411 replies to this topic

[tfloangel]

Dman, on 09 April 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

tflo:

You are taking this way to personal. You keep proving my point. I'm not sure you are even aware you are doing so. You asked for simplification and directness. You get it, and you are still lashing out.

• Hiland does not make it to state, let alone win it without Bonifant. I can't be more direct.

While I agree that these new methods are here to stay, there is a parallel "change" occurring that supporters of transfers refuse to accept. That "change" is in the "perception" of our champions.

This is another example of the overreaction I speak about. Nobody has made Hiland a villain. I've no doubt that you perceive somebody stating " Hiland does not make it to state, let alone win it without Bonifant" as an attack...

I haven't asked for simplification of that point... You've been loud and clear. It's the other instances - which I've quoted and you've conveniently ignored - that your overly verbose

Also, I wasn't talking about the champions in terms of - this is where basketball is going whether you like it or not. Although I CAN see why you would take it that way, considering which school I back, it's NOT what I meant. I was talking the sport as a whole. What is inevitable, is that this part of the sport WILL touch your school in some way at some point, if it hasn't already.

I appreciate the backhanded compliment/veiled insult (depending on how sensitive I want to be to it) about my being reasonable. And yes, I do have a narrow view of this situation. If you'll recall, the only way I ever got involved in this particular thread is because SOMEONE was printing blatant falsehoods online.

I will argue that you continue to put words in my mouth and fail to give me credit where its due for understanding both sides of the issue. I have NEVER SAID - FOR THE LAST TIME - that we would have gotten to state without Bonifant. And yet your like a dog with a bone continuing on about it. That's because of two possibilities... One, you truly only read what my comments to find what you want; or two, as far as argument with me is concerned, it's the only leg you have left to stand on, so you think that if you say it repeatedly enough it will sink in. It doesn't need to - we all understand what you think. (Which people are probably thinking as they read my statements)

So the two truths we keep dancing around are as follows:

You: Hiland doesn't get to or win State without #23. Fair enough. I get that. I've never contended otherwise. What do you suppose we do about it? I'm guessing at the very least your in favor of the competitive balance proposal, which I will stay away from.
Me: All I ask is that you give due credit to the people involved who went through what you see to be the proper channels of preparation rather than focusing narrowly on what makes you angry. Although in fairness, that sliver is really the only part actually relevant to this topic, which is why you brought it up in the first place.


Just a question to consider - Are you actually hoping to convince anyone of anything or just venting frustration? Debate lends itself to an open mind...

And... Have you ever considered that I am not in fact a "supporter" of transfers? I AM a supporter of a student's right to make the choice that best fits them. If that choice leads them to my home town, so be it. I have also said that there have been moments when I've wished that those choices don't lead them to our school because I know exactly that certain people will choose to react negatively to it. What I am, is a supporter of my school. Which is why I have been so hard-nosed in my defense of people bashing it for things over which they've had no control. Really - should they turn them away?

[falconfan84]

Hillstone, on 10 April 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Garber in Italy for two weeks. Missing alot of school

And to think high school used to be for education...

All I can do is shake my head back-and-forth at this one.

[slingblade]

falcon....I'm with you on that comment. Go to the moon to play ball for all I care but do it during the summer.

[cubbies4life]

Hillstone, on 10 April 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Wow Sling you do not give much credit to Brown and the other Mccomb kids huh? Vanlue had nothing else but Kloepfer....Arlington loses all but their point guard. I forgot about Leipsic though...I think Mccomb and LB will be battling at the top with Leipsic right there too...Arlington maybe a year away from being at the top again IMO

Veteran Lefty you might want to check who is returning

I am sure someone from Arlington will chime in.

[veteranlefty]

Is he in Italy with an AAU team playing ball? Man, it sure is a whole different world now...I guess if you get your D1 looks from AAU and get to tour Italy playng ball what does it matter where you spend your senior year.

[Dman]

Quote

give due credit to the people involved who went through what you see to be the proper channels of preparation

Why do you insist that ANYBODY give you "due credit?" What does "due credit" look like? You can have all the love and respect in the world for Hiland, Dunbar, Africentric...anybody you would like to show affection toward. But what gives you the moral authority to demand that anybody else demonstrate such vigor?

That comes across very egotistical. Particularly when you have spent so much time arguing that "we" (society) must embrace the "inevitability" of this cultural change. Or as you most recently state " this part of the sport WILL touch your school in some way at some point, if it hasn't already." I agree with you on this point.

