There is another factor. When I was in high school girls athletics did not exist in public schools. The private girls schools in Louisville had strong athletic programs that are now 70 or 80 years old. They have long traditions and emphasis. They also are the featured sports in their schools. I am a firm believer that you get out of an athletic program what you put into it. That goes more for the administration and feeder schools than it does for the coaches and players. It is a given that the coaches and players will work hard.

Of course the first sentence of my last post should read:

 

Most puublic school athletic directors got drug kicking and screaming into compliance with Title IX.

 

Please excuse my error.

Thanks for all of your input. I do agree that especially at the elementary and MS level, the private school participation for girls is VASTLY superior than the public school side.

 

I have also wondered if academics play a part. The PERCEPTION is that the academics at private schools is going to be better. (Whether it is or is not, is really irrelevant to this argument.)

 

Traditionally, female athletics as a whole are stronger students than male athletics. The females could be attracted as much to the academic nature of private schools or simply might be better prepared to handle the academic side rather than some of the really talented male athletes.

 

In 7-8 years of girls athletics, I believe I might have had 1-2 weeks that a player had to set out for academics. EVERY year our team GPA was easily over 3.0 and every year but one it was over 3.5.

Thanks for all of your input. I do agree that especially at the elementary and MS level, the private school participation for girls is VASTLY superior than the public school side.

 

I have also wondered if academics play a part. The PERCEPTION is that the academics at private schools is going to be better. (Whether it is or is not, is really irrelevant to this argument.)

 

Traditionally, female athletics as a whole are stronger students than male athletics. The females could be attracted as much to the academic nature of private schools or simply might be better prepared to handle the academic side rather than some of the really talented male athletes.

 

In 7-8 years of girls athletics, I believe I might have had 1-2 weeks that a player had to set out for academics. EVERY year our team GPA was easily over 3.0 and every year but one it was over 3.5.

 

 

I think Girls are able to handle the academic end along with sports because in general they mature quicker and are able to focus better.

The biggest equalizer in girls athletics would have been to ban off season play for AAU, "Club Teams", etc. Many colleges recruit during the summer months and watch these all-star teams more than they watch high school teams. Many girls would have chosen to play for their club team over their high school team.

In Louisville, the better grade schoolers and high schoolers are playing sports non-stop year round. Most of those girls attend private schools. The better public school girls are invited but many drop out after they find out the cost involved in playing on travel type teams. A typical 8th grade AAU team in basketball may have 5 Sacred Heart, 3 Mercy and 2 Manual players. This is an instant advantage for the private school students and their teams. Similar teams exist for swimming, volleyball, soccer, and softball. The rural teams or teams with less affluent parents may not have the opportunity or the finances to participate in these "off-season" endeavors. Except for football, similar advantages are created for the private boys teams as well.

Football is the one sport where "voluntary" workouts, 7 on 7 camps, etc. pave the way for success during the high school season.

I agree with Rock Mom. The banning of non-school sponsored sports would have certainly equalized the competition in a lot of the girl sports. However, it would have dramatically effected the number of female athletes playing HS sports.

 

As Rock86 stated, most of the college recruiting happens during the AAU Basketball and Club Volleyball seasons. This is done for two main reasons. First, the college coaches are busy with their own seasons during the High School basketball and volleyball seasons and have limited time to travel and watch prospective recruits. Obviously some of this still goes on during the HS season but not as much as during the summer. Secondly, a coach can go to a few highly competitive regional AAU/Club tournaments and see 100's of players at the same time. This also gives them the opportunity to sign recruits before their school season starts during the early signing period.

 

Most of the girls I know playing Club ball would opt to play for their club rather than their school team because the opportunities are better and the quality of play is higher.

I agree with Rock Mom. The banning of non-school sponsored sports would have certainly equalized the competition in a lot of the girl sports. However, it would have dramatically effected the number of female athletes playing HS sports.

 

As Rock86 stated, most of the college recruiting happens during the AAU Basketball and Club Volleyball seasons. This is done for two main reasons. First, the college coaches are busy with their own seasons during the High School basketball and volleyball seasons and have limited time to travel and watch prospective recruits. Obviously some of this still goes on during the HS season but not as much as during the summer. Secondly, a coach can go to a few highly competitive regional AAU/Club tournaments and see 100's of players at the same time. This also gives them the opportunity to sign recruits before their school season starts during the early signing period.

 

Most of the girls I know playing Club ball would opt to play for their club rather than their school team because the opportunities are better and the quality of play is higher.

 

 

Instead of banning AAU/Club etc. I would rather KY adopt a rule similar to Ohio in that only a certain number of students from one school can participate on a team. Say 3 for b-ball and volleyball, 4 for softball and soccer. That way individuals get better, but teams do not.

I agree with Rock Mom. The banning of non-school sponsored sports would have certainly equalized the competition in a lot of the girl sports. However, it would have dramatically effected the number of female athletes playing HS sports.

As Rock86 stated, most of the college recruiting happens during the AAU Basketball and Club Volleyball seasons. This is done for two main reasons. First, the college coaches are busy with their own seasons during the High School basketball and volleyball seasons and have limited time to travel and watch prospective recruits. Obviously some of this still goes on during the HS season but not as much as during the summer. Secondly, a coach can go to a few highly competitive regional AAU/Club tournaments and see 100's of players at the same time. This also gives them the opportunity to sign recruits before their school season starts during the early signing period.

 

Most of the girls I know playing Club ball would opt to play for their club rather than their school team because the opportunities are better and the quality of play is higher.

I disagree with the bolded. I think you would have seen MORE girls playing. Presently, they choose to play a club sport in the HS offseason of that sport. If they were NOT allowed to play that club sport, than the volleyball players may have tried out for basketball.

I disagree with the bolded. I think you would have seen MORE girls playing. Presently, they choose to play a club sport in the HS offseason of that sport. If they were NOT allowed to play that club sport, than the volleyball players may have tried out for basketball.

 

But the problem is that they are not banned from playing a club sport. They would be banned from playing a club sport AND a KHSAA sport.

 

In other words, volleyball players that play JO volleyball could still play JO volleyball and they would. The Junior Olympic/AAU volleyball would be the only place to be seen and get a college offer. If a high school were able to field a volleyball team it could be girls that are 20th to 30th best players in their own school. The top 20 would be playing Club. Of course in some schools it might be the Top 5 in Club but in others it might be the Top 50.

Top coaches would all go to Club and no college coach is going to bother to look at any high school players because the competition is so weak.

But the problem is that they are not banned from playing a club sport. They would be banned from playing a club sport AND a KHSAA sport.

 

In other words, volleyball players that play JO volleyball could still play JO volleyball and they would. The Junior Olympic/AAU volleyball would be the only place to be seen and get a college offer. If a high school were able to field a volleyball team it could be girls that are 20th to 30th best players in their own school. The top 20 would be playing Club. Of course in some schools it might be the Top 5 in Club but in others it might be the Top 50.

Top coaches would all go to Club and no college coach is going to bother to look at any high school players because the competition is so weak.

:thumb: :thumb: Great post...

There is no way possible the numbers would improve in HS if this rule was adopted. Numbers would drop dramatically, and coaches, for sure, would be lost!

But the problem is that they are not banned from playing a club sport. They would be banned from playing a club sport AND a KHSAA sport.

 

In other words, volleyball players that play JO volleyball could still play JO volleyball and they would. The Junior Olympic/AAU volleyball would be the only place to be seen and get a college offer. If a high school were able to field a volleyball team it could be girls that are 20th to 30th best players in their own school. The top 20 would be playing Club. Of course in some schools it might be the Top 5 in Club but in others it might be the Top 50.

Top coaches would all go to Club and no college coach is going to bother to look at any high school players because the competition is so weak.

 

And this pretty much in a nutshell is what is wrong with all sports but especially Volleyball. I understand why kids would choose Junior Olympic/AAU VB over high school in order to play against the very best and be seen by scouts but as I've said before what ever happened to loyalty to ones school and community.

My daughter played JO volleyball and now coaches an U-15 team ,and she played 4 years at NCC .The main reason she played JO was to improve her play and it was a great help. There was no conflict between the two whatsoever . It can be done .

My daughter played JO volleyball and now coaches an U-15 team ,and she played 4 years at NCC .The main reason she played JO was to improve her play and it was a great help. There was no conflict between the two whatsoever . It can be done .

 

The problem is that some members of the KHSAA believe that it (Club/AAU)prevents girls from playing OTHER sports and therefore Club/AAU sports should be banned during the school year.

The problem is that some members of the KHSAA believe that it (Club/AAU)prevents girls from playing OTHER sports and therefore Club/AAU sports should be banned during the school year.

Then they are ignorant . It is up to the players to decide what sport they want to play which one to concentrate on . Not the KHSAA

I get the impression that some people out there feel that the answer to the problem of private school domination of some girls' sports is to set rules in place which would reduce the quality of the programs and the abillity of the athletes at those schools. Is that the idea?

 

So the idea is that if we don't strive for excellence, but strive for mediocrity instead, then everything will be "fair".