In Defense of High School Sports

[That NOS Guy]

It actually costs most Students to be a part of a sport in HS.. that includes Cheerleading and such.

It can cost money, but they're not shouldering the entireity of the economic burden, were that the case we wouldn't even need a sports budget, would we?

A student athlete is someone who Participates in a sport while attending school... Not including PE

What defines a sport? That can be pretty fucking nebealous. I decided to poke around on your source, I had a hard time locating your graph, or even search parameters. What did you use?

[theski]

It actually costs most Students to be a part of a sport in HS.. that includes Cheerleading and such.

It can cost money, but they're not shouldering the entireity of the economic burden, were that the case we wouldn't even need a sports budget, would we?

A student athlete is someone who Participates in a sport while attending school... Not including PE

What defines a sport? That can be pretty fucking nebealous. I decided to poke around on your source, I had a hard time locating your graph, or even search parameters. What did you use?

Here are the Paramaters for the graph.. I should have linked to it as well..

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indi ... letics.cfm

Also, I never said they shouldered all of the burden.. but it doesnt come cheap for parents or students..

[That NOS Guy]

Participation in school athletics includes all students who have participated to any degree in school athletic teams during the current school year.

As I suspected, pretty damn open to anything there. I'm curious as to the numbers for the students who actually played the sport for the season, not "participated in any degree".

It leaves me suspect to believe that some "Timmy tried out for the baseball team? Put 'em on there" reasoning was used.

[theski]

Participation in school athletics includes all students who have participated to any degree in school athletic teams during the current school year.

As I suspected, pretty damn open to anything there. I'm curious as to the numbers for the students who actually played the sport for the season, not "participated in any degree".

It leaves me suspect to believe that some "Timmy tried out for the baseball team? Put 'em on there" reasoning was used.

I would argue that you would have to atleast made a squad or team..

but neither of can prove it either way

[That NOS Guy]

I would argue that you would have to atleast made a squad or team..

but neither of can prove it either way

Well if you admit that you cannot fully understand, or at the very least prove the context parameters of your own data don't you think it wise not to use that source then?

[theski]

I would argue that you would have to atleast made a squad or team..

but neither of can prove it either way

Well if you admit that you cannot fully understand, or at the very least prove the context parameters of your own data don't you think it wise not to use that source then?

I take the study at face value.. you don't.. simple as that..

Participated in sports during the school year is as close as you are going to get in a study.

[theski]

I would argue that you would have to atleast made a squad or team..

but neither of can prove it either way

Well if you admit that you cannot fully understand, or at the very least prove the context parameters of your own data don't you think it wise not to use that source then?

This breaks it down even farther...

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/VA_Cu ... ummary.pdf

[CarsonPalmer]

Mingo, have you payed any attention at all to the thread? We have already established that math should take priority. However, some programs are run effectively and quietly. In a good program, all interested can enjoy it. You seem to be bringing a heavy bias against athletes to this debate.

Surlethe, I think I understand. But this tangent is beside the point anyway, because the debate has shifted from our lack of numbers to what our numbers mean. Thank you very much though, I was having a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

[Surlethe]

Surlethe, I think I understand. But this tangent is beside the point anyway, because the debate has shifted from our lack of numbers to what our numbers mean. Thank you very much though, I was having a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

Good. The point here is that you recognize that the burden of proof is on you in this case; in any debate upon which you embark, it's important to realize where the burden of proof lies.

[Surlethe]

This breaks it down even farther...

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/VA_Cu ... ummary.pdf

This is interesting. According to that, the number of high school students participating in athletics is 7,018,000. According to the US Census projections, the high school-age population is 17,175,000. That's 40%. Where are those vaunted 65+% figures?

[theski]

This breaks it down even farther...

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/VA_Cu ... ummary.pdf

This is interesting. According to that, the number of high school students participating in athletics is 7,018,000. According to the US Census projections, the high school-age population is 17,175,000. That's 40%. Where are those vaunted 65+% figures?

Lets one survey.. says http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/tabl ... able_1.htm

65% and your math gives 40%.. even if you average them its more then HALF.. so much for the TINY % that others are talking about..

[Darth Wong]

OK, let's put a stop to this bullshit, shall we? I looked at that document. It includes things like golf, skiing, archery, track, and even dance. Most of those sports are not competitive team sports, and are hence not relevant to a criticism of competitive team sports. I never said I had a problem with all physical education activities; just competitive team sports, especially those which are made into a big deal, ie- complete with homecoming parades and school pride and all of that other bullshit. So please dispense with the bullfuckery and the strawmen, and deal with the original argument.

[CarsonPalmer]

Golf, skiing, and track are all competitive sports. Archery is probably so uncommon to begin with that it barely affects the percentages anyway. Dance is an outlier, but I doubt that the NFLHS report includes that.

Also, since when were homecoming parades even mentioned in the thread? The only arguments that have been discussed are cost, and emphasis, and we have already disavowed Texas-type football programs.

[Edi]

Golf, skiing, and track are all competitive sports. Archery is probably so uncommon to begin with that it barely affects the percentages anyway. Dance is an outlier, but I doubt that the NFLHS report includes that.

Also, since when were homecoming parades even mentioned in the thread? The only arguments that have been discussed are cost, and emphasis, and we have already disavowed Texas-type football programs.

What part of "competitive TEAM sports" did you fail to understand? Golf, skiing and track are not inherently TEAM sports, though they can and do have team events (such as relay). The main culprits Mike has been talking about all along are American football, basketball, baseball, soccer and hockey, though which one of them is the worst probably varies by location.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Dance is an outlier, but I doubt that the NFLHS report includes that.

I just told you that it did. Go look it up if you think I'm lying, asshole.

The main culprits Mike has been talking about all along are American football, basketball, baseball, soccer and hockey, though which one of them is the worst probably varies by location.

I'd probably say the worst are hockey and football (in terms of cost), and basketball (in terms of the social damage wrought by black inner-city kids thinking it's a legitimate way out of the ghetto). And while I do think programs for kids engaging in physical athletics for the sake of fitness or recreation are good, I think the cost does need to be limited (particularly in a country where they're eliminating shop classes but making room for myriad athletic programs), and more importantly, I don't think there should ever be university scholarships on the basis of athletic ability. Such scholarships are a perversion of the very concept of scholarship. At no point should any kid ever be led to believe (by his own school system, no less) that academic aptitude is not a prerequisite for success.

[Keevan_Colton]

Also, since when were homecoming parades even mentioned in the thread?

I was in here for the early pages and the "social" aspects and "pride" in the school etc were brought up as positive aspects of the competitive team sports...which is where the homecoming shit comes in.

[Big Phil]

I don't think there should ever be university scholarships on the basis of athletic ability. Such scholarships are a perversion of the very concept of scholarship. At no point should any kid ever be led to believe (by his own school system, no less) that academic aptitude is not a prerequisite for success.

This is one area where Wong and I agree wholeheartedly and without any reservation.

[CarsonPalmer]

Okay, I misunderstood Mike's post. I agree about scholarships. I believe you then, but also, track is a sport that has team events, thus I think it counts as a team sport.

[Keevan_Colton]

Okay, I misunderstood Mike's post. I agree about scholarships. I believe you then, but also, track is a sport that has team events, thus I think it counts as a team sport.

Relay races?

...that's like saying tennis is a team sport because sometimes there are doubles matches...

[CarsonPalmer]

Wouldn't doubles tennis count as a team sport? I must be missing someone's point, because I'm not quite sure of the distinction between team sports and track.

[Batman]

Wouldn't doubles tennis count as a team sport? I must be missing someone's point, because I'm not quite sure of the distinction between team sports and track.

I'd venture 'team sports' for the purposes of this thread are sports that are typically to exclusively played as a team vs ones that occasionally sort of are.
Two people isn't exactly a 'team'.

[Keevan_Colton]

Wouldn't doubles tennis count as a team sport? I must be missing someone's point, because I'm not quite sure of the distinction between team sports and track.

Golf can be played doubles too, but golf isnt really a team sport any more than track or tennis really are. All of them are predominately singles activities, the double/team variations are just that, minor variations.

[CarsonPalmer]

Okay, I understand the distinction now, but I still don't see why the distinction is all that important. Is it cost?

[Edi]

Okay, I understand the distinction now, but I still don't see why the distinction is all that important. Is it cost?

Not per se.

The whole point is that singles activities are something anybody can (time, money and interest permitting) do on their spare time if they have ever been introduced to them, so it's not out of the question to teach them in PE class. However, pouring a shitload of money to a team sport activity (extracurricular at that) where only a tiny portion of the student body can ever get any benefit out of it is gross mismanagement of educational funds. The fact that the portion allocated for said extracurricular team activities is so great just makes it that much worse.

Of course, in instances where the team's revenue stream is enough to fund it and bring more money to the institute than it uses, the criticism obviously does not apply.

Edi

[Elfdart]

You are talking about Texas, which is just a weird, fucked-up place to begin with, though...

Tell us about it.

You're full of shit. You're assuming that every kid who plays team sports even in PE class is somehow benefiting from the expenditures on competitive sports teams in the school. And what about the negative impact of sports scholarships to universities, especially on the mindset of inner-city kids? I notice none of the defenders of high school team sports are speaking up about that.

Maybe it's just how things are in these parts (see above), but the big ticket items like football and basketball are net gainers for the entire athletic department. For example, when I was in high school the gymn was refurbished (including new plumbing, lockers, lighting, etc.) by the net profits from the sale of basketball tickets. Sport brought in far more money than it cost. Local businesses also paid for things like uniforms, scoreboards and the PA system. So if anything, sport is helping to carry the schools on its back, not the other way around.

As for having a negative effect on universities and the inner city kids who get athletic scholarships, you're just being stupid. Taking a teenager from a bad neighborhood and sending him to a college town where he's not surrounded by gangbangers, dealers and hookers might get him interested in things other than athletics. In fact, he's probably more likely to study and attend class since if he flunks out of school, no more football.

Just how many professional athletes are employed in America?

Thousands. The NFL alone employs >1600 in any typical season.

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.

For several years in the 1960s, the local high school football teams in Dallas and Fort Worth drew bigger crowds than the two local pro teams.

I'm of the opinion that sport contributes more to schools (at least in my neck of the woods) than it takes out. The proof is in the fact that private schools are every bit as nutty over athletics as public schools and in spite of not being able to just vote themselves more money like school boards and county commissioners do.

It also gives kids a chance to go on to college and maybe earn a living. Quite a few people, including my current boss, went to college on athletic scholarships, only to find education, training and jobs that have nothing to do with team sports. Even if the only aptitude a person getting one of these scholarships has is to catch a ball and run fast, why not encourage him to do his best on the tiny chance he might have to make it big or at least earn a living?

Speaking of which, I find it funny that people think it's cruel to give athletes false hopes of stardom in the NBA or NFL (and that being a good reason to not have team sports in schools), but drama, music, and other extra-curriculars get a free pass when they are net losers for the schools financially. There's something at work here that has nothing to do with cost/ benefit analysis.

If an athletic department is a drain on the school's budget or is causing other other problems, I'm all for getting rid of it. But a blanket "Team sportz in skool is teh EVil!!!" is cretinous at best.

Because professional athletes are far less numerous than any other profession, even actors and musicians.

Are you fucking kidding me? How many actors and musicians actually earn livings as actors and musicians -i.e. not people who play extras for an hour a month or have once-a-months gigs in a band, but actually pay the rent working in a muffler shop? It may be more than pro athletes, but it's still a very small number.

This little gem of stupidity left me in stitches:

And at least actors and musicians really do learn teamwork; there is no stigma of selfishness attached to the act of demanding playing time.

Jesus Christ but you have lost your marbles! Read any rag like US or People or the others. It's chock full of "So-and-so stormed off the set when her lines were cut" stories. There's an entire cable (E!) channel devoted who hates whom in show business. Musicians are the bitchiest of all. How many times has someone quit a band or been fired for demanding "playing time"? Countless numbers. Why do so many bands split up? Usually because one or more of the members want more "playing time" and their bandmates or the record label tells them to fuck off. Just this morning I got a notice that Asia was going to reunite with the original members for the first time in over 20 years. Why so long? The guitar player and the singer/ bassist refused to even speak to each other because each got the other fired for "creative differences". Don't get me started on Van Halen...