XMan: A Thread About Unequal Emphasis on Sports in Schools

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Since your other threads are getting closed because you're having a trouble making your point, I figured I would help you out because I understand what your issue is and you're being too polarizing with how you're presenting it. Here goes:

The institution of sports and extracurricular activities in public schools was made as an educational tool in schools. They are funded by our government because they are an invaluable tool in providing extra education for those who seek it. They are completely voluntary and also provide a source of income for the schools. I don't think I would be the only former high school athlete who says that I learned more about being a man on the field of play than I did in a classroom. With that being said, what makes it fair for there to be an emphasis on one sport/club/extracurricular activity over another? Isn't one student's right to education just as important and worthy as another student's? I think that all sports and activities should be treated the same, because once you start giving more to one and investing more time and resources that are necessary for another sport, the students of the other sport(s) miss out on the same opportunities to learn and grow. That undermines the point of having athletics and extra-curricular activities in schools. Every student should be given the same opportunities to succeed and excel, and when those rights are taken away from them, people should stand up and let it be known that it is neither fair nor acceptable. I applaud XMan for being so relentless on his pursuit of fairness. Coaches should be hired based upon merit and not upon spoils. Necessary funding shouldn't be cut to programs so that they suffer and do without so other teams and programs can excel. Fair is fair, this is about teaching students right from wrong and allowing them to grow and develop into young adults. If athletic directors and administrators provide preferential treatment to certain teams or clubs or hire employees who aren't qualified for a certain position, they are setting an example of favoritism and are voiding credibility and integrity. I personally wouldn't want any child to have that kind of an example set for them.

[sinton66]

His threads weren't closed, just merged into one.

http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104692

[Phil C]

Hey BBDE what would your opinion be on the AD/Head Football Coach that hires a girl's softball coach and picks the one who would make the better assistant football coach over the one who would make a much better softball coach but not as good a football assistant coach?

I know your answer but just want it for clarification purposes.

[UPanIN]

Your post was well thought out and has some very good points.

Nice idea "fair is fair".

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by sinton66
His threads weren't closed, just merged into one.

http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104692

The only ones that I saw were "Whites Only Allowed in Athletics" and "Hispanics Only Allowed in Ahtletics" haha.

[CenTexSports]

The problem is obivious, the seasons overlap. Change the system so that every sport gets 6 weeks beginning to end. During the six weeks you can only participate in that sport.

Also, it is mandatory to have one coach that majored in that sport as the head coach.

Problems solved.

For football it would be a simple schedule (2 practice games, 2 district games, and 2 playoff games). If you miss the playoffs then you get two weeks of 7 on 7.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Phil C
Hey BBDE what would your opinion be on the AD/Head Football Coach that hires a girl's softball coach and picks the one who would make the better assistant football coach over the one who would make a much better softball coach but not as good a football assistant coach?

I know your answer but just want it for clarification purposes.

The AD should hire the best coach to help the softball team be successful.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Since your other threads are getting closed because you're having a trouble making your point, I figured I would help you out because I understand what your issue is and you're being too polarizing with how you're presenting it. Here goes:

The institution of sports and extracurricular activities in public schools was made as an educational tool in schools. They are funded by our government because they are an invaluable tool in providing extra education for those who seek it. They are completely voluntary and also provide a source of income for the schools. I don't think I would be the only former high school athlete who says that I learned more about being a man on the field of play than I did in a classroom. With that being said, what makes it fair for there to be an emphasis on one sport/club/extracurricular activity over another? Isn't one student's right to education just as important and worthy as another student's? I think that all sports and activities should be treated the same, because once you start giving more to one and investing more time and resources that are necessary for another sport, the students of the other sport(s) miss out on the same opportunities to learn and grow. That undermines the point of having athletics and extra-curricular activities in schools. Every student should be given the same opportunities to succeed and excel, and when those rights are taken away from them, people should stand up and let it be known that it is neither fair nor acceptable. I applaud XMan for being so relentless on his pursuit of fairness. Coaches should be hired based upon merit and not upon spoils. Necessary funding shouldn't be cut to programs so that they suffer and do without so other teams and programs can excel. Fair is fair, this is about teaching students right from wrong and allowing them to grow and develop into young adults. If athletic directors and administrators provide preferential treatment to certain teams or clubs or hire employees who aren't qualified for a certain position, they are setting an example of favoritism and are voiding credibility and integrity. I personally wouldn't want any child to have that kind of an example set for them.


We should get Governor Perry or Obama to initiate a "No Athlete Left Behind" policy.

What about UIL Academics? There's a lot more money spent upon sports and their coaches than is spent on UIL Academic events and their coaches. Fair is fair. Schools put too much emphasis on sports and not enough on Academic competition.

Oh well. I guess the explanation for that is this: People don't buy tickets tg go watch the academic competitions.

Hence, I get to the crux of the issue: football is a bigger generator of revenues than baseball is. Ergo, unfortunately to me, baseball will never get the same treatment as football on a state-wide level until it becomes a more powerful economic stimulus for the schools.

Maybe if XMan subsidizes the baseball programs across the entire state he'll get what he wants.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
We should get Governor Perry or Obama to initiate a "No Athlete Left Behind" policy.

What about UIL Academics? There's a lot more money spent upon sports and their coaches than is spent on UIL Academic events and their coaches. Fair is fair. Schools put too much emphasis on sports and not enough on Academic competition.

Oh well. I guess the explanation for that is this: People don't buy tickets tg go watch the academic competitions.

Hence, I get to the crux of the issue: football is a bigger generator of revenues than baseball is. Ergo, unfortunately to me, baseball will never get the same treatment as football on a state-wide level until it becomes a more powerful economic stimulus for the schools.

Maybe if XMan subsidizes the baseball programs across the entire state he'll get what he wants.

The reason the funding is greater in football than it is in UIL academic competitions is because there is less involvement and less equipment and supplies needed to compete. For four years I played football, basketball, and ran track along with doing UIL Science, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Science Bowl, Chess Club, and Business Professionals of America and we were never fed any differently or accommodated differently on away trips. Buying a few books and paying for travel is all that is necessary for these type of things.

My point was, the same necessary funding that is provided to football for helmets, cleats, gloves, pads, etc., might be more than the necessary funding for other extra curricular activities, but baseball should get as much funding as they need to provide gear to their players, just as UIL academic events (which are much less costly). The reason that sports like football are at schools and certain other activities are not is because there is larger participation by students and it is an event that is at least partially self-sufficient and can support itself. School funding can only cover so many events, so you provide the most popular and participated in events. It's pretty simple.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The reason the funding is greater in football than it is in UIL academic competitions is because there is less involvement and less equipment and supplies needed to compete. For four years I played football, basketball, and ran track along with doing UIL Science, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Science Bowl, Chess Club, and Business Professionals of America and we were never fed any differently or accommodated differently on away trips. Buying a few books and paying for travel is all that is necessary for these type of things.

My point was, the same necessary funding that is provided to football for helmets, cleats, gloves, pads, etc., might be more than the necessary funding for other extra curricular activities, but baseball should get as much funding as they need to provide gear to their players, just as UIL academic events (which are much less costly). The reason that sports like football are at schools and certain other activities are not is because there is larger participation by students and it is an event that is at least partially self-sufficient and can support itself. School funding can only cover so many events, so you provide the most popular and participated in events. It's pretty simple.


That's not exactly the same as the "fair is fair" statement. The token stipend that my Academic coaches receive(d) is nothing compared to the what the coaches get.

And please don't misunderstand, I lettered in football, baseball and academics. I understand all the sides of this argument. I'm making a bit of sophistry out of XMan's zealotry.

Further, my point is this:

Expecting equality and fairness in school sports, like most things in life, is not realistic. UIL Academics will always take a back seat to school sports, and unfortunately, baseball will probably continue to take a back seat to football despite XMan's efforts. More kids play football and football generates more revenue.

Just like in the NCAA, a significant portion of football revenues are diverted to fund the other sports.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
That's not exactly the same as the "fair is fair" statement. The token stipend that my Academic coaches receive(d) is nothing compared to the what the coaches get.

And please don't misunderstand, I lettered in football, baseball and academics. I understand all the sides of this argument. I'm making a bit of sophistry out of XMan's zealotry.

Further, my point is this:

Expecting equality and fairness in school sports, like most things in life, is not realistic. UIL Academics will always take a back seat to school sports, and unfortunately, baseball will probably continue to take a back seat to football despite XMan's efforts. More kids play football and football generates more revenue.

Just like in the NCAA, a significant portion of football revenues are diverted to fund the other sports.

The reason they get paid less is because football coaches work longer hours in the day and put in a lot more time and effort outside of their normal teaching duties than instructors in UIL academics. Simple fact. More work equals more pay. So I'm not sure what point you're making. That's on top of the fact that coaches spend summers with the students training them for the upcoming seasons.

Demanding fairness and equity in high school sports is easy to do because it is completely funded by taxpayer dollars and all should be and are tools to further education. In Rockdale, we were treated fairly across the board. In actuality, we got more money for food doing academics than we did for sports. We were never without anything that we needed and were treated fairly. That's how it should be.

NCAA is completely different from high school sports, it isn't even reasonable to compare the two.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The reason they get paid less is because football coaches work longer hours in the day and put in a lot more time and effort outside of their normal teaching duties than instructors in UIL academics. Simple fact. More work equals more pay. So I'm not sure what point you're making. That's on top of the fact that coaches spend summers with the students training them for the upcoming seasons.


You make my argument for me. Why are the athletic coaches working more hours? They work more hours because the school puts a disproportionate emphasis on athletic competition over academic competition because it generates more revenue for the school(s).

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
You make my argument for me. Why are the athletic coaches working more hours? They work more hours because the school puts a disproportionate emphasis on athletic competition over academic competition because it generates more revenue for the school(s).

No, that's not making your point for you. The point that I'm making is that it requires greater dedication outside of school hours to be successful. If you don't have extra practices and training, then you won't succeed. It teaches students that to be successful you have to put in more work and be dedicated to the activity. If a student wants to be successful in a UIL activity, they can also practice and learn, nothing is holding them back. Students place more emphasis on it, not the administrators or coaches.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
No, that's not making your point for you. The point that I'm making is that it requires greater dedication outside of school hours to be successful. If you don't have extra practices and training, then you won't succeed. It teaches students that to be successful you have to put in more work and be dedicated to the activity. If a student wants to be successful in a UIL activity, they can also practice and learn, nothing is holding them back. Students place more emphasis on it, not the administrators or coaches.


I disagree.

I competed my freshman and sophomore years with very little practice. I even made it to regionals. I succeeded, using your word, placing at state as a junior and winning state as a senior, when I practiced. I practiced my UIL event much more AFTER school than my "coach/sponsor" could. Similar to football and baseball, I practiced 3 hours per day after school and also at home and on weekends. During the "off-season" I practiced even when my "coach/sponsor" wasn't available. My demands of the school so I could compete were just as significant as those of baseball and football, but I did not get the extra time of my "coach/sponsor" that you say is only necessary for athletics.

I'm not chagrin about it.....after all, I was a State Champion; but I recognize the inequality of the system for what it is. I had to work on my own just like the Giddings posters are saying their baseball team has done.

If you want to demand fairness (which I don't think will be achieved whether I think it should or not), you must demand it for all competitive endeavors that benefit students. That's what you stated in your earlier post. It can't be exclusive to athletic events.....and I too benefited greatly from athletics.

No matter what I want or think about how the system should be, I don't believe anything will change in terms of pecking orders, preferential priority, coaching emphasis, et cetera until events become economically competitive with football. Nobody bought a ticket to watch me win state in UIL, but this past weekend practically our entire community showed up to shell out money to watch our baseball team compete against Jasper for the regional title; and that was just two games.

Our school takes in more revenue in 5 home football games than the money it takes in for many home baseball games and many home basketball games (both boys and girls) and many home softball games. I imagine that might be the same all across the state.

I guess I'm talking about what will happen rather than what should happen. We can disagree about the details 'til we're blue in the face, but schools are driven by the almighty dollar. Just look at the travesties created by the T.A.K.S. tests. Any altruistic ideals of how schools should be, or how the UIL should handle them, are, in my opinion, pollyannaish thinking.

[BILLYFRED0000]

The issues here are multifaceted and regionally biased. If you were in some states soccer is higher than football. In some programs baseball is the king. It comes down most of the time to the parents involved in the schools and their ties to those schools. I was involved somewhat in trying to get more done for the golf teams at Celina at one time because of my daughters desire to play and compete. Some progress was made and because of that the school had a first a district medalist in golf. Anybody wanting instant change should go back home and make some instant coffee or oatmeal because that is the only place that it makes sense.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
I disagree.

I competed my freshman and sophomore years with very little practice. I even made it to regionals. I succeeded, using your word, placing at state as a junior and winning state as a senior, when I practiced. I practiced my UIL event much more AFTER school than my "coach/sponsor" could. Similar to football and baseball, I practiced 3 hours per day after school and also at home and on weekends. During the "off-season" I practiced even when my "coach/sponsor" wasn't available. My demands of the school so I could compete were just as significant as those of baseball and football, but I did not get the extra time of my "coach/sponsor" that you say is only necessary for athletics.

I'm not chagrin about it.....after all, I was a State Champion; but I recognize the inequality of the system for what it is. I had to work on my own just like the Giddings posters are saying their baseball team has done.

If you want to demand fairness (which I don't think will be achieved whether I think it should or not), you must demand it for all competitive endeavors that benefit students. That's what you stated in your earlier post. It can't be exclusive to athletic events.....and I too benefited greatly from athletics.

No matter what I want or think about how the system should be, I don't believe anything will change in terms of pecking orders, preferential priority, coaching emphasis, et cetera until events become economically competitive with football. Nobody bought a ticket to watch me win state in UIL, but this past weekend practically our entire community showed up to shell out money to watch our baseball team compete against Jasper for the regional title; and that was just two games.

Our school takes in more revenue in 5 home football games than the money it takes in for many home baseball games and many home basketball games (both boys and girls) and many home softball games. I imagine that might be the same all across the state.

I guess I'm talking about what will happen rather than what should happen. We can disagree about the details 'til we're blue in the face, but schools are driven by the almighty dollar. Just look at the travesties created by the T.A.K.S. tests. Any altruistic ideals of how schools should be, or how the UIL should handle them, are, in my opinion, pollyannaish thinking.

Sounds like you have some deeply-rooted issues with the fact that nobody wanted to come and watch you compete in UIL. If you needed that much tutoring outside of the classroom setting, then you have serious issues with sitting down with a book and learning on your own to begin with. If your measure of success is having somebody lead you by the hand so you can be successful then by all means, but that's probably why instructors didn't want to sit down and teach you. You either have the intelligence to compete in those events or you don't. Same goes with football. You were asking instructors to give you unreasonable accommodations. You can only practice football so long every day. I didn't need to study for science over and over three hours after school every day to be any good at it, but that's just me. And whenever it's only you that is participating the school shouldn't pay somebody to sit aside with you and go over whatever material you're studying. It's unrealistic and unfair. You're asking it to be all about you. Maybe you should look up what fair means in the dictionary and try to implement it in your life. And for the record, I seriously think you're full of it when you say you studied three hours every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Fairness can be achieved, I was a product of a system of fairness in Rockdale. They did me right, but I guess that's because I didn't demand unreasonable amounts of my instructor's time and learned how to teach myself.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Sounds like you have some deeply-rooted issues with the fact that nobody wanted to come and watch you compete in UIL. If you needed that much tutoring outside of the classroom setting, then you have serious issues with sitting down with a book and learning on your own to begin with. If your measure of success is having somebody lead you by the hand so you can be successful then by all means, but that's probably why instructors didn't want to sit down and teach you. You either have the intelligence to compete in those events or you don't. Same goes with football. You were asking instructors to give you unreasonable accommodations. You can only practice football so long every day. I didn't need to study for science over and over three hours after school every day to be any good at it, but that's just me. And whenever it's only you that is participating the school shouldn't pay somebody to sit aside with you and go over whatever material you're studying. It's unrealistic and unfair. You're asking it to be all about you. Maybe you should look up what fair means in the dictionary and try to implement it in your life. And for the record, I seriously think you're full of it when you say you studied three hours every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Fairness can be achieved, I was a product of a system of fairness in Rockdale. They did me right, but I guess that's because I didn't demand unreasonable amounts of my instructor's time and learned how to teach myself.


You misunderstand me, young grasshopper. Leave your college-age pop-psychology to the sorority girls and out of this for you know not of which you speak. Perhaps you should pick up your own dictionary and look up the definition of "chagrin".

