Jump to content

Football Advisory Committee items


Dr. D

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

 

Sounds to me like you are framing the question to get the answer you want.  Why would you be limiting it to HS only when the FL Bill applies to both HS and College, so yes there are examples at the college level though it hasn't maybe trickled down to HS in our state yet.

Ray, take my word for it, I'm not framing the question to get a particular answer; I'm asking the question because I don't know the answer.

Which FL Bill are you referring to?  So far, we've been talking about the NIL bill/law and the proposed legislation to change the way FHSAA directors are chosen.   Is there a third one that deals with the sexuality of athletes competing in Florida? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


14 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

That is where being proactive comes into the equation. Eliminate this before it ever has a chance of becoming a problem. 

I'm looking forward to seeing the proposed legislation precluding aliens from participating in high school sports . . . 'eliminate this before it ever has a chance of becoming a problem.'   :P

Seriously, we're talking about an eligibility issue, right?   Isn't that what the FHSAA is there for?  Why does the state legislature need to get involved with this issue? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Perspective said:

Ray, take my word for it, I'm not framing the question to get a particular answer; I'm asking the question because I don't know the answer.

Which FL Bill are you referring to?  So far, we've been talking about the NIL bill/law and the proposed legislation to change the way FHSAA directors are chosen.   Is there a third one that deals with the sexuality of athletes competing in Florida? 

Fairness in Woman's Sports Act scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2023.  This year alone over 30 states have enacted or in the process of enacting bill similar to this one throughout the country.  Accusations of being LGTBQ? are unfounded as they limit biological men in women's sports but not the other way around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nulli Secundus said:

 

Based on the issues I've seen first hand when I worked at the Supreme Court, it depends on the issue especially when the matter of Judicial funding comes into play.  Sad, but true.

I have no experience in the court system, only have the bad habit of believing things I see with my own eyes as opposed to what I hear.  So forgive me if I don't take your word for it as these type of cases we are referring to that rose to the Supreme Court in FL and nationally have been ruled correctly in most cases in my eyes though not all.   That has been my observation over time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Perspective said:

I'm looking forward to seeing the proposed legislation precluding aliens from participating in high school sports . . . 'eliminate this before it ever has a chance of becoming a problem.'   :P

Seriously, we're talking about an eligibility issue, right?   Isn't that what the FHSAA is there for?  Why does the state legislature need to get involved with this issue? 

If there comes a day when aliens competing in athletic events and stealing titles and championships from females becomes an issue, then that issue can be dealt with. For now, the issue is biological males who think that they are a female competing in athletic events and stealing titles and championships from females, so this issue is dealt with by the great leadership in the state of Florida. I am starting to wonder about you Perspective.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jambun82 said:

If there comes a day when aliens competing in athletic events and stealing titles and championships from females becomes an issue, then that issue can be dealt with. For now, the issue is biological males who think that they are a female competing in athletic events and stealing titles and championships from females, so this issue is dealt with by the great leadership in the state of Florida. I am starting to wonder about you Perspective.   

I have to agree, it is a silly argument.  Jurisdictions build new roads all the time and the governing body (ie, DOT) decides on a speed limit before anyone has ever driven on it, much less broken the speed limit on that particular road.  Must be cautious though as this may be another example of sarcasm.:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

If there comes a day when aliens competing in athletic events and stealing titles and championships from females becomes an issue, then that issue can be dealt with. For now, the issue is biological males who think that they are a female competing in athletic events and stealing titles and championships from females, so this issue is dealt with by the great leadership in the state of Florida. I am starting to wonder about you Perspective.   

Wait, what happened to eliminating an issue before it ever becomes a problem?  :huh:  I guess we only want our legislature to be proactive on certain things. 

Yeah, I know the aliens thing is far-fetched. Almost absurd.  But it proves my point that people only want the government to be proactive on matters when they agree with the position the government is taking. 

Now, get back to the second question in my post:  why isn't this issue something that can (and should) be dealt with by the governing bodies having jurisdiction over the athletes (NCAA for college and FHSAA for high school)?   Is it because you don't like the way the NCAA dealt with the issue?   (Try to answer that question honestly).   Again, I don't like the decision that was made by the NCAA either, but I think that's where the issue should be addressed.   For high school athletes, if anyone is going to be proactive or otherwise address eligibility issues, it should be the FHSAA and not the legislature. 

Just my two cents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Perspective said:

  But it proves my point that people only want the government to be proactive on matters when they agree with the position the government is taking. 

 Is it because you don't like the way the NCAA dealt with the issue?   (Try to answer that question honestly).  

 

Game, set, match! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Perspective said:

Wait, what happened to eliminating an issue before it ever becomes a problem?  :huh:  I guess we only want our legislature to be proactive on certain things. 

Yeah, I know the aliens thing is far-fetched. Almost absurd.  But it proves my point that people only want the government to be proactive on matters when they agree with the position the government is taking. 

Now, get back to the second question in my post:  why isn't this issue something that can (and should) be dealt with by the governing bodies having jurisdiction over the athletes (NCAA for college and FHSAA for high school)?   Is it because you don't like the way the NCAA dealt with the issue?   (Try to answer that question honestly).   Again, I don't like the decision that was made by the NCAA either, but I think that's where the issue should be addressed.   For high school athletes, if anyone is going to be proactive or otherwise address eligibility issues, it should be the FHSAA and not the legislature. 

Just my two cents. 

It shouldn't be the FHSAA or NCAA making these decisions because, as we have seen with the NCAA, most of the members of the Associations are often unaccountable and make decisions that concur with the sands of time, or the flavor of the moment, which an issue like biological males  who think that they are a female becomes. The Legislature is more accountable to the voters and residents of the state and the Legislature should be making and voting for these decisions. I will continue with the lessons Perspective, and hopefully my knowledge and wisdom will eventually wear off on you a little more each time. I am stating to wonder though, but I will keep trying. You're welcome, Perspective.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ray Icaza said:

I have to agree, it is a silly argument.  Jurisdictions build new roads all the time and the governing body (ie, DOT) decides on a speed limit before anyone has ever driven on it, much less broken the speed limit on that particular road.  Must be cautious though as this may be another example of sarcasm.:lol:

Yes Ray, you and I both can keep trying to educate and impart lessons to Perspective. I know that he learns more, and feels smarter every time that he has the honor and privilege of speaking with me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Yes Ray, you and I both can keep trying to educate and impart lessons to Perspective. I know that he learns more, and feels smarter every time that he has the honor and privilege of speaking with me.  

To be clear, my participation is strictly to promote continual recognition for our Kowboy football program.  I won't delude myself into thinking I am smarter than others and try to "Educate" them.  If a topic arises I disagree with I will freely give my opinion, trying to persuade to consider my point of view with logic and reason in a respectful way.   It's kinda like baseball that I fail the majority of the time, but if I bat .300+ it's a pretty good average.  So I keep swinging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray Icaza said:

To be clear, my participation is strictly to promote continual recognition for our Kowboy football program.  I won't delude myself into thinking I am smarter than others and try to "Educate" them.  If a topic arises I disagree with I will freely give my opinion, trying to persuade to consider my point of view with logic and reason in a respectful way.   It's kinda like baseball that I fail the majority of the time, but if I bat .300+ it's a pretty good average.  So I keep swinging. 

It is a good thing then that you agree with most of what I say when you read it from me on this message board. It it is also good that you yourself have learned a lot from me on this message board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

It is a good thing then that you agree with most of what I say when you read it from me on this message board. It it is also good that you yourself have learned a lot from me on this message board. 

Who knew, the "Oracle at Delphi" sits on this board. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 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?' 

Gee, I didn't realize you were so big into "FISHING"?? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 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?' 

C'Mon Perspective, anybody with half a brain knows that males have genetic and biological advantages over females. A female testing herself against males is not the same as a biological male who thinks he is a female stealing Athletic Championships  and Titles from biological females. You write a sequel to War and Peace with your size and amount of words in your posts, yet you really say nothing at all. You might just have too much time on your hands Perspective, and I thought that my lessons, teaching, and education were getting through to you. I see now that I am going to have to invest a lot more work in you, and I will be coming up with a plan soon. You will be hearing from me, Perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hwy17 said:

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.

 

Great points, Mr. Congeniality. However, you should be careful. Some posters on this message board have a problem with making too much sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

C'Mon Perspective, anybody with half a brain knows that males have genetic and biological advantages over females. A female testing herself against males is not the same as a biological male who thinks he is a female stealing Athletic Championships  and Titles from biological females. You write a sequel to War and Peace with your size and amount of words in your posts, yet you really say nothing at all. You might just have too much time on your hands Perspective, and I thought that my lessons, teaching, and education were getting through to you. I see now that I am going to have to invest a lot more work in you, and I will be coming up with a plan soon. You will be hearing from me, Perspective. 

I can hardly wait...:rolleyes:

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). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...