Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:03 pm
Scott be Free- I'm sure you think your right. Let us know when your mite reaches bantams or high school hockey.
The Largest Prep Hockey Message Board Community on the Web
https://ushsho.com/forums/
You're right. But I'm not the one filing the lawsuit to prevent D6's rule. BM is. That makes HIM the hypocrite.hockeyover40 wrote:This subject is really getting old, but I'll try and play devils advocate again. Muck, How is what BM is doing any different than Dist 6? He is giving the Machine kids a choice, either play for the Machine or the Brick. But you can't do both. The same analogy you say is perfectly fine when Dist 6 says it. You can play Dist 6 or Choice, but you can't do both. Do I agree with BM's stance? NO. And I don't agree with Dist 6's either. Toomuch, I agree that BM does not have your kids best interest in mind when he doesn't let them play for the Brick team. I also don't think Dist 6 doesn't have your kids best interests in mind either. So, it seems guys, that the arguments against one party could be turned around and used against both parties.
I don't know... they seem like very different issues.muckandgrind wrote:You're right. But I'm not the one filing the lawsuit to prevent D6's rule. BM is. That makes HIM the hypocrite.hockeyover40 wrote:This subject is really getting old, but I'll try and play devils advocate again. Muck, How is what BM is doing any different than Dist 6? He is giving the Machine kids a choice, either play for the Machine or the Brick. But you can't do both. The same analogy you say is perfectly fine when Dist 6 says it. You can play Dist 6 or Choice, but you can't do both. Do I agree with BM's stance? NO. And I don't agree with Dist 6's either. Toomuch, I agree that BM does not have your kids best interest in mind when he doesn't let them play for the Brick team. I also don't think Dist 6 doesn't have your kids best interests in mind either. So, it seems guys, that the arguments against one party could be turned around and used against both parties.
My point was that, while you may not agree with D6's rule - They have the right to enact it.....just as BM has the right to create and enforce his own rules. But it's WAY beyond hypocracy for BM to enforce that rule for his players, but then turn around and sue District 6 for enforcing the same rule.
Can't you see that???
How so?HockeyDad41 wrote:I don't know... they seem like very different issues.muckandgrind wrote:You're right. But I'm not the one filing the lawsuit to prevent D6's rule. BM is. That makes HIM the hypocrite.hockeyover40 wrote:This subject is really getting old, but I'll try and play devils advocate again. Muck, How is what BM is doing any different than Dist 6? He is giving the Machine kids a choice, either play for the Machine or the Brick. But you can't do both. The same analogy you say is perfectly fine when Dist 6 says it. You can play Dist 6 or Choice, but you can't do both. Do I agree with BM's stance? NO. And I don't agree with Dist 6's either. Toomuch, I agree that BM does not have your kids best interest in mind when he doesn't let them play for the Brick team. I also don't think Dist 6 doesn't have your kids best interests in mind either. So, it seems guys, that the arguments against one party could be turned around and used against both parties.
My point was that, while you may not agree with D6's rule - They have the right to enact it.....just as BM has the right to create and enforce his own rules. But it's WAY beyond hypocracy for BM to enforce that rule for his players, but then turn around and sue District 6 for enforcing the same rule.
Can't you see that???
I do see that. He's being a hypocrite. I won't argue that. Some might say that he's always had that rule for his players, and that the suing is protecting his business. But, that's another subject. He's not the first person acting like a hypocrite, and he won't be the last. Taking the hypocrite out of the equation, it sounds like you agree with what Dist 6 is doing but against what BM is doing, when it's virtually the same thing. I've stated I'm against both rules. What's your stance?muckandgrind wrote:You're right. But I'm not the one filing the lawsuit to prevent D6's rule. BM is. That makes HIM the hypocrite.hockeyover40 wrote:This subject is really getting old, but I'll try and play devils advocate again. Muck, How is what BM is doing any different than Dist 6? He is giving the Machine kids a choice, either play for the Machine or the Brick. But you can't do both. The same analogy you say is perfectly fine when Dist 6 says it. You can play Dist 6 or Choice, but you can't do both. Do I agree with BM's stance? NO. And I don't agree with Dist 6's either. Toomuch, I agree that BM does not have your kids best interest in mind when he doesn't let them play for the Brick team. I also don't think Dist 6 doesn't have your kids best interests in mind either. So, it seems guys, that the arguments against one party could be turned around and used against both parties.
My point was that, while you may not agree with D6's rule - They have the right to enact it.....just as BM has the right to create and enforce his own rules. But it's WAY beyond hypocracy for BM to enforce that rule for his players, but then turn around and sue District 6 for enforcing the same rule.
Can't you see that???
