Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 13:19:08 GMT -6
So lets say we are raising race horses. You have to take all horse in your area. I get to pick mine and deny any horse that doesnt fit the mold in which I want my horses to be.
Who wins?
|
|
|
Post by LATigerFan on Feb 25, 2016 13:20:36 GMT -6
The one who trains the horses better
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 13:21:28 GMT -6
The one who trains the horses better Well my friend...........your stable would quickly go broke if you think the trainer is more important than the stock.
|
|
|
Post by LATigerFan on Feb 25, 2016 13:25:36 GMT -6
Cant agree with that. Take basketball for instance ive seen a team of 5'6 well coached kids from Midland destroy several teams with a starting 5 all over 6 foot because of coaching. Just because they looked the part didn't help them win it was hard work and coaching that won.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 13:28:43 GMT -6
Cant agree with that. Take basketball for instance ive seen a team of 5'6 well coached kids from Midland destroy several teams with a starting 5 all over 6 foot because of coaching. Just because they looked the part didn't help them win it was hard work and coaching that won. We are talking about horses my friend...................horses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 13:37:54 GMT -6
I think I would win every time. You would never look at your horses or training to improve. You would spend your time looking at what I am doing to find out why you can't improve.
|
|
|
Post by iknownuthing on Feb 25, 2016 14:27:48 GMT -6
So lets say we are raising race horses. You have to take all horse in your area. I get to pick mine and deny any horse that doesnt fit the mold in which I want my horses to be. Who wins? Even among horses, it is not equivalent. You see for your scenario to be equal, you would have to make your horses pay to attend your stable and you would have to convince the mare and sire by your success, that you have an advantage over the other stables that are free. You cannot just select what ever horse you want. That's call horse theft and we hang horse thieves around here.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Feb 25, 2016 15:37:04 GMT -6
Depends ENTIRELY on what basis you use to select your horses. Your ability to select what you want means nothing on the track unless you select for speed.
Could be advantage for you, could be disadvantage. The results will tell.....
|
|
|
Post by 86namnit on Feb 25, 2016 17:09:26 GMT -6
Pedigree is no guarantee of success. If it was then selective breeding would produce a Triple Crown winner every year. Instead you see long shots winning all the time. Genetics is important, but so is training. Given a large enough pool of talent a great trainer with a great program can consistently produce a winner
And you can't quantify heart.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Feb 25, 2016 19:31:31 GMT -6
Pedigree is no guarantee of success. If it was then selective breeding would produce a Triple Crown winner every year. Instead you see long shots winning all the time. Genetics is important, but so is training. Given a large enough pool of talent a great trainer with a great program can consistently produce a winner And you can't quantify heart. lol!
"Given a large enough pool of talent". That's the problem isn't it?
How about this. You pick an average long shot horse with heart from within your own small neighborhood and give him some good training. I'll scan the entire countryside for a good pedigree with heart and use selective breeding to produce a top notch racing prospect. Then I'll give my top notch race horse with heart some good training . Now we will race and see which horse wins.
If you are going to use horse racing analogies to discuss the public-private football problem at least try to be accurate. Good training, heart, and dedication in high school athletics can not consistently compete with good training, heart, dedication AND a rule that allows the use of athletes from anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2016 21:20:12 GMT -6
So lets say we are raising race horses. You have to take all horse in your area. I get to pick mine and deny any horse that doesnt fit the mold in which I want my horses to be. Who wins? As a horse owner you don't enter your nag in a stakes race. You put it in a claiming race, hope it wins and maybe someone will take it off your hands. So decide which race best suits your horse. You can't run a quarter horse in a mile and a half race. That being said, maybe high school football should broken into two divisions. A novice division for those who can't quite compete with the better programs, and a competitive division for those schools who are serious about competition. At the time of reclass your school can pick the division they want to play in.
|
|
|
Post by pioneer on Feb 26, 2016 7:52:40 GMT -6
I think I would win every time. You would never look at your horses or training to improve. You would spend your time looking at what I am doing to find out why you can't improve. We have a winner.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Feb 26, 2016 11:18:16 GMT -6
Pedigree is no guarantee of success. If it was then selective breeding would produce a Triple Crown winner every year. Instead you see long shots winning all the time. Genetics is important, but so is training. Given a large enough pool of talent a great trainer with a great program can consistently produce a winner And you can't quantify heart. lol!
