167 replies to this topic

[Dman]

paperboy, on 20 May 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

I think your hatred of LCC is clouding your judgment

You have made it clear that one of your guiding principals is "I want my kids to compete against the best competition that is out there." And given the opportunity to demonstrate to those on the boards that you are consistent with your views...you've chosen to duck (like a Ron William's vote). The FACT is that LCC voted so as to NOT compete against the best competition out there. Either you don't mean what you said, OR your judgement is the issue. I don't care enough to discern.

Given the criteria that YOU have laid out...LCC is found wanting. While there could be a decent debate about whether my so-called "hatred" OF LCC is more blinding than your propensity to suckle at the tit of Aviary-Thunderous... There is no denying that in this case, LCC wanted no part of the mere possibility they might have to face tougher competition.

One would think that with all your tough talk above (see "lower the bar")...this would piss you off!

Edited by Dman, 20 May 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 20 May 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

You have made it clear that one of your guiding principals is "I want my kids to compete against the best competition that is out there." And given the opportunity to demonstrate to those on the boards that you are consistent with your views...you've chosen to duck (like a Ron William's vote).  The FACT is that LCC voted so as to NOT compete against the best competition out there. Either you don't mean what you said, OR your judgement is the issue.  I don't care enough to discern.

Given the criteria that YOU have laid out...LCC is found wanting.  While there could be a decent debate about whether my so-called "hatred" OF LCC is more blinding than your propensity to suckle at the tit of Aviary-Thunderous...  There is no denying that in this case, LCC wanted no part of the mere possibility they might have to face tougher competition.

One would think that with all your tough talk above (see "lower the bar")...this would piss you off!</span>

Oh Dman, what to do with you? Once again, I am a SUPPORTER OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL and I don't give a rat's patoot which way LCC voted. My point was, and is, that I want my kids to play the best competition available given where they go to school (a small school). I don't want them winning state because they didn't have to face a Delphos St. John's or a Newark Catholic (or a McComb or St. Henry, for that matter).

[Dman]

Quote

I want my kids to play the best competition available given where they go to school (a small school).

The bolded part is new to your argument. It demonstrates that you indeed believe in classifications. We just don't agree on how those classifications should be made. You believe in artificial classifications based upon enrollment figures, regardless of how that enrollment is determined. I believe how the enrollment is obtained should be factored into the equation. So we disagree...

Quote

I don't give a rat's patoot which way LCC voted

Who said you had to care? I was just pointing out that their vote did not reconcile with your original take that "I want my kids to compete against the best competition that is out there."

Given that this board is primarily dominated by Limaland area discussion...it would be silly to exclude the one team in the area that benefits most from the lack of borders and superior culture. Particularly when that one team's AD went on radio praising/supporting this proposal before ultimately doing an about face.

You want to discuss lowering the bar, etc as IF avoiding tougher competition is ONLY applicable to those schools/supporters who voted for this proposal. Many just DISAGREE with what you believe is the fair means of classifying (i.e. enrollment figures only). I don't deny for a moment that many supporters of this proposal are scared of tougher competition. I'm just pointing out how the CURRENT system is ALSO full of selfish programs who are afraid of tougher competition. They just benefit from the inequities of status quo...

Within the context of a small school NWC supporter who has had to endure LCC fans and their supporters belittle other conference members with "you just need to work harder" for too many years... You will have to forgive me if I might take this moment to note that given the opportunity for LCC to "work harder"...They chose to stay a big fish in a little pond.

Quote

I don't want them winning state because they didn't have to face a Delphos St. John's or a Newark Catholic (or a McComb or St. Henry, for that matter).

And I wouldn't want MY team to win state (not to worried that is going to happen) because MY school got to pick and choose the enrollment without regard to borders...while competing against those who MUST take every student within a defined area.

[paperboy]

Dman, on 20 May 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

Who said you had to care?  I was just pointing out that their vote did not reconcile with your original take that "I want my kids to compete against the best competition that is out there."  

Ugh, your obsession with LCC is making it difficult to follow you. THEIR vote does not have to reconcile with MY take. They are two unrelated matters, but yet you had to bring up LCC while you are arguing with ME.

Dman, on 20 May 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

I'm just pointing out how the CURRENT system is ALSO full of selfish programs who are afraid of tougher competition.  They just benefit from the inequities of status quo...

As you mentioned earlier, some feel the current system is more than adequate. Couldn't it be that LCC and others who voted 'no' may be of that same mind? Of course not - it doesn't fit your agenda, and calling them 'selfish' is much easier for you.

Dman, on 20 May 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

And I wouldn't want MY team to win state (not to worried that is going to happen) because MY school got to pick and choose the enrollment without regard to borders...while competing against those who MUST take every student within a defined area.

For the umpteenth time, no school gets to PICK their enrollment. Students must CHOOSE the school. But again, it's easier for you to use your time-worn rhetoric than to admit the truth.

