Uh, I thought we were talking about the UCLA D2 situation? Not sure what my history has to do with anything. In any case, I already posted that the situation is "entirely, 100% NAQT's fault" that "I have no reason to doubt that the UCLA people are telling the truth" that NAQT "let UCLA, which was innocent in the whole matter, take the blame for it" et cetera, so where you get the idea that I'm casting aspersions on the character of the UCLA people, I don't know. In a more general sense, I'm pretty sick of people trying to bury each other's points under an avalanche of "here's everything I disagree with you about from the last four years." Why does the fact that I don't like NAQT (which means that I don't like the sum result of its product, not that I find every single thing they do to be in error) mean my opinion here is invalid? Is the notion that NAQT is good a fundamental axiom of the debate, or are you just trying to fill the board with ad homines because you have no real counter to the actual argument? In short, if you disagree with someone, *explain why they are wrong* rather than ranting about how they must be "biased" or whatever other code word you might have for "not agreeing with the prior post which was self-evidently correct and should not be challenged!" There's a lot more to this discussion, and I hope it's not derailed by this terrible qb predication towards personal bickering. For example: I would like to see someone address the whole idea of using D2 eligibility as just another bargaining chip and what that implies about NAQT's faith in its own rules, the community college exception, and the fact that most sectionals had more D2 teams than D1, and what that implies about D2's impact on the health of the circuit in general.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST