|
|
Post by coachcb on Sept 8, 2017 15:43:38 GMT -6
Lol... This whole area would burn to the ground in a mass riot if we didn't have the hyper competitive, Friday and Saturday night high school basketball games we do. Our boys basketball team went 3-18 last year and we still packed the stands every single weekend. We are a tiny school in a tiny community and we had nearly 1,000 people attend every single game. That's three times the population of the town itself. Yes, it is something that CAN be changed. But, it is something that won't be changed around here. if there's that much support for it there, obviously there's enough support for a basketball club that would satisfy them -- probably more than one club! This discussion is going nowhere. Bottom line; scrapping competitive high school athletics in favor of intramural and club sports would crash and burn in this state. High school and sports go hand in hand around here. |
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 8, 2017 21:45:48 GMT -6
Coachcb,
I agree with your point....I was never in favor of scrapping competitive high school athletics...if you read my opening post, I am actually disturbed by club sports and see them as a gross negative. My point, is that something has to be done at the high school level draw better coaches and keep them...something that is not tied to the teaching in the school district per se and that makes it possible for people to justify the 12 month time commitment that coaching takes.
I've coached my entire adult life in college and high school. I'd love to keep coaching and I know many people just my own community that have similar backgrounds and are decidedly better teachers of football than many of the folks currently on staff but that cannot justify to their families the commitment for the stipend. None of do this for the money. I'm a college professor and I"m underpaid...but I still make enough to live and support my family. That is what coaching needs to do at the high school level.
My point of reference with youth soccer was simply an empirical observation: while I may despise private youth sports, when I watch my daughter practice with a coach's eye I can clearly say that she is getting better coaching than most kids in high school. I hate saying it, but its true. Her coaches are technicians who truly know their craft, and emphasize the last word. I went to football practice here a few days ago at one of our two schools and sadly I cannot say that all the coaches on the field past muster, in my opinion. One or two excellent teachers out there and a lot of gophers that I would not want coaching my daughter if she played football. Conversely, when I'm at soccer practice, I troll the whole complex and its clear that every coach at the Academy and Premier level knows their stuff. Coaching is a craft and should be treated as such, not as merely an add on that teachers do.
|
|
|
|
Post by RuningOutOfOptions on Sept 11, 2017 6:57:24 GMT -6
To answer your last question: The same we benefit from art, music and other extra curricular activities, we keep our kids busy. Coming from a small village, boredom leads to you finding trouble. If I grew up somewhere where I could be active with football during my teenage years, I would have made a lot fewer dumba$h decisions and maybe would've stayed out of trouble. So it's a shakedown? Trick or treat? Provide us with recreation or we'll steal or vandalize your property? It may be effective, but then the argument for tax-supported football is the same as it would be for tax-supported theater, concerts, libraries, fireworks, or movies -- and jobs -- and there's no reason to think it would apply only to those for children or teens. (If you look at the most crime-prone demographic -- men in their 20s -- it would seem they'd be the squeakiest wheel who should get the most grease, so there should be a lot more adult football teams!) Some of those things are, to a greater or lesser degree, and varying over time & place, tax-funded. So is it all a matter of arguing how important my thing is vs. your thing for the limited tax $ available -- or that taxes should be increased to make more available? Of course every $ taxed is $1 less that person has to put to the use s/he decides. I know that I am the exception to the rule in my generation, since I was working at 14, but how many HS kids do you know that can afford buying helmet, shoulder pads, girdle, etc.? Saying the parents can do that is of course fair, but that would turn the sport into hockey basically where only upper middle class and up are prominent. For the players in the 20's, you are a legal adult and there is an option for you in semi pro football. Sure semi pro has it's flaws, but it can still be valuable. Heck, if I hadn't had too many concussions I would be playing semi pro right now. I believe that my responsibility as a coach and one day a parent is to try to make the world a better place for my players and my kids later, if that means helping them have better opportunities with doing sports by paying a few bucks extra in tax? Sign me up! |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 13, 2017 21:45:11 GMT -6
So it's a shakedown? Trick or treat? Provide us with recreation or we'll steal or vandalize your property? It may be effective, but then the argument for tax-supported football is the same as it would be for tax-supported theater, concerts, libraries, fireworks, or movies -- and jobs -- and there's no reason to think it would apply only to those for children or teens. (If you look at the most crime-prone demographic -- men in their 20s -- it would seem they'd be the squeakiest wheel who should get the most grease, so there should be a lot more adult football teams!) Some of those things are, to a greater or lesser degree, and varying over time & place, tax-funded. So is it all a matter of arguing how important my thing is vs. your thing for the limited tax $ available -- or that taxes should be increased to make more available? Of course every $ taxed is $1 less that person has to put to the use s/he decides. I know that I am the exception to the rule in my generation, since I was working at 14, but how many HS kids do you know that can afford buying helmet, shoulder pads, girdle, etc.? Saying the parents can do that is of course fair, but that would turn the sport into hockey basically where only upper middle class and up are prominent. So you're saying that somehow when the gov't takes $ by force away from people, somehow there winds up being more of it to spend on what people want? Where does this magic come from? The Maoist slogan, "Eat from the big pot"? Like somehow there'd wind up being more food for everyone if everyone put theirs into a single pot & ate from it what they wanted? Or are you just justifying taking $ away from people who'd spend it on something else, & spending it instead on football, because that's better? |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 13, 2017 21:47:13 GMT -6
Coachcb, I agree with your point....I was never in favor of scrapping competitive high school athletics...if you read my opening post, I am actually disturbed by club sports and see them as a gross negative. My point, is that something has to be done at the high school level draw better coaches and keep them...something that is not tied to the teaching in the school district per se and that makes it possible for people to justify the 12 month time commitment that coaching takes. I've coached my entire adult life in college and high school. I'd love to keep coaching and I know many people just my own community that have similar backgrounds and are decidedly better teachers of football than many of the folks currently on staff but that cannot justify to their families the commitment for the stipend. None of do this for the money. I'm a college professor and I"m underpaid...but I still make enough to live and support my family. That is what coaching needs to do at the high school level. So it comes down to $, & you think there'll be more $ if it's funneled thru gov't institutions than if people buy the services they want? |
|
|
|
Post by RuningOutOfOptions on Sept 14, 2017 6:28:00 GMT -6
I know that I am the exception to the rule in my generation, since I was working at 14, but how many HS kids do you know that can afford buying helmet, shoulder pads, girdle, etc.? Saying the parents can do that is of course fair, but that would turn the sport into hockey basically where only upper middle class and up are prominent. So you're saying that somehow when the gov't takes $ by force away from people, somehow there winds up being more of it to spend on what people want? Where does this magic come from? The Maoist slogan, "Eat from the big pot"? Like somehow there'd wind up being more food for everyone if everyone put theirs into a single pot & ate from it what they wanted? Or are you just justifying taking $ away from people who'd spend it on something else, & spending it instead on football, because that's better? Hmm, now I believe you are putting words in my mouth. Do you believe that taxes are the government stealing from the people? Because then I can understand your point of view, but the difference is that I believe taxes are there for everybody to help pull the society in the same direction. That of course can be because I was raised in a different climate than you which can lead to different points of view. P.S. I hope you know that I am not going for any personal attacks on anyone on this board, if that is how it lands, I apologize for that. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 15, 2017 9:21:33 GMT -6
So you're saying that somehow when the gov't takes $ by force away from people, somehow there winds up being more of it to spend on what people want? Where does this magic come from? The Maoist slogan, "Eat from the big pot"? Like somehow there'd wind up being more food for everyone if everyone put theirs into a single pot & ate from it what they wanted? Or are you just justifying taking $ away from people who'd spend it on something else, & spending it instead on football, because that's better? Hmm, now I believe you are putting words in my mouth. Do you believe that taxes are the government stealing from the people? Because then I can understand your point of view, but the difference is that I believe taxes are there for everybody to help pull the society in the same direction. That of course can be because I was raised in a different climate than you which can lead to different points of view. P.S. I hope you know that I am not going for any personal attacks on anyone on this board, if that is how it lands, I apologize for that. I know. Just trying to get at the essence of the disagreement in judgment. I also wonder what's good about "society" (which I take to mean people generally) being pulled in the same direction, rather than individuals going whichever direction they want. It seems you think support of sports programs (and maybe much else) should be a collective decision by the polity, rather than individuals supporting whichever sports they want, & not what they don't want. There's a certain amount people are willing to spend on sports. Seems to me they can each decide that on their own. If instead you make it that they have to have $ taken from them to support such activities whether they want to or not, & then a political decision determines where those $ go, you're not going to wind up with as many satisfied customers. People have less to spend on non-necessities after taxes, & although some of them will still have enough to support the sport of their choice, there'll be some for whom the tax bite is enough to stop them from supporting that sport. So there'll be political winners & losers in terms of sports supported. In some cases football's going to come out the loser because of its expense; I think the high taxes in NYC are a factor in that city's becoming so football-poor over the past half century. |
|
