justobserving
11-man fan
Not a moot point to me Mr. rainjactx - just a difference on what competition is at what price.
I'm not in a corner and not a position I have to defend. Just a position that even at the lowest end of the spectrum of something such as an Athletic Activity Division quality of product and the rationale of having that product must come into play.
Make no mistake - I am an athletics backer all the way. Lived it, breathed it, participated in it and coached as did my dad, brother and brother-in-law for many years. That is one reason I oppose this DII thing so adamantly.
The larger schools in 6 man ( in NEARLY all cases ) have to endure the small schools in their divisions. I know there are exceptions. Richland before the change would be an example. They have to endure games that last a half and should have really been called half way into the first half. Have to endure open dates because they drop out. Have to endure playing a first or second round game against a 2nd place finisher opponent that was 3-7 in a weak 6 man district.
The only argument I get from the other side is to be "fair" and allow them a chance. Like I alluded to in a post above, when you are trying to be fair to over half the schools who can't compete no matter what you do, why delude the whole Division structure to accommodate them.
When you get too small to field a competitive team year in and year out then you are too small compete. Most all of the schools that fall in the lower half of DII meet this. The upper half of DII can compete and win in DI.
The one and only one redeeming thing to keeping all of the small non competitive schools playing is it that it gives the other schools more teams to schedule to play so there are less travel distances. But if you choose to schedule one of these schools you usually are just scheduling half a game.
All the cliches aside - fight in dog .... winning isn't everything ... teaching values ... yada yada it is about winning. But winning at what cost of distorting the "playing field".
We can argue this forever ... it will never be settled here because of one reason ... idealist and realist can almost never agree because the are seeing the same picture from a different view. Both have a clear vision of what they see and cannot be told anything different.
I just live in a world of having to compete no matter the odds, others want to hedge the odds because they believe that is fair and right. Power to those who believe their way, their God given right. Success and rewards to all who play the game with honor....
I'm not in a corner and not a position I have to defend. Just a position that even at the lowest end of the spectrum of something such as an Athletic Activity Division quality of product and the rationale of having that product must come into play.
Make no mistake - I am an athletics backer all the way. Lived it, breathed it, participated in it and coached as did my dad, brother and brother-in-law for many years. That is one reason I oppose this DII thing so adamantly.
The larger schools in 6 man ( in NEARLY all cases ) have to endure the small schools in their divisions. I know there are exceptions. Richland before the change would be an example. They have to endure games that last a half and should have really been called half way into the first half. Have to endure open dates because they drop out. Have to endure playing a first or second round game against a 2nd place finisher opponent that was 3-7 in a weak 6 man district.
The only argument I get from the other side is to be "fair" and allow them a chance. Like I alluded to in a post above, when you are trying to be fair to over half the schools who can't compete no matter what you do, why delude the whole Division structure to accommodate them.
When you get too small to field a competitive team year in and year out then you are too small compete. Most all of the schools that fall in the lower half of DII meet this. The upper half of DII can compete and win in DI.
The one and only one redeeming thing to keeping all of the small non competitive schools playing is it that it gives the other schools more teams to schedule to play so there are less travel distances. But if you choose to schedule one of these schools you usually are just scheduling half a game.
All the cliches aside - fight in dog .... winning isn't everything ... teaching values ... yada yada it is about winning. But winning at what cost of distorting the "playing field".
We can argue this forever ... it will never be settled here because of one reason ... idealist and realist can almost never agree because the are seeing the same picture from a different view. Both have a clear vision of what they see and cannot be told anything different.
I just live in a world of having to compete no matter the odds, others want to hedge the odds because they believe that is fair and right. Power to those who believe their way, their God given right. Success and rewards to all who play the game with honor....
