Byrd Makes it two in a row

[Dirtydawg]

Here are the facts............

Up until recently (within the last five years):

Holdbacks were not considered a problem. It was fine for certain teams to have a roster full of 18 or 19 year olds, but when winning programs started using this to their advantage the LHSAA cried foul. Again, why should some third party (the LHSAA) decide if my personal decision to hold back my son/daughter is right or wrong? They punish the child by not letting them compete in sports while not considering whether it was REALLY in the best interest of the child to be held back.

If a child is showing that he is making the grades and performing academically, there is no reason to hold the kid back. The high school is there for an academic education not an athletic education. Keep in mind that sports are simply an extra-curricular activity and not a necessity to a high school education. That, my friend, is the fact.

There was no consideration given to student transfers. All of a sudden some of the teams that were losing good athletes go all nuts over losing some of their players. Oh, it was just fine until certain ones were the ones losing the players. It was also just fine until certain schools started winning consistantly with some of those transfers.

This sounds like a North La. problem to me when you consider that, according to you, North La. schools dominated high school football, it didn't matter which school was dominating to the schools in South La. As a matter of fact, I never heard any complaints about transfers to other schools from coaches in South La. It wasn't until Evangel started getting these players that other schools started to complain. These other schools were the North La. schools that were losing the players. NOT the South La. schools. Another fact.

Lastly, it looks like the LHSAA will now try to prevent a team from playing up in class. This has ALWAYS been allowed before. This change is directed at one school only (ECA).

That is a crazy rule, I'll agree, however, once again, it is only hurting the schools in North La because now Evangel is playing up in class it's hurting West Monroe, Ruston, Byrd, etc... Soooo, it looks like it's the people in North La who are moving the LHSAA. After all, what difference does it make to the schools from South La. if Evangel, West Monroe, Byrd, etc... wins. They are all from the north.

Funny thing is that winners will always find a way to win. They can change the rules all they want, but you can't stop good coaching or good conditioning by changing the rules.

Finally, something we can agree on. See ya Thursday. You gonna have some hot links or just gumbo? What do you need me to bring? By the way, I was just kidding about the education remark in my previous post. I know fully well that you all were ready for complete sentences at 20 and not 25.

[PawDawg]

"If a child is showing that he is making the grades and performing academically, there is no reason to hold the kid back. The high school is there for an academic education not an athletic education." - Dirtydawg

............but you are willing to let the LHSAA make the decision not the parents of the child or even the teachers of the child. You know that it is VERY possible for a kid to make C's and be an average student, but that child may not be reaching their full potential and NEED to be held back. It is also possible for a child to have a hard time in one or two subjects but ace all the others and need to repeat. Unfortunately the LHSAA has taken it on themselves to punish these children by not allowing them to participate in sports for the year they are making up.

[Dirtydawg]

"If a child is showing that he is making the grades and performing academically, there is no reason to hold the kid back. The high school is there for an academic education not an athletic education." - Dirtydawg

............but you are willing to let the LHSAA make the decision not the parents of the child or even the teachers of the child. You know that it is VERY possible for a kid to make C's and be an average student, but that child may not be reaching their full potential and NEED to be held back. It is also possible for a child to have a hard time in one or two subjects but ace all the others and need to repeat. Unfortunately the LHSAA has taken it on themselves to punish these children by not allowing them to participate in sports for the year they are making up.

No, they are not. The kids aren't at school to play football. The kids are at school for an education. Once again, football is extra-curricular. I'm not disagreeing that the LHSAA should be able to decide if a "child" should be held back or not due to mediocre academic achievement. If a child is held back because of this reason, then they are not being held back to participate in sports. The reason for them staying longer is to get an education and not play football, so they wouldn't be punished anyway. They'd be accomplishing what they desired which is to reach their potential in the classroom and not the athletic field or court. Besides, if they are indeed struggling academically, they need as much time to study and strengthen their academic weaknesses as possible. Time that is taken away by playing sports. Afterall, you know as well as I do how much time is used for practice, weight training, conditioning and off-season practice. That is time the held-back student needs for his studies.

Besides, it seems to me that the real ones who are being punished are the ones who are able to achieve academically. They buckle up and study and apply themselves only to have to compete against "children" who have developed much more physically who have been allowed to stay back because of underperformance in the classroom--the primary reason for the school to begin with. Now you have a 16 year old boy going against a 19 year old man with a 3 year advantage of growth and muscle. You tell me who's being punished.

[PawDawg]

I can see that you are as hard headed as usual on this subject :shock: .

Yes they are in school for an education, but you would deny them any extra curricular even if the child had a genuine need to be held back. I'm not saying that all these kids needed to be held back. I know the system was abused in some situations. The thing that bothers me is that some of these schools decided long ago that if they were going to compete with some of the other schools who had a majority or 18 and 19 year old seniors (I'll leave it to your imagination as to who some of these were, but they weren't hold backs) that they had to encourage their students to hold back one or even two years. Did it hurt the child? I dont think so, it probably helped them socially. Did it cost the state more money? Yes. Since when did our tax dollars and public education matter? It didn't matter when some students actually failed and were made to stay back and continue to play sports.

[Dirtydawg]

I can see that you are as hard headed as usual on this subject :shock: .

Would you expect otherwise? It's easy being hardheaded when you're right.

Yes they are in school for an education, but you would deny them any extra curricular even if the child had a genuine need to be held back.

No I wouldn't--Intramurals.

I'm not saying that all these kids needed to be held back. I know the system was abused in some situations. The thing that bothers me is that some of these schools decided long ago that if they were going to compete with some of the other schools who had a majority or 18 and 19 year old seniors (I'll leave it to your imagination as to who some of these were, but they weren't hold backs) that they had to encourage their students to hold back one or even two years. Did it hurt the child? I dont think so, it probably helped them socially. Did it cost the state more money? Yes. Since when did our tax dollars and public education matter? It didn't matter when some students actually failed and were made to stay back and continue to play sports.

I was one of those held back, but unfortunately lost interest in playing due to a coaching conflict and the political climate of private Catholic school with me being a non-Catholic and my dad not making enough money to be able to give more to the school other than tuition.

I'll tell you what I find interesting about this little debate, though. You seem to take what could be considered a liberal stance on this issue. It seems to me that you seek to reward those that don't perform. Isn't that what you claim liberals do? Seriously. Have you ever thought about the fairness of this decision to those who have applied themselves? Why should a student who has done what he is supposed to do have to compete against someone 2 or 3 years older than he is? You and I know how much different those two years of growth can make, especially when combined with weight training. It seems to me that you are rewarding children for underperformance. Not only are you telling them that they can give mediocre performances in the classroom, but you are also telling them for that mediocre performance, they get to go out on the football field and achieve stardom.

You know, for all the extra year of maturity arguments, I'd like to see a comparison of these kids' grades in that extra year or two as compared to their previous years. I'd be willing to bet there is no marked difference in their performances, if any at all.

I really, honestly, am not trying to be hardheaded, believe it or not. The only way I can accept that a student be held back would be if that student is from an environment that is not conducive to learning, such as with many inner city and very rural kids who grow up in an environment created by centuries of illiteracy and poverty or a student that has a learning disability. Even then, I can't justify their competition against students several years younger than them in contests of physical abilities.

I'm not denying that what you present is indeed an issue and that some of these students do need the extra year or two. I just don't think that they should be able to compete against those that don't. Maybe the answer would be to set up a sort of junior junior college in which they participate in a league of their own.