Jump to content

Indiana Catholic Football Needs a Governor to Regulate Out of Control Football Dominance


Guest DT
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DT said:

The general notion of changing rules to make life harder on more successful people or organizations in order for less successful people or organizations to enjoy the illusion of “success” is pernicious and indefensible.  There is no right way or good way to do it.

In this piece, the excuse is Covid.  When SF was put in, the excuse was something else.  Once Covid is gone, the excuse will be something else still.

If somebody doesn’t like their results, rather than lobbying to have rules changed to get more favorable results, just work within the rules to do so.  Rather than complaining about more successful competitors, see what you can learn from them to match their success.

The lesson that these sorts of proposals teach our kids is an awful one:  if they aren’t succeeding as much as somebody else, it’s because the deck is stacked in favor of the succeeders and the way to remedy that is to stack the deck in favor of the non-succeeders.

This is not how real life works.  In fact, it’s the antithesis of how real life works.

Edited by MHSTigerFan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the gist of your thoughts are that private/parochial schools managed COVID better than the government controlled schools (that’s a shock) and the cure is to “bump up” all private/parochial schools in athletics?

“Gotcha”…….to steal a phrase from Muda.

How about this alternative?  Let’s allow parents and students locked into certain abysmally managed and criminally overpaid government schools to take their misspent tax dollars (and their children) to much more effectively and efficiently ran private/parochial schools. 

If nothing else, COVID has helped to expose the rot.

But no, rather than fix the problems at the heart of Publics let’s slap some paint on it by screwing with the parochial/privates as regards kid’s sports.  

For the record (and not that it matters) I said, “just bump up all the P/P’s” back when the SF first started because I knew it would inevitably circle back around to this.  With that, I have changed my mind because I generally like the matchups that the SF has created (New Pal v Snider, etc.). 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lysander said:

So the gist of your thoughts are that private/parochial schools managed COVID better than the government controlled schools (that’s a shock) and the cure is to “bump up” all private/parochial schools in athletics?

“Gotcha”…….to steal a phrase from Muda.

How about this alternative?  Let’s allow parents and students locked into certain abysmally managed and criminally overpaid government schools to take their misspent tax dollars (and their children) to much more effectively and efficiently ran private/parochial schools. 

If nothing else, COVID has helped to expose the rot.

But no, rather than fix the problems at the heart of Publics let’s slap some paint on it by screwing with the parochial/privates as regards kid’s sports.  

For the record (and not that it matters) I said, “just bump up all the P/P’s” back when the SF first started because I knew it would inevitably circle back around to this.  With that, I have changed my mind because I generally like the matchups that the SF has created (New Pal v Snider, etc.). 

 

Love this post until the circle back comment. 😂 

Great post Ly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, southend said:

I liked the paragraph that started with, “How about this alternative?” Amen.  

Couldn't agree more.

Parents should not "co-parent" with the government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

The general notion of changing rules to make life harder on more successful people or organizations in order for less successful people or organizations to enjoy the illusion of “success” is pernicious and indefensible.  There is no right way or good way to do it.

In this piece, the excuse is Covid.  When SF was put in, the excuse was something else.  Once Covid is gone, the excuse will be something else still.

If somebody doesn’t like their results, rather than lobbying to have rules changed to get more favorable results, just work within the rules to do so.  Rather than complaining about more successful competitors, see what you can learn from them to match their success.

The lesson that these sorts of proposals teach our kids is an awful one:  if they aren’t succeeding as much as somebody else, it’s because the deck is stacked in favor of the succeeders and the way to remedy that is to stack the deck in favor of the non-succeeders.

This is not how real life works.  In fact, it’s the antithesis of how real life works.

A lot of truth in this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lysander said:

How about this alternative?  Let’s allow parents and students locked into certain abysmally managed and criminally overpaid government schools to take their misspent tax dollars (and their children) to much more effectively and efficiently ran private/parochial schools. 

Something I have been saying over in the OOB for a while now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DE said:

Couldn't agree more.

Parents should not "co-parent" with the government.

"In loco parentis" is a phrase I have heard from a number of government school administrators over the years. It's one of their primary justifications for zero tolerance policies,  mass indoctrination, etc.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MHSTigerFan said:

The general notion of changing rules to make life harder on more successful people or organizations in order for less successful people or organizations to enjoy the illusion of “success” is pernicious and indefensible.  There is no right way or good way to do it.

In this piece, the excuse is Covid.  When SF was put in, the excuse was something else.  Once Covid is gone, the excuse will be something else still.

If somebody doesn’t like their results, rather than lobbying to have rules changed to get more favorable results, just work within the rules to do so.  Rather than complaining about more successful competitors, see what you can learn from them to match their success.

The lesson that these sorts of proposals teach our kids is an awful one:  if they aren’t succeeding as much as somebody else, it’s because the deck is stacked in favor of the succeeders and the way to remedy that is to stack the deck in favor of the non-succeeders.

