|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 30, 2020 15:48:03 GMT -6
We put in our rule about needing a 2.5 to be a starter because the school had a policy that if kids had under a 2.0 in the previous semester they weren't just ineligible (state rule) but they weren't even allowed to be on the team (school rule). You could use summer school to improve your previous semester GPA. So every year we would have a few kids who were hovering around that 1.9 range from the previous semester who needed summer school to get eligible, and inevitably they would take until the last possible day to get the summer work done, and something would happen that "wasn't their fault" but the work wouldn't be done on time and we would lose a kid for the season. When we put in the 2.5 rule those same types of kids typically hover around 2.3-2.4 now and if the same thing happens with their summer school class we tell them they have to sit out 2 series but at least we get to keep them on the team. And after a 3 week grade check if they have over a 2.5 we make them eligible to start. Must have good numbers, not sure we would be able to field a team if we did this for starters. |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 30, 2020 16:01:36 GMT -6
We put in our rule about needing a 2.5 to be a starter because the school had a policy that if kids had under a 2.0 in the previous semester they weren't just ineligible (state rule) but they weren't even allowed to be on the team (school rule). You could use summer school to improve your previous semester GPA. So every year we would have a few kids who were hovering around that 1.9 range from the previous semester who needed summer school to get eligible, and inevitably they would take until the last possible day to get the summer work done, and something would happen that "wasn't their fault" but the work wouldn't be done on time and we would lose a kid for the season. When we put in the 2.5 rule those same types of kids typically hover around 2.3-2.4 now and if the same thing happens with their summer school class we tell them they have to sit out 2 series but at least we get to keep them on the team. And after a 3 week grade check if they have over a 2.5 we make them eligible to start. Must have good numbers, not sure we would be able to field a team if we did this for starters. We only tend to have one or two starting caliber kids that fall into this category each year. But FWIW we have around 50-55 on varsity each year. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 30, 2020 17:01:54 GMT -6
Our school is right around 1914 students at the last reclassification student count which ranks us 23rd in the state and right in the middle of the biggest classification/division (5A 41 members). HC's previous school was listed at 857 and ranked 105th and at the middle of 3A classification (40 schools) We have 3 levels of teams: Fresh - started with 44, finished with 38 JV - varied from week to week as they could play up or down but usually 30-35ish Varsity - again varied as to who was playin up or down but usually 60-65ish I looked at random midseason SH roster and there were 80 kids in required study hall that week. All in all we started with about 130+ 9-12 graders and finished with around 115. We did have about half a dozen or so players opt not to play this season. There also were some 'gimmes' built by the HC, grades weren't check the 1st 2 weeks of school b/c there wasn't much usually put in by teachers/start of the year/etc..... Then at the second 9 weeks start (right about the end of the season/start of the playoffs in a normal year) everybody got 'reset' for the new grading period for the 1st 2 weeks. So in a normal year, everyone was good for the scrimmages, and the 1st 2 games, then got a bit of grace at the end of the season. I am a data driven thinker, 70% of your roster in study hall doesn’t seem practical, furthermore, with 80 players there I would question if it is working. I know many schools have gone the correction as someone earlier posted about and being in D or Fs for study hall, never an 84% B. Shoot if a student had all 84% they would end up with a 3.0 GAP but wouldn’t be eligible to play football if I read your post correctly. If you’re wanting to talk to your head coach make sure you bring data and solutions otherwise you end up being another coach telling him what’s broken and wrong with his program. There are enough people paying $6 every Friday night doing that already. I'm confused as to why 70% of the roster in SH isn't practical. We have the resources to handle the logistics of checking grades, managing SH, etc.... The 85% is the criteria for SH, not buying a ticket on Friday night. If a kid has a D/F then he sits. I'm not trying to find data to tell the HC 'his program is wrong', I'm genuinely curious on how others handle SH/suspending kids for grades. And my HC is very open to changing different point within his program, but he is very much a 'best practices' kid of guy. 1- the sit rule (D/F) is basically part of the selling point that in order to get into college, you at the least have to be making Cs. 2-Part of the sell also if for the parent who will take their kid to every camp/college tour in the country but won't even bother to check his kids report card every quarter. 3- Again the SH cut off of 85 was a hold over before the state changed the grading guidelines. The HC just kept it in place b/c he was in a good situation and was being successful and had the poker chips to raise the bar at his previous stop. He decided to keep that here, even though he knew it would be a potential grinding point. We are a single district HS district and we are the 'inner city' school in the county. Our demographic is fairly odd in that we are about 70% free/reduced lunch and the other 30% are upper middle to upper class kids. We don't really have many middle class kids. In the past, there has been heat b/c a 'playa' didn't get a scholarship offer.... b/c he had a D+ average, so I feel there needs to be a higher standard than before. The HC is very familiar with the dynamics of our school. He grew in the next district over, and was an AC at this school fairly recently. In fact he left this school to take his 1st HC job. In fact we have had some conversations similar to this in terms of 'is THIS the best policy for THIS school'. He wants this job to make a difference beyond the playing field and I don't doubt his intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 30, 2020 17:17:47 GMT -6
I don't really get this. If a C is passing and on track for graduation, why is that unacceptable? What about kids with learning disabilities? What if a kid is doing the best he can but he's also working to support his family? What about the kid who just doesn't have the parent support or home situation to be a high achiever? I can think of kids within the last two years that fit each situation and were C students due to no fault of their own. I hate the trope of the meathead football player and I'd love to have more Stanford bound kids in our program, but what's wrong with the kid who's doing what it takes to play and isn't an academic all-star? for more see my response to oldman61 Hades you in this state it isn't like college, you can make straight D- your whole HS career and graduate with a diploma. As I mentioned earlier, there are several 'passes' for many circumstances: teacher can override if they feel the kids is trying/making progress, HC can allow a kid to play, kid's academic track is considered. We had a Frosh DB of mine that the HC gave a pass to for much of the season b/c he was slotted for 3/7 of his classes for honors, but was failing 6/7. We weren't sure why he was slotted by his MS teachers for honors and we also thought he had a hearing issue b/c he is basically a mute and always was asking to us to repeat stuff. I appreciate the honest response. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 30, 2020 17:19:38 GMT -6
Maybe it’s not about academics. Or football. Then what is it about? 'Building better men'? 'How you do something is how you do everything'? in a nut shell yes, but it's more complicated than just that |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 30, 2020 17:21:52 GMT -6
I don't really get this. If a C is passing and on track for graduation, why is that unacceptable? What about kids with learning disabilities? What if a kid is doing the best he can but he's also working to support his family? What about the kid who just doesn't have the parent support or home situation to be a high achiever? I can think of kids within the last two years that fit each situation and were C students due to no fault of their own. I hate the trope of the meathead football player and I'd love to have more Stanford bound kids in our program, but what's wrong with the kid who's doing what it takes to play and isn't an academic all-star? Agreed. Im honestly ecstatic with a few of my students with Cs right now. They've worked their tails off to get out of the D and F range. These aren't kids with IEPs and a mountain of support and accommodations. They're kids with chit home lives, working jobs and/or playing sports and just trying to survive school. That is why we have the SH to provide the support structure these kids don't get at home. We had many kids with Cs that came up from Ds/Fs. We had kids that once they realized the HC wasn't playing around moved grades from the 20s/30s range up to Cs/Ds and were rewarded with playing time. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 30, 2020 17:26:30 GMT -6
Weekly grade check. Get the list Sat morning for that week. 1 F - Tutoring after school one day. Can play 2 Fs- Tutoring after school one day each subj. Can't play but can practice. 3+ Fs- Tutoring after school one day each subj. No play no practice (but can watch) Miss tutoring automatically ineligible. why not practice? The HC's program policy is that we'll continue to provide all the support, and you can be part of the team (practice, team meals, etc...) but just can't play. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 30, 2020 17:30:12 GMT -6
We put in our rule about needing a 2.5 to be a starter because the school had a policy that if kids had under a 2.0 in the previous semester they weren't just ineligible (state rule) but they weren't even allowed to be on the team (school rule). You could use summer school to improve your previous semester GPA. So every year we would have a few kids who were hovering around that 1.9 range from the previous semester who needed summer school to get eligible, and inevitably they would take until the last possible day to get the summer work done, and something would happen that "wasn't their fault" but the work wouldn't be done on time and we would lose a kid for the season. When we put in the 2.5 rule those same types of kids typically hover around 2.3-2.4 now and if the same thing happens with their summer school class we tell them they have to sit out 2 series but at least we get to keep them on the team. And after a 3 week grade check if they have over a 2.5 we make them eligible to start. Wait, you have to have a C average to play according to your state association? |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Dec 30, 2020 18:26:34 GMT -6
To put the teacher face on this whole thing.... it was kind of weird to get a BCC email from the HC about a kid in my class that was not going to get to play this week b/c that player was not performing up to the standards set. As the season went along, I got several of those generic emails and realized it wasn't aimed specifically at ME as a teacher, but it did make me wonder 'Was I doing everything expected as a teacher to help my kids succeed?'.
As things went along, he told me about several teachers that he knew weren't putting in grades regularly, checking/accepting late/make up work, or just weren't doing a professional job. He looked at it it in terms of he was holding the teachers in check as much as the players.
Again, the HC wasn't trying to catch/get any player OR teacher, just setting a standard and then holding everyone to the standard.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 30, 2020 18:39:17 GMT -6
Weekly grade check. Get the list Sat morning for that week. 1 F - Tutoring after school one day. Can play 2 Fs- Tutoring after school one day each subj. Can't play but can practice. 3+ Fs- Tutoring after school one day each subj. No play no practice (but can watch) Miss tutoring automatically ineligible. why not practice? The HC's program policy is that we'll continue to provide all the support, and you can be part of the team (practice, team meals, etc...) but just can't play. Ask the school board who sets the policy.... |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Dec 30, 2020 18:41:46 GMT -6
Must have good numbers, not sure we would be able to field a team if we did this for starters. We only tend to have one or two starting caliber kids that fall into this category each year. But FWIW we have around 50-55 on varsity each year. Hovered around 22 with 8 freshman this year. If the school said they were okay they played could never split hairs with a 2.5 to start. |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 30, 2020 19:36:32 GMT -6
We put in our rule about needing a 2.5 to be a starter because the school had a policy that if kids had under a 2.0 in the previous semester they weren't just ineligible (state rule) but they weren't even allowed to be on the team (school rule). You could use summer school to improve your previous semester GPA. So every year we would have a few kids who were hovering around that 1.9 range from the previous semester who needed summer school to get eligible, and inevitably they would take until the last possible day to get the summer work done, and something would happen that "wasn't their fault" but the work wouldn't be done on time and we would lose a kid for the season. When we put in the 2.5 rule those same types of kids typically hover around 2.3-2.4 now and if the same thing happens with their summer school class we tell them they have to sit out 2 series but at least we get to keep them on the team. And after a 3 week grade check if they have over a 2.5 we make them eligible to start. Wait, you have to have a C average to play according to your state association? Yes, in the previous spring semester. If you had that in the prior semester then you were ok for the start of Fall season, but the state also had 3 week grade checks all season. If a kid had any Fs during those grade checks they faced a suspension by the state. |
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Dec 30, 2020 19:40:51 GMT -6
We only tend to have one or two starting caliber kids that fall into this category each year. But FWIW we have around 50-55 on varsity each year. Hovered around 22 with 8 freshman this year. If the school said they were okay they played could never split hairs with a 2.5 to start. I understand that fewer kids hurts your flexibility for this sort of thing. But our rule has helped us keep kids in our program over the years, I don't think we've lost a varsity kid to having under a 2.0 at the start of the season in years. There have been a few times where we had to play the first 2 series of the first few games without a guy we'd like to have on the field. But yeah obviously a bigger school like I'm at with three levels and well over 120 kids in the program is a pretty different animal from 20ish with 8 freshman. |
|
Doo
Freshmen Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by Doo on Jan 1, 2021 12:13:42 GMT -6
My parents were both educators. For most of my career I was a classroom teacher (English).
So education was very important to me, and always emphasized that to our players.
My problem with eligibility requirements over and above say state requirements were that they seemed punitive and hurt kids that needed the discipline and structure of team sports most.
As a coach I would want to know that I was on an even playing field with our opponents, no undue disadvantage.
In my experience administrators-school boards (some coaches?) who raised the bar were trying somehow to artificially show they valued education more than others at the expense of some kids.
The fallacy was that those kids weren't doing as well in classroom because they were athletes than if they weren't, or they would do better with higher requirements.
I can also tell you some examples I know of that led to "grade inflation" or other abuses of eligibility requirements.
Having said all that - the best teams I had usually were best character kids-students too.
I guess my big point here is this: If we truly believe in the value of "Educational Athletics" for HS kids - why do we want to be exclusionary? If a kid can get a diploma-graduate from a school, why can't he-she participate in athletics in the mean time?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2021 18:29:16 GMT -6
My parents were both educators. For most of my career I was a classroom teacher (English). So education was very important to me, and always emphasized that to our players. My problem with eligibility requirements over and above say state requirements were that they seemed punitive and hurt kids that needed the discipline and structure of team sports most. As a coach I would want to know that I was on an even playing field with our opponents, no undue disadvantage. In my experience administrators-school boards (some coaches?) who raised the bar were trying somehow to artificially show they valued education more than others at the expense of some kids. The fallacy was that those kids weren't doing as well in classroom because they were athletes than if they weren't, or they would do better with higher requirements. I can also tell you some examples I know of that led to "grade inflation" or other abuses of eligibility requirements. Having said all that - the best teams I had usually were best character kids-students too. I guess my big point here is this: If we truly believe in the value of "Educational Athletics" for HS kids - why do we want to be exclusionary? If a kid can get a diploma-graduate from a school, why can't he-she participate in athletics in the mean time? Coaches guilt. Over what I am not sure, but it runs rampant in the hs ranks. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Jan 2, 2021 6:55:54 GMT -6
My parents were both educators. For most of my career I was a classroom teacher (English). So education was very important to me, and always emphasized that to our players. My problem with eligibility requirements over and above say state requirements were that they seemed punitive and hurt kids that needed the discipline and structure of team sports most. As a coach I would want to know that I was on an even playing field with our opponents, no undue disadvantage. In my experience administrators-school boards (some coaches?) who raised the bar were trying somehow to artificially show they valued education more than others at the expense of some kids. The fallacy was that those kids weren't doing as well in classroom because they were athletes than if they weren't, or they would do better with higher requirements. I can also tell you some examples I know of that led to "grade inflation" or other abuses of eligibility requirements. Having said all that - the best teams I had usually were best character kids-students too. I guess my big point here is this: If we truly believe in the value of "Educational Athletics" for HS kids - why do we want to be exclusionary? If a kid can get a diploma-graduate from a school, why can't he-she participate in athletics in the mean time? No kids is excluded from the team b/c of grades. They get to participate and benefit from everything else but don't get playing time. Everything is week by week. |
|
Doo
Freshmen Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by Doo on Jan 4, 2021 11:54:24 GMT -6
My parents were both educators. For most of my career I was a classroom teacher (English). So education was very important to me, and always emphasized that to our players. My problem with eligibility requirements over and above say state requirements were that they seemed punitive and hurt kids that needed the discipline and structure of team sports most. As a coach I would want to know that I was on an even playing field with our opponents, no undue disadvantage. In my experience administrators-school boards (some coaches?) who raised the bar were trying somehow to artificially show they valued education more than others at the expense of some kids. The fallacy was that those kids weren't doing as well in classroom because they were athletes than if they weren't, or they would do better with higher requirements. I can also tell you some examples I know of that led to "grade inflation" or other abuses of eligibility requirements. Having said all that - the best teams I had usually were best character kids-students too. I guess my big point here is this: If we truly believe in the value of "Educational Athletics" for HS kids - why do we want to be exclusionary? If a kid can get a diploma-graduate from a school, why can't he-she participate in athletics in the mean time? No kids is excluded from the team b/c of grades. They get to participate and benefit from everything else but don't get playing time. Everything is week by week. I get what you're saying but how long is a kid going to keep practicing much less practicing hard (scout teams for example) knowing he's not going to get in games? For example once had senior who had to sit out first five games because of second violation of training rules (not academic eligibility so little different). By the time he was eligible our lineups were set, we were winning, and we weren't going to replace somebody playing well except maybe when game was decided. To his credit he hung in until end of season but dad couldn't understand why he wasn't starting Game Six. |
|