"Given a large enough pool of talent". That's the problem isn't it?
How about this. You pick an average long shot horse with heart from within your own small neighborhood and give him some good training. I'll scan the entire countryside for a good pedigree with heart and use selective breeding to produce a top notch racing prospect. Then I'll give my top notch race horse with heart some good training . Now we will race and see which horse wins.
If you are going to use horse racing analogies to discuss the public-private football problem at least try to be accurate. Good training, heart, and dedication in high school athletics can not consistently compete with good training, heart, dedication AND a rule that allows the use of athletes from anywhere.
Here again, the opinion seems that all private schools are trying to build sports factories. Using the horse analogy, if you have all the horses from a small area and you give me a bigger area and let me select horses then I will beat you IF I SELECT FAST HORSES. If, however, I choose to select pretty ones, or brown ones, or ones that like dogs, then I will have no advantage over you. This is about schools. Schools, not athletic farm teams. If someone is using these rules to make an athletic farm team, then by all means segregate them or move them up or whatever. But there needs to be some balance to it. Most private schools take whoever is willing to pay tuition and meets entrance requirements, and I have never seen a combine or skills test as part of those requirements. If a private school does select students and limit enrollment, it is typically on academic aptitude, which has no correlation or perhaps a negative correlation to athletics.
|
|
|
Post by Deuce on Feb 26, 2016 13:25:36 GMT -6
The one who trains the horses better Well my friend...........your stable would quickly go broke if you think the trainer is more important than the stock. Just cause you have the best horses in the barn doesn't mean you will always win the race. Just ask Calvary last year 10 of 11 defensive players were D-1. umm... I mean stud horses....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2016 13:29:30 GMT -6
Well my friend...........your stable would quickly go broke if you think the trainer is more important than the stock. Just cause you have the best horses in the barn doesn't mean you will always win the race. Just ask Calvary last year 10 of 11 defensive players were D-1. umm... I mean stud horses.... No doubt, but the horse trainers at Calvary are subpar at best. Give those D-1.....ummm....I mean stud horses a good coach and see what happens!!
|
|
|
Post by Deuce on Feb 26, 2016 14:15:43 GMT -6
Just cause you have the best horses in the barn doesn't mean you will always win the race. Just ask Calvary last year 10 of 11 defensive players were D-1. umm... I mean stud horses.... No doubt, but the horse trainers at Calvary are subpar at best. Give those D-1.....ummm....I mean stud horses a good coach and see what happens!! I bet Ole Tharp in Mangham could win the Super Bowl err... the triple crown... with them! What you think?
|
|
|
Post by 86namnit on Feb 26, 2016 14:24:11 GMT -6
Just cause you have the best horses in the barn doesn't mean you will always win the race. Just ask Calvary last year 10 of 11 defensive players were D-1. umm... I mean stud horses.... No doubt, but the horse trainers at Calvary are subpar at best. Give those D-1.....ummm....I mean stud horses a good coach and see what happens!! Bigbob's Fields of Expertise: 1) The Split 2) High School Football Coaches 3) Redundant Phallic Screen Names 4) Everything Else
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Feb 26, 2016 15:09:47 GMT -6
lol!
"Given a large enough pool of talent". That's the problem isn't it?
How about this. You pick an average long shot horse with heart from within your own small neighborhood and give him some good training. I'll scan the entire countryside for a good pedigree with heart and use selective breeding to produce a top notch racing prospect. Then I'll give my top notch race horse with heart some good training . Now we will race and see which horse wins.
If you are going to use horse racing analogies to discuss the public-private football problem at least try to be accurate. Good training, heart, and dedication in high school athletics can not consistently compete with good training, heart, dedication AND a rule that allows the use of athletes from anywhere.
Here again, the opinion seems that all private schools are trying to build sports factories. Using the horse analogy, if you have all the horses from a small area and you give me a bigger area and let me select horses then I will beat you IF I SELECT FAST HORSES. If, however, I choose to select pretty ones, or brown ones, or ones that like dogs, then I will have no advantage over you. This is about schools. Schools, not athletic farm teams. If someone is using these rules to make an athletic farm team, then by all means segregate them or move them up or whatever. But there needs to be some balance to it. Most private schools take whoever is willing to pay tuition and meets entrance requirements, and I have never seen a combine or skills test as part of those requirements. If a private school does select students and limit enrollment, it is typically on academic aptitude, which has no correlation or perhaps a negative correlation to athletics. I just don't get your posts. You keep bringing up ALL private schools. Nobody is arguing that ALL private schools have dominating football programs. The problem is and always has been primarily about two schools. ECA and John Curtis and their incredible ability to generally monopolize state titles for many years over much larger public schools. Do you understand that?
People feel that the LHSAA rules have unfairly helped ECA and Curtis build powerhouse programs and nobody gives a flip about all the other private schools who don't use the rules to build powerhouses athletic programs. Nobody would object to those schools competing with public schools for championships. Those schools should not be placed in the same category as the programs that DO use the rules to build powerhouses. If you know of a way the LHSAA could deal ONLY with the "sports factories" (your term) and not deal with the private non sports factories then explain how it could be done. Personally I don't see how it could be done. But just because you don't like the idea that the non problem schools are lumped in with the problem schools does not mean there is no problem does it?
Look at your own words. You said, "if you have all the horses from a small area and you give me a bigger area and let me select horses then I will beat you IF I SELECT FAST HORSES. If, however, I choose to select pretty ones, or brown ones, or ones that like dogs, then I will have no advantage over you." That's exactly right and the problem of the private schools that select "fast horses" is not solved by the fact that some schools choose pretty ones or brown ones. Right?
I believe that you and I are on the very same page on this issue with one exception. Nothing you say about the non problem schools does one thing to solve the issue of the problem schools. Come up with a way the LHSAA can deal with those two different kinds of private schools separately and I will gladly get on board along with you.
|
|
|
Post by Sixpack on Feb 26, 2016 15:53:04 GMT -6
By the way I would like to clear up something.
When I say the problem is primarily about ECA and Curtis but not about ECA and JC WINNING I am no way contradicting myself.
Here's why. WINNING is not what the public-private debate is about. Many teams have consistently won throughout the years and many teams have even won with dominating programs. But nobody ever really complained about WINNING in and of itself. The problem is about HOW the private powerhouse teams were consistently able to win all those many state titles over bigger schools. If the rules had always been the same for publics and privates nobody would say a word about ECA and Curtis WINNING because there would be no basis for complaint. So yes, ECA and Curtis have been the main problem but not just their WINNING. Public schools never talked about a split when schools like West Monroe and Haynesville were dominating because all public schools were playing by the same rules. So if private schools are given different rules by the LHSAA it makes perfect sense for public schools to question how the different rule might affect competition. That is what the problem is about. NOT who is WINNING but HOW they might be using a rule to win that has not always been available to public schools. Such as the sit out and reside outside the zone rule.
|
|
|
Post by eag on Feb 26, 2016 16:14:47 GMT -6
Here again, the opinion seems that all private schools are trying to build sports factories. Using the horse analogy, if you have all the horses from a small area and you give me a bigger area and let me select horses then I will beat you IF I SELECT FAST HORSES. If, however, I choose to select pretty ones, or brown ones, or ones that like dogs, then I will have no advantage over you. This is about schools. Schools, not athletic farm teams. If someone is using these rules to make an athletic farm team, then by all means segregate them or move them up or whatever. But there needs to be some balance to it. Most private schools take whoever is willing to pay tuition and meets entrance requirements, and I have never seen a combine or skills test as part of those requirements. If a private school does select students and limit enrollment, it is typically on academic aptitude, which has no correlation or perhaps a negative correlation to athletics. I just don't get your posts. You keep bringing up ALL private schools. Nobody is arguing that ALL private schools have dominating football programs. The problem is and always has been primarily about two schools. ECA and John Curtis and their incredible ability to generally monopolize state titles for many years over much larger public schools. Do you understand that?
People feel that the LHSAA rules have unfairly helped ECA and Curtis build powerhouse programs and nobody gives a flip about all the other private schools who don't use the rules to build powerhouses athletic programs. Nobody would object to those schools competing with public schools for championships. Those schools should not be placed in the same category as the programs that DO use the rules to build powerhouses. If you know of a way the LHSAA could deal ONLY with the "sports factories" (your term) and not deal with the private non sports factories then explain how it could be done. Personally I don't see how it could be done. But just because you don't like the idea that the non problem schools are lumped in with the problem schools does not mean there is no problem does it?
