|
Post by django on Aug 19, 2018 23:05:37 GMT -6
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. A normal public school(non magnet/charter) didn’t have that luxury at the time. Evangel was doing what other schools could not. Sixpack even stated the athletic advantage. I find it amusing when you want to point out other schools doing this when the only school I was inquiring about was Evangel. Seems like an awful juvenile defense system to employ.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Aug 20, 2018 7:42:14 GMT -6
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. A normal public school(non magnet/charter) didn’t have that luxury at the time. Evangel was doing what other schools could not. Sixpack even stated the athletic advantage. I find it amusing when you want to point out other schools doing this when the only school I was inquiring about was Evangel. Seems like an awful juvenile defense system to employ. Oh my gosh ......... you have backed me in the corner and made me admit that Evangel was taking advantage of the public schools. After all, Sixpack has already admitted it and everybody knows Sixpack is always right.
Is it an advantage for a private school to get students from outside their zone? I think I have always been consistent in my answer, which is yes. Especially when we are talking about 1A through 3A (usually rural schools). But I have always argued that it is an offset to an advantage that public schools have.
Every public school has a defined attendance zone that was designed to fill the school. In the example that I gave about Huntington, the Caddo Parish School board designed a zone to fill up Huntington High school and nothing else.
The LHSAA comes along and tells Evangel that the Huntington zone is also the Evangel zone. Does this seem equitable to you? In this case which school would have the advantage? One school has free tuition, free transportation, free lunches, and other free from the taxpayer perks, while the other school does not? Which school has the advantage here?
In order for Evangel to survive with a minimum of 400 students, they would have to get 40% or more of the students who the Caddo School Board assigned to Huntington. Do you think that is likely to happen? Even if it did happen the school board would just change the zone in order to fill Huntington, which is something Evangel has no control over. Which school has the advantage here?
At each juncture a reasonable person would see that the advantages lie with the public school. The only fair way to handle this would be to give the private schools their own zone just like the public schools have. But imagine the uproar if a kid was told they could not play sports unless they went to the private school they were zoned for. Does anyone see a problem there?
Evidently the LHSAA realized the inherent public school advantages too, and allowed private schools to have students from outside their LHSAA designated zones. They set regulations to govern the process (like sit out rules) in order to make it more equitable for the private schools.
I have had no success in getting Sixpack to see this as an offset to the inherent advantages that public schools have, so there is no way you are going to see it. But unlike you, at least I am willing to discuss it and answer your questions, which you oddly think is a "juvenile defense".
|
|
|
Post by indy on Aug 20, 2018 8:04:14 GMT -6
A normal public school(non magnet/charter) didn’t have that luxury at the time. Evangel was doing what other schools could not. Sixpack even stated the athletic advantage. I find it amusing when you want to point out other schools doing this when the only school I was inquiring about was Evangel. Seems like an awful juvenile defense system to employ. Oh my gosh ......... you have backed me in the corner and made me admit that Evangel was taking advantage of the public schools. After all, Sixpack has already admitted it and everybody knows Sixpack is always right.
Is it an advantage for a private school to get students from outside their zone? I think I have always been consistent in my answer, which is yes. Especially when we are talking about 1A through 3A (usually rural schools). But I have always argued that it is an offset to an advantage that public schools have.
Every public school has a defined attendance zone that was designed to fill the school. In the example that I gave about Huntington, the Caddo Parish School board designed a zone to fill up Huntington High school and nothing else.
The LHSAA comes along and tells Evangel that the Huntington zone is also the Evangel zone. Does this seem equitable to you? In this case which school would have the advantage? One school has free tuition, free transportation, free lunches, and other free from the taxpayer perks, while the other school does not? Which school has the advantage here?
In order for Evangel to survive with a minimum of 400 students, they would have to get 40% or more of the students who the Caddo School Board assigned to Huntington. Do you think that is likely to happen? Even if it did happen the school board would just change the zone in order to fill Huntington, which is something Evangel has no control over. Which school has the advantage here?
At each juncture a reasonable person would see that the advantages lie with the public school. The only fair way to handle this would be to give the private schools their own zone just like the public schools have. But imagine the uproar if a kid was told they could not play sports unless they went to the private school they were zoned for. Does anyone see a problem there?
Evidently the LHSAA realized the inherent public school advantages too, and allowed private schools to have students from outside their LHSAA designated zones. They set regulations to govern the process (like sit out rules) in order to make it more equitable for the private schools.
I have had no success in getting Sixpack to see this as an offset to the inherent advantages that public schools have, so there is no way you are going to see it. But unlike you, at least I am willing to discuss it and answer your questions, which you oddly think is a "juvenile defense".
Excellent points, but one of the main advantage that public schools have is free tuition
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Aug 20, 2018 8:57:51 GMT -6
Oh my gosh ......... you have backed me in the corner and made me admit that Evangel was taking advantage of the public schools. After all, Sixpack has already admitted it and everybody knows Sixpack is always right.
Is it an advantage for a private school to get students from outside their zone? I think I have always been consistent in my answer, which is yes. Especially when we are talking about 1A through 3A (usually rural schools). But I have always argued that it is an offset to an advantage that public schools have.
Every public school has a defined attendance zone that was designed to fill the school. In the example that I gave about Huntington, the Caddo Parish School board designed a zone to fill up Huntington High school and nothing else.
The LHSAA comes along and tells Evangel that the Huntington zone is also the Evangel zone. Does this seem equitable to you? In this case which school would have the advantage? One school has free tuition, free transportation, free lunches, and other free from the taxpayer perks, while the other school does not? Which school has the advantage here?
