Good lord, WSR. I don't even know if I should bother replying anymore. Do you even read what you're writing?
Originally posted by WSR56:
Do your research and you will find the answer but obviously to uneducated to do so.
I give you an answer and you just ignore it and then call me "to uneducated." That was
too hilarious not to point out. "
To uneducated." Good lord.
Originally posted by WSR56:
As ive stated earlier before you went on your obsurd rant
I haven't gone on any rants, "obsurd" (
it's absurd) or otherwise. Now,
you have, on the other hand. However, I have given concise points in response to everything you've said and you chose to ignore them and then resorted to repeatedly yelling, name calling and now mocking where I'm from. Great way to handle a debate.
Originally posted by WSR56:
Never said that but they should play 11 man within the conference they were originally affiliated with but dropped to 8 man in the 275 conference to compete. As ive said a ton of times before but your to thick skulled to comprehend
1. You completely ignore the point of my response and just say, "never said that," and call
me thick skulled when you completely ignored the point. 2. You obviously do not know the history of 8 Man if you think Stanberry or any of the teams that moved to 8 Man in the early 90s "dropped to compete." Because if you did, you'd know that Stanberry wasn't in the original group of teams that founded 8 Man in 1988 and you'd know that MSHSAA told the founding teams of 8 Man that they had to get more teams to switch to 8 Man or they couldn't continue with the classification. You can't just revise history to prove your point. No team has
always played 8 Man, so why would any one team have more of a right to play 8 Man than another? Didn't technically
everyone "drop to compete"?
-----
I'll now try to address what you've said. This isn't a "rant." This is a thought out response to try to address all of the wide reaching generalizations you're making. Try to keep up.
Originally posted by WSR56:
5. Maybe so but the Teams they played with bigger enrollment have been forced to COOP just to compete with the almighty dog pound.
[...]
NEN should play by themselves in the small division of 8 man if people like you would listen and could comprehend.
[...]
Do Your research and get back to me with your educated findings
Look, I can appreciate and understand that you like the idea of two 8 Man divisions. You're from Kansas, so you've seen it work there. And you're very fixated on this idea of under-100 enrollment and over-100 enrollment. But you tell me that I "can't comprehend," yet you ignore the fact that there are reasons why that
doesn't work for Missouri and
does work for Kansas. Do you realize that there are literally 99 schools with enrollments under 100 that play 8 Man football in Kansas?
There aren't that many in Missouri and nowhere near it. It makes sense for Kansas because they have so many schools that small that play football. In the 2014 football season, there were only 8 football programs in the state of Missouri that played with an enrollment (or combined enrollment) under 100. That's both 8 Man and 11 Man teams.
Only 8! There were only 21 teams in 8 Man this season. It's so painfully obvious why a split 8 Man division isn't possible right now in Missouri. Now, yes. If
several [/B]more teams picked up 8 Man and there were roughly as many 8 Man teams as there are in Class 1, then I would totally see your point and I would agree with you on a split 8 Man division. Definitely. However, that isn't the case right now and it won't be for many, many years.
Now, I know this is where you're just waiting to scream about co-ops and how forcing the breakup of all co-ops will satisfy the lack of teams. Let me address that...
See, this is where you're really not getting it. You act like or think you've done "countless hours of research" into this topic, but you clearly haven't thought it through well enough. You're making sweeping generalizations about co-ops and trying to act like all[/I] teams that are co-oping are being forced to[/I] co-op because they're "being preyed on," yet so many of the teams that are co-oping are doing it for other reasons. You can't generalize all of the co-ops and act like they're all the same.
Looking over the list of the 21 teams in 8 Man this year, 9 of those teams were some form of a co-op. Of all of those 9 teams, I would say 8 have legitimate reasons for being co-oped if you were to try to say, "You're just co-oping to compete better." And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt on the East Atchison co-op with Tarkio and Fairfax.
[Fairfax's total school enrollment is only 40. Now, there may or may not have been at least 8 Fairfax players on East Atchison this year. But like I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that Fairfax could have fielded their own team this year and been totally able to finish at least 10 games with just their players.] Next year, you
might be able to say the same thing about the Nodaway-Holt and South Holt co-op next year, but I'm not sure how much longer South Holt was going to be able to stand on their own -- they only had 10 players this year.
You want to say that South Holt has been forced into that situation because they are "being preyed on"? It has only been 10 years since they last won a state championship. They were a powerhouse every year. How, in just 9 years, did they go from perennial powerhouse to "being preyed on"? You think that happened
just because of what other teams are doing? I'd say that certainly is an internal problem, either within the school or community, with non-football related circumstances -- not a problem with what other schools are doing.
Let's talk about NorthWest Nodaway. Are you going to try to chalk that one up to co-oping "to compete" or "being preyed on"? Did you know that they were granted a hardship by MSHSAA to co-op because West Nodaway didn't have enough players to field a team? Do you say that's because they were "preyed on"? Did you know that North Nodaway and West Nodaway were already co-oping in nearly every other sport (excluding basketball) and that football was one of the last sports they formed a co-op for? Were they being "preyed on" in track too? Non-football related circumstances. Same goes for Union Star co-oping with King City --
they co-op for other sports besides football! You don't just get to ignore that.
