PDad wrote:Sam wrote:PDad,
Please try to make your arguments without making up or misrepresenting mine.
I do. You should try it for a change.
A) I said college coaches don't see the kids in meaningful games unless they see them at Nationals.....you add that they play meaningful games in Colorado....some do....my point is that Fall showcases are not meaningful games....
Let's review - you make an inaccurate assertion that goes outside the scope of your point, I refute your broad assertion and then you complain and misrepresent our posts in the process. You blow it and it's somehow my fault.
As I posted before, games are as meaningful as the coach/team makes them. If a team is playing in a showcase and gets exposure, that's what makes the games meaningful. Otherwise, it's up to them whether they treat them like a scrimmage or an elimination game. A meaningless trophy doesn't make the games meaningful.they are expensive jokes. You have committed pitchers throwing meatballs to kids who are trying to impress a college coach.
Classic - take something that's an infrequent occurrence and rant about it as being the norm. I recall your story of squeezing in a few at bats for a player that a college coach only had a few minutes to see. That was an exception.B) Your kid played 83 games...still twice as many as HS games. 42+ meaningful games.....really?
C) I said, "If you think there are less TB programs that aren't worth a $hit than HS programs that suck, then you are delusional my friend." You characterize that with "You consistently characterize TB with the worst and portray HS with the best programs. NEWS FLASH - there are good and bad in both." If you read what I said, you ignored it.
I read it and dismissed it as your opinion. My response pointed out your bias and suggested the huge number of HS teams (i.e. over 700 varsity in SoCal + JV), conservatively over 1,000 teams, would result in a greater number of HS teams that suck.D) I worked for an AD that fired his SB staff.....after we lost our 2nd round playoff game to a kid going to U of Michigan 3-0.
Most AD's would consider that successful. If that wasn't the case, I hope you're not trying to use that one occurrence to prove anything. I said "most" AD's, not all. FWIW, my experience is AD's sometimes use lack of success as an excuse to fire a coach when they're itching to do it for other reasons. Most AD's are satisfied as long as the coach isn't causing them grief.
I imagine our debate has resulted in PR becoming fit to be tied and bored everyone else. We should take it offline because no one else cares.
Everybody misunderstands your posts because you keep changing your "point." You said your kid played a full 83 game schedule and most of the games were meaningful. I did the math and questioned the number of 42+ meaningful games. NOW you say that you obviously meant the 83 games to represent 50 games and 29 of them were meaningful. That's 34%. Oh, but we were supposed to know that you were only referring to the summer games....which proves my original point...the summer should be when the colleges recruit.....because nearly 60% of the games are meaningful, whereas none of the fall games are meaningful.
You treat the Fall exposure tournaments as if there are loads of coaches at the games. Have you ever been to the games on the outer fields at HB? Some of them are in Yorba Linda. The schools that attend the games on the outer fields are there because the player asked them to come watch or they are watching an already verballed player. If there are no coaches at those games, they still play them.....after all, it's an EXPOSURE tournament. A lot of good teams play on those fields. I was fortunate enough to coach a Gold team that was around forever and always played at the main complex.
I'll leave it at that.....if I respond to all of your other changing arguments, you'll only change them again after they've been refuted......and we wouldn't want PR to be bored.