[Bigdogg79]

paperboy, on 20 May 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

Ugh, your obsession with LCC is making it difficult to follow you. THEIR vote does not have to reconcile with MY take. They are two unrelated matters, but yet you had to bring up LCC while you are arguing with ME.As you mentioned earlier, some feel the current system is more than adequate. Couldn't it be that LCC and others who voted 'no' may be of that same mind? Of course not - it doesn't fit your agenda, and calling them 'selfish' is much easier for you.For the umpteenth time, no school gets to PICK their enrollment. Students must CHOOSE the school. But again, it's easier for you to use your time-worn rhetoric than to admit the truth.

If you know anything at all about statistics and sampling errors you would understand what is meant by the phrase "picking their enrollment". Right now the current system the OHSAA uses for sports classification is the number of boys and girls enrolled in 9-11 grade the previous year. The theory is that schools with like numbers should compete against each other. If school A population takes everyone and school B has any kind of restriction, like a fee to attend, lack of a special ed program etc, then the make up of the population of students will be very different. All competitive balance is trying to do is control the variables and make things more even.

[Dman]

Just yesterday I said..."The culture at private schools is superior to the public’s…almost all the time. The primary reason is that private schools can pick and choose their make-up."

Your response..."For once, I agree with much of what you have to say. I can't dispute any of the private schools' advantages"

Quote

For the umpteenth time, no school gets to PICK their enrollment. Students must CHOOSE the school.

I must have missed the "ump" times you've championed the argument that student selection is of no advantage to the privates...? Regardless, your most recent quote doesn't reconcile with simple observation. Hodges anybody?

Privates are able to take the students that fit their criteria. They do not have to take every student as public's do.. That is just a fact. You can disagree whether this phenomenon creates an athletic advantage or not...

I'd also add that student's and parent's choosing their school is an advantage in the "culture" I talked about earlier. This line of reasoning better supports my opinion. Of course student's choose the school. The difference is that in the private's the school does not have to choose you back.

Quote

it's easier for you to use your time-worn rhetoric than to admit the truth.

I'd argue the time worn rhetoric is those who preach "work harder" and "we want to play the best" while simultaneously supporting a broken system that rewards neither feel-good quote.

Quote

As you mentioned earlier, some feel the current system is more than adequate. Couldn't it be that LCC and others who voted 'no' may be of that same mind?

In a related note...illegal aliens like the USA's lax immigration policy...

Quote

your obsession with LCC is making it difficult to follow you

Judging by your ever changing takes, safe to say you may have a difficult time following many lines of reasoning that don't parallel your own views. We are allowed to disagree. We are allowed to point out the inconsistencies and weaknesses of each other's arguments.

This is not meant for you...but for a hypothetical person interested in the weakness of your argument. (Moment to note that my side has weaknesses to...but I'm willing to concede).

You simultaneously claim to support the current system for choosing classifications and the concept that you want your kids to "play the best." LCC is the PERFECT example to demonstrate that the current system does not facilitate the latter in many cases. The point being...that you can't have it both ways. You want the freedom to denounce the failed proposal as some "wussy cop-out" while ignoring that status quo allows for plenty of "wussy cop-outs."

Quote

THEIR vote does not have to reconcile with MY take.

No it doesn't... But your unwillingness to concede that they made a choice/vote to play "lessor competition" certainly does not support your arguments up-thread. I'd be silly not to keep pointing out this glaring weakness in your take.

Quote

but yet you had to bring up LCC while you are arguing with ME

Yes...their "no" vote is the PERFECT rebuttal to your arguments. It supports those of us who believe status quo is WORSE than the failed proposal. The "work harder" and "we want to play the best" rhetoric...while easily predictable...is also easily refuted. There are plenty of schools benefiting from status quo who DON'T want to play the best and put the work in necessary to do so... LCC is the best example for this Lima-centric board.

[Rd2Glory]

Dman, on 21 May 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Just yesterday I said..."The culture at private schools is superior to the public’s…almost all the time. The primary reason is that private schools can pick and choose their make-up."

Your response..."For once, I agree with much of what you have to say. I can't dispute any of the private schools' advantages"




I must have missed the "ump" times you've championed the argument that student selection is of no advantage to the privates...? Regardless, your most recent quote doesn't reconcile with simple observation. Hodges anybody?

Privates are able to take the students that fit their criteria. They do not have to take every student as public's do.. That is just a fact. You can disagree whether this phenomenon creates an athletic advantage or not...

I'd also add that student's and parent's choosing their school is an advantage in the "culture" I talked about earlier. This line of reasoning better supports my opinion. Of course student's choose the school. The difference is that in the private's the school does not have to choose you back.



I'd argue the time worn rhetoric is those who preach "work harder" and "we want to play the best" while simultaneously supporting a broken system that rewards neither feel-good quote.



In a related note...illegal aliens like the USA's lax immigration policy...



Judging by your ever changing takes, safe to say you may have a difficult time following many lines of reasoning that don't parallel your own views. We are allowed to disagree. We are allowed to point out the inconsistencies and weaknesses of each other's arguments.

This is not meant for you...but for a hypothetical person interested in the weakness of your argument. (Moment to note that my side has weaknesses to...but I'm willing to concede).

You simultaneously claim to support the current system for choosing classifications and the concept that you want your kids to "play the best." LCC is the PERFECT example to demonstrate that the current system does not facilitate the latter in many cases. The point being...that you can't have it both ways. You want the freedom to denounce the failed proposal as some "wussy cop-out" while ignoring that status quo allows for plenty of "wussy cop-outs."



No it doesn't... But your unwillingness to concede that they made a choice/vote to play "lessor competition" certainly does not support your arguments up-thread. I'd be silly not to keep pointing out this glaring weakness in your take.



Yes...their "no" vote is the PERFECT rebuttal to your arguments. It supports those of us who believe status quo is WORSE than the failed proposal. The "work harder" and "we want to play the best" rhetoric...while easily predictable...is also easily refuted. There are plenty of schools benefiting from status quo who DON'T want to play the best and put the work in necessary to do so... LCC is the best example for this Lima-centric board.

LCC voted no in the most recent "competitive balance" vote. However, it could have been for a number of reasons (such as the great amount of ambiguity in the amount of discretion the OHSAA would be able to exercise in implementing the system). I don't pretend to know, and I know that you don't know. However, their past scheduling trends would lead me to believe that "playing up" is not a concern of theirs. While they obviously no longer have a conference, their recent ouf of conference schedules include:

Football: DSJ and Columbus Bishop Ready
Basketball: OG, Elida, Bath, Celina, Lima Senior, Columbus Desales, Liberty Benton, etc.

I just don't see the "LCC-is-afraid-to-play-better-teams" argument.

Lastly, your argument that "LCC picks their students" is flawed due to the fact that it fails to acknowledge that the pool of students LCC can "pick" from is limited to only students who have first chosen LCC. Additionally, that pool is limited to only students from failing school districts or those that can afford the $5K/year. Now, you may argue this is a "superior" pool to pick from because these students/parents are generally more likely to be invested in academics/athletics/life, but that really gets more into the socioeconomic aspect of the argument, and that's probably not a road the OHSAA should be going down.

I don't know of any students that have been denied from LCC (although I don't doubt that there have been some), and I can count on one finger the number of kids I recall being expelled.

Edited by Rd2Glory, 21 May 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Dman]

Quote

it could have been for a number of reasons (such as the great amount of ambiguity in the amount of discretion the OHSAA would be able to exercise in implementing the system). I don't pretend to know, and I know that you don't know

Fair point... It also could have been that they didn't want to compete against those teams you mentioned for state championships come tournament time. There is a difference between risking a regular season loss, versus competing with the big boys in the tournament.

Within the context of "wanting to play the best"...LCC had an opportunity to demonstrate that this was of MAJOR importance. For whatever reasons...which you and I may speculate about differently...they chose to remain a big fish in a little pond. They voted the path that keeps them playing lessor competition. The prior sentence is fact...not opinion.

As far as ambiguity being a deterrent for LCC to vote "yes"...I surmise this is possible. It doesn't demonstrate a lot of faith in their own ability to compete with the big boys...but it is a reasonable opinion as to why they might be scared to vote "yes."

The main point is that SOME supporting status quo like to belittle "Wayne County" et al (i.e. the proposal supporters) as some sort of wimps who don't want to work hard and are afraid to play the best competition. It is implied that proposal supporters want an easy path to a trophy. I don't deny that some of this is true.

What is ALSO true is that we have plenty of school's in the current system that are more than happy to utilize their advantages for an easier path to trophies. Given opportunities to vote in a means that would show they are serious about wanting to play tougher opponents... For whatever reasons...I'm not seeing ANYBODY supporting status quo acknowledge this fact.

I surmise that it is easy to PRETEND to be the tough guy when all the rules are slanted in your favor. When it looks like the rules are going to be changed to mitigate some of those advantages...ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!

Quote

Now, you may argue this is a "superior" pool to pick from because these students/parents are generally more likely to be invested in academics/athletics/life, but that really gets more into the socioeconomic aspect of the argument, and that's probably not a road the OHSAA should be going down.

This is a strong point. I agree to an extent. I'm not sure the failed proposal had anything to do with this though.

I will add that along with their "invested" attitudes toward academics/athletics/life...we could add trophies! Trophies seem to be the MOST important factor for both sides of this argument. Everybody wants an "edge" to win that trophy. Everybody is embarrassed to admit such a "shallow" desire...but it is the crux of this debate. We all bastardize the definition of "fair" to fit our selfish desires to win the championship.

Quote

I don't know of any students that have been denied from LCC (although I don't doubt that there have been some)

That is the systemic advantage that makes the "culture" at private schools superior. The ability to NOT deal with bad apples.