The second topic up for discussion is Recruiting in Private Schools. How do you feel about it? Are you all for it? All you all against it? Please share what your personal feelings on the topic.
Now for my opinion on the matter
I personally feel that recruiting is a very realistic approach to life afterwards for those who are gifted in the areas that are people are usualy being recruited for. By this I mean, if someone is really good at football they will most likely get recruited for colllege as well. Some people say its unfair for private schools to wave tuition if a kid is being recruited for football but why? In college it happens all the time. There doesnt appear to be anything inherantly wrong with the situation.
Now as far as private schools being so much better in highschol sports I agree. Thats why I applaud IHSA decision to have a 1.5 X multiplier to any private school. However I dont think it should be a flat multiplier. I think it should be a formula, one also based on geography and the distance that the students who are being recruited are coming from. How many school districts that child has to go through to get to that public school. I think this would help make it more fair.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I disagree with your statement. I think that recruiting should either be open to all schools in a conference or none in the conference. Not only is education a little worse at the private schools (when students tuition is waved, that obviously gives the school less money) but high school is where you learn the basics for life and then go to a school of higher learning. I don't think people should start in high school with being recruited to schools for sports, because they aren't given a part of their high school life I believe is necessary to a growing kid, which is the diverse environment in the school. If there is recruiting for just some of the schools, they are separated from the rest of the croud and sometimes segragated by the surrounding schools, because the public schools who don't offer recruiting pick on the "goody two shoes" students who go to a private school like that. The multiplier is good for the whole sports network so the teams face eachother evenly instead of a 6A team dropping down to 1A when playoffs come around, but I don't believe that should really be the main focus of whether or not recruiting should be allowed. There needs to be a standard for EVERYONE to follow.
I don't think the blanket statement that education is worse at private schools, it depends on the schools. Not all public schools are equal either. And as far as recruiting it's not just with sports, although the majority of public exposure is with sports. Any private school naturally recruits. Recruiting is simply trying to sell your institution as having something better than the others. Why else would someone pay extra to go to private schools. Something (be it sports, programs, student/teacher ratio, religious viewpoint, etc.) is presented as better than the competition. Many times, recruiting come down to money. Unfortunately an athletic team brings in more money than the scholastic bowl team. In order for private schools to survive they need revenue... and when they get the "best" athletes they generate that... but at the same time the public school system is losing those athletes and it's athletic event revenue goes down. I don't think recruiting will ever be completely eliminated, it can't because of the money involved. If you allow all to recruit, the private schools would cry foul because the public schools also get government aid (no matter how small). Honestly, I would eliminate private schools from IHSA competition all together. Different rules, different league. I know it would raise an uproar, but it's the option I would choose.
Good point, the private schools do need to be in their own league but still be able to recruit for those reasons you stated. As long as they aren't in a league with teams who can't recruit for whatever reason, I am okay with it.
Why? Why should they be in a different league. IHSA itself claims that it doesnt exist for the purpose of providing schools good competition...its to teach them more than that. Its to teach them life lessons and good sportsmanship through high school athletics. Does a private school who has better players distract from that goal? No...it doesnt. And if it does i dont think thats the private schools problems. Somewhere along the line people have lost perspective of what sports are about. People think that started at private schools with recruiting...i dissagree. I think it started with public schools complaining about thre recruiting. Private schools cant get funding the same way...they recruit for this reason. I dont see anything wrong...again...where is it wrong.
You are right, sports are meant to teach life lessons, but think about the lessons taught to the kids in public schools who face a school of that caliber. Also the feeling of self-doubt not being able to advance like Arthur has in the past into semi-finals and whatnot just because they face a school with the best of the best from around the area. An arguement to that could be the school facing that school with the all starts doesn't deserve to advance if they can't beat the private school, but I think the most important lessons are taught when one fails after succeeding and surpassing many goals. They learn that