New Team

[justsayin]

Heck, just last year, SK lost an outstanding 8th grade Bball and softball player to Notre Dame. It happens everywhere. There is nothing wrong with it under the current rules. We are talking about an 8th grader!

 

My issue with the situation is the athlete WHO ACTUALLY ATTENDS A GIVEN SCHOOL who loses out on playing time, or God forbid, gets cut as a result of the middle-school player. Let's face it .. life is short, and your high school years even shorter. Let's not take away that opportunity from the current student, regardless of the talent discrepancy.

 

I know if falls on deaf ears, particularly the coaches who want/need the middle-school player, but I believe high school athletics should be exactly that .. for high school students. Solves the whole problem.

[Divided House]

Is there no place for character and integrity in sports any more? what are these parents teaching their kids? that it's ok to give your WORD, impacting many others in the process (players, would be players, their families), then go back against your WORD? Shame on the parents for encouraging this behavior.

If you don't think that the coaches used the younger girls to better their program you need to think again. Scott was a much better team with the younger girls than without. Every varsity coach understands that there is a chance a middle school player can go elsewhere. However if those players give them a better opportunity to win they will play them. It's like saying Coach Cal shouldn't play the freshmen because they are only going to be there for one year. You play the best players on the team and in the program until they are not there anymore.

[RCC9]

Okay, not trying to be mean or make anyone mad, but in reality...if your program has been building a program at a school the size of Scott around what you say 3 years ago when she was a 6th grader, then the program has much larger issues than a kid that has never even enrolled at your high school transferring. Even if you are building it around an 8th grader period, no matter how good she is, there are bigger problems. At a much smaller school where good athletes or classes come and go...maybe. But I would ask why they are waiting for a middle school kid to get to high school to be the second coming? That's nothing bad about the staff or current players, but if this one 8th grader means soooo much to a program that is as big as Scott, you might want to start looking elsewhere before you blame an 8th grader for ruining the program.

 

And as far as 3 years in the program and suddenly unhappy...I'm not sure that's the way it worked. I believe she lives in the Scott district. Therefore, for her to play up would mean Scott was the option. The staff and school allowed that, knowing the county has open enrollment. I would make the case that the school used her just as much as she used them. You play year to year with what you have. I don't blame the coaches or the player. In a varsity program, you look at all the players together, regardless of age. At the end of the day you have about 12 kids that have made the varsity team. You play the kids that give you the best chance to win. If those kids are uncommitted middle school kids, then it is what it is. At that point, even if you know they are thinking about going somewhere else, isn't there a chance you could get them to stay too? So why wouldn't a coach play them. It's year to year.

 

And for everyone that is saying "well she took opportunities from other kids". You're right! But what does it say about the other kids that are getting beat out by a 6th, 7th and 8th graders. Varsity spots are not entitlements. You earn spots on a varsity roster. If this girl was good enough to play up and the staff deemed her good enough to play over someone else, then what is the problem??? Maybe those kids that she played over should have worked harder and been in the gym all summer like I know she was.

 

My point is hindsight may be 20/20 and maybe the staff knew it was a slim shot of keeping her...but as a coach, I'm playing the best I can get my hands on at that time...period. Also hoping I can create a connection that makes a kid not want to go elsewhere. Whether the staff knew or not, makes no difference at all. It comes down to this kid was better, they were trying to put a program together around her and she chose to go elsewhere. What is wrong with that? It her choice. Did she sign a contract? where is this "WORD" she gave. Did she say at one time that she liked Scott and that's the "WORD"? She may still LOVE Scott, but feels there are better opportunities for her at SK. That's all this is about. Not the future of the Scott girl's basketball program. It's about the future of an 8th grade girl. They feel her outlook is better at SK.

 

How dare I ask this...but whose education is better? I really have no idea, but could that have played into as well?

[rjs4470]

Okay, not trying to be mean or make anyone mad, but in reality...if your program has been building a program at a school the size of Scott around what you say 3 years ago when she was a 6th grader, then the program has much larger issues than a kid that has never even enrolled at your high school transferring. Even if you are building it around an 8th grader period, no matter how good she is, there are bigger problems. At a much smaller school where good athletes or classes come and go...maybe. But I would ask why they are waiting for a middle school kid to get to high school to be the second coming? That's nothing bad about the staff or current players, but if this one 8th grader means soooo much to a program that is as big as Scott, you might want to start looking elsewhere before you blame an 8th grader for ruining the program.

 

And as far as 3 years in the program and suddenly unhappy...I'm not sure that's the way it worked. I believe she lives in the Scott district. Therefore, for her to play up would mean Scott was the option. The staff and school allowed that, knowing the county has open enrollment. I would make the case that the school used her just as much as she used them. You play year to year with what you have. I don't blame the coaches or the player. In a varsity program, you look at all the players together, regardless of age. At the end of the day you have about 12 kids that have made the varsity team. You play the kids that give you the best chance to win. If those kids are uncommitted middle school kids, then it is what it is. At that point, even if you know they are thinking about going somewhere else, isn't there a chance you could get them to stay too? So why wouldn't a coach play them. It's year to year.

 

And for everyone that is saying "well she took opportunities from other kids". You're right! But what does it say about the other kids that are getting beat out by a 6th, 7th and 8th graders. Varsity spots are not entitlements. You earn spots on a varsity roster. If this girl was good enough to play up and the staff deemed her good enough to play over someone else, then what is the problem??? Maybe those kids that she played over should have worked harder and been in the gym all summer like I know she was.

 

My point is hindsight may be 20/20 and maybe the staff knew it was a slim shot of keeping her...but as a coach, I'm playing the best I can get my hands on at that time...period. Also hoping I can create a connection that makes a kid not want to go elsewhere. Whether the staff knew or not, makes no difference at all. It comes down to this kid was better, they were trying to put a program together around her and she chose to go elsewhere. What is wrong with that? It her choice. Did she sign a contract? where is this "WORD" she gave. Did she say at one time that she liked Scott and that's the "WORD"? She may still LOVE Scott, but feels there are better opportunities for her at SK. That's all this is about. Not the future of the Scott girl's basketball program. It's about the future of an 8th grade girl. They feel her outlook is better at SK.

 

How dare I ask this...but whose education is better? I really have no idea, but could that have played into as well?

 

I don't completely disagree with you. Education wise, it's a draw. Neither school is any better than the other. This move was completely about sports. Also, the open enrollment deal can be done in Middle School. If SK was the option all along, why not open enroll in Summit View or Twenhofel and get the early start there? Of course, though varsity playing time may not have been an option in 6th and 7th grade there as SK is quite frankly a better team. Again, I'm not aware of all the issues that went into the decision. But on the outside looking in, this looks like Scott was used.

[RCC9]

My issue with the situation is the athlete WHO ACTUALLY ATTENDS A GIVEN SCHOOL who loses out on playing time, or God forbid, gets cut as a result of the middle-school player. Let's face it .. life is short, and your high school years even shorter. Let's not take away that opportunity from the current student, regardless of the talent discrepancy.

 

I know if falls on deaf ears, particularly the coaches who want/need the middle-school player, but I believe high school athletics should be exactly that .. for high school students. Solves the whole problem.

 

I'm not saying anything you said is wrong and we could probably debate it.

 

But the first thing I would say, in KY, you would have many schools that would not be able to field a team if you didn't allow MS kids. I coach softball at HHS. We have a varsity, JV and freshman team. We carry 39 kids. We have maybe 13 high school kids in the entire program. The rest are all middle school kids. This is a sport that puts 9 players on the field at the same time. Now HHS is a middle sized school. Go much smaller than us and there is no chance schools could field teams without Middle school kids. Basketball is sometimes the same way. numbers are up a little now, but just two years ago HHS freshman bball team consisted of 4 freshman and 2 8th graders. If they hadn't allowed 8th graders to play up that year, no freshman team that year. And guess what, just about all those 6 players also played JV that year...because they had to. And a couple dressed varsity, sometimes getting in 3 games a night.

 

As far as kids losing playing time to a MS school. I'm very "old school" when it comes to this. Yes, high school sports are for high school kids, but they are not "entitled" to spots on the team. If they want a spot and want to keep the spot, shouldn't they have to do the extra work it takes to keep that spot. If an underclassmen, not matter the age, out works the older kid, why is it fair to keep the older kid just because she's older? What lessons are we teaching there? Entitlement? And let's take your scenario. Let's say a high school kid was kept this year because they didn't allow the two 8th graders to play. Now lets fastforward one year. Now those 8th graders are freshman and in the program. Now what do you do with the girls you kept last year...knowing the new freshman are better? My point it, disappointment is inevitable. You keep them one year and build a sense of security with the older kids and then eventually drop the hammer on them as a sophomore or junior anyway because the younder kids beat them out. You can't plan for the scenario to play out. You plan for the kid coming to your school. If they don't, you can't control that anyway.

[Clyde]

I don't have a problem with the move. I might not do it(probably wouldn't actually) but a)it's legal and b)Scott decided to let her play.

 

This speaks more about the state of a program than it does about "integrity" and one's "word."

 

Scott could have said no. They weren't good enough to say no so they took the player on. Had they had better talent (including those that got cut as a result) then they would not be in this shape.

 

Did they get "used?" Maybe. They had a chance to show the girl and her family that Scott was the place for their child. It didn't work out.

 

In another thread we talked about Cole Von Handorf attending Blessed Sacrament as an 8th grader yet playing varsity ball at VMA. VMA could have said no. They liked his talent as compared to others and took him on knowing full well he was going to CCH. My guess is some at VMA had the "got used" feel as well. I get that. However, like Scott they could have passed. They didn't. Talent almost always wins out.

 

Good luck to the young lady.

[RCC9]

I don't completely disagree with you. Education wise, it's a draw. Neither school is any better than the other. This move was completely about sports. Also, the open enrollment deal can be done in Middle School. If SK was the option all along, why not open enroll in Summit View or Twenhofel and get the early start there? Of course, though varsity playing time may not have been an option in 6th and 7th grade there as SK is quite frankly a better team. Again, I'm not aware of all the issues that went into the decision. But on the outside looking in, this looks like Scott was used.

 

You may be completely correct here in the bolded. But it is completely within the rules and I'd find if very hard to believe that a varsity coach didn't know exactly what was going on OR felt there was a chance to keep the girl after building a relationship. The girl did help the program while she was there, so it looks to be mutully beneficial.

[RCC9]

I don't have a problem with the move. I might not do it(probably wouldn't actually) but a)it's legal and b)Scott decided to let her play.

 

This speaks more about the state of a program than it does about "integrity" and one's "word."

 

Scott could have said no. They weren't good enough to say no so they took the player on. Had they had better talent (including those that got cut as a result) then they would not be in this shape.

 

Did they get "used?" Maybe. They had a chance to show the girl and her family that Scott was the place for their child. It didn't work out.In another thread we talked about Cole Von Handorf attending Blessed Sacrament as an 8th grader yet playing varsity ball at VMA. VMA could have said no. They liked his talent as compared to others and took him on knowing full well he was going to CCH. My guess is some at VMA had the "got used" feel as well. I get that. However, like Scott they could have passed. They didn't. Talent almost always wins out.

 

Good luck to the young lady.

 

All this! Well said.

[hoops5]

a)it's legal and b)Scott decided to let her play.

This speaks more about the state of a program than it does about "integrity" and one's "word."

 

Scott could have said no.

This.

[justsayin]

Perhaps this is taking the analogy a step too far, but hear me out ...

 

If we allow the middle school player to play high school athletics because he/she is better than the current students ("sometimes life's not fair"; "not entitled to a spot"), and maybe that athlete is really good ("Maybe those kids that she played over should have worked harder and been in the gym all summer like I know she was"), why not take it a stop further? Should the superstar HS athlete be allowed to play for a college team, if they're that good? Should Luke Kennard (Franklin HS) be allowed to play for UD next year because he's in their "district", even though everyone knows he will attend Duke the following year? I'm sure Archie Miller would love to have his services, if only for a year.

 

I understand that HS teams would fail to field some teams without middle school athletes. In your case, what is wrong with only having a Varsity and JV squad (no freshmen team; freshmen playing "up"), if that's all you have? You mention the Highlands basketball team not having enough players .. how can that happen, with a school your size? Perhaps the bigger problem is, the marginal athlete chooses not to participate any longer, because they know it's only for the "better" athlete.

 

The "high school experience" is missed out by many students. You posit whether you "eventually drop the hammer on them as a sophomore or junior anyway because the younder kids beat them out"? The answer is "yes" .. just as you stated, you provide incentive to the current athlete to improve their game, and if they don't, and a younger player WHO ACTUALLY WALKS THE HALLS OF THE SCHOOL is better than them, then you cut them, and they learn that "sometimes life's not fair", and you're "not entitled to a spot". It happens all the time. In the meantime, that student got to experience high school athletics on some level, for some period of time, and moves on. Maybe disappointed, but all the better for the experience. What is wrong with that?

[RCC9]

Perhaps this is taking the analogy a step too far, but hear me out ...

 

If we allow the middle school player to play high school athletics because he/she is better than the current students ("sometimes life's not fair"; "not entitled to a spot"), and maybe that athlete is really good ("Maybe those kids that she played over should have worked harder and been in the gym all summer like I know she was"), why not take it a stop further? Should the superstar HS athlete be allowed to play for a college team, if they're that good? Should Luke Kennard (Franklin HS) be allowed to play for UD next year because he's in their "district", even though everyone knows he will attend Duke the following year? I'm sure Archie Miller would love to have his services, if only for a year.

 

I understand that HS teams would fail to field some teams without middle school athletes. In your case, what is wrong with only having a Varsity and JV squad (no freshmen team; freshmen playing "up"), if that's all you have? You mention the Highlands basketball team not having enough players .. how can that happen, with a school your size? Perhaps the bigger problem is, the marginal athlete chooses not to participate any longer, because they know it's only for the "better" athlete.

 

The "high school experience" is missed out by many students. You posit whether you "eventually drop the hammer on them as a sophomore or junior anyway because the younder kids beat them out"? The answer is "yes" .. just as you stated, you provide incentive to the current athlete to improve their game, and if they don't, and a younger player WHO ACTUALLY WALKS THE HALLS OF THE SCHOOL is better than them, then you cut them, and they learn that "sometimes life's not fair", and you're "not entitled to a spot". It happens all the time. In the meantime, that student got to experience high school athletics on some level, for some period of time, and moves on. Maybe disappointed, but all the better for the experience. What is wrong with that?

 

First, too many things to go into with the HS/College analagy. First, not every kid choses to go to college. You have to go to high school. You pay to go to college or earn a scholarship. You don't have pay to go to high school. Other than taxes. Just those things alone could take hours to discuss.

 

As far as HHS only having a varsity team, we could. But we love the fact that we can get to the middle school kids early and get them into the program and develop them so they are ready for the varsity level down the road. However, there is no guarantees we get them. Heck, we had a 7th grader last year that played some varsity. We invested two years getting her ready to play and contribute. Her parents got transferred to Tennessee and we lost out this year. Different reason for the movement of schools, but the same effect on us. It happens all the time. We have 25 MS kids or so now in the program. We train or practice year round. Not one of those kids are guaranteed to be at HHS next year. But we want them there training. Some may end up at Brossart, NCC or Camp County. We become a better program in the long run because we can get to the MS kids...even if some don't come to Highlands.

 

Your point can be spot on with why the marginal kids don't play. I can agree with that. they see the writing on the wall and chose not to play. But again, they would leave the program anyway once the kids get there are allowed to play. So what good does that do anyway? At the end of the day, the same marginal kids still leave the program. If you didn't allow, Let's say, 2 MS kids to play and you keep two marginal kids. Now the two MS school kids are of age and make the team and the marginal kids don't or end up quitting. You are still at the same number in the program. If you kept 12 the year before without the MS kids and now they come in and the others don't play, get cut or quit, you still only have 12 kids. When I played, the marginal kids stuck around because it was a priveledge to be on the varsity team. We had many kids that played all 4 years and never saw the field or saw very limited time until they were seniors and sometimes didn't even play as seniors. Now every kid just quits if they don't feel like they will play or get instant gratification. Heck with trying to work harder or get better or even be a role player. They just don't go out for the team or quit once they realize they may have to work for a spot. That's what we've come to. Entitlement. If you want an opportunity to play sports in high school, don't get beat out by a MS kid. Work harder, win a spot or understand your role. Instead of that, they just quit or don't try out. That's why numbers are down and they are down at just about every school. Kids are handed opportunities these days and not taught to earn their opportunities and then are surprised when hard working kids beat them out. You own your development.

 

Again, I'll go back to my band reference. I've never picked up an instrument in my life. Do I deserve to be first chair in the band? Well c'mon, I deserve to experience that in high school. It shouldn't matter that some middle schooler has been playing the tuba since they were 5 and I just saw one for the first time yesterday. I deserve that spot. I'm the high schooler! I went to a symphany once. I should get that spot. Not the middle school phenom. Life is about what you earn. Hard work pays off. In my opinion, we are creating too many easy opportunities for kids these days and they expect that is the way it will be in life. Life isn't fair...far from it!!!

[Dozer61]

There are many mitigating factors in the decision to change programs. Quality of coaching, administrative commitment to excellence and sometimes just kids wanting to go to school and play with their AAU buddies. Middle school kids change their minds every time the wind blows.

 

 

I have no problems with middle schoolers changing their mind. But if you are going to play ball with the big girls then you should be subject to ALL the big girl rules. And let that factor into the process of changing their minds.

[Dozer61]

I'm not aware if the Staff at Scott knew or not. And if they did, they shouldn't have let her her play, especially at the expense of other kids. And I've heard the rumors for a while too, and am not surprised. And I get that 8th grade girls (and 18 year old girls) change their mind frequently. And, I'll never get upset about a parent doing what's best for their child. This situation just seems different. 3 years into a program and your suddenly unhappy, especially after the most successful season of that three year stretch, and things looking even better for next year and the years to come?? From the outside looking in, it just seem like Scott was used because she could play right away. It isn't exactly a secret that quite a few parents over the years have had some problems with the program. And if you had no intention of ever staying even though the program was being built around you, that's pretty weak(unless the staff knew of your intentions, in which case they are just as guilty of using the kid).

 

To the best of my knowledge Scott staff may have been aware of the rumors but when confronted all rumors were dispelled. They were not made aware until after the fact.

 

The fishy smell here is when you read between the lines you know that Scott's program has been challenged finding talent because it is one of the smaller county schools in NKY at 800 students (Dixie, SK, Boone, Ryle, Cooper, Conner, Campbell Co. above 1200+). And when you look at the talent that has been running through SK the last couple of years you have to wonder....Could she have been guided to Scott knowing she would never see the floor at SK and then jump programs after SK graduates 15 very talented seniors over the last 3years and then slide in..... Not saying its what happened, not saying I didn't think about doing the same. Just saying its a possibility and that is why everyone is feeling the way they are about this topic.

[Weakside]

There are many mitigating factors in the decision to change programs. Quality of coaching, administrative commitment to excellence and sometimes just kids wanting to go to school and play with their AAU buddies. Middle school kids change their minds every time the wind blows.

You make some very valid points as well as also clearly pointing out a major problem. Letting a 12-13 year old decide where they want to go to high school because of who they played AAU ball with is a major mistake. I'm not saying it doesn't ever work out but lots of times those decisions may be regretted in the future.

[hoops5]

I have no problems with middle schoolers changing their mind. But if you are going to play ball with the big girls then you should be subject to ALL the big girl rules. And let that factor into the process of changing their minds.

 

I like this comment and tend to agree. But unless KHSAA changes the rules, there is no foul here.

Edited April 6, 2014 by hoops5