But you lose me here...

Quote

fail to give me credit where its due for understanding both sides of the issue

You simply don't understand both sides of the issue. Or at least you fail to acknowledge such. It is duplicitous to argue that "we" must accept the inevitability of cultural change while simultaneously demanding that "we" give traditional "due credit." You either embrace the changing culture, or you don't. It is a logical fallacy to pick and choose which parts of the changing culture you want to endorse in order to fit your argument. Society has indeed changed. It is time to embrace the reality that "due credit" no longer means what it used to. Just as many high school basketball teams are no longer put together like they used to be.

Times have changed my friend. It sounds to me like you have some sentimental attachment to the "way things used to be." We all do. But circa 2012, you utilize a transfer to win a championship and a large segment of the fan-base (what little is left) WILL NOT separate the "home-growns" versus the "transfers" and compartmentalize their "due respect." The argument is not that this is right or just...it just IS.

I "get" what you want to say. You think it is not fair that the "home-growns" have their spot-light dimmed because of ONE transfer. From a sentimental perspective...I agree with you. But our changing society is not a "sentimental" society. We are much more skeptical than sentimental.

​Long before Hiland utilized a transfer... Long before you came on this board I have made the EXACT point you make as an illustration of why/how the "changing culture" hurts innocents. Once society accepted "transfers" as acceptable operations, society cheapened the quest for championships, and eventually the title itself. Winning a title with mercenaries is "ho hum" by today's standards. We've seen it too many times. The kids (home-growns) who had no part in attracting mercenaries, and no power to STOP these transfers, even if they wanted to, have been robbed of an opportunity to prove themselves without external assistance. Sentimentally, that makes me sick. That makes me sick for Hiland's kids too.

I don't have an answer. I reluctantly accept the inevitability that we "ALL" will be touched by this phenomenon. I also reluctantly accept that this phenomenon has cheapened the "thrill of victory" for so many innocents. I do not have the energy to go into the kids from the "other" schools who have been denied opportunities to make the Columbus pilgrimage due to this phenomenon. But somewhere along the way, we've cheapened the game and the accomplishments. Right or wrong...my opinions...none of it really matters! It just IS...

Quote

focusing narrowly on what makes you angry

What is it that you perceive I'm angry about that is any more or less important than your own vitriol? I'm not asking you to share my opinion. I'm not demanding "due credit" from anybody. As a matter of fact...I'm not even certain we disagree on ANYTHING in the big picture. I'm not even sure I'm mad at anything. Sad might be a better word. But even that is a bit strong.

The inevitable societal change has reared its ugly head. Through no fault of its own, Hiland has gotten caught up in it. On a positive note, they got their championships. On a negative note the means utilized dampens the sense of accomplishment and fulfillment that was the norm in the bygone era. I'm going to guess it was worth it...? Was it? I really don't know because Jefferson has yet to get their "inevitable" boost. I'm guessing the smell of sweet success overshadows any of the uncomfortable remnants of the conscience.

I'd like to think that Coach Homier put it best when he said he would rather "lose with his kids" than win the Africentric way. It sure touches the sentimental part of the brain. But I often wonder if he could have got his "Bonifant" would he have taken him for the chance to BEAT Africentric? The point being that it is difficult to assign the "social cost" of obtaining basketball glory.

What was more deserving of accolade? Africentric's on court victory or Continental's "traditional" run? I've got my opinions, but certainly concede that there is room and cause for disagreement.

Edited by Dman, 10 April 2012 - 05:32 PM.

[falconfan84]

If we keep going the route we are, we'll not need Value City Arena to hold the state championships...we could use a much smaller (and cheaper) venue. We already see the "crowds" from the schools where teams are assembled from the AAU ranks or gathered from across the city they come from (not the public district they reside in)...and they are tiny in comparison to teams that are from a close-knit community environment. The state championships will probably start to look like AAU games (it's what they've become already), where the crowd will be mostly made up of family members...and college scouts. Community will no longer care.

[bvcgrad]

Arlington lost a bunch of talent, that being said they could have started 3 sophomores and not missed a beat. They will be just fine, I think they will be right at the top with LB next year.

[slingblade]

Arlington along with Vanlue lost the most but ....... Arlington had the deepest team and the best JV team so they will be contenders.

[tiffindude3313]

Vanlue had spring break and with weekends...he missed 3 or 4 days representing Ohio in a European tournament in Italy. Guess I should have asked more questions and then clarified. Sounds like it was an amazing experience. All-Ohio Red (his AAU team) played in Milwaukee last weekend....plays for Craft's old AAU coach. Read somewhere where he is a very good student (potential valedictorian with a 4.00) so I guess he's doing well balancing academics also. Courier spring edition has him in 2 spring sports also (track and baseball). ...busy young man. As far as who takes league titles next year (MAL, BVC, etc.), I think it comes down to how hard players want to work in the off-season and summer to get better. It will be interesting to see how some of the young talent in the area matures and develops, as many teams around the area lost some key seniors, albeit some more than others. I guess I look at AAU as another opportunity for a player to gain experience, get some looks, and bring back skills to their school team, much like club volleyball, soccer, Legion or Acme baseball, travel softball,etc. Does it get excessive? Sure. But is it 'the way it is' in this day and age? Yes, for better or worse. People can talk about the changes it means for state tournaments, etc., and part of me agrees. The other part of me is looking at societal changes overall...the mere fact we are all having this conversation via computer would not have been thought about in the 1980's, when there were some absolutely outstanding players and teams in the area. The times they are a changin'.....

[PostPlayer]

cubbies4life, on 10 April 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

I am sure someone from Arlington will chime in.

I love Cubbie...

For the record, Arlington will be fine. State semi-finalist team that returns 3 key players (all sophomores); has good size (again), had the best JV team in the BVC, and will be even better out front this upcoming year which typically equals success. Get used to it folks - basketball will be good at Arlington for the foreseeable future with the string of talent coming.

[tfloangel]

Dman, on 10 April 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

It is duplicitous to argue that "we" must accept the inevitability of cultural change while simultaneously demanding that "we" give traditional "due credit." You either embrace the changing culture, or you don't. It is a logical fallacy to pick and choose which parts of the changing culture you want to endorse in order to fit your argument. Society has indeed changed.

Times have changed my friend. It sounds to me like you have some sentimental attachment to the "way things used to be." We all do. But circa 2012, you utilize a transfer to win a championship and a large segment of the fan-base (what little is left) WILL NOT separate the "home-growns" versus the "transfers" and compartmentalize their "due respect." The argument is not that this is right or just...it just IS.

I "get" what you want to say. You think it is not fair that the "home-growns" have their spot-light dimmed because of ONE transfer. From a sentimental perspective...I agree with you. But our changing society is not a "sentimental" society. We are much more skeptical than sentimental.

Interestingly enough, I was thinking you were the one that was insisting on living in the past... I also think its unrealistic at this point for me to believe that you are ever going to respond to me in a manner any more logical than this, so I'm going to be done with it. Out of everything I said in my last post, the deliberately put questions that I asked you...

The reality is that you see this issue as a black and white, right and wrong, hell hath no fury like a dman scorned kinda way And because I can see the gray area, we will never see eye to eye (something with which I am fine, and to be honest, maybe a bit pleased)

You also frequently mistake me for being "angry" when all I am doing is posing questions for debate and trying to put forth another side to your argument. Whether or not you choose to believe me, I've never been angry. I've had a couple moments of "I don't think so..." in needs to respond, but I've never been upset. And its very possible that you've in the same situation, although its distinctly possible I'm giving you too much credit there

You feel the urge to shoot down anyone who disagrees with you and as being angry and a habitual overreactor. God forbid that I disagree with you. And since I'm guessing that more than a few people on here will cheer when they read this, I for one am done with it. I've known for several days that there's no point in trying to get you to see - not REASON, but another side to it.

This is not me conceding the argument - It's just me being the first willing to publicly recognize that arguing with a brick wall gets tedious. I'll take my naive and somehow stuck in the past views and go back into the obscurity of message boards that are permitted to encompass more than just a corner of the world (And that last statement is meant totally tongue-in-cheek)

[Dman]

Quote

You also frequently mistake me for being "angry"

It was you who sprung the "angry" card when you said "rather than focusing narrowly on what makes you angry." Revisionist history aside, I think you make a good point. There is a good chance neither of us are upset about ANY difference in opinion. As far as I can tell, if Hiland was not the example used as a team that has benefited from transfers, there might not be one area of contention between us.

Quote

What I am, is a supporter of my school. Which is why I have been so hard-nosed in my defense of people bashing it for things over which they've had no control.

