:19:22 GMT -6
That is just incorrect.
Back when the public-private athletic split was first brewing the problem was not about private schools breaking LHSAA rules. It was about the rules themselves. Back then public schools were limited by mandated school zones and that's where they had to get their athletes. Private schools had no mandated school zones when it came to athletics. That was a private school advantage and I don't think anyone would deny that. So if you want to talk about the split put the blame on the rules themselves and not on the idea that private schools were cheating. In fact the very private schools who were considered by the publics to be the problem in athletics (football) had the LHSAA approve any incoming transfers ahead of time before the transfer was ever allowed to play. Private schools like Evangel and Curtis were under a microscope back then so to imply they did something wrong because of some perceived unwillingness by the LHSAA to investigate is just wrong.
I believe in public education and saying public school principals are s is an ic thing to say. But regardless of what you believe about public school education Evangel did not build a football powerhouse by cheating. They utilized the open border rules they were given, accepted the gifted athletes who CHOSE to be part of an outstanding program, coached them up and WON. And that is legit.
I am one of those s that thinks the public school principals of the LHSAA are s. I am not questioning their collective intelligence, they may all have Masters and Doctorates and even be members of MENSA for all I know, but when they do ic things it is fair to call them out.
Like you, I am a product of the public school education system as is everyone in my family except my daughter. I think the concept of a free public education for everyone is a noble and worthy idea, but it is inherently flawed because of government bureaucracy. It is no secret that you and I are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, and that may be why we have different views of the state of public education.
Doing and saying ic things does not necessarily mean a person is an . What I said in my previous post was that calling public school principals "s" is an ic thing to say and it is. That doesn't mean someone who says it is an . You said it in your post above and you aren't an are you. Of course you aren't. But you said it.
I also said I "believe" in public education. That is essentially the same thing you just said when you said it was a noble and worthy idea. I did not say it was not flawed. One reason it may be flawed when compared to private school education is that public education is charged with educating all students both good and bad while private schools have no such obligation.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Jun 12, 2018 17:15:39 GMT -6
What I originally said was private schools back in the years before the split had no mandated zones for athletic purposes and athletics is what we are talking about. The zones the private schools were assigned were not binding from an athletic point of view because of the sit out rule. For instance the zone Evangel shared with Huntington was not an equal offset with Huntington. Huntington was not allowed to get athletes from anywhere outside the zone and play them after they sat out a year. Evangel was allowed to do that. Let's be real, that is an advantage. It allowed successful private programs like Evangel and Curtis to use their success to legally draw the best athletes from all over. Huntington could not have done that that even if they had a great successful program which they didn't. Any athletic team that can utilize an open border for getting athletes, even with a sit out rule, has a distinct advantage over a school that can only get athletes from within a mandated area. That is just common sense and it is what eventually led to the split. I disagreed with this point of view 20 years ago, and I disagree with it now.
It is definitely logical, but the problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming all public schools are the same. Twenty years ago I was pointing out that Byrd, Southwood, Fair Park, and almost every other Caddo school could get athletes from out of their regular attendance zone WITHOUT having to sit out a year. As others on the message board chirped in we found out that this was prevalent in every major metro area. I am convinced that Byrd was set to be a tremendous football power, if Evangel had not come on the scene about that time.
When I pointed this out, the answer I would always get back is that those programs weren't taking advantage of the situation. In their minds, Evangel won and others didn't so only Evangel was taking advantage of the situation. Even then I made the argument that Byrd had more out of zone athletes than Evangel.
Here we are 20 years later and open borders are common practice for most metro schools and completely accepted by the LHSAA. In fact it was always the local school boards that decided attendance zones, not the LHSAA. If that, as you say, was the reason we split in the first place, then why do we need the split now? The answer is that it was just a ruse by the public schools to get what they wanted. If you recall, when that ruse was not working out for them they invented the theory of select and non-select. Suddenly open zones were not the problem, the problem was not that certain schools could select their students while others could not refuse students. That logic escapes me as to how it could be an advantage in football.
I have always argued that Evangel had a tremendous advantage over rural schools (3A and lower) because they were drawing their athletes from a metropolitan area while rural schools had a much smaller base. So what did the public school principals, in their infinite wisdom, do? They decided to level the playing field and make Evangel and Curtis play in 1A and 2A respectively. That defies all logic and common sense, and in my opinion is ic. That is until you realize that their goal was always ...... to have 5 public school champions each year.
