theckman Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 What's going on here? There hasn't been a post on this thread for 7 minutes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 really..once again the sarcasm comes through.... I never said Mishawaka has the same number of athletes as Garrett. That is assanine. pin2win1 said Garrett and Mishawaka have the same number of athletes Why is it always Mishawaka and Garrett. I have never mentioned Mishawaka and I have never compared the two. One big one small Funny thing about your sarcastic response is that you defeated 6 schools, I believe that is what was stated earlier by you, that have a population over 900. So where is the cutoff to when your athletes arent better than the other schools? 1,200 students? 1,500 students? My athletes compete fine in the current system. This isn't about my athletes. What does it say about those larger schools when they cant compete against the small schools like Garrett? It says they need to change the way they do things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 And I'm fairly certain that we didn't wait for our principal or coaches association to come find us and ask for change. We took it upon ourselves to create a plan and take it to them. Please save the whining and crying comments for someone trying to be petty. I'm trying to add some class to the "class debate". As an active member if the IFCA, I an 100% certain that changes must go through the coach's association before they are presented to the IHSAA. A wolfpack of one is not going to make a difference. Finding out the results of the coach's survey would be outstanding to see where Indiana's coaches stand on various issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Whoa.....you took my post, not Karl's. HE'S the one who sarcastically said whining was a debate tool, not me. My post was to him.....and it was as sarcastic as I think his was. That was y2's quote you were refering too, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Huh... ??? I was welcoming BlueBolt to the club of those who call all class wrestling advocates whiners and cry babies that only need to work harder and be thankful for what they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Why-Class Wrestling, my whole point! Class wrestling made the better wrestler sit the bench. Can't happen in Indiana! Well it can but much less likely! Why did he agree to go the tournament?? He wasn't forced to go? Sounds like wasted time and money to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 Not meant towards you theckman... I just have to wonder what these people are teaching their kids in the rooms if this is how they present their arguments for or against something here... Your right, I should just call my kids whiners and cry babies when they can't balance chemical equations. Teach about the real world when they are 14 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 pin2win1 said Garrett and Mishawaka have the same number of athletes Never said such a thing. Mr. Y2, did not comprehend what I posted in 1 post and he thought I said this.... i have cleared this up numerous times, but he fails to understand the explanation. Karl and AJ, as moderators on this board I ask that you request Y2 to quit spreading lies about the things I have said on this board. If not please remove such posts that are lies about what I have said. If this continues... i guess I will just have to make up lies about things that Y2 has supposedly said. I also ask Y2 to take me up on my offer of lying about what I said to my face in person.... I also said I would not cause any violence or anything to that nature if he took the offer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimtownFather Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 If he beat the other kid 6 or 7 times I doubt seriously the smaller division state champ was getting more recruiting looks. Thinking some one "probably" is getting more recruiting looks. seems like fairly flimsy evidence to be passionately against class wrestling. But too each his own. Just wondering if we have figured out whether tennis is classed in indiana or not?? Tennis is NOT classed in Indiana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdanteague Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 really..once again the sarcasm comes through.... I never said Mishawaka has the same number of athletes as Garrett. That is assanine. Why is it always Mishawaka and Garrett. I have never mentioned Mishawaka and I have never compared the two. Funny thing about your sarcastic response is that you defeated 6 schools, I believe that is what was stated earlier by you, that have a population over 900. So where is the cutoff to when your athletes arent better than the other schools? 1,200 students? 1,500 students? What does it say about those larger schools when they cant compete against the small schools like Garrett? Osama bin AJ at it again, hijacking a thread again with a semantics argument. AJ's quote: "why do we assume that a larger number of males in the school means a larger number of "athletes" in the school. just because your school has 100 more males, that does not mean they have 100 more athletes to choose from. you will probably have a few more, but number of athletes and number of males are two different categories." From this quote, a rational thinking person would deduce that you are saying the TOTAL number of males in a school population has very little corelation with the TOTAL number of athletes. This is a complete irrational statement. You take any random sample of students and the larger sample group is going to have a larger number of athletes. You don't have to assume anything, it is a FACT. According to your original quote, you suggest that we shouldn't assume Mishawaka has more athletes than Garrett just because they have more kids. That comparison can logically be drawn from your original quote. Y2JC calls you out for the sheer silliness of your original quote with a comparison of Mishawaka and Garrett. Mishaawaka has more males but according to your original quote we should not assume that just because they have more males, they have more athletes. But then you contradict your original position by saying it would be assinine to think that Garrett has as many athletes as Mishawaka. Where do stand? Do more numbers equal more athletes? You seem to say so in the comparison of Mishawaka and Garrett...or Do more numbers not equal more athletes as you suggest in your original quote. Possibly a little sarcasm is the only possible answer left when your position disjointed and schitzophrenic. But...instead of acknowledging how untenable your position is you decide to hijack the thread by stating that you never mentioned Mishawaka and Garrett. It is true, that you never mentioned those to schools. However you did mention a larger group (Mishawaka for example)of males and a smaller group (Garrett for example) and suggest that there is very little corelation of number of athletes when comparing these two groups. Y2JC merely pointed out how untterly ridiculous your original position was by providing you with a concrete example of Mishawaka (large group of males) and Garrett (smaller group of males). When faced with this concrete example position changes 180 degrees and now you agree that the larger group will have more athletes. Just because you didn't physically type Mishawaka and Garrett doesn't mean others can't extrapolate from your orignal quote that Mishawaka could be the larger group and Garrett the smaller group. When faced with this example your original quote is exposed as completely hairbrained. You freely acknowledge this when you say it assinine to think that Garrett has as many athletes as Mishawaka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 big DanTeague.... You are wrong, AJ never made the comment that was construed as saying garrett had more athletes. That was apparently me. Here was the exchage...... I said Y2, your arguement would hold grounds if more students directly resulted in more athletes. But you also have to remember, the bigger the school the more activities outside of athletics there are to steal them away. You also fail to understand that in larger areas there are probably more things for kids to do than in areas where there are smaller schools that take kids away from playing sports. I will have to look in a yearbook and see how many "athletes" we had. My guess is that out of our 800 boys in hs, 200 or so may have actually competed in sports. Most of my friends from hs did not play sports. y2, said I can't go any further, this is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read on this board. Garrett has 275 boys, Mishawaka has 850, yet they have the same number of athletes? Are you honestly serious about this? I cannot comprehend how Mishawaka can field a competitive 5A football team with the same number of athletes in the school as a 2A school. On top of that field an elite wrestling team with the same number of athletes as a 2A school. WOW, Darrick Snyder is a great coach, but I never realized he was THAT great! I realized that I could have stated it better and clarified my statement... No Y2, all i was stating is that if School A has 200 students and 100 athletes, that it does not mean that school B who has 400 students will have 200 athletes that is all I was stating. I never said Garrett has more athletes than Mishawaka. But I doubt that Mishawaka had 350 male athletes when i was in school.... 300 might be a stretch. But according to what I am getting from you is that if Garrett has half of their boys play sports, then Mishawaka must have half of their boys play sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 big DanTeague.... You are wrong, AJ never made the comment that was construed as saying garrett had more athletes. No I am not wrong, here is AJ's quote: why do we assume that a larger number of males in the school means a larger number of "athletes" in the school. just because your school has 100 more males, that does not mean they have 100 more athletes to choose from. you will probably have a few more, but number of athletes and number of males are two different categories. Both your posistion and AJ's are similar. And they both are silly. A larger group of highschool males is going to produce a larger group of athletes. Did you directly say that Garrett had as many athletes as Mishawaka. No, but I think you were trying to make the point that somehow the number of athletes at Mishawaka gets lowered (appearently close to the number that at are at Garrett based on your yearbook reference) due to them participating other other activities. I can't follow that line of reasoning. There are plenty of distractions at all schools and in all communities, no matter what the size. Mishawaka's wrestling program probably has an advantage over many programs when it comes to keeping kids in the program because they have an established program and consistant coaching. Garrett also has an established program and consistant coaching. Here is the difference....When the Mishawaka program loses a kid because of work, another sport, academics, or bad decisions, they have 2 or 3 others that will fill that weight class. Garrett is lucky if they have 1 back-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 No Karl... what I was saying was that a large schools has many more activities, heck some even have more sports.... but as far as just activities larger schools have more. They have things like treehuggers clubs, jazz bands, numerous academic clubs and things like that which do lower the pool of athletes in a school. What I was saying was that if a school has 200 boys and 100 athletes, that does not mean a school with 400 boys will have 200, or a school with 800 will have 400. Thats all, I did not mean that if a school A has twice or 4 times as many students as school B that School A will have the same amount of athletes as School B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I did not see AJ make that statement, but he was obviously using the same argument that I used the other day, and meant it in the same way as I did. Once again, i will offer you the same offer I did to Karl as I did with Y2, if you want to come to mishawaka and tell me what I meant with one of my quotes, and put words in my mouth and flat out lie about what I said, send me a private message, we can work out a place to meet and I will meet you at a restaurant. I have no issue with that. Heck you two buddies can come together if you wish. Like I said, no violence will stem from me from the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 No Karl... what I was saying was that a large schools has many more activities, heck some even have more sports.... but as far as just activities larger schools have more. They have things like treehuggers clubs, jazz bands, numerous academic clubs and things like that which do lower the pool of athletes in a school. They also have a larger number kids to be involved in those activities. The pool gets lowered by other activities in small schools too. The percentage of athletes lost to other activities is probably very similar. Big schools with more athletes to begin with can adapt much easier to lost athletes. The back up example i mentioned illustrates that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 What I was saying was that if a school has 200 boys and 100 athletes, that does not mean a school with 400 boys will have 200, or a school with 800 will have 400. Thats all, I did not mean that if a school A has twice or 4 times as many students as school B that School A will have the same amount of athletes as School B. Statistically speaking, they will have the same percentage of athletes. That is common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 I did not see AJ make that statement, but he was obviously using the same argument that I used the other day, and meant it in the same way as I did. And both examples make no sense whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 karl.... you are still not getting the point..... a 2 to 1 ratio in students does not mean a 2 to 1 ratio in athletes (kids who play athletics). My guess, is that if a school has a 2 to 1 ratio in size, the ratio at athletes might be more around 3 to 2 maybe 5 to 3. Now, under IF, IF, IF my asumption is true, that means large schools would still have a team advantage, however that is why I am ok with classes at the team level only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Once again, i will offer you the same offer I did to Karl as I did with Y2, if you want to come to mishawaka and tell me what I meant with one of my quotes, and put words in my mouth and flat out lie about what I said, send me a private message, we can work out a place to meet and I will meet you at a restaurant. I have no issue with that. Heck you two buddies can come together if you wish. Like I said, no violence will stem from me from the issue. When you post on a message board your statements are open to interpretation. I can only use your words to deduce what you meant. I then am allowed to offer my interpretation of what you meant. You may judge my interpreation as "putting words in your mouth" or flat out lieing but I assure you, that is not my intent. My intent is to look critically at what you state and apply to my standards of common sense and logic to your statements. If they don't pass muster on my common sense and logic meter I am merely pointing that out in my posts. No need to go all Wyatt Earp on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Come on karl, don't be a keyboard warrior.... if your too coward of a chicken to say something to my face, to twist my words. then don't say it... heck i'll even meet ya half way at etna green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 When you post on a message board your statements are open to interpretation. I can only use your words to deduce what you meant. I then am allowed to offer my interpretation of what you meant. You may judge my interpreation as "putting words in your mouth" or flat out lieing but I assure you, that is not my intent. My intent is to look critically at what you state and apply to my standards of common sense and logic to your statements. If they don't pass muster on my common sense and logic meter I am merely pointing that out in my posts. No need to go all Wyatt Earp on us. Which would work if i did not then explain in detail what I said so even a 5 year old would understand it. Too bad you fail to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 karl.... you are still not getting the point..... a 2 to 1 ratio in students does not mean a 2 to 1 ratio in athletes (kids who play athletics). Why not? A random sample of kids is going to have the same percentage of athletes in it. Just like it will have the same percentage of kids who are obese or have brown hair or who are National Merit Scholors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Which would work if i did not then explain in detail what I said so even a 5 year old would understand it. Too bad you fail to do that. Guess i need to get my logic meter looked at then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarlHungus Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 coward of a chicken is that something like coward of the county? Kenny Rogers has always been a guilty pleasure of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pin2win1 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Why not? A random sample of kids is going to have the same percentage of athletes in it. Just like it will have the same percentage of kids who are obese or have brown hair or who are National Merit Scholors. And that is where your simple mindedness comes is. You see all things being equal that would work. However, there is this little thing called variables, they are little things that upset the balance. It would be like saying that since 35 percent of the population are snow skiers, that anywhere I go I will find 35 people who snow ski out of every 100 people I ask. Now, I know that if i go to florida I am probably not going to find 35 snow skiers, because of variables such as climate, and geography. At the same time if i go to colorado I am going to find more than 35 people who ski out of every 100 people i ask. Why? because the opportunity is there. Same thing could be said about people with college degrees. Each state does not have the same percentage of college graduates. Like if i were to go to Akron, IN.... probably very low percentage has a college degree because the job market in Akron does not attract those with college degrees. Now if i go to a city like South Bend I would find a higher percentage because well, the job market is more job friendly to college degrees plus there are a number of universities around giving more access to education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts