|
Post by guest2 on Sept 21, 2023 0:50:06 GMT -5
Oh my god get off the teacher salary thing. It was used as an example that Sponcil would make more with a more entry level job than the indoor league. It’s funny how arguments can go on so many tangents and then arguing on points that have no relation to the original argument. Im not arguing about teacher salary. What public school teachers get paid is a knowable fact, which I happened to know. I'm using it as an example of MDC' habit of constantly asserting nonsense and then, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, doubling down on his BS.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Sept 21, 2023 8:03:22 GMT -5
Oh my god get off the teacher salary thing. It was used as an example that Sponcil would make more with a more entry level job than the indoor league. It’s funny how arguments can go on so many tangents and then arguing on points that have no relation to the original argument. Im not arguing about teacher salary. What public school teachers get paid is a knowable fact, which I happened to know. I'm using it as an example of MDC' habit of constantly asserting nonsense and then, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, doubling down on his BS. You used a terrible example, tried to stand on a pedestal, and proved you are a hypocrite. It's fine because it is a new day and I will move on, but like I have said before I respect your knowledge and history of the game, it truly is informative, but that what you accuse me of is literally just a projection of your overconfidence and showing how out of touch you are with recent arguments.
|
|
|
Post by yupyupyup on Sept 21, 2023 8:49:40 GMT -5
Im not arguing about teacher salary. What public school teachers get paid is a knowable fact, which I happened to know. I'm using it as an example of MDC' habit of constantly asserting nonsense and then, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, doubling down on his BS. You used a terrible example, tried to stand on a pedestal, and proved you are a hypocrite. It's fine because it is a new day and I will move on, but like I have said before I respect your knowledge and history of the game, it truly is informative, but that what you accuse me of is literally just a projection of your overconfidence and showing how out of touch you are with recent arguments. Ha. This is gold.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysmoreangle on Sept 21, 2023 10:49:40 GMT -5
Calling Bansley lousy is a bit much and Pavan's situation was a bit different from Sponcil's. Pavan has always been a top two Canadian team and thus never had to battle against quota system restrictions. Sponcil taking a step back to re-evaluate and adjust her short term career track shouldn't be labeled quitting with such derision when it may in fact be the most prudent thing for her to do. You mean like what the Taylors have done? How has that been treated? Other than Crabb being a despicable human, whats the difference between the two? Bansley was an extremely weak player compared to both of her partners. Both Pavs and Brandie were screwed by the country system. Neither would have gone near a player at Heather's level if they were all American. I'm not certain how the Taylors fit in here. Is it because they have stopped making a serious go of it on the FIVB stage? If so I think that is a smart decision. They were never an Olympic/Elite16 caliber team. In reality I do not even consider them to be consistent enough a Challenge level team. The only difference between them and Sponcil is that the Sponcil and Cannon were actually good (top25) and could compete on the Elite16 level. And yes the Bansley bashing is extremely over the top. Despite winning best defensive player 3 times, we know she wasn't actually that good. But to say she was an extremely weak player compared to her partners is definitely over the top.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Sept 21, 2023 13:07:31 GMT -5
Im not arguing about teacher salary. What public school teachers get paid is a knowable fact, which I happened to know. I'm using it as an example of MDC' habit of constantly asserting nonsense and then, in the face of incontrovertible evidence, doubling down on his BS. You used a terrible example, tried to stand on a pedestal, and proved you are a hypocrite. It's fine because it is a new day and I will move on, but like I have said before I respect your knowledge and history of the game, it truly is informative, but that what you accuse me of is literally just a projection of your overconfidence and showing how out of touch you are with recent arguments. You will move on? Sorry did you miss the post where I shared the Department of Education source that confirmed I was right and you were wrong? You really are pathological. There is no argument, its a fact, I shared an ironclad source and you just can't admit you were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Sept 21, 2023 13:10:55 GMT -5
You mean like what the Taylors have done? How has that been treated? Other than Crabb being a despicable human, whats the difference between the two? Bansley was an extremely weak player compared to both of her partners. Both Pavs and Brandie were screwed by the country system. Neither would have gone near a player at Heather's level if they were all American. I'm not certain how the Taylors fit in here. Is it because they have stopped making a serious go of it on the FIVB stage? If so I think that is a smart decision. They were never an Olympic/Elite16 caliber team. In reality I do not even consider them to be consistent enough a Challenge level team. The only difference between them and Sponcil is that the Sponcil and Cannon were actually good (top25) and could compete on the Elite16 level. And yes the Bansley bashing is extremely over the top. Despite winning best defensive player 3 times, we know she wasn't actually that good. But to say she was an extremely weak player compared to her partners is definitely over the top. I'm not bashing Heather, this is just a semantic disagreement. For me, when one player is arguably the best blocker in the world, as both Pavs and Brandie (I believe Pavs more than Brandie but both were top 3 or so) were at times when they played with Heather and the other player "wasn't actually that good" which you acknowledge, to me that means one is very weak compared to the other.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Sept 21, 2023 13:24:48 GMT -5