Look at your own words. You said, "if you have all the horses from a small area and you give me a bigger area and let me select horses then I will beat you IF I SELECT FAST HORSES. If, however, I choose to select pretty ones, or brown ones, or ones that like dogs, then I will have no advantage over you." That's exactly right and the problem of the private schools that select "fast horses" is not solved by the fact that some schools choose pretty ones or brown ones. Right?
I believe that you and I are on the very same page on this issue with one exception. Nothing you say about the non problem schools does one thing to solve the issue of the problem schools. Come up with a way the LHSAA can deal with those two different kinds of private schools separately and I will gladly get on board along with you.
Those schools are segregated out along with the powerhouses, and have actually been hung out to dry by their (supposed) brothers in the LHSAA by putting them in playoff brackets that now have a much higher concentration of power schools than the old way did. That is my issue with the split, along with the fact that I can't stand illogical solutions in general. You have kind of showed up more recently, but there have been many solutions offered here in the few months before the LHSAA meeting that did exactly what you say. Raven has a detailed plan that he's posted here a couple of times. I've posted the way Indiana does it, which is great. The common theme is that there must be a success metric in the plan. Everyone agrees that it is evident who is competing far above the peers, and they need to be moved up. A multiplier for out-of-zone athletes could also be used if it was felt necessary so that a small school with out-of-zone athletes would play larger schools that stacked up better. The reason I keep bringing up ALL privates is because the rule separates out ALL privates. If the LHSAA are going to separate a school for an issue, please ensure said school is actually doing it.
|
|
|
Post by cvwildcatfan on Feb 26, 2016 20:16:54 GMT -6
this thread is horse crap...
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Feb 27, 2016 21:49:10 GMT -6
So lets say we are raising race horses. You have to take all horse in your area. I get to pick mine and deny any horse that doesnt fit the mold in which I want my horses to be. Who wins? If your intent was to compare this to the current high school athletics situation, you left out a few things. "You have to take all horse in your area."To be more accurate, you should have said, the government will supply you with training facilities, transportation, staffing, and all other expenses, and they guarantee you a full stable of horses to choose from each year, and the owners of the horses do not have to pay a cent for the training. "I get to pick mine and deny any horse that doesnt fit the mold in which I want my horses to be."This was a poor analogy to begin with because no private school picks its athletes to begin with. The more accurate description would be that it is up to you to acquire and maintain your training facilities, as well as transportation, and staffing. In order to pay for those facilities and all other expenses you will need to charge the horse owners for the training. There are no guarantees that you will have any horses to train each year. Unless there is something wrong with the free horse training, that is where most of the horses will end up. The guy who is charging to train the horses has to hope he can offer something better so that he can get paid in order to keep his facility. open.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Feb 28, 2016 18:21:07 GMT -6
So lets say we are raising race horses. You have to take all horse in your area. I get to pick mine and deny any horse that doesnt fit the mold in which I want my horses to be. Who wins? If your intent was to compare this to the current high school athletics situation, you left out a few things. "You have to take all horse in your area."To be more accurate, you should have said, the government will supply you with training facilities, transportation, staffing, and all other expenses, and they guarantee you a full stable of horses to choose from each year, and the owners of the horses do not have to pay a cent for the training. "I get to pick mine and deny any horse that doesnt fit the mold in which I want my horses to be."This was a poor analogy to begin with because no private school picks its athletes to begin with. The more accurate description would be that it is up to you to acquire and maintain your training facilities, as well as transportation, and staffing. In order to pay for those facilities and all other expenses you will need to charge the horse owners for the training. There are no guarantees that you will have any horses to train each year. Unless there is something wrong with the free horse training, that is where most of the horses will end up. The guy who is charging to train the horses has to hope he can offer something better so that he can get paid in order to keep his facility. open. Here is part two of that story: The horse trainers getting the government funds to operate their training facilities always have plenty of money to keep operating. The facilities that do poorly get just as much money as the facilities that do well, but the facilities that do real well seem to attract the best trainers and staff. The trainers running their own facilities struggle to keep enough money coming in to operate. The ones that do poorly eventually close, because they can't attract enough horse owners to pay expenses. The ones the do well stay open. The ones the do exceptionally well, attract the most horses and become more successful.