It was you who talked of "fairness" and of how much time it took to properly prepare for football. Resorting to personal attack does not bolster your position. I said nothing of 3 hours a day, 365 blah, blah, blah. I stated that, like football and baseball, I had to practice just as often. When I practiced, on weekdays/schooldays, I did so for about three hours. The last time I checked that was similar to football and baseball. I did sit down with a book, with many books actually, and teach/train myself. I did not need to be lead by the hand.....and I won state.

My experience, however, is further evidence of the inequality between the various competitions just as your learning "how to teach yourself" might be evidence of inequalities in activities. It was from my experience that I crafted an argument to attempt to explain why I believe baseball will be relegated to a 2nd level behind football, despite that I also wish baseball was given "fair" priority.

You've suggested that an expectation of having competent academic coaches work with kids is "unrealistic and unfair", but expecting competent baseball coaches is synchronous with your "fairness" definition. You can't argue both sides of this issue. Either "fairness" must be demanded (from your earlier posts), or the baseball teams need to learn to teach themselves (from your most recent post).

My position has not changed: I love baseball. I support baseball. I understand, however, why baseball takes a back seat to football. I believe that the reason for this is not simply because of A.D's., but because schools place emphasis on economic concerns that direct the hiring and management of A.D's. and coaches. I imagine there are microeconomies throughout the state where baseball brings in more money; but I haven't heard of any of many multi-million baseball centers going up like I hear about all the football mega-centers in the metroplexes.

Expecting baseball to get the same priority or treatment based upon "fairness" is a misunderstanding, in my opinion, of economic forces.

[XMan]

88 I appreciate your opinion. I see this as being a huge catch 22. You build mega football complexes and thus need to push football in the athletic period. Other sports take a backseat and football gets all the money, time, and attention. The non football sports get pushed further and further back. These sports then of course can not generate anything, much less revenue. Since these sports are not winning/generating interest, support, they get pushed further back. Since football is the only thing winning and getting community support more money/energy is thrown into football. The cycle just keeps going and going. The way to make non football sports appealing to players/fans/community is to have a nice place for the kids to play and nice places for fans to watch from. Put a high quality product on the field, win games. You start making deep runs in the playoffs and the students and community will most likely support. Lots of schools would just as well push non football sports to extinction and thus full effort could be concentrated year round on pecan ball.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by 88bobcats


It was you who talked of "fairness" and of how much time it took to properly prepare for football. Resorting to personal attack does not bolster your position. I said nothing of 3 hours a day, 365 blah, blah, blah. I stated that, like football and baseball, I had to practice just as often. When I practiced, on weekdays/schooldays, I did so for about three hours. The last time I checked that was similar to football and baseball. I did sit down with a book, with many books actually, and teach/train myself. I did not need to be lead by the hand.....and I won state.

My experience, however, is further evidence of the inequality between the various competitions just as your learning "how to teach yourself" might be evidence of inequalities in activities. It was from my experience that I crafted an argument to attempt to explain why I believe baseball will be relegated to a 2nd level behind football, despite that I also wish baseball was given "fair" priority.

You've suggested that an expectation of having competent academic coaches work with kids is "unrealistic and unfair", but expecting competent baseball coaches is synchronous with your "fairness" definition. You can't argue both sides of this issue. Either "fairness" must be demanded (from your earlier posts), or the baseball teams need to learn to teach themselves (from your most recent post).

My position has not changed: I love baseball. I support baseball. I understand, however, why baseball takes a back seat to football. I believe that the reason for this is not simply because of A.D's., but because schools place emphasis on economic concerns that direct the hiring and management of A.D's. and coaches. I imagine there are microeconomies throughout the state where baseball brings in more money; but I haven't heard of any of many multi-million baseball centers going up like I hear about all the football mega-centers in the metroplexes.

Expecting baseball to get the same priority or treatment based upon "fairness" is a misunderstanding, in my opinion, of economic forces.

I know the definition, so why look it up? Obviously your lacking comprehension skills because I said you went on a crybaby spill about nobody giving you attention in your UIL. And you said you practiced every day for three hours, which I don't believe. You're trying to sensationalize your experience to prove a point, and that was you feel shortchanged, even though you tried to say you aren't. With so much of a point to prove that you embellished, you're obviously chagrin about it, otherwise you wouldn't have went to such great lengths to make your point. You said your instructor couldn't be there for three hours every day after school, but you're now saying that you didn't need them to be because you were self-taught? Question though, how do you fit in the three hours of football, and then the three hours of your UIL activity and your other schoolwork? That's 6 hours a day, when do you eat and sleep. Yeah, I don't think I'm alone when reading this when I think you're exaggerating dramatically. You said that I'm implying sports should be self-taught, but that's far from the truth or anything that I said. You and LE Dad should hang out, because you liked to make false inferences out of what I say and misrepresent them. I call that lying. My point was that you were in an activity that made you one individual trying to achieve a goal. A sports team is a group of collective individuals trying to achieve a goal. A school should invest more in the activities that are more popular and have more participation simply because it will enhance the learning experience for a larger amount of people as opposed to one. You're the one that I was talking about. To further that point, UIL academics isn't a strongly sought after activity, with many fewer participants than football. The whole point of those is to compete in something that you enjoy and you're good at. There isn't money in the budget to allot extra pay for teachers to stay three hours after school every day so one student can succeed, it would mean that the baseball team or football team would lose a coach. I would say that the group is more important than you. I hate that I have to spell that out for you, as you fancy yourself to be educated.

Baseball is going to take a backseat to football in regards to fan base, but it shouldn't in equipment. You spoke about multi-million dollar football complexes being built, and while this is true, it is done so to bring in more revenue for the school. More ticket sales over a period of a time, attract playoff games, etc. They don't build these stadiums and then not give the baseball team the equipment that is necessary to compete. They shouldn't build a huge stadium if nobody is going to go and watch. A huge stadium isn't a tool built for education, it's built for income. I'm not sure why you would even bring that up as a relative point in the discussion. Sure, a lot of money gets spent, but it's an economic investment. Sure, the kids will be proud to play in a new stadium, but I've never met a football player who said, "I'm going to work out extra hard this summer because we have a huge stadium!"

Fair is fair, and like I said before, all extra-curricular activities should be given the necessary funding and attention to succeed. I was given that in Rockdale. For obvious reasons, you feel like you weren't, even though you won state. Football may be king, but everyone should be treated fairly, and for the most part they are. If the fan base isn't there, it isn't there, but the last time I checked, it wasn't about the fans in the stands, it was about kids going out and learning and having fun, so fan base doesn't matter.

[88bobcats]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You said that I'm implying sports should be self-taught, but that's far from the truth or anything that I said. You and LE Dad should hang out, because you liked to make false inferences out of what I say and misrepresent them. I call that lying.

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You're trying to sensationalize your experience to prove a point, and that was you feel shortchanged, even though you tried to say you aren't. With so much of a point to prove that you embellished, you're obviously chagrin about it, otherwise you wouldn't have went to such great lengths to make your point.

You have made false inferences out of what I said and you are misrepresenting them. By your own definition, you are lying.

Your insistence that I am chagrin when I explicitly and overtly state that I'm not is an error in your judgment and perception. Perhaps your Lincoln-Douglas experience or your youth is working against you.

There is no way you can know the total of what I'm saying only from reading some of my words. The same is true of me with your words. You made inferences from my statements rather than recognize my sophistry and sarcasm. Then you want to say inferences are bad. Please choose a side.

You have not disproven my thesis regarding the economic forces behind the prioritization of high school sports. You have made may valid points about how things ought to be in an altruistic approach; but trying to paint me as a cry-baby (which I find quite entertaining, by the way) is a poor debate technique. Rather, I find it evasive and wasteful. I agree with you about how things ought to be. That doesn't remove the 500-pound gorilla of school finances from the room.

Let it suffice to say that we're talking about two different subjects. I am talking about how things are, and I believe you are talking about how things ought to be. Perhaps that is why we're miscommunicating.

[UPanIN]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Demanding fairness and equity in high school sports is easy to do because it is completely funded by taxpayer dollars and all should be and are tools to further education. In Rockdale, we were treated fairly across the board. In actuality, we got more money for food doing academics than we did for sports. We were never without anything that we needed and were treated fairly. That's how it should be.

NCAA is completely different from high school sports, it isn't even reasonable to compare the two.

High sports are not completed funded by the taxpayer. I believe if you were to check your lauded Rockdale you'd find that there are many fund raising efforts to support all of the sports. This fund raising get thousands of dollars every year to much needed programs. This of course depends on the parents of the kids and how involved they are with the coaches. Any coach worth his salt welcomes these funds to help him get the things he couldn't otherwise.

[BILLYFRED0000]

I have read thru this and I have always thought that the way things are was a bit of a cliche. School is not provided to give every body equal results, and athletics is not even an extension of school (for education purposes). Athletics is competition and an extension the need for people to compete. It did not start as a money making issue but when schools learned that they could make money then economics took over. The schools need the athletics overall to be self supporting and the schools for the most part try to keep it that way. If a program cannot support itself it gets less attention. AFter all, school is for education. I was in UIL also. I did get my bus trip to state for free. And I got a few practice competitions but nothing on the level of football. And guess what, I did not need it. So the entire arguement of equality has to be based in reality. That would mean equal opportunity, not equal money or practice time or facilities because things are just different in different sports. Soccer can be done on a flat field with boxes and markers in the proper places with games played wherever for example. So this entire issue of equality is at best a specious arguement and at worst just a way of saying that what works for one school should be made for all schools and programs so that every body is the same. Which suspiciously sounds like a political choice of a sort. When my daughter got the district medalist her senior year in golf( the first ever for Celina) it was a sort of vindication. But it did not lead to equal funding and facilities nor should it. However it did bring recognition to the school but in reality is a cost only for it brings in no money. How can poorer schools sustain such a cost and should they is the real issue at hand. To force an arbitrary system on them would be a politically motivated agenda so watch what you wish for.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by 88bobcats
You have made false inferences out of what I said and you are misrepresenting them. By your own definition, you are lying.

Your insistence that I am chagrin when I explicitly and overtly state that I'm not is an error in your judgment and perception. Perhaps your Lincoln-Douglas experience or your youth is working against you.

There is no way you can know the total of what I'm saying only from reading some of my words. The same is true of me with your words. You made inferences from my statements rather than recognize my sophistry and sarcasm. Then you want to say inferences are bad. Please choose a side.

You have not disproven my thesis regarding the economic forces behind the prioritization of high school sports. You have made may valid points about how things ought to be in an altruistic approach; but trying to paint me as a cry-baby (which I find quite entertaining, by the way) is a poor debate technique. Rather, I find it evasive and wasteful. I agree with you about how things ought to be. That doesn't remove the 500-pound gorilla of school finances from the room.

Let it suffice to say that we're talking about two different subjects. I am talking about how things are, and I believe you are talking about how things ought to be. Perhaps that is why we're miscommunicating.

Lying how? By saying that you're full of it when you said you practiced for three hours every day after school in your UIL event? If you didn't do it to sensationalize your story or try to prove a point, then why did you exaggerate your claims? I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm calling you a crybaby because that's what you were doing; i.e. "nobody came and watched me compete," and, "my instructors wouldn't stay after school with me" and these were used by you to represent the disparity between emphasis on UIL activities. To me, that's being a crybaby.

It may be different in other schools, but in Rockdale we were all treated fairly across the board, I participated in three sports and numerous activities and student groups, and we were well taken care of. True, fund raising took place so we could buy nicer equipment, but that is up to the discretion of each team and event to decide. Even in football we had fund raisers. I'm talking about how it is in Rockdale and how it should be in other schools. It's not just a theory, it's something that has happened and works. Sports are in schools as an educational tool, and anybody who doesn't think that they are is sadly misinformed.

[ronwx5x]

Is high school football in Texas really a profit center? My perception is that all high school athletics are a cost center. Even in the larger classes it seems it would be difficult to have a sport that pays for itself. Ticket prices are low, facilities and equipment are very costly and the concession stands are usually run by the booster club. At $7 per ticket and an average attendance at a regular season 3A school of under 3000 including visitors, how do they make a profit?

This is all assumption on my part. if someone knows better, feel free to chime in.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Is high school football in Texas really a profit center? My perception is that all high school athletics are a cost center. Even in the larger classes it seems it would be difficult to have a sport that pays for itself. Ticket prices are low, facilities and equipment are very costly and the concession stands are usually run by the booster club. At $7 per ticket and an average attendance at a regular season 3A school of under 3000 including visitors, how do they make a profit?

This is all assumption on my part. if someone knows better, feel free to chime in.

Probably not a profit center by itself but with booster donations it pays for it self and maybe a little more. Most other athletics cannot even do that.