Muck...you are spot on but they really don't have the RIGHT to do this. I mean, it's not protected under the Bill of Rights is it? I think the better choice of words is they have the POWER or JURISDICTION to do this. Although, maybe through this lawsuit the court shapes the language to include that D6 and/or BM has the RIGHT to dictate where children play sports.muckandgrind wrote:You're right. But I'm not the one filing the lawsuit to prevent D6's rule. BM is. That makes HIM the hypocrite.hockeyover40 wrote:This subject is really getting old, but I'll try and play devils advocate again. Muck, How is what BM is doing any different than Dist 6? He is giving the Machine kids a choice, either play for the Machine or the Brick. But you can't do both. The same analogy you say is perfectly fine when Dist 6 says it. You can play Dist 6 or Choice, but you can't do both. Do I agree with BM's stance? NO. And I don't agree with Dist 6's either. Toomuch, I agree that BM does not have your kids best interest in mind when he doesn't let them play for the Brick team. I also don't think Dist 6 doesn't have your kids best interests in mind either. So, it seems guys, that the arguments against one party could be turned around and used against both parties.
My point was that, while you may not agree with D6's rule - They have the right to enact it.....just as BM has the right to create and enforce his own rules. But it's WAY beyond hypocracy for BM to enforce that rule for his players, but then turn around and sue District 6 for enforcing the same rule.
Can't you see that???
I don't necessarily agree with the District 6 rule. But that's not my point. My argument was that they have the JURISDICTION (thanks JoltDelivered, better term) to make that rule, while others are arguing that they don't because they are a non-profit. Just as BM has the power to set rules regarding his operation.hockeyover40 wrote:I do see that. He's being a hypocrite. I won't argue that. Some might say that he's always had that rule for his players, and that the suing is protecting his business. But, that's another subject. He's not the first person acting like a hypocrite, and he won't be the last. Taking the hypocrite out of the equation, it sounds like you agree with what Dist 6 is doing but against what BM is doing, when it's virtually the same thing. I've stated I'm against both rules. What's your stance?muckandgrind wrote:You're right. But I'm not the one filing the lawsuit to prevent D6's rule. BM is. That makes HIM the hypocrite.hockeyover40 wrote:This subject is really getting old, but I'll try and play devils advocate again. Muck, How is what BM is doing any different than Dist 6? He is giving the Machine kids a choice, either play for the Machine or the Brick. But you can't do both. The same analogy you say is perfectly fine when Dist 6 says it. You can play Dist 6 or Choice, but you can't do both. Do I agree with BM's stance? NO. And I don't agree with Dist 6's either. Toomuch, I agree that BM does not have your kids best interest in mind when he doesn't let them play for the Brick team. I also don't think Dist 6 doesn't have your kids best interests in mind either. So, it seems guys, that the arguments against one party could be turned around and used against both parties.
My point was that, while you may not agree with D6's rule - They have the right to enact it.....just as BM has the right to create and enforce his own rules. But it's WAY beyond hypocracy for BM to enforce that rule for his players, but then turn around and sue District 6 for enforcing the same rule.
Can't you see that???
I think if you really talked to peopleMarty Moose wrote:HD 41,
That is probably the single most accurate, articulate post I have ever read on this board. Well said.
It seems to me that we build these events up way too big for the kids at this age. Don't get me wrong, the Brick sounds like fun, and I understand why people want to go. But there is a danger that if we build these youth tournaments up at such a young age, that the kids become almost 'conditioned' or 'numb' to tournaments later on. Fast forward... I'm in high school and my coach is giving me a pep talk before my first game in the high school state tournament. He sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher. I've been in many big tournaments before... yawn...
Here saychumlee from the brick wrote:Have you ever been to the Brick or is it here say?
The corrollary is that coaches want kids that have "been there" before and won't be overwhelmed when they hit the big stage.Marty Moose wrote:Fast forward... I'm in high school and my coach is giving me a pep talk before my first game in the high school state tournament. He sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher. I've been in many big tournaments before... yawn...
Do you really not understand why the coach of of one team would not want to lose his players for a month or whatever it takes to do this tournament?old goalie85 wrote:Do you really think 01 parents sit around and "think" I wish my 01 was able to drink orange koo-aid. The fact is the 01 Blades with 4 or 5 kids from other non-made programs will be just fine, would they be better with the machine kids? YES, but we will never know will we. Why?? That's my ?
I understand. They have their best interest in mind. The blades coaching staff is better and the brick experience is the best out there. If these kids went there than they may see the light and not go back. So it seems completely logical to prevent them from goingHockeyDad41 wrote:Do you really not understand why the coach of of one team would not want to lose his players for a month or whatever it takes to do this tournament?old goalie85 wrote:Do you really think 01 parents sit around and "think" I wish my 01 was able to drink orange koo-aid. The fact is the 01 Blades with 4 or 5 kids from other non-made programs will be just fine, would they be better with the machine kids? YES, but we will never know will we. Why?? That's my ?
I'm sure they all sit at home and crychumlee from the brick wrote:I don't think this is a Blades and a Machine issue. It's parents from other AAA clubs that wish they were part of the Blades or Machine programs. Both programs do a great job.
hotsauce wrote:I understand. They have their best interest in mind.HockeyDad41 wrote:Do you really not understand why the coach of of one team would not want to lose his players for a month or whatever it takes to do this tournament?old goalie85 wrote:Do you really think 01 parents sit around and "think" I wish my 01 was able to drink orange koo-aid. The fact is the 01 Blades with 4 or 5 kids from other non-made programs will be just fine, would they be better with the machine kids? YES, but we will never know will we. Why?? That's my ?