For instance the zone Evangel shared with Huntington was not an equal offset with Huntington. Huntington was not allowed to get athletes from anywhere outside the zone and play them after they sat out a year. Evangel was allowed to do that. Let's be real, that is an advantage. I disagree here to. If you restricted Evangel to just the attendance zone of Huntington that would be a tremendous disadvantage. We all know that most of those students are going to opt for the free public education.
I don't believe I called it an "equal" offset, I think I refereed to it as an offset to equalize the difference in the way attendance zones were determined. Otherwise if you were going to hold Evangel to the same standard as you did Huntington or any other public school you would have to give Evangel its own zone and that would make any kid in that zone ineligible to play at any other school. We know that could never happen which is why they came up with the system they did.
Now if they had drawn an attendance zone that better reflected where most of Evangel's students had come from (west and south Shreveport) that might have been a little more fair. By the way, Arnaz Battle lived in Evangel's zone but went to Byrd because they promised him he could play QB and he would not have been QB at Evangel.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Jun 12, 2018 20:28:14 GMT -6
What I originally said was private schools back in the years before the split had no mandated zones for athletic purposes and athletics is what we are talking about. The zones the private schools were assigned were not binding from an athletic point of view because of the sit out rule. For instance the zone Evangel shared with Huntington was not an equal offset with Huntington. Huntington was not allowed to get athletes from anywhere outside the zone and play them after they sat out a year. Evangel was allowed to do that. Let's be real, that is an advantage. It allowed successful private programs like Evangel and Curtis to use their success to legally draw the best athletes from all over. Huntington could not have done that that even if they had a great successful program which they didn't. Any athletic team that can utilize an open border for getting athletes, even with a sit out rule, has a distinct advantage over a school that can only get athletes from within a mandated area. That is just common sense and it is what eventually led to the split. I disagreed with this point of view 20 years ago, and I disagree with it now.
It is definitely logical, but the problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming all public schools are the same. Twenty years ago I was pointing out that Byrd, Southwood, Fair Park, and almost every other Caddo school could get athletes from out of their regular attendance zone WITHOUT having to sit out a year. As others on the message board chirped in we found out that this was prevalent in every major metro area. I am convinced that Byrd was set to be a tremendous football power, if Evangel had not come on the scene about that time.
When I pointed this out, the answer I would always get back is that those programs weren't taking advantage of the situation. In their minds, Evangel won and others didn't so only Evangel was taking advantage of the situation. Even then I made the argument that Byrd had more out of zone athletes than Evangel.
Here we are 20 years later and open borders are common practice for most metro schools and completely accepted by the LHSAA. In fact it was always the local school boards that decided attendance zones, not the LHSAA. If that, as you say, was the reason we split in the first place, then why do we need the split now? The answer is that it was just a ruse by the public schools to get what they wanted. If you recall, when that ruse was not working out for them they invented the theory of select and non-select. Suddenly open zones were not the problem, the problem was not that certain schools could select their students while others could not refuse students. That logic escapes me as to how it could be an advantage in football.
I have always argued that Evangel had a tremendous advantage over rural schools (3A and lower) because they were drawing their athletes from a metropolitan area while rural schools had a much smaller base. So what did the public school principals, in their infinite wisdom, do? They decided to level the playing field and make Evangel and Curtis play in 1A and 2A respectively. That defies all logic and common sense, and in my opinion is ic. That is until you realize that their goal was always ...... to have 5 public school champions each year.
For instance the zone Evangel shared with Huntington was not an equal offset with Huntington. Huntington was not allowed to get athletes from anywhere outside the zone and play them after they sat out a year. Evangel was allowed to do that. Let's be real, that is an advantage. I disagree here to. If you restricted Evangel to just the attendance zone of Huntington that would be a tremendous disadvantage. We all know that most of those students are going to opt for the free public education.
I don't believe I called it an "equal" offset, I think I refereed to it as an offset to equalize the difference in the way attendance zones were determined. Otherwise if you were going to hold Evangel to the same standard as you did Huntington or any other public school you would have to give Evangel its own zone and that would make any kid in that zone ineligible to play at any other school. We know that could never happen which is why they came up with the system they did.
Now if they had drawn an attendance zone that better reflected where most of Evangel's students had come from (west and south Shreveport) that might have been a little more fair. By the way, Arnaz Battle lived in Evangel's zone but went to Byrd because they promised him he could play QB and he would not have been QB at Evangel.
It is definitely logical, but the problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming all public schools are the same. Twenty years ago I was pointing out that Byrd, Southwood, Fair Park, and almost every other Caddo school could get athletes from out of their regular attendance zone WITHOUT having to sit out a year. The only way I know of that a public school could legally get athletes from outside their attendance zone back before the split was if the school was a magnet. I was not aware that virtually all Caddo schools back then were magnets. I'll take your word for it . It doesn't really change the overall discussion about the public-private problem. Obviously all Louisiana public schools were not magnet schools back before the split so any public school that was not a magnet back then would have been at a disadvantage athletically to private schools because of the open border and sit out rule available to private schools but not available to non magnet public schools. An athletic disadvantage to any public school would mean the overall system was not fair. Also, does Evangel have a grade requirement for students including athletes coming from outside the attendance zone? I am not saying they don't I just didn't see any requirement on their admissions page. I believe magnets have a B average requirement for enrollment. Unless private schools have B average grade requirement for students including athletic transfers it seems to me that would be an athletic advantage for private schools. When I pointed this out, the answer I would always get back is that those programs weren't taking advantage of the situation. In their minds, Evangel won and others didn't so only Evangel was taking advantage of the situation. Even then I made the argument that Byrd had more out of zone athletes than Evangel. If public magnet schools have more out of zone athletes than private schools and can't win with them then the argument that being a magnet school benefits public schools athletically is insignificant.Here we are 20 years later and open borders are common practice for most metro schools and completely accepted by the LHSAA. In fact it was always the local school boards that decided attendance zones, not the LHSAA. If that, as you say, was the reason we split in the first place, then why do we need the split now? As far as I am concerned we don't need the split now.I have always argued that Evangel had a tremendous advantage over rural schools (3A and lower) because they were drawing their athletes from a metropolitan area while rural schools had a much smaller base. So what did the public school principals, in their infinite wisdom, do? They decided to level the playing field and make Evangel and Curtis play in 1A and 2A respectively. That defies all logic and common sense, and in my opinion is ic. That is until you realize that their goal was always ...... to have 5 public school champions each year. I agree. The decision to place Evangel in the lower classifications because they were too good to play in the higher classifications was about as crazy as it gets. But would you have supported a public-private split back when Evangel had that tremendous advantage against the non metropolitan schools? And what about the city schools back then that were not magnets. Weren't they playing at a disadvantage to privates who could utilize the sit out rule to use players from outside the zone?I don't believe I called it an "equal" offset, I think I refereed to it as an offset to equalize the difference in the way attendance zones were determined. Otherwise if you were going to hold Evangel to the same standard as you did Huntington or any other public school you would have to give Evangel its own zone and that would make any kid in that zone ineligible to play at any other school. We know that could never happen which is why they came up with the system they did. That is a hypothetical scenario and I agree with you in that case. However, back before the split, as the zone existed in reality, Evangel could use players from outside the zone if they sat out a year and Huntington could not. Maybe I am wrong but I see that as an advantage for Evangel.
|
|
|
Post by cvwildcatfan on Jun 14, 2018 12:42:49 GMT -6
Your like a Philadelphia lawyer, you concentrate on the little specifics and the way the question is asked to keep from answering the root question because you don't know the answers or you don't want to go there. Six answered the question in one post that you haven't answered in 20 years. Oh wait, what if it was 21 years. Dope
All that little temper tantrum just because you don't want to answer the question of how that little bitty Haynesville school beat a school of "2000 kids and excellent coaches".
I did answer the question, I just did not give you the answer you were looking for. It is hard when reality slaps you in the face.
As far as the 20 or 21 years, if you missed it as much as you did Evangel attendance numbers ..... it would be 53 years. Of course in your mind 20 and 53 is really the same thing.
As far as calling me a dope ..... that may be the most intelligent thing you have said.
that is an easy answer...BOBBY RAY TELL
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Jun 14, 2018 16:31:02 GMT -6
All that little temper tantrum just because you don't want to answer the question of how that little bitty Haynesville school beat a school of "2000 kids and excellent coaches".
I did answer the question, I just did not give you the answer you were looking for. It is hard when reality slaps you in the face.
As far as the 20 or 21 years, if you missed it as much as you did Evangel attendance numbers ..... it would be 53 years. Of course in your mind 20 and 53 is really the same thing.
