I want to play. But at Trinity playing and not winning a ring your senior year is like not playing at all. No matter what your record and how well you played nobody remembers your team if you don't win a ring.

See...kick us when we're down! :lol:

 

I have a great respect for those other schools, and CAL especially. They're an excellent school, and they've done everything the right way. But, I was offering a perspective that (believe it or not) is important to some making the decision.

 

I respect your decision and all who make it, it is a big sacrifrce to send your kids to X, T, or CAL. I just think people should know and think of all of their options.

I don't have to ask one of those kids. I have one of my own. I know exactly the disappointments, and the days of frustration. I also know that in the end, when my son had to stop playing football, it broke his heart. And he never played a full quarter of varsity ball. Don't tell me to be real. I know what I'm talking about.

 

The situation that a player is in at Trinity isn't for anyone. But I could list dozens of benefits my son gained from the experience, even though he didn't "play".

 

:sleep: The question is rather "play or not". I say play. You should be happy if your son is happy.

 

Mine played, and I'll guarentee you that the lessons that he gained was rewarded for playing was just as valuable (IMO more valuable) than spending time on the sideline. He got the feeling of winning and losing as first hand experience, not someone elses. So for him, it worked.

LET THEM PLAY!!!

^ I guess that's not really the question, but I agree with you :lol: :lol:

 

It's not a matter of let them play, but would you rather play or would you rather go to a program that the odds are against you stepping on the field, but you are pretty much guarenteed a state title. Would you want your own experiences on the field, or someone elses????

Simple answer: Both.

 

When you are a player, you don't choose between playing or winning a State Championship, or Regional Championship, or even a District Championship. You work to get playing time, you work to get a starting position, and all along you play to win every game. Every practice I went into, I worked to beat someone, and every game I went into, I did the same.

 

I never said, well we won't win, but at least I am starting. Just was not part of the equation for me.

 

I think that sums it up for me as well!:thumb:

^ I guess that's not really the question, but I agree with you :lol: :lol:

 

It's not a matter of let them play, but would you rather play or would you rather go to a program that the odds are against you stepping on the field, but you are pretty much guarenteed a state title. Would you want your own experiences on the field, or someone elses????

 

When I played I always wanted to be on the field, and kids are the same today. They want to play.:thumb:

^ I agree with you, they all do want to play.

 

Even on the 0-10 team, it's not guarenteed that everyone will play, but the intent of the thread is, do you choose to go to a school because of the ring or because you want to play? I don't want to call this a T or X question, but a hypothetical question.

 

So, in the hypotheical sense, do kids and parents make the decision to go to a big school that has the tradition that they will be in the State Finals in one of your four years? And then not count on the odds (due to sheer numbers) that are stacked against their participation, do they even condier that? I say that because "little Johnny" was a starter on one of the numerous feeder programs, that will translate into a starter for the big program. Doesn't work that way.

I'm surprised by the selfishness...

 

Wanting to play and not be the guy on the sidelines ihas nothing to do with being selfish, it has everything to do with human nature! No one goes plays a sport and says I hope I am always 2nd string. Most programs have a system of evolution, you play scout team for a couple of years and then you either start or you are a back-up player and get some quality minutes. The problem with schools like Trinity and X is there are so many players (who are talented) that a kid who might start at TB at a regular school and even be a top rusher in the state may only be a career scout team player at Trinity or X. For someone to say they would rather go to a school where they would play on Fridays is quite natural. I also see nothing wrong with someone wanting to be a part of a program like Trinity or X and being totally satisfied in a scout team role and being willing to do what ever is necessary for the success of the program. Like someone said earlier to each their own!:ylsuper:

I think most are misssing the point. All other things being equal, of course most kids want to start. All other things are never equal. Talk to any Trinity kid. What you will find is that they wouldn't trade their time at Trinity for championships OR playing time. If they don't feel that way, they never really understood Trinity in the first place. Before anyone gets all upset, kids may feel the same way about other schools.

I would rather go to a school where I could get an outstanding Catholic education, all the other stuff is icing on the cake!

 

A great education lasts a lifetime.....

 

 

I can't you used a cake reference in your response!:lol:

I'm surprised by the selfishness...

 

What if HHS was not a state contender every year and Campbell County was, would you then go to CC or stay at HHS?

Simple answer: Both.

 

When you are a player, you don't choose between playing or winning a State Championship, or Regional Championship, or even a District Championship. You work to get playing time, you work to get a starting position, and all along you play to win every game. Every practice I went into, I worked to beat someone, and every game I went into, I did the same.

 

I never said, well we won't win, but at least I am starting. Just was not part of the equation for me.

 

Good answer. My senior season, I truly believed we had the talent to compete for a state title. We were 1-9. Obviously, we were not as talented as I believed, ... and I was an idealistic 17 year old. Looking back, I wouldn't have traded what I learned from that experience with my teammates and friends for a championship ring (although that would have been AWESOME).

 

To me, it was about playing the game and I wasn't satisified if I was not on the field at practice and games doing all I could to help my team win. I had to miss the first 7 games of my senior season due to an injury/surgery, and it was the most emotionally painful 7 games I have been involved with. I appreciated those final 3 games when I played more than any games I have ever played in my life. I just wanted to play.

The major difference in this question is you are taking a couple of schools, T and X, that are basically small colleges. When I was being recruited the real powers that were looking at me always talked about working hard, playing some JV games, and moving up by my junior and senior year, perhaps my sophomore year if I was willing to redshirt. The smaller schools were offering me a chance to compete for playing time immediately. I chose to take the playing time and even earned the honor of being special teams captain by the end of the year. I KNOW that would not have happened if I had gone to UK, Vandy, or some of the other schools that offered me. But I also realize now later in life that it may have been best for me to go "pay my dues" at the bigger school and have a chance to play on the stage that is the SEC. Undoubtedly every kid would love to be on the field, but just like in college, it's not going to happen. That doesn't mean those that play very little made a bad decision in going to the big school, it's just they made a "different" decision than most. That's what chosing T or X is like; you are going to college and will be expected to pay your dues. Or at least that's what it looks like to an outsider. But for me, I chose to go where I knew I would see the field almost immediately, and yes it may have been selfish, but I still have pictures on the wall of my captain's meeting from my freshman year in college. I wouldn't trade that for a Music City Bowl ring that I didn't earn any day.

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.

Ability isn't always the sole reason for playing time for kids. Sometimes you're a good player who happens to be behind a slightly better player. Matt Cassell would argue that point. Me personally, I'd rather see the field or court or whatever and work my butt off to win a ring.