recruiting

[baseball]

you are guys are completely misinterpreting what I am trying to say.  I don't think that people should transfer for wins or for more playing time.  But I think that if they have a legit reason, then I don't think they should be punished.  If a girl is made uncomfortable by a male coach then she should be able to transfer.  If I am playing for shanley and my family falls on hard times and can no longer afford it, then I should be able to transfer.  If I am being harrassed in school, then I should be able to transfer.  Some of these reasons have nothing to do with sports and if a kid transfers because of them, they shouldn't be punished by not being allowed to play.

I agree with that 100%.  another thing that makes me wonder is why its only talking about the all-state, all region players.  their other kids that transfer but it seems that people only wanna punish the great players and make them sit when if a below average player transfers school its for academics.

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

you are guys are completely misinterpreting what I am trying to say.  I don't think that people should transfer for wins or for more playing time.  But I think that if they have a legit reason, then I don't think they should be punished.  If a girl is made uncomfortable by a male coach then she should be able to transfer.  If I am playing for shanley and my family falls on hard times and can no longer afford it, then I should be able to transfer.  If I am being harrassed in school, then I should be able to transfer.  Some of these reasons have nothing to do with sports and if a kid transfers because of them, they shouldn't be punished by not being allowed to play.

I agree with that 100%.  another thing that makes me wonder is why its only talking about the all-state, all region players.  their other kids that transfer but it seems that people only wanna punish the great players and make them sit when if a below average player transfers school its for academics.

how many below average kids transfer to get to a better team?  how many of those kids sit the 90 days just like they're supposed to....names, numbers, something, anybody......nobody is condemning any kid that transfers for legit reasons, but come on........if you transfer for legit reasons, why does not playing varsity for 90 days cause such a panic?  kids move, parents don't, and they are magically in a new school by the date that allows them to be eligible for basketball, hmmmmmm

walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck

oh yeah, and kids of today can thank those kids of the 90s that bounced around like ping pong balls (engelhardts) for the rules today........and the kids of the future can thank the kids of today for the 180 day rule. 

walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

I still would love to hear why you think kids should stay in one place their whole life even if they hate it instead of searching for their own happiness and not someone elses

you don't pay your own bills yet, do you?   you're not serious with that comment, are you?

[fbinnd]

First, noone believes that kids should have to stay in one place for the rest of their lives.  But, like you said a couple of posts ago:  walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck.

So let me show that I can have at least SOME common sense here.

1st:  Kid's going to private school and parents can't afford it anymore=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility.

2nd:  Kid being harrassed in school=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility. 

In either of these cases, though, a case needs to be presented to NDHSAA and the HSAA needs to grant the immediate eligibility.  Why?  Well, like you said, kids bouncing around like ping-pong balls crafted our system.  When people abuse the system, its the people that need it that pay the price.  We have to now make sure that the kid is not transferring just to play sports, but for legitimate need.

I have a problem with the male coach/female player issue.  A girl can't just claim harrassment and be allowed to transfer.  The Duke lacrosse case should be an easy explanation why.  If a girl wants out, all she has to do is claim something against her male coach, and she will be allowed to transfer.  If nothing happened, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, and if something really did happen, she shouldn't have to.  The coach should be thrown out, which would fix the problem. 

Now, there's the issue of "if the coach gets thrown out because of her, she'll be harrassed, and that's a reason for leaving".  I can understand that, but if she claims harrassment, and nothing ever happened, and the coach is not fired, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, even with the harrassment claim.  That's too easy an out for anyone.

ND is not large enough to be completely inflexible with it's rules.  We can take the time to evaluate.  But what was talked about with the "change of scenery" had little to do with harrassment, financial downturn, or sexual depravity.  "Change of scenery" meant, "I'm just sick of this coach, and sick of this town, and I want out because of me".  In ND, you go right ahead and change schools, but you're not playing just because you want a "change of scenery".   Wanting a new coach or new friends or more wins or more attention is not a "need" for a student.  Students need opportunities.  At some point, they need to learn that you don't get everything you want.  A system that allows for a "change of scenery" transfer teaches a kid that he/she will get whatever whenever.  That's not the lesson high school athletics is designed to teach.

If having to choose between allowing transfers for any reason or discontinuing all high school athletics, I would choose discontinuing high school athletics.  If kids can do whatever they want whenever they want, there are no skills being taught, and the kids would be better off spending that time in the classroom, at a job, or in the field.