As far as calling me a dope ..... that may be the most intelligent thing you have said.
that is an easy answer...BOBBY RAY TELL
He was amazing ....... but that is not giving credit where credit is due. Haynesville's defense shut both West Monroe and Evangel down. They had as much impact as Tell did. Haynesville was also one of the most disciplined teams I ever saw. They did not make mistakes to beat themselves.
|
|
|
Post by eaglewatcher on Jul 28, 2018 4:52:02 GMT -6
I'm interested in knowing how those transfers last season (during the season) are progressing since their arrival, and also if they will contribute this season. Any other "transfers" come in recently? How are the Eagles looking heading into next season? Can they overcome last year's monumental underachieving season?
|
|
|
Post by django on Aug 15, 2018 23:11:21 GMT -6
Sir it is not about me I simply stated that because i grew up in La. and my kids all went to school in WM. We have done ok with our La. education. Many of the issues are with things not related to principals. Sad to say we may be in the barrel with education but I do not think that has much to do with football. Your anger is disproportionate as it relates to principals. I bet there are many more that are sincerely interested in education and kids than there are that are not. I am sorry you feel the way you do. The fact that you and your kids (and many others) had good educations doesn’t change the fact that we are dead last (50th) in education. And it doesn’t change the fact that schools are lead by principals. But it’s not about you! Lol Since we nitpick every point for absolute validity(BGH).....are you sure that your statement of being “dead last in education” is accurate?? Or is it a phrase used to illicit a desired reaction?? I know that it is low, however I believe that I’ve seen information that would contradict your statement.
|
|
|
Post by django on Aug 15, 2018 23:19:13 GMT -6
I called You a picky number pincher. Again, I know it's hard for you to understand this but it makes absolutely no difference to me on this subject if it was 150 or 450 e would not have been able to beat the teams they beat without certain advantages. Six explained those advantages to my satisfaction.
As I said before, Haynesville (which was a smaller school than Evangel) beat West Monroe when they were the defending 5A Champions. How do reconcile that with your theory that a small school should not be able to beat a school with 2,000 kids. Are you accusing Haynesville of cheating?
By the way, I firmly disagree with Sixpack on one point. Yes private schools could accept players from outside their zone which seems like a big advantage ....... until you consider the fact that private schools did not have their own zone. For LHSAA purposes Evangel had to share the exact same zone as Huntington. Where do you think 95% of the kids in that zone went to school? The free public school of course. So the so-called advantage becomes more of an offset to equalize the fact that attendance zones were made for public schools not private schools.
How would you feel if your favorite public school had to share its attendance zone with another public school? Now lets pretend that every kid that went to the other public school could do so for free, but they have to pay tuition to go to your school. Does that seem like an advantage to you?
Question: at that time that you referenced, you shared a zone with Huntington. To be clear, would you say that all your enrollment, or more specifically, all of the players on the football roster came from in that zone??
|
|
|
Post by indy on Aug 16, 2018 6:11:29 GMT -6
The fact that you and your kids (and many others) had good educations doesn’t change the fact that we are dead last (50th) in education. And it doesn’t change the fact that schools are lead by principals. But it’s not about you! Lol Since we nitpick every point for absolute validity(BGH).....are you sure that your statement of being “dead last in education” is accurate?? Or is it a phrase used to illicit a desired reaction?? I know that it is low, however I believe that I’ve seen information that would contradict your statement. Congressman Abraham confirmed to me Monday that we are currently 49th overall but last in many categories. We didn’t move up from 50th, Mississippi moved down. www.wwltv.com/amp/article?section=news&subsection=local&headline=is-louisiana-really-the-worst-state-in-america&contentId=289-560154810
|
|
|
Post by django on Aug 16, 2018 6:37:03 GMT -6
So not dead last, as you were stating
|
|
|
Post by indy on Aug 16, 2018 8:06:18 GMT -6
So not dead last, as you were stating When I made the statement it was true. And I have faith in our principals to make it true again. But hey, let’s look at the bright side, if their is a playoff system in education we would make it at 49 or 50th!
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan87 on Aug 16, 2018 16:35:46 GMT -6
So not dead last, as you were stating When I made the statement it was true. And I have faith in our principals to make it true again. But hey, let’s look at the bright side, if their is a playoff system in education we would make it at 49 or 50th! Principles are not the problem with Louisiana Education. The problem is the state department of education and the breakdown of the family and community.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Aug 16, 2018 18:23:35 GMT -6
That is just incorrect.
Back when the public-private athletic split was first brewing the problem was not about private schools breaking LHSAA rules. It was about the rules themselves. Back then public schools were limited by mandated school zones and that's where they had to get their athletes. Private schools had no mandated school zones when it came to athletics. That was a private school advantage and I don't think anyone would deny that. So if you want to talk about the split put the blame on the rules themselves and not on the idea that private schools were cheating. In fact the very private schools who were considered by the publics to be the problem in athletics (football) had the LHSAA approve any incoming transfers ahead of time before the transfer was ever allowed to play. Private schools like Evangel and Curtis were under a microscope back then so to imply they did something wrong because of some perceived unwillingness by the LHSAA to investigate is just wrong.
I believe in public education and saying public school principals are s is an ic thing to say. But regardless of what you believe about public school education Evangel did not build a football powerhouse by cheating. They utilized the open border rules they were given, accepted the gifted athletes who CHOSE to be part of an outstanding program, coached them up and WON. And that is legit. You are incorrect. Private schools always had zones per the LHSAA. For years ND had the same zone as Crowley High (closest LHSAA school) anyone out of that zone had to sit out a year, no exceptions. Then it morphed some in the early 2000’s and out of zone freshman that went to a Catholic feeder school could play freshman sports only, no exception. Then the next (hypocrite) vote after the split was parish wide zones plus 24% out of zone to still be non select. Now it’s free range, no fences! I guess you missed the whole point of my post. I said private schools had no mandated zones when it came to athletics. That is another way of saying that the LHSAA assigned zones could be circumvented by any private school that utilized the sit out rule. The sit our rule enabled private schools to get athletes from anywhere outside the zone. Successful private schools could easily draw good athletes from outside the zone if they chose to accept them.
I am a big Evangel football fan but I am not a fool. I have some ocean front property in Arizona I can sell you if you think Evangel won 12 state championships, had 60 straight wins from 1996 to 1999 and beat the best 5A teams in La. as well as some of the best teams in the entire country using only players from that little west Shreveport school zone they shared with Huntington. Public schools back then had no sit out rule.
Look closely now and tell me if maybe you can see a private school athletic advantage in there somewhere. That is the obvious point of my former post.
|
|
|
Post by pinion on Aug 16, 2018 23:12:19 GMT -6
Back in the day, I do think that every single school in Caddo had some type of a magnet program. If they didn't all have it, the large majority of them did. I know that Byrd, Shreve, Southwood, Green Oaks, BTW, and Fair Park all did. And I'm pretty sure Huntington did as well. I think even North Caddo did as well.
I agree with Six that ECA (and all private schools) did indeed have an advantage, but they were following the rules just like everyone else. I think the magnet stuff gave public schools an advantage. Sometimes for academics, sometimes for girls basketball. or baseball. or whatever else.
Since Evangel's tiny little band came up earlier in the thread... We were a small bunch that first year. Just drums. We had a volunteer "director". We might have had 8 of us. I think when we had the handful of middle school kids with us, we possibly pushed 12. Good times. That I know of, only 2 of us still drum. I just drum for the heck of it and the other guy is a composer. The 2nd year, we had a few more kids and Duron convinced the music director at the church to take over the band. We had a lot of kids come in from Huntington that year. Good times with that little band. The first year (when we just had drums) was awesome. We'd sit in a little room and make up beats. Good times.
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan87 on Aug 17, 2018 5:53:27 GMT -6
If the Lhsaa would just say a kid can play at any school as long as they transport themselves if it's out of zone then we could end this no fun split tomorrow. That way the rule is uniform for everybody and there are no advantages anywhere real or perceived.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Aug 19, 2018 17:12:43 GMT -6
If the Lhsaa would just say a kid can play at any school as long as they transport themselves if it's out of zone then we could end this no fun split tomorrow. That way the rule is uniform for everybody and there are no advantages anywhere real or perceived. And when certain local education agencies don't allow that type of free range movement? Won't there be advantages?
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan87 on Aug 19, 2018 17:24:24 GMT -6
If the Lhsaa would just say a kid can play at any school as long as they transport themselves if it's out of zone then we could end this no fun split tomorrow. That way the rule is uniform for everybody and there are no advantages anywhere real or perceived. And when certain local education agencies don't allow that type of free range movement? Won't there be advantages? it would def have to be something school boards would have to agree to but I think it could be worked out
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan87 on Aug 19, 2018 17:25:06 GMT -6
And when certain local education agencies don't allow that type of free range movement? Won't there be advantages? it would def have to be something school boards would have to agree to but I think it could be worked out . Seems like most school boards are leaning more towards that direction than away from it
|
|
|
Post by retired on Aug 19, 2018 17:31:44 GMT -6
And when certain local education agencies don't allow that type of free range movement? Won't there be advantages? it would def have to be something school boards would have to agree to but I think it could be worked out So you think the best way for a school system to operate given all of the logistics involved in educating children would be to do something to match the whims of the LHSAA? What about students who live near a border between school systems? What about the differences between larger school districts and smaller school districts?
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan87 on Aug 19, 2018 17:40:57 GMT -6
it would def have to be something school boards would have to agree to but I think it could be worked out So you think the best way for a school system to operate given all of the logistics involved in educating children would be to do something to match the whims of the LHSAA? What about students who live near a border between school systems? What about the differences between larger school districts and smaller school districts? . I mean I think it should be a compromise but what I'm saying is that is what school boards want to go to these days. It would be the lhsaa bending to the local school board's whims
|
|
|
Post by retired on Aug 19, 2018 17:43:12 GMT -6
So you think the best way for a school system to operate given all of the logistics involved in educating children would be to do something to match the whims of the LHSAA? What about students who live near a border between school systems? What about the differences between larger school districts and smaller school districts? . I mean I think it should be a compromise but what I'm saying is that is what school boards want to go to these days. It would be the lhsaa bending to the local school board's whims I am not sure I agree that most school boards want open enrollment and free ranging school choice.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Aug 19, 2018 20:57:30 GMT -6
As I said before, Haynesville (which was a smaller school than Evangel) beat West Monroe when they were the defending 5A Champions. How do reconcile that with your theory that a small school should not be able to beat a school with 2,000 kids. Are you accusing Haynesville of cheating?
By the way, I firmly disagree with Sixpack on one point. Yes private schools could accept players from outside their zone which seems like a big advantage ....... until you consider the fact that private schools did not have their own zone. For LHSAA purposes Evangel had to share the exact same zone as Huntington. Where do you think 95% of the kids in that zone went to school? The free public school of course. So the so-called advantage becomes more of an offset to equalize the fact that attendance zones were made for public schools not private schools.
How would you feel if your favorite public school had to share its attendance zone with another public school? Now lets pretend that every kid that went to the other public school could do so for free, but they have to pay tuition to go to your school. Does that seem like an advantage to you?
Question: at that time that you referenced, you shared a zone with Huntington. To be clear, would you say that all your enrollment, or more specifically, all of the players on the football roster came from in that zone??
I honestly do not know, but I highly doubt it. My guess would be that a majority of Evangel's students probably came from southwest Shreveport which would be more like Southwood's zone.
If 10% of the students zoned for Huntington chose to go to Evangel (and that is never going to happen) that would only give Evangel around 100 students. If they also got 10% of the students that were zoned for Southwood (and once again that is never going to happen) that would only give them another 130 students.
|
|
|
Post by django on Aug 19, 2018 22:42:29 GMT -6
Question: at that time that you referenced, you shared a zone with Huntington. To be clear, would you say that all your enrollment, or more specifically, all of the players on the football roster came from in that zone??
I honestly do not know, but I highly doubt it. My guess would be that a majority of Evangel's students probably came from southwest Shreveport which would be more like Southwood's zone.
If 10% of the students zoned for Huntington chose to go to Evangel (and that is never going to happen) that would only give Evangel around 100 students. If they also got 10% of the students that were zoned for Southwood (and once again that is never going to happen) that would only give them another 130 students.
So at that time, Evangel was getting student athletes from outside of their shared zone. That’s what I was looking to hear
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Aug 19, 2018 22:53:07 GMT -6
I honestly do not know, but I highly doubt it. My guess would be that a majority of Evangel's students probably came from southwest Shreveport which would be more like Southwood's zone.
If 10% of the students zoned for Huntington chose to go to Evangel (and that is never going to happen) that would only give Evangel around 100 students. If they also got 10% of the students that were zoned for Southwood (and once again that is never going to happen) that would only give them another 130 students.
So at that time, Evangel was getting student athletes from outside of their shared zone. That’s what I was looking to hear
Are you kiddiing? You did not know this before now? Every school in Shreveport was getting students from outside their zone, so why wouldn't you think that Evangel was too? My favorite story is a young lady basketball player who attended BTW, transferred to Southwood, and then went back to BTW, all in the same basketball season.
|
|