I think you said it all here. I respect that, while also opining your objectivity on the subject is a bit out of line. You are a prime example of the universal response to these situations for most of us who come from the tight-nit communities. This is why I have always said that I'm personally against any and all athletic transfers, unless they benefit Delphos Jefferson. First and foremost, I mean it. I'm a hypocrite like anybody else. Second, it humorously illuminates the prevailing position. It is always easy to be "against" transfers" until it happens in your back yard.

Quote

I also think its unrealistic at this point for me to believe that you are ever going to respond to me in a manner any more logical than this

Did you have a temporary brain fart here? The logical position is the consistent position. I'm the only person in our conversation that has consistently, if reluctantly, accepted and endorsed that "society has changed" and "we must adapt."

• It is duplicitous to argue that "we" must accept the inevitability of cultural change while simultaneously demanding that "we" give traditional "due credit."

The fact that your understandable urge to defend your school has forced you to take inconsistent positions with respect to "tradition" is no excuse for you to bastardize the definition of "logic."

Quote

God forbid that I disagree with you

You, or anybody can disagree. But you've no right to expect the merits of your disagreement(s) to go unchallenged. Mouth one argues that we must accept (reluctantly or enthusiastically) changing societal norms as explanation for "transfer" utilization. Mouth two argues that we must not accept changing societal norms when addressing Hiland's accomplishments. Instead, for the latter, you demand traditional "due respect."

This is a glaring illogical and inconsistent division in your position/disagreement. It would be silly for me to ignore this gaping hole in your defense. I understand why you would want to phrase this discussion as a matter of "reasonable disagreement"...but this is not "reasonable disagreement." You have a glaring inconsistency problem that is at the core of your position. I don't.

Given that your urge to defend Hiland seems to trump your urge to maintain a consistent and logical position, it is indeed best that you bow out of this debate. I don't mean this in a mean or snarky manner. I sympathize with your urge to paint Hiland in the highest possible light. I would probably do the same if Jefferson were the topic. But the truth is that you cannot maintain a logical and consistent position AND defend Hiland. It is not Hiland's fault per say. It is just the reality of the changing culture. You use "new school" methods and you receive "new school" respect. You can't use "new school" methods and demand "old school" respect.

Quote

This is not me conceding the argument - It's just me being the first willing to publicly recognize that arguing with a brick wall gets tedious.

A consistent, logical, and unwavering position is indeed akin to a "brick wall." Your failure to recognize or stubbornness to discuss your duplicitous positions on the changing culture means that those knots on your head are self-inflicted. Many a battle has come to conclusion with no need for concession.

I feel bad that you want to leave this place. You seem like a decent enough guy. But I don't believe sympathy is enough to ask reasonable and objective minds to ignore the fact that your primary position in this thread has been based on illogical and selectively applied adherence to changing societal norms. If there was a more polite way of saying it, I would like to choose it. I don't take disagreement personally. Even when such disagreement is based upon a flawed premise. Best of luck to you on whatever you decide.

Edited by Dman, 11 April 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[Dman]

Quote

If we keep going the route we are, we'll not need Value City Arena to hold the state championships...we could use a much smaller (and cheaper) venue. We already see the "crowds" from the schools where teams are assembled from the AAU ranks or gathered from across the city they come from (not the public district they reside in)...and they are tiny in comparison to teams that are from a close-knit community environment. The state championships will probably start to look like AAU games (it's what they've become already), where the crowd will be mostly made up of family members...and college scouts. Community will no longer care.

[tfloangel]

Dman, on 11 April 2012 - 10:05 AM, said:

I feel bad that you want to leave this place. You seem like a decent enough guy. But I don't believe sympathy is enough to ask reasonable and objective minds to ignore the fact that your primary position in this thread has been based on illogical and selectively applied adherence to changing societal norms. If there was a more polite way of saying it, I would like to choose it. I don't take disagreement personally. Even when such disagreement is based upon a flawed premise. Best of luck to you on whatever you decide.

I have no desire to leave this place. I'm choosing to leave this discussion, because clearly we don't understand each other at all. And that might have some small part to do with the fact that I am not a GUY. What respecting guy would put "angel" in their name?

We'll continue to debate to the end of the time that the other should consider our own view points. I totally expect my points to be challenged. I expect out of most people that my points be CONSIDERED AS WELL AS CHALLENGED, and because I do not feel this from you, and you clearly feel the same, I'm stepping away from it, and from you. Not from the discussion board. There is just not very often anything that interests me because it's not relevant to me, so I don't post often

Edited by tfloangel, 11 April 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[flounder]

Dman......

I still have a soft spot in my heart for Berlin Hiland.....I have witnessed their boys and girls in many state appearances, and have always been impressed with their gamemanship and sportsmanship.....so they get a transfer, I still highly respect that program......in my opinion, they are one of the premier programs in Ohio......heck, who wouldn't want to transfer to Hiland!!!!!

[Dman]

I don't disagree with any of that flounder. I feel the same. I've never badmouthed Hiland. I just state the obvious.

[Dman]

Quote

I expect out of most people that my points be CONSIDERED AS WELL AS CHALLENGED

Your points have been considered and challenged. As stated multiple times from multiple angles, and ignored every time (which would be the very example of that which you deride in the capitalized content), you cannot logically ask one to selectively endorse only the portions of societal change that benefit Hiland. You want Hiland to have the benefit of the doubt on receiving a transfer because this is the new norm. I and almost everybody grants that benefit of the doubt. But that is not enough. You also want Hiland to receive traditional "due respect" and ask reasonable minds to ignore that the "new norm" for a "transfer-assisted" victory is ho-hum. You can't have it both ways and expect such a dichotomy of argument to be ignored.

Your response and participation in this discussion is not logic/reasoned based. It is emotionally based and designed to assure Hiland always comes out in the best possible perceptive position. The point is, that if you want to have a logical discussion on this subject, you will have to either amend your divergent positions on when it is acceptable to endorse "new school" versus when you choose to ignore the same...OR you will have to concede that you are not consistent with your application of principles that cut to the very CORE of your position. You are allowed to be "inconsistent" or "gray" as you might opine. That is not the point. The point is that your selective use of societal norms only when they benefit Hiland's reputation is a glaring weakness in the objectivity of your position. When your concern is more concentrated in assuring Hiland looks good versus accurately deciphering transfers, accolades, etc...it is tough to simultaneously hold yourself out as a defender of logic/consistency, etc. As I stated earlier...those close to the situation have the toughest time maintaining objectivity.

Feel free to "ignore" or "fail to consider" your selective utilization of changing societal norms as you must. But since you yourself admit expectations that your positions be "challenged"...? Seems I would be your favorite poster. Without me, there is good chance your inconsistent application of principles would have been unidentified. Then how could you know that your emotional attachment to Hiland clouded your objectivity on the matter?

I sincerely applaud your efforts to defend your school. I don't disagree with a thing flounder says. In fact, among schools that I'm aware of...who have utilized a transfer to obtain success...Hiland is my all-time favorite. I like everything about that community and program, including the transfer himself. There is not one thing Hiland could have or should have done differently. Hiland is not the issue. They are the benefactor and cursed simultaneously of our changing societal norms.

The issue is "changing societal norms" and the positives/negatives that result. If you take your Hiland glasses off for one moment, you might find there is nary a significant area of disagreement between us on the issue of "changing societal norms."

[Putnammom]

Sounds like:
Sesquipedalia Verba=A reference to the use of long words; especially when verbal construction utilizing less amplification might represent a more naturally efficacious phraseology.
 
I think it's a disease of the mouth!!

 
 

[Dman]

Quote

ho-hum

Every now and then I throw a bone for you PCL...

Quote

Sounds like:
Sesquipedalia Verba=A reference to the use of long words; especially when verbal construction utilizing less amplification might represent a more naturally efficacious phraseology.

I think it's a disease of the mouth!!

When it is your desire to make fun of those who use dialogue you don't understand...may I suggest that next time you don't plagiarize (this word means steal) the 3rd entry of a simple Google search for "big word dictionary." The reason being that it is much more embarrassing to be outed as a simpleton than it is to be accused of being wordy. Although, we have been discussing the virtues of changing societal norms in this thread...and there is decent argument to be made that intellect loses credibility with every passing generation.

If your desire is to feign (this word means fake) adroitness (I'll let you look this one up), it is best not to be so predictable. I realize you long to personally embarrass me for some anonymous slight I've bestowed upon you in the real or virtual world, and if you try long enough your day will certainly come... But I suggest presently the best course of action is to curtail the vitriol. It is unbecoming...

Wait for a day or argument where I actually demonstrate inconsistency or incompetence and then pounce. Somehow utilizing the Vanlue/ transfer related discussion to air your discontent with me reeks of desperation and dislocation of an agitated pursuer.

Edited by Dman, 11 April 2012 - 05:42 PM.