It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Girls basketball team gets booted from league for being too good

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: mulder85
So there was no such thing as a "participation trophy" until, I dunno, 2008 then? Your argument is that there was no such thing as a "participation trophy" or badge or certificate or medal up until a few years ago? That it's an entirely new concept ushered in by our current "obsession" with PC culture?


The point I was making is that where and when I played competitive sports there was not, and I did not play these that long ago.

Maybe they gave everyone a happy little star in other places but not in Wayne, NJ. And even if they did I would not want the useless piece of crap.




posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Look, I agree that participation trophies are dumb. I'm just wondering if you honestly think they didn't exist anywhere, not just in Wayne NJ, until very recently.

I'm fed up with excessive PC BS too, but I'm equally fed up with everyone pointing to every last thing as an example of this "new PC trend" that's supposedly killing America.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: mulder85
Look, I agree that participation trophies are dumb. I'm just wondering if you honestly think they didn't exist anywhere, not just in Wayne NJ, until very recently.


It is a fairly recent widespread occurrence. Within the past two decades or so.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: mulder85

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: mulder85
I'm not sure what activities you participated in. You're telling me that you know factually that there were no participation trophies in, say, the 70s and 80s, for things like Tae Kwon Do, wrestling, intra-city basketball leagues, etc.?


I played PAL Football, Baseball and Basketball, Little League Baseball, High School Football and Baseball and did both Tae Kwon Do and Jiu Jitsu and never got a trophy except when we/I won the championship or I made the All Star team.


So there was no such thing as a "participation trophy" until, I dunno, 2008 then? Your argument is that there was no such thing as a "participation trophy" or badge or certificate or medal up until a few years ago? That it's an entirely new concept ushered in by our current "obsession" with PC culture?


I don't know what year it started but I played actively in many sports up until 1997-98. I have never gotten a participation trophy. I only heard about these probably 5 years ago. I'm guessing it has been around longer but really started to gain ground up until about 10 years ago



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: mulder85
Look, I agree that participation trophies are dumb. I'm just wondering if you honestly think they didn't exist anywhere, not just in Wayne NJ, until very recently.


It is a fairly recent widespread occurrence. Within the past two decades or so.


I just have to wonder if it's actually a recent occurrence or if the reporting of it is the actual widespread phenomena. Hence the second paragraph of my previous post.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mulder85

As the above poster pointed out, I think it is relatively recent.



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
just to muddy the waters of " participation cups "

i remember throwing away a whole box load of " participation trophies ", medals etc etc - that my mother kept for readons i cannot fathom .

these were for a variety of stuff from the late 70s to early 90s - mostly long-distance [ 50 mile ] sponsored walks , fell races , orienteering events , x-country races etc .

i was never a winner - i think my best result in a certain famouse race was 16th over all - but that was helped immesurably by diabolic weather and a huge drop out rate [ the next year - in perfect weather - i loged a faster time - but my leaderboard was low 50s

but i digress - i was recieving participation prizes over 30 years ago

the only modifier i will tag on to this claim is - you had to finish the course to get one - i always finished cos i am not a pussy

so participtation prizes - being awarded since begore some of you were even born



posted on Jan, 26 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Not surprising with the everyone gets a trophy mentality we are propagating.



I read this everywhere but what is this based on? Can someone eleborate please?



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Teddy916>>>> I never tried out for highschool sports because I was way better than any of the other players. So I kind of see the reasoning there, maybe they wanted to spare the other teams feelings.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
For small children, positive reward for the courage to try is a good thing. Not a trophy, but some "remembrance" of a fun thing you were part of, something you can be proud of. In past decades, for example, teenagers might keep the ticket stubs of a great concert they went to on their mirror, or an autograph of someone famous they met. It's not much different for little kids.

Not until I actually had a child did I finally understand Barney, and the beauty of children's innocence, and wanting the world to be clean for them and not smug and sarcastic and dark, and seeing how wide-open vulnerable they are and wanting everything they engage in to provide some opportunity for a good experience. Wanting the world to say "You're beautiful" in every possible way because they are -- and because children "bloom" with this.

