bigdanteague

Don't forget my ole acting buddy, John Vernon (aka Fletcher from Outlaw Josey Wales). "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining Senator"

Garrett seeding Criteria: 1. IU recruits get half the bracket to themselves....auto berth to finals. 2. Amish kids 3. Kids wearing purple 4. Home cooking - host team gets the seed. Draw in - Kids who win the Al Smith even though it was not seeded correctly and their coach didn't show to stop the shenanigans.

He won't see Nix until semi state.

Tight cradles usually don't allow for much rocking. Official must have had it out for Kaine.

lay coach i believe

Like I said, when you post opinion on a message board, it is open to interpretation. Gook luck driving that busco squad

Y2's post said that he believed that is what you were saying. When you post opinion on a message board, they are fair game for interpretation. Some realize this, some just say "hey your putting words in my mouth" or "hey, your twisting my words instead. It is obvious that you were implying exactly what Y2 typed. I don't think y2 ever asserted that pay and locations were not a factor. We must not have many driven coaches at smaller schools if they are looking to move up in their profession.

I would hope that coaches would look to improve their situations in any number of ways. I would think that success at the team and program would be one factor that would lead coaches to look for better situations.

Cale Hoover - Anderson Highland to Center Grove, farther from home. What is curious is that buscowrestling seems to downplaying the idea that coaches might look for situations that offer greater pay and greater chances of success. I would hope that good coaches would naturally look for better situations. Sure, sometimes moving closer to home might be a consideration, but I would hope that driven, competitive coaches would look for the best situation both competitvely and financially. Football and basketball coaches do it all the time. However, in those sports, small school coaches have a realistic chance of having team success in the state tournament. Heck, Dan Gable could be hired at LaVille and they would never get higher than 3rd in their sectional.

butt out...you can't even follow the thread. Your stupidity knows no bounds

The Crazy train has officially left the station. All aboard!!!!

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.

If that's the case then they would have changed back long ago.

All your kids wont make it to state in a classed system either.

When do pre season rankings come out?

I personally see nothing wrong with it. However I think the IHSAA made a statement about this last spring.

You could save this and post it every time someone starts a class wrestling thread but you will still be called a crybaby. Why? Because this post makes too much sense

battle of the network stars?

I can't stay away

Awesome...so in the year 4540 A.D. skeleton and ice dancing will reign supreme. But until then I will hold that baseball is FAR more popular than snowboarding.

Lack of intelligence and common sense are like meth to me. I am addicted

Thank you. I now believe you are completely nuts and will regard all future posts with that in mind.

Guilty as charged

now who is feeling sorry for themselves??

No they were indeed questions. The first two quite legitimate. Osama bin AJ. Do not fly these not so friendly skies.