Ararar Posted December 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 52 minutes ago, TheHotisBlock said: Ohhhhhh gotcha. Sorry, I read that totally wrong. So I want to make sure I am clear on this- Some random Folsom parents and a Folsom coach quote in the Lincoln newspaper, convinced ALL TEN CIF Section Commissioners, along with the CIF Executive commitee, in the North AND South to vote a certain way and go back to the original format? And ALL TEN CIF Section Commissioners, along with the CIF Executive commitee, in the North AND South, all simply voted and shared the same opinion based on Folsom "bringing it up?" Man- Folsom needs to be hired in the lobbyist industry Uh no ...comprehension is also a plus.Your commissioner placed a motion in front of the commissioners and committee that was then voted on.I done going over this everyone knows why the Folsom rule is the Folsom rule.Your only trying to convince yourself it’s not 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 6, 2018 Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Ararar said: Uh no ...comprehension is also a plus.Your commissioner placed a motion in front of the commissioners and committee that was then voted on.I done going over this everyone knows why the Folsom rule is the Folsom rule.Your only trying to convince yourself it’s not No comment on the OTHER NINE commissioners from north and south? And the ENTIRE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE? LOL. If you bothered to read the press release from the CIF, it states- "the return to the original format began with CIF Advisory Committee at their April 2014 meeting." There was no "motion" from any one commissioner, as you just made this up. The recommendation comes from an entire advisory committee and advances to the commissioners for vote- by the way....Unanimous. So, this is all influenced by the Lincoln Newspaper in a massive conspiracy by Folsom to get a rule changed to its original form!? Reading is key. Comprehension isn't the strong point of some on here. Next time, please bother to actually read the CIF press release. Your points may be stronger that way, instead of relying on Google to dig up newspaper opinion articles. Glad to help #TrollDeBunked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecPadre Posted December 6, 2018 Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 7 minutes ago, TheHotisBlock said: No comment on the OTHER NINE commissioners from north and south? And the ENTIRE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE? LOL. If you bothered to read the press release from the CIF, it states- "the return to the original format began with CIF Advisory Committee at their April 2014 meeting." There was no "motion" from any one commissioner, as you just made this up. So, this is all influenced by the Lincoln Newspaper in a massive conspiracy by Folsom to get a rule changed to its original form!? Reading is key. Comprehension isn't the strong point of some on here. Next time, please bother to actually read the CIF press release. Your points may be stronger that way, instead of relying on Google to dig up newspaper opinion articles. Glad to help What you are not getting is somebody had to bring it up in the first place, in order for a discussion to be had. Or did all 10 say it as the same time? Which one called jinx first? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 6, 2018 Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, AztecPadre said: What you are not getting is somebody had to bring it up in the first place, in order for a discussion to be had. Or did all 10 say it as the same time? Which one called jinx first? Again- you need to read. I have attached it for you to make it easy. No one brings it up, it comes as a recommendation from an entire advisory committee (a large group of people) to make it to a vote to the 10 commissioners who voted UNANIMOUSLY (north AND south). You guys have been riding this troll myth for too long. Its getting put to rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ararar Posted December 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 23 minutes ago, TheHotisBlock said: No comment on the OTHER NINE commissioners from north and south? And the ENTIRE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE? LOL. If you bothered to read the press release from the CIF, it states- "the return to the original format began with CIF Advisory Committee at their April 2014 meeting." There was no "motion" from any one commissioner, as you just made this up. The recommendation comes from an entire advisory committee and advances to the commissioners for vote- by the way....Unanimous. So, this is all influenced by the Lincoln Newspaper in a massive conspiracy by Folsom to get a rule changed to its original form!? Reading is key. Comprehension isn't the strong point of some on here. Next time, please bother to actually read the CIF press release. Your points may be stronger that way, instead of relying on Google to dig up newspaper opinion articles. Glad to help #TrollDeBunked Oh shit look who was the tournament director on the advisory committee.You should really know the answer before the question is asked Advisory Committee Chair: James Perry, District Athletic Director, Huntington Beach U.H.S.D. Suzanne Baker, AD/Girls Basketball Coach, Capital Christian Jerry DeFabiis, Head Basketball Coach, Colony H.S. Marsha Eubank, AD/Coach/Teacher, Taft Union H.S. Steve Filios, Assistant Commissioner, CIF Central Coast Section Mike Garrison, Commissioner, CIF Sac-Joaquin Section Randy Gilzean, Varsity Basketball Coach & Athletic Director, Pleasant Valley H.S. John Labeta, Assistant Commissioner, CIF San Diego Section Jason Lee, Girls Basketball Coach, Abraham Lincoln H.S. Brian Moore, Rules Interpreter Ron Nocetti, Associate Executive