In order for Evangel to survive with a minimum of 400 students, they would have to get 40% or more of the students who the Caddo School Board assigned to Huntington. Do you think that is likely to happen? Even if it did happen the school board would just change the zone in order to fill Huntington, which is something Evangel has no control over. Which school has the advantage here?
At each juncture a reasonable person would see that the advantages lie with the public school. The only fair way to handle this would be to give the private schools their own zone just like the public schools have. But imagine the uproar if a kid was told they could not play sports unless they went to the private school they were zoned for. Does anyone see a problem there?
Evidently the LHSAA realized the inherent public school advantages too, and allowed private schools to have students from outside their LHSAA designated zones. They set regulations to govern the process (like sit out rules) in order to make it more equitable for the private schools.
I have had no success in getting Sixpack to see this as an offset to the inherent advantages that public schools have, so there is no way you are going to see it. But unlike you, at least I am willing to discuss it and answer your questions, which you oddly think is a "juvenile defense".
Excellent points, but one of the main advantage that public schools have is free tuition I will agree that is a huge advantage for public schools is the free tuition. On the other hand how many students attend private schools that are "sponsored" or on "scholarship" and their tuition is covered by a friend of the program or alumni? I know this happens because I was asked to help cover the tuition of a student at the local private school a few years ago. Yes he was a great kid and he has turned into a great young man, he also just happen to sign a D1 baseball scholarship to a power 5 school. So if this is happening the free tuition point is moot. I remember a few years ago a running back from the public school ran for almost 200 yards and scored 3-4 TDs against the local private school, low and behold the next season he was playing football for the private school. Did his family pay for the tuition or was he sponsored, I honestly dont know, but I do know that a "friend of the program" had a rental house the athlete was living in. If I have a choice to send my child to the local public school or the local private school and the cost is the same, Im going to choose the private school, however if there is $5000-$10000 admission fee involved my child is going public all day.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzy on Aug 20, 2018 9:04:08 GMT -6
A normal public school(non magnet/charter) didn’t have that luxury at the time. Evangel was doing what other schools could not. Sixpack even stated the athletic advantage. I find it amusing when you want to point out other schools doing this when the only school I was inquiring about was Evangel. Seems like an awful juvenile defense system to employ. Oh my gosh ......... you have backed me in the corner and made me admit that Evangel was taking advantage of the public schools. After all, Sixpack has already admitted it and everybody knows Sixpack is always right.
Is it an advantage for a private school to get students from outside their zone? I think I have always been consistent in my answer, which is yes. Especially when we are talking about 1A through 3A (usually rural schools). But I have always argued that it is an offset to an advantage that public schools have.
Every public school has a defined attendance zone that was designed to fill the school. In the example that I gave about Huntington, the Caddo Parish School board designed a zone to fill up Huntington High school and nothing else.
The LHSAA comes along and tells Evangel that the Huntington zone is also the Evangel zone. Does this seem equitable to you? In this case which school would have the advantage? One school has free tuition, free transportation, free lunches, and other free from the taxpayer perks, while the other school does not? Which school has the advantage here?
In order for Evangel to survive with a minimum of 400 students, they would have to get 40% or more of the students who the Caddo School Board assigned to Huntington. Do you think that is likely to happen? Even if it did happen the school board would just change the zone in order to fill Huntington, which is something Evangel has no control over. Which school has the advantage here?
At each juncture a reasonable person would see that the advantages lie with the public school. The only fair way to handle this would be to give the private schools their own zone just like the public schools have. But imagine the uproar if a kid was told they could not play sports unless they went to the private school they were zoned for. Does anyone see a problem there?
Evidently the LHSAA realized the inherent public school advantages too, and allowed private schools to have students from outside their LHSAA designated zones. They set regulations to govern the process (like sit out rules) in order to make it more equitable for the private schools.
I have had no success in getting Sixpack to see this as an offset to the inherent advantages that public schools have, so there is no way you are going to see it. But unlike you, at least I am willing to discuss it and answer your questions, which you oddly think is a "juvenile defense".
BGH, I have to give it to you. This is a great post. I've never understood why private schools have to share a public school attendance zone. There is literally no private school with athletics in the same attendance zone as Captain Shreve. So if a kid from Shreve wanted to go to Calvary, he would have to sit.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Aug 20, 2018 9:09:30 GMT -6
Excellent points, but one of the main advantage that public schools have is free tuition I will agree that is a huge advantage for public schools is the free tuition. On the other hand how many students attend private schools that are "sponsored" or on "scholarship" and their tuition is covered by a friend of the program or alumni? I know this happens because I was asked to help cover the tuition of a student at the local private school a few years ago. Yes he was a great kid and he has turned into a great young man, he also just happen to sign a D1 baseball scholarship to a power 5 school. So if this is happening the free tuition point is moot. I remember a few years ago a running back from the public school ran for almost 200 yards and scored 3-4 TDs against the local private school, low and behold the next season he was playing football for the private school. Did his family pay for the tuition or was he sponsored, I honestly dont know, but I do know that a "friend of the program" had a rental house the athlete was living in. If I have a choice to send my child to the local public school or the local private school and the cost is the same, Im going to choose the private school, however if there is $5000-$10000 admission fee involved my child is going public all day. I’m sure to various degrees you are right, and I’m guessing it is weighted towards bigger cities and bigger schools. The LHSAA let this get out of hand along with zone jumping with both public and private schools
|
|
|
Post by kinder1981 on Aug 20, 2018 10:03:43 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 Its good in theory, but you would be opening up a Pandora's box. Now you're talking about budgets, school space, and possibly transferring decision making power from the local to the state level. I honestly think the best solution is going back to what worked for years. Which is eliminate the split and allow schools to voluntary play up if they chose to do so. It's not perfect, but perfection is impossible at this point.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Aug 20, 2018 10:39:48 GMT -6
Excellent points, but one of the main advantage that public schools have is free tuition I will agree that is a huge advantage for public schools is the free tuition. On the other hand how many students attend private schools that are "sponsored" or on "scholarship" and their tuition is covered by a friend of the program or alumni? I know this happens because I was asked to help cover the tuition of a student at the local private school a few years ago. Yes he was a great kid and he has turned into a great young man, he also just happen to sign a D1 baseball scholarship to a power 5 school. So if this is happening the free tuition point is moot. I remember a few years ago a running back from the public school ran for almost 200 yards and scored 3-4 TDs against the local private school, low and behold the next season he was playing football for the private school. Did his family pay for the tuition or was he sponsored, I honestly dont know, but I do know that a "friend of the program" had a rental house the athlete was living in. If I have a choice to send my child to the local public school or the local private school and the cost is the same, Im going to choose the private school, however if there is $5000-$10000 admission fee involved my child is going public all day. I can't count how many times I have heard that. Does it happen? I am sure it does. Is it as widespread as the private school haters claim? I would say no.
