My View on the Problem and Band-Aid Solutions.

[rockmom]

I agreed with what you are saying. I was actually just asking those questions. It wasn't because of your post, I just happened to quote you because I agreed with your earlier post. :thumb:

 

 

Oh...I thought you were asking those questions of me...:lol:

[stickymitts]

Oh...I thought you were asking those questions of me...:lol:

 

Generally speaking, not specifically. :lol:

 

Sorry. :sssh:

[All Tell]

I can't and never have argued with that. But with the topic being football and the advantages some schools have both public and private, is their a solution that is fair to all short of separation? I'm not asking for a "dumbing down" of anything, just an opportunity to compete. I don't think that is a dishonorable request.

But you are asking for a "dumbing down" by wanting to see private schools placed in a seperate classification. You would be removing what you see as programs that public schools think that they can never measure up to in order to geve the a better chance at championships. If that's not "dumbing down" then I'm not sure I know what is.

[Hasbeen]

I guess I feel that the "ideal" is not achievable. There will always be those that have more, and those that struggle.

 

 

 

 

I agree, there will always be those unwilling to do what it takes to be successful and they will continue to struggle. That's how it should be. But even for those willing to make the effort, there are going to be obstacles that just can't be overcome no matter what. Many of the top programs have built in advantages that will never be allowed at other schools. I don't see this entirely as a public/private deal either. As I've said numerous times, eliminating the private schools will only lessen part of the disparities. The bottom line is, schools should compete against other schools using the same rules and guidelines. At that point the program that works hardest will rise to the top via their efforts, not some artificial advantage. Again, I don't know the solution, but if it takes more classes, so be it. Call it watered down, call me a whiner, but it's not equitable as it stands and will only get worse. Really, why does anyone have to be booted out? Maybe this is too simple, but why can't we design classes where each school competes against others of similar restrictions? Look at the NCAA. The divisions are not based on school size. They are based upon scholarship and financial limitations. Why could we not have a Super Class where anything goes or a Class B with open enrollment but limited to one county? Perhaps a class C for those with reciprocal agreements but limited by size? Kicking out the privates is but a band-aid solution as I implied in the title. Obviously, we can't end up with ten classes so my above post is really just me wondering out loud, but maybe someone can come up with a solution that allows the hundreds of kids sweating through 2-a-days each August to at least have a fighting chance.

[Hasbeen]

But you are asking for a "dumbing down" by wanting to see private schools placed in a seperate classification. You would be removing what you see as programs that public schools think that they can never measure up to in order to geve the a better chance at championships. If that's not "dumbing down" then I'm not sure I know what is.

 

There is a difference between measuring up and playing by the same set of rules. If we drop the prop 20 drama and look at this thing for what it is and not a public vs. private problem, perhaps we could find a solution.

[All Tell]

But the proponents of Prop 20 have made it a public vs. private debate and unfortunately because of that any meaningful change (and I can accept that there are things that can be done, a 4A school like Iroquois has no chance to be competative against a school like Male and yet they are in the same district) will be started by removing the privates. The powers that be on both sides could have calmly and rationally discussed solutions but the public school side chose to force a showdown.

[ladiesbballcoach]

But the proponents of Prop 20 have made it a public vs. private debate and unfortunately because of that any meaningful change (and I can accept that there are things that can be done, a 4A school like Iroquois has no chance to be competative against a school like Male and yet they are in the same district) will be started by removing the privates. The powers that be on both sides could have calmly and rationally discussed solutions but the public school side chose to force a showdown.

I believe there have been moves made in the past and nothing was done. There have been proposals that were voted down in the past but it seems as they were taken as just "those poor losers."

 

It seemed this action was necessary, very unfortunately, to have the issue be taken serious.

 

As in New Orleans, I believe there is a lot of fault to be passed around. On the public side. On the private side. Lethargic parents. Overzealous parents. KHSAA. Plenty of fault on both sides.

[Hasbeen]

But the proponents of Prop 20 have made it a public vs. private debate and unfortunately because of that any meaningful change (and I can accept that there are things that can be done, a 4A school like Iroquois has no chance to be competative against a school like Male and yet they are in the same district) will be started by removing the privates. The powers that be on both sides could have calmly and rationally discussed solutions but the public school side chose to force a showdown.

 

I have no doubt that some of the Prop 20 proponents are simply trying to eliminate competition which validates my question: why not head it off at the pass by coming up with an equitable solution that addresses the real issue without taking away the good sides of both. To me, the real issure is the disparity of rules within the classes. I've stated many times above, the private schools are not the only problem, just the most visible and, by their very nature and structure, the most able to take advantage of the situation.

[leatherneck]

I guess I need someone to give me an example of "working hard". I've seen teams that begin conditioning at 5 AM for road work, lift all year and practice 3 hrs. per day and still not win 5 games. "Working hard" is part of the equation but will only take you so far if the best athletes are going elsewhere.

As for your second paragraph, it's hard to argue against a parent doing what he thinks is best for his child, but using that same logic, why limit it to only those who have not played varsity ball? A lot of things can change in four years. For example, a change in coaches, teaching staff or corriculum. Would it not be just as wise to change schools at that time?

I know nothing of the situation at Pendleton or Campbell, but in your example you pointed out the reasons Campbell should accept the students and I agree, but what is the advantage for Pendleton?

Please understand I agree that a parent should be able to choose what is best for a particular student. My point is that if this freedom is abused, if parents use this freedom solely to build an "All-Star" team at a particular school, it creates an obstacle that is almost impossible to overcome for other schools regardless of how much "hard work" they put into their program.

I started this thread to point out that recruiting is not the viable excuse that many of the public supporters have been claiming and that giving the boot to the private schools will only strenghten an elite few of the publics who have more liberal transfer policies and better traditions than their neighboring schools. I expected the private supporters to see this as strenghtening their position but all I'm seeing is that tired claim that the schools I support are being out worked.

A few years ago, I witnessed a local school suffer through an 0-10 season. Several players had transfered at the beginning of the year, the coaching staff left a lot to be desired and the team was full of malcontents and problem students. There was however, a small group of about 8 players who could have transfered and been welcomed at any of the area schools. They chose not to abandon each other worked their butts off throughout this miserable season, sometimes being the only players to show up for practice. Fortunately, this did not go unnoticed by supporters and district administrators and led to huge changes in the program including a coaching change, facilities and budget.

 

Sorry its taken me so long to respond; busy time of the year for me.

 

I am sure you can cite examples of where some kids at the less than successful programs worked as hard as the kids at the successful programs. But are all the kids working that hard? And have they done that all the years at the program? The day after Highlands got beat by Lex Cath in football this year, 57 of the returning players showed up to lift and have lifted regularly since then even though the "formal" off season weight lifting doesn't begin until after the Christmas break. Every year that I can remember, almost all the returning players have started lifting before the formal program began. Many kids also to to private trainers in addition to the formal program. Almost none of the kids at Highlands (I'd say none because I don't know of any, but then someone would say they know one kid who did so I'll stick to almost none) hold summer jobs because of their summer workout schedule. Families plan their summer vacations during the two week dead period because the coaches don't want them missing summer training. We start three a days without equipment three times a week during the late summer while other schools are doing next to nothing. My partner, who is very familiar with the Elder program saw the Highlands summer schedule on my wall (my son plays for Highlands) and said Elder's was not that intense. Most schools think their kids work hard and I'm sure some do; but not nearly as hard as others. And that is how Highlands this year, with admittedly average talent in its senior class, went farther in the playoffs than a lot expected.

 

As for what's in it for Pendleton County in the example I gave: nothing. But if they want to keep their athletically talented students from going to Campbell Co., they best show the same level of committment to sports that Campbell Co. does. The whole idea of forcing everyone to stay at home and play for their home district is anti competitive in my opinion. It allows schools that only place a minimum level of committment to sports to remain competitive with schools that place a heavy emphasis on sports. And that's not right again in my opinion.

 

As to your final question, why permit free transfers of kids who have not played varsity ball,but limit transfers of kids who have played varsity ball: if I was king, that limit would not be there at all. I think a parent should have the chance at any time to switch schools if he or she believes their child would be better off at the other school. 10% of the transfers would be by those parents who continually want to shop their kids, but I believe 90% would be for legit reasons. For example: If Beechwood brings in a new head coach whom I as a parent think is unfit to be the head coach of my son, I believe I should have the right to change schools even if my son had played at Beechwood this year.

 

Finally you pointed out the example where you saw some of the better players leave a program. You also said that program had coaches that left a lot to be desired. That's all I needed to read. That's why the good players left and I don't blame them. The administration was at fault for allowing that coaching staff to remain in place. They should have addressed the problems in their program before it got to the point where players started leaving. If we had players leaving Highlands regularly, I'm not going to blame the schools they transferred to; I'm going to blame Highlands for allowing it to happen. And I'm going to get involved to get it straightened out pronto.

[ladiesbballcoach]

I have no doubt that some of the Prop 20 proponents are simply trying to eliminate competition which validates my question: why not head it off at the pass by coming up with an equitable solution that addresses the real issue without taking away the good sides of both. To me, the real issure is the disparity of rules within the classes. I've stated many times above, the private schools are not the only problem, just the most visible and, by their very nature and structure, the most able to take advantage of the situation.

I think you are 100% right on with this statement.

[ladiesbballcoach]

 

As for what's in it for Pendleton County in the example I gave: nothing. But if they want to keep their athletically talented students from going to Campbell Co., they best show the same level of committment to sports that Campbell Co. does. The whole idea of forcing everyone to stay at home and play for their home district is anti competitive in my opinion. It allows schools that only place a minimum level of committment to sports to remain competitive with schools that place a heavy emphasis on sports. And that's not right again in my opinion.

 

I hope you don't mind that I cut out some of your post. It was long and did not want to take up space that might not be necessary.

 

I have a concern with the point you make above. Parents today are nuts about children's sports. I find it disturbing in the thought of making all kids free agents and a competition for a 14-year old becomes fruitation.

 

I would be very, VERY concerned that parents would begin to try and use this as a leverage. Either you let my child have X or I will go to the neighboring county that will.

 

What you describe is the optimum situation. That is also not the reality of dealing with parents and youth sports.

 

That concerns me.