You used a terrible example, tried to stand on a pedestal, and proved you are a hypocrite. It's fine because it is a new day and I will move on, but like I have said before I respect your knowledge and history of the game, it truly is informative, but that what you accuse me of is literally just a projection of your overconfidence and showing how out of touch you are with recent arguments. You will move on? Sorry did you miss the post where I shared the Department of Education source that confirmed I was right and you were wrong? You really are pathological. There is no argument, its a fact, I shared an ironclad source and you just can't admit you were wrong. Will you? Keep on pushing forward with the insults that are projections of yourself - same when you want to accuse anyone of moving of goalposts yet it is literally what you do to formulate strength of your own arguments by putting words in mouths or changing the discussion. You used a bad example and you were wrong all around. Same with multiple styles of learning, same with boys player pool being smaller now than 20 years ago, same with guys not being more athletic today than 20 years ago, etc.. Get off your high horse. But keep dogging a woman who is very clearly not in a good mental state and desperately needing a correction. Nothing wrong with the (correct) choice she is making and definitely not running away.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Sept 21, 2023 13:31:47 GMT -5
You will move on? Sorry did you miss the post where I shared the Department of Education source that confirmed I was right and you were wrong? You really are pathological. There is no argument, its a fact, I shared an ironclad source and you just can't admit you were wrong. Will you? Keep on pushing forward with the insults that are projections of yourself - same when you want to accuse anyone of moving of goalposts yet it is literally what you do to formulate strength of your own arguments by putting words in mouths or changing the discussion. You used a bad example and you were wrong all around. Same with multiple styles of learning, same with boys player pool being smaller now than 20 years ago, same with guys not being more athletic today than 20 years ago, etc.. Get off your high horse. But keep dogging a woman who is very clearly not in a good mental state and desperately needing a correction. Nothing wrong with the (correct) choice she is making and definitely not running away. There is the source again nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_211.60.asp?current=yes Do you dispute it? If not just say you were wrong. No one begrudges anyone being wrong, but the refusal to admit it in the face of ironclad evidence is just weird. You are still ignoring this question from another thread BTW: You said that the reason women don't get plum coaching jobs wasn't sexism. There are only three possible reasons for the disparity: 1. Women are inherently inferior coaches - this is obviously what you think, may as well say it explicitly. (But to most people this is obviously not true) 2. Women just don't want these jobs 3. Sexism. You have ruled out option 3. So is it 1 or 2?
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Sept 21, 2023 15:26:12 GMT -5
Will you? Keep on pushing forward with the insults that are projections of yourself - same when you want to accuse anyone of moving of goalposts yet it is literally what you do to formulate strength of your own arguments by putting words in mouths or changing the discussion. You used a bad example and you were wrong all around. Same with multiple styles of learning, same with boys player pool being smaller now than 20 years ago, same with guys not being more athletic today than 20 years ago, etc.. Get off your high horse. But keep dogging a woman who is very clearly not in a good mental state and desperately needing a correction. Nothing wrong with the (correct) choice she is making and definitely not running away. There is the source again nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_211.60.asp?current=yes Do you dispute it? If not just say you were wrong. No one begrudges anyone being wrong, but the refusal to admit it in the face of ironclad evidence is just weird. You are still ignoring this question from another thread BTW: You said that the reason women don't get plum coaching jobs wasn't sexism. There are only three possible reasons for the disparity: 1. Women are inherently inferior coaches - this is obviously what you think, may as well say it explicitly. (But to most people this is obviously not true) 2. Women just don't want these jobs 3. Sexism. You have ruled out option 3. So is it 1 or 2? Again, you are also welcome to admit you are wrong instead of just moving goalposts to support your own arguments - the dancing around is just weird. I said sexism wasn't the reason in 2023, and you could event take that back to 2021 give or take if you wanted, but work on the comprehension - a 30 second google could probably help with some tips. I never said they were inferior, I said that if they didn't get the job it was because a better candidate interviewed and was offered. Woman make up just shy of 50% of head coaches in D1, that number is larger in D2 and D3. There could be multiple reasons, first off being that they were not the best candidate, or like you present in the second question that they simply do not want it. Erin Virtue, DBK, Leah Johnson, etc are all great coaches that took the job - where was the sexism? Brittany Dildine is regarded as one of the best assistant coaches there is, yet she has been at Wisconsin for how long and yet never has moved on - does she simply not want a D1 head coaching job? Because she certainly could have gotten one by now. Could also be timing, where are they in their life or their age, are they starting a family, do they want to uproot their lives if they are planning on having children where it is next to impossible to plan out exactly when you will get pregnant and have that child then decide how long you want to take for paternity leave. There is obviously a great difference in what people are allowed, teachers already working for far less than 80k a year starting might only get a month max post partum you have companies like the big 4 that give 5 months. Lots of factors that can go in there that are certainly plausible without just yelling sexism because that is what you want to be true and be able to claim as fact. There is no doubt that may have completely been the case 20 years ago, but not today.