The reason I would say no is because there used to be a rule that limited how much financial help you could give student athletes. If you give 10 % of the athletes financial assistance, then by rule you MUST give 10% of the non-athletes the same financial assistance. If you do no,t you have violated the rules and the LHSAA will come down hard on you as they did Archbishop Shaw many years ago. If I remember correctly Shaw had the percentages right, but the amount they gave to athletes was more than they gave to other students.
So let's say you gave 50% of the athletes financial assistance, you would have to report it to the LHSAA and in turn you would have to give 50% of the non-athletes in the school the same amount of financial assistance. I seriously doubt that there are any private schools that could keep the doors open by doing that. I am not sure how y'all were able to raise money for a certain athlete, but it would seem to be a violation of the rules to me.
It would not become a "moot point" as you said, unless all the students got free tuition. Then the public and private schools would be on more equal footing except the private school would still not have their own zones.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Aug 20, 2018 12:44:18 GMT -6
Oh my gosh ......... you have backed me in the corner and made me admit that Evangel was taking advantage of the public schools. After all, Sixpack has already admitted it and everybody knows Sixpack is always right.
Is it an advantage for a private school to get students from outside their zone? I think I have always been consistent in my answer, which is yes. Especially when we are talking about 1A through 3A (usually rural schools). But I have always argued that it is an offset to an advantage that public schools have.
Every public school has a defined attendance zone that was designed to fill the school. In the example that I gave about Huntington, the Caddo Parish School board designed a zone to fill up Huntington High school and nothing else.
The LHSAA comes along and tells Evangel that the Huntington zone is also the Evangel zone. Does this seem equitable to you? In this case which school would have the advantage? One school has free tuition, free transportation, free lunches, and other free from the taxpayer perks, while the other school does not? Which school has the advantage here?
In order for Evangel to survive with a minimum of 400 students, they would have to get 40% or more of the students who the Caddo School Board assigned to Huntington. Do you think that is likely to happen? Even if it did happen the school board would just change the zone in order to fill Huntington, which is something Evangel has no control over. Which school has the advantage here?
At each juncture a reasonable person would see that the advantages lie with the public school. The only fair way to handle this would be to give the private schools their own zone just like the public schools have. But imagine the uproar if a kid was told they could not play sports unless they went to the private school they were zoned for. Does anyone see a problem there?
Evidently the LHSAA realized the inherent public school advantages too, and allowed private schools to have students from outside their LHSAA designated zones. They set regulations to govern the process (like sit out rules) in order to make it more equitable for the private schools.
I have had no success in getting Sixpack to see this as an offset to the inherent advantages that public schools have, so there is no way you are going to see it. But unlike you, at least I am willing to discuss it and answer your questions, which you oddly think is a "juvenile defense".
BGH, I have to give it to you. This is a great post. I've never understood why private schools have to share a public school attendance zone. There is literally no private school with athletics in the same attendance zone as Captain Shreve. So if a kid from Shreve wanted to go to Calvary, he would have to sit. They only have to share a zone with public schools for athletic purposes. Private schools have no zone for non athletes. They can come from anywhere. The reason they share a zone for athletic purposes is because with absolutely no zone restrictions the private school athletic advantage would be even more unfair. The LHSAA used the sit out rule to make it harder for private schools to just get athletes from anywhere and then use those athletes against public schools that had to get their athletes from within their own zone only.
And back in the early days most all public schools were restricted to getting athletes from within their own zone ONLY. THAT'S why the sit out rule was applied. If anyone wants to say most all public schools were getting athletes from outside their zones back in the days when the LHSAA first initiated the sit out rule then let's handle it the way we handled it when people used to say private schools were cheating. PROVE IT. Otherwise it's nothing but opinion. This discussion was about whether the rules were fair or not back when the rules were first established. Not now, THEN. Public schools may be getting athletes from outside their zone now but it wasn't happening back then. That's why the sit out rule was put into effect and that was the point of my original post. There are less than 40 magnet school programs among the hundreds of LHSAA schools in the state now and back then when private schools were first given shared zones there were fewer than that. Magnet schools were not the problem back then and private schools would have had an even bigger advantage without the sit out rule.
Suppose an outstanding athlete from Calvary (private) back then wanted to play at Parkway (public) but couldn't afford to move out of his home in Calvary's zone. He couldn't play for Parkway period because he lived outside Parkway's zone. But suppose an outstanding athlete from Parkway (public) wanted to play for Calvary (private) and couldn't afford to move out of his home in Parkway's zone. He could enroll at Calvary, remain in his home in Parkway' zone, sit out a year and play. Who has the athletic advantage, Calvary or Parkway?