I think the limited imagination of the people pushing such things like in schools -- and this dates back to at least the late 70s, it's not at all new -- is responsible for the "winner's trophy even when you didn't win" thing and that's ridiculous. I consider it somewhat damaging to everyone -- and patently unfair to people who DID win at something.

I am biased I admit. I associate this with the literal "takeover" of forced schooling by what amounts to women, and to a lesser degree gender-feminism, and to a lesser degree philosophical-socialism. I have never met a man who would suggest giving someone a trophy if they didn't win something, but I've met lots of females who would (and I am a woman btw) -- and this even goes for males raised in a culture that did exactly this (my age group was).

Mind you I know plenty of females who would rabidly despise it, too. Not blaming it on women per se. I'm just saying I think in the edu environment, the heavy women-slash-socialism mentality so pervading our colleges today, in its younger earlier days of devolution, came up with "trophies for participation." It kind of goes with the everyone is equal, competition is capitalism is unfair because it results in inequality, mindset.

A participation button/sticker/picture/poster/stamp/whatever is nice for kids or sometimes for anyone. It's simply that there should just be NO overlap whatever with the whole concept of competition or winning, which making it any kind of trophy interferes with.

edit on 27-1-2016 by RedCairo because: bought a couple more paragraph breaks



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

If only they'd do this with the New England Patriots. They are cheaters so at least it would be justified.



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: RedCairo

Not until I actually had a child did I finally understand Barney, and the beauty of children's innocence, and wanting the world to be clean for them and not smug and sarcastic and dark, and seeing how wide-open vulnerable they are and wanting everything they engage in to provide some opportunity for a good experience. Wanting the world to say "You're beautiful" in every possible way because they are -- and because children "bloom" with this.


One would think, human's being the most evolved species (questionable), would have matured beyond Survival of the Fittest.

My 8 year old grandson just got a Math Achievement award. Not because he's good at math, but because he hates it. It was incentive to make him feel math has value. Guess what, it worked. He started putting more effort into doing his math.

I'm a major proponent of Integrity and Personal Responsibility, but incentive rewards have value - - especially for young kids. I'd say the most important thing for any kid is Self Esteem.

I guess my question is, when do you jump from Feel Good Self Esteem rewards to "only if you earn it"?

My kids swam for 10 years. They kept time cards, so basically you compete against yourself - - not other swimmers. But, swim meets are divided by age and times - - so most everyone does actually win races.


edit on 27-1-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
yay socialism. Let's do our darnedest to make sure that every team goes 5-5. Anybody starting out 3-0 is weeded out.

They probably erased all traces of this team, lol. Their name, the 3-0, the individuals.....all disappeared from league records haha.

0-3 teams are given 2 immediate "administrative wins" to get them to 2-3 before anything gets too out of hand.

I do remember coaching soccer at the Y. I was the only one who didn't recruit kids from other leagues and poach kids from other teams at the Y. Also had a totally new random team every year, while certain coaches kept their whole roster for various dopey excuses. They used to say "um, they all live near each other....no, it's not just because they're the best 12 kids in the league that took me 4 years to poach......"

Anyway, that was a fun(ny) experience. Kind of made me mad, but that's life. My guys learned how to be good sports against the stacked teams.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
I guess my question is, when do you jump from Feel Good Self Esteem rewards to "only if you earn it"?


Well to me there is a difference between recognition of participation or effort, vs competitive-win.

And perhaps I would put the competition to begin at a certain age, and expand past that point, so that it was in part seen as moving toward adulthood -- being a bigger kid is associated with competition.

SMALL children (and special needs kids) are a different case, in my view, than older kids. To me once you hit 12 you're expected to do chores without supervision, be honest without watching, and recognize 'competition.' Maybe it starts a little sooner and expands to that point, but past that point I would not 'coddle' anyone -- at that point you weaken them, not strengthen them.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You mean the team that the NFL admitted they had no evidence against and were made to look like fools when it was revealed they admitted they railroaded Brady?

Hate to break it to you, but I would wager your team cheats a whole lot more. Patriots are below average when it comes to cheating, and even Mangini said Spygate was ridiculous and if he had known what the league would do he never would have said anything (hint, it's because every team was doing it, and many doing it worse than the Patriots who technically did not even break any rules doing it).

Get educated on the subject before you talk about it.



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Barcs

You mean the team that the NFL admitted they had no evidence against and were made to look like fools when it was revealed they admitted they railroaded Brady?

Hate to break it to you, but I would wager your team cheats a whole lot more. Patriots are below average when it comes to cheating, and even Mangini said Spygate was ridiculous and if he had known what the league would do he never would have said anything (hint, it's because every team was doing it, and many doing it worse than the Patriots who technically did not even break any rules doing it).

Get educated on the subject before you talk about it.


Great, a Patriots apologist.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I have not read about this subject thoroughly. I have. The team got caught cheating, there's no way around it. I didn't say anything about Brady. THE TEAM got caught with deflated footballs that they prepared for the game. That's hard evidence, regardless of the specifics of who exactly did it, who knew, or when it happened. Sorry, but I have never seen an NFL team get caught cheating TWICE, and compromise the integrity of the NFL on this level.

Personally, I think they went after Brady more as a punishment to the team as a whole and the lack of cooperation with the investigation. The best punishment you can give a team for cheating in a championship game is to take away their best player, and in all honesty the punishment was more than fair considering they went on to win a super bowl afterwards, and considering Bill Belichick was warned that he would be banned from football if something like that (spygate) were to happen again.

The problem is that Goodell didn't admit it was a punishment for the team, he tried to go all in on Brady, while completely ignoring Bill Belichick, who runs such a tight nit operation he knows what time the mice feed in section 150. In reality BB should have been suspended, not Tom Brady, although it is laughable to suggest Tom wouldn't have noticed the balls were light on PSI, or that it was just a coincidence that he destroyed the cell phone during the investigation, which referred to the guy as "the deflater".

Yeah, I don't think it's coincidence that Kraft was seen wining and dining the judge right after the trial, or that the Pats have been the best bad weather team in the league for the last decade (until this year). The problem is that Goodell had the power to punish as he saw fit, yet somehow a court was able to over ride him, when players and coaches have been punished in the past for things without hard evidence linking them (ie Sean Payton and bountygate).

LMAO at calling them "below average" at cheating. What kind of crack-ass statistics are you looking at? Yourteamcheats.com, the Patriots funded propaganda site? Sure thing. I'll believe that just like I believe creationist anti evolution sites.


edit on 1 28 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Barcs

You mean the team that the NFL admitted they had no evidence against and were made to look like fools when it was revealed they admitted they railroaded Brady?

Hate to break it to you, but I would wager your team cheats a whole lot more. Patriots are below average when it comes to cheating, and even Mangini said Spygate was ridiculous and if he had known what the league would do he never would have said anything (hint, it's because every team was doing it, and many doing it worse than the Patriots who technically did not even break any rules doing it).

Get educated on the subject before you talk about it.


Great, a Patriots apologist.

I don't appreciate the insinuation that I have not read about this subject thoroughly. I have. The team got caught cheating, there's no way around it. I didn't say anything about Brady. THE TEAM got caught with deflated footballs that they prepared for the game.

Again, you are clueless on the subject. How have you read about it and not know that the balls were NOT deflated. There was NO deflation.
It's actually been shown none of the Pats balls were underinflated. Wells fudged numbers and circumstances and ignored exculpatory evidence.

The actual math comes out to be there is NO DIFFERENCE between Pats balls and Colts balls.

