After reading the multiple posts about T and X and the number of kids they have on their teams I was just wondering. Would you rather go to a school and not play much and win a ring, or would you rather be a full time player and not have such a good chance to win a ring?

 

I am a "Rudy" type of guy, anything to make the team better. If you are practicing on the scout squad then you are just as important. Remember there is no "I" in team and if the coaches are doing it right then everyone is a part of it, even if they don't see the field on Friday night.

 

Contributing comes in all different forms.:thumb:

I am a "Rudy" type of guy, anything to make the team better. If you are practicing on the scout squad then you are just as important. Remember there is no "I" in team and if the coaches are doing it right then everyone is a part of it, even if they don't see the field on Friday night.

 

Contributing comes in all different forms.:thumb:

 

That is not an answer to the question.

Selfish is riding the coat tails of others, then showing off your ring.

 

 

So, your premise is that scout team players ride the coat tails of others?

 

I'm sure the bruised and battered bodies of more than a few Trinity scout teamers will take exception to that. :lol:

Noone said regardless of your ability. You keep adding addendums to the question. I played the game in order to PLAY the game. Here was the question:

 

 

 

When I was a younger player I was a scout team player and worked my tail off in that role for the team. I did whatever was asked of me by the coaches for the betterment of the TEAM. When I was ready for varsity action, I played in the role the team wanted me to play. I had the chance in high school to transfer and play for St Xavier or Bishop David (at the time) and have a shot at a ring. I was fortunate enough to have speed. However, I chose to stay at the high school I was at. Why? To graduate and play with my teammates and friends. I gave up a chance to play on a state title contender and chose to stay with my team. That is selfish? I think not. If I was 'selfish' I would have transferred and played to get a ring. I did not abandon my team and wouldn't do that in any situation.

 

But the question was which situation would you rather be in. Given the choice to sit or play, I would rather play.

 

So ability has nothing to do with it? Why else wouldn't you play on a state championship team? It's a natural assumption when asked this question that someone is better than you, which is why you're not playing.

 

Transfer? Who said anything about that? Graduating and playing with teammates and friends? Addendums are necessary with such a vague question.

 

So transferring to get a ring would be selfish but stating that it's all about your playing time is not?

 

The difference, you say you gave up a chance to PLAY on a championship team and did not. As you've told me, the question is if you did NOT play.

Selfish is riding the coat tails of others, then showing off your ring.

 

This is wrong on so many levels. I'm glad you're not coaching my kids and making them feel irrelevant if they aren't playing.

That is not an answer to the question.

Yeah you may be right, but I think reading between the lines you could see that if could not play but could in some way contribute to the team then yeah I would rather be on the team with the ring.

 

 

I would not transfere to get a ring, but if that was my school and I had been attending there I would stay. Some kids have more God-given gifts to work with than others, so being on that team and not playing would not be a bad thing.

 

Which means more a 6A ring or a 1A ring. I guess it is all relative.

Noone said regardless of your ability. You keep adding addendums to the question. I played the game in order to PLAY the game.

But the question was which situation would you rather be in. Given the choice to sit or play, I would rather play.

That question is answered every year by the players who choose DeSales, Holy Cross, and in some ways Christian Academy. Desales went 10-3 this year and they advertise that every freshman will get to play in varsity game if you go there. Accordingly to the KHSAA site, they had 66 players this year, Holy Cross had 48 and Christian Academy had 49. For those outside Louisville, Southeast Christian Church is probably the largest ex-Catholic collection of people and it is located in the growing East End side of Louisville. It is a growing power in the making and fast forward 10-15 years and we'll be talking about a third private school football power. It is about location and the ability to play right away. Throw in comparable campus and facilities and the amount of new affluent houses around the campus and expect a transfer of power. Tradition only goes so far as Notre Dame has found out in the last decade.

One last point- Saint X and Trinity tuition- $9225 per year

Desales $8290 Christian Academy $6915. So playing time and $2300 a year?

Edited December 16, 200817 yr by jimmyref

I would think anyone with a competitive bone in their body wants to be on the field. However there is something to be said for those that contribute in practice for the good of the team. Those kids are the unsung heros.

 

I agree 100%...

From a purely monetary and timing standpoint (leave aside the discussion of whether they help the team as a scout player), what about a Freshman player who was given the choice to either continue to practice and dress on FRI night (no realistic hope of playing) after the Freshman season concluded.

 

As a parent, do you shell out $300 - $800 for a ring? What if you are fortunate enough to win more than 1 during those 4 yrs.? Do you spend this kind of $ every year? When do you wear them and which do you wear? Certainly, you can never count on it, but it does happen at some schools.

 

Do freshmen who dress for the playoffs get rings? At most schools they do not. Their reward was getting to be a part of the playoffs and getting to see what it takes.

This is wrong on so many levels. I'm glad you're not coaching my kids and making them feel irrelevant if they aren't playing.

 

I should have put one of those smilies at the end. Trust me, my tongue was firmly in my cheek.

 

I think posters are confused about the question. I do not see where anyone is questioning the signifigant role all kids play on the team, starters or not. It is a question of whether a player would rather play and maybe not win a ring or have little to no chance and win a ring.

 

Just because a kid wants to play does not make him selfish. It isn't like they are not going to work just as hard, put as much into it, or get as much out of it. It also does not mean they are not team players. It could be that they want to play and put themselves in a leadership role.

 

I think people loose sight of the role of sports in high school. What you do in high school sports does not define who you are,it meerely helps to mold them into who they will become.

I should have put one of those smilies at the end. Trust me, my tongue was firmly in my cheek.

 

I think posters are confused about the question. I do not see where anyone is questioning the signifigant role all kids play on the team, starters or not. It is a question of whether a player would rather play and maybe not win a ring or have little to no chance and win a ring.

 

Just because a kid wants to play does not make him selfish. It isn't like they are not going to work just as hard, put as much into it, or get as much out of it. It also does not mean they are not team players. It could be that they want to play and put themselves in a leadership role.

 

I think people loose sight of the role of sports in high school. What you do in high school sports does not define who you are,it meerely helps to mold them into who they will become.

 

Ah, my fault. I agree.

 

This is a tough question because I don't anyone that's ever played a sport that doesn't want to go in the game, so obviously playing time is important.

 

I'm taking the question as if you have the ability to play at school A but not school B, even though school B is a contender. Some are saying they'd pick school A every time.

^Poor job of sarcasm on my part. I edited the post by adding a smiley to better show my intent. Sorry for the confusion.

 

 

So, your premise is that scout team players ride the coat tails of others?

 

I'm sure the bruised and battered bodies of more than a few Trinity scout teamers will take exception to that. :lol:

Nolans a great kid that worked his butt off for the team. He was glowing after the game as were his parents. They understand the concept of team!

 

Can you elaborate?. It sounds like a great story and where we were sitting some were aware of the fact and that this young man was getting his "well earned and well deserved shot."

 

Please tell us more as to how this came about .

Not everyone is a starter. If you play in a T or X type system, is the implication that your role is not important if you are never on the field on game day? Is the implication that you don't contribute to the overall success of the program if you don't start in the games? Whether they start or are tackling dummies, players at X & T are every bit as vital to the success of the program as the players who's name make it into the newspapers each week. I KNOW the players don't feel their contributions are less, nor do they feel they didn't earn their rings.

 

I don't think Pigman or anyone else will debate the value of those who don't play as much. It's a given that the better your subs are, the better your team - whether when they are on the field or due to the fact they drive the starters to achieve more. Difficult to be a champion with 22 players and a bunch of disinterested spectators on the sidelines...

 

No, I think the question was simply this: Given a choice of rarely playing and winning a ring, or playing a lot more on a team that may/may not even have a winning record, which is more important to you? On-field participation or a championship? I suspect most kids would prefer to play, even if they lost every game...

I suppose the question could be a little confusing. I guess the question of transfer would come into the equation as there are just a handful of teams that would just about guarantee you a ring in three years of high school. The quality of education was not a part of the question. Like MT I would choose to stay at my home school and do my best to bring a championship there. When I played you rarely started as a sophomore unless you were very talnted, therefore our jv team was usaully very good and gave the starters all they wanted at practice.