|
Post by gentsandpios on Feb 11, 2016 14:19:02 GMT -6
I assume we are only talking about participation in varsity level sports. If the kid that transfers can play in sub varsity level sports then he is still participating. Then only one "hurt" will be senior transfers and with all do apologies to those that don't agree I think that this is a fair compromise if it would get us back together,
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjack on Feb 11, 2016 14:28:09 GMT -6
Yes Varsity.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 11, 2016 15:10:59 GMT -6
I do love athletics to the point I try to leave it pure to the point I don't make exceptions the rule. So by allowing a kid 800 miles not to have to sit out a year discriminates against the kids who say moves 8 miles but for some other so said valid reason. Then there is the kid who is 8 blocks away and so on until we have what we have today. So KISS - keep it simple stupid! you transfer you sit out a year. It applies to all. A rule should be made so when applied it can be applied to all parties on an equal basis so there is no significant advantage to any one participant or group of participants. This would be such a situation. It is because of what you propose as exceptions as to why we have the multitude of innuendos (mostly unsubstantiated) floating around to the point the decision to split had no empirical basis and done so solely out of emotions. PURE??? that is PURE? You can't compete because you didn't happen to be leaving here until you moved? Talk about stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. You want to punish all those kids who happen to move at any point in their HS career. YOU actually would be more suitable for an LHSAA position..as that is the exact "zero tolerance so we don't have to think" policy that is evident in educational administration.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 11, 2016 15:14:59 GMT -6
I assume we are only talking about participation in varsity level sports. If the kid that transfers can play in sub varsity level sports then he is still participating. Then only one "hurt" will be senior transfers and with all do apologies to those that don't agree I think that this is a fair compromise if it would get us back together, But what COMPROMISE is it? How would it get anything "back together" as such a measure would affect select and non select schools equally? Actually, it would probably affect non-select schools more, since as it is so often pointed out here...select schools can get kids from "anywhere". So no need to move.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjack on Feb 11, 2016 15:43:01 GMT -6
Do you have a problem with understanding the English language because you keep taking adjectives and placing them in quotes with question marks as though it is suppose to emphasize something of significance on your part, when in essence it only shows the inability to comprehend the statement. You may not like the message but you are coming across as if you wish to belittle my input but yet you have nothing to add yourself. This is the same sort of ignorance many have shown in these meetings. And yes do some history for this sort of rule I'm speaking of is nothing new and was in effect for the most part until mainly public schools saw the benefit of kids using several different addresses in metro areas in particular so the rule became lessened through exceptions. But when the shoe became on the other foot as in private schools it is now all of a sudden a problem. You see you can't have it both ways and when you have rules that account for exceptions and they become the rule it becomes stained and is no longer PURE! Capish?
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 11, 2016 16:28:00 GMT -6
Do you have a problem with understanding the English language because you keep taking adjectives and placing them in quotes with question marks as though it is suppose to emphasize something of significance on your part, when in essence it only shows the inability to comprehend the statement. You may not like the message but you are coming across as if you wish to belittle my input but yet you have nothing to add yourself. This is the same sort of ignorance many have shown in these meetings. And yes do some history for this sort of rule I'm speaking of is nothing new and was in effect for the most part until mainly public schools saw the benefit of kids using several different addresses in metro areas in particular so the rule became lessened through exceptions. But when the shoe became on the other foot as in private schools it is now all of a sudden a problem. You see you can't have it both ways and when you have rules that account for exceptions and they become the rule it becomes stained and is no longer PURE! Capish? Capish? I am pretty sure you mean Capiche or maybe Capisce or even Capeesh. It's slang derived from an Italian word. Yes, I understand the message, I am simply bewildered by the sentiments. You are essentially assuming all transfers are guilty of doing so for athletic reasons. And the idea that athletics are not pure because an extremely small sampling of schools might seem to have more athletes transfer there. And, as I pointed out, your thoughts are illogical. Who are the "big bad boys" that everyone talks about. Evangel and Curtis...both schools that start before the 9th grade. So obviously anyone who wanted to do "unpure" things and attend those schools could simply do so in 8th grade. Heck, that already occurs now with the holding back of athletes. What year does the clock start? Hold them back the year before. I think your idea on this topic is essentially using a sledge hammer to stick a thumbtack into drywall.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjack on Feb 12, 2016 9:09:47 GMT -6
My sincere apologies to the DON for the typo. I hope not to have a horse's head in my bed.
First off never have I mentioned anything about guilt, that is your inference. In fact, by the way I have spoke it eliminates all therefore guilt doesn't even come into play. Again, you miss the point and my use of the term pure. I am not using it as an adjective to describe athletics it is the description given to the rule itself and by having a pure rule the integrity of the game stays in check. If a sledge hammer is necessary to correct the problem then yes it is appropriate. Your analogy implies that the problem that has caused the LHSAA to split is in relation to the thumbtack and for it to come to this extent I would definitely disagree that it is slightly larger.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 12, 2016 13:32:18 GMT -6
My sincere apologies to the DON for the typo. I hope not to have a horse's head in my bed. First off never have I mentioned anything about guilt, that is your inference. In fact, by the way I have spoke it eliminates all therefore guilt doesn't even come into play. Again, you miss the point and my use of the term pure. I am not using it as an adjective to describe athletics it is the description given to the rule itself and by having a pure rule the integrity of the game stays in check. If a sledge hammer is necessary to correct the problem then yes it is appropriate. Your analogy implies that the problem that has caused the LHSAA to split is in relation to the thumbtack and for it to come to this extent I would definitely disagree that it is slightly larger. I understand what you are saying. My issue is that your proposal simply wouldn't do what you are intending it to do. I do not think there are many extraordinarily talented kids that start in one high school and then transfer to other high schools for sports purposes. This amount is even smaller if you are looking at players going to the schools I mentioned (ECA, CALVARY, CURTIS, ETC). Keep in mind that the biggest bad boys that everyone talks about (ECA, CURTIS, now Calvary, Riverside,Parkview Baptist etc) all are K-12 institutions. All of the Orleans Diocese Catholic schools start at 8th grade at the latest. So if any difference making student athletes that want to go to those schools can simply start attending prior to 9th grade correct? To use your words, anyone looking to violate the integrity of the game can easily do so, however that kid whose family just happens to move...he can't play Varsity ball. I don't understand that rationale.
|
|
|
Post by gentsandpios on Feb 12, 2016 14:23:23 GMT -6
Retired, Check out the baseball board about the 6 kids that just transferred to Jonesboro Hodge from neighbor town to play for their travel ball coach. It's not as rare as you might think.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 12, 2016 14:41:46 GMT -6
Retired, Check out the baseball board about the 6 kids that just transferred to Jonesboro Hodge from neighbor town to play for their travel ball coach. It's not as rare as you might think. I saw that... and that is a public "non-select" school correct? You had mentioned something about this type of activity being a catalyst for a split, but as I mentioned, I don't believe this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by gentsandpios on Feb 12, 2016 14:47:31 GMT -6
Retired, Check out the baseball board about the 6 kids that just transferred to Jonesboro Hodge from neighbor town to play for their travel ball coach. It's not as rare as you might think.  I saw that... and that is a public "non-select" school correct?  You had mentioned something about this type of activity being a catalyst for a split, but as I mentioned, I don't believe this is the case. I don't think this was the reason for the split but some have used recruiting by selects as a rationale of why they support the split. My point is that if we have to impose a blanket transfer rule in order to get that item off of the table then I am willing to do so. I'll accept just about anything to put the LHSAA back together and get the kids playing each other again.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 12, 2016 15:15:26 GMT -6
I saw that... and that is a public "non-select" school correct? You had mentioned something about this type of activity being a catalyst for a split, but as I mentioned, I don't believe this is the case. I don't think this was the reason for the split but some have used recruiting by selects as a rationale of why they support the split. My point is that if we have to impose a blanket transfer rule in order to get that item off of the table then I am willing to do so. I'll accept just about anything to put the LHSAA back together and get the kids playing each other again. I understand... my point has been that such a blanket transfer rule is fairly useless and wouldn't help police 99% of the complaints that led to the split playoff system. Evidence to the point- You say that some have used recruiting by selects as a rationale to support the split, and yet I have demonstrated how such a rule would not impede anything that was "impure" as you alluded to, and in fact would probably affect non-select public school students more.
|
|
|
Post by gentsandpios on Feb 12, 2016 15:56:15 GMT -6
Don't disagree with you, just trying to end an argument that others are making. As for as the impurity part that was made by gentleman jack not me.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 12, 2016 18:01:22 GMT -6
Don't disagree with you, just trying to end an argument that others are making. As for as the impurity part that was made by gentleman jack not me. Yep..sorry, got you two confused. He is the poster I was directing my comments towards regarding the "all transfers sit out for the sake of 'purity'" proposition.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjack on Feb 15, 2016 9:26:02 GMT -6
Retired - I'm tired for having even used the term pure for, despite a few explanations you still are taking it completely out of the context with which it was used. I also never mentioned recruiting so again don't place words in my mouth or text. You argument stating that my proposal would not work becasue there has been no evidence it would is purely reactionary in theory and typical of what is wrong with policy making in today's organization. I would prefer to foresee potential problems and be proactive. I also mentioned how using the rule to sit out along with a % increase for those who are from outside the geographic area and a huge financial penalty for those who are caught would be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 15, 2016 12:37:14 GMT -6
Retired - I'm tired for having even used the term pure for, despite a few explanations you still are taking it completely out of the context with which it was used. I also never mentioned recruiting so again don't place words in my mouth or text. You argument stating that my proposal would not work becasue there has been no evidence it would is purely reactionary in theory and typical of what is wrong with policy making in today's organization. I would prefer to foresee potential problems and be proactive. I also mentioned how using the rule to sit out along with a % increase for those who are from outside the geographic area and a huge financial penalty for those who are caught would be a good thing. So, if we aren't talking about "recruiting"..then how is it a potential future problem? What do you have to be proactive about?
|
|
|
Post by gentlemanjack on Feb 15, 2016 12:57:07 GMT -6
Recruiting in an of itself as in promoting one's school is not illegal. My plan would see that the actual act of illegally obtaining a person for athletics is reduced it a very small percentage. It would even greatly reduce the perception thereof as well. That is call proactive measures. Now I've tried over a week an in several ways to explain to you how this would benefit, but much like those who for emotional reasons voted in favor of an issue taking little into account those who will greatly sacrifice the meaning of true competition and a good part of what interscholastic athletics teaches beyond the game itself you will never accept what anyone else presents. It is a tree/forest thing, so if you wish to have a response to this in order to get the last word in that is fine. But just as you may think you have won many of our youth have lost!
|
|
|
Post by Hortdaddy on Feb 15, 2016 18:39:37 GMT -6
I was sitting here thinking about my days of youth playing in LISA,,,,,,,kids were automatically eligible regardless of where they moved from,,,,,,and then I thought about if it was a total new association that started up if all of a sudden if the non selects would care where the athlete transferred from,,,,,because the selects would I would imagine let anyone that has a $ come to the school whether it is for academics or athletics,,,,,,In this day and time,even the public school wants every dime they can get from the govt for attending the public school. It is a interesting situation.
|
|
|
Post by retired on Feb 15, 2016 19:04:51 GMT -6
Recruiting in an of itself as in promoting one's school is not illegal. My plan would see that the actual act of illegally obtaining a person for athletics is reduced it a very small percentage. It would even greatly reduce the perception thereof as well. That is call proactive measures. Now I've tried over a week an in several ways to explain to you how this would benefit, but much like those who for emotional reasons voted in favor of an issue taking little into account those who will greatly sacrifice the meaning of true competition and a good part of what interscholastic athletics teaches beyond the game itself you will never accept what anyone else presents. It is a tree/forest thing, so if you wish to have a response to this in order to get the last word in that is fine. But just as you may think you have won many of our youth have lost! The problem is I clearly showed that the portion of your post in bold is simply not true. Your plan would not reduce it, as I showed. Part of your confusion may very well have to do with where you live and the schools around you. I clearly pointed out how the "power house privates" like Curtis, Evangel, Calvary, Riverside, Parkview Baptist, as well as All of the Orleans Diocese Catholic Schools (Jesuit, Rummel, Holy Cross, Shaw, St. Aug, De Le Salle, Brother Martin, Pope John Paul in Slidell, St. Pauls and Hannan in Covington), ED White in Thibodaux, Isidore Newman School, St. Martin's Episcopal, Country Day Ridgewood prep, Crescent City Baptist, Episcopal of Baton Rouge (just off the top of my head) would NOT be affected by your proposal. If any of those schools wanted to "illegally obtain a person for athletics" your rule would do nothing to prevent it, since all of those schools would simply "illegally obtain" the kid in 8th grade. Schools that are 9-12 simply would have the kid come as a frosh, and sit out that year. Please explain to me how keeping someone whose family picked up and moved for better job opportunity, new house, Lost job etc from playing varsity sports is causing "many of our youth" to have lost. It is not about "never accepting what anyone else presents" it is simply that in this case you are factually and logically wrong. Enacting a rule saying that any player who starts their HS career has to sit out a year if he/she moves to any high school from anywhere, or for any reason is simply not going to prevent any of the schools I listed from illegally obtain a person for athletics if they so choose to do so.
|
|
|
Post by btown on Mar 2, 2016 8:46:58 GMT -6
Rumor is there was another meeting, privates talking about split. Anyone pick anything up on that?
|
|
|
Post by retired on Mar 2, 2016 10:53:24 GMT -6
Rumor is there was another meeting, privates talking about split. Anyone pick anything up on that? There was a picture posted on line...let me see if I can find it :
|
|
|
Post by gentsandpios on Mar 2, 2016 11:02:48 GMT -6
Rumor is there was another meeting, privates talking about split. Anyone pick anything up on that? There was a picture posted on line...let me see if I can find it :
Now that's funny.
|
|
|
Post by pioneer on Mar 2, 2016 11:13:41 GMT -6
I heard that there were reps from Nike, Gatorade and Under Armor discussing sponsorships.
|
|
|
Post by LATigerFan on Mar 2, 2016 11:24:34 GMT -6
Is that TC in the purple behind the podium?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2016 11:35:00 GMT -6
I heard that there were reps from Nike, Gatorade and Under Armor discussing sponsorships. That is correct. Also in the sponsorship discussion were NASA, Hormel Meats, and Kotex.
|
|