You mention Tarkio as a team that "should play" 11 Man. This really shows how out of touch you are with this situation. Sure, they were playing 11 Man a few years ago, but their numbers problem was already occurring before they were even in 8 Man, so you can't even attribute their co-oping to "trying to compete." Did you know that their enrollment this cycle is only 94? Did you know that their sophomore class only has 5 kids in it...total? Sure, it's a shame that a program went from 11 Man to a co-oped 8 Man team in only 2 years. But, that has nothing to do with the other schools in 8 Man. That is, again, due to other non-football related circumstances.
Co-oping "to compete" and co-oping because you have legitimate problems sustaining numbers over a period of time are
very different. You don't get to act like it's the same thing. Smaller class sizes and towns losing populations are variables affected by non-football related circumstances. You can't blame a town getting smaller on another town's 8 Man football team.
Going off of your idea that you think no co-ops should be allowed at all:
I count 10 schools that wouldn't have been able to play football in 2014 if you wouldn't have allowed co-ops. They couldn't play football because either they don't have the numbers to field a team or because they don't have their own field, equipment, facilities, etc. You mention NE Nodaway specifically, yet fail to realize there is no football field in Ravenwood. NEN had never had a football team before their co-op with Worth County, therefore they have no uniforms, football equipment, field, etc.. Co-oping with Worth County gives them the opportunity to play football that they would otherwise not have. In fact, I would say a good amount of the teams that join a co-op do so for that reason. You seem to be ignoring how many teams are in that particular situation; there's a lot. And they wouldn't be able to play football at all otherwise. They never had football or they don't have the facilities and equipment or they don't have the money to fund a team. We're just going to deny those teams the right to play football?
You're usually so fixated on this idea of a 100 enrollment cutoff. If that were implemented, you'd have only gotten 2 teams from 11 Man this year with that cutoff. I can assure you, you'd find a lot more resistance than just me for a plan that results in making the 8 Man classification smaller or a plan that splits a 21 team division in half, even with a window to (
very slight) growth. You tell me you have done countless hours of research on this, yet there are numerous problems with your layout of teams in the big and small divisions.
In the schools for the big division, why are 4 of them under 100 enrollment? In the schools in the small division, why are 3 of them over 100 enrollment? Why are there 19 small division schools and only 8 big division schools? Why are there schools bigger than Stanberry in the small division? If those darn GRC teams would just "step up" like you say, do Tarkio and Rock Port just play each other again at the end of the season and the winner is the state champion? Oh, you mean you still have to have those GRC teams because we
just have to split 8 Man in half? When did Greenfield join the GRC? Doesn't this put a larger strain on travel, since the big division teams and small division teams are not concentrated in the same areas? Why does Class 1 have 64 teams and one division, but 8 Man now has 27 teams and two divisions? Isn't there currently a bigger difference between the smallest and largest Class 1 teams and the difference between the smallest and largest 8 Man teams? Won't this just make the discrepancy larger? What do you plan to say to the schools who can no longer participate in football because you've banned co-ops? Craig's current enrollment is only 19 -- what happens in the years that they don't have enough to play football? They just get left out in the cold like the other schools? Wait, isn't this discouraging more [/I]schools from participating in football than right now?
WSR, these are all rhetorical questions. You said I needed to just "listen and comprehend." However, I fully comprehend what you're saying. I just already knew there would be problems like the ones that these questions raise and many more. It's a nice theory, but it's easily dismissible with so few 8 Man programs in Missouri. Not to mention the current situation in 8 Man allows for more schools to participate in football than what you are proposing.
You single out Stanberry specifically [
I think it seems like you have a personal vendetta against the town, but maybe you're just crazy], because I am from there and because we have recently had a good cycle of talent and a good three year stretch. And sure, I hope it will last a couple more years, at least. But Stanberry has a high school of 101 kids and isn't getting significantly bigger any time soon. If being comfortably under the Class 2 basketball cutoff and being in the bottom half of enrollment for current 8 Man teams is "too big," then you and I have very different understandings of enrollment sizes. Especially when moving to 11 Man would make them the 3rd smallest team in the state. Hardly taking advantage of anything. You want me to admit that Stanberry is "scared" to make the move to 11 Man. Scared? No. Do I think it's illogical? Absolutely. Conference affiliation has nothing to do with it. You know where else they have conferences with an 11 Man and an 8 Man division? Kansas. You say that Stanberry should be required to play 11 man within the conference they were originally affiliated. Well, guess what? Every 8 Man team used to be an 11 Man team, so how is that any different?
When we've reached this point in the conversation in the past, you've completely flip flopped on all of your previous arguments and said, "Well, yeah. There should be no 8 Man and everyone should have to play 11 Man." Well, guess what? The same schools would still co-op just to be able to field a football program and more[/I] schools would "co-op to compete," rendering all of your points moot anyway.
