imasoftballer

Of course it is about winning. But is not just winning, it is domination. When year in and year out a public school, who are the majority, are winning a minority of times something is wrong. Please understand, this is not domination by one team, because that can happen in any 2 or 3 year period, public or private. I am talking about the privates school's strangle hold in state tornaments in almost every sport. You say, "I don't use that as a crutch", then you say but I think we do work harder." I don't get it. Which is it? Why does your coach now work harder and coach better than he did when he was in a public school? I was not trying to put words into your mouth. You asked a question earlier and then told everyone what answers you did not want to hear. I just did the same thing. Hard work is something you can not prove a public school did or did not do.

That post is opposite of what we are hearing from most other privaate supporters? Which is it? Waiting list or no waiting list. I thought the reson for advertising was because these schools could not get enough students to fill the classrooms??? :confused:

Several private posters claim that Collinwood, Bruceton, South Pitt and some others are great 1A public schools, then you get on here and say just the opposite. They are mediocre at best. I tend to agree with you but only because you are comparing them to the top private schools. They are great public teams when compared to like public schools but do not quite hold a candle to private schools. WHT is this, Chakra??? If all you have to say is they work harder, keep it to yourself. You do not know what any other team besides Ezell does as far as work , so you have NO PROOF of harder work! Most public posters on here have not claimed any wrong doing by private school. Rather they have stated a flaw in the system that allows to two schools to be classified in the same division. [Edited by imasoftballer on 11-25-02 10:15A]

Dingo, You and anyone else are free to answer any post I put on this or any other thread. O.K. to your response. * to privates having no zones. I agree with you, a privates school could not survive with zones. I was not implying that they have zones. I was just stating that by nothaving any they have a huge advantage over public schools. When you use number or percentages as you did in your statement people sometimes get the wrong perspective of things. Some will see 10% and say "look we hardly get anyone." Others could say 10% of a large metro area is still larger than any 1A or 2A school in TN. * It ssems to me you have the means and manpower to some investigating, why not just do a check on all the top private schools. I have mentioned 2 privates schools on two of the alligations that I posted and have heard of several more. I will say that one statement you make kind of negates another you have made. You said, "They are lucky to get 10% of those kids. And you also said, on the fact that privates draw more talented players, "I don't think any private advocate would argue with you on this one." My point is that the 10% they do get are most of the top athletes in that area. Meaning they are getting 10% of the student population but 60% of the top athletic talent! How can a small rural school compete with that? [Edited by imasoftballer on 11-25-02 9:30A]

No it was D1. And I think you are wrong, there are not hardly any kids if any at all attending private school. Let me rephrase, a private school in TSSAA participating in sports. I have heard Goodpasture offers work study, I don't know. Other schools have been mentioned also, and several of those have never come on here and denied it. I know of one kid who had someone else pay their tuition. The family lived in the projects and had no money. The local churches were solicited to help pay the kids tutition. Public school maybe able to draw talent, but for that kid to play here he would have to move. I dare say Lewis Co. football is better than Perry Co. but there are no Perry Co. boys coming here to play and vice virsa for basketball. [Edited by imasoftballer on 11-22-02 2:54P]

What I'm saying is just a lazy, unmotivated kid usually does not end up in resource classes. They are tested and evaluated and are proven to have some emotional or mental disability. I, for one, whould hate to know the system was be abused just to let kids play football or any other sport.

ISS here at our school is In-School Suspension. Kids in ISS here are not allowed to participate in sports. I assume you are talking about cdc and resouce classes. How is that an advantage? You can't just move those kids in there for the heck of it and then move them out when you want to. These kids have to be evaluated and there has to be an M-Team meeting with the teachers and the parents and both have to agree that is the route to take. Most of these kids end up getting a special education dipoloma. Some advantage!

I have found that you can forget about have a conversation with on person on any thread here. Some one is going to jump in. Just as I did when you said no one say anything about the public schools who draw kids outside their zone. That was just a false statement!!!! Several people, public supporters, have agreed with the premise that those schools should have something done to them also. Maybe at 18 you are still too close to the situation to really see and know the whole picture, maybe not! These are the facts.... -private schools draw kids from a large area, larger than any 1a or 2a school they play. -some private schools offer work study -some private schools have people pay the school's tutition for some athletes or they pay the parents to pay the tuition -successful private schools draw more talented athletes because of the schools rep. -some privates write of student/athletes tutition as bad debt when it is not paid in full Notice I said some in most of these cases, but these things do happen and are known as fact. Now don't ask for kid's names because as I have stated before I am not going to release the kids name in this forum. The kid was not at fault, the school they attened was!

nfhs.org They are the group that puts out the rule books for each sport each year.

