|
Post by eag on May 13, 2016 19:50:41 GMT -6
To respond to these-- the only way to move up under the system proposed is to have inordinate success. As written it would be 2 successive dome trips. That isn't a factor of 1 good class but of s team beginning to outclass its peers.
I'm fine to have the criteria rewritten in any way you'd like.
Also it is sport specific.
My own personal modification suggestion would be to have all moved up teams evaluated at year end. You got moved up and failed to win a playoff game you drop back down. That would be a very quick meeting and very easy to do. But even if that's too much with district schedules and such, a team like mentioned above would have those younger classes having been to the dome at least one time. Really no other way to move up that is very likely. They would have dominated the class for a couple of years, not just been good. That program won't likely be killed by an upward move - maybe even enhanced.
You certainly won't kill them any more than the current split will kill weaker private programs by measuring them vs JC every single year. But nobody seems to want to fix that.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 17, 2016 10:54:14 GMT -6
Forcing a team up sounds good and easy but to me has serious problems. First is why punish the whole school. A team might be great in one sport and suck a another. Second and I'll use kinder. Why punish the football program for doing things right. They have an obviously good coaching staff, great kids that work hard and buy into the program. They have a great alumni, town, and fan support. They in a district with long time rivals. So punish them for being good and reward a team down for all the oppisite reasons? Doesn't make sense. Let's take Cecelia, they just unloaded a mediocre coach at best. Now they got a new coach and staff and let's say they do everything above that kinder does and brings Cecelia back to the top where they use to and should be. Now punish them? I don't see it. To me a formula would have to include population. Allen parish has 25k people, subdivisions in Nola, BR, Shreveport, and Monroe have that many people. if kinder draws the best of the best from a parish with 25k Notre Dame with 65k and Calvery with 250k, there is your problem. But don't penalize for hard work and good coaches.indy What you are talking about is the rural/metro plan, or at least part of it. This wasn't voted on in Jan., at least I think it was pulled after the split in all major sports was passed. You aren't penalizing a team for hard work and good coaches, you are moving them up for better competition after dominating for at least 2 years. After 2 years (next re-classification) if they aren't making at least a certain score then they will be moved back down. This will help not completely fix balancing the competitive advantage any school public or private has.
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 17, 2016 11:17:05 GMT -6
Forcing a team up sounds good and easy but to me has serious problems. First is why punish the whole school. A team might be great in one sport and suck a another. Second and I'll use kinder. Why punish the football program for doing things right. They have an obviously good coaching staff, great kids that work hard and buy into the program. They have a great alumni, town, and fan support. They in a district with long time rivals. So punish them for being good and reward a team down for all the oppisite reasons? Doesn't make sense. Let's take Cecelia, they just unloaded a mediocre coach at best. Now they got a new coach and staff and let's say they do everything above that kinder does and brings Cecelia back to the top where they use to and should be. Now punish them? I don't see it. To me a formula would have to include population. Allen parish has 25k people, subdivisions in Nola, BR, Shreveport, and Monroe have that many people. if kinder draws the best of the best from a parish with 25k Notre Dame with 65k and Calvery with 250k, there is your problem. But don't penalize for hard work and good coaches.indy What you are talking about is the rural/metro plan, or at least part of it. This wasn't voted on in Jan., at least I think it was pulled after the split in all major sports was passed. You aren't penalizing a team for hard work and good coaches, you are moving them up for better competition after dominating for at least 2 years. After 2 years (next re-classification) if they aren't making at least a certain score then they will be moved back down. This will help not completely fix balancing the competitive advantage any school public or private has. I just don't like the idea of moving a team automatically if they win. Maybe over a long period of time it would be ok if it were on a sport by sport basis. Some want a success formula and some want a multiplier for privates, all good but I think an area population should be considered as well. I'm not a big fan of metro/rural but if you put a multiplier based on population it could nutralize an advantage Calvery has over Kinder or Nevelle over Cecelia.
|
|
|
Post by btown on May 17, 2016 11:22:57 GMT -6
indy What you are talking about is the rural/metro plan, or at least part of it. This wasn't voted on in Jan., at least I think it was pulled after the split in all major sports was passed. You aren't penalizing a team for hard work and good coaches, you are moving them up for better competition after dominating for at least 2 years. After 2 years (next re-classification) if they aren't making at least a certain score then they will be moved back down. This will help not completely fix balancing the competitive advantage any school public or private has. I just don't like the idea of moving a team automatically if they win. Maybe over a long period of time it would be ok if it were on a sport by sport basis. Some want a success formula and some want a multiplier for privates, all good but I think an area population should be considered as well. I'm not a big fan of metro/rural but if you put a multiplier based on population it could nutralize an advantage Calvery has over Kinder or Nevelle over Cecelia. I agree with you about teams automatically moving up when they win. To me that is where a competition committee comes in. You have to look at the program as a hole. May have a strong Junior class that cares the team the first year, then cares the team the second year as Senior, but nothing coming up in a Soph. or Freshman class.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 17, 2016 11:26:06 GMT -6
I just don't like the idea of moving a team automatically if they win. Maybe over a long period of time it would be ok if it were on a sport by sport basis. Some want a success formula and some want a multiplier for privates, all good but I think an area population should be considered as well. I'm not a big fan of metro/rural but if you put a multiplier based on population it could nutralize an advantage Calvery has over Kinder or Nevelle over Cecelia.
I understand what you are saying about moving a team up, but they would have been dominating their class for 2 years to get to the number of points to move up. The teams that get moved up would be evaluated at the next re-classification meeting to see if they stay up or move back down. It is on a sport by sport basis, at least the Indiana model is. A multiplier for the metro teams both private & public might work, just not sure what criteria you will use to decide who has the advantage (population) and who doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 17, 2016 11:30:20 GMT -6
I just don't like the idea of moving a team automatically if they win. Maybe over a long period of time it would be ok if it were on a sport by sport basis. Some want a success formula and some want a multiplier for privates, all good but I think an area population should be considered as well. I'm not a big fan of metro/rural but if you put a multiplier based on population it could nutralize an advantage Calvery has over Kinder or Nevelle over Cecelia. I agree with you about teams automatically moving up when they win. To me that is where a competition committee comes in. You have to look at the program as a hole. May have a strong Junior class that cares the team the first year, then cares the team the second year as Senior, but nothing coming up in a Soph. or Freshman class. This is why it would be evaluated at each re-classification meeting (Indiana model). You can put in an appeals process, but remember then you have to abide by the committees decision. Already we argue that the LHSAA doesn't do a good job on bona fide moves as an example. Personal opinions by differ or be clouded by a bias either for or against that school. All the Indiana model does is take out the human element or bias that may or may not be present and relies on numbers.
|
|
|
Post by eag on May 17, 2016 13:04:50 GMT -6
Yes, I agree they voted it down and agree that some type of committee is needed. I do like that the plan that started this thread does most of the work for this committee. Anyone can develope a list of what the committee would look at. Most teams you can look and tell what years they will be top performance and what years they want. You cannot just say ok you won the state championship the last two years you go up. Might not have any talent coming up. In other words, first year had a great Sr., Jr. and Soph class. The Jr. class being your strength. Next year great Sr. and Jr. class, Soph and Fresh are small and not talented. The third year that you would move them up the Sr. class is all have not enough supporting talent. Being moved up 2 years and to get beat up bad for two years could destroy a program. I get this in theory, but can't really think of any real- life examples. Can you name any teams that went to the Dome 2 years running then became 5-5? I can't think of any. The thing I like about Indiana's plan is it doesn't move good teams, it moves dominant ( i.e. Outlier) teams. Also, if a team such as you described did come to pass, look at it closely. A freshman on the year 1 team would have been to the Dome as a freshman and sopre, then get moved up one class. Under my personal proposal if he didn't win a playoff game as a junior he would move back down, but even if the model was unchanged he'd have played in the finals 2 out of 4 years. No way that can be seen as an unsuccessful run, and no way that kills a program.
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 17, 2016 13:23:43 GMT -6
Anyone can develope a list of what the committee would look at. Most teams you can look and tell what years they will be top performance and what years they want. You cannot just say ok you won the state championship the last two years you go up. Might not have any talent coming up. In other words, first year had a great Sr., Jr. and Soph class. The Jr. class being your strength. Next year great Sr. and Jr. class, Soph and Fresh are small and not talented. The third year that you would move them up the Sr. class is all have not enough supporting talent. Being moved up 2 years and to get beat up bad for two years could destroy a program. I get this in theory, but can't really think of any real- life examples. Can you name any teams that went to the Dome 2 years running then became 5-5? I can't think of any. The thing I like about Indiana's plan is it doesn't move good teams, it moves dominant ( i.e. Outlier) teams. Also, if a team such as you described did come to pass, look at it closely. A freshman on the year 1 team would have been to the Dome as a freshman and sopre, then get moved up one class. Under my personal proposal if he didn't win a playoff game as a junior he would move back down, but even if the model was unchanged he'd have played in the finals 2 out of 4 years. No way that can be seen as an unsuccessful run, and no way that kills a program. If Acadiana wins the next 4 or 5 state titles in a row where do you move them? If Bigbobs imaginary teams keeps losing all the way down to 1a, where do you move them? Name any 3a public school that can compete with Nevelle or Karr? How imbarressing is it gonna be for Church Point to get skull drug by Haynesville in the first round?
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 17, 2016 13:41:15 GMT -6
The Coach should also be able to present to the committee why they should not be moved up. A appeal process. Ok with appeals process just remember..... This is why it would be evaluated at each re-classification meeting (Indiana model). You can put in an appeals process, but remember then you have to abide by the committees decision. Already we argue that the LHSAA doesn't do a good job on bona fide moves as an example. Personal opinions may differ or be clouded by a bias either for or against that school. All the Indiana model does is take out the human element or bias that may or may not be present and relies on numbers. I personally prefer a formula over the committee only for the reason above. If everyone agreed to end the split or improve it somehow without the formula but with the committee that's fine with me. I only worry that the competition committee will then become the "Pink Elephant" in the room when it comes to public vs private schools and fans.
|
|
|
Post by eag on May 17, 2016 14:52:45 GMT -6
I get this in theory, but can't really think of any real- life examples. Can you name any teams that went to the Dome 2 years running then became 5-5? I can't think of any. The thing I like about Indiana's plan is it doesn't move good teams, it moves dominant ( i.e. Outlier) teams. Also, if a team such as you described did come to pass, look at it closely. A freshman on the year 1 team would have been to the Dome as a freshman and sopre, then get moved up one class. Under my personal proposal if he didn't win a playoff game as a junior he would move back down, but even if the model was unchanged he'd have played in the finals 2 out of 4 years. No way that can be seen as an unsuccessful run, and no way that kills a program. If Acadiana wins the next 4 or 5 state titles in a row where do you move them? If Bigbobs imaginary teams keeps losing all the way down to 1a, where do you move them? Name any 3a public school that can compete with Nevelle or Karr? How imbarressing is it gonna be for Church Point to get skull drug by Haynesville in the first round? In any system, including the current split, you will never be able to move a team who dominates the largest/ best class or fails terribly in the smallest/ weakest class. That is just the reality and is common to any classification system ( or even just a complete, no classes at all, free-for-all). But, it would be very very hard to consistently dominate a 5A class.
|
|
|
Post by btown on May 18, 2016 6:41:40 GMT -6
The Coach should also be able to present to the committee why they should not be moved up. A appeal process. Ok with appeals process just remember..... This is why it would be evaluated at each re-classification meeting (Indiana model). You can put in an appeals process, but remember then you have to abide by the committees decision. Already we argue that the LHSAA doesn't do a good job on bona fide moves as an example. Personal opinions may differ or be clouded by a bias either for or against that school. All the Indiana model does is take out the human element or bias that may or may not be present and relies on numbers. I personally prefer a formula over the committee only for the reason above. If everyone agreed to end the split or improve it somehow without the formula but with the committee that's fine with me. I only worry that the competition committee will then become the "Pink Elephant" in the room when it comes to public vs private schools and fans. I agree about the formula, but I think you need a committee for appeals. Still think pushing a school that has no talent coming up could destroy a program, so they would need to appeal. Yes we won the last two years, come evaluate my program and see If I am going to have the same success the next two years. It might work in large classes, but in 1a and 2A it could hurt those programs.
|
|
|
Post by eag on May 18, 2016 7:07:47 GMT -6
Not trying to be argumentative, genuinely curious. Are you saying that a program who has won 2 successive state championships would be destroyed by, say, making the playoffs as a bottom seed and failing to win a game, or even going 6-4 or something, in only 2 years? ( In all honesty it likely wouldn't even be that bad. Good programs tend to outperform their talent). Destroyed, to me, means no one coming to games, dwindling participation, etc.
I ask because if a proud program can be DESTROYED by 2 years of not making a playoff run, then what in the world is the split going to do to mid-level private schools that must now compete in playoffs way over their competitive ability every single year, forever?