[baller01]

Thank you.  Everything said.  At the college level and the pro level, it's about hunting wins.  High school athletics is about learning skills for life.  You pursue winning, and you stay away from paths that lead away from winning, but you don't "job hop" for a "change of scenery" in high school.  That's just pathetic.

If you are playing at the varsity level in any sport in the state, and you aren't playing for wins, why are you playing? I don't care if you play basketball, football, soccer, golf, tennis, whatever it may be. You play to win. You don'g get up at 5:30 every morning and go into the weight room and say to yourself "I'm going to lift weights this morning to teach myself a skill for my life."

If we are basing high school athletics on learning skills for life, which it is, don't get me wrong (the main reason is winning though) then the attitude of "winning isn't everything" is a terrible life lesson. If you are telling Billy that it is ok not to go out and try his hardest to win and just have fun then maybe 20 years down the road when he has a low paying job when he could be in the big time and he says "well, I suppose being rich and having a good paying job isn't everything" and settles for his low paying job.

"Winning isn't everything. It's second to breathing." -Vince Lamboardi

[baseball]

you are guys are completely misinterpreting what I am trying to say.  I don't think that people should transfer for wins or for more playing time.  But I think that if they have a legit reason, then I don't think they should be punished.  If a girl is made uncomfortable by a male coach then she should be able to transfer.  If I am playing for shanley and my family falls on hard times and can no longer afford it, then I should be able to transfer.  If I am being harrassed in school, then I should be able to transfer.  Some of these reasons have nothing to do with sports and if a kid transfers because of them, they shouldn't be punished by not being allowed to play.

I agree with that 100%.  another thing that makes me wonder is why its only talking about the all-state, all region players.  their other kids that transfer but it seems that people only wanna punish the great players and make them sit when if a below average player transfers school its for academics.

how many below average kids transfer to get to a better team?  how many of those kids sit the 90 days just like they're supposed to....names, numbers, something, anybody......nobody is condemning any kid that transfers for legit reasons, but come on........if you transfer for legit reasons, why does not playing varsity for 90 days cause such a panic?  kids move, parents don't, and they are magically in a new school by the date that allows them to be eligible for basketball, hmmmmmm

walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck

oh yeah, and kids of today can thank those kids of the 90s that bounced around like ping pong balls (engelhardts) for the rules today........and the kids of the future can thank the kids of today for the 180 day rule. 

walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck

Jake and Jason Stroh transferred from Tappen to Steele-Dawson and nobody said a single thing about them? why?  they are decent players but by no means the all-state/all-region caliber players that Brandenburg, Knife, Finleys are.  and now when a teams best player leaves, shes doing the wrong thing?

[baseball]

I still would love to hear why you think kids should stay in one place their whole life even if they hate it instead of searching for their own happiness and not someone elses

you don't pay your own bills yet, do you?   you're not serious with that comment, are you?

so because there isnt an answer to that question you bring up a thought that i dont pay bills??  sure the saying is money cant buy you happiness and the move will more than likely cost you most then if you stayed put.  Its not the spending from moving from point a to point b that make you happy, its the MOVE that makes you happy

[baller01]

First, noone believes that kids should have to stay in one place for the rest of their lives.  But, like you said a couple of posts ago:  walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck.

So let me show that I can have at least SOME common sense here.

1st:  Kid's going to private school and parents can't afford it anymore=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility.

2nd:  Kid being harrassed in school=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility. 

In either of these cases, though, a case needs to be presented to NDHSAA and the HSAA needs to grant the immediate eligibility.  Why?  Well, like you said, kids bouncing around like ping-pong balls crafted our system.  When people abuse the system, its the people that need it that pay the price.  We have to now make sure that the kid is not transferring just to play sports, but for legitimate need.

I have a problem with the male coach/female player issue.  A girl can't just claim harrassment and be allowed to transfer.  The Duke lacrosse case should be an easy explanation why.  If a girl wants out, all she has to do is claim something against her male coach, and she will be allowed to transfer.  If nothing happened, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, and if something really did happen, she shouldn't have to.  The coach should be thrown out, which would fix the problem. 

Now, there's the issue of "if the coach gets thrown out because of her, she'll be harrassed, and that's a reason for leaving".  I can understand that, but if she claims harrassment, and nothing ever happened, and the coach is not fired, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, even with the harrassment claim.  That's too easy an out for anyone.

ND is not large enough to be completely inflexible with it's rules.  We can take the time to evaluate.  But what was talked about with the "change of scenery" had little to do with harrassment, financial downturn, or sexual depravity.  "Change of scenery" meant, "I'm just sick of this coach, and sick of this town, and I want out because of me".  In ND, you go right ahead and change schools, but you're not playing just because you want a "change of scenery".   Wanting a new coach or new friends or more wins or more attention is not a "need" for a student.  Students need opportunities.  At some point, they need to learn that you don't get everything you want.  A system that allows for a "change of scenery" transfer teaches a kid that he/she will get whatever whenever.  That's not the lesson high school athletics is designed to teach.

If having to choose between allowing transfers for any reason or discontinuing all high school athletics, I would choose discontinuing high school athletics.  If kids can do whatever they want whenever they want, there are no skills being taught, and the kids would be better off spending that time in the classroom, at a job, or in the field.

I love how you act like kids transfer there freshmen, sophomore, and junior years when I'd say 5 kids transfer schools a year. You act like this is some huge problem that is causing North Dakota basketball to come to a crashing hault.

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

First, noone believes that kids should have to stay in one place for the rest of their lives.  But, like you said a couple of posts ago:  walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck.

So let me show that I can have at least SOME common sense here.

1st:  Kid's going to private school and parents can't afford it anymore=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility.

2nd:  Kid being harrassed in school=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility. 

In either of these cases, though, a case needs to be presented to NDHSAA and the HSAA needs to grant the immediate eligibility.  Why?  Well, like you said, kids bouncing around like ping-pong balls crafted our system.  When people abuse the system, its the people that need it that pay the price.  We have to now make sure that the kid is not transferring just to play sports, but for legitimate need.

I have a problem with the male coach/female player issue.  A girl can't just claim harrassment and be allowed to transfer.  The Duke lacrosse case should be an easy explanation why.  If a girl wants out, all she has to do is claim something against her male coach, and she will be allowed to transfer.  If nothing happened, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, and if something really did happen, she shouldn't have to.  The coach should be thrown out, which would fix the problem. 

Now, there's the issue of "if the coach gets thrown out because of her, she'll be harrassed, and that's a reason for leaving".  I can understand that, but if she claims harrassment, and nothing ever happened, and the coach is not fired, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, even with the harrassment claim.  That's too easy an out for anyone.

ND is not large enough to be completely inflexible with it's rules.  We can take the time to evaluate.  But what was talked about with the "change of scenery" had little to do with harrassment, financial downturn, or sexual depravity.  "Change of scenery" meant, "I'm just sick of this coach, and sick of this town, and I want out because of me".  In ND, you go right ahead and change schools, but you're not playing just because you want a "change of scenery".   Wanting a new coach or new friends or more wins or more attention is not a "need" for a student.  Students need opportunities.  At some point, they need to learn that you don't get everything you want.  A system that allows for a "change of scenery" transfer teaches a kid that he/she will get whatever whenever.  That's not the lesson high school athletics is designed to teach.

If having to choose between allowing transfers for any reason or discontinuing all high school athletics, I would choose discontinuing high school athletics.  If kids can do whatever they want whenever they want, there are no skills being taught, and the kids would be better off spending that time in the classroom, at a job, or in the field.

I love how you act like kids transfer there freshmen, sophomore, and junior years when I'd say 5 kids transfer schools a year. You act like this is some huge problem that is causing North Dakota basketball to come to a crashing hault.

NDHSAA takes forever to recognize a problem and deal with it......the fact that they have changed the rule as quickly as they did is an example that there has to be a significant problem or that group wouldn't have changed the rule.......that group doesn't do anything preventative

SDHoops had a great line....even the shiniest of gems hidden under a rock will eventually get discovered.....if you're a good ball player, you'll be found, quit using the excuse, there's better exposure there

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

I still would love to hear why you think kids should stay in one place their whole life even if they hate it instead of searching for their own happiness and not someone elses

you don't pay your own bills yet, do you?   you're not serious with that comment, are you?

so because there isnt an answer to that question you bring up a thought that i dont pay bills??  sure the saying is money cant buy you happiness and the move will more than likely cost you most then if you stayed put.  Its not the spending from moving from point a to point b that make you happy, its the MOVE that makes you happy

i made that comment b/c i can't believe you seriously think a 14, 15, or 16 yo should be able to do or move just to make themselves happy regardless of the consequences.....hey lets let the 3 yo move to Disneyland b/c thats what will make him happy......reality check

[baseball]

I still would love to hear why you think kids should stay in one place their whole life even if they hate it instead of searching for their own happiness and not someone elses

you don't pay your own bills yet, do you?   you're not serious with that comment, are you?

so because there isnt an answer to that question you bring up a thought that i dont pay bills??  sure the saying is money cant buy you happiness and the move will more than likely cost you most then if you stayed put.  Its not the spending from moving from point a to point b that make you happy, its the MOVE that makes you happy

i made that comment b/c i can't believe you seriously think a 14, 15, or 16 yo should be able to do or move just to make themselves happy regardless of the consequences.....hey lets let the 3 yo move to Disneyland b/c thats what will make him happy......reality check

what does a 3 yr old moving to disneyland have to do with anything.....you call my posts stupid?  when does a person start to make desicions about life and their future, when they are 3 or when they are 15-16 and in high school preparing for college???

[cdub1]

First, noone believes that kids should have to stay in one place for the rest of their lives.  But, like you said a couple of posts ago:  walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck.

So let me show that I can have at least SOME common sense here.

1st:  Kid's going to private school and parents can't afford it anymore=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility.

2nd:  Kid being harrassed in school=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility. 

In either of these cases, though, a case needs to be presented to NDHSAA and the HSAA needs to grant the immediate eligibility.  Why?  Well, like you said, kids bouncing around like ping-pong balls crafted our system.  When people abuse the system, its the people that need it that pay the price.  We have to now make sure that the kid is not transferring just to play sports, but for legitimate need.

I have a problem with the male coach/female player issue.  A girl can't just claim harrassment and be allowed to transfer.  The Duke lacrosse case should be an easy explanation why.  If a girl wants out, all she has to do is claim something against her male coach, and she will be allowed to transfer.  If nothing happened, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, and if something really did happen, she shouldn't have to.  The coach should be thrown out, which would fix the problem. 

Now, there's the issue of "if the coach gets thrown out because of her, she'll be harrassed, and that's a reason for leaving".  I can understand that, but if she claims harrassment, and nothing ever happened, and the coach is not fired, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, even with the harrassment claim.  That's too easy an out for anyone.

ND is not large enough to be completely inflexible with it's rules.  We can take the time to evaluate.  But what was talked about with the "change of scenery" had little to do with harrassment, financial downturn, or sexual depravity.  "Change of scenery" meant, "I'm just sick of this coach, and sick of this town, and I want out because of me".  In ND, you go right ahead and change schools, but you're not playing just because you want a "change of scenery".   Wanting a new coach or new friends or more wins or more attention is not a "need" for a student.  Students need opportunities.  At some point, they need to learn that you don't get everything you want.  A system that allows for a "change of scenery" transfer teaches a kid that he/she will get whatever whenever.  That's not the lesson high school athletics is designed to teach.

If having to choose between allowing transfers for any reason or discontinuing all high school athletics, I would choose discontinuing high school athletics.  If kids can do whatever they want whenever they want, there are no skills being taught, and the kids would be better off spending that time in the classroom, at a job, or in the field.

I love how you act like kids transfer there freshmen, sophomore, and junior years when I'd say 5 kids transfer schools a year. You act like this is some huge problem that is causing North Dakota basketball to come to a crashing hault.

NDHSAA takes forever to recognize a problem and deal with it......the fact that they have changed the rule as quickly as they did is an example that there has to be a significant problem or that group wouldn't have changed the rule.......that group doesn't do anything preventative

SDHoops had a great line....even the shiniest of gems hidden under a rock will eventually get discovered.....if you're a good ball player, you'll be found, quit using the excuse, there's better exposure there

if what you are saying is true then why do we only have one boy and one girl going d1 this year?

[fbinnd]

Easy:  Because ND basketball isn't that good, and we really shouldn't have that many kids going D1 in basketball.  Participation is down, particularly on the girls side, so expect our D1 numbers to go down also.

Specialization is going to rob us of athletes.  And football seems to be the hottest trend.  Kids want to play college FB, and they don't really care where, they just want to play.  So, after FB, it's sign a letter, hit the weight room, and get ready for college.  No basketball, or no more basketball.  This will hurt the number of college basketball players we send to college period, not just D1.  Even the small universities in ND are recruiting more and more from outside of ND.

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

To be a d1 athlete, not only requires the talent, but the heart and desire.......it means time, hard work, sacrifice........how many are actually willing to do it?   and lets face it, there are other interests pulling kids out of sports......

[Mr. Me Too]

First, noone believes that kids should have to stay in one place for the rest of their lives.  But, like you said a couple of posts ago:  walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck.

So let me show that I can have at least SOME common sense here.

1st:  Kid's going to private school and parents can't afford it anymore=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility.

2nd:  Kid being harrassed in school=I have no problem with the transfer and immediate eligibility. 

In either of these cases, though, a case needs to be presented to NDHSAA and the HSAA needs to grant the immediate eligibility.  Why?  Well, like you said, kids bouncing around like ping-pong balls crafted our system.  When people abuse the system, its the people that need it that pay the price.  We have to now make sure that the kid is not transferring just to play sports, but for legitimate need.

I have a problem with the male coach/female player issue.  A girl can't just claim harrassment and be allowed to transfer.  The Duke lacrosse case should be an easy explanation why.  If a girl wants out, all she has to do is claim something against her male coach, and she will be allowed to transfer.  If nothing happened, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, and if something really did happen, she shouldn't have to.  The coach should be thrown out, which would fix the problem. 

Now, there's the issue of "if the coach gets thrown out because of her, she'll be harrassed, and that's a reason for leaving".  I can understand that, but if she claims harrassment, and nothing ever happened, and the coach is not fired, she shouldn't be allowed to transfer, even with the harrassment claim.  That's too easy an out for anyone.

ND is not large enough to be completely inflexible with it's rules.  We can take the time to evaluate.  But what was talked about with the "change of scenery" had little to do with harrassment, financial downturn, or sexual depravity.  "Change of scenery" meant, "I'm just sick of this coach, and sick of this town, and I want out because of me".  In ND, you go right ahead and change schools, but you're not playing just because you want a "change of scenery".   Wanting a new coach or new friends or more wins or more attention is not a "need" for a student.  Students need opportunities.  At some point, they need to learn that you don't get everything you want.  A system that allows for a "change of scenery" transfer teaches a kid that he/she will get whatever whenever.  That's not the lesson high school athletics is designed to teach.

If having to choose between allowing transfers for any reason or discontinuing all high school athletics, I would choose discontinuing high school athletics.  If kids can do whatever they want whenever they want, there are no skills being taught, and the kids would be better off spending that time in the classroom, at a job, or in the field.

Then you should have no problem with Shaunna Knife transferring to Bottineau. . .

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

CDUB believes that kids transfer so they can get more attention for college. 

The problem here is that cdub tried to explain that Shaunna Knife could expect to get better attention by transferring to Bottineau from Belcourt, since Bottineau would be a winning team, and Belcourt would not.

Then, someone mentioned that there were "other reasons" for the move, and cdub quickly embraced that, so he wouldn't be beaten like a rented mule over his comments on Knife.

Facts are that cdub claimed that Knife would get more attention from college coaches by transferring to Bottineau and getting some wins.  That's crap.  Knife would get more attention by staying in Belcourt and playing class A schools in the WDA.  CDUB claims that Knife's 20 points and 10 rebounds will look better on a winning team that appears to have more balance.  He completely missed the fact that Knife's 20 points and 10 boards will be much more impressive if he is on a team playing Mandan, Century, Bismarck High, and so on.

In other words, cdub started a new thread, but he failed to bring the last thread with him so we can show his misstep.  Can kids transfer to get more attention?  Sure, but that transfer would be from a small B to a large B or a B to an A, in each case, the media attention naturally increases.  This particular transfer we are discussing, Knife from Belcourt to Bottineau, has no potential to get Knife any additional attention from coaches.  This thread is nothing more than CDUB running from an argument he has lost.  So he has tried to change the context by starting over.

CDUB, you're not getting off the hook that easily.

People do transfer schools sometimes to get more attention. Mr. Me Too who has very close ties to the Knife family says it was for other reasons. The fact of that matter is is that Bottineau is the most recognizable school when it comes to girls basketball and personally, the last two years, I'd take Bottineau against any class A school except Mandan. Bottineau is a better girls team then Belcourt. They just happen to be a smaller school.

Bottineau is one of the top girl teams in the state in both Class B and Class A...they are the top dawg in the Class B ranks and would above average in Class A...Knife didn't really need anymore exposure, she did that in her first 2 years at belcourt but mainly her first when nobody knew how to stop her...I can tell you why shaunna knife left Belcourt, She left because the coaching relationship with the players had became more buddy like and the girls really had no respect for there coach as a coach, they seen him as a friend...it's good to be friends when ur a coach, but you also have to realize being friends with your players isn't good...and also players were complaining about playin' time and it got parents involved and Shaunna was supposedly the main reason they weren't playin', well thats not shaunna's fault for them not playin' its there own and they didn't realize that, so shaunna and her family decided to give the kids parents what they wanted so there daughters could play and be the "STAR" for belcourt...and she never got any recognition from the school being awards, statiscally she was the best player on that team, statiscally she lead in just about ever stat belcourt had, and she got nothing, thats another reason why she left belcourt...but it didnt' really bother Shaunna, because who needs school awards when your being recognized by the whole state as a All-Region player and a darn close All-State player...

so basically you're saying the other players were harassing her? yet the previous reason above says different.......true harassment and bullying are serious issues......i'm just not sure your previous statements fit  that bill.......your explanation is one more of jealousy than harassment/bullying

anyway, back on topic........question for baseball, did the Strohs sit the 90 or did they transfer by april to become eligible? 

[baseball]

they had to sit the 90, they were able to play football being Steele and Tappen alreayd had a co-op for that.  but before you say you were right, my point wasnt that some people sit the 90 and some dont, my point was that people only make a big deal if some move and dont care if others do.  i dunno if its jealousy that person A get more exposure then person B or if its being scared that the person that tranferred is a great player and people are nervous about having them in there district or region?  im not accusing so and so aobut being jealous or hating that she transferred, im jsut saying them feelings are out there for a few people.

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

okay, they sat....they got to be eligible for fb b/c of the coop, okay; but did they transfer so they sat the 90 and then were eligible for varsity by the time BBB season started?  if they did, then that's right in there with the problem that people have with most transfers-------sports reasons only; when the more prominent players move they get attention, especially when it looks like they moved to get more wins, exposure, etc.  if you want to use knife/belcourt as an example...but any example would work, she's just the most recent........Dunseith, Rolla/Rock Lake, Rugby, Rolette are all schools fairly close, even closer than Botno......yet a player that skips those and goes to Botno-----why?

[baseball]

maybe she has more friends there going back to the personal happiness factor.  i cant answer that question because i dont know the knife family...its just something aobut recruiting and how people always think its negative reasons that gets me goin

[fbinnd]

Okay, if Knife was harrassed, fine.  This thread was created to stay away from Knife, so don't bring us back there.  Right now, we're talking about the "change of scenery", remember?

[SDHoops]

:X

[luvmy3gbb1wr]

it was an example, i don't care if it was knife or cindy loo hoo........if a player needs a change of scenery but skips over schools to get another one, one that is winning, it gives credence to the view that the player is moving solely for sports, besides baseball didn't answer if the Strohs transferred early enough to beat the deadline for bbb.......

[cdub1]

Easy:  Because ND basketball isn't that good, and we really shouldn't have that many kids going D1 in basketball.  Participation is down, particularly on the girls side, so expect our D1 numbers to go down also.

Specialization is going to rob us of athletes.  And football seems to be the hottest trend.  Kids want to play college FB, and they don't really care where, they just want to play.  So, after FB, it's sign a letter, hit the weight room, and get ready for college.  No basketball, or no more basketball.  This will hurt the number of college basketball players we send to college period, not just D1.  Even the small universities in ND are recruiting more and more from outside of ND.

how many states have you lived in and who is the best player you have seen play in person?

[baseball]

it was an example, i don't care if it was knife or cindy loo hoo........if a player needs a change of scenery but skips over schools to get another one, one that is winning, it gives credence to the view that the player is moving solely for sports, besides baseball didn't answer if the Strohs transferred early enough to beat the deadline for bbb.......

my bad, i thought saying they sit the 90 was what you were asking......they missed i think 3 varisty games but still played JV

[baller01]

okay, they sat....they got to be eligible for fb b/c of the coop, okay; but did they transfer so they sat the 90 and then were eligible for varsity by the time BBB season started?  if they did, then that's right in there with the problem that people have with most transfers-------sports reasons only; when the more prominent players move they get attention, especially when it looks like they moved to get more wins, exposure, etc.  if you want to use knife/belcourt as an example...but any example would work, she's just the most recent........Dunseith, Rolla/Rock Lake, Rugby, Rolette are all schools fairly close, even closer than Botno......yet a player that skips those and goes to Botno-----why?

Probably because people want to win...duh. That is why we play sports, to win. There is a reason baseball players want to play for the Yankees. And college football players want to play for USC. And high school starts want to play for Oak Hill.

If I am a basketball player, and you give me them schools as an option to go to, what school do you think I would want to go to???