East/West all stars

[RCC9]

no no no. I'm saying...there needs to be a solution to include all the kids. Period. That's my whole discussion point. Inclusion shouldn't be driven by conditions (like whether your coach is a member or not). A kid has no control on whether her coach is a member and should still have the ability to be nominated by someone that can tell her story. You and others can say "there is a way". Okay, technically there is. Kids from non-member schools can be nominated. Sure. But how often is that going to really happen (especially if that coach has a competing player). Everyone will say "Sure, I'd nominate an deserving kid", but when it comes down to reality and it's an arch rival and you have a kid in the running, will it really happen. I highly doubt it. And even if it did, how is that opposing player's case made vs the others? So unless you involve someone that has the facts and full understanding of the player (which won't be an opposing region coach), then they really do not have the opportunity...even if they would find their way on to a ballot somehow.

 

Again, what is the harm in taking nominations from any head coach...member or not? What issues do we see with that proposal that aren't easily overcome?

[PH2]

In the long term, I don't think that really serves the girls. At best, you're just passing a few names to someone to include in a longer list of names. That's not a good solution. Seems to me that you're looking for ways to remain outside the system used by everybody else in the state for no good reason, when there are a lot of benefits to being a part of the association, not the least of which is direct access to nominating and voting.

 

It's the association's awards. No different than voting for MLB Hall of Fame. Theoretically anyone should be able to vote for who is in the HoF, but we can't. Not even all MLB journalists can. I don't know why this is any different.

[RCC9]

In the long term, I don't think that really serves the girls. At best, you're just passing a few names to someone to include in a longer list of names. That's not a good solution. Seems to me that you're looking for ways to remain outside the system used by everybody else in the state for no good reason, when there are a lot of benefits to being a part of the association, not the least of which is direct access to nominating and voting.

 

It's the association's awards. No different than voting for MLB Hall of Fame. Theoretically anyone should be able to vote for who is in the HoF, but we can't. Not even all MLB journalists can. I don't know why this is any different.

 

You look at it as "passing on a few extra names". I look at it as ensuring anyone that is deserving gets their story told. And if all coaches did as the folks on here would like and joined, wouldn't that list grow anyway? Youre encouraging more coaches to sign up but then using "the list would be longer" as a reason why that's not a good idea.

 

Looking at ways to get around the system??? I have been a member and will continue to be one. That's not the issue. The issue is all kids don't get considered fairly. You have to be in "the club".

 

And the same system that everyone else uses?? 57% of the schools in the state ARE NOT signed up for this association. Looks like this year I'm actually in the majority.

 

And since you went there, what is the value of signing up, other than nomination and voting rights?

 

Your mlb question...apples and oranges. The governing body (mlb in this case) puts together a committee and sponsors the event. They rely on that committee to make the determination on belhalf of mlb. All players are eligible and all facts are provided. There aren't players left off the ballot for any reason. Especially because someone didn't pay their membership. There are no "outside conditions" that keep a player from being considered. That's what we are talking about here. Players aren't left off if their coach or owner doesn't do something. All players are considered and marketed. And just like you said, not even all journalists are invited. That's fine, but all players are considered. That's exactly what I'm saying. Keep the association as the subset and keep their voting rights, but find a way to make all players be considered...just like MLB. I'm glad you brought that up.

[PH2]

I'm saying that effectively, all you're doing is passing a few names to add to the list. That's not going to help get anyone voted for the award. Being a member and directly involved in the process would do more good. That's my point.

[PH2]

As far as the 57% stat, that's a direct reflection of which programs/schools care about softball. There are plenty of schools that field a softball team but aren't very good and don't care about the KSCA or awards or whatever else the KSCA does. And isn't that part of the discussion here? NKY wants to be part of the group that values softball and is good/getting better at it. That number doesn't surprise me at all. I have no idea - which teams in the top 25 or even the receiving votes column are NOT members? I bet it's a far smaller percentage than 57%.

[heavy duty]

...I'm saying...there needs to be a solution to include all the kids. Period. There is a solution in place...it's called NO PLAYER IN THE STATE IS EXCLUDED

 

Inclusion shouldn't be driven by conditions The ONLY condition is for the player to actually be on a team in the State of KY

 

A kid has no control on whether her coach is a memberNot the kid's responsibility, it is the Coach's choice to become a member or not...if they choose to be a member, then it's the Coach's responsibility to join in accordance with the rules of the group

 

and should still have the ability to be nominated by someone that can tell her story.So, I take it once your argument of "no one can be nominated from non-member teams" was proven false, you changed it to this "tell her story" line?