VG, There is nothing wrong with the multipiler the only thing is; how do you determine what that number is going to be? I don't think moving the stronger 1a privates to 2a solves anything. It just puts the problem in someone elses lap. Even if we move them up to 4a and 5a and then we see the same thing happening that happened with BA, don't you think this would be a problem? Having a school with an 1A enrollment beating 4A and 5A teams consistanly? And when you move the stronger 1a privates out of 1a I think those that get left behind will only become stronger. And then when you move them up you'll have to move the first set of schools up also. It seems to me an ever changing process that is only going to lead to a spilt in the end anyway.

Ego, Answers are for questions not comments. Nice try though!

BEEP BEEP, I hear a BUS a comin'!!! Get the bus inside the 20 and watch him roll!!! BEEP BEEP!!!

You did not ask a question and for you to say no one says anything about them is a faslehood also. I have said many time it is not right for those schools to draw student/athletes from outside their zone. And I have also seen other public supporters who have said the same thing.

Seems they have a flawed screening process. Why would they take a kid from a public school when we all know it takes a lot to get kicked out of one. Others havesaid as much in a previous posts. :confused: [Edited by imasoftballer on 11-21-02 2:09P]

And vice versa. I don't know that a private school could survive being put into a small zone such as 1A schools(population wise not area) One correction though, the kids that act out in private schools do not get kicked to the streets, they get put in public school! [Edited by imasoftballer on 11-21-02 1:48P]

Sure the schools would be for it. The question is... would the goverment or powers that be, allow it? There are a lot of law and regulation tied to special eduction that would make this very tough to happen. What about schools with a split cirriculum. Most have that already in the means of vocational(work bound) and educational(college bound) I would like to see more advanced classes offered in both areas to the ones who are really serious about their future.

Here's a motive.... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Each school get 25% of the gate, I think. [Edited by imasoftballer on 11-21-02 10:45A]

I agree also. Most coaches do that. RGE just put it into words that everyone can understand! I think a lot of schools could go down on this one. No one but RGE has said that their school or former school does this though. I seen at piece on ESPN on college football off-season workouts. They have a simular rule. The coaches can not even be present during their off season workouts. There are not to be records kept on who attends and who don't. They had one coach admit on tape that his trainers kept records of who came and he would give the records to him at the beginning of regular season practice. He though as long as he was not there everything was alright. They never did say if any sactions were handed down to this school. Just thought I would throw that out there! [Edited by imasoftballer on 11-21-02 9:34A]

I have said all along that I agree with your statements about open zones magnet schools and let me include; rural counties with more that one school system that students can choose from when they leave Jr. High. The rural one school counties are at a real disadvantage over these other schools.

Is Ezell a C of C school like Lipscomb? BTW I attened Freed. So I know what you mean.

I don't have a problem with off season workouts. We do them also. I'm just saying that TSSAA says to make off-season workout mandatory is against the rules. You may have open facilities but forcing kids to join the track team to make the football team is going a little far. Me personally, I could care less what your school does, I was just leting RGE know what the rules were! As far as putting words in other mouths, that is what you did when you said RGE should have said recommended or highly recommended. He did not say that and I do believe what he said, that it is a requirement!

posted by ego... Softballer...no one is knocking anything about public schools but you...I haven't said the kids there are drug users, the teachers are dummies, the coaches stink, none of that...Chakra and Volgen aren't saying that either... Maybe you haven't said this but it is a repeated theme on this board. Private school teachers are better, private school coaches work harder, and everyone know that drugs are everywhere so don't even go there! I'm glad educational requirements are high at your former school. I like the "C" average rule. I'm a huge fan of Vanderbilt partly because of their education standards, even for athletes. You guys still don't get it. I am NOT against private schools!!! Private schools are not the evil one here and I have never said they were!!! It is the system that is at fault. If the system allowed public ALL public schools do things that private schools can do this discussion would not even be taking place. Or at least I would not be a part of it.

I'm not mad at anybody. You guys seem to be the ones mad. Well, I take that back, the only ones that make me mad are the ones who tell me what a bad job ALL public school teachers do and they know very few of them. So now you left public school in search of a harder curriculum. I though you left because of the violence and the poor teachers. Were you a straight A student in public school? In private school? I did not say you left because the classes would be easier at a private school you left because the lifestyle, the day to day happenings in a private school are easier. These are things you have stated here before!

No, I did not. I said that they could! They could use the reasons I just provided and it would benefit the sports programs directly or indirectly, however you want to look at it. Do you think that if a public school could keep their numbers down they would? If so, why?

Why not here then? And where do Cali. and Texas rank educationally? The reason I ask this is because the reason we keep hearing why private schools were started here was to overcome the poor education that the kids were receiving in public schools. (A reason I don't totally agree with.) but that was another post. So if California is ranked fairly high, a comparison of our private schools to their is not valid because the two schools are not common. And what is large in those states? 1000 students? More or less? [Edited by imasoftballer on 11-20-02 2:42P]