If we take the mean of all six hypothetical scenarios, the average Patriot ball is about 0.003 PSI below where it should be at the time of measurement relative to the Colt balls.

www.backpicks.com...

Also read if you care ...
www.backpicks.com...

The evidence supports zero tampering. The evidence can not support tampering unless you intentionally fudge it to support what you want to support.

I bet they don't care about the 2 teams ACTUALLY caught doing it, or the well known QB who says he does it all the time ... but somehow it's a huge crime when the Pats MAY have done something.

Nash: "Is there a text in which Mr. Brady instructs someone to put a needle in a football? No there is not such direct evidence."



That's hard evidence, regardless of the specifics of who exactly did it, who knew, or when it happened. Sorry, but I have never seen an NFL team get caught cheating TWICE, and compromise the integrity of the NFL on this level.

As I said there is no evidence. Spygate is also a farce, and Magini himself said he regrets starting it and if he could go back he wouldn't have. Because the Pats were doing less than what other teams were doing. Mangini was looking for a slight advantage and wanted the Pats to get a slap on the wrist, for something EVERY team does, and most do it to a far greater extend the Pats were (who technically stayed within the rules).


Personally, I think they went after Brady more as a punishment to the team as a whole and the lack of cooperation with the investigation. The best punishment you can give a team for cheating in a championship game is to take away their best player, and in all honesty the punishment was more than fair considering they went on to win a super bowl afterwards, and considering Bill Belichick was warned that he would be banned from football if something like that (spygate) were to happen again.

The only thing that happened was a manufactured event. Why would Brady cooperate with an investigation that was 100% designed to railroad him ... and that is what the NFL ADMITTED in court. They ADMITTED Brady did not get a fair investigation/hearing and claimed he was not entitled to one so it didn't matter.

You are so ignorant because of your hate it's amazing.

Some key information that came from the hearings.
1. NFL admitted there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by Tom Brady, and there was no evidence he was aware of any wrongdoing.
2. NFL admitted the hearing that led to his suspension was not fair, and put forth the argument that they are not obligated to provide Tom Brady with a fair hearing.
3. NFL admitted they withheld key witnesses from Tom Brady's defense team, and says they are not obligated to notify Brady, or allow Brady access to any witnesses that benefit his side.
4. NFL says they are under no obligation to provide Tom Brady with evidence of his innocence that they uncover during their investigations.
5. The Wells report was not fair and unbiased. It was unfair and biased.

Judge Berman chided Roger Goodell for dispensing "his own brand of industrial justice."


Berman cited "several significant legal deficiencies'' in the league's handling of the controversy, including no advanced notice of potential penalties, the refusal to produce a key witness and the apparent first-ever discipline of a player based on a finding of "general awareness'' of someone else's wrongdoing.


About the game/balls
1. Colts emails show they were trying to get the Patriots in trouble.
2. Colts' player who intercepted the ball says the ball did not feel underinflated when he caught it and it felt fine to him.
3. Every football other than the one the Colts tampered with were roughly the same PSI as the Colts' balls (3 of which were also underinflated when tested)

Now I am just waiting for you to talk about the fumbling ....


Ironically, out of 32 NFL teams, the Patriots come away looking like the least likely team to have a home-away discrepancy in football quality. New England has actually fumbled more frequently at home than on the road since 2007!

www.backpicks.com...

Reminder: Those Stats About Patriots Fumbles Are A Mess
regressing.deadspin.com...

Why Those Statistics About The Patriots' Fumbles Are Mostly Junk
regressing.deadspin.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
I can't imagine what the *REAL* reason is.





The 14 girls were invited to play in the independant league, but because the girls were mostly seniors, the league wanted them split into two teams in order to balance the field of play. This is why we have drafts in sports. This league wanted to have some parity for the existing teams.

The coach knew this, and instead fielded all the girls together, who have been playing together since they were in first grade. What he essentially did was, agree to the league's conditions and then he went ahead and did what he wanted to gain an advantage.