 

You and others can say "there is a way". Okay, technically there is. Kids from non-member schools can be nominated. Sure. So, clearly you do agree, but continue to argue against your own admission...facts are stubborn things

 

So unless you involve someone that has the facts and full understanding of the player like say for example, their Coach???

 

Again, what is the harm in taking nominations from any head coach...member or not? What issues do we see with that proposal that aren't easily overcome?To me, this just smacks of an entitlement attitude...you want the ability to nominate your players, and "tell their story" in hopes of winning an award, yet don't want to contribute to the group that provides the award, organizes the banquet, puts on the games, provides the website, coordinates the rankings, communicates with the media, etc. etc.etc.

...

[SoftballFan14]

no no no. I'm saying...there needs to be a solution to include all the kids. Period. That's my whole discussion point. Inclusion shouldn't be driven by conditions (like whether your coach is a member or not). A kid has no control on whether her coach is a member and should still have the ability to be nominated by someone that can tell her story. You and others can say "there is a way". Okay, technically there is. Kids from non-member schools can be nominated. Sure. But how often is that going to really happen (especially if that coach has a competing player). Everyone will say "Sure, I'd nominate an deserving kid", but when it comes down to reality and it's an arch rival and you have a kid in the running, will it really happen. I highly doubt it. And even if it did, how is that opposing player's case made vs the others? So unless you involve someone that has the facts and full understanding of the player (which won't be an opposing region coach), then they really do not have the opportunity...even if they would find their way on to a ballot somehow.

 

Again, what is the harm in taking nominations from any head coach...member or not? What issues do we see with that proposal that aren't easily overcome?

 

"Inclusion shouldn't be driven by conditions"..............Coach, you need to move out of NKY to Disneyland because I believe you've inhaled a little too much of Tinkerbell's fairy dust!

 

Life gives us conditions!!! There are conditions to everything we do!! If I had ever thought of sending my kid to the elite school known as Highlands.....there would have been conditions! We don't live in that area. Or are you saying, we wouldn't have any conditions to meet? Tuition isn't a condition?

 

So, you are saying that a rival coach wouldn't nominate or vote for kids in their region against their own players? So, safe to say, last year when you WERE a member, my kid probably didn't get your vote? Cause we are rivals.... Mmmmm, don't think she or I will lose sleep if that's the case; however, it's silly to think that everyone's vote will actually go to the BEST player over their own player. Those kids become your own...as a parent, I would WANT my coach to have the same interest in my kid as I did BUT would certainly understand if mine didn't win the POPULARITY contest. Which in reality, this is what these awards boil down too!! WE ALL KNOW THAT!!!

[RCC9]

...

 

Let's start here. So every player worthy of all state this year will be considered and brought up to the committee. Is that what you're saying? You really don't believe that do ya? So are those kids that don't have coaches as members and won't be voted on...you're trying to tell me they are included??? Call it what you want. I say they are able to be included but will not be.

 

NO PLAYER IN THE STATE IS EXCLUDED? When they come out, I'll give you the list that aren't included. Then you can explain to me how they were all included.

 

The only condition is to be on a team. Really?? How will all of them get nominated. Not going to happen. Period. They aren't members so their players won't get nominated. Call it what you want, not gonna happen.

 

I agree it's not the kids choice and it the coach's. Completely agree. But again, that means a kid has no control on whether they can be considered, no matter how good of a season they are having. You guys act like this committee is the majority of the state, it's not. 129 schools out of 300 are included. So AGAIN, please tell me what harm their is in any coach being able to nominate a deserving player?

 

You're next two paragraphs are semantics. Let me explain. They want you you to be able to say "all kids have the same opportunity" Do you really believe that to be true. If the kid is relying on her coach to join an association to ensure she will get nominated, do those kids that have coaches that don't care to join really have the same opportunity as a kid that has a coach on the committee and is going to bat for her? Again, you can't really believe the opportunity is the same. Heck, the one without the coach on the committee most likely won't even get a nomination!

 

Whats funny is you pull out fragments of my explanations to try and make your case. All the things you highlight have a lot more explanation to them. But you take the fragments like some late night tv show pulling out excerpts of a collaboration of different points.

