Zoolander

This is a story as old as mankind. Aesop put it this way: One afternoon a fox was walking through the forest and spotted a bunch of grapes hanging from over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Taking a few steps back, the fox jumped and just missed the hanging grapes. Again the fox took a few paces back and tried to reach them but still failed. Finally, giving up, the fox turned up his nose and said, "They're probably sour anyway." The moral of the story is: “It’s easy to despise what you cannot have.”

The only thing this proves is that some people will whine until somebody hands them a trophy just for showing up... :creepy:

Your idea sounds fair...

Cuddly as a cactus no doubt... :lol:

Thanks, I think? :creepy:

I hear you, but I am saying that this type of thinking and actions only leads to mutually assured mediocrity. Instead of understanding what excellent programs do to become excellent, and then mimicking their practices in order to also achieve success, this type of thinking seems to be more focused upon punishing success and watering down the excellent to ensure that everyone is equally mediocre. Life does not grade on the curve. Jealousy, envy, covetousness and greed are not becoming traits upon which to build.

My analogy is somewhat different that what you outline here, but are you suggesting that any of this is the right thing to do?

I've got one for you Thomam... How would any of you feel if the state passed legislation requiring you to buy all your groceries at the one grocery store nearest your home… and nowhere else? “No fair” you say… “the big SuperDuperKrogerama is across the boundary in another enforced “Loyalty Zone” they’ve got better stuff at better prices.” Then the state passes legislation requiring that as of next August, you must buy all your clothing at certain stores specified by the state within a limited driving radius from your home? “No fair” you say… “the big shopping mall is across the boundary in another enforced “Loyalty Zone” they’ve got more to choose from.” “Tough” say the enforcers, “we have to make sure every retailer is getting a fair slice of the pie.” “Fine,” you say, “I’ll just go and shop there any way.” “We can’t guard you 24/7” say the enforcers, “but if we catch you, you will not be allowed to eat the food or wear the clothes you buy outside of your Loyalty Zone for a whole year.” I could go on, but you get my point. Does this even remotely sound like something we would or should tolerate in America?

After reading RM's info, it appears as though we may be being set up by the KHSAA. They propose two years of penalties, and then everyone will feel lucky to get only one. It is absurd to do this to kids below grade 9 regardless of the rationale. For that matter, it is absurd to punish any kids through grade 12 for the misconduct of adults.

Whether it's from religious to public, or public to religious, can anyone honestly state that this type of discrimination is not the specific goal of this legislation? The problem for the public school supporters is finding a way to achieve this discrimination while legally concealing it as something else. They can try giving each group their own water fountain or designated seats on the bus... fair is fair right? The fact is discrimination and segregation will always be discrimination and segregation. I can't believe that any sentient being would ever support anything so skewed. It won't work.

The more I’ve thought about all this, the more it stinks… badly. Here's a very simple what if... What if a private middle schooler's parents hit a tight spot financially and determine that tuition is an expense they must cut to make ends meet? Is it fair for that kid to have to sit out two years of high school competition for reasons completely beyond his/her control? What if that kid is blessed with significant athletic skills, and his best option for getting into a good college is via an athletic scholarship? Would not his chances be considerably limited by this extremely punitive rule? There are dozens of other scenarios that could all be legally defended on many grounds. If the KHSAA is foolish enough to go down this path, they will spend many more dollars defending their decision than they currently spend enforcing their existing rules. (And I for one would hope they lose their shirts.) If adults are the problem, (boosters, administrators, coaches, ADs, etc.) find an appropriate way to punish the adult offenders. Do not punish minors who just want to (and deserve to be able to) play ball.

This option would still punish kids unfairly in the vast majority of cases. Why make them sit at all? Give everyone one transfer with no penalties and you would achieve the same removal of loopholes and reduce the need for policing by the KHSAA. The hurdle here is adults with control issues. If the real problem is illegal recruiting by coaches, ADs or others, then crack down on them, not the kids.

My happy place used to be Kentucky, home of the Sweet 16. A state fabled for basketball greatness and the emotional Cinderella story.

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Last night, I went to sleep in America... the land of the free, this morning I awakened to find myself in a land where the state is seeking more control over me and my kids. I’m not a big public or private school advocate, but this is just plain wrong, even for 7th and 8th graders who play up on their school's varsity teams. If a school has a good varsity coach that changes jobs either by choice or by force, it is not fair for kids playing in that system to get stuck with a different coach with different priorities and values. What if you son or daughter gets buried in a system that favors certain kids over others, and they’re not allowed the opportunity to fully develop their confidence and skills? This is the opposite direction a free state should go, and only serves to prove that this has nothing to do with what is best for the kids, but has everything to do with insulating adults running the system. This country did not achieve greatness by restricting freedoms. Freedom allows good programs to get better, and forces bad programs to improve or continue to fail. In the short term, this will seem to stabilize some weak programs, but over time, it will only serve to weaken them further as many role players quit rather than continue to be frustrated under a coach or system they feel stuck with. If a family is willing to change address, they should be able to enroll their kid anywhere they want. Allowing kids to have until the 9th grade before being locked into a system is right. Beyond this, the correct line would be to allow kids one move between grades 9 and 12, no questions asked. It would do much to level the playing field, and to ensure fairness for the kids that should be the top priority of this whole mess. So there.

I thought Kilgore was a shooter, what kind of year is he having? Who else is on the floor with Wight, Kilgore and Haynes?

I understand that Wight is the Tigers primary scoring threat but thought that Kilgore could drain the three, and that Haynes was a stud inside. Is Wight having to do too much on his own?

This whole situation is ridiculous. If 20 some kids are eligible to play at public schools with free tuition, free breakfast, free lunch, free uniforms and shoes from boosters, then one kid should be able to play at a private school.

Isn't there some kind of rule against "nudie" avatars? :lol: