|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 25, 2023 19:03:02 GMT -6
As I don't want to sidetrack another thread- I am starting a new one. After spending most of my life involved in sports, from jr high levels through Div 1 football, I am growing more convinced that just going to a club model as opposed to interscholastic would not be horrible. Looking for any impartial thoughts on the matter, but lets face it, impartial thinking isn't a strong suit on this board (just look at any thread about the option) LOL. Agree to disagree with the last statement. Don't want to sidetrack this thread any further- but in all sports except football I would argue that a non-interscholastic avenue already exists that is on par if not superior (and in many cases vastly superior) to the interscholastic version with regards to competitiveness. Not talking about competition chief. School culture and camaraderie are far superior in schools that have solid athletic programs. Plus you know the kids that can’t afford your more competitive teams can also get a chance to play. You really think that the free market system wouldn't easily swoop in if interscholastic athletics disappeared? As I mentioned in another post, we already have far stronger and more developed competition in sports such as swimming, diving, gymnastics, tennis, golf, and bowling outside of the school system. I would argue that travel baseball/softball and AAU basketball AAU/ USATF Track for both genders competes at a higher level- AND provides MORE opportunities than the interscholastic counterparts. You mention affordability. Do you really think that costs would be more of a limiting factor than number of teams (meaning, Jefferson High has one team. If Billy doesn't make that team, he doesn't have a chance to play either. And why are you assuming that another model would be exorbitantly pricey? When things change, THINGS CHANGE. Also, do you really think that price would be an issue for extraordinarily talented athletes? It doesn't seem to affect many of the top recruited athletes in the country who compete outside of interscholastic sports. As far as the culture and camaraderie--I think that is just an unproven platitude to be honest. I have seen schools with solid athletic programs have kids kill each other and schools with bottom of the barrel athletics succeed socially, economically, and academically. And obviously I have seen the inverse as well. Look at Florida, where coaches are telling stories of a Kid playing football for School A, Basketball for School B and potentially a third school C for something else. That doesn't sound like culture or camaraderie. How many teams are coached by people with zero affiliation to the school other than that sport? I think that statement is similar to when the NCAA promotes that "its student athletes graduate at a rate higher than the normal student body" to try and convince people that the TOP 10 football /mens basketball programs are dedicated to educating their students. Sounds nice, but just isn't an immutable law. I believe your perception of that ideal is due to the fact that you are involved in the athletic program. When things are going well, your entire state of being is better because you are part of the machine. I am not advocating for this by any means, but I do recognize it might not be horrible. In fact it may turn out to have positive unforeseen results as well. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 26, 2023 5:10:28 GMT -6
As I don't want to sidetrack another thread- I am starting a new one. After spending most of my life involved in sports, from jr high levels through Div 1 football, I am growing more convinced that just going to a club model as opposed to interscholastic would not be horrible. Looking for any impartial thoughts on the matter, but lets face it, impartial thinking isn't a strong suit on this board (just look at any thread about the option) LOL. Not talking about competition chief. School culture and camaraderie are far superior in schools that have solid athletic programs. Plus you know the kids that can’t afford your more competitive teams can also get a chance to play. You really think that the free market system wouldn't easily swoop in if interscholastic athletics disappeared? As I mentioned in another post, we already have far stronger and more developed competition in sports such as swimming, diving, gymnastics, tennis, golf, and bowling outside of the school system. I would argue that travel baseball/softball and AAU basketball AAU/ USATF Track for both genders competes at a higher level- AND provides MORE opportunities than the interscholastic counterparts. You mention affordability. Do you really think that costs would be more of a limiting factor than number of teams (meaning, Jefferson High has one team. If Billy doesn't make that team, he doesn't have a chance to play either. And why are you assuming that another model would be exorbitantly pricey? When things change, THINGS CHANGE. Also, do you really think that price would be an issue for extraordinarily talented athletes? It doesn't seem to affect many of the top recruited athletes in the country who compete outside of interscholastic sports. As far as the culture and camaraderie--I think that is just an unproven platitude to be honest. I have seen schools with solid athletic programs have kids kill each other and schools with bottom of the barrel athletics succeed socially, economically, and academically. And obviously I have seen the inverse as well. Look at Florida, where coaches are telling stories of a Kid playing football for School A, Basketball for School B and potentially a third school C for something else. That doesn't sound like culture or camaraderie. How many teams are coached by people with zero affiliation to the school other than that sport? I think that statement is similar to when the NCAA promotes that "its student athletes graduate at a rate higher than the normal student body" to try and convince people that the TOP 10 football /mens basketball programs are dedicated to educating their students. Sounds nice, but just isn't an immutable law. I believe your perception of that ideal is due to the fact that you are involved in the athletic program. When things are going well, your entire state of being is better because you are part of the machine. I am not advocating for this by any means, but I do recognize it might not be horrible. In fact it may turn out to have positive unforeseen results as well. I don’t disagree that the competition is better in some cases in the travel ball world. And I also don’t disagree that if it went to a private model that the prices would come down some. However, it would still be pay to play and there are a ton of people with kids that don’t have 2 Pennie’s to rub together. Especially those that have more than 1 kid they would need to pay for. Even if you remove the travel aspect and essentially just have a league ball set up they have to pay. There are people around here that can’t afford the $70 to put their kid in tball. So let’s just stop with pretending that it won’t price people out of playing especially if we’re talking football As far as culture there may not be any “proof” but the more kids you have involved in extracurriculars the better the school is period. I just did a quick Google search for any studies done on the matter and while there weren’t many ,and one was from ‘95, they prove my point. Students involved in school activities don’t miss as much school and generally have higher GPAs(probably from attending school more) I want to be clear that I’m talking about all extracurricular activities not just sports. If you get rid of one they all fall which means no cheerleading, no band, no FFA etc. I’m guessing the Florida problem isn’t the norm |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 26, 2023 7:04:58 GMT -6
It was only historic accident by which school-sponsored interscholastic team sports became a thing in the USA. If you look at almost all of the rest of the world, it's not.
In the USA we've made schools and school-sponsored activities in general a big thing that didn't need to be, because one thing attracted another. Schools just became "the place". There has been some degree of that in certain other countries, as in France where preschool and early school grades are kind of a family-consuming thing, involving parents and children in the making of lunch there, but I think that's more or less a result of the tendency of individual families in France to disappear from the child-rearing process; in the US it's more a matter of the school getting sucked into the family rather than vice versa.
Politically this would be hard to unravel, as parents feel they have a stake in the schools and are driven to protect their investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Mar 26, 2023 8:33:57 GMT -6
As far as costs go, my son will be paying aprox $700 this year to play football at his public school. Thats far more than pop warner or jr all american charges around here.
Ive never known a kid though who couldnt afford it, not get it covered...in either case
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 26, 2023 10:03:55 GMT -6
However, it would still be pay to play and there are a ton of people with kids that don’t have 2 Pennie’s to rub together. Especially those that have more than 1 kid they would need to pay for. Even if you remove the travel aspect and essentially just have a league ball set up they have to pay. There are people around here that can’t afford the $70 to put their kid in tball. So let’s just stop with pretending that it won’t price people out of playing especially if we’re talking football You mention being priced out of playing: 1) as others have shown, interscholastic sports doesn't always preclude fees/pay to play. 2) don't FAR FAR more individuals play in "pay to play" youth leagues than HS? You seem most concerned that a club model would limit opportunities because of finances, but don't seem to recognize that it is quite likely that the inherent limited roster spots in interscholastic sports reduce opportunities to a far greater degree. Yes, students who are involved in any interest are going to generally be more successful, and more successful students make a more successful school. I would argue that is likely a chicken/egg situation existing in the schools to which you refer. But why does removing athletics mean that band, FFA, Robotics, Subject matter clubs (Bio, Chem, Foreign Language, Math, History, etc) debate team, drama club, choir, A/V Tech Clubs, or any other type of activity "falls"? Sure, it is a major paradigm shift. So was the forward pass. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 26, 2023 11:32:12 GMT -6
However, it would still be pay to play and there are a ton of people with kids that don’t have 2 Pennie’s to rub together. Especially those that have more than 1 kid they would need to pay for. Even if you remove the travel aspect and essentially just have a league ball set up they have to pay. There are people around here that can’t afford the $70 to put their kid in tball. So let’s just stop with pretending that it won’t price people out of playing especially if we’re talking football You mention being priced out of playing: 1) as others have shown, interscholastic sports doesn't always preclude fees/pay to play. 2) don't FAR FAR more individuals play in "pay to play" youth leagues than HS? You seem most concerned that a club model would limit opportunities because of finances, but don't seem to recognize that it is quite likely that the inherent limited roster spots in interscholastic sports reduce opportunities to a far greater degree. Yes, students who are involved in any interest are going to generally be more successful, and more successful students make a more successful school. I would argue that is likely a chicken/egg situation existing in the schools to which you refer. But why does removing athletics mean that band, FFA, Robotics, Subject matter clubs (Bio, Chem, Foreign Language, Math, History, etc) debate team, drama club, choir, A/V Tech Clubs, or any other type of activity "falls"? Sure, it is a major paradigm shift. So was the forward pass. 1) Ive never witnessed anyone having to pay to play in any school I’ve coached in. From poor a$$ country schools in the delta to bigger richer schools. The $700 blows my mind a little. I don’t know if we would have a football team at my school if that were the fee. 2) I’m not quite sure I follow. Are you asking me if I think that free ball limits the playing time of the booger eaters and they could pay to get on a team with other $hit birds and get more playing time? 3) if we’re not paying for sports anymore why would we pay for those other things that they could do elsewhere |
|
|
|
Post by woodyboyd on Mar 26, 2023 12:05:56 GMT -6
You mention being priced out of playing: 1) as others have shown, interscholastic sports doesn't always preclude fees/pay to play. 2) don't FAR FAR more individuals play in "pay to play" youth leagues than HS? You seem most concerned that a club model would limit opportunities because of finances, but don't seem to recognize that it is quite likely that the inherent limited roster spots in interscholastic sports reduce opportunities to a far greater degree. Yes, students who are involved in any interest are going to generally be more successful, and more successful students make a more successful school. I would argue that is likely a chicken/egg situation existing in the schools to which you refer. But why does removing athletics mean that band, FFA, Robotics, Subject matter clubs (Bio, Chem, Foreign Language, Math, History, etc) debate team, drama club, choir, A/V Tech Clubs, or any other type of activity "falls"? Sure, it is a major paradigm shift. So was the forward pass. 1) Ive never witnessed anyone having to pay to play in any school I’ve coached in. From poor a$$ country schools in the delta to bigger richer schools. The $700 blows my mind a little. I don’t know if we would have a football team at my school if that were the fee. 2) I’m not quite sure I follow. Are you asking me if I think that free ball limits the playing time of the booger eaters and they could pay to get on a team with other $hit birds and get more playing time? 3) if we’re not paying for sports anymore why would we pay for those other things that they could do elsewhere In 2007 my school hadn’t passed a levy for a while and we were in a bad place financially. The pay to participate fee was $690 per sport per child. This was at a semi-rural school in Ohio. Things are a bit better now but the pay to participate fee is still $325 per sport. When you consider money spent on meals, spirit packs, team outings, booster fees, etc., I can clearly see $700 as normal in my part of the world for a public high school. This doesn’t even include things like cleats and other apparel kids want. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 26, 2023 12:10:50 GMT -6
1) Ive never witnessed anyone having to pay to play in any school I’ve coached in. From poor a$$ country schools in the delta to bigger richer schools. The $700 blows my mind a little. I don’t know if we would have a football team at my school if that were the fee. 2) I’m not quite sure I follow. Are you asking me if I think that free ball limits the playing time of the booger eaters and they could pay to get on a team with other $hit birds and get more playing time? 3) if we’re not paying for sports anymore why would we pay for those other things that they could do elsewhere In 2007 my school hadn’t passed a levy for a while and we were in a bad place financially. The pay to participate fee was $690 per sport per child. This was at a semi-rural school in Ohio. Things are a bit better now but the pay to participate fee is still $325 per sport. When you consider money spent on meals, spirit packs, team outings, booster fees, etc., I can clearly see $700 as normal in my part of the world for a public high school. This doesn’t even include things like cleats and other apparel kids want. School, churches or booster clubs pay for football. Other sports the parents all pitch in to provide food or we stop somewhere to eat and they bring money I’ve never heard of anyone paying that much per sport to play |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 26, 2023 12:46:32 GMT -6
1) Ive never witnessed anyone having to pay to play in any school I’ve coached in. From poor a$$ country schools in the delta to bigger richer schools. The $700 blows my mind a little. I don’t know if we would have a football team at my school if that were the fee. Yet in the span of just a few minutes, multiple coaches have expressed that this is the reality in which they operate. It is relatively commonplace. Clearly it isn't desirable. I am saying that it seemed as if your major concern is that non booger eaters would not be able to play in a club system...I would suggest that it simply does not seem to be an issue in any other sport that currently operates outside of the interscholastic environment. I am quite certain there are financially struggling families with talented (and average) kids somehow participating in non interscholastic basketball, track, softball/baseball etc. Because those activities are much more inline with the desired co-curricular or extra-curricular activities. You yourself just proclaimed that it may be commonplace to have athletic coaches who are employed by academic institutions primarily because of their non academic roles. Fairly certain that is not the case for the other activities I listed. So far coach, your major objection seems to be that leaving interscholastic competition behind would result in less opportunities for kids. I would suggest that the evidence is quite the contrary. Just food for thought. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 26, 2023 13:27:22 GMT -6
1) Ive never witnessed anyone having to pay to play in any school I’ve coached in. From poor a$$ country schools in the delta to bigger richer schools. The $700 blows my mind a little. I don’t know if we would have a football team at my school if that were the fee. Yet in the span of just a few minutes, multiple coaches have expressed that this is the reality in which they operate. It is relatively commonplace. Clearly it isn't desirable. I am saying that it seemed as if your major concern is that non booger eaters would not be able to play in a club system...I would suggest that it simply does not seem to be an issue in any other sport that currently operates outside of the interscholastic environment. I am quite certain there are financially struggling families with talented (and average) kids somehow participating in non interscholastic basketball, track, softball/baseball etc. Because those activities are much more inline with the desired co-curricular or extra-curricular activities. You yourself just proclaimed that it may be commonplace to have athletic coaches who are employed by academic institutions primarily because of their non academic roles. Fairly certain that is not the case for the other activities I listed. So far coach, your major objection seems to be that leaving interscholastic competition behind would result in less opportunities for kids. I would suggest that the evidence is quite the contrary. Just food for thought. What evidence? 2 people have said that their kid/kids have to pay to play and that’s somehow common place? It’s not around here. Your evidence is simply conjecture. A survey conducted by the Minnesota State High School League in 2007 and reported by the NFHS found that the average GPA of a high school athlete was 2.84, while a student who was not involved in athletics had an average GPA of 2.68. The survey also showed that student athletes missed less school than their non-athlete counterparts, with a total of 7.4 days missed and 8.8 days missed, respectively. Another study published in the Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise in August, 2007 found that students who were active in sports like soccer, football and even skateboarding performed 10 percent better in core subjects like math, science, social studies and language arts. Because sports offer equal opportunity to all students at the high school level, these academic benefits extend to all area of the student population, including students that might be traditionally underserved. (Found that on the old Google machine) Also how do you know it’s not an issue in other sports that some kids get priced out of travel teams? Do you have proof? www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/27356477/kids-playing-enough-sports-culprit-cost?platform=ampGoogle machine again |
|
|
|
Post by freezeoption on Mar 26, 2023 13:33:11 GMT -6
No, the education system would be of if we didn't gave sports. There would be a place for booger eaters, it would probably be some ymca program. My first school back in 1991 charged 80 bucks a kid activity fee plus had to pay for activity card and kids had to buy their own jersey in football.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 26, 2023 14:54:49 GMT -6
Yet in the span of just a few minutes, multiple coaches have expressed that this is the reality in which they operate. It is relatively commonplace. Clearly it isn't desirable. I am saying that it seemed as if your major concern is that non booger eaters would not be able to play in a club system...I would suggest that it simply does not seem to be an issue in any other sport that currently operates outside of the interscholastic environment. I am quite certain there are financially struggling families with talented (and average) kids somehow participating in non interscholastic basketball, track, softball/baseball etc. Because those activities are much more inline with the desired co-curricular or extra-curricular activities. You yourself just proclaimed that it may be commonplace to have athletic coaches who are employed by academic institutions primarily because of their non academic roles. Fairly certain that is not the case for the other activities I listed. So far coach, your major objection seems to be that leaving interscholastic competition behind would result in less opportunities for kids. I would suggest that the evidence is quite the contrary. Just food for thought. What evidence? 2 people have said that their kid/kids have to pay to play and that’s somehow common place? It’s not around here. Your evidence is simply conjecture. A survey conducted by the Minnesota State High School League in 2007 and reported by the NFHS found that the average GPA of a high school athlete was 2.84, while a student who was not involved in athletics had an average GPA of 2.68. The survey also showed that student athletes missed less school than their non-athlete counterparts, with a total of 7.4 days missed and 8.8 days missed, respectively. Another study published in the Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise in August, 2007 found that students who were active in sports like soccer, football and even skateboarding performed 10 percent better in core subjects like math, science, social studies and language arts. Because sports offer equal opportunity to all students at the high school level, these academic benefits extend to all area of the student population, including students that might be traditionally underserved. (Found that on the old Google machine) Also how do you know it’s not an issue in other sports that some kids get priced out of travel teams? Do you have proof? www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/27356477/kids-playing-enough-sports-culprit-cost?platform=ampGoogle machine again So your argument is based on faulty statistics (ie. they are comparing 2 different populations) and an ESPN article on a segment of YOUTH non interscholastic sports that focus on ELITE outcomes without the recognition that such an environment may be fostered because of the interscholastic model is the norm from 14 on up? Regarding the Minnesota High School study : 1) not really an independent organization as they exist specifically because of interscholastic sports 2) The study you referenced was a sample of a whopping 300 students. 3) Data like this is common, and yet is likely inherently biased based on its nature. Although the MSHSL itself does not have a minimum GPA, it does state that the students must be progressing satisfactorily towards graduation, and that students must meet the requirements of their local boards of education. This means that BY DEFINITION, all of the data in the set of numbers labeled "athlete" likely have an artificially set floor GPA, while the other set could include samples of the burnouts, 0.0 GPA problem kids, etc. for whom school is just a legally mandated headache. So I would suggest this type of data is an example of correlation, not causation. To make an analogy- If we both ran gyms, and my gym had a mandatory 1.5 bodyweight squat for members, and yours did not--my gym "stats" , when averaged, would likely be better no? Is that an example of causation? I think not. With respect to the ESPN article on the expenses of those sports-it may or may not be somewhat isolated. Also, remember the author is not presenting scholarly data from which policy is created. They are looking for the most sensational angle to increase readership. Lastly, keep in mind that this story is about youth sports trying to get an edge when they go into the interscholastic environment. who knows how things would be different if there wasn't an interscholastic model at the top? Why the assumption that things wouldn't change below? Again, not saying I am trying to start a movement to end interscholastic athletics. Just posing a thought. |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Mar 26, 2023 15:11:41 GMT -6
What evidence? 2 people have said that their kid/kids have to pay to play and that’s somehow common place? It’s not around here. Your evidence is simply conjecture. A survey conducted by the Minnesota State High School League in 2007 and reported by the NFHS found that the average GPA of a high school athlete was 2.84, while a student who was not involved in athletics had an average GPA of 2.68. The survey also showed that student athletes missed less school than their non-athlete counterparts, with a total of 7.4 days missed and 8.8 days missed, respectively. Another study published in the Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise in August, 2007 found that students who were active in sports like soccer, football and even skateboarding performed 10 percent better in core subjects like math, science, social studies and language arts. Because sports offer equal opportunity to all students at the high school level, these academic benefits extend to all area of the student population, including students that might be traditionally underserved. (Found that on the old Google machine) Also how do you know it’s not an issue in other sports that some kids get priced out of travel teams? Do you have proof? www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/27356477/kids-playing-enough-sports-culprit-cost?platform=ampGoogle machine again So your argument is based on faulty statistics (ie. they are comparing 2 different populations) and an ESPN article on a segment of YOUTH non interscholastic sports that focus on ELITE outcomes without the recognition that such an environment may be fostered because of the interscholastic model is the norm from 14 on up? Regarding the Minnesota High School study : 1) not really an independent organization as they exist specifically because of interscholastic sports 2) The study you referenced was a sample of a whopping 300 students. 3) Data like this is common, and yet is likely inherently biased based on its nature. Although the MSHSL itself does not have a minimum GPA, it does state that the students must be progressing satisfactorily towards graduation, and that students must meet the requirements of their local boards of education. This means that BY DEFINITION, all of the data in the set of numbers labeled "athlete" likely have an artificially set floor GPA, while the other set could include samples of the burnouts, 0.0 GPA problem kids, etc. for whom school is just a legally mandated headache. So I would suggest this type of data is an example of correlation, not causation. To make an analogy- If we both ran gyms, and my gym had a mandatory 1.5 bodyweight squat for members, and yours did not--my gym "stats" , when averaged, would likely be better no? Is that an example of causation? I think not. With respect to the ESPN article on the expenses of those sports-it may or may not be somewhat isolated. Also, remember the author is not presenting scholarly data from which policy is created. They are looking for the most sensational angle to increase readership. Lastly, keep in mind that this story is about youth sports trying to get an edge when they go into the interscholastic environment. who knows how things would be different if there wasn't an interscholastic model at the top? Why the assumption that things wouldn't change below? Again, not saying I am trying to start a movement to end interscholastic athletics. Just posing a thought. Your argument is based on your opinion and 2 dudes on this board |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 26, 2023 15:28:26 GMT -6
So your argument is based on faulty statistics (ie. they are comparing 2 different populations) and an ESPN article on a segment of YOUTH non interscholastic sports that focus on ELITE outcomes without the recognition that such an environment may be fostered because of the interscholastic model is the norm from 14 on up? Regarding the Minnesota High School study : 1) not really an independent organization as they exist specifically because of interscholastic sports 2) The study you referenced was a sample of a whopping 300 students. 3) Data like this is common, and yet is likely inherently biased based on its nature. Although the MSHSL itself does not have a minimum GPA, it does state that the students must be progressing satisfactorily towards graduation, and that students must meet the requirements of their local boards of education. This means that BY DEFINITION, all of the data in the set of numbers labeled "athlete" likely have an artificially set floor GPA, while the other set could include samples of the burnouts, 0.0 GPA problem kids, etc. for whom school is just a legally mandated headache. So I would suggest this type of data is an example of correlation, not causation. To make an analogy- If we both ran gyms, and my gym had a mandatory 1.5 bodyweight squat for members, and yours did not--my gym "stats" , when averaged, would likely be better no? Is that an example of causation? I think not. With respect to the ESPN article on the expenses of those sports-it may or may not be somewhat isolated. Also, remember the author is not presenting scholarly data from which policy is created. They are looking for the most sensational angle to increase readership. Lastly, keep in mind that this story is about youth sports trying to get an edge when they go into the interscholastic environment. who knows how things would be different if there wasn't an interscholastic model at the top? Why the assumption that things wouldn't change below? Again, not saying I am trying to start a movement to end interscholastic athletics. Just posing a thought. Your argument is based on your opinion and 2 dudes on this board Not at all- my argument is based on the fact that with the exception of football- there is already a robust non interscholastic athletic environment. There is no opinion on that The “2 dudes” have nothing to do with my question regarding changing the interscholastic sports paradigm here in the USA. They simply were responding to your apparent main concern- $$$$. To recap- I was looking for (hopefully impartial) thoughts on a "what if" scenario where interscholastic sports were replaced with a much more common model across the globe. You provided 2 concerns- financial barriers to play and the loss the advertised benefits of interscholastic sports. I am simply pointing out that the first- doesn't seem to be much of a concern, and others have pointed out such barriers exist in the interscholastic model. I also pointed out that the actual benefits cited may be more myth than reality. |
|
|
|
Post by echoofthewhistle on Mar 27, 2023 8:04:35 GMT -6
Be careful what you wish for there plenty discussion in basketball that the AAU circuit has hurt the development of American NBA players.
Also, as someone that follows soccer, the pay for play nature of soccer in the US is pointed to as a big issue with player development.
Also nowhere have I coached or played was it required a kid pay to play. Obviously we recommended buying your own cleats and girdle. When I played we had a football camp, but that was offset for by the boosters if you were poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil4 on Mar 27, 2023 9:06:13 GMT -6
Be careful what you wish for there plenty discussion in basketball that the AAU circuit has hurt the development of American NBA players. Also, as someone that follows soccer, the pay for play nature of soccer in the US is pointed to as a big issue with player development. Also nowhere have I coached or played was it required a kid pay to play. Obviously we recommended buying your own cleats and girdle. When I played we had a football camp, but that was offset for by the boosters if you were poor. Came in here to bring the soccer perspective well. I am with the OP on here. I think "clubs" are the future, but in order for that to happen, there needs to be sweeping social commitment towards that structure (which is going to take decades, maybe centuries). In Europe, the idea for many cities and towns is that they have a singular (or multiple if big enough) sports clubs. They may major in one sport, but offer many others. Those "clubs" are where everyone goes to participate in athletics and receive training. It could be privately or publicly owned (publicly, think of money towards school athletic departments being shifted to a club), and probably tax dollars going into that mix too. The good/bad of that is the city can control how much of a commitment to athletics it wants. Barcelona is one of the most famous soccer teams in the world. A lot of folks don't realize this, but Barcelona is an entire sports academy and club. While soccer is their big sport, they have a youth academy and "senior" team in basketball, rugby, tennis, etc. I think they even have a hockey program. So that same blue and red color/style jerseys, and that famous crest you see on their soccer jerseys is on all those other teams too (modify the crest to suit the sport). I love that concept, especially because it's tied to a location, and not a specific school which has a whole different set of missions, goals, etc, that overlap and can influence each other. The trick is making it affordable. Soccer is still way too expensive in the U.S. and a football academy would be even more expensive; probably up there with hockey. I think if cities/towns publicly started and owned these clubs, that's one way to help maintain that, because now the city is responsible for its success AND has some say/ownership in how their tax dollars are utilized. Or, you could entice and have a private owner come in who's willing to create an affordable model. This can also create more unity and social opportunity for kids in a community, because its athletics wouldn't be based on the school; not every kid in a town/city goes to the same school or district. Not every individual in the city supports or cares about the school system. It creates a separate entity where you don't have to support X, Y, and Z just to support X. Also helps unite if a city has multiple school districts. |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Mar 27, 2023 10:22:19 GMT -6
There are like zero regulations for travel;/clubs now.
Need clearances to coach? Ehh maybe.
Need to take all the NFHS "trainings" each year? Nawww.
Adhere to time constraints on practices/games each week?
No way Eligibility checks? More like did the check clear.
Play all year round with no off-season/time to strength train or recover? Of course!
Just a few great examples of why we need regulated sports in educational settings still in this country. I hope to God it never goes to a club system. Leaves way too many gray areas and cuts back on kids ability to be, just kids playing a sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 27, 2023 10:33:17 GMT -6
Also, as someone that follows soccer, the pay for play nature of soccer in the US is pointed to as a big issue with player development. But isn't that only as compared to countries in which the professionals take a much bigger hand in player development? In that comparison, whether young players are school-sponsored or join self-funded amateur clubs (or even for-profit developmental clubs) may not really matter, because both are inferior for development to a regime of pro clubs seeking to further themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 27, 2023 10:40:28 GMT -6
There are like zero regulations for travel;/clubs now. Need clearances to coach? Ehh maybe. Need to take all the NFHS "trainings" each year? Nawww. Adhere to time constraints on practices/games each week? No way Eligibility checks? More like did the check clear. Play all year round with no off-season/time to strength train or recover? Of course! Just a few great examples of why we need regulated sports in educational settings still in this country. I hope to God it never goes to a club system. Leaves way too many gray areas and cuts back on kids ability to be, just kids playing a sport. There are club systems and club systems. School-sponsored is just one system, while "clubs" cover various types. The YMCA is a system of sport clubs, but they don't have the defects you point out. Major league baseball with their farm system is "clubs" too. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Mar 27, 2023 10:50:19 GMT -6
There are like zero regulations for travel;/clubs now. Need clearances to coach? Ehh maybe. Need to take all the NFHS "trainings" each year? Nawww. Adhere to time constraints on practices/games each week? No way Eligibility checks? More like did the check clear. Play all year round with no off-season/time to strength train or recover? Of course! Just a few great examples of why we need regulated sports in educational settings still in this country. I hope to God it never goes to a club system. Leaves way too many gray areas and cuts back on kids ability to be, just kids playing a sport. But much like CS- you are currently describing some thing that is likely to be much different if the entire model changes. Why the assumption that a changed model would not come with the appropriate other changes? |
|
|
|
Post by echoofthewhistle on Mar 27, 2023 12:09:54 GMT -6
Also, as someone that follows soccer, the pay for play nature of soccer in the US is pointed to as a big issue with player development. But isn't that only as compared to countries in which the professionals take a much bigger hand in player development? In that comparison, whether young players are school-sponsored or join self-funded amateur clubs (or even for-profit developmental clubs) may not really matter, because both are inferior for development to a regime of pro clubs seeking to further themselves. Your correct, but the OP was arguing for the current club model used in other sports in the US such as basketball and soccer. Both of which there are issues with development of players in both and safety concerns in basketball. I like the European model, but I don't see it working in the US with most US sports leagues lacking direct competition and child labor laws. |
|
|
|
Post by echoofthewhistle on Mar 27, 2023 12:19:37 GMT -6
There are like zero regulations for travel;/clubs now. Need clearances to coach? Ehh maybe. Need to take all the NFHS "trainings" each year? Nawww. Adhere to time constraints on practices/games each week? No way Eligibility checks? More like did the check clear. Play all year round with no off-season/time to strength train or recover? Of course! Just a few great examples of why we need regulated sports in educational settings still in this country. I hope to God it never goes to a club system. Leaves way too many gray areas and cuts back on kids ability to be, just kids playing a sport. But much like CS- you are currently describing some thing that is likely to be much different if the entire model changes. Why the assumption that a changed model would not come with the appropriate other changes? Why would you assume that? It would be AAU football. Easiest thing to compare it to are the 7 on 7 teams currently. Get a group of kids together practice a couple times then travel around a 6 hour radius to play in tournaments against teams. Might even play multiple teams in a day. I'm not against the club model, but the club model in the US is broken even worse than HS sports right now. I don't see clubs getting fixed unless the leagues directly invest in youth development. Which, I don't see happening because there is no direct competition from another league like in soccer. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 27, 2023 12:24:13 GMT -6
But isn't that only as compared to countries in which the professionals take a much bigger hand in player development? In that comparison, whether young players are school-sponsored or join self-funded amateur clubs (or even for-profit developmental clubs) may not really matter, because both are inferior for development to a regime of pro clubs seeking to further themselves. Your correct, but the OP was arguing for the current club model used in other sports in the US such as basketball and soccer. Both of which there are issues with development of players in both and safety concerns in basketball. I like the European model, but I don't see it working in the US with most US sports leagues lacking direct competition and child labor laws. Do you really think child labor laws would get in the way? That would be a problem only if sports consumed so many hours as to interfere with schooling, and that doesn't seem to be a problem with professional entertainers of other kinds who are children. The laws are crafted so as to allow children to be schooled while making money, and other countries have such laws too. What type of "direct competition" do you mean that most US sports leagues lack? |
|
|
|
Post by mkuempel on Mar 27, 2023 13:05:51 GMT -6
My concern for any type of club system in which younger players are not offered an affordable opportunity to participate, is that as a parent and coach, I feel the positives of youth "clubs" do not outweigh the negatives in that I've seen way more times than I'd like, a late-bloomer overtake the stud once they hit puberty, but I see more and more the late-bloomer being given more and more reasons to not continue with whatever activity they are in, and a program that doesn't focus on development at an affordable cost is another way to do that. I, also, like the European model of sports, in how they provide levels and opportunities for pretty much anyone who wants to partake at a reasonable cost and focus on development of each player. I guess that is probably my second issue with the club system, especially at the youth level, someone is making a lot of money and not reinvesting it into the club. Within the European system, the club is the financing system, they have businesses that make money that goes 100% back into the club, ie sponsors. Usually they are pubs/restaurants and usually staffed by the players as well, so they not only pay for the programs, they also pay the players for their work. It is a complete financial system. The schools provide the education and the clubs provide pretty much everything else. Here it's the opposite, the club provides the sports and the school provides everything else, the school financially suffers and the club financially flourishes. The European system has been going on for decades, if not longer, and I'm not saying it wouldn't work here, it would just take a large, initial, financial undertaking by someone to start the change within the system, and it is a large systematic change.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Mar 27, 2023 13:32:48 GMT -6
My concern for any type of club system in which younger players are not offered an affordable opportunity to participate, is that as a parent and coach, I feel the positives of youth "clubs" do not outweigh the negatives in that I've seen way more times than I'd like, a late-bloomer overtake the stud once they hit puberty, but I see more and more the late-bloomer being given more and more reasons to not continue with whatever activity they are in, and a program that doesn't focus on development at an affordable cost is another way to do that. I, also, like the European model of sports, in how they provide levels and opportunities for pretty much anyone who wants to partake at a reasonable cost and focus on development of each player. I guess that is probably my second issue with the club system, especially at the youth level, someone is making a lot of money and not reinvesting it into the club. Within the European system, the club is the financing system, they have businesses that make money that goes 100% back into the club, ie sponsors. Usually they are pubs/restaurants and usually staffed by the players as well, so they not only pay for the programs, they also pay the players for their work. It is a complete financial system. The schools provide the education and the clubs provide pretty much everything else. Here it's the opposite, the club provides the sports and the school provides everything else, the school financially suffers and the club financially flourishes. The European system has been going on for decades, if not longer, and I'm not saying it wouldn't work here, it would just take a large, initial, financial undertaking by someone to start the change within the system, and it is a large systematic change. please break up your posts into more paragraphs. It is very difficult to read large blocks of text (especially white font on black background). In fact I didn't even try, which is too bad because you probably had something worthwhile to share. |
|
|
|
Post by echoofthewhistle on Mar 27, 2023 16:22:58 GMT -6
Your correct, but the OP was arguing for the current club model used in other sports in the US such as basketball and soccer. Both of which there are issues with development of players in both and safety concerns in basketball. I like the European model, but I don't see it working in the US with most US sports leagues lacking direct competition and child labor laws. Do you really think child labor laws would get in the way? That would be a problem only if sports consumed so many hours as to interfere with schooling, and that doesn't seem to be a problem with professional entertainers of other kinds who are children. The laws are crafted so as to allow children to be schooled while making money, and other countries have such laws too. What type of "direct competition" do you mean that most US sports leagues lack? The reason the youth development system works in Europe is because I can have players under contract and sell them off, it how lots of clubs stay financially sound, but as seen with some US players the inablility to sign players to senior contracts until their 18 creates the opportunity for a player to leave for free. The fact that the NFL, MLB, NBA, and even the NHL don't have a direct peer to compete against means spending money on youth development becomes less important. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 28, 2023 5:29:57 GMT -6
Do you really think child labor laws would get in the way? That would be a problem only if sports consumed so many hours as to interfere with schooling, and that doesn't seem to be a problem with professional entertainers of other kinds who are children. The laws are crafted so as to allow children to be schooled while making money, and other countries have such laws too. What type of "direct competition" do you mean that most US sports leagues lack? The reason the youth development system works in Europe is because I can have players under contract and sell them off, it how lots of clubs stay financially sound, but as seen with some US players the inablility to sign players to senior contracts until their 18 creates the opportunity for a player to leave for free. The fact that the NFL, MLB, NBA, and even the NHL don't have a direct peer to compete against means spending money on youth development becomes less important. The XFL has answers to two of those problems. One is that it doesn't have franchise clubs, but is a single business entity that owns all the teams. The other is that it competes against the NFL and USFL clubs for business. Another model that can be looked at is a sparse one, but provides a few examples: musical bands and choirs that were brought up and promoted professionally since childhood. |
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Mar 28, 2023 5:40:19 GMT -6
First how could anyone on this board be impartial about the topic? Regardless of where we fall on the subject, we are all closely connected and affected it by it. It's like putting my wife and another attractive woman together and bringing me in and asking me which one is better looking and to remain impartial.
When it comes to interscholastic vs club activities, there is certainly positives to both situations. We could as a society move towards club sport full time and many kids would still benefit. People would still show up to events and root on their children. Would communities follow? I am not sure they would to the extent they do now in some areas.
My biggest issue is that children are becoming more and more jaded by the educational process, less motivated to show up to school everyday. Covid made this worse in the schools that my wife and I teach at.
If we were to eliminate interscholastic sports how many marginal kids would we lose because we took away their primary motivation to come to school. More importantly, how many good adults would we lose because it is a major or their primary motivation to work in schools?
Sports drive and motivate people. Division III athletics specifically use sports as a way to boost enrollment. They know the kids aren't coming unless they are coming to play sports.
Would allowing only club sports be the death of schools or sports? NO
Would it have a greater negative impact than good for the education of our children? I believe so
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 28, 2023 10:06:25 GMT -6
But much like CS- you are currently describing some thing that is likely to be much different if the entire model changes. Why the assumption that a changed model would not come with the appropriate other changes? Fair point. But even if the model changes, I don't see it having any positive impact on those of us in rural communities (especially those that are isolated).
If club sports sprout up like the McDonald's franchise- there will be more opportunities/less cost... it could be just like interscholastic sports- just without the schools being a part of it.
The problem for us (and many like us in our state) is we are 80 miles from a McDonald's. I see our kids having the choice- drive 85-300 miles for club sports (much like those in AAU basketball and winter volleyball do now), or find something else to do. That will shrink our participation numbers well beyond the level they have already dropped.
I suppose it is possible to have an "elite" (don't get me started on the overuse of that word) level (or varying levels) in club sports and maintain more recreational levels in the schools. We are kind of getting that now (I lost 2 starters this year to off-season "elite team" club sports).
I see club levels getting a greater foothold where school sports were once a monopoly (to some extent, anyway). It is maybe not horrible... but for me it's an unknown- and the known has worked.
One thing I value more now than I did when I started is the impact I can have as a teacher and coach. I really noticed a bit of a disconnect even when I spent a few years in administration. The thing about that is that there are less coaches in school buildings. The model of interscholastic athletics is an outstanding one- but even that has changed since the start of my career. Whether we want to blame unions, administrators, politicians, test scores... whomever- school sports are not what they were 30 years ago.
Like Bob Dylan sang- "the times they are a-changin". Maybe club sport takeover is inevitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Mar 28, 2023 11:15:01 GMT -6
The reason the youth development system works in Europe is because I can have players under contract and sell them off, it how lots of clubs stay financially sound, but as seen with some US players the inablility to sign players to senior contracts until their 18 creates the opportunity for a player to leave for free. The fact that the NFL, MLB, NBA, and even the NHL don't have a direct peer to compete against means spending money on youth development becomes less important. The XFL has answers to two of those problems. One is that it doesn't have franchise clubs, but is a single business entity that owns all the teams. The other is that it competes against the NFL and USFL clubs for business. Another model that can be looked at is a sparse one, but provides a few examples: musical bands and choirs that were brought up and promoted professionally since childhood. Hold on. Are you saying that the XFL is trying to compete with the NFL? They emphatically are not. That's why their championship game is in May. The last football league that tried to directly compete with the NFL was the old USFL and that was a disaster. |
|
Agree to disagree with the last statement. Don't want to sidetrack this thread any further- but in all sports except football I would argue that a non-interscholastic avenue already exists that is on par if not superior (and in many cases vastly superior) to the interscholastic version with regards to competitiveness. 