 

And yes their coach should be involved. But shouldn't be forced to jjoin a committee to get his players recognition. AGAIN, What is the harm in allowing any coach to nominate?

 

Entitlement??? What are you talking about. All I want to do is make sure every kid that is deserving gets the chance to be voted on. That's all I want. That doesn't happen today. I could care less how it happens. Entitlement would be saying I just want every kid (deserving or not) to be included. We are talking about kids that are deserving of consideration for a very distinguished honor that never even make it to the ballot. If we all say it's about the kids, then there should be a solution that ensures all deserving kids get considerd. That doesn't happen today. Isn't a kid that is having an outstanding year "entitled" to being in the ballot, regardless of outside things that you admit they have no control over?? But we can keep it locked down to the 129 schools and keep saying every kid has the same opportunity...even though we all know that's not the truth. So twist my word all you want and use fragments of my points, but it still doesn't fix the gap we have today.

Edited May 27, 2016 by RCC9

[RCC9]

"Inclusion shouldn't be driven by conditions"..............Coach, you need to move out of NKY to Disneyland because I believe you've inhaled a little too much of Tinkerbell's fairy dust!

 

Life gives us conditions!!! There are conditions to everything we do!! If I had ever thought of sending my kid to the elite school known as Highlands.....there would have been conditions! We don't live in that area. Or are you saying, we wouldn't have any conditions to meet? Tuition isn't a condition?

 

So, you are saying that a rival coach wouldn't nominate or vote for kids in their region against their own players? So, safe to say, last year when you WERE a member, my kid probably didn't get your vote? Cause we are rivals.... Mmmmm, don't think she or I will lose sleep if that's the case; however, it's silly to think that everyone's vote will actually go to the BEST player over their own player. Those kids become your own...as a parent, I would WANT my coach to have the same interest in my kid as I did BUT would certainly understand if mine didn't win the POPULARITY contest. Which in reality, this is what these awards boil down too!! WE ALL KNOW THAT!!!

 

So life gives us conditions huh. Then why didn't you apply that logic when you were pointing out the kids that don't have travel ball opportunities? Life gives us conditions right?

 

What are you talking about. You did send your kid to an elite school that I don't believe you lived near.

 

So what I'm hearing out of you two is that you are fine that not every deserving kid is not considered. "Well if their coach doesn't sing up, well tough luck!" Really, we shouldn't put a solution in place (whether it's inside this committee or not) that allows us to make sure every deserving kid is included. So a kid that doesn't have a coach as a member will not get nominated by her coach, there will be no stats or facts provided and she has ton"hope" that another coach in her region nominates her? Is that what we really want all state honors to come down to? A worthy player crossing her finger in hopes that an opposing region coach thinks about her when he submits his nominees? I really can even believe I have to defend my belief that we should make is as easy as possible to ensure the final ballot truly has all the candidates on it that should be considered.

 

As far as the vote last year...really??? I cannot even believe you just said that. You more than anyone know how often I took up for your kid, respect your kid and defended your decision to transfer schools when many others were attacking. In fact I'm the one that stood up in one of the NKy coaches meeting and said I was embarrassed to be a part of a committee that was obviously holding grudges and not truly putting the kids first when your kid who was clearly one of the best players was voted to second team in our regional voting. So you can have all your fun on here and not lose any sleep because I'm sure you know that I supported you kid til the end. But hey, have your fun.

[heavy duty]

Good grief, man, you don't need me to twist your words...you've taken Pretzel Logic to staggering new levels!!

 

The "entitlement" comment was CLEARLY in regards to you, not any player....just you.

You've dragged this thread so far down the rabbit hole, I had to go back to page 1 just to see if maybe I missed something....nope, I didn't.

 

It's an important year for you because you feel, maybe rightfully so, that you have 3 seniors worthy of consideration and possibly accolade. But you jacked up your membership into the KSCA, and those players may not be nominated. Whoknows? You have no control? You're mad, so you disparage the group and the process you want to be a part of. I would guess you haven't complained about any of this in the past while you were a KSCA member, and had you not jacked up this year's application, this thread would be about 1 page long.

 

Good luck to you and your team in the post season. You can have the last word, 'cause I'm bored.

[RCC9]

My goodness. Not mad at all. All I said is being on this side of it (because I have always been a member) identifies a gap we have in the process.

 

My logic has been very simple and exactly the same since I started it. We have a process that doesn't ensure we include every deserving player. It's very simple and I will ask you one question.