All that said, I'm not against a committee. It just needs to have a role that clearly states it is to identify and correct egregious failures of the metric.
|
|
|
Post by btown on May 18, 2016 7:19:03 GMT -6
Not trying to be argumentative, genuinely curious. Are you saying that a program who has won 2 successive state championships would be destroyed by, say, making the playoffs as a bottom seed and failing to win a game, or even going 6-4 or something, in only 2 years? ( In all honesty it likely wouldn't even be that bad. Good programs tend to outperform their talent). Destroyed, to me, means no one coming to games, dwindling participation, etc. I ask because if a proud program can be DESTROYED by 2 years of not making a playoff run, then what in the world is the split going to do to mid-level private schools that must now compete in playoffs way over their competitive ability every single year, forever? All that said, I'm not against a committee. It just needs to have a role that clearly states it is to identify and correct egregious failures of the metric. Just bouncing ideas and thoughts. Just have seen small schools just not have any talent coming up, not even have the male athletes coming up. Just need to have some type of appeal a coach can go to. These types of granted appeals would probably be for and few, but need to be available for a coach.
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 18, 2016 7:35:21 GMT -6
Not trying to be argumentative, genuinely curious. Are you saying that a program who has won 2 successive state championships would be destroyed by, say, making the playoffs as a bottom seed and failing to win a game, or even going 6-4 or something, in only 2 years? ( In all honesty it likely wouldn't even be that bad. Good programs tend to outperform their talent). Destroyed, to me, means no one coming to games, dwindling participation, etc. I ask because if a proud program can be DESTROYED by 2 years of not making a playoff run, then what in the world is the split going to do to mid-level private schools that must now compete in playoffs way over their competitive ability every single year, forever? All that said, I'm not against a committee. It just needs to have a role that clearly states it is to identify and correct egregious failures of the metric. Just bouncing ideas and thoughts. Just have seen small schools just not have any talent coming up, not even have the male athletes coming up. Just need to have some type of appeal a coach can go to. These types of granted appeals would probably be for and few, but need to be available for a coach. That would be fun to hear Kinders appeal! Quit being so weak, be proud, pound your chest! Stand up when you tinkle! You are from Kinder! Geez
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 18, 2016 7:39:22 GMT -6
Not trying to be argumentative, genuinely curious. Are you saying that a program who has won 2 successive state championships would be destroyed by, say, making the playoffs as a bottom seed and failing to win a game, or even going 6-4 or something, in only 2 years? ( In all honesty it likely wouldn't even be that bad. Good programs tend to outperform their talent). Destroyed, to me, means no one coming to games, dwindling participation, etc. I ask because if a proud program can be DESTROYED by 2 years of not making a playoff run, then what in the world is the split going to do to mid-level private schools that must now compete in playoffs way over their competitive ability every single year, forever? All that said, I'm not against a committee. It just needs to have a role that clearly states it is to identify and correct egregious failures of the metric. Just bouncing ideas and thoughts. Just have seen small schools just not have any talent coming up, not even have the male athletes coming up. Just need to have some type of appeal a coach can go to. These types of granted appeals would probably be for and few, but need to be available for a coach. I'm ok with having a committee, but I think it should be by class. One rep from each district that changes every 2 years with reclassification. I would hope that it would be set up that a super majority, not simple majority of the committee has to approve or deny the appeal.
|
|
|
Post by btown on May 18, 2016 7:52:13 GMT -6
Just bouncing ideas and thoughts. Just have seen small schools just not have any talent coming up, not even have the male athletes coming up. Just need to have some type of appeal a coach can go to. These types of granted appeals would probably be for and few, but need to be available for a coach. I'm ok with having a committee, but I think it should be by class. One rep from each district that changes every 2 years with reclassification. I would hope that it would be set up that a super majority, not simple majority of the committee has to approve or deny the appeal. I would say unanimous.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 18, 2016 8:30:42 GMT -6
I'm ok with having a committee, but I think it should be by class. One rep from each district that changes every 2 years with reclassification. I would hope that it would be set up that a super majority, not simple majority of the committee has to approve or deny the appeal. I would say unanimous. Agreed, Sold, let's get this done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 8:45:25 GMT -6
I think Indiana's plan would be fine if we used it in conjunction with the split. It would protect the smaller privates that keep coming up.
I don't think there is any chance the split is going anywhere. Just has too much support. Principals have made up their minds...and voted it in over, and over, and over....June with be the 4th time they will have voted in support of it.
