In Defense of High School Sports

[Gil Hamilton]

Hey.. I agree, that is BS if its that bad at your school then that takes priority.. Sounds like you have a shitty school board as well..

my point has always been its a balance between sports and education that makes a school a good place to go to..

Actually, Pittsburgh Public wasn't all that bad compared to many urban public schools.

The problem is priorities are the problem. Schools tend to have a "Bread and Circuses" attitude about sports, so the push the fulcrum of that balance way toward the center of the seesaw, if you know what I mean. That's a major problem, because you can't invest energy into something without removing it from somewhere else and when you elevate atheletics above academics it becomes a disaster.

Hell, it even encourages academic fraud. My high school had a minimum GPA requirement to stay on the team, and do you know how much energy was invested in keeping those retard gorillas above that line? The "tutors", the excuses and easy let-offs, and the occasional bump of the grade to keep the star player on the team because he is, in fact, an oafish moron whose future is built entirely on the assumption that some college is going to draft him and give him an equally easy ride?

[theski]

Hey.. I agree, that is BS if its that bad at your school then that takes priority.. Sounds like you have a shitty school board as well..

my point has always been its a balance between sports and education that makes a school a good place to go to..

Actually, Pittsburgh Public wasn't all that bad compared to many urban public schools.

The problem is priorities are the problem. Schools tend to have a "Bread and Circuses" attitude about sports, so the push the fulcrum of that balance way toward the center of the seesaw, if you know what I mean. That's a major problem, because you can't invest energy into something without removing it from somewhere else and when you elevate atheletics above academics it becomes a disaster.

Hell, it even encourages academic fraud. My high school had a minimum GPA requirement to stay on the team, and do you know how much energy was invested in keeping those retard gorillas above that line? The "tutors", the excuses and easy let-offs, and the occasional bump of the grade to keep the star player on the team because he is, in fact, an oafish moron whose future is built entirely on the assumption that some college is going to draft him and give him an equally easy ride?[/quote]

That problem happens even more in College and in Life.. It sucks and its not fair but its life..

But the life acheivements for 90% of all jocks is over after HS, where from then on its a much more balanced playing field in fact it tilts toward the Nerd/Geek/Non jock

[Surlethe]

Winston Blake, I am aware of the no True Scotsman fallacy, but there are programs that are run well, and they are not all that uncommon. Using schools where sports crowd everything out like in Texas to say that sports should be eliminated is like using Iraq as an example to say secular government should be ended.

I agree with CarsonPalmer. The existence of well-run high school athletics departments puts an end to the idea that sports in high schools is prima facie a bad thing. Each high school athletics department must be judged on its own merits.

Quite the contrary; to begin to demonstrate the incorrectness of the idea that sports in high schools is prima facie bad, you must, at least, show a majority of high school athletics departments are well managed.

[CarsonPalmer]

Surlethe, I don't see how that works. If it can be done to provide a benefit to the school, and there are schools that run their programs that way, then doesn't that disprove that the idea of sports in high school are bad?

[Big Phil]

Quite the contrary; to begin to demonstrate the incorrectness of the idea that sports in high schools is prima facie bad, you must, at least, show a majority of high school athletics departments are well managed.

It seems to me that you're making a judgment that they're poorly managed - therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove their they are generally poorly managed, not on everyone else to disprove your argument.

You're also correlating the management of high school sports programs with their benefit to the students - you might want to prove that such a correlation exists as well, because I don't accept the premise that a well-run program benefits students while a poorly-run program harms them.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, I don't see how that works. If it can be done to provide a benefit to the school, and there are schools that run their programs that way, then doesn't that disprove that the idea of sports in high school are bad?

Consider this analogy: a dictatorship certainly can be good for a nation. However, this doesn't mean all dictatorships are good, and it doesn't mean dictatorships are a good idea in general. Similarly, even if high school sports can be managed to provide a benefit to the school, if only -- say -- three per cent of schools run it that way, then is the inclusions high school sports overall good for high schools?

[Surlethe]

Quite the contrary; to begin to demonstrate the incorrectness of the idea that sports in high schools is prima facie bad, you must, at least, show a majority of high school athletics departments are well managed.

It seems to me that you're making a judgment that they're poorly managed - therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove their they are generally poorly managed, not on everyone else to disprove your argument.

You'll want to be careful, because I have not yet made any argument; I have only pointed out a flaw in reasoning.

You're also correlating the management of high school sports programs with their benefit to the students - you might want to prove that such a correlation exists as well, because I don't accept the premise that a well-run program benefits students while a poorly-run program harms them.

Let's consider this from first-principles: a well-run athletic department will be monetarily efficient; a poorly-run program will be inefficient. Clearly, if the program is efficient, then compared with a poorly-run department of the same size, it will consume less money, thus permitting more money to go to academics.

[CarsonPalmer]

Surlethe, I don't have access to those kind of statistics, so I'll probably have to concede this debate. My only question is if High School Athletic Departments should be assumed to have a negative influence when it is not that difficult to make them run well. I'm only arguing that there is no real reason to eliminate them across the board because they do provide a benefit. I don't think that the existence of an athletic department should be bad by default

[Big Phil]

Quite the contrary; to begin to demonstrate the incorrectness of the idea that sports in high schools is prima facie bad, you must, at least, show a majority of high school athletics departments are well managed.

It seems to me that you're making a judgment that they're poorly managed - therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove their they are generally poorly managed, not on everyone else to disprove your argument.

You'll want to be careful, because I have not yet made any argument; I have only pointed out a flaw in reasoning.

That's just fine and dandy - it wasn't my argument in any case.

You're also correlating the management of high school sports programs with their benefit to the students - you might want to prove that such a correlation exists as well, because I don't accept the premise that a well-run program benefits students while a poorly-run program harms them.

Let's consider this from first-principles: a well-run athletic department will be monetarily efficient; a poorly-run program will be inefficient. Clearly, if the program is efficient, then compared with a poorly-run department of the same size, it will consume less money, thus permitting more money to go to academics.

What has exactly what to do with benefit to the students? Or proving that high school sports are good (or to quote you "the incorrectness of the idea that sports in high schools is prima facie bad")? A poorly run program can still benefit students.

[Surlethe]

You're also correlating the management of high school sports programs with their benefit to the students - you might want to prove that such a correlation exists as well, because I don't accept the premise that a well-run program benefits students while a poorly-run program harms them.

Let's consider this from first-principles: a well-run athletic department will be monetarily efficient; a poorly-run program will be inefficient. Clearly, if the program is efficient, then compared with a poorly-run department of the same size, it will consume less money, thus permitting more money to go to academics.

What has exactly what to do with benefit to the students? Or proving that high school sports are good (or to quote you "the incorrectness of the idea that sports in high schools is prima facie bad")? A poorly run program can still benefit students.

Is it unclear that less money will not benefit the academic programs, which we both agree are the focus of a school? While a poorly-run program may still benefit students, relative to a well-run program the poorly-run athletic department hurts students by sucking money up which otherwise could be used to enhance educational facilities.

[Big Phil]

Is it unclear that less money will not benefit the academic programs, which we both agree are the focus of a school? While a poorly-run program may still benefit students, relative to a well-run program the poorly-run athletic department hurts students by sucking money up which otherwise could be used to enhance educational facilities.

Which is fine and dandy - but again has little to do with whether sports are beneficial to students. I'm not entirely sure where this argument is going, in any case... seems like we've moved from talking about whether sports programs belong in schools to the relative benefit of sports programs. Unless we're going to introduce specific athletic program examples I don't see the point of arguing generalities.

[Crazy_Vasey]

I have no problem with kids playing team sports in PE class, but I'm talking about team sports as an activity outside PE class, complete with stadiums and tickets and homecoming parades and all of that bullshit.

School sport teams in America play in stadiums? The mind boggles. We were lucky if the rugby posts were still there when we got to gametime at my school.

[Qwerty 42]

I have no problem with kids playing team sports in PE class, but I'm talking about team sports as an activity outside PE class, complete with stadiums and tickets and homecoming parades and all of that bullshit.

School sport teams in America play in stadiums? The mind boggles. We were lucky if the rugby posts were still there when we got to gametime at my school.

Yes, the football field at my school is ensconced in the track, and it has bleachers, fences, maintanence sheds, the whole nine yards, no pun intended. It's obviously nowhere near the scope of professional stadiums, but it's one regardless.

[Civil War Man]

School sport teams in America play in stadiums? The mind boggles. We were lucky if the rugby posts were still there when we got to gametime at my school.

Stadiums are more common at colleges, but it's not entirely unheard of with high schools. The high schools with stadiums are the ones that put pretty much all of their effort into their sports, though (mostly football).

[Darth Wong]

I still haven't heard about any real benefits to students from team sports aside from fitness, which is more effectively taught with individual athletics and human kinesiology education rather than team sports. This "teamwork" talk is bullshit; the first rule of teamwork in sports is to sit your ass down and not ask for playing time if you're not one of the better players. In fact, it would be considered "selfish" for the weaker players to expect equal playing time. This has no relation to teamwork in the real world, where everybody is expected to find a way to contribute.

[Surlethe]

I'm only arguing that there is no real reason to eliminate them across the board because they do provide a benefit. I don't think that the existence of an athletic department should be bad by default

Actually, people advocating the existence of non-academic departments and programs within a school need to prove the case, since the purpose of a school is academic growth. Since you support high school sports, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of a non-academic program is justified.

[Darth Wong]

The people advocating the team-sports programs seem to be working off the assumption that every child needs to know team sports, must learn them in a school setting, and must play them competitively. Often they package this assumption by slyly treating fitness and team sports as synonymous or mutually dependent terms even though they are not, or by using the fallacious reasoning that if you allow music or drama, you must allow team sports (ie- "if you allow one course which is not directly applicable to most jobs, you must allow them all").

[CarsonPalmer]

I don't see what is fallacious about believing that if sports go, drama and music should go with them. If you are going to deny that sports benefit the athletes, then why assume that drama benefits the actors, and music the singers?

Also, the first rule of teamwork in sports is to do what is best for the team. If that means working like a dog in practice and standing on the sidelines at the game, so be it. You find a way to contribute in practice, and at the game. In fact, someone who sits down as a backup is bound to be a cancer. You're job as a member of the team is to give all you've got for the team. Its selfish for anyone on the team to be worried about anything except helping the team win.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see what is fallacious about believing that if sports go, drama and music should go with them. If you are going to deny that sports benefit the athletes, then why assume that drama benefits the actors, and music the singers?

Because professional athletes are far less numerous than any other profession, even actors and musicians. And at least actors and musicians really do learn teamwork; there is no stigma of selfishness attached to the act of demanding playing time.

Just how many professional athletes are employed in America?

Also, the first rule of teamwork in sports is to do what is best for the team. If that means working like a dog in practice and standing on the sidelines at the game, so be it.

Precisely my point, moron. That has no relation to teamwork in the real world, where there is no employee of the company who can best serve the company by doing nothing at crunchtime.

You find a way to contribute in practice, and at the game. In fact, someone who sits down as a backup is bound to be a cancer. You're job as a member of the team is to give all you've got for the team. Its selfish for anyone on the team to be worried about anything except helping the team win.

And because of the nature of team sports, which is a limited number of players on the field, this means making weaker players do nothing. What part of this fails to penetrate your thick skull?

[Big Phil]

The people advocating the team-sports programs seem to be working off the assumption that every child needs to know team sports, must learn them in a school setting, and must play them competitively. Often they package this assumption by slyly treating fitness and team sports as synonymous or mutually dependent terms even though they are not, or by using the fallacious reasoning that if you allow music or drama, you must allow team sports (ie- "if you allow one course which is not directly applicable to most jobs, you must allow them all").

Team sports are FUN; that's why most people participate in them. That's why kids do drama or arts or other things.

You're asking people to prove things that you will never accept or believe, so what's the point? We can argue all day long but at the end of the day you still think sports are a waste of time and stupid, therefore nothing anybody says will change your mind. We'll just be arguing for five more pages without resolution.

[Darth Wong]

Team sports are FUN; that's why most people participate in them.

And that's why my kid is on a soccer team ... on his own time. Schools shouldn't be diverting resources away from real education to such frivolities. If schools were doing well at the academic basics, I would not have a problem with "extras" like this. But they aren't.

You're asking people to prove things that you will never accept or believe, so what's the point?

The point is that you can't back up jack shit.

We can argue all day long but at the end of the day you still think sports are a waste of time and stupid, therefore nothing anybody says will change your mind. We'll just be arguing for five more pages without resolution.

In order to show that something is productive, you should grow a fucking brain and try to show that it is productive, rather than simply saying stupid shit like "well, it's fun" which has nothing to do with the point.

[Big Phil]

blah blah blah

It has been proven, repeatedly in this thread, the benefits that team sports have to children. You've been moving the goalposts, first from proving there are benefits to proving there are benefits for EVERYBODY who participate, to providing that the benefits are worth it.

[Darth Wong]

blah blah blah

It has been proven, repeatedly in this thread, the benefits that team sports have to children.

Bullshit. Horribly broken false cause correlations are not proof. Unless you correct for baseline variables, you're just playing games, especially when you ignore the fact that school resources taken away from sports could be put into real academics, which have been shown to have far more benefit to students long-term.

You've been moving the goalposts, first from proving there are benefits to proving there are benefits for EVERYBODY who participate, to providing that the benefits are worth it.

There are NEGATIVE benefits to anyone but the top athletes: this is the same thing I said at the beginning, asshole.

[Big Phil]

blah blah blah

It has been proven, repeatedly in this thread, the benefits that team sports have to children.

Bullshit. Horribly broken false cause correlations are not proof. Unless you correct for baseline variables, you're just playing games, especially when you ignore the fact that school resources taken away from sports could be put into real academics, which have been shown to have far more benefit to students long-term.

You've been moving the goalposts, first from proving there are benefits to proving there are benefits for EVERYBODY who participate, to providing that the benefits are worth it.

There are NEGATIVE benefits to anyone but the top athletes: this is the same thing I said at the beginning, asshole.

You are so full of shit I can smell you from here. I was HARDLY a top athlete, and I had a great time playing football and soccer. I made friends, I stayed in shape, and I kept busy.

You don't have the slightest clue what high school sports are all about. It's almost as if your impression of high school sports comes from a bad 80's film where the jocks pick on the nerds (Revenge of the Nerds perhaps?).

[Darth Wong]

You are so full of shit I can smell you from here. I was HARDLY a top athlete, and I had a great time playing football and soccer. I made friends, I stayed in shape, and I kept busy.

The purpose of an expensive school system is not give you a "great time", you fucking idiot. That is NOT a real "benefit". And if you actually needed school-organized sports teams in order to make friends or enjoy yourself, that is your fucking problem, not the problem of the taxpayer.

You don't have the slightest clue what high school sports are all about. It's almost as if your impression of high school sports comes from a bad 80's film where the jocks pick on the nerds (Revenge of the Nerds perhaps?).

Grow the fuck up, retard. I'm talking about the social purpose of education, and your whole argument boils down to "I liked it, so it must be worthwhile". On the scale of public policy arguments, that ranks somewhere below the desire to accept bribes as a valid argument.