This is not how real life works.  In fact, it’s the antithesis of how real life works.

This is a fantastic post in that at it's core tugs at our heart strings and at what all people worth their salt try to teach their kids.  Unfortunately it doesn't apply in this case...not even in the slightest.   I still can't wrap my head around intelligent people on this forum pretending they don't know what the P/P inherent advantages are.  DT's article maybe didn't go down the best path to illustrate that, but neither does, "the rules are the rules", and you guys know that....all of you know that.  It has nothing to do with "trying harder" or "government being in the way"....you guys all know that too.  It's so simple at it's core and I'll say it again for the newbies:

Given decent tradition, coaching etc. a P/P has more athletes per capita/enrollment just by nature of their institution type.  That's it...that is all there is to it.  I get it, it's nice to get that advantage along with tuition, but don't tell me I'm sending any kind of incorrect message to anyone (especially my kids) to call out that disparity.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Something I have been saying over in the OOB for a while now.

 

Although I’ve been staying well “in bounds” for quite some time, I could feel “the Muda” flow through me with every keystroke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

Texas doesn't allow private schools to even play in the UIL. Just saying. 

This is so accurate. And this situation has been around for about 40 or more years. My question would be this. How was it, that the state of Texas was allowed to initiate this phenomena without the non-public schools bulking and filing any litigation for being discriminated against, just because they are non-public? Was it one of those issues, where the public majority schools had the upper hand with no repercussion?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, statmurp_10 said:

This is so accurate. And this situation has been around for about 40 or more years. My question would be this. How was it, that the state of Texas was allowed to initiate this phenomena without the non-public schools bulking and filing any litigation for being discriminated against, just because they are non-public? Was it one of those issues, where the public majority schools had the upper hand with no repercussion?

 

Probably because Texas is 5-6x the size of Indiana and thus likely has the appropriate amount of schools to put on several non-public tournaments. Not feasible in Indiana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A point to clarify, at least here in Northeast Indiana, I don't know of any schools that remained completely in person throughout the pandemic. I would add to that the number of covid cases among students was higher in wealthier schools private and public, than they were in urban or rural schools. 

I am not drawing any conclusions, but felt that info was important to note. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DE said:

Love this post until the circle back comment. 😂 

Great post Ly. 

I admit that my liking the matchups as a reason for preferring the SF is a selfish one (and certainly not much of a reason for it initially)….I just like watching the Best v. the Best whenever possible and I have certainly seen that in many cases due to the SF.

More realistically, I simply think the SF (for all its flaws) is clearly the fairest approach.  Bumping EVERY private/parochial in EVERY class in EVERY sport because of the success of a handful of schools in any specific sport VS bumping a SINGLE school in a SINGLE class for its success in a SINGLE sport is the only reasonable solution.

Moving up every school is tantamount to using a shotgun when a scalpel will suffice. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanteEstonia said:

Texas doesn't allow private schools to even play in the UIL. Just saying. 

That's actually not true. Jesuit Dallas and Strake Jesuit in Houston are both UIL members.

Also, in the Texas private/parochial league, there are about 230 teams playing ... about 2/3 of the state of Indiana's total football programs.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Titan32 said:

This is a fantastic post in that at it's core tugs at our heart strings and at what all people worth their salt try to teach their kids.  Unfortunately it doesn't apply in this case...not even in the slightest.   I still can't wrap my head around intelligent people on this forum pretending they don't know what the P/P inherent advantages are.  DT's article maybe didn't go down the best path to illustrate that, but neither does, "the rules are the rules", and you guys know that....all of you know that.  It has nothing to do with "trying harder" or "government being in the way"....you guys all know that too.  It's so simple at it's core and I'll say it again for the newbies:

Given decent tradition, coaching etc. a P/P has more athletes per capita/enrollment just by nature of their institution type.  That's it...that is all there is to it.  I get it, it's nice to get that advantage along with tuition, but don't tell me I'm sending any kind of incorrect message to anyone (especially my kids) to call out that disparity.

Actually, programs like Gibson Southern are a great example of what I’m talking about.  It’s a genuinely elite football program - and it’s a public school.  Nick has put together a fantastic feeder program and a culture that has bred a consistent level of success.  Has he done it alone?  Not at all.  He inherited something good and made it even better - and had the support and buy-in of parents, administrators, the kids, etc.

FTR, if you read my post more carefully, you’ll note a couple things.

First, it’s not emotional.  I don’t know where you’re getting this “heartstrings” thing.  I assure you, I’m not a heartstrings guy.  What I wrote was a hard and undeniable truth of life: you don’t make yourself better by seeking to hold others back simply because you don’t like that they have succeeded more than you have.

Second, I spoke nothing to advantages and such.  I neither touted nor denied them.  And that’s because I just don’t think reality is that simple.  Anybody who wants to go looking for inherent advantages or disadvantages, in order to complain about results, could find them.

