heimer wrote:Do I know Avid is from LaMoure. No. Call it an educated guess. It would fit because we're talking about a group of people that sold the story that the Hi-Liners wanted to move down because "they wanted to win a Class B state title, since they have the team to do it." That's a direct quote from a LaMoure official, and it's the lie that started this mess.
heimer wrote:First, Avidsportsfan went on to state that Valley City kept pressing. VC did not. They took it off after a two minute stretch of the second half. They did not continue to do this. Lie #1.
heimer wrote:It is most definitely coincidence. The offices in VC are not the HSAA offices. The HSAA has no offices. The offices here are for the executive secretary and his staff. They have no role in making policy, they only institute policy.
heimer wrote:You're entitled to your opinions Mr. K. I was there. He didn't speak. At all.
Bisonguy06 wrote:It is true that no one from VCHS got to cast a vote that moved them to 'B.' It is also true that VCHS lobbied for years for any solution that took them out of class A basketball. It's also true that any school can lobby in the same way that VCHS did.
However, it certainly doesn't hurt their cause that the HSAA operates from Valley City. The executive secretary and staff are certainly more in-tune with any chatter regarding VCHS than they would be if their offices were located in Watford City. Heck, even I would probably become more sympathetic to VCHS's cause if I spent more time in the city, but a person should try to think beyond the interests of just one school.
I'll never be able to prove a direct link between VCHS and NDHSAA decision-making, although it smells fishy. All I know from afar is that Valley City was treated differently than Beulah or Grafton and that the Board of Directors broke with precedent to move the enrollment cut off.
The 70 schools were simply saying to the Board of Directors, "the enrollment cut off is our decision, not yours."
heimer wrote:Indy, in defense of Mitch Carlson, he notified Valley City of his intention to pursue the amendment shortly after the beginning of the school year. LaMoure never intended to use any success/failure by VC in their argument. The vote happened when it did because LaMoure expected VC to propose a three-class plan first.
There was kind of a gentleman's agreement on the deal. Here is the timeline on this:
1. HSAA BOD votes to move the line to 400 (August, 2008)
2. BOD places VC in District 5 for 2009-10 (Sept-Oct, 2008)
3. LaMoure and Edgeley lodge their initial protest (same)
4. Audience held with BOD to change limit back--move fails (Oct, 2008)
5. General Assembly audience held
a) VC agrees to opt up in forensics (speech, debate, music, etc)
b) LaMoure and Edgeley agree to allow one year of VC in B
c) All agree the year will be used to pursue a three-class plan (Jan, 2009)
6. BOD floats a (dreadful) three-class plan
a) holds statewide audiences on plan
b) audiences reject the plan (March-April, 2009)
7. State ends talk of a three-class plan, content to leave VC in B
8. LaMoure and Edgeley inform VCHS of their intention (Sept, 2009)
9. General Assembly vote--line moved back (January 2010)
heimer wrote:
99% of all media has opinion factored in it's presentation. I am paid to write based on the view of Valley City High School and Valley City State University, not your viewpoint or anyone elses.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest