Hwy17
-
Posts
1,456 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
42
Posts posted by Hwy17
-
-
On 6/23/2023 at 10:21 PM, Manatee Magic said:
At the time I was in school, I always had this ideology that the players were all local from around town. Some years you might get a few stud players, other years you’ll be down and re-building. It was more of a local game, my side of town versus yours type deal.
The way it should be
-
7 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:
HEAR EVERDAY?? Where, in your imagination. Almost all newspaper media in FL are owned by McClatchy, Chicago-Tribune, Poynter Media and Gannett which feed us as you refer to it " Left-Winged BS". Local TV networks are more of the same. So please, spare us the hysteria.
What I find most fascinating from the party that says it espouses small government, is they pass legislation that increases the size and cost of government, takes away local control, and ignors the constitution both the Federal one and the State one. In fact, they're every bit as "progressive " as the other party. Corrupt too.
-
My own take on the education system: too much centralized power in Tallahassee and Washington. There is no local say or control anymore. Your local school board has very little authority at at all. Too much emphasis on standardized tests and over emphasis on STEM at the expense of language arts and humanities.
-
I seriously doubt this law will get challenged. In my opinion the state legislature doesn't have authority over FHSAA. It didn't have authority in 1997, yet it got away with it. Neither did the state legislature have authority in 2012 nor now. The FHSAA is a voluntary organization that wasn't created by the state government. So the state government shouldn't have any authority to decide how it is ran. Secondly the state government has no say over private schools, who make up a fair amount of the FHSAA membership. Third, while the state government does have authority over public schools, no where is there a legal requirement that says a public school must be a FHSAA member. That's an assumption, but I cannot find where that is specified. What I can find however is the latitude given to local government (county school districts included) to voluntarily enter into agreements with others. That said, I seriously doubt anyone will challenge this law in court. Nor do I seriously see a mass exodus from the FHSAA. Instead it will be lay down and take it. However, I see nothing that says if a group of schools, public or private wanted to form a new league, conference or join another (like SSAC), that anything could stop them.
-
17 hours ago, PinellasFB said:
I think I have a minority opinion here, but I actually like the watered down classifications. It reduces the chance of multiple high end teams put into the same district which is awful for normal teams that don't recruit transfers. Something really needs to be done about transfers BTW. I know a kid who transferred to a local football power for his senior year this year and then transferred back to the school he left after the season concluded. Total bullshit.
Agreed. The abuse of the transfer policy is the issue. Not more classes.
-
On 5/4/2023 at 6:03 PM, Dr. D said:
The recently released minutes from the February Board of Directors meeting included this interesting item:
TASK FORCE COMMITTEE
Mr. Kenna moved, Mrs. Patricca seconded, for the Executive Director to form a Task Force Committee to review Classification and the Metro/Suburban process. Motion carried 15-0.
Concerns regarding the Metro/Suburban Classifications were noted by the Board for the Task Force Committee to consider:
- Large enrollment gap.
- Some districts have as few as 2 schools.
- Suburban has 4 classes plus Rural, while Metro has 4 Classes in football - possibly add a fifth class to Metro.
- Consider schools on border lines.
- Some schools have difficulty finding 10 games.
- Why is Football the only sport that uses Metro/Suburban classifications?
Seems like they could have reasonably foreseen these issues when this system was enacted, but whatever. Or maybe they have been reading the many posts on this board in the last year which have pointed out these very observations. But wonderful news, we now have a "Task Force Committee" to look into this mess. Hang in there, Metros - relief may be on the way.
A fifth class for metro? So now there would be a total of 10 classifications. Oh boy!
- Dr. D and DarterBlue2
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Perspective said:
Primarily, upper body strength, right?
What quality is needed most for the balance beam? Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen a male gymnast perform on the beam? If males trained on the beam, would they be 'better' than females? Conversely, are there any of the "male apparatuses" that women could compete with men if women trained on them? Just curious. I guess I'm still trying to figure out if there are any athletic events in which females have an inherent advantage over males.
Short answer to your last 2 questions, no.
Not that I follow gymnastics that closely but from what I understand, the balance beam and uneven bars were designed for women because they carry more of their weight and have more strength in their lower body. Whereas male apparatuses are all about upper body strength.
-
51 minutes ago, Perspective said:
Yes, I'm aware of both of those things. The question is whether it should be that way.
As for gymnastics, I'm aware of the different apparatuses used by the men and the women, but have never taken the time to research how and why, for example, men use the high bar and women use the uneven parallel bars. Well, that give me something to do next time I have some spare time. I'll get back to you in a couple of years.
