Time for a change

[MPHSTIGERS87]

QUOTE(fan6 @ Jun 8 2007 - 08:05 PM) 826473085[/snapback]3) My kids sign an agreement that says they won’t drink, cheat etc. while students at the school. Now clearly, signing an agreement doesn’t completely stop those activities and the same things that go on at any public school also goes on at BA. The difference is that the school actively discourages the activities, the kids make a committment not to do them, and ultimately the school has much more leverage in disciplining than a pubic would be allowed to have. Again, it may not be important to you (or at least worth the investment), but it was for us.

 

 

I have stated several times before it doesnt matter what you sign or promise, kids do the same bad things in privates as they do publics. The main difference is a private school kid can get kicked out of school if he gets busted drunk or doing drugs out of school. Where in a public school the kids are not punished for what they do after 3:00 pm during summer, fall, or spring breaks.

 

QUOTE(fan6 @ Jun 8 2007 - 10:38 PM) 826473150[/snapback]You know, as I've thought about this, I have some other proposals for splits. If we are going to take any group that has an advantage over another and split them out we need to consider:

 

Splitting Major League Baseball by market size -- clearly large market team like the Yankee's have advantages over teams like Tampa Bay. We need 4 or 5 different divisions because I'm tired of all of the wins going to the big market teams.

 

Splitting Major college and Mid-Majors in sports like basketball -- I mean, schools like UNC and Ohio State certainly have more money to hire better coaches and have better facilities than schools like Gonzaga or Winthrop

 

We may need to split NASCAR. Results would indicate that some cars (Chevy's this year? can't remember -- I'm not a real NASCAR fan) have advantages over Toyota or Ford. We should have DI (Chevy's) DII (FORD) DIII etc.

 

Let's not stop at sports -- I think Coke may have a clear advantage over RC. We need to split the market. Coke has more resources and it's past success draws more buyers. There should be seperate places to buy each -- I mean, how can little RC compete???

 

Let's think about this . . . I'm sure there are more things we can split if we think about it . . .

 

 

You have to remember that all the things you listed here deal with professional funding and schools able to recruit in the same areas as the big boys. Now I would agree they would all need to split if only the Yankees could pay a pitcher 28 million a year but Tampa Bay was forbided to do so. Or Ohio State and UNC could recruit the entire world, but Gonzaga and Winthrop could only recruit there state or bordering states then yes there needs to be a split. Nasacar is a whole different animal. They say this sport is equal with all the cars being the same, however other than restricted plate racing over half the field is lapped a fouth of the way into the race. As far as Coke and RC, Sun-Drop owns RC cola and they have every right as Coke to adverstise the entire country, but they just focus on the southeast. The problem would come if the goverment said RC could ony advertise in the southeast why Coke and Pepsi can have the entire world. See where I'm going here. Most publics are restricted to certain areas why FCS can draw fro 9 counties. Not a rip on ya FCS, just stating the difference.

 

 

QUOTE(Baldcoach @ Jun 9 2007 - 12:57 PM) 826473264[/snapback]* dealing with kids who do not live with their parents.

 

You're joking again, right? We all deal with broken homes...how does that become an insurmountable advantage to anyone? In your definition of dealing are you implying 'solving'? If not, then how is this an advantage/disadvantage?

 

 

This is just a question, but I would like to know how many kids are in private schools who are in custody of the state and are living with foster care parents? It is one thing to be living with a single parent, but its a whole different ball game when kids have neither. Even if a kid was with a wealthy foster parent, the privates have the right to say no to that kid if the reason he is in foster care is for reasons of bad behavior. I would just take a lucky guess here, but I bet it is very few are far between to see kids in state custody in a private school (unless he runs a 4.1 40) just kidding. LOL. Mainly because you dont see a lot of wealthy foster care parents.

[supersteve17]

QUOTE(BackinTN @ Jun 8 2007 - 06:38 AM) 826472841[/snapback]It would be obsurd of my to bring specific charges against a named school on a message board. That is a legal battle I have no desire to get into. Sure, anyone can say anything. But as I have said many times before on these same threads, I have no axes to grind with publics or privates. I have experience with both. I only have knowledge of what has happened in my experience. Unfortunately, that experience is a little more than some with delicate constitutions want to hear. If I had knowledge of public schools involved with wrong doings, I would share that as well. I don't.

 

Why do some think that debate can only happen when you hear what you want to hear? Why does anyone think debate can be constructive unless you hear and understand the full scope of the problem? Why is it that when someone who has direct experience with the problems and actually can provide some insight into what is happening, they get slammed and called a liar? BC cannot say that all privates run completely cleanly. I have never said all privates cheat, as he has claimed I have. There is a problem out there. I have knowledge of it. Deal with it.

 

 

Point well taken.

 

I am saying (not speaking for anyone else) that we all probably need to stop painting with so broad a brush. I am sure you have heard the story of the father who took his four sons into a darkened room and had them touch something. One claimed a snake was in the room. One felt a beautiful plant. One thought it was a tree and another believed what he touched was a rope. When the father turned on the light, the boys saw it was an elephant!