|
|
|
Post by barnacle on Sept 21, 2023 15:33:51 GMT -5
There is the source again nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_211.60.asp?current=yes Do you dispute it? If not just say you were wrong. No one begrudges anyone being wrong, but the refusal to admit it in the face of ironclad evidence is just weird. You are still ignoring this question from another thread BTW: You said that the reason women don't get plum coaching jobs wasn't sexism. There are only three possible reasons for the disparity: 1. Women are inherently inferior coaches - this is obviously what you think, may as well say it explicitly. (But to most people this is obviously not true) 2. Women just don't want these jobs 3. Sexism. You have ruled out option 3. So is it 1 or 2? Again, you are also welcome to admit you are wrong instead of just moving goalposts to support your own arguments - the dancing around is just weird. I said sexism wasn't the reason in 2023, and you could event take that back to 2021 give or take if you wanted, but work on the comprehension - a 30 second google could probably help with some tips. I never said they were inferior, I said that if they didn't get the job it was because a better candidate interviewed and was offered. Woman make up just shy of 50% of head coaches in D1, that number is larger in D2 and D3. There could be multiple reasons, first off being that they were not the best candidate, or like you present in the second question that they simply do not want it. Erin Virtue, DBK, Leah Johnson, etc are all great coaches that took the job - where was the sexism? Brittany Dildine is regarded as one of the best assistant coaches there is, yet she has been at Wisconsin for how long and yet never has moved on - does she simply not want a D1 head coaching job? Because she certainly could have gotten one by now. Could also be timing, where are they in their life or their age, are they starting a family, do they want to uproot their lives if they are planning on having children where it is next to impossible to plan out exactly when you will get pregnant and have that child then decide how long you want to take for paternity leave. There is obviously a great difference in what people are allowed, teachers already working for far less than 80k a year starting might only get a month max post partum you have companies like the big 4 that give 5 months. Lots of factors that can go in there that are certainly plausible without just yelling sexism because that is what you want to be true and be able to claim as fact. There is no doubt that may have completely been the case 20 years ago, but not today. Guest2 got 1950sCoach keyboard warrior fuming like this so bad he says sexism is not a thing in 2023! Someone let women know I'm certain they hadn't heard this good news
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Sept 21, 2023 15:52:40 GMT -5
Again, you are also welcome to admit you are wrong instead of just moving goalposts to support your own arguments - the dancing around is just weird. I said sexism wasn't the reason in 2023, and you could event take that back to 2021 give or take if you wanted, but work on the comprehension - a 30 second google could probably help with some tips. I never said they were inferior, I said that if they didn't get the job it was because a better candidate interviewed and was offered. Woman make up just shy of 50% of head coaches in D1, that number is larger in D2 and D3. There could be multiple reasons, first off being that they were not the best candidate, or like you present in the second question that they simply do not want it. Erin Virtue, DBK, Leah Johnson, etc are all great coaches that took the job - where was the sexism? Brittany Dildine is regarded as one of the best assistant coaches there is, yet she has been at Wisconsin for how long and yet never has moved on - does she simply not want a D1 head coaching job? Because she certainly could have gotten one by now. Could also be timing, where are they in their life or their age, are they starting a family, do they want to uproot their lives if they are planning on having children where it is next to impossible to plan out exactly when you will get pregnant and have that child then decide how long you want to take for paternity leave. There is obviously a great difference in what people are allowed, teachers already working for far less than 80k a year starting might only get a month max post partum you have companies like the big 4 that give 5 months. Lots of factors that can go in there that are certainly plausible without just yelling sexism because that is what you want to be true and be able to claim as fact. There is no doubt that may have completely been the case 20 years ago, but not today. Guest2 got 1950sCoach keyboard warrior fuming like this so bad he says sexism is not a thing in 2023! Someone let women know I'm certain they hadn't heard this good news Fuming? You obviously didn't read the post either, I said 20 years ago. With todays culture if there was any hint that there was sexism in regards to a better candidate who was a woman getting a job it would be front page news. I will give you there may be a tiny percentage of some old head AD's that won't look to a woman being a leader, but the more plausible reason is that there was a better candidate that interviewed or they don't want it.