Director, CIF State Office Alphonso Powell, Commissioner, CIF Oakland Section Joe Reed, Athletic Director & Basketball Coach, Huntington Park H.S. Cici Robinson, Director, CIF State Office Pete Saco, Tournament Director Brian Seymour, Senior Director, CIF State Office Thom Simmons, Assistant Commissioner, CIF Southern Section 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammyswordsman Posted December 6, 2018 Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 Pete Saco - BINGO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 6, 2018 Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ararar said: Oh shit look who was the tournament director on the advisory committee.You should really know the answer before the question is asked Advisory Committee Chair: James Perry, District Athletic Director, Huntington Beach U.H.S.D. Suzanne Baker, AD/Girls Basketball Coach, Capital Christian Jerry DeFabiis, Head Basketball Coach, Colony H.S. Marsha Eubank, AD/Coach/Teacher, Taft Union H.S. Steve Filios, Assistant Commissioner, CIF Central Coast Section Mike Garrison, Commissioner, CIF Sac-Joaquin Section Randy Gilzean, Varsity Basketball Coach & Athletic Director, Pleasant Valley H.S. John Labeta, Assistant Commissioner, CIF San Diego Section Jason Lee, Girls Basketball Coach, Abraham Lincoln H.S. Brian Moore, Rules Interpreter Ron Nocetti, Associate Executive Director, CIF State Office Alphonso Powell, Commissioner, CIF Oakland Section Joe Reed, Athletic Director & Basketball Coach, Huntington Park H.S. Cici Robinson, Director, CIF State Office Pete Saco, Tournament Director Brian Seymour, Senior Director, CIF State Office Thom Simmons, Assistant Commissioner, CIF Southern Section He is part of a 17 member committee. Not sure where you are going with this or if you are just slow? Equal representation from all over the state and one person cannot advance anything. Even if one person wanted to advance an agenda he'd need more than half to reach a recommendation JUST TO GET IT to the CIF Commissioners. What a conspiracy! LOL! I feel like I'm talking to kids and having to explain basic concepts. BTW- YOU stated it a CIF Commissioner brought forth the motion for a vote. That was a lie. Now you are back tracking. Just take the loss and move on. Everyone can Google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ararar Posted December 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheHotisBlock said: He is part of a 17 member committee. Not sure where you are going with this or if you are just slow? Equal representation from all over the state and one person cannot advance anything. Even if one person wanted to advance an agenda he'd need more than half to reach a recommendation JUST TO GET IT to the CIF Commissioners. What a conspiracy! LOL! I feel like I'm talking to kids and having to explain basic concepts. BTW- YOU stated it a CIF Commissioner brought forth the motion for a vote. That was a lie. Now you are back tracking. Just take the loss and move on. Everyone can Google. You’re right I did say a commissioner which Pete Saco was for the SJS which Folsom plays in.You tried to claim otherwise which I just totally obliterated.Just stop you’re horrible at this 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 6, 2018 Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, Ararar said: You’re right I did say a commissioner which Pete Saco was for the SJS which Folsom plays in.You tried to claim otherwise which I just totally obliterated.Just stop you’re horrible at this Did you NOT just read about the advisory committee and how something gets to the commissioners? Pete Saco doesn't decide for 10 people, not can he even introduce a motion. It comes from committee below. He just has one vote lol! SoCal voted UNANIMOUSLY to change the rule as well. Your lie all this time got debunked and you keep googling to keep it going! Hilarious! Fail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 6, 2018 Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 @Ararar trying to push his Folsom conspiracy like...................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ararar Posted December 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 35 minutes ago, TheHotisBlock said: Did you NOT just read about the advisory committee and how something gets to the commissioners? Pete Saco doesn't decide for 10 people, not can he even introduce a motion. It comes from committee below. He just has one vote lol! So tell us how did it get introduced to The advisory committee ? Out of thin air? All yelled it at the same time😂 are you dense....that’s rhetorical 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 6, 2018 Report Share Posted December 6, 2018 16 minutes ago, Ararar said: So tell us how did it get introduced to The advisory committee ? Out of thin air? All yelled it at the same time😂 are you dense....that’s rhetorical I think the better question isn't who introduced it. It is rather the question of how did a large advisory committee all recommend to change a rule and thus convince 10 commissioners from NorCal and SoCal to vote unanimously? Seems like SoCal was more than on board. Sounds like a giant conspiracy to me- Folsom must have some power in CA PS- I like your City of Lincoln newspaper conspiracy theory much better. My factual story is boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colonel Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 From the Folsom Telegraph: Saco, who said that Folsom High Principal Kathryn Allaman and Richardson and Taylor have been first-class folks to deal with, said there are a couple options to look at in terms of changing the playoff format. 😂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 From the CIF: And apparently the SoCal commissioners who also voted unanimously, are quite first class to deal with as well Remember- SoCal voted to eliminate their open regional game. Hence, the SoCal rule. Oh and don't forget- Saco has ONE vote and cannot introduce any motion on his own. Conspiracies are cool until the facts come out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ararar Posted December 7, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 10 minutes ago, TheHotisBlock said: I think the better question isn't who introduced it. It is rather the question of how did a large advisory committee all recommend to change a rule and thus convince 10 commissioners from NorCal and SoCal to vote unanimously? Seems like SoCal was more than on board. Sounds like a giant conspiracy to me- Folsom must have some power in CA PS- I like your City of Lincoln newspaper conspiracy theory much better. Mine factual story is boring. Who cares why the others voted for it.It never would have been up for vote if Saco didn’t introduce it on Folsom’s behalf.Take any side trail you want on this but everyone is going to lead back Saco and Folsom 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBigdaddybloom Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 F@ck folsom. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colonel Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 From the Folsom Telegraph: Richardson said after the loss to De La Salle that when the current playoff system was designed, the North would be sending their best teams down South to play for a state title. “I don’t think they’re doing that right now when they’re sending the loser of the open game home,” Richardson said. 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, Ararar said: Who cares why the others voted for it. LMFAO you can't be serious! Your OWN COMMISSIONERS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY!!!! SoCal eliminated the game themselves! 1 minute ago, Ararar said: It never would have been up for vote if Saco didn’t introduce it on Folsom’s behalf You still don't understand how this even works. Comical. One person cannot "introduce" anything on anyone's behalf. Things ONLY go to a vote that are recommended for a vote by an advisory committee. Spin it how you want, but 1 person cannot sway an entire committee then go on to convince 10 SoCal AND NorCal commissioners to vote one way. Sounds like a joint effort to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Colonel said: From the Folsom Telegraph: Richardson said after the loss to De La Salle that when the current playoff system was designed, the North would be sending their best teams down South to play for a state title. “I don’t think they’re doing that right now when they’re sending the loser of the open game home,” Richardson said. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 4 minutes ago, NotBigdaddybloom said: F@ck folsom. How insightful. I think you should be banned for foul language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodysurf Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 12 minutes ago, TheHotisBlock said: Remember- SoCal voted to eliminate their open regional game. Hence, the SoCal rule. They probably figured the 8 best teams are already in the same playoff bracket. So no need to have a regional game because you would either have a vastly inferior opponent versus the SSD1 champion or you would have a rematch of the championship game which nobody wants. Unless there is more parity in SoCal where you have top teams in other sections, a regional game serves no purpose. Regional games work well in SoCal at the lower divisions but not the top, 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Bodysurf said: They probably figured the 8 best teams are already in the same playoff bracket. But I thought everyone was voting based on this vast conspiracy for Folsom? You are telling me this rule was in the best interest for the SoCal open playoffs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodysurf Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 minute ago, TheHotisBlock said: Can you prove that? Others above are insinuating they know exactly who and why people voted without offering any proof. The only thing I've got for "proof" from any of them is a newspaper article quoting a coach without even a vote in the process. Huge fail. Not sure how to prove it but I doubt you would find a single person who knows anything about SoCal that doesn’t think MD, Bosco, Cen10, JSerra, Mission and Oaks are not the top 6 teams in SoCal. OLu would have been in this group before injuries. After this you could argue Bishop Amat is probably better than both Narbonne and Cathedral Catholic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHotisBlock Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, Bodysurf said: Not sure how to prove it but I doubt you would find a single person who knows anything about SoCal that doesn’t think MD, Bosco, Cen10, JSerra, Mission and Oaks are not the top 6 teams in SoCal. OLu would have been in this group before injuries. After this you could argue Bishop Amat is probably better than both Narbonne and Cathedral Catholic. But I thought everyone was voting based on this vast conspiracy for Folsom? You are telling me this rule was in the best interest for the SoCal open playoffs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodysurf Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 11 minutes ago, TheHotisBlock said: You are telling me this rule was in the best interest for the SoCal open playoffs? I don’t believe I said that. SoCal SSD1 is already a playoff to determine the best team on the field so there is no need for a regional in D1 only, unlike NoCal where the best teams are not all in the same division. Has nothing to do with anybody’s best interest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.