 

We all come from our own unique perspective and are biased by what we see, or have seen, in front of us. If we cannot or will not see the other person's side of the argument , no progress will ever be made toward a "solution." I have no doubt that some private school approached you in an unethical way about your child/children. It taints all private schools when that happens. That does not mean that all private schools do such things. I think you have also stated the same.

 

I don't hink I ever called you a liar. If I did, I apologize. I just challenged you to not be too sweeping in your generalizations. It is a challenge we all should heed.

[Baldcoach]

QUOTE(BackinTN @ Jun 11 2007 - 08:47 AM) 826473731[/snapback]You are the one who is throwing around numbers. You are trying to make my statements include much more than I have every said. I have said I know of personal specific instances. You call me a liar, but I know what I know. If you think for one second that I am going to name names and point fingers at specific schools on a sports massage board, you are crazy. Thats the same argument that privates always use. Thats my point of saying move on. That not changing the subject. Thats my refusal to keep beating the same dead horse. And I hate to tell you, you have been beaten by privates that may not be following the rules as closely as your school may or may not be. So if your school is following the rules, why would you not be as strongly for identifying and correcting the problem of those schools who are not? You blindly profess the innocence of privates, when you may be the most sightless of all. Its happening, and its happened to you.

As far as the difference between financial aid and scholarships, in the eyes of a parent who can be swayed, there is no difference. Their childs education is getting paid for by someone other than them. Not talking about technical differences at all. That is not the point, but that is the loopholes that some use.

 

 

I AM for strongly identifying them Backin'. That is why I keep asking you who it was. Your post implied it was all privates...in fact, it simply said as much. That is what I keep saying is untrue. Some privates break the rules...it is human nature. Some publics break the rules...again human nature. How, then, does that argue against privates playing publics or give an advantage to privates?

 

As for financial aid, you realize that ALL of the DI privates are not allowed to give it to any athletes, right? Since they are the only privates left playing publics in the post season, it should be a dead issue.

[MPHSTIGERS87]

QUOTE(Baldcoach @ Jun 11 2007 - 11:51 AM) 826473801[/snapback]I AM for strongly identifying them Backin'. That is why I keep asking you who it was. Your post implied it was all privates...in fact, it simply said as much. That is what I keep saying is untrue. Some privates break the rules...it is human nature. Some publics break the rules...again human nature. How, then, does that argue against privates playing publics or give an advantage to privates?

 

As for financial aid, you realize that ALL of the DI privates are not allowed to give it to any athletes, right? Since they are the only privates left playing publics in the post season, it should be a dead issue.

 

 

Why is it so important that he calls the school out? Maybe he isnt a nark. If he does call them out all of you will say go tell TSSAA now. Its like having a brother or good friend do something they shouldnt have. You know they did wrong but you dont want to nark on them.

[BackinTN]

QUOTE(Baldcoach @ Jun 11 2007 - 11:51 AM) 826473801[/snapback]I AM for strongly identifying them Backin'. That is why I keep asking you who it was. Your post implied it was all privates...in fact, it simply said as much. That is what I keep saying is untrue. Some privates break the rules...it is human nature. Some publics break the rules...again human nature. How, then, does that argue against privates playing publics or give an advantage to privates?

 

As for financial aid, you realize that ALL of the DI privates are not allowed to give it to any athletes, right? Since they are the only privates left playing publics in the post season, it should be a dead issue.

 

 

 

Please show me where I said ALL. You wont find it. Its not there. To say otherwise is your lie.

 

And lets see, its not impossible for a wealthy benefactor and support of a private to pay for the education of a child, is it? Someone who is not officially connected with the school but is directly involved and interested in its improvment...again, there are always loopholes that can and are exploited.

 

As I have said repeatedly and explained good enough for others to understand, I will not name names on a public message board.

 

Glad you finally admit that some privates do break the rules. I have said all along that it happens on both sides of the issue.

[supersteve17]

QUOTE(BackinTN @ Jun 11 2007 - 11:08 AM) 826473816[/snapback]And lets see, its not impossible for a wealthy benefactor and support of a private to pay for the education of a child, is it? Someone who is not officially connected with the school but is directly involved and interested in its improvment...again, there are always loopholes that can and are exploited.

 

 

Of course, if they do that and the benefitting student participates in athletics on the D-1 level, that is against the rules and should be punished with forfeitures, playoff opportunities suspended, etc.

[BackinTN]

QUOTE(supersteve17 @ Jun 11 2007 - 12:14 PM) 826473824[/snapback]Of course, if they do that and the benefitting student participates in athletics on the D-1 level, that is against the rules and should be punished with forfeitures, playoff opportunities suspended, etc.

 

 

 

Agreed, but now we are back to the same problem I stated about a hundred posts ago. The athlete and the athlete's family is getting what they wanted. The school is getting what they wanted. Why would step out and tell the truth and lose what they have? Those that are offered these offers don't want to get inviolved because they get branded as liars and someone with axes to grind and have proof demanded of them. To them, its not worth the ordeal to speak up. So the cycle continues.

