In Defense of High School Sports

[Uraniun235]

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...

There's no denying that actors are generally walking dramabombs, but I would remind you that there's still a lot of teamwork to be found in the theater techs.

And how the hell do rock bands relate to high school wind ensembles and string orchestras?! Are you high?

[Elfdart]

There's no denying that actors are generally walking dramabombs, but I would remind you that there's still a lot of teamwork to be found in the theater techs.

And there isn't among backup players, trainers, assistant coaches, video editing and computers?

And how the hell do rock bands relate to high school wind ensembles and string orchestras?! Are you high?

Uh, my high school's idea of strings was electric bass, electric guitars, banjos and pedal steel. There was a jazz ensemble, though.

[Darth Wong]

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.

Does any of this money go toward actual education?

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.

Yet again you demonstrate that you completely miss the point; it's not a question of whether it helps the tiny percentage of kids who get athletic scholarships; it's a question of what it does to the community at large. Scholarships only go to the top performers; everyone else just wastes their time pursuing pipe dreams that won't go anywhere. Athletic achievement is a ridiculously low-percentage route to success.

Just how many professional athletes are employed in America?

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

Wow, so a country of 300 million people employs almost 2000 people in one industry. Yeah, that makes it all worthwhile.

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.

How the fuck does that prove net positive contribution?

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.

And how many disadvantaged kids play basketball every day instead of doing their schoolwork, in pursuit of athletic scholarships which they won't get? You seem to think that athletic scholarships are justified if they are good for the few people who get them, rather than asking what effect they have on society and the entire student population as a whole.

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.

First, I think you are overgeneralizing about the income balance; I would like to see some statistical sources for your claim that high school sports can be generalized as a net gainer. Second, you are thinking of sports solely in terms of how they benefit the top performers, not the harmful mixed messages that are being sent to the entire student body about where you should focus your attentions and who you should look to as a role model. Surely anyone with even a passing familiarity with American pop culture should realize that you people put far too much faith in athletes and actors to be role models. And third, I certainly don't hold up drama or music as necessities; I said earlier that if they were costing too much money I would axe them, so take your strawmen elsewhere.

[RedImperator]

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.

I'm not following this line of argument. It takes thousands of dollars to play golf regularly. I can buy a basketball, a backboard, a net, and mount it over the garage door for about a hundred bucks, if that, and if that's out of my price range, every playground in America has a basketball hoop. I'd be willing to bet the number of kids who've played pickup basketball, football, soccer, or baseball excedes the number of kids who've played tennis or golf by an order of magnitude. If you're going to rate a sport by the ability of kids to participate in it, the team sports own the individual ones. After all, most of the student body won't wind up making the track team, the tennis team, or the golf team either.

I can see why there's an argument against extramural team sports as extracurricular activities (though really, from what I've seen the cost argument really only applies to football and hockey, which require special equipment for every player and a special arena that doesn't serve a dual role, unlike, say a regulation size basketball gymnasium). But I'm not seeing why competitive team sports are such a terrible thing from this thread.

I'd also like to reply to the social argument. In my experience, there is a larger percentage of the student body that (unrealistically) thinks they're going to get athletic scholarships at my job then there was at my own high school. That's certainly a problem. However, I've found far more kids think they're going to make it as rap artists or producers than as athletes. The problem isn't that athletic scholarships have created distorted priorities, it's that there's a widespread belief in the ghetto that school is a waste of time, the system is rigged against poor black kids, and no matter how hard you try in school it doesn't matter, so the only way up is to be an athlete, be a performer, or be a drug dealer. That's more damaging and pervasive than even the "if you study hard, you're an Uncle Tom" meme, which I'm also starting to think is overblown. The real problem in the inner cities is nihilism. Athletic scholarships are a problem when they take money away from academics in college, but I haven't seen anything to convince me they're the engine behind academic disengagement in the inner city.

[CarsonPalmer]

Mike, the NFl employs 1600 people alone as athletes. This does not include coaches or talent scouts. This figure also does not include leagues such as the Arena Football League, semi-pro leagues, college coaches, recruiters and scouts. So a football player can seek viable employment in the sport itself. This does not include writing on the sport, or working football clinics and running camps.

[Edi]

Red, notice the qualifier of "time, money and interest permitting". I know golf is fucking expensive, so it's going to be out of the question for most people as a regular hobby. However, it doesn't mean that students couldn't be introduced to it cursorily at school. Something like taking a PE class to a practice field and teaching them the basics of how to swing and hit the ball properly, using rented clubs and balls (the cost is not very much, not here anyway). I don't mean that it should be done regularly or even often, but it serves a useful purpose of accomplishing the PE class goals. The students get familiar with a new individual sport, they get some (admittedly small amount of) practice and it does exercise them.

The limitations inherent to that particular sport just mean that the students most likely will not be able to pursue it actively on their own time.

Edi

[Elfdart]

Does any of this money go toward actual education?

Yes, though this varies widely since each school district has different rules. In some, any profits from school activities goes immediately to those who hold school bonds -in other words, retiring school district debt, whether those bonds were issued for a gymn, track, cafeteria or library. In other districts, the school board is free to spend the profits as they see fit (with certain restrictions). Also, the facilities for sports aren't just used for sports. The training room in the new gymn doubled as the school nurse's office. The gymn itself was multi-use as a gymn, auditorium and assembly hall. To this day, it's an election precinct. So not only did the money raised by basketball pay for a new gymn, it helped pay for a number of things that weren't directly related to sports.

Yet again you demonstrate that you completely miss the point; it's not a question of whether it helps the tiny percentage of kids who get athletic scholarships; it's a question of what it does to the community at large. Scholarships only go to the top performers; everyone else just wastes their time pursuing pipe dreams that won't go anywhere. Athletic achievement is a ridiculously low-percentage route to success.

Do they hand out scholarships to biology students with bad grades? No? Then why should a college give an athletic scholarship to a bad player? Athletic achievement may be about as likely as winning a lottery, but let's be realistic here. A jock whose only selling point to a university is his ability to shoot baskets was never going to cut it as an accountant, doctor, or engineer was he? Compared to his chances of making it in those lines of work, making it in the NBA might be his best of a several shitty hands.

Wow, so a country of 300 million people employs almost 2000 people in one industry. Yeah, that makes it all worthwhile.

For those who make the most of it, yes.

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.

How the fuck does that prove net positive contribution?

Private schools also make money off sports.

And how many disadvantaged kids play basketball every day instead of doing their schoolwork, in pursuit of athletic scholarships which they won't get? You seem to think that athletic scholarships are justified if they are good for the few people who get them, rather than asking what effect they have on society and the entire student population as a whole.

How many disadvantaged kids do other things instead of their homework like after school jobs? As I stated before, just because most people don't qualify for one scholarship or another doesn't mean those subjects shouldn't be in schools. How many people can draw or paint well enough to earn a scholarship? Does that mean art classes in high school are a waste of time and money? Keep in mind nobody buys tickets to see the sketches from a high school art class. They had to offer free pens to get people to watch our debate team. And the number of people who actually earn a living as artists is very small.

First, I think you are overgeneralizing about the income balance; I would like to see some statistical sources for your claim that high school sports can be generalized as a net gainer.

I made it clear that I was speaking about Texas, where football is a religion, with basketball and baseball close behind. People gladly cough up money to watch the school games. Businesses gladly give money for school sports as well. I conceded that this might not be typical for the rest of the country. I also made clear that if a school district is losing money on sports, they should cut off sports rather than say, textbooks.

Second, you are thinking of sports solely in terms of how they benefit the top performers, not the harmful mixed messages that are being sent to the entire student body about where you should focus your attentions and who you should look to as a role model.

I don't think the message is mixed at all. Even dumb kids figure out what the "grownups" truly value. It's not that schools venerate athletes so much. Society as a whole does. It would be nice if local businesses coughed up money for biology textbooks instead of jerseys for the basketball team. But they don't. Luckily, they sometimes have enough of a hardon for sports that the money they lavish on the local high school team spills over and benefits the schoole as a whole.

Surely anyone with even a passing familiarity with American pop culture should realize that you people put far too much faith in athletes and actors to be role models.

Faith? No, we just love to watch them at work and will pay good money to do so.

And third, I certainly don't hold up drama or music as necessities; I said earlier that if they were costing too much money I would axe them, so take your strawmen elsewhere.

What else would you cut off? Art? Literature? Foreign languages? I'm curious. Music, drama and team sports are expendable as far as you're concerned -what else?

So what are we arguing here? I agreed with my first post on this subject that if sports are a detriment -and I mean a real detriment, not some armchair psychology about role models and mixed messages- in a school district, cut them off immediately. I don't just mean financially. Some players turn their teams into gangs, like the h.s. football players in New Jersey who gangraped a retarded girl. I love sports, but I'd pull the plug on that program no matter how much money they brought in.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Sports aren't overly valued because the messages sent in high school. The message is sent to high school students (outside of school) by their elders because sports are overly valued.

[Uraniun235]

There's no denying that actors are generally walking dramabombs, but I would remind you that there's still a lot of teamwork to be found in the theater techs.

And there isn't among backup players, trainers, assistant coaches, video editing and computers?

You implied that there was little teamwork learned or demonstrated in theatrical productions. I gave counter-examples.

And no, I'd be willing to bet that the video editing was the product of someone handing a videotape or three full of footage to some guy and that guy making a (barely) presentable video out of it, and that hardly qualifies as teamwork.

[RedImperator]

Red, notice the qualifier of "time, money and interest permitting". I know golf is fucking expensive, so it's going to be out of the question for most people as a regular hobby. However, it doesn't mean that students couldn't be introduced to it cursorily at school. Something like taking a PE class to a practice field and teaching them the basics of how to swing and hit the ball properly, using rented clubs and balls (the cost is not very much, not here anyway). I don't mean that it should be done regularly or even often, but it serves a useful purpose of accomplishing the PE class goals. The students get familiar with a new individual sport, they get some (admittedly small amount of) practice and it does exercise them.

The limitations inherent to that particular sport just mean that the students most likely will not be able to pursue it actively on their own time.

Edi

Well, if you want to make that argument, that's fine. My high school did the same thing, with introducing us to new sports (I liked field hockey until I was informed you're not actually allowed to check anybody, at which point that whole unit became a waste of my time). But it's not going to provide as much benefit as a sport a kid can actually play on his own time. Teach a kid to hit a jump shot, and he might actually turn off the X-Box and go play basketball in his driveway on weekends.

On other things brought up in this thread: I can't speak about schools in which sports have become parasitic, because I didn't go to a school where that happened and I don't work in a school where that's happened. But in my experience as a teacher, the athletes are the most consistently reliable students. The "dumb jocks who coast through school" stereotype might have merit in some districts, but Philadelphia, which I'll readily call one of the most dysfunctional districts I've ever heard of, has managed to institute and enforce some elementary requirements for participation in athletics which pretty much lock the miscreants and the idiots out of all sports programs. And Philadelphia is a city where high school sports (especially high school basketball) actually get some attention, unlike my hometown where I learned my own high school won the state football championship by reading it in the paper.

This is a direct academic benefit of a well-run sports program, and it goes beyond benefitting the athletes themselves. Every teacher in the building needs a critical mass of students who are going to show up every day and actually put some effort into schoolwork, and that's not a given where I work (some of my colleagues have 40% absenteeism every day, and it's NOT the same kids consistently absent--try teaching a one week unit like that).

There's another benefit to athletics which applies directly to inner city schools, and probably in a lot of other places: a kid who's at school playing basketball is a kid who's not hanging around on the street corner looking for trouble. Of course, any and all extracurricular activity is good for this, which is why I cringe whenever I hear about an extracurricular getting cut in this district, but for a lot of kids, sports is the only activity for which they'll stay after school. This doesn't justify leagues and football stadiums and spending tens of thousands of dollars on new uniforms or somesuch bullshit, but it is a direct benefit of athletic activites themselves.