|
Post by airraider on Jul 8, 2014 1:35:47 GMT -6
where do you guys coach that a 5-0 team has empty stands on homecoming? Ive been on some bad teams record wise, but we could still fill our stadium on homecoming! I feel for ya, tough environment to coach in. It was at an inner city school... no home field... had to take a 10 minute bus ride to the stadium. Of course it was raining during the game.... but normally they would have under 100 at a home game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 2:32:37 GMT -6
where do you guys coach that a 5-0 team has empty stands on homecoming? Ive been on some bad teams record wise, but we could still fill our stadium on homecoming! I feel for ya, tough environment to coach in. I don't coach where AirRaider's at. This was in rural Tennessee. The only reason that school's even open is because it would take 2+ hours to bus most of our kids to the only other HS in the system. We actually drew a decent crowd (for us) to our homecoming and made it our only win. We drew well for the first 3 games. Once we were 1-7 and it got cold, people stopped caring. The program finished the year $20K in the hole with 28 kids on the roster, if you count the ones who "got hurt" and just stopped showing up the last few weeks. Unless we were going to successfully charge families in one of the poorest communities in the USA about $500 per kid to play (numbers were higher earlier), not even Pay to Play would have saved that. It's the only place I've ever coached where a player's grandma got up in church on Sunday and thanked the Lord for giving her (Senior) grandson 3 concussions in 6 weeks so she wouldn't have to watch him play football anymore.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jul 8, 2014 10:07:13 GMT -6
Do any of you feel this ties in with the dying profession Thread?
As a taxpayer with grown kids...when it comes to the economics for the thing... I would want to see my contribution go towards keeping the Teaching Profession alive....not a Football Program or the Chinese Club.
It seems too me Athletics should privatize. The kids still represent their school and all that but the business side of things is now outsourced. It would really stink for the kids that couldn't afford the Fee's...but voters like me are now less willing to approve more taxation. That pyramid is inverting fast in my area and forcing a lot of change for everyone involved.
My elementary school aged grandkids now pay to ride the bus to and from school.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 10:37:38 GMT -6
mahonz, I think it ties in. The American fiscal strategy for the past 34 years has been about cutting taxes while increasing spending. People expect a social safety net, a strong military, public education, working roads, police, fire departments, etc. but nobody wants to actually pay for it. If government actually had to balance its budget, people would flip out over the costs or hard choices that would have to be made. Eventually, something has to give and we're seeing the effects now. Furthermore, since NCLB and Race to the Top, schools have become burdened with expensive testing requirements, which lead them to buy into expensive programs schools to help them teach to the tests, which demand expensive software to help them better target students so they have a better idea of how those kids'll do on the tests, etc. Since NCLB hit the books, American education has become a racket for moneyed interests, including huge conglomerates like Pearson (who owns Common Core) and "charities" like the Gates Foundation, who actually MAKES money for Bill Gates off its "philanthropic" work by lobbying schools to buy expensive software and technology he's invested in. In many places, football is still a money maker for the schools. Schools take a portion, if not all, of that money to pay for other sports and make up budget shortfalls in other areas. Rather than privatizing all HS sports, it would make more sense for local school boards to simply eliminate the programs that can't sustain themselves economically. If the community objects, then let them raise the funds to keep it going. MS Sports have been cut in a lot of places because of this already. The last district I worked in had privatized their bus system to save money. Rather than maintaining a garage, fuel, insurance, and benefits for drivers, they simply paid independent contractors who owned their own buses to pick up the kids and drop them off. The result was that when that private contractor didn't feel like showing up for work that day or had something else going on, the kids had no way to or home from school. Sometimes this would go on for a week or more, often kids would get to school and the driver wouldn't show up to take them home in the evening, which left everyone scrambling to find alternate ways to get them home. Privatization doesn't always fix things in and of itself.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jul 8, 2014 11:43:40 GMT -6
mahonz, I think it ties in. The American fiscal strategy for the past 34 years has been about cutting taxes while increasing spending. People expect a social safety net, a strong military, public education, working roads, police, fire departments, etc. but nobody wants to actually pay for it. If government actually had to balance its budget, people would flip out over the costs or hard choices that would have to be made. Eventually, something has to give and we're seeing the effects now. Furthermore, since NCLB and Race to the Top, schools have become burdened with expensive testing requirements, which lead them to buy into expensive programs schools to help them teach to the tests, which demand expensive software to help them better target students so they have a better idea of how those kids'll do on the tests, etc. Since NCLB hit the books, American education has become a racket for moneyed interests, including huge conglomerates like Pearson (who owns Common Core) and "charities" like the Gates Foundation, who actually MAKES money for Bill Gates off its "philanthropic" work by lobbying schools to buy expensive software and technology he's