[MPHSTIGERS87]

I guess everyone agreed with post #133. nobody is debating it. I did ask a few questions that would like to see answered.

[supersteve17]

QUOTE(MPHSTIGERS87 @ Jun 11 2007 - 09:14 AM) 826473765[/snapback]This is just a question, but I would like to know how many kids are in private schools who are in custody of the state and are living with foster care parents? It is one thing to be living with a single parent, but its a whole different ball game when kids have neither. Even if a kid was with a wealthy foster parent, the privates have the right to say no to that kid if the reason he is in foster care is for reasons of bad behavior. I would just take a lucky guess here, but I bet it is very few are far between to see kids in state custody in a private school (unless he runs a 4.1 40) just kidding. LOL. Mainly because you dont see a lot of wealthy foster care parents.

 

 

I agree with this. I would also venture to say that if a foster kid could run a 4.1 (I understand your hyperbole) the public school for which he or she was zoned would go out of its way to get him eligible and do everything ethically permissible to provide him or her with that opportunity. (And they should!) In fact, I know of a very similar situation a few years ago that occurred in a public school. The kid in question was a STAR and made a dramatic positive impact on that school's season. A private school (D-1) with scruples would simply not have been able to have a child like that in their school, much less playing sports.

 

To me, this seems like a distinct advantage for the public school.

[MPHSTIGERS87]

QUOTE(supersteve17 @ Jun 11 2007 - 06:54 PM) 826473968[/snapback]To me, this seems like a distinct advantage for the public school.

 

 

Foster kids is an advantage? LOL. Come on. WOW! Trust me if it were the privates would have more than their share. LOL.

[thug dadi]

It seems to me that the main issue is that the students be allowed to play in a “fair” playing field. The problem with this is that someone has to “define” fair. Is fair where every school, player, coach and team must abide by the same rules? Is fair where the teams, players, or coaches that excel year in and year out must play under a “handicap” so others will have a chance to keep the score close, if not win? Or is fair where there is a rule that every player on every team must have playing time in every game? All these are what I have heard parents say is “fair.” Or is it something else? I think that fair is one set of rules for all. Rules administered, enforced, followed, and penalized equally if broken. That is not what we have, but it’s not the public schools that are handicapped. It’s the private schools. The public high school coach is allowed to attend middle schools to speak with all the eighth grade students about playing for them, IF that high school is considered the natural progression for all students of that school. The unfair part is that TSSAA doesn’t consider private high schools to have a natural progression or feeder school that is public. So two schools (private and public) in the same area don’t have the same rules. Public can contact the students in middle school and give “recruitment” speeches, but privates cannot, unless it is their own middle school.

 

Let me add that my kids go to public, and to my knowledge, no one in my family has ever been enrolled or employed in a private school. It just seems “fair” to me that the rules apply equally across the board.

[Baldcoach]

Please show me where I said ALL. You wont find it. Its not there. To say otherwise is your lie.

 

 

You didn't say "all". You just implied it with your phrasing...and not just strongly, unmistakably. In fact, I bold faced it in my reply to let you know that was what I had an issue with. Here is your whole post...I'll bold face the parts that plainly accuse all privates of cheating again so we can all take a look at them.

 

"Folks, its not about population numbers, its about economis numbers. A kids who has a great talent in a particular sport, but not the economic advantages or means will give a good hard look at a private that is willing to provide them with what they perceive as a more quality education. A private school has the means to provide that avenue for an athlete. They (the privates) have the desire to continue to show the public that their school is superior to public education in every way. That includes academics and athletics. Whether or not this is true will never truly be quantified nor will ever really matter. The privates will do all they can to make themselves look more appealing. That appeal, in turn, brings in more tuition and the possibility of more donated money, thus the school prospers and grows. Because of this, the privates have an advantage that the publics will never have. The only chance publis have is to build their programs and their feeder programs to be so loyal that when a great talented athlete comes up through their ranks, they won't be swayed to go to a private. That is one of the reasons why Nashville publics are failing so miserably. There is no continuity and because of that, a huge portion of the quality of education is gone. Without that quality, people look elsewhere. When the prvates come knocking, and they do, and they do in an illegal yet unprovable way, the individual and the individual's family have gotten what they want. Why would they say or do anything that threatens what they have been given. They will not talk, the privates will not admit, and the cycle goes on."

 

Note that privates are used as a group here..."the privates" is used over and over vs. "the publics". While "all" is never used, who are we to infer is included in "the privates" and "the publics"? We infer, and correctly by the syntax, that this is a cheap shot at all privates since the argument is that all publics are at a distinct disadvantage. If the argument had been about only a small group of privates or a specific one, that should have been made plain.

 

So I objected...never once taking personal shots at you as you have done with me. In fact, in my search for this original post I counted at least 10 personal insults that you have posted at me, all the while accusing me of insulting you. Whether you meant to attack all privates or not we will never know, as we can't know motives. But your post plainly took a cheap shot at ALL privates...now if you didn't mean it that way then a simple "I didn't mean it that way" will do nicely...without all the personal chops at those of us who took issue.