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Feb 28, 2016 18:33:00 GMT -6
If your intent was to compare this to the current high school athletics situation, you left out a few things. "You have to take all horse in your area."To be more accurate, you should have said, the government will supply you with training facilities, transportation, staffing, and all other expenses, and they guarantee you a full stable of horses to choose from each year, and the owners of the horses do not have to pay a cent for the training. "I get to pick mine and deny any horse that doesnt fit the mold in which I want my horses to be."This was a poor analogy to begin with because no private school picks its athletes to begin with. The more accurate description would be that it is up to you to acquire and maintain your training facilities, as well as transportation, and staffing. In order to pay for those facilities and all other expenses you will need to charge the horse owners for the training. There are no guarantees that you will have any horses to train each year. Unless there is something wrong with the free horse training, that is where most of the horses will end up. The guy who is charging to train the horses has to hope he can offer something better so that he can get paid in order to keep his facility. open. Here is part two of that story: The horse trainers getting the government funds to operate their training facilities always have plenty of money to keep operating. The facilities that do poorly get just as much money as the facilities that well, but the facilities that do real well seem to attract the best trainers and staff. The trainers running their own facilities struggle to keep enough money coming in to operate. The ones that do poorly eventually close, because they can't attract enough horse owners to pay expenses. The ones the do well stay open. The ones the do exceptionally well, attract the most horses and become more successful. Now we come to part three of that story: The horse trainers getting government funds still operate year after year whether they are successful or not. But they eventually get jealous of the horse trainers who don't get government funds. They try to make rules to force horse owners to put their horses in the government funded facilities. They threaten to penalize horses owners that choose the private training facilities. When that doesn't work they make rules so that the horses from private training facilities can't compete with horses from the government funded facilities. They won't even let the horses at the private facilities run on the same weekend as the government funded horses.
|
|
|
Post by eagle2180 on Feb 28, 2016 18:47:56 GMT -6
Here is part two of that story: The horse trainers getting the government funds to operate their training facilities always have plenty of money to keep operating. The facilities that do poorly get just as much money as the facilities that well, but the facilities that do real well seem to attract the best trainers and staff. The trainers running their own facilities struggle to keep enough money coming in to operate. The ones that do poorly eventually close, because they can't attract enough horse owners to pay expenses. The ones the do well stay open. The ones the do exceptionally well, attract the most horses and become more successful. Now we come to part three of that story: The horse trainers getting government funds still operate year after year whether they are successful or not. But they eventually get jealous of the horse trainers who don't get government funds. They try to make rules to force horse owners to put their horses in the government funded facilities. They threaten to penalize horses owners that choose the private training facilities. When that doesn't work they make rules so that the horses from private training facilities can't compete with horses from the government funded facilities. They won't even let the horses at the private facilities run on the same weekend as the government funded horses. "Merica" land of the free and home of the whiners!
|
|
|
Post by btown on Feb 28, 2016 19:40:15 GMT -6
Again if you are not happy start your own race track!
|
|
|
Post by BGH on Feb 29, 2016 7:29:45 GMT -6
Again if you are not happy start your own race track! Why did you have to go and spoil it for everybody? That was likely going to be the fourth part of the story. Of course there could be an alternate ending where everyone decides it is about the horses, not the trainers, and live happily ever after.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 7:48:40 GMT -6
So any horse, if properly trained, with the best facilities, nutrition, etc......can win the triple crown. Heck. Thats good to know!
|
|
|
Post by Griffinfan on Feb 29, 2016 8:19:24 GMT -6
Bob, I have a question. Why do you continuously defend the split even when noone else is bringing it up? The split is here, even though it's totally screwed up. Just curious.
|
|
|
Post by LATigerFan on Feb 29, 2016 9:43:48 GMT -6
Bob, I have a question. Why do you continuously defend the split even when noone else is bringing it up? The split is here, even though it's totally screwed up. Just curious. It gets old. We cant even have a normal conversation about football without it being brought up.
|
|