This is more of an awfully run league with no prooer guidelines, than it is liberalism run amok. If the league would have simply looked Into the roster prior to the first game, this never would have happened.



assets.ngin.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Again, you are clueless on the subject. How have you read about it and not know that the balls were NOT deflated. There was NO deflation.
It's actually been shown none of the Pats balls were underinflated. Wells fudged numbers and circumstances and ignored exculpatory evidence.


That's not true at all. ESPN's claim that 11 of 12 balls were 2.0 psi below the limit was wrong, the numbers on the Wells report PSI levels were correct.

Here are the actual measurements:

profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...


Prioleau’s measurements were, in PSI: (1) 11.8; (2) 11.2; (3) 11.5; (4) 11.0; (5) 11.45; (6) 11.95; (7) 12.3; (8) 11.55; (9) 11.35; (10) 10.9; and (11) 11.35.

Blakeman’s measurements were, also in PSI: (1) 11.5; (2) 10.85; (3) 11.15; (4) 10.7; (5) 11.1; (6) 11.6; (7) 11.85; (8) 11.1; (9) 10.95; (10) 10.5; and (11) 10.9.


The legal minimum is 12.5. That means every ball was below the limit.

You make an interesting point about the Colt's balls being similar, but do you know where I can find those individual readings? I've done quite a bit of searching and have only found the average of 4 balls. It would be nice if I could see those individual readings, because taking the average of the Patriots 12 balls vs the average of the Colts 4 is problematic from the get go, due to the lack of sample size for the Colts. I couldn't find that info in the Wells report.


Why would Brady cooperate with an investigation that was 100% designed to railroad him ... and that is what the NFL ADMITTED in court. They ADMITTED Brady did not get a fair investigation/hearing and claimed he was not entitled to one so it didn't matter.


If you get arrested for a crime you did not commit, would you seriously refuse to cooperate and destroy evidence just because you thought it could be a set up? That makes no sense at all, especially if you didn't do it and cooperation could prove your innocence. If Brady had nothing to worry about, there is no reason whatsoever to destroy the cell phone and refuse to cooperate. It's just shady. If he had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have been so evasive. It's like how Aaron Hernandez destroyed all of his home surveillance equipment immediate after the murder. The guilt becomes obvious, unless Brady was trying to hide something else, something far worse.

Wells and Goodell totally dropped the ball in the investigation, I agree with that much. The problem that I have with it is that Goodell has the right (agreed to by the NFLPA) to arbitrate on these things as he sees fit. He's done it before. Sean Payton missed an entire year with no tangible connection to bountygate. I don't see how a court of law can over ride that. Goodell was given this power. If you want to take that power away, that's a completely different issue and they will have to revisit it with the NFLPA.

Sorry for dragging this off topic. Wasn't my intention, I was really just trying to take a light hearted jab at the poster boys for cheating in the NFL. Looks like I was wrong about some of the things, but I definitely learned something. I just don't know if the claims on that website are trustworthy. Some of them definitely seem like stretching. I just don't see how cold weather can drop PSI by up to 1.6 out of 12.5. I also don't see how the balls being wet or dry would affect the pressure inside the ball either. They definitely need to do more measurements in more cold weather games to really get a good idea of what's going on.

edit on 1 29 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: spinalremain

originally posted by: xuenchen
I can't imagine what the *REAL* reason is.





The 14 girls were invited to play in the independant league, but because the girls were mostly seniors, the league wanted them split into two teams in order to balance the field of play. This is why we have drafts in sports. This league wanted to have some parity for the existing teams.

The coach knew this, and instead fielded all the girls together, who have been playing together since they were in first grade. What he essentially did was, agree to the league's conditions and then he went ahead and did what he wanted to gain an advantage.

This is more of an awfully run league with no prooer guidelines, than it is liberalism run amok. If the league would have simply looked Into the roster prior to the first game, this never would have happened.



assets.ngin.com...


That makes more sense.

Something was missing in this story.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join