Evangel shares a zone with Huntington but Huntington is free. Therefore Evangel can't get as many kids from the shared zone as Huntington can. From an athletic standpoint that argument absolutely disintegrates when you consider that Evangel can get athletes from anywhere in Shreveport or anywhere in the state or anywhere in the world just by utilizing the sit out rule. If tuition is supposed to be the big equalizer then how have the successful private programs like ECA and JC always been able to get stud athletes from the poor side of town?? Come on.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Aug 20, 2018 13:31:50 GMT -6
If a family sends their son out of zone to a public school and his tuition is paid by a group of taxpayers any different than them sending their son to an out of zone private school and his tuition is paid by a group of donors? Is the problem who pays? Or zone busting?
|
|
|
Post by fuzzy on Aug 20, 2018 14:01:51 GMT -6
BGH, I have to give it to you. This is a great post. I've never understood why private schools have to share a public school attendance zone. There is literally no private school with athletics in the same attendance zone as Captain Shreve. So if a kid from Shreve wanted to go to Calvary, he would have to sit. They only have to share a zone with public schools for athletic purposes. Private schools have no zone for non athletes. They can come from anywhere. The reason they share a zone for athletic purposes is because with absolutely no zone restrictions the private school athletic advantage would be even more unfair. The LHSAA used the sit out rule to make it harder for private schools to just get athletes from anywhere and then use those athletes against public schools that had to get their athletes from within their own zone only.
And back in the early days most all public schools were restricted to getting athletes from within their own zone ONLY. THAT'S why the sit out rule was applied. If anyone wants to say most all public schools were getting athletes from outside their zones back in the days when the LHSAA first initiated the sit out rule then let's handle it the way we handled it when people used to say private schools were cheating. PROVE IT. Otherwise it's nothing but opinion. This discussion was about whether the rules were fair or not back when the rules were first established. Not now, THEN. Public schools may be getting athletes from outside their zone now but it wasn't happening back then. That's why the sit out rule was put into effect and that was the point of my original post. There are less than 40 magnet school programs among the hundreds of LHSAA schools in the state now and back then when private schools were first given shared zones there were fewer than that. Magnet schools were not the problem back then and private schools would have had an even bigger advantage without the sit out rule.
Suppose an outstanding athlete from Calvary (private) back then wanted to play at Parkway (public) but couldn't afford to move out of his home in Calvary's zone. He couldn't play for Parkway period because he lived outside Parkway's zone. But suppose an outstanding athlete from Parkway (public) wanted to play for Calvary (private) and couldn't afford to move out of his home in Parkway's zone. He could enroll at Calvary, remain in his home in Parkway' zone, sit out a year and play. Who has the athletic advantage, Calvary or Parkway?
Evangel shares a zone with Huntington but Huntington is free. Therefore Evangel can't get as many kids from the shared zone as Huntington can. From an athletic standpoint that argument absolutely disintegrates when you consider that Evangel can get athletes from anywhere in Shreveport or anywhere in the state or anywhere in the world just by utilizing the sit out rule. If tuition is supposed to be the big equalizer then how have the successful private programs like ECA and JC always been able to get stud athletes from the poor side of town?? Come on.Come on bro! Tuition is absolutely the big equalizer. I know countless athletes that would be at Calvary if not for the financial factor. Evangel has other means to get athletes that I won't get into. And like Indy said, whether it's a tax payer or a donor, why does that matter? The more students that attend a private school, the less the burden on the taxpayer! I'll never understand why someone would complain that a donor paid for a kid to go to a private school. Why does that matter?
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Aug 20, 2018 14:15:01 GMT -6
If a family sends their son out of zone to a public school and his tuition is paid by a group of taxpayers any different than them sending their son to an out of zone private school and his tuition is paid by a group of donors? Is the problem who pays? Or zone busting? Tuition at a public school? News to me. But wasn't the thread about athletics?
Back when the LHSAA first came up with the sit out rule to make it harder for private schools to get athletes from anywhere in the world without any restrictions at all, which would you say was the bigger problem for the LHSAA at the time:
1. People sending their athletic kids to public schools outside the zone of the public school they were required by law to attend. (Not possible in the old days)
or
2. People sending their athletic kids to private schools outside the public school they were required by law to attend, sitting our a year at the private school and playing sports. (Very possible in the old days)
From an athletic standpoint the problem in the old days was zone busting. Back then privates could zone bust by using the sit out rule. Publics couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Aug 20, 2018 14:17:13 GMT -6
They only have to share a zone with public schools for athletic purposes. Private schools have no zone for non athletes. They can come from anywhere. The reason they share a zone for athletic purposes is because with absolutely no zone restrictions the private school athletic advantage would be even more unfair. The LHSAA used the sit out rule to make it harder for private schools to just get athletes from anywhere and then use those athletes against public schools that had to get their athletes from within their own zone only.
And back in the early days most all public schools were restricted to getting athletes from within their own zone ONLY. THAT'S why the sit out rule was applied. If anyone wants to say most all public schools were getting athletes from outside their zones back in the days when the LHSAA first initiated the sit out rule then let's handle it the way we handled it when people used to say private schools were cheating. PROVE IT. Otherwise it's nothing but opinion. This discussion was about whether the rules were fair or not back when the rules were first established. Not now, THEN. Public schools may be getting athletes from outside their zone now but it wasn't happening back then. That's why the sit out rule was put into effect and that was the point of my original post. There are less than 40 magnet school programs among the hundreds of LHSAA schools in the state now and back then when private schools were first given shared zones there were fewer than that. Magnet schools were not the problem back then and private schools would have had an even bigger advantage without the sit out rule.
Suppose an outstanding athlete from Calvary (private) back then wanted to play at Parkway (public) but couldn't afford to move out of his home in Calvary's zone. He couldn't play for Parkway period because he lived outside Parkway's zone. But suppose an outstanding athlete from Parkway (public) wanted to play for Calvary (private) and couldn't afford to move out of his home in Parkway's zone. He could enroll at Calvary, remain in his home in Parkway' zone, sit out a year and play. Who has the athletic advantage, Calvary or Parkway?
Evangel shares a zone with Huntington but Huntington is free. Therefore Evangel can't get as many kids from the shared zone as Huntington can. From an athletic standpoint that argument absolutely disintegrates when you consider that Evangel can get athletes from anywhere in Shreveport or anywhere in the state or anywhere in the world just by utilizing the sit out rule. If tuition is supposed to be the big equalizer then how have the successful private programs like ECA and JC always been able to get stud athletes from the poor side of town?? Come on. Come on bro! Tuition is absolutely the big equalizer. I know countless athletes that would be at Calvary if not for the financial factor. Evangel has other means to get athletes that I won't get into. And like Indy said, whether it's a tax payer or a donor, why does that matter? The more students that attend a private school, the less the burden on the taxpayer! I'll never understand why someone would complain that a donor paid for a kid to go to a private school. Why does that matter? I would think it would matter because now the private school has no boundaries and the kids are attending for free (the athletes family is not having to pay for it). So now the private school can literally get an athlete from anywhere in the state, and possibly across state lines, and tuition is not a factor because someone else pays for it. Id like to see a chart that displays where anyone who signed a D1 scholarship (pubic and private) within the past 5 years listed their hometown as compared to where they went to school. It be interesting to see how far they drive and how many schools they drive by on a daily basis.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Aug 20, 2018 14:30:53 GMT -6
Come on bro! Tuition is absolutely the big equalizer. I know countless athletes that would be at Calvary if not for the financial factor. Evangel has other means to get athletes that I won't get into. And like Indy said, whether it's a tax payer or a donor, why does that matter? The more students that attend a private school, the less the burden on the taxpayer! I'll never understand why someone would complain that a donor paid for a kid to go to a private school. Why does that matter? I would think it would matter because now the private school has no boundaries and the kids are attending for free (the athletes family is not having to pay for it). So now the private school can literally get an athlete from anywhere in the state, and possibly across state lines, and tuition is not a factor because someone else pays for it. Id like to see a chart that displays where anyone who signed a D1 scholarship (pubic and private) within the past 5 years listed their hometown as compared to where they went to school. It be interesting to see how far they drive and how many schools they drive by on a daily basis. I’d like to see a chart whether they went to a public or private school and the ratio between them. I’d bet public wins easily.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Aug 20, 2018 14:42:59 GMT -6
I don't care who pays the tuition. It makes no difference whether the state pays it for a public school athlete or whether some donor pays it for a private school athlete. The point is whether private school tuition makes the playing field level for privates and publics. Common sense says it does not. If I gave you all day you probably couldn't name all the state titles and D-1 athletes the state's most successful private schools have produced. Are you saying they did all that with absolutely no help at all from athletes who lived outside the zone and whose families couldn't afford tuition? They got on the field somehow didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Aug 20, 2018 15:11:35 GMT -6
I would think it would matter because now the private school has no boundaries and the kids are attending for free (the athletes family is not having to pay for it). So now the private school can literally get an athlete from anywhere in the state, and possibly across state lines, and tuition is not a factor because someone else pays for it. Id like to see a chart that displays where anyone who signed a D1 scholarship (pubic and private) within the past 5 years listed their hometown as compared to where they went to school. It be interesting to see how far they drive and how many schools they drive by on a daily basis. I’d like to see a chart whether they went to a public or private school and the ratio between them. I’d bet public wins easily. Im sure there are more public kids sign to play D1, there are more public schools and players. I do know that about 10 years ago Evangel signed 11 D1 scholarships off one team and they were playing and destroying 2A football (they were forced to play there). Im sure Curtis signs around 4 or 5 a year.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Aug 20, 2018 15:27:06 GMT -6
BGH, I have to give it to you. This is a great post. I've never understood why private schools have to share a public school attendance zone. There is literally no private school with athletics in the same attendance zone as Captain Shreve. So if a kid from Shreve wanted to go to Calvary, he would have to sit. They only have to share a zone with public schools for athletic purposes. Private schools have no zone for non athletes. They can come from anywhere. The reason they share a zone for athletic purposes is because with absolutely no zone restrictions the private school athletic advantage would be even more unfair. The LHSAA used the sit out rule to make it harder for private schools to just get athletes from anywhere and then use those athletes against public schools that had to get their athletes from within their own zone only.
And back in the early days most all public schools were restricted to getting athletes from within their own zone ONLY. THAT'S why the sit out rule was applied. If anyone wants to say most all public schools were getting athletes from outside their zones back in the days when the LHSAA first initiated the sit out rule then let's handle it the way we handled it when people used to say private schools were cheating. PROVE IT. Otherwise it's nothing but opinion. This discussion was about whether the rules were fair or not back when the rules were first established. Not now, THEN. Public schools may be getting athletes from outside their zone now but it wasn't happening back then. That's why the sit out rule was put into effect and that was the point of my original post. There are less than 40 magnet school programs among the hundreds of LHSAA schools in the state now and back then when private schools were first given shared zones there were fewer than that. Magnet schools were not the problem back then and private schools would have had an even bigger advantage without the sit out rule.
Suppose an outstanding athlete from Calvary (private) back then wanted to play at Parkway (public) but couldn't afford to move out of his home in Calvary's zone. He couldn't play for Parkway period because he lived outside Parkway's zone. But suppose an outstanding athlete from Parkway (public) wanted to play for Calvary (private) and couldn't afford to move out of his home in Parkway's zone. He could enroll at Calvary, remain in his home in Parkway' zone, sit out a year and play. Who has the athletic advantage, Calvary or Parkway?
Evangel shares a zone with Huntington but Huntington is free. Therefore Evangel can't get as many kids from the shared zone as Huntington can. From an athletic standpoint that argument absolutely disintegrates when you consider that Evangel can get athletes from anywhere in Shreveport or anywhere in the state or anywhere in the world just by utilizing the sit out rule. If tuition is supposed to be the big equalizer then how have the successful private programs like ECA and JC always been able to get stud athletes from the poor side of town?? Come on. Dang Sixpack, I don't mind red but all BOLD RED hurts my eyes.
They only have to share a zone with public schools for athletic purposes. Private schools have no zone for non athletes. They can come from anywhere.
You are correct about the zone being for athletes only. The example I gave of Evangel needing to get 40% of Huntington's students was just to get people thinking. To be accurate I should have used just athletes instead of students, but the same theory still applies so since this is a football board lets just use football players for example.
The Caddo Parish School board designed an attendance zone that has one purpose, to fill Huntington High School. You would expect that a proportion of those students would be candidates for the football team. For the sake of argument lets say the average 4A school has 75 football players. We know from past experience that Evangel is not going to get even 25% of those players. But if Evangel did get 25%, how in the world are they going to compete with 18 football players? By the way, leaving Huntington with only 57 players would hamper them too.
The reason they share a zone for athletic purposes is because with absolutely no zone restrictions the private school athletic advantage would be even more unfair. The LHSAA used the sit out rule to make it harder for private schools to just get athletes from anywhere and then use those athletes against public schools that had to get their athletes from within their own zone only.
I don't disagree with this, but the key is that if you restrict private schools to sharing a zone with a public school you would make them noncompetitive. That is why I have always maintained that the rules were designed to offset the advantages that publics or privates would have over the other.
And back in the early days most all public schools were restricted to getting athletes from within their own zone ONLY. THAT'S why the sit out rule was applied. If anyone wants to say most all public schools were getting athletes from outside their zones back in the days when the LHSAA first initiated the sit out rule then let's handle it the way we handled it when people used to say private schools were cheating. PROVE IT.
I am not sure how this shifted to the old days. What time frame do you want to talk about? I don't recall mentioning anything about magnets in this discussion. I know that you have admitted before the you did not realize how many magnet programs there were in just Shreveport.
Suppose an outstanding athlete from Calvary (private) back then wanted to play at Parkway (public) but couldn't afford to move out of his home in Calvary's zone. He couldn't play for Parkway period because he lived outside Parkway's zone. But suppose an outstanding athlete from Parkway (public) wanted to play for Calvary (private) and couldn't afford to move out of his home in Parkway's zone. He could enroll at Calvary, remain in his home in Parkway' zone, sit out a year and play. Who has the athletic advantage, Calvary or Parkway?
You conveniently left out a few key elements. Losing a year of eligibility would be a deterrent for any athlete, and for a family that you say can't afford a move, the tuition at Calvary would be a roadblock and the free tuition at Parkway would be an enticement to stay there.
Evangel shares a zone with Huntington but Huntington is free. Therefore Evangel can't get as many kids from the shared zone as Huntington can.
I agree with that.
From an athletic standpoint that argument absolutely disintegrates when you consider that Evangel can get athletes from anywhere in Shreveport or anywhere in the state or anywhere in the world just by utilizing the sit out rule. Are you proposing that private should only get athletes from their LHSAA designated zone? You would consider that fair?
If tuition is supposed to be the big equalizer then how have the successful private programs like ECA and JC always been able to get stud athletes from the poor side of town?? Come on.
Surely you are not maintaining that poor kids should stick in the poor schools where the government tells them they belong.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Aug 20, 2018 15:30:53 GMT -6
I’d like to see a chart whether they went to a public or private school and the ratio between them. I’d bet public wins easily. Im sure there are more public kids sign to play D1, there are more public schools and players. I do know that about 10 years ago Evangel signed 11 D1 scholarships off one team and they were playing and destroying 2A football (they were forced to play there). Im sure Curtis signs around 4 or 5 a year. Those two schools definitely distort the numbers, but even with them, on a per capita ratio I’d bet more public schools sign D1 players than private.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Aug 20, 2018 20:34:07 GMT -6
They only have to share a zone with public schools for athletic purposes. Private schools have no zone for non athletes. They can come from anywhere. The reason they share a zone for athletic purposes is because with absolutely no zone restrictions the private school athletic advantage would be even more unfair. The LHSAA used the sit out rule to make it harder for private schools to just get athletes from anywhere and then use those athletes against public schools that had to get their athletes from within their own zone only.
And back in the early days most all public schools were restricted to getting athletes from within their own zone ONLY. THAT'S why the sit out rule was applied. If anyone wants to say most all public schools were getting athletes from outside their zones back in the days when the LHSAA first initiated the sit out rule then let's handle it the way we handled it when people used to say private schools were cheating. PROVE IT. Otherwise it's nothing but opinion. This discussion was about whether the rules were fair or not back when the rules were first established. Not now, THEN. Public schools may be getting athletes from outside their zone now but it wasn't happening back then. That's why the sit out rule was put into effect and that was the point of my original post. There are less than 40 magnet school programs among the hundreds of LHSAA schools in the state now and back then when private schools were first given shared zones there were fewer than that. Magnet schools were not the problem back then and private schools would have had an even bigger advantage without the sit out rule.
Suppose an outstanding athlete from Calvary (private) back then wanted to play at Parkway (public) but couldn't afford to move out of his home in Calvary's zone. He couldn't play for Parkway period because he lived outside Parkway's zone. But suppose an outstanding athlete from Parkway (public) wanted to play for Calvary (private) and couldn't afford to move out of his home in Parkway's zone. He could enroll at Calvary, remain in his home in Parkway' zone, sit out a year and play. Who has the athletic advantage, Calvary or Parkway?
Dang Sixpack, I don't mind red but all BOLD RED hurts my eyes.
I like the contrast. And I am too old to change. Sound familiar?
You are correct about the zone being for athletes only. The example I gave of Evangel needing to get 40% of Huntington's students was just to get people thinking. To be accurate I should have used just athletes instead of students, but the same theory still applies so since this is a football board lets just use football players for example.
OK
The Caddo Parish School board designed an attendance zone that has one purpose, to fill Huntington High School. You would expect that a proportion of those students would be candidates for the football team. For the sake of argument lets say the average 4A school has 75 football players. We know from past experience that Evangel is not going to get even 25% of those players. But if Evangel did get 25%, how in the world are they going to compete with 18 football players? By the way, leaving Huntington with only 57 players would hamper them too.
Athletic participation is not necessarily based on average school enrollment. You can't say how many athletes Evangel is going to get based on the number of athletes at Huntington any more than you can say how many A students Evangel will get from the zone based on the number of A students at Huntington. It doesn't necessarily work that way. Evangel may even get more good athletes from within the zone than Huntington because of the Eagles success. And Evangel doesn't even need to depend on Huntington athletes because Evangel can get athletes from anywhere by utilizing the sit out rule which other public schools could not do back when the sit out rule was first applied by the LHSAA. That is the point of my original post.
I don't disagree with this, but the key is that if you restrict private schools to sharing a zone with a public school you would make them noncompetitive. That is why I have always maintained that the rules were designed to offset the advantages that publics or privates would have over the other. I agree. No private school could compete if all they had was a shared zone with a public school. But they have far more than that. They have the capability to get athletes from anywhere in the state or even from other states if the athlete is willing to sit for a year. And sitting out a year would not be too much for a D-1 type athlete stuck at some non competitive school somewhere else. Public schools back when the sit out rule was originated could not offer that athlete the same thing. That's the reason for the rule.
I am not sure how this shifted to the old days. What time frame do you want to talk about? I don't recall mentioning anything about magnets in this discussion. I know that you have admitted before the you did not realize how many magnet programs there were in just Shreveport.
It hasn't shifted from my perspective. My original post about the rules was to point out that the sit out rule was necessary back in the old days because public schools back then were not able to use athletes from outside their zones the way privates schools could do then and the way many public schools can do now. There are far more magnets now than there were then.
You conveniently left out a few key elements. Losing a year of eligibility would be a deterrent for any athlete, and for a family that you say can't afford a move, the tuition at Calvary would be a roadblock and the free tuition at Parkway would be an enticement to stay there.
I don't disagree. But Evangel and Curtis have both had sit out athletes. I don't know how many but they have had them so obviously it didn't deter them. I am not even sure you and I disagree. Are you saying public schools have an athletic advantage because of the rules or that the rules make things even or what? Who do you think has the advantage because of the existing LHSAA rules? I don't think the rules give public schools an advantage.
Are you proposing that private should only get athletes from their LHSAA designated zone? You would consider that fair?
No. I am proposing that the sit out rule is necessary to offset a private school's ability to get athletes from anywhere. Are you proposing that private schools should be able to get athletes from anywhere and have them be able to play immediately with no sit out rule even though public schools can't do the same? You would consider that fair?
Surely you are not maintaining that poor kids should stick in the poor schools where the government tells them they belong.
As John Wayne once said, "you remind me of me". What I am maintaining is that if poor stud all state type athletes from outside a private school's LHSAA mandated zone end up playing football or some other sport at the private school that they find a way to pay their own tuition AND move into the private school's zone OR sit out a year to help level the athletic playing field with public schools. Is that unreasonable?
|
|
|
Post by retired on Aug 20, 2018 22:03:18 GMT -6
Sixpack and BGH one thing to keep in mind however, is that the "sit out" rule doesn't really affect too many athletes at schools such as JC or ECA because those athletes often choose to attend those schools as Frosh (or earlier) and not many freshmen are impact players at higher performing schools.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Aug 21, 2018 13:00:24 GMT -6
Sixpack and BGH one thing to keep in mind however, is that the "sit out" rule doesn't really affect too many athletes at schools such as JC or ECA because those athletes often choose to attend those schools as Frosh (or earlier) and not many freshmen are impact players at higher performing schools. Do the rules allow students to live out of zone and attend ECA and JC as frosh or earlier? And, if so, can they continue living out of zone as sopres, juniors and seniors? Because that would just be a way of getting around the sit out rule. That would have made the field even more unlevel for public school athletes back before the split because at that time publics, except in some unusual cases, did not allow out of zone students no matter what grade they were in.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Aug 21, 2018 18:10:39 GMT -6
Sixpack and BGH one thing to keep in mind however, is that the "sit out" rule doesn't really affect too many athletes at schools such as JC or ECA because those athletes often choose to attend those schools as Frosh (or earlier) and not many freshmen are impact players at higher performing schools. Do the rules allow students to live out of zone and attend ECA and JC as frosh or earlier? And, if so, can they continue living out of zone as sopres, juniors and seniors? Because that would just be a way of getting around the sit out rule. That would have made the field even more unlevel for public school athletes back before the split because at that time publics, except in some unusual cases, did not allow out of zone students no matter what grade they were in. Yes, I was agreeing with you that even with the "sit one year" rule, the public schools were often at a disadvantage regarding these situations. Curtis and ECA are a little different because they are K-12 schools so kids could attend there before official "high school" Once the legislature passed the law that said kids who attended parochial schools could not be considered ineligible if they continued their parochial education in HS, it really didn't matter. However, my major point was that at the schools everyone considers "power houses", and complain about, that Kid probably isn't playing on Friday Nights that freshman year.
|
|
|
Post by django on Aug 23, 2018 8:24:19 GMT -6
A normal public school(non magnet/charter) didn’t have that luxury at the time. Evangel was doing what other schools could not. Sixpack even stated the athletic advantage. I find it amusing when you want to point out other schools doing this when the only school I was inquiring about was Evangel. Seems like an awful juvenile defense system to employ. Oh my gosh ......... you have backed me in the corner and made me admit that Evangel was taking advantage of the public schools. After all, Sixpack has already admitted it and everybody knows Sixpack is always right.
Is it an advantage for a private school to get students from outside their zone? I think I have always been consistent in my answer, which is yes. Especially when we are talking about 1A through 3A (usually rural schools). But I have always argued that it is an offset to an advantage that public schools have.
Every public school has a defined attendance zone that was designed to fill the school. In the example that I gave about Huntington, the Caddo Parish School board designed a zone to fill up Huntington High school and nothing else.
The LHSAA comes along and tells Evangel that the Huntington zone is also the Evangel zone. Does this seem equitable to you? In this case which school would have the advantage? One school has free tuition, free transportation, free lunches, and other free from the taxpayer perks, while the other school does not? Which school has the advantage here?
In order for Evangel to survive with a minimum of 400 students, they would have to get 40% or more of the students who the Caddo School Board assigned to Huntington. Do you think that is likely to happen? Even if it did happen the school board would just change the zone in order to fill Huntington, which is something Evangel has no control over. Which school has the advantage here?
At each juncture a reasonable person would see that the advantages lie with the public school. The only fair way to handle this would be to give the private schools their own zone just like the public schools have. But imagine the uproar if a kid was told they could not play sports unless they went to the private school they were zoned for. Does anyone see a problem there?
Evidently the LHSAA realized the inherent public school advantages too, and allowed private schools to have students from outside their LHSAA designated zones. They set regulations to govern the process (like sit out rules) in order to make it more equitable for the private schools.
I have had no success in getting Sixpack to see this as an offset to the inherent advantages that public schools have, so there is no way you are going to see it. But unlike you, at least I am willing to discuss it and answer your questions, which you oddly think is a "juvenile defense".
You know, businesses close all the time. I don’t believe we moan and cry years later about how more customers should have come in & patronized. Yet in this instance, a privately owned BUSINESS is operating, and you want for the state to make it equitable. What industry does that happen in?? Does McDonalds try to get their own area separate of Burger King?? No. They set up & do business. Of course, your plea for equity would look a whole lot more realistic if, at the time, roughly a quarter of the TOTAL student population wasn’t a member of the football team. Also, tell me about your special education program that was offered so that you could gain additional students/revenue that were cognitively handicapped. Evangel is a business; it is privately owned. Why should it be treated any differently than any other business?
|
|
|
Post by cvwildcatfan on Aug 24, 2018 8:57:03 GMT -6
anyone know how the north desoto kids who transferred to Many, Northwood, and Southwood are doing?
|
|
|
Post by fuzzy on Aug 24, 2018 9:00:38 GMT -6
anyone know how the north desoto kids who transferred to Many, Northwood, and Southwood are doing? LOL. I can't believe why the kid transferred from North Desoto to Northwood. Was told Coach Ab made the kid quit or leave because he was wearing a calvary shirt while working out on his own time during the summer.
|
|
|
Post by TC_Cant_Hang on Aug 24, 2018 12:00:04 GMT -6
Perhaps Griffinfan will grace us with his presence to shed some light on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzy on Aug 24, 2018 15:20:31 GMT -6
Perhaps Griffinfan will grace us with his presence to shed some light on the issue. I'm just saying what the kid told me at a 7 on 7 tournament. I think quite a few people know what's going on at North Desoto
|
|
|
Post by Griffinfan on Aug 26, 2018 17:06:43 GMT -6
Perhaps Griffinfan will grace us with his presence to shed some light on the issue. I'm just saying what the kid told me at a 7 on 7 tournament. I think quite a few people know what's going on at North Desoto Uh-huh..Ok, fuzzy, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you. Keep your bull crap to yourself. Ab isn't that thin-skinned. We have kids transfer from and to ND.
|
|
|
Post by indy on Aug 26, 2018 17:15:09 GMT -6
I'm just saying what the kid told me at a 7 on 7 tournament. I think quite a few people know what's going on at North Desoto Uh-huh..Ok, fuzzy, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you. Keep your bull crap to yourself. Ab isn't that thin-skinned. We have kids transfer from and to ND. Y’all must have a full time check in/ check out person like at a hotel on staff?
|
|
|
Post by Griffinfan on Aug 26, 2018 17:38:10 GMT -6
Uh-huh..Ok, fuzzy, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you. Keep your bull crap to yourself. Ab isn't that thin-skinned. We have kids transfer from and to ND. Y’all must have a full time check in/ check out person like at a hotel on staff? hahahaha You got it, my friend! How've you been?
|
|