 

Are you confident that all deserving candidates will be on the ballot this year or any year?

 

Assuming your answer is no, then that's my point! If your answer is no, then there is a gap in the process. I don't care if it's this committee, another committee, the KHSSA, any other set of "rules" or whatever else we can talk about. With the eteemed honor of all state (meaning representing our state with the best players), then there should be a way to make sure all are considered. I don't care who owns the process or what it is. Today we aren't sure that all of them even make the ballot. That's a broken process. And again, I don't care who owns the process or what the current "rules" are. You forget I have been a member and I still think the process is broke! It was just never exposed to me because I was on the other side. Being on this side made me think about how many could possibly be left off (because of the process) and that's not fair to those kids. That's where this started and is exactly what I've been saying since the first post.

 

For the record, I was a member when I didn't feel I had kids worthy. I have no problem at all with the association. I'm saying it's been exposed to me that there is a gap I the all state process. When I was a member and when I wasn't. The gap is still there.

[SoftballFan14]

So life gives us conditions huh. Then why didn't you apply that logic when you were pointing out the kids that don't have travel ball opportunities? Life gives us conditions right?

 

What are you talking about. You did send your kid to an elite school that I don't believe you lived near.

 

So what I'm hearing out of you two is that you are fine that not every deserving kid is not considered. "Well if their coach doesn't sing up, well tough luck!" Really, we shouldn't put a solution in place (whether it's inside this committee or not) that allows us to make sure every deserving kid is included. So a kid that doesn't have a coach as a member will not get nominated by her coach, there will be no stats or facts provided and she has ton"hope" that another coach in her region nominates her? Is that what we really want all state honors to come down to? A worthy player crossing her finger in hopes that an opposing region coach thinks about her when he submits his nominees? I really can even believe I have to defend my belief that we should make is as easy as possible to ensure the final ballot truly has all the candidates on it that should be considered.

 

As far as the vote last year...really??? I cannot even believe you just said that. You more than anyone know how often I took up for your kid, respect your kid and defended your decision to transfer schools when many others were attacking. In fact I'm the one that stood up in one of the NKy coaches meeting and said I was embarrassed to be a part of a committee that was obviously holding grudges and not truly putting the kids first when your kid who was clearly one of the best players was voted to second team in our regional voting. So you can have all your fun on here and not lose any sleep because I'm sure you know that I supported you kid til the end. But hey, have your fun.

 

Of course conditions in life keep kids from being involved in sports that may lead them to opportunities past high school. I stated that I found it sad if some of those opportunities were not helped by a high school coach being the contact for the player with colleges. It went back to that sell your players to the association for awards, sell your player to colleges to extend their athletic career. You, Coach, are the the one that made the statement about inclusion shouldn't have conditions.

 

I sent my daughter to a PRIVATE school....therefore, we knew of the expected condition of tuition. However, your school is public. Tuition is not a normal inclusive condition for public schools. So your statement regarding "Inclusion should not have conditions" is slightly hypocritical, IMO.

 

NO!!!!! I am NOT fine with kids that are deserving of awards not being included in being nominated and potentially winning those awards. THAT IS WHY I CALLED OUT THE MAJORITY OF THE 9TH REGION COACHES FOR NOT BEING MEMBERS OF THE KSCA SO THAT ALL THE PLAYERS WERE AFFORDED THIS OPPORTUNITY!!! You and I agree on the fact they all should be!! Where we don't agree is that you feel coaches shouldn't be required to be members to get their kids nominated............I feel they should have to follow same rules all members have & those rules are to be members by paying a nominal fee & to attend a couple meetings. For what the girls put in on the field & in the classroom (since there are academic awards given too), I don't feel that is too much to ask of a coach and school to be a part of.

 

Really.......you ask me really??? My statement regarding the vote last year was a response to your statement "Everyone will say 'Sure, I'd nominate a deserving kid,' but when it comes down to reality & it's an arch rival & you have a kid in the running, will it really happen. I highly doubt it." So, as a rival player from that statement I merely assumed that my kid didn't get your vote. But no worries!!! Even if she didn't get it, doesn't upset me or her. That was all that was about. You had your players that you were responsible for.

 

Your response to me above is one of those deflections I noted you being good for before....but let's do this since you opened the can of worms!

 

In my responses to you this entire thread, never once have I questioned your honesty or straightforwardness, your respect for my kid, or remotely indicated that you ever negatively spoke of my kid. I wouldn't have ever expected that of you, therefore I am not going to hint to that. As for anyone needing to "defend" our decision....NEVER have I needed or asked for anyone to defend or even agree with it. For that matter, I do not care what ANYONE outside of my house felt about that move.

 

I will have fun when the schools and coaches in this area finally stop self exclusion from award & all star game opportunities throughout the state for their girls.

[RCC9]

Man, you really look at thing in a odd way.

 

So you say "every kid should be included, but also say that every coach should join " well the facts say only 43% of the coaches join and we've NEVER had 100%, so if we are really talking about the kids and ensuring they get their due recognition, regardless of what the "current" rules are, isn't that a process with a gap and exactly my point?? You know that you're never going to get 100% participation (or even close), which means you will always have to exclusion. That's a broken process anyway you want to look at it. And like I said, I don't care who owns the process or what current rules are out there. When you exclude a deserving candidate (for any reason you can think of) thats the issue we are talking about. Not whether there is a current committee with with rules or not. Could care less. Like like saying to your boss when he questions why something went wrong with a process "well boss, we've always done it like like". The words than make a boss cringe!!! "So the boss says "we've always had this gap in the process and we continue to do it the same all the time??" Might be looking for a new job where I work.

 

Let me ask you this about conditions. Sure there are condition in life. But if there is an easy way to remove those conditions to provide more opportunities for the deserving kids, you wouldn't want to remove them. Or you just want to tell them "that's life!"

 

And I don't even know why you started your rant about coaches not helping kids. Isn't that why 95% of the coaches do what they do??? Don't you think coaches are on the fields as extensions of the class room teaching life lessons everyday. Some year round? Don't you think that coaches get attached to every player in their program and would do anything to see them experience success? Don't you think that coaches sacrifice many other things to ensure they give proper effort to their kids? (For pennies on the hour) and I can promise you any one of my kids know I would do whatever I could to get them to the next level if that's what they wanted. But we all also know there are "conditions" with that as well.

 

Your whole tuition thing...I have no idea what you're trying to say there. Who cares if it's public or private? My kid goes to Highlands. A public school. There is no tuition unless you don't live in the city. If someone from outside the city chooses to send their kid to highlands and pay tuition, how in the world is that different than choosing to send a kid to private school? Both those families have the means and the same intentions for their kids right??? Really have no idea what you're trying to say there. In the Highlands situation, there are no "conditions" unless you create them yourself. Just like Notre Dame. If I live outside of Ft Thomas and want my kid to go to Highlands, there is that same "expected condition" involved that you talk about! That's inserting a condition by choice. Not a condition that exists that the player has no control over. Completely different. In your example, a parent doesn't have to send a kid to highlands to get an education. In the all state situation, you admit there can be exclusion if a coach doesn't join. There is a choice to send to highlands from our of district and a choice to send to Notre Dame...a private school. Kid excluded from the ballot had no choice or ANY control on whether her name ended up on the ballot, regardless of how good she is or what kind of year she is having. She has to rely on hope that someone else nominates her and can provide some kind of detail on her season that even gives her a chance. I really can't believe anyone would even argue a proposal to make it easier to ensure we include all deserving kids. It really boggles my mind!!

 

It really feels like you two are focused on "shame on the coaches" rather than how can we get all kids included and ensure when we say "the KY all state team" that every deserving kid was considered. We are doing a disservice if that's not the case. And again, I don't care who owns the process, funds the awards, is elected to govern it or what the current rules are. Until we make sure they are all included, the process is broke.

 

I am aware of examples where a coach was told "you better join or your kid (who was deserving) may not get on the ballot about a week before the voting. So the coach (who obviously had no intentions of joining) sent in his money and nominated her at the last minute. Well guess what, she ended up being POY on that region!! If he hadn't of joined, she wouldn't have even been nominated!! Tell me that's not a broken process.

 

You know Mady Moran right?? Tell me why she never made the ballot?? Was she deserving??? Was never even considered!! I know, shame on her coach. How about Hanna Dossett. I know. Shame on her coach. Why not remove those "rules" so they can simply be added and represented. It's really not that hard. You act like the coaches association is the end all solution. 57% of the coaches and schools don't agree or they would make sure they were members. Several coaches only join when they have a kid to promote and then don't join the next year when the kid graduates! That's not a broken process to you?? That doesn't scream "pay for representation" cause out of this 129, I bet several are in that exact situation. If I have some time today, I'll do a little analysis and see if my theory is correct. My gut tells me I am.