I think it’s an advantage that you guys have a B10 quarterback under center and the rest of us in the area don’t.  That doesn’t mean it would ever even occur to me to try to screw with rules in some kind of perverse effort to “level the playing field.”  GS also has an abundant supply of strong-as-oxes farm kids year after year.  Trust me, it’s not the norm where I’m from — and it sure would be nice to have.  But it’s no reason for me to try to throw bombs in your path, just because your program enjoys that benefit of being a rural school with many kids who have done physical labor since they could walk.

No, I’m not talking about advantages and disadvantages.  I’m talking about teaching a bad lesson to kids:  that their destinies are largely the result of chance and a stacked deck that could (and should) be stacked differently to achieve parity in outcomes.

The first fault with that is the belief that equality in outcomes is something that should even be sought.  The second fault with that is that our economy simply isn’t built that way.  Competition is hard and other guys are going to have advantages and disadvantages.  The earlier kids can learn that reality, the better for everybody.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lysander said:

I admit that my liking the matchups as a reason for preferring the SF is a selfish one (and certainly not much of a reason for it initially)….I just like watching the Best v. the Best whenever possible and I have certainly seen that in many cases due to the SF.

More realistically, I simply think the SF (for all its flaws) is clearly the fairest approach.  Bumping EVERY private/parochial in EVERY class in EVERY sport because of the success of a handful of schools in any specific sport VS bumping a SINGLE school in a SINGLE class for its success in a SINGLE sport is the only reasonable solution.

Moving up every school is tantamount to using a shotgun when a scalpel will suffice. 

Doing this might also be ripe for an Equal Protection challenge.

Courts have found that state HS athletic associations, though technically private non-profits, are de facto state agencies.  As such, they are generally bound by the same limitations as a formal state agency.

The SF (as deeply flawed as it is) is safe from EP and DP challenges because it applies equally to everybody and is tied to actual historical performance — ie, not who you are, but what you’ve done.

When the law treats different people or entities differently because of who they are, rather than what they’ve done, it gets on thin legal ice very quickly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

Actually, programs like Gibson Southern are a great example of what I’m talking about.  It’s a genuinely elite football program - and it’s a public school.  Nick has put together a fantastic feeder program and a culture that has bred a consistent level of success.  Has he done it alone?  Not at all.  He inherited something good and made it even better - and had the support and buy-in of parents, administrators, the kids, etc.

FTR, if you read my post more carefully, you’ll note a couple things.

First, it’s not emotional.  I don’t know where you’re getting this “heartstrings” thing.  I assure you, I’m not a heartstrings guy.  What I wrote was a hard and undeniable truth of life: you don’t make yourself better by seeking to hold others back simply because you don’t like that they have succeeded more than you have.

Second, I spoke nothing to advantages and such.  I neither touted nor denied them.  And that’s because I just don’t think reality is that simple.  Anybody who wants to go looking for inherent advantages or disadvantages, in order to complain about results, could find them.

I think it’s an advantage that you guys have a B10 quarterback under center and the rest of us in the area don’t.  That doesn’t mean it would ever even occur to me to try to screw with rules in some kind of perverse effort to “level the playing field.”  GS also has an abundant supply of strong-as-oxes farm kids year after year.  Trust me, it’s not the norm where I’m from — and it sure would be nice to have.  But it’s no reason for me to try to throw bombs in your path, just because your program enjoys that benefit of being a rural school with many kids who have done physical labor since they could walk.

No, I’m not talking about advantages and disadvantages.  I’m talking about teaching a bad lesson to kids:  that their destinies are largely the result of chance and a stacked deck that could (and should) be stacked differently to achieve parity in outcomes.

The first fault with that is the belief that equality in outcomes is something that should even be sought.  The second fault with that is that our economy simply isn’t built that way.  Competition is hard and other guys are going to have advantages and disadvantages.  The earlier kids can learn that reality, the better for everybody.

Another great example is Jasper.  Can you remember a time when Jasper hasn’t fielded highly competitive teams in….just about every sport?

Both them and their neighbor to the south just won baseball championships.  And Southridge has had a lot of success in football (and other sports) recently.

I’m sure, if somebody was so inclined, they could do a deep dive in Jasper’s culture (both the community and the schools) and find things that help explain why they’ve long managed to remain one of the premier athletic programs not only in Southern Indiana, but in the entire state.  And maybe those things are inherent advantages they have that a school like, say Boonville, doesn’t.  And so what?  That doesn’t mean Jasper should have weights tied to their ankles so that Boonville can have a better chance to succeed as Jasper has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MHSTigerFan said:

That doesn’t mean Jasper should have weights tied to their ankles so that Boonville can have a better chance to succeed as Jasper has.

I alway enjoy “Harrison Bergeron” references…..even when indirect.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...