invested in. In many places, football is still a money maker for the schools. Schools take a portion, if not all, of that money to pay for other sports and make up budget shortfalls in other areas. Rather than privatizing all HS sports, it would make more sense for local school boards to simply eliminate the programs that can't sustain themselves economically. If the community objects, then let them raise the funds to keep it going. MS Sports have been cut in a lot of places because of this already. The last district I worked in had privatized their bus system to save money. Rather than maintaining a garage, fuel, insurance, and benefits for drivers, they simply paid independent contractors who owned their own buses to pick up the kids and drop them off. The result was that when that private contractor didn't feel like showing up for work that day or had something else going on, the kids had no way to or home from school. Sometimes this would go on for a week or more, often kids would get to school and the driver wouldn't show up to take them home in the evening, which left everyone scrambling to find alternate ways to get them home. Privatization doesn't always fix things in and of itself. I am not a Teacher so Threads like this are very interesting too me. The dam is about to burst for HS Athletics around here. MS Sports went by the wayside back in the late 80's early 90's because of budget issues. All of the Youth Programs are now 14U for all Sports. Some extend to 16U for girls softball / basketball / volleyball. Some extend to 19U for ice hockey / lacrosse / sokker. I have a friend who is the HC for the Football Program at the poorest HS in the Metroplex. Their Athletics Program consists of boys football, basketball and baseball only. The issue they have is keeping the kids in school. Many leave to work once they turn 16. They can barley field a team every season and have no Freshman Program. He is a Teacher at this school and coaches for free. Last I checked there was no Fee for the kids to play.
|
|
biggus3
Sophomore Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by biggus3 on Jul 8, 2014 16:15:25 GMT -6
I wonder what a high school age football coach would make on the open market on a privatized team? What is the actual value on our services?
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Jul 8, 2014 16:55:04 GMT -6
Dues are the norm here 250plus on average. If you don't pay u can still play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 20:53:33 GMT -6
I wonder what a high school age football coach would make on the open market on a privatized team? What is the actual value on our services? The same as the coaches at your local Pop Warner league or AAU basketball team: $0.00. In private youth sports leagues, the money all goes to the association who facilitates the contests and the marketing is directed at getting the athletes and their parents to sign up to compete. It's not like the Professional and College systems where a corporate entity has a vested interest in seeing its team win games and perform in a way that fans would like to see in order to turn a profit. Totally different target markets and business models.
|
|
biggus3
Sophomore Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by biggus3 on Jul 9, 2014 0:55:35 GMT -6
I wonder what a high school age football coach would make on the open market on a privatized team? What is the actual value on our services? The same as the coaches at your local Pop Warner league or AAU basketball team: $0.00. In private youth sports leagues, the money all goes to the association who facilitates the contests and the marketing is directed at getting the athletes and their parents to sign up to compete. It's not like the Professional and College systems where a corporate entity has a vested interest in seeing its team win games and perform in a way that fans would like to see in order to turn a profit. Totally different target markets and business models. I think the NCAA and NFL would have a vested interest in developing top tier talent. I'm from from Minnesota and many top kids leave their high schools to play junior hockey in the the USHL and similar Canadian leagues. Those coaches are pulling around 70 k on average. A friend of mine is a strength coach for some Podunk junior team in California, and he is making around 60 k. That's for a niche sport like hockey. I think that if their was an elite league of hs age talent, people would go to the games and the coaches would make 6 figures easy. I think your right in that your avg coach in a pop warner type league would be volunteering.
|
|
|
Post by mahonz on Jul 9, 2014 9:29:21 GMT -6
The same as the coaches at your local Pop Warner league or AAU basketball team: $0.00. In private youth sports leagues, the money all goes to the association who facilitates the contests and the marketing is directed at getting the athletes and their parents to sign up to compete. It's not like the Professional and College systems where a corporate entity has a vested interest in seeing its team win games and perform in a way that fans would like to see in order to turn a profit. Totally different target markets and business models. I think the NCAA and NFL would have a vested interest in developing top tier talent. I'm from from Minnesota and many top kids leave their high schools to play junior hockey in the the USHL and similar Canadian leagues. Those coaches are pulling around 70 k on average. A friend of mine is a strength coach for some Podunk junior team in California, and he is making around 60 k. That's for a niche sport like hockey. I think that if their was an elite league of hs age talent, people would go to the games and the coaches would make 6 figures easy. I think your right in that your avg coach in a pop warner type league would be volunteering. Hockey has the same kinda deal here. I know a Gal who makes her living coaching 19U elite level Girls Sokker. How much money she makes... I dont know but she gets paid enough that married with off season Clinics that is her stand alone job. The president has been set for some Sports. Football isn't one of them...yet.
|
|
souza12
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by souza12 on Jul 11, 2014 17:15:13 GMT -6
Dues are the norm here 250plus on average. If you don't pay u can still play. So whats the point then? lol That would just be like a "heavily suggested donation" to me. Maybe I dont understand.
|
|
souza12
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by souza12 on Jul 11, 2014 17:20:12 GMT -6
In many places, football is still a money maker for the schools. Schools take a portion, if not all, of that money to pay for other sports and make up budget shortfalls in other areas. Rather than privatizing all HS sports, it would make more sense for local school boards to simply eliminate the programs that can't sustain themselves economically. If the community objects, then let them raise the funds to keep it going. MS Sports have been cut in a lot of places because of this already. Title IX would prevent this. Could you imagine how many female sports would fall off? ultimately leading to the other self-sustaining sports to also fall off? It would domino.
|
|
souza12
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by souza12 on Jul 11, 2014 17:44:24 GMT -6
I originally had an entire rant carried out about it, but I am more interested as to how other people felt about it. Personally, I feel it is morally and ethically wrong to do. Personal experience, charging kids to play a sport in which you collect gate from and get business at the snack bar from their efforts is wrong. Never in a million years would I say that they should be paid for their efforts, but they should definitely not be charged money, to make additional money, for the _____________ (I would say school, but I honestly had no idea where the money went) Thoughts? I understand perhaps a little random, just something I started thinking about. Do your teams turn a profit? I cant see how football program does not turn a profit. A lot of attendance and the lil BBQ/Snack area is "off the chain" lol. I am personally all for football paying for the other sports. Why? because it increases the overall HS experience. The one thing that makes me believe that this particular school can eliminate pay to play is because they are trying to add new sports programs. I cant speak for the other programs and whether or not they turn a profit. This is also in contrast with a stop I was at before where we had little to no attendance and no concessions... Still managed to avoid pay to play. Different district however and the stipends were 1/2. All in all, it could be a district policy also. Not really my problem anymore though. Just curious thoughts really on how other programs are and what opinions are out there..
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Jul 11, 2014 18:15:16 GMT -6
Dues are the norm here 250plus on average. If you don't pay u can still play. So whats the point then? lol That would just be like a "heavily suggested donation" to me. Maybe I dont understand. Of course it is 70% of my kids pay it. You can't get Team gear if you don't, I keep ur HUDL locked, you have to pay for team meals per game, because they can't leave school on Friday once school is dismissed and if player A and B are even and A paid and B didn't well you know who plays right? Now if B is a stud he is a stud. We don't get any money from the school so we have to do everything School pays the reconditioning bill and that's it. Which is why we travel 4 years to play a team for 12G's a tear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 9:31:22 GMT -6
In many places, football is still a money maker for the schools. Schools take a portion, if not all, of that money to pay for other sports and make up budget shortfalls in other areas. Rather than privatizing all HS sports, it would make more sense for local school boards to simply eliminate the programs that can't sustain themselves economically. If the community objects, then let them raise the funds to keep it going. MS Sports have been cut in a lot of places because of this already. Title IX would prevent this. Could you imagine how many female sports would fall off? ultimately leading to the other self-sustaining sports to also fall off? It would domino. At the school I was at, volleyball, tennis, golf, baseball/softball, and basketball were all self-sustaining due to tons of fundraising and low overhead. Football lost $20k and was a boys only sport. Not hard to look a that in economic terms and make an unfortunate financial decision. You can balance out the Title IX stuff easily enough by lopping off a low revenue boys sport to match the girls so the opportunities stay equal. It's not something I want to see, but it could be done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 9:43:03 GMT -6
coachdawhip, it sounds like pay to play puts you in a tough spot as coaches at times, even if it's not required. Do you have a lot of issues with parents or lose many kids because of it?
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Jul 12, 2014 11:38:27 GMT -6
instead of cutting a boys sport, just allow a girl on the team, there you go, since title 9, which I thought was not supposed to be negative to boys sports, it has caused more boy sports to be cut, wrestling is a good example of sports that have been cut because of title 9, don't cut anymore boys sports, if you have unequal sports just allow a girl to play on one of them, title 9 has ruined a lot of programs, until some groups stand up and say enough is enough,
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 12, 2014 19:19:59 GMT -6
instead of cutting a boys sport, just allow a girl on the team, there you go, since title 9, which I thought was not supposed to be negative to boys sports, it has caused more boy sports to be cut, wrestling is a good example of sports that have been cut because of title 9, don't cut anymore boys sports, if you have unequal sports just allow a girl to play on one of them, title 9 has ruined a lot of programs, until some groups stand up and say enough is enough, Umm.. I believe title IX is exactly an example of a group saying "enough is enough." Also, the thought process that "just allow a girl on the team" as a solution to providing equal opportunities shows a lack of understanding of the law. It simply mandates gender equity for EVERY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM that receives federal funding. Generally when a male sport gets cut, Title IX is pointed to as the reason, but in reality it is simply because other MALE sports didn't have their budgets cut. I am not very familiar with many self sustaining or profit making sports being cut, so simply put, title IX simply guarantees the rights of women's sports to be as non profitable as mens.
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Jul 12, 2014 21:33:37 GMT -6
I don't care, when sports are cut then it bothers me, we have schools dropping sports, say that title nine is the reason, I am for equal rights, I think girls should be put in the front line just like a male, I think we should have one bathroom and everyone takes care of business together, make it all equal, have one locker room, when something hurts the opportunity of others that have worked hard for that school and they cut it, then I am not for it, my college dropped wrestling, said it had to for title 9, not right, that did it for me
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 12, 2014 22:17:46 GMT -6
I don't care, when sports are cut then it bothers me, we have schools dropping sports, say that title nine is the reason, I am for equal rights, I think girls should be put in the front line just like a male, I think we should have one bathroom and everyone takes care of business together, make it all equal, have one locker room, when something hurts the opportunity of others that have worked hard for that school and they cut it, then I am not for it, Ummm... not sure how up to date you are on your history, but prior to title IX women didn't even HAVE the opportunity. ONly about 1 out of 27 girls had the opportunity to play a sport, you must not be for them NOT having an opportunity do you? Despite what they "say", they are probably not accurate. As I said, when a sport gets "cut" it is common to point the finger and say "OOoh..title IX". And I suppose in the strictest sense, you could make an argument that Title ix is at fault, in that it dictates money be spent on female sports. So now your pie chart can't be all blue, it has to have some pink, or become bigger. When a school cuts a male sport and blames title nine, it is usually because they don't dare cut into any of the other "blue" budgets. See below : From TitleIXinfo.com Myth: Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports. Fact: Title IX in no way requires schools to cut men's sports.Some schools have chosen to eliminate certain men's sports, like gymnastics and wrestling, and even some women's sports, rather than control bloated football and basketball budgets, which consume approximately 80% of the Division I-FBS, (formerly Division I-A), school's total men's athletic expenses. But there are other options: A 2001 GAO study found that 72% of schools that added teams from 1992 to 2000 did so without discontinuing any teams. For example, San Diego State University decided to address its $2 million budget deficit by cutting its men's volleyball team instead of cutting slightly into the $5 million football budget. Only four months after cutting the men's volleyball team, the university outfitted the football team with new uniforms and state-of-the-art titanium facemasks. Virtually all Div. 1-FBS schools house football teams in hotels the night before home games. Rutgers University spent $175,000 on hotel rooms before 6 home games, more than the entire budget of the men's tennis team, which the university eliminated. Brown University spent $2.5 million to buy out the contract of the football coach and cut two women's teams to save $64,000
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 23:18:45 GMT -6
At my alma mater, the university dropped football during my senior year.
Fan support was virtually non-existent (you could literally count the 200 or so people at each game), and the team was posting losses of over $1 million a year. Beyond that, there were evidently some internal politics going on with the university president's son once playing on the team as a walk-on years earlier and not being given the preferential treatment he demanded, which soured the president on football. Also, the AD (former tennis coach) personally hated football as a sport and did not get along with the HFC at all.
So football was a goner, anyway, for a variety of reasons, but did they admit these things when they had to justify their decision to upset alumni and boosters?
Nope, they pointed at Title IX and said THAT made it just too expensive to keep anymore.
Then they spent the next decade building all the other non-revenue producing sports some nice new stadiums and facilities.
As soon as that president stepped down... the AD announced his retirement, the funding and Title IX issues were "straightened out" in a manner of months, and it was announced that football would be returning in a year.
Did Title IX change? Nope. Just the attitude and will of the administration.
Plus they decided they wanted to charge students a bunch of extra money each year ($700, IIRC) to support the team and build new facilities for it, even after students voted against it.
|
|