|
|
|
Post by yupyupyup on Sept 21, 2023 16:02:55 GMT -5
Just based on the 2022 VNL of the 24 teams, Shannon Winzer of the Canadian team was the only female head coach. It’s evident on the international scene, sexism appears to be alive and well today. Below is a quote from a recent article.
‘While she's well known on the international volleyball circuit, it's still fairly common to have an official, opposing coach or media member approach her male assistants, presuming they are the head coach.
"Yeah. It's frustrating. They're just assuming. It gets me riled up. But I have broad shoulders, I can take it.
"I always say: 'Men have to prove they can't coach and I need to prove I can coach.'"
|
|
|
Post by alwaysmoreangle on Sept 21, 2023 16:48:38 GMT -5
I'm not certain how the Taylors fit in here. Is it because they have stopped making a serious go of it on the FIVB stage? If so I think that is a smart decision. They were never an Olympic/Elite16 caliber team. In reality I do not even consider them to be consistent enough a Challenge level team. The only difference between them and Sponcil is that the Sponcil and Cannon were actually good (top25) and could compete on the Elite16 level. And yes the Bansley bashing is extremely over the top. Despite winning best defensive player 3 times, we know she wasn't actually that good. But to say she was an extremely weak player compared to her partners is definitely over the top. I'm not bashing Heather, this is just a semantic disagreement. For me, when one player is arguably the best blocker in the world, as both Pavs and Brandie (I believe Pavs more than Brandie but both were top 3 or so) were at times when they played with Heather and the other player "wasn't actually that good" which you acknowledge, to me that means one is very weak compared to the other. wasn't actually that good was a modifier to the 'winning best defensive player 3 times' part. So not best defensive player good but still very good.
|
|
|
Post by occasionallystupid on Sept 21, 2023 17:11:24 GMT -5
I'm not certain how the Taylors fit in here. Is it because they have stopped making a serious go of it on the FIVB stage? If so I think that is a smart decision. They were never an Olympic/Elite16 caliber team. In reality I do not even consider them to be consistent enough a Challenge level team. The only difference between them and Sponcil is that the Sponcil and Cannon were actually good (top25) and could compete on the Elite16 level. And yes the Bansley bashing is extremely over the top. Despite winning best defensive player 3 times, we know she wasn't actually that good. But to say she was an extremely weak player compared to her partners is definitely over the top. I'm not bashing Heather, this is just a semantic disagreement. For me, when one player is arguably the best blocker in the world, as both Pavs and Brandie (I believe Pavs more than Brandie but both were top 3 or so) were at times when they played with Heather and the other player "wasn't actually that good" which you acknowledge, to me that means one is very weak compared to the other. In fairness, Brandie was definitely not as good when she played with Heather. She only recently added a service game that is now at least as dangerous for the other team as for her own. Also her passing has gotten tons better as well.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysmoreangle on Sept 21, 2023 20:30:13 GMT -5
I'm not bashing Heather, this is just a semantic disagreement. For me, when one player is arguably the best blocker in the world, as both Pavs and Brandie (I believe Pavs more than Brandie but both were top 3 or so) were at times when they played with Heather and the other player "wasn't actually that good" which you acknowledge, to me that means one is very weak compared to the other. In fairness, Brandie was definitely not as good when she played with Heather. She only recently added a service game that is now at least as dangerous for the other team as for her own. Also her passing has gotten tons better as well. And the setting of both Brandie and Pavan was and still is sub par.
|
|