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 18, 2016 8:48:37 GMT -6
I think Indiana's plan would be fine if we used it in conjunction with the split. It would protect the smaller privates that keep coming up. I don't think there is any chance the split is going anywhere. Just has too much support. Principals have made up their minds...and voted it in over, and over, and over....June with be the 4th time they will have voted in support of it. So, if the split stays and the "select" schools stay, you would only apply the Indiana plan to the "select" side and not the "non-select" side?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 8:51:14 GMT -6
I think Indiana's plan would be fine if we used it in conjunction with the split. It would protect the smaller privates that keep coming up. I don't think there is any chance the split is going anywhere. Just has too much support. Principals have made up their minds...and voted it in over, and over, and over....June with be the 4th time they will have voted in support of it. So, if the split stays and the "select" schools stay, you would only apply the Indiana plan to the "select" side and not the "non-select" side? It is my opinion that each side of the playoff format should have the ability to decide the criteria for said sides playoff entry. That alone would stop about 90% of the constant whining.
|
|
|
Post by btown on May 18, 2016 9:01:28 GMT -6
It has to come to a point when the minority side of LHSAA says, ok the split is the playoff system we have, how can we improve it and are you willing to listen to our suggestions. As of now the only suggestions that the minority side has put on the table is vote it out or we leave. I do not know about any of you put I have never dealt well with ultimatums.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 9:17:39 GMT -6
It has to come to a point when the minority side of LHSAA says, ok the split is the playoff system we have, how can we improve it and are you willing to listen to our suggestions. As of now the only suggestions that the minority side has put on the table is vote it out or we leave. I do not know about any of you put I have never dealt well with ultimatums. And thats a great point. The system as we have it at present, has never been worked on to improve the situation for all involved. The only thing the select side says, repeatedly, is "fix it". Gentlemen, it is "fixed". Bonine attempted an executive order. FAIL. He, along with others, then prompted a Jr. Represenative to promote legislation to "fix it". FAIL Now, once, again, the select schools have threatned to leave and form their own association. The overwhelming response is, "Bye". FAIL The LHSAA is long due for an overhaul and that process had begun. Should the process in fact end the governing body of athletics in Louisiana, so be it. All schools will still play on friday nights, basketball in the fall, baseball, etc....... That wont change. Finally, the majority has had enough of the situation as it was. The arguments for or against really make no difference. The bottom line is, the majority has spoken......3 times. Everything is legal, democratic, and fair to all involved. If that means certain schools or a certain segment of schools finds it better to walk away, that is certain ly their right. No one is stopping you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 9:19:10 GMT -6
I think Indiana's plan would be fine if we used it in conjunction with the split. It would protect the smaller privates that keep coming up. I don't think there is any chance the split is going anywhere. Just has too much support. Principals have made up their minds...and voted it in over, and over, and over....June with be the 4th time they will have voted in support of it. So, if the split stays and the "select" schools stay, you would only apply the Indiana plan to the "select" side and not the "non-select" side? No, schools on the Non-Select side could be moved up too if they won too frequently.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on May 18, 2016 9:42:05 GMT -6
It has to come to a point when the minority side of LHSAA says, ok the split is the playoff system we have, how can we improve it and are you willing to listen to our suggestions. As of now the only suggestions that the minority side has put on the table is vote it out or we leave. I do not know about any of you put I have never dealt well with ultimatums. As long as the split remains and it will be extended to all sports except those that would decimate a sport on the public side because of low participation by public schools in that sport, there can be no unity in the LHSAA. The split by its very nature is horrific and an abomination to competition and a violation of the basic tenants of fair play within the LHSAA constitution. The split sponsors have never addressed the real issues in the LHSAA, simply they have moved to scapegoat all private schools which shows a lack of courage. You cannot see the injustice because those whom you support are the perpetrators of the injustice. Politically, this is what happened in Russia with the rise of communism, in Germany with the rise of Nazism and in Italy with the rise of Fascism. It is what caused the crusades. When a people can no longer accept the injustice, they seek justice. Our option is not to war against the LHSAA for it is a voluntary organization that we are not required to participate in. Instead private schools, charter schools and a few persecuted public magnets will opt to exercise their rights and seek new opportunities. Every option that has originated from the private schools on playoffs, including Metro/Rural was dead on arrival. There was no debate, no discussion on the split only a ram rod of emotion to push it through. A complete democracy is a fragile thing, for once the majority realizes they can vote in free money or in this case the split and public school only trophies, then the governing organization is doomed. In this case the governing entity is the LHSAA. Just look at Venezuela and how this type of dictatorial rule within a direct democracy can destroy a nation or an organization. The wealthy have been robbed of their wealth and freedoms in the name of equality and fairness, yet now they people are stuck in squalor. While the LHSAA will not "go Away" and will continue to be viable, it will ultimately without concession, become a shell of its former self. I guess all good things must come to an end. The LHSAA is now in violation of its charter for they have failed to do the following highlighted in red. ARTICLE 2: PURPOSE 2.1 This Association is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including for such purposes as the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code, and including the following: 1. To promote, regulate, and direct the interscholastic athletic activities of Louisiana high schools that are members of the Association. 2. To assist, advise, and aid schools in organizing and conducting interscholastic sports. 3. To protect members of the Association by preparing and enforcing eligibility rules that will equalize and stimulate
wholesome competition. 4. To prevent the exploitation of member schools’ programs by special interest groups. 5. To preserve the game for the boys and girls and not sacrifice the boys and girls to the game.
6. To promote the spirit of sportsmanship and fair play in all athletic contests.
7. Any other activity, which is legal for a 501(c)(3) organization to do. 2.2 No part of the net earnings of the Association shall insure to the benefit of or be distributed to its members, trustees, officers, or other private persons except that the Association shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the purposes set forth in this Article. No substantial part of the activities of the Association shall be the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the Association shall not participate in or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these articles, the Association shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by an association exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code, or (b) by an association, contribution to which are deductible under section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. 2.3 The Association is vitally interested in the welfare of every boy and girl participating in its athletic contests. It is for the
protection of their interests that the Association operates.
2.4 Member schools are prohibited from hosting or participating in any interscholastic athletic event at any facility that practices
discrimination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 9:47:25 GMT -6
Leave it to a private school guy to think you're pushing a point across with a lot of copy & pasting
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on May 18, 2016 9:53:16 GMT -6
Leave it to a private school guy to think you're pushing a point across with a lot of copy & pasting They only thing I copied and pasted was Article 2 of the LHSAA constitution with is publicly available on line. And than you for making my point. Anything we offer in your mind is DOA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 9:56:29 GMT -6
Pretty much sums up what a public school faculty member/coach is thinking everytime one of us has to talk to a private school parent/fan.
|
|
|
Post by indy on May 18, 2016 10:08:04 GMT -6
Pretty much sums up what a public school faculty member/coach is thinking everytime one of us has to talk to a private school parent/fan. That's funny stuff
|
|
|
Post by publicgradprivatedad on May 18, 2016 10:20:41 GMT -6
It has to come to a point when the minority side of LHSAA says, ok the split is the playoff system we have, how can we improve it and are you willing to listen to our suggestions. As of now the only suggestions that the minority side has put on the table is vote it out or we leave. I do not know about any of you put I have never dealt well with ultimatums. I am willing to listen to ideas of improving the split, however when the last vote in Jan. was done on splitting the major sports that was a chance for some tweaking to be done. Mr. Booker had planned on presenting this last year but after Mr. Bonine asked for a year ( I agree he didn't do what he was supposed to do) that gave Mr. Booker a full year to tweak his plan on splitting. Instead of doing his due diligence he kept it the way it was and is now. I prefer not splitting the playoffs and using a formula with committee for appeals to try to level the competitive balance for all the schools in the association, but will listen to ideas.
|
|
|
Post by btown on May 18, 2016 10:30:33 GMT -6
It has to come to a point when the minority side of LHSAA says, ok the split is the playoff system we have, how can we improve it and are you willing to listen to our suggestions. As of now the only suggestions that the minority side has put on the table is vote it out or we leave. I do not know about any of you put I have never dealt well with ultimatums. I am willing to listen to ideas of improving the split, however when the last vote in Jan. was done on splitting the major sports that was a chance for some tweaking to be done. Mr. Booker had planned on presenting this last year but after Mr. Bonine asked for a year ( I agree he didn't do what he was supposed to do) that gave Mr. Booker a full year to tweak his plan on splitting. Instead of doing his due diligence he kept it the way it was and is now. I prefer not splitting the playoffs and using a formula with committee for appeals to try to level the competitive balance for all the schools in the association, but will listen to ideas. It was Bonine that wanted year, what did he do in that year? Cannot see putting it on Booker, he had a plan but the number 1 guy said I got this. What he got is nothing.
|
|