Those male gymnastics apparatuses require a lot of strength.
-
1 hour ago, Perspective said:
I can hardly wait...
In the meantime, just to be clear, your position is as follows: in those situations where it can be scientifically determined that one classification of humans (I'll keep the aliens out of the discussion for now) has a "genetic and biological advantage" over another group, we shouldn't allow the advantaged group to participate with the disadvantaged group, as that would give the advantaged group an unfair advantage and deprive the disadvantaged group of succeeding. But the disadvantaged group can always compete with the advantaged group, even if that means that members of the advantaged group are precluded from participating. Did I say all of that right?
(Yeah, I know the wheels are now spinning in your brain as you try to figure out where I'm going with all this).
I believe he's starting to get it
-
9 hours ago, Perspective said:
OK, let's mix this one up a little: Let's say you have a son and let's say that the genetics were somewhat cruel. As a result, he got his size from your wife's side of the family, where 5'6" is considered "tall." And even though he eats twice as much as you do (and that's saying something), he can't get the scales past 130. In short (pun intended), he's the antithesis of what you desire for a kid who wants to play high school football. And, to complete the genetic nightmare, he is not blessed with speed. However, because you put him in Kiddie Kickers when he was 4 years old, he learned how to kick a soccer ball and later learned how to kick a football. He's a rising junior, an above average kicker and based on the fact that the only other two kickers from last season have graduated, he's in line to be the starting kicker. With a little bit of extra training and a late growth spurt, the kid actually has a chance of getting a college scholarship (or at least a PWO spot at a good school).
Now, it just so happens that Billy Booster (owner of Booster Ford, Booster Chevy and Booster Dodge) has a genetic dilemma of his own: the little girl that he thought would grow up to be the homecoming queen one day instead is built like a tractor and scares young children. Her best redeeming quality is that she is athletic and her sport of choice is soccer, where she likely will play D-1. She's also a rising junior. Billy's getting real tired of going to Wildcat football games on Friday night to support his alma mater and then waking up early Saturday morning to drive his daughter to another Club soccer tournament three hours away to play a team that's one town over. So, Billy convinces his daughter that she should play football in the fall to keep her in shape for soccer season in the winter. And while thunder thighs is fully capable of competing for a spot on the D-line, she and her dad agree that she should simply kick for the Wildcats. Billy arranges a private workout with the Wildcat head coach and while his daughter has a powerful right leg, she doesn't appear to have the accuracy needed to beat out your son. And the coach tells Billy that.
Well, we all know someone like Billy. He doesn't want to take "no" for an answer. So he offers to supply the team with brand new uniforms - home and away - along with a great deal on a new F150, if the coach agrees to let his daughter be the starting kicker. Knowing that the team will likely go 5-5 for the eighth year in a row regardless of who the kicker is, the coach agrees.
Everyone can see that your son is the better kicker and if Billy's child were a boy, it's likely nothing would be said and nothing would be done. But Billy's child is a girl and football is a boys sport, isn't it? Should Billy's girl be able to play football and possibly deprive your son of his chance to earn a scholarship?
There's an old expression: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. But that doesn't appear to be the case with the existing statute. Students are either male or female, based on their biological sex at birth (setting aside a higher-than-you-think percentage of babies that are born with both male and female sex organs). The statute goes on to say:
"(b) Athletic teams or sports designated for males, men, or boys may be open to students of the female sex.
(c) Athletic teams or sports designated for females, women, or girls may not be open to students of the male sex."
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it: generally speaking, males are bigger, stronger, faster than females. That explains why we all tend to agree that a male who transitions into a female should not be allowed to compete with biological females. But, are there any sports where females have an advantage? Gymnastics, perhaps? If so, shouldn't the statute also preclude females who transition into males from competing in 'sports designated for males?'
Girls playing boys football isn't new. I know we had 2 or 3, and not kickers.
As for gymnastics there are certain gender specific apparatuses; i.e. balance beam for females; high bar, rings, pomal horse for males.
-
On 2/24/2023 at 7:10 PM, Jambun82 said:
Thank you for the lecture, Mr. Congeniality.
You're Welcome
-
11 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:
That possibility should not deter from doing the right thing when it comes to "Fairness". Recent history has shown yours is a point well made, though the other side appeals and if it gets to the highest court more times than not that set of judges will rule correctly.
And that's how our system has evolved. Pass a law, rule, regulation or policy, along ideological lines and let the courts figure it out. Meanwhile We the People become more and more divided.
-
10 hours ago, Nulli Secundus said:
Apparently so in this day and age
Then it gets challenged in court, where a savvy lawyer goes judge shopping to file his case with hopes some nut case judge gives him the decision he wants.
-
8 hours ago, Jambun82 said:
The proactive legislation wouldn't have any downsides.
Like I ask all the time, "What could possibly go wrong?"
-
21 minutes ago, nolebull813 said:
Not true at all. We are a reactive society and politics is no different. Our great governor has seen what crazy ideologies have done to education and business around the country so he decided to go on the offense. This is solving an obvious problem without waiting for the worst case scenario to play out. There are men in women’s sports destroying it. Taking scholarships and championships from real women. Just because you carry an extremist ideology, doesn’t mean you are the mainstream.
Is the only way to accomplish keeping biological males from competing in female sports through legislation?
-
46 minutes ago, Perspective said:
Interesting thought. Here's the problem, as I see it. Over 40% of the FHSAA's $6 million budget comes from 'athletic competitions,' which I understand to mean post-season tournaments. That's around $2.5 million. The vast majority of that comes from public schools. A similar amount comes from corporate sponsorships. If the public schools can't participate (in the tournaments or even in the FHSAA), most of that tournament income and sponsorship money goes away and I don't see the FHSAA surviving.
44 minutes ago, LakelandGator said:That was my point, which you obviously didn't get.
Bottom line is that the gov and people like you are using right winged scare tactics and politics once again.
Keep that crap out of HS sports.
If the desire is to separate public and private schools or to bring all public schools under an agency controlled by the state government, (which the legislature could), then at least be transparent about it.
As stated, the FHSAA is a volunteer organization created by the schools and is over a century old. The state constitution allows for home rule and lets local governments, cities, counties, and school districts, to enter into agreements with other public or private parties. That really is all the FHSAA is in reality. For the legislature to take over a private organization like the FHSAA, I see such as unconstitutional and also against conservative principles.
-
Here is something that occurred to me as I thought about the bill to make FHSAA an appointed board by the governor. The FHSAA is a voluntary organization made up of both public and private schools. The FHSAA goes back to 1920 and pre-dates the current state constitution. The FHSAA was not created by the state legislature through statute. In fact, it wasn't until the 1980s that the state legislature recognized the FHSAA as the governing body for interschoolatic sports and the language of such doesn't state that public schools have to join; it is more or less implied. While the state legislature can mandate policy for public schools, they cannot do so for private schools. I would argue that given the history of the FHSAA the state legislature has no authority to dissolve or to interfere with how the FHSAA is set up. The only authority that the legislature has would be to form a new entity for public schools only.
-
21 hours ago, Perspective said:
Just out of curiosity, for both you and Hwy17, what are the issues that are unique to smaller schools that the FHSAA has refused or been reluctant to address?
You do observe that the SSAC and other independent conferences are composed of small schools, the majority of which are private schools. I only know of a few public schools that have been allowed in the SSAC. Yet more and more are going the independent route or switching associations. Why is this? There has been a feeling of not being represented or heard by the small public schools for a while now. Your question would be better answered by taking to some of them than me. It's clear to me however that these schools are leaving for a reason.
On a side note, SSAC members, most of them anyway, still remain FHSAA members too. Exactly how that works I don't know.
- LakelandGator and Perspective
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, LakelandGator said:
Glades Day is a 7x Champ, Jupiter Christian is a 2x champ, NSU was a 3A Champ, Oxbridge and Warner Christian were powerhouses at one time.
The SSAC will have 10 new member schools next year and the FHSAA has growing dissent that will probably get worse.
Keep an eye on the SSAC over the next 5 years.
Failure by the FHSAA to really address the issues of smaller schools is why the SSAC is growing. Sorta like NAIA is becoming a better option for smaller colleges than NCAA.
-
35 minutes ago, DarterBlue2 said:
No, but Bartow's win over Bolles may come close.
LOL, I was think Frostproof's win over TCA
-
Just curious, what class/district would Poinciana have been in if you weren't independent?
-
4 hours ago, THIS_IS_DILLARD said:
I guess this is for a lot of teams that went into the playoffs with 2-8 3-7 records & hosting multiple playoff games over the years because they were district champs.
guess they’re looking at it as if you’re a big at large team you’re more deserving as one of the top 4 seeds because you scheduled tough whole winning some tough games vice versa you scheduled nothing but cup cakes & ended the year 8-2 or 9-1
Sound like we're back to rewarding loses.
2023 Transfers
in The Huddle
Posted
Sit the bench at Manatee or start at Bayshore? Tough decision