If a district is really better for your family. Load up the u-haul and move then. Picking a place to to play football and win a game or two more is not necessarily "better" for the kid. How bout worrying about the kids education first
What a sh$(/ show. The Kylan Mabins story…
- Thread starter JoeENorthlando
- Start date
Again, if the whole family moves to another district then by all means play right away. A lot of times you see them stay put but kid switches schools. I have seen this in both public and private schools.
Coaches and teachers moving to provide a better financial opportunity is different than a kid switching schools year to year. Until a HS athlete is paying for mortgage, bills, food and providing for a entire family, this isn't it. I do see your point in regards to athletes vs. other students and no one bats an eye. I think it is the kid and parents job to do their homework on schools prior to entering HS. Obviously I think if a athlete is being bullied and harassed and treated in a very bad light those exemptions need to be made. If I was an AD I would never want to punish a kid. Problem is there is so much that goes into these situation that public won't know. Typically it is the athlete's and their parents side of the story that comes to light. Schools can't share sensitive information about a student, so their story never gets told. It is all just a mess and really tough,
story from over 30 years ago? really? a college program getting out of control has nothing to do with high school kids going to a school simply to play football. Other than trying to slam OU not sure what this post has to do with this thread. But congrats on getting a chance to throw this out there, I guess...
Just go full school choice and completely open it up to the recruiting that will 100% occur. Of course this would expose even more of the inherent inequity than what already exists, but who's worried about a few peons not able to compete in a sport, am I right? They need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and work harder to earn that right.
You shouldn’t be stuck playing for a shitty coach because you live 3 miles from where he works. And then, if you go move, a corrupt useless organization can tell you that you can’t play. It’s horseshit. You know who the shitty coaches are because the kids keep moving.
I don't completely disagree with you on this, but I do wonder what corruption you have evidence of, though. People make that charge a lot, but never seem to have actual court-admissible evidence to back it up. I see anecdotal evidence of stupidity, probably ignorance, but not actual corruption.
I know plenty of crappy coaches who get plenty of move-ins (often D-I types, yet somehow can't even get out of their district). Kids don't always move because the coach is crappy, but often because another coach (the one asking them to move) is unscrupulous, and they (and their parents) are dumb enough to believe the lines he feeds them.
In all honesty I don't disagree in part, but should you not get a pass maybe just a one time? We have all seen a school board remove or not support a coach because of some crappy reason say and admin or board members kid is not playing or a new sup, new principle wants his guy whatever the reason you name it. So they bring in somebody that will do their ask.
Should a kid or kids who might suffer because of that change not have the right to also change? Some decisions are not based on winning or losing and honestly affect kids and as a parent you might not even know it when you moved into that district. I have also seen schools keep some crappy coaches just because it is easier to keep them, instead of dealing with question on why you removed them after a long service history.
Open enrollment bills have been up for votes many times for a couple decades now, and they never seem to be able to pass, even with a Republican supermajority in both the Missouri House and Senate. I wonder why that is.
No you didn't. People make that charge a lot, but never seem to have actual court-admissible evidence to back it up. I see anecdotal evidence of stupidity, probably ignorance, certainly bad officiating, but not actual corruption.
Come on, man. Every person ever thinks their team is getting dumped on, especially in basketball. Also, that wouldn't indicated organizational corruption, even if the official was cheating for the other team; that would indicate one person.
Incarnate Word should be the Link Year of womens basketball. Link Year plays on the national level and does it the right way.
I was kind of being tongue in cheek when I posted that bc I know it's hard to prove actual corruption in a court of law, especially when it comes to poorly/lopsided officiating in games. Or much less that a ringer official - if there is actually one - has anything to do with MSHSAA being behind it.
But the officiating in that game - 90% of it by one of the three refs - was preposterously lopsided. I'm not normally a guy to cry foul over the officiating in games either because they don't have an easy job and get dumped on a lot due to the fact that they are inevitably going to miss things and make bad calls, and I respect that - we are all human and all make mistakes. The refs are human and they want to get it right, which again I respect.
But what I saw in that game from one ref had me pretty convinced something shady was up. Can it be proven? No... you can't really prove without some other supporting evidence off the court - like with the NBA ref who bet on games he was officiating - that a sports official was on the take. Others watched that game too on the video replay and saw the same things I saw from that one ref.
Sorry to change the subject. How did Mabins do Friday night? I heard he entered the latter part of the game but never read what he actually did bc i had to pay to read the rest of the article I saw lol
Correct. Will pretty much be the death blow for rural districts throughout the state.
It would cause school district consolidation on a huge scale. You have to consider the unintended consequences, and that is a big one. The oil industry would be pleased, though.
Open enrollment would also adversely affect schools in the bigger cities as well. It'll cause enrollment drops in the poorer performing districts and overcrowding in the better ones, along with watering down the level of education received in the better districts.
It's my understanding...and I could be totally wrong...but the "over crowding" thing won't be an issue of sorts. Districts (and obviously, subsequently schools) will be able to set enrollment limits. Of course that brings a lottery type system into the scenario or simply telling students they can't be enrolled (can of worms for athletics, obviously). All a really long and drawn out way of saying nobody know wth they're doing with all of this. Like most things, it's just some moron politician sitting behind a desk coming up with "forward thinking" ideas.
correct... in the proposals so far, a district can limit how many students (if any) they will take in each grade level
Makes sense... After I posted what I posted I did have the thought that schools can put limits on how many transfer students they can take on to prevent overcrowding.
With the lottery thing, you know it'll be rigged so that the best athletes not in a given school district will miraculously all get their names drawn.
Bad idea all around, keep things as is.
No, this is definitely not a moron politician. This is a very savvy politician knowing that it won't pass, but playing to their base voters on the principle of the thing rather than the actual realistic utility of the thing.
Not all that savvy. It's not like this is the first iteration of all of this. Just another regurgitated idea. There is some truth to needing less districts to making the dollar go further though, which might be the end goal of all of this. Closing a district is sort of like putting toothpaste back in the tube though. Gets pretty messy.
The idea itself is not what I was saying is savvy. It's the politician who dredges up an idea they've been using for decades that he knows won't pass, but keeps using the issue as a way to get a lot of unsavvy voters (aka: most voters) to vote for him
No. Politics 101 is you NEVER put ANYTHING in writing that you really dont want anyone else to know
Learned through experience with his wife
And you never say anything over the phone that you wouldn't want your mother to hear in court.
Because YOU got re-elected as a booster club president for over 30 years. NICE TRY BOZO!!!No. Politics 101 is never listen to DocGuys....They are