 

Well you made an incorrect assumption about you kid and me. I am not a coach that cares about who is on the ballot and what school they play for. I nominate and vote for the best players. But if you think all coaches do, you are very naive. Like you said, it's a popularity contest and in several cases, get what you can for your own kids. It's obvious in the marketing emails that go around when the ballots are distributed. They go out and try to garner votes like a political campaign. The first year, I really couldn't believe it. Then I started seeing some of these kids (that I wasn't sure should have been all state) showing up as all state! And others left off that I KNOW we're more deserving.

 

You'll have fun comment...why not change the process so you don't have to worry about whether a coach paid his membership dues? Then your fun can start tomorrow because all players are then easily included. It really sounds like you rather bash the coaches than work on a solution that removes that ovstacle for what you say you really want...inclusion for all kids that are deserving. If a coach joining an association to get recognition for a kid is a known obstacle, then why not remove that obstacle with a very easy solution. I know, because "it's always been that way. Shut up and join the association like everybody else" (although we know the majority of the coaches don't join and many only join when they have a player to recognize)

[RCC9]

Of course conditions in life keep kids from being involved in sports that may lead them to opportunities past high school. I stated that I found it sad if some of those opportunities were not helped by a high school coach being the contact for the player with colleges. It went back to that sell your players to the association for awards, sell your player to colleges to extend their athletic career. You, Coach, are the the one that made the statement about inclusion shouldn't have conditions.

 

I sent my daughter to a PRIVATE school....therefore, we knew of the expected condition of tuition. However, your school is public. Tuition is not a normal inclusive condition for public schools. So your statement regarding "Inclusion should not have conditions" is slightly hypocritical, IMO.

 

NO!!!!! I am NOT fine with kids that are deserving of awards not being included in being nominated and potentially winning those awards. THAT IS WHY I CALLED OUT THE MAJORITY OF THE 9TH REGION COACHES FOR NOT BEING MEMBERS OF THE KSCA SO THAT ALL THE PLAYERS WERE AFFORDED THIS OPPORTUNITY!!! You and I agree on the fact they all should be!! Where we don't agree is that you feel coaches shouldn't be required to be members to get their kids nominated............I feel they should have to follow same rules all members have & those rules are to be members by paying a nominal fee & to attend a couple meetings. For what the girls put in on the field & in the classroom (since there are academic awards given too), I don't feel that is too much to ask of a coach and school to be a part of.

 

Really.......you ask me really??? My statement regarding the vote last year was a response to your statement "Everyone will say 'Sure, I'd nominate a deserving kid,' but when it comes down to reality & it's an arch rival & you have a kid in the running, will it really happen. I highly doubt it." So, as a rival player from that statement I merely assumed that my kid didn't get your vote. But no worries!!! Even if she didn't get it, doesn't upset me or her. That was all that was about. You had your players that you were responsible for.

 

Your response to me above is one of those deflections I noted you being good for before....but let's do this since you opened the can of worms!

 

In my responses to you this entire thread, never once have I questioned your honesty or straightforwardness, your respect for my kid, or remotely indicated that you ever negatively spoke of my kid. I wouldn't have ever expected that of you, therefore I am not going to hint to that. As for anyone needing to "defend" our decision....NEVER have I needed or asked for anyone to defend or even agree with it. For that matter, I do not care what ANYONE outside of my house felt about that move.

 

I will have fun when the schools and coaches in this area finally stop self exclusion from award & all star game opportunities throughout the state for their girls.

 

In response to the support of you your kid...you most certainly did accuse me of not supporting your kid. The comment about "so I assume you didn't vote for my kid and I won't lose any sleep over it" was absolutely a direct comment at me about that. Spin it all you want. And as for defending...no you didn't ask for help. I volunteered because the decision to transfer was getting attacked by many on here. I had no idea who you were at the time, but agreed with your decision and said it many times. In fact, I think those conversations are what led to us meeting and you thanking me. And for you to say you didn't care what peolple thought...well as I recall, you were on here pretty much doing your own defending. Not saying that's right, wrong or indifferent. I would do the same thing. But to say you didn't care at the time...

[SoftballGuy]

How are the players picked for this?