skank;693646 wrote:#1) No, Nike had their combine 2 weeks ago, and every athlete involved should appreciate Massillons involvement.

#2) Or...."give scholarships and/or financial aid based on a students athletic ability".

#3) That's not what alot of people are thinking, especially the Ursuline throng. Just the fact that a school with 173 boys would think they can compete enough with a school over six (6) times their size, that they schedule the game is a testimony to the efforts of Ursulines recruiting coordinator.

skank;693315 wrote:You know the sad thing is that your answer is Massillon, despite the combines, and the house rentals, and the 173 boys vs the 1059 boys, and the 4 state all star team, and the 7 county all star team, and the giving financial aid on the basis of athletic prowess, and the fact that between 86 and 99 there were ZERO (0) big parochial school state championships out of Cincinnati, despite the fact that pre rule and post rule Cincinnati big school parochials won 44% of the championships. Pretty sad isn't it? Was Mr. Muscaro Catholic? Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Dean Wormer;694095[B wrote:]#1 Massillon did this out of the goodness of their heart. Not to show off their indoor facility hoping to lure some talent their way?[/B]#2 It's nice to see that you have continued to bang this drum even though you dodge the question of Massillon's open enrollment where a local school district picks up the athletes tab.
#3 Ursuline would have gotten whacked by St. Eds period.

skank;694129 wrote:This is my quote, nowhere on this thread, site, or any other site did I claim that U of Ursuline would have beaten St. Ed. St. Ed doesn't even have 1,000 boys. My comment was U of Ursuline playing one of the biggest schools in the state. As far as your #1 comment, Coach Hall didn't offer a home to anyone. #2, Massillon loses more OE students than they gain....by a large #.

skank;694140 wrote:Did the Cleveland area parochials have their combines out of the goodness of their hearts for the betterment of the student athlete, or were they just thinking of more state championships?

sherm03;694155 wrote:Any school can schedule any other school. Not sure why you have such a big problem with that. If Colerain wanted to play Maria Stein Marion Local...both teams are able to set that up. There is no rule that says Division 5 or 6 schools are not allowed to schedule Division 1 and 2 schools. So why is it such a big deal to you that Ursuline plays against one of the bigger schools in the state?

And way to completely dance around the Dean's question again. Let me try spelling it out clearer for you...

Why are you OK with students from any county being allowed to transfer in to an open enrollment school (after all, that's what statewide open enrollment gives permission for), but you are not OK with students from surrounding suburbs choosing to go to a private school in their area?

Al Bundy;694166 wrote:You can take the stance that combines are wrong if you want. Just be consistant with your stance, and call out Massillon (or anyone else) when they do it. You complain about Cleveland school having combines, but you don't seem to have a problem with Massillon having a combine.

skank;694210 wrote:Cleve. combine = Middle school kids being evaluated for the benefit of Cleve. area parochials.

Massillon combine = Middle school through HS Seniors being evaluated for the benefit of the kid.

I just can't understand why YOU just can't understand.

skank;694204 wrote:You really want to compare situations where a kid transfers from public A to public B, where in most cases it's a lateral move, to a situation where a kid gets a private school education paid for, let's be honest here, based on his athletic abilities?

Classyposter58;694424 wrote:I think Ursuline coulda beat St. Ed's or at least competed. Teague is uber-talented and incredibly tough and they had the size up front to challenge em. Ha they're O-Line was bigger than Mt. Union's and they only averaged 8 pounds a man less than St. Ed's

skank;694225 wrote:Of course it's for the benefit of the kid, why else would he go.

sherm03;694330 wrote:I want to know why you think there is no issue with a student who lives in Closed Enrollment District A, but decides to go to Open Enrollment District B...but you have an issue if that same student decided to go to Local Parochial School C.

If you can qualify to me why it's OK for students to be allowed to transfer among public schools without issue, but are forced to sit out a year if they transfer to a parochial school, then you might have my attention. Until then, you are nothing more than the biggest whiner on this site. Enjoy your juicebox, little guy.

Al Bundy;694532 wrote:Wouldn't that be true of any combine? I don't it applies to only Massillon's combine. Why would a kid go to a Cleveland combine if it didn't benefit him?

fish82;694434 wrote:How many players (specifically linemen) went both ways? Therein lies your answer.[/QUOTE]

I feel I should warn you Classyposter58, fish has all the answers.

skank;694538 wrote: I've already used the St. V situation (during the LBJ era) as an example, if you can convince ME, that those kids either paid tuition, or were NOT given scholarships based on their athletic abilities, then you might have MY attention.

skank;694553 wrote:I feel I should warn you Classyposter58, fish has all the answers.

fish82;694640 wrote:Since you're the one making the accusation, standard procedure is for you to come up with that proof thingy, not the other way around. It's fun to watch you desperately chucking feces against the wall though, in the hope that some will eventually stick.



Duh.

skank;694538 wrote:I'M the biggest whiner? You (and the boys) have been benefiting from the OHSAA's turn your head policy for the last 40 years, now that things are finally being questioned, you (and the boys) turn into Doug and Wendy Whiner.

I've already used the St. V situation (during the LBJ era) as an example, if you can convince ME, that those kids either paid tuition, or were NOT given scholarships based on their athletic abilities, then you might have MY attention.

skank;694652 wrote:I'll take this as an admission of guilt.

skank;694549 wrote:Now we're talking about who HELD the combine, not who attended. Massillon doesn't HOLD the combine, they HOST the combine.

skank;694538 wrote:I'M the biggest whiner? You (and the boys) have been benefiting from the OHSAA's turn your head policy for the last 40 years, now that things are finally being questioned, you (and the boys) turn into Doug and Wendy Whiner.

I've already used the St. V situation (during the LBJ era) as an example, if you can convince ME, that those kids either paid tuition, or were NOT given scholarships based on their athletic abilities, then you might have MY attention.

Dean Wormer;694672 wrote:Once again you do the old "SKANK SHUFFLE". When a kid transfers to OPEN ENROLLMENT Massillon his local school district pays Massillon a sum of about $5,000.00. I'm not quite sure of the exact total but that's close. Isn't this a whole lot like a "SCHOLARSHIP?" By the way the parents of the kid in Cleveland still pay their property taxes to the school district in which they live.

Al Bundy;694703 wrote:So if the Cleveland schools changed their combine to the Under Armour combine hosted by Cleveland Catholic Schools you would be ok with it?