klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Apr 2, 2019 10:57:52 GMT -6
So most of us coach student athletes. And I will bet all of us say things like, "its about the kids, its for the kids". Is it really? Most rules governing our sport in regards to non game day activities are about US, protecting US.
Take transferring/recruiting. Those rules are about protecting the coach, there not whats best for the Kid. Example, your a stud WR and you go to a school that chucks it 40 times a game. Next season your coach leaves and the new guy is single wing, is this whats best for the kid? But if the kid leaves in most states without actually picking up and moving, the kid sits. So is it about the kids?
Lets just say you are a kid who just hates his coach, kids are people to, and sometimes you just dont get along. So the kid can stay in a toxic relationship with hopes he will play or what? Quit? he cant transfer or open enroll because he will sit.
These rules also serve to protect bad coaches. Bad coaches know they wont loose kids to a cross town rival, why, well because the kid cant play. This is a mostly true fact, kids dont transfer from good programs to go to a bad one, they transfer a bad one for a good one. So again is it for the kids? Is staying at a bad program whats best for the kid?
Why are we afraid of allowing recruiting and transfers? In Corp America if you are good, people will recruit you all day, you stay if the place you work is a good one, you leave if it is not. Sure money may play a factor but if your happy , you will most likely stay.
Coaches can come and go as they please, but not the players? Again if you are in a system that plays to your strengths and the coach leaves and a new coach puts in a system that doesn't, why should a kid have to stay in that system. Why should the kid sacrifice for the adult coach??
Oh I know I am in the minority here. But if you stop rationalizing whats in your best interests and actually believe what we all say, you cant argue against this. by allowing this does this make our jobs harder, YEP sure does, and it makes all of us better, which will make the kid better. Work hard or fail, isn't that what we all preach to these kids?
But instead we pass rules under "its fair" umbrella....life aint fair, suck it buttercup...
Want to keep your kids, its pretty easy, out work the other guy and build a program that kids want to be a part of. Sorry but if you are phoning it in and your kids want to leave, well thats on you. But lets stop pretending it's bout the kids and "fairness", its about US, its about you.
Change my mind, prove me wrong!
|
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Apr 2, 2019 11:35:17 GMT -6
What is fair about robbing peter to pay paul. I believe my post is pretty clear what I think about fairness...life isnt fair...why do things need to be fair??
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Apr 2, 2019 11:41:39 GMT -6
The spirit of the rule is not to protect the player or the coach but rather the student. The idea is that the primary focus of schools and invested members should be on the educational aspect and not the athletic experience.
Some would argue athletics should be completely eliminated from the educational experience and club sports should follow a free market approach, which would fit with your model, where membership would be voluntary and players would choose teams based on how well they met their personal goals and expectations.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Vint on Apr 2, 2019 11:53:43 GMT -6
So most of us coach student athletes. And I will bet all of us say things like, "its about the kids, its for the kids". Is it really? Most rules governing our sport in regards to non game day activities are about US, protecting US. Take transferring/recruiting. Those rules are about protecting the coach, there not whats best for the Kid. Example, your a stud WR and you go to a school that chucks it 40 times a game. Next season your coach leaves and the new guy is single wing, is this whats best for the kid? But if the kid leaves in most states without actually picking up and moving, the kid sits. So is it about the kids? Lets just say you are a kid who just hates his coach, kids are people to, and sometimes you just dont get along. So the kid can stay in a toxic relationship with hopes he will play or what? Quit? he cant transfer or open enroll because he will sit. These rules also serve to protect bad coaches. Bad coaches know they wont loose kids to a cross town rival, why, well because the kid cant play. This is a mostly true fact, kids dont transfer from good programs to go to a bad one, they transfer a bad one for a good one. So again is it for the kids? Is staying at a bad program whats best for the kid? Why are we afraid of allowing recruiting and transfers? In Corp America if you are good, people will recruit you all day, you stay if the place you work is a good one, you leave if it is not. Sure money may play a factor but if your happy , you will most likely stay. Coaches can come and go as they please, but not the players? Again if you are in a system that plays to your strengths and the coach leaves and a new coach puts in a system that doesn't, why should a kid have to stay in that system. Why should the kid sacrifice for the adult coach?? Oh I know I am in the minority here. But if you stop rationalizing whats in your best interests and actually believe what we all say, you cant argue against this. by allowing this does this make our jobs harder, YEP sure does, and it makes all of us better, which will make the kid better. Work hard or fail, isn't that what we all preach to these kids? But instead we pass rules under "its fair" umbrella....life aint fair, suck it buttercup... Want to keep your kids, its pretty easy, out work the other guy and build a program that kids want to be a part of. Sorry but if you are phoning it in and your kids want to leave, well thats on you. But lets stop pretending it's bout the kids and "fairness", its about US, its about you. Change my mind, prove me wrong! Don't compare coaches to kids, because coaches have bills to pay and mouths to feed. Sometimes we have to make grown man decisions. A coach can be fired for upsetting one board member, parent, or administrator. They can do everything right and have their livelihood snatched away because they didn't serve the parent's self interest. With that said, I don't condone coaches leaving every year or two years for greener pastures. As far as kids, we already have a free for all in some states that has caused huge issues. I talked to a legendary coach in Florida who left the game a few years ago because it was like the Wild West. He said guys were calling his kid's parents trying to get them to transfer. He said this happened nearly every night. They would lie and make crap up just to try to get one of his kids. They would give kids money and gear. Instead of coaches building a program, they were out trying to take short cuts and recruit kids from successful programs. Rather than worry about the coaches who leave for a better job to better their family situation, get on the scumbags who profit off recruiting kids to leave their schools. That coach at a bad program would just go "buy" the best players he can find. States that have open transfer policies have opened Pandora's box and this stuff is happening more and more. You say if you don't like it work hard to keep your kids. We work our ass off for our kids. They know this. But then you add a scumbag AAU coach who is willing to cheat to convince a kid to go to a high school where his buddy coaches, there is not much you can do. And when a school pays a parent's rent on a bigger home so the kid transfers there, are you saying we should pay for an even bigger home so they don't leave? I will compete with anyone on our program merits, but we aren't going to give kids money and hook their parents up. It happens, and what you are talking about will make it happen more and more. We already have a huge problem. At least currently some states try to contain it somewhat. In Texas we have some rules in place that at least somewhat discourage illegal recruiting. It still happens. And if they get caught there are some ramifications. They don't catch everyone, but at least there are some things in place. If we opened transfers with no penalty it will be the beginning of the end.
|
|
|
Post by junior6589 on Apr 2, 2019 12:20:22 GMT -6
Sorry, but can you please do a little proofreading before submitting a post?
|
|
coachriley
Junior Member
"Tough times don't last; Tough people do."
Posts: 406
|
Post by coachriley on Apr 2, 2019 12:25:00 GMT -6
But instead we pass rules under "its fair" umbrella....life aint fair, suck it buttercup... My main comment to this part of your argument is you are correct that life is not fair. And our student athletes need to learn that they may get a coach whose style of play doesn't go along with what they think they are best at. So life aint fair and they need to learn to work through it.
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Apr 2, 2019 12:33:28 GMT -6
If we want to truly do what is best for all the kids... lets just allow everyone to transfer the second they get eliminated from postseason to the team that beat them... that way every kid can get to experience going to play for the championship... oh and if anyone at all makes you made or gets on to you during the season transfer at will... forget about overcoming adversity... forget about the fact that sometimes in life you have a boss you don't like or you don't get the promotion you wanted... nope... everyone should get what is best for them at that very second.. forget about delayed gratification... come on man ... pick a school and go play... quit jumping all over the place serving your own agenda!
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Apr 2, 2019 17:51:56 GMT -6
So most of us coach student athletes. And I will bet all of us say things like, "its about the kids, its for the kids". Is it really? Most rules governing our sport in regards to non game day activities are about US, protecting US. Take transferring/recruiting. Those rules are about protecting the coach, there not whats best for the Kid. Example, your a stud WR and you go to a school that chucks it 40 times a game. Next season your coach leaves and the new guy is single wing, is this whats best for the kid? But if the kid leaves in most states without actually picking up and moving, the kid sits. So is it about the kids? Lets just say you are a kid who just hates his coach, kids are people to, and sometimes you just dont get along. So the kid can stay in a toxic relationship with hopes he will play or what? Quit? he cant transfer or open enroll because he will sit. These rules also serve to protect bad coaches. Bad coaches know they wont loose kids to a cross town rival, why, well because the kid cant play. This is a mostly true fact, kids dont transfer from good programs to go to a bad one, they transfer a bad one for a good one. So again is it for the kids? Is staying at a bad program whats best for the kid? It's not about the kids, not about the coaches either. it's about the competition.
|
|
|
Post by Coach.A on Apr 2, 2019 18:30:53 GMT -6
I believe the transfer rules DO protect the vast majority of student athletes, albeit indirectly. Transfer rules help create parity by preventing "super teams" from forming through recruiting. They prevent corruption through recruiting that undermines the integrity of amateur high school athletics.
If recruiting and transferring were allowed, you would see many teams fold...mainly teams that don't have recruiting resources or amenities to attract top recruits. This would lead to fewer opportunities for student-athletes to play football. Furthermore, it would undermine many of the life lessons that we try to teach our student athletes through football.
I agree that the existing transfer rules may not be ideal for a very small number of individual athletes, but I believe this is a necessary drawback to protect the system as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 2, 2019 18:42:32 GMT -6
So most of us coach student athletes. And I will bet all of us say things like, "its about the kids, its for the kids". Is it really? Most rules governing our sport in regards to non game day activities are about US, protecting US. Take transferring/recruiting. Those rules are about protecting the coach, there not whats best for the Kid. Example, your a stud WR and you go to a school that chucks it 40 times a game. Next season your coach leaves and the new guy is single wing, is this whats best for the kid? But if the kid leaves in most states without actually picking up and moving, the kid sits. So is it about the kids? Lets just say you are a kid who just hates his coach, kids are people to, and sometimes you just dont get along. So the kid can stay in a toxic relationship with hopes he will play or what? Quit? he cant transfer or open enroll because he will sit. These rules also serve to protect bad coaches. Bad coaches know they wont loose kids to a cross town rival, why, well because the kid cant play. This is a mostly true fact, kids dont transfer from good programs to go to a bad one, they transfer a bad one for a good one. So again is it for the kids? Is staying at a bad program whats best for the kid? Why are we afraid of allowing recruiting and transfers? In Corp America if you are good, people will recruit you all day, you stay if the place you work is a good one, you leave if it is not. Sure money may play a factor but if your happy , you will most likely stay. Coaches can come and go as they please, but not the players? Again if you are in a system that plays to your strengths and the coach leaves and a new coach puts in a system that doesn't, why should a kid have to stay in that system. Why should the kid sacrifice for the adult coach?? Oh I know I am in the minority here. But if you stop rationalizing whats in your best interests and actually believe what we all say, you cant argue against this. by allowing this does this make our jobs harder, YEP sure does, and it makes all of us better, which will make the kid better. Work hard or fail, isn't that what we all preach to these kids? But instead we pass rules under "its fair" umbrella....life aint fair, suck it buttercup... Want to keep your kids, its pretty easy, out work the other guy and build a program that kids want to be a part of. Sorry but if you are phoning it in and your kids want to leave, well thats on you. But lets stop pretending it's bout the kids and "fairness", its about US, its about you. Change my mind, prove me wrong! The faulty underlying premise you base your post on is that playing ball is the reason for kids to attend HS. That is why the comparison to coaches or corporate America are inappropriate. That said, I do recognize that the idea of school choice is not a horrible one. I can see an argument to be made, not necessarily based on schematics, but one based on importance. About two decades ago, there was a girls basketball program that was one of the tops in the state of Louisiana. Multiple state titles. I knew two of the girls who played and attended that school lived in another school's district (within the same city). The difference between the programs was night and day. One had offseason training, lifted weights, competed in summer league etc. The other was spending practice time teaching bounce passes. Would it have been fair to the two girls (who both received full scholarships to play Div 1 basketball) to have gone to the lesser program?
|
|
|
Post by coachtimm on Apr 3, 2019 5:49:42 GMT -6
I think it is important to remember the difference between fair and equitable. If we teach our athletes to not worry about things out of their control, we have to live that as well. We all deal with the same circumstances with our athletes potentially being poached, and we all have to coach the team that lines up the next day.
|
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Apr 3, 2019 7:08:29 GMT -6
I thank you all for feedback. Good dialogue, well except for the pouting English teach who wants everyone to proof read...Most of what I see here again is a rationalization in favor of the coach. "Coaches have bills to pay" your right, so as we do in corp America, do a good job, keep your job, do a bad one and you don't keep your job. Also stating the kid needs to stay in bad situation because that could happen in life. Yes it could, but when you hate your job, most people find a new one. As for the education part, OK lets say the kid leaves because he is in a crapy school, guess what he still cant play. The comment about transferring after elimination from playoffs....really? I think everyone can agree you cant transfer in season, even coaches don't transfer in season. Are the rules equitable? Is it equitable to say that a kid should be made to stay in bad situation just because of where he lives? Is that really whats best for the kid? Several post about "its not about sports its about school"...well then explain why IMG academy is so successful? The business model of that whole HS is sports. The cost parents will pay for sports. And to say we teach them to not worry about things outside their control...well it's outside of their control because we say it is, not because it is. Coach hates an AD, coach leaves. Teacher hates the Super, teacher leaves. Kid hates coach, too bad kid suck it up....I am not saying transfers are right or wrong. But so far all I have heard is "me, me me"....they prevent "super teams" again that is about you, and is a super team bad? Was is it good in college but bad in HS? Its about competition? Your right it is, so why have a rule that doesn't force you to compete for the kid? You want to keep your best, then compete for them, show them your better. Isn't it our jobs to place the kid in the best position to get to the next level and be successful? I have employees leave all the time for promotions with other companies, if they cant get what they want here, and I don't think they have what I need, I let them leave and I support them doing what is best for them. They are doing what is best for them and their families. Why cant a kid do the same? We don't stop a science geek from leaving to go to some HS with a top notch AP science program, unless of course that kid also plays QB. We only stop athletes...(sorry of I did not properly proof read...)
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Apr 3, 2019 8:17:50 GMT -6
In this state, it's relatively easy for kids to transfer from school to school within the Native American reservations. The kids bounce from family member to family member within area around and in the reservation, depending on how well the schools are doing in sports. I can tell you, unequivocally, that this has a detrimental effect on the kids' education; they go to three schools in four years and struggle to stay on track to graduate. There's a lot of super-teams (basketball..) that are created because the kids go where they think they're going to win. But all of this bouncing from one environment to another throughout the years causes significant social and academic issues for the kids.
Now, there are other issues on the Native reservations; severe poverty, crime, drug use, etc..etc.. But, we see a lower graduation rate out of the kids that bounce from school to school than the rest of the population.
|
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Apr 3, 2019 9:02:28 GMT -6
In this state, it's relatively easy for kids to transfer from school to school within the Native American reservations. The kids bounce from family member to family member within area around and in the reservation, depending on how well the schools are doing in sports. I can tell you, unequivocally, that this has a detrimental effect on the kids' education; they go to three schools in four years and struggle to stay on track to graduate. There's a lot of super-teams (basketball..) that are created because the kids go where they think they're going to win. But all of this bouncing from one environment to another throughout the years causes significant social and academic issues for the kids. Now, there are other issues on the Native reservations; severe poverty, crime, drug use, etc..etc.. But, we see a lower graduation rate out of the kids that bounce from school to school than the rest of the population. Couldn't disagree more. As a military brat I bounced from school to school. I went to 3 different schools for 8th grade alone. In fact I think my social skills are better as I had to make new friends every 3-4 years. So is it parenting that has graduation rates low? or the schools? I don't blame teachers for poor graduation rates, I blame parents. And I am sure if a study was done, you would see a slightly higher rate for military kids than none, simply because military parents in general don't have discipline problems. Just guessing here no hard facts, just observations of my childhood. (and I attend MLK elementary school in North Chicago ILL in the 70's and that is the chit of chit neighborhoods, Navy kids were not the problem)
|
|
SconnieOC
Junior Member
Just here to learn the facemelter
Posts: 408
|
Post by SconnieOC on Apr 3, 2019 9:19:42 GMT -6
What is fair about robbing peter to pay paul. I believe my post is pretty clear what I think about fairness...life isnt fair...why do things need to be fair?? Your own comment single handedly disputes your argument. Life isn't fair, sometimes you have to deal with situations that aren't ideal. Are we not trying to teach kids to deal with tough situations? It's not fair that sometimes a stud WR ends up playing for a single wing team who throws it 4 times a game, why do we need to make things fair for him and allow him to transfer all over the place?
|
|
|
Post by eaglemountie on Apr 3, 2019 9:28:07 GMT -6
So most of us coach student athletes. And I will bet all of us say things like, "its about the kids, its for the kids". Is it really? Most rules governing our sport in regards to non game day activities are about US, protecting US. Take transferring/recruiting. Those rules are about protecting the coach, there not whats best for the Kid. Example, your a stud WR and you go to a school that chucks it 40 times a game. Next season your coach leaves and the new guy is single wing, is this whats best for the kid? I bet I can get that kid more touches in the single wing!! LOL
|
|
dozer60
Sophomore Member
Posts: 228
|
Post by dozer60 on Apr 3, 2019 9:28:36 GMT -6
What state do you coach in?
|
|
SconnieOC
Junior Member
Just here to learn the facemelter
Posts: 408
|
Post by SconnieOC on Apr 3, 2019 9:29:27 GMT -6
In this state, it's relatively easy for kids to transfer from school to school within the Native American reservations. The kids bounce from family member to family member within area around and in the reservation, depending on how well the schools are doing in sports. I can tell you, unequivocally, that this has a detrimental effect on the kids' education; they go to three schools in four years and struggle to stay on track to graduate. There's a lot of super-teams (basketball..) that are created because the kids go where they think they're going to win. But all of this bouncing from one environment to another throughout the years causes significant social and academic issues for the kids. Now, there are other issues on the Native reservations; severe poverty, crime, drug use, etc..etc.. But, we see a lower graduation rate out of the kids that bounce from school to school than the rest of the population. Couldn't disagree more. As a military brat I bounced from school to school. I went to 3 different schools for 8th grade alone. In fact I think my social skills are better as I had to make new friends every 3-4 years. So is it parenting that has graduation rates low? or the schools? I don't blame teachers for poor graduation rates, I blame parents. And I am sure if a study was done, you would see a slightly higher rate for military kids than none, simply because military parents in general don't have discipline problems. Just guessing here no hard facts, just observations of my childhood. (and I attend MLK elementary school in North Chicago ILL in the 70's and that is the chit of chit neighborhoods, Navy kids were not the problem) There's a HUGE difference in a kid choosing to bounce around for athletic reasons, and a kid being forced to bounce around because of parent's job. I went to 7 different school districts in 3 states K-12 because of my father's job. You're right, I developed quality social skills, and gained some invaluable insight into meeting new people, and my grades didn't suffer because I had discipline. But you can't possibly think that a kid going to 3 schools in 4 years (without military discipline at home) is going to succeed in school. And for the record, the science geek who transfers because of a better AP program, probably isn't leaving that school again in a year to go to a better science program, so it's not really a fair comparison
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Apr 3, 2019 10:06:31 GMT -6
In this state, it's relatively easy for kids to transfer from school to school within the Native American reservations. The kids bounce from family member to family member within area around and in the reservation, depending on how well the schools are doing in sports. I can tell you, unequivocally, that this has a detrimental effect on the kids' education; they go to three schools in four years and struggle to stay on track to graduate. There's a lot of super-teams (basketball..) that are created because the kids go where they think they're going to win. But all of this bouncing from one environment to another throughout the years causes significant social and academic issues for the kids. Now, there are other issues on the Native reservations; severe poverty, crime, drug use, etc..etc.. But, we see a lower graduation rate out of the kids that bounce from school to school than the rest of the population. Couldn't disagree more. As a military brat I bounced from school to school. I went to 3 different schools for 8th grade alone. In fact I think my social skills are better as I had to make new friends every 3-4 years. So is it parenting that has graduation rates low? or the schools? I don't blame teachers for poor graduation rates, I blame parents. And I am sure if a study was done, you would see a slightly higher rate for military kids than none, simply because military parents in general don't have discipline problems. Just guessing here no hard facts, just observations of my childhood. (and I attend MLK elementary school in North Chicago ILL in the 70's and that is the chit of chit neighborhoods, Navy kids were not the problem) A DoD school is an entirely different environment than a reservation school.
|
|
|
Post by chainbucket on Apr 3, 2019 11:11:58 GMT -6
"its about the kids, its for the kids". Just for my own understanding can you clarify when you use the word "kids" do you mean kids as a collective unit or kids as in the individual. Mentally those are going to be prioritized.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Vint on Apr 3, 2019 11:18:44 GMT -6
This is a direct quote from another good friend of mine coach coaches in Florida:
"The open transfers legislation has ruined athletics here in FL. And the FACA and FHSAA stood by and watched it happen."
That guy is a heck of a coach who has successfully coached in three states.
Open transfers do very little good for anyone. I do not live in Florida, and I do not coach there. I have several friends who do, and nearly every one of them hates the open transfer policy.
Kid gets mad at coach for being held accountable. Transfers. Parent doesn't like kid's playing time, transfers. Coach isn't fair. Transfer. This school will give me money to play. Transfer. They promised me a D1 scholarship. Transfer. No sir. Nothing good about it. Having parameters in place is vital. I like the rule in Texas. If a kid transfers he has to either move addresses and actually live in the new school's zone, or sit out for a year. It isn't perfect. People find a way around it. Some schools still do a lot of underhanded crap. But it at least sets a standard.
|
|
|
Post by cwaltsmith on Apr 4, 2019 6:29:55 GMT -6
Would it be in the best interest of the kid who gets benched bc the stud from the other school comes and takes his spot??? You know since your looking out for the kids and all... Or are we just looking out for the really good kids???
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Apr 4, 2019 6:36:48 GMT -6
Coach: guys, we all need to be at weights today before practice Player: I don't think I need to lift weights. If coach tries to make me, I'm transferring
...............
player violates school policy. coach makes player sit 1 game.
player transfers
............
often times (more often than not, probably) kids transfer because they don't want to adhere to basic policies.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 4, 2019 6:51:01 GMT -6
Would it be in the best interest of the kid who gets benched bc the stud from the other school comes and takes his spot??? You know since your looking out for the kids and all... Or are we just looking out for the really good kids???
klaby would propose the benched kid transfer to where he could play. And then the kid he replaced-was benched for...
The Circle of Life.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Apr 4, 2019 6:56:22 GMT -6
So most of us coach student athletes. And I will bet all of us say things like, "its about the kids, its for the kids". Is it really? Most rules governing our sport in regards to non game day activities are about US, protecting US. Take transferring/recruiting. Those rules are about protecting the coach, there not whats best for the Kid. Example, your a stud WR and you go to a school that chucks it 40 times a game. Next season your coach leaves and the new guy is single wing, is this whats best for the kid? But if the kid leaves in most states without actually picking up and moving, the kid sits. So is it about the kids? Lets just say you are a kid who just hates his coach, kids are people to, and sometimes you just dont get along. So the kid can stay in a toxic relationship with hopes he will play or what? Quit? he cant transfer or open enroll because he will sit. These rules also serve to protect bad coaches. Bad coaches know they wont loose kids to a cross town rival, why, well because the kid cant play. This is a mostly true fact, kids dont transfer from good programs to go to a bad one, they transfer a bad one for a good one. So again is it for the kids? Is staying at a bad program whats best for the kid? Why are we afraid of allowing recruiting and transfers? In Corp America if you are good, people will recruit you all day, you stay if the place you work is a good one, you leave if it is not. Sure money may play a factor but if your happy , you will most likely stay. Coaches can come and go as they please, but not the players? Again if you are in a system that plays to your strengths and the coach leaves and a new coach puts in a system that doesn't, why should a kid have to stay in that system. Why should the kid sacrifice for the adult coach?? Oh I know I am in the minority here. But if you stop rationalizing whats in your best interests and actually believe what we all say, you cant argue against this. by allowing this does this make our jobs harder, YEP sure does, and it makes all of us better, which will make the kid better. Work hard or fail, isn't that what we all preach to these kids? But instead we pass rules under "its fair" umbrella....life aint fair, suck it buttercup... Want to keep your kids, its pretty easy, out work the other guy and build a program that kids want to be a part of. Sorry but if you are phoning it in and your kids want to leave, well thats on you. But lets stop pretending it's bout the kids and "fairness", its about US, its about you. Change my mind, prove me wrong! With all due respect you sound exactly like what you are preaching against.....entitled. Your first example is what if you have a STUD WR & a coach who chucks the ball 40 times & then you change to a SW. Well, let me ask you this: Let's say you have stud WR & coach who chucks the ball 40X & the coach stays but decides to run the ball a TON the following year b/c his QB graduated & the next kid up has silly string for an arm? Or just doesn't make great decisions w/ the ball? I'm guessing, again w/ all due respect, that you are on the upside of things right now as a program so your thoughts are, why shouldn't kids get to transfer here b/c we're awesome! But if you were on the other side, and kids were leaving you'd feel different. Furthermore, what you're preaching is, if you don't like the way things are going, just leave. Is that what you're going to tell your players when they marry? What your wife gained a little baby weight after your 3rd child was born? You didn't sign up for that? Meh, trade her in for a younger model. Thank God our military doesn't subscribe to your mentality, or we'd all be speaking German. Sometimes things aren't what we always want, but it's awfully hard to fix them by "outworking the other guy" when your program is a revolving door. Maybe a coach retires and a new guy comes in, should everybody leave immediately & not even give him a chance b/c it might be hard? Can't coach ghosts. I suspect however, no matter what is said you will not change your mind. The only thing that will change it is life experience. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Apr 4, 2019 8:22:51 GMT -6
I also believe that allowing transfers across the board sends a terrible message to the kids. If they don't like the way something is run, they don't have to deal with it and solve the issue. They can just leave and solve the issue.
We saw it this year with one of the reservation teams I described. Two standout girls from one school didn't care for the new coach at their current school so they transferred to another down the road. Three other excellent basketball players from another school saw a super team in the making because of this so they left their school. Because they were transferring from "family to family", they didn't have to sit out; they were allowed to play right away.
Four out of five of these girls ended up being starters for the team and they crushed everyone on their way to a state title. The media made it out to be this glorious, "Hoosiers" run but never once did they mention that four out of five starters weren't even enrolled in the school four months prior to the start of the season.
|
|
|
Post by stilltryin on Apr 4, 2019 8:46:50 GMT -6
Part of what makes this issue even more frustrating is that, just like D-3 "signing day", it so often seems driven by the ego of the parents.
The last transfer we had saw ... or his dad saw ... he was going to be playing behind a stud at his old school ... transferred to us as a junior (for the record, we never talked to the kid, and didn't know who he was until he was already here). Played for us one year, one of our best players in a down year. Sure enough, he transferred back to his old school for his senior season, after the kid who was ahead of him graduated (his younger sister liked our school so much she stayed).
Did we feel used? Yeah, even though the kid said he didn't want to go. It didn't hurt as much, though, when we won a state title that year without him. Just reinforced my feelings about the parents who want to set up their kids' lives so they never experience any sort of adversity or learn to overcome obstacles on their own.
|
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Apr 4, 2019 8:58:38 GMT -6
So most of us coach student athletes. And I will bet all of us say things like, "its about the kids, its for the kids". Is it really? Most rules governing our sport in regards to non game day activities are about US, protecting US. Take transferring/recruiting. Those rules are about protecting the coach, there not whats best for the Kid. Example, your a stud WR and you go to a school that chucks it 40 times a game. Next season your coach leaves and the new guy is single wing, is this whats best for the kid? But if the kid leaves in most states without actually picking up and moving, the kid sits. So is it about the kids? Lets just say you are a kid who just hates his coach, kids are people to, and sometimes you just dont get along. So the kid can stay in a toxic relationship with hopes he will play or what? Quit? he cant transfer or open enroll because he will sit. These rules also serve to protect bad coaches. Bad coaches know they wont loose kids to a cross town rival, why, well because the kid cant play. This is a mostly true fact, kids dont transfer from good programs to go to a bad one, they transfer a bad one for a good one. So again is it for the kids? Is staying at a bad program whats best for the kid? Why are we afraid of allowing recruiting and transfers? In Corp America if you are good, people will recruit you all day, you stay if the place you work is a good one, you leave if it is not. Sure money may play a factor but if your happy , you will most likely stay. Coaches can come and go as they please, but not the players? Again if you are in a system that plays to your strengths and the coach leaves and a new coach puts in a system that doesn't, why should a kid have to stay in that system. Why should the kid sacrifice for the adult coach?? Oh I know I am in the minority here. But if you stop rationalizing whats in your best interests and actually believe what we all say, you cant argue against this. by allowing this does this make our jobs harder, YEP sure does, and it makes all of us better, which will make the kid better. Work hard or fail, isn't that what we all preach to these kids? But instead we pass rules under "its fair" umbrella....life aint fair, suck it buttercup... Want to keep your kids, its pretty easy, out work the other guy and build a program that kids want to be a part of. Sorry but if you are phoning it in and your kids want to leave, well thats on you. But lets stop pretending it's bout the kids and "fairness", its about US, its about you. Change my mind, prove me wrong! With all due respect you sound exactly like what you are preaching against.....entitled. Your first example is what if you have a STUD WR & a coach who chucks the ball 40 times & then you change to a SW. Well, let me ask you this: Let's say you have stud WR & coach who chucks the ball 40X & the coach stays but decides to run the ball a TON the following year b/c his QB graduated & the next kid up has silly string for an arm? Or just doesn't make great decisions w/ the ball? I'm guessing, again w/ all due respect, that you are on the upside of things right now as a program so your thoughts are, why shouldn't kids get to transfer here b/c we're awesome! But if you were on the other side, and kids were leaving you'd feel different. Furthermore, what you're preaching is, if you don't like the way things are going, just leave. Is that what you're going to tell your players when they marry? What your wife gained a little baby weight after your 3rd child was born? You didn't sign up for that? Meh, trade her in for a younger model. Thank God our military doesn't subscribe to your mentality, or we'd all be speaking German. Sometimes things aren't what we always want, but it's awfully hard to fix them by "outworking the other guy" when your program is a revolving door. Maybe a coach retires and a new guy comes in, should everybody leave immediately & not even give him a chance b/c it might be hard? Can't coach ghosts. I suspect however, no matter what is said you will not change your mind. The only thing that will change it is life experience. JMO. So a lot of assumptions here coach...guess you missed the part where I said...I don't know if I am for or against the idea. As for my program, nope not on upside at all, in fact moved from a very good program to one that went 1-8 the year before (I don't live in the district, I don't get paid and my kid plays in another district). I didn't preach anything, I simply provided the other side of the argument. Here are the facts gentlemen, Parents are voters, parents can influence and if the only argument against letting parents do whatever they want and transfer kids all over is "its bad for the coach". Well guess what, nobody gives a flying frog's butt about you...so this little experiment was to see how you will argue either for or against it, as it is coming and will be coming your way...if it hasn't already. So you better be able to argue your point from logic and not cause your butt hurt you may loose your job. Parents vote.... There are extremes to everything and yes you could have kids move because of being butt hurt. As for the military comment....There is an EGA hanging on my wall...
|
|
|
Post by CoachMikeJudy on Apr 4, 2019 9:25:29 GMT -6
I guess it depends on how your community views athletics- is it part of the "academic enrichment" of the student or is it a stand-alone entity?
Our state has a transfer policy that, IMO,is fairly relaxed...enough to where the kids/families can make good decisions for them AND coaches can still somewhat build programs. Essentially:
1) ANY physical move of residence will allow kids to play immediately...and IMO if the family wants to up and move into a district (for whatever reason) then I'm cool with it
2) All kids are allowed a ONE TIME transfer prior to their 11th grade year. If they start at school B...and transfer back to their home school A before DAY 1 of their junior year there is no penalty. This includes transfers to/from private schools.
3) An incoming 9th or 10th grader can "choice" to a school outside of his/her home school boundaries with no penalty if the accepting school is a "choice" school...they must provide their own transportation.
4) If a child is "choiced" they can transfer back to their homeschool at anytime with no penalty.
I feel that these rules are lenient enough to allow families to do what they want BUT tough enough where if they want to transfer their are some limitations/hoops to jump through.
|
|
dbeck84
Sophomore Member
Posts: 170
|
Post by dbeck84 on Apr 4, 2019 9:44:52 GMT -6
I think the problem comes when students (and administrators, school boards, and voters for that matter) begin making academic decisions based on athletics. Very few athletes will make any money (even scholarship money) from sports, so they should be focused on which school will give me the best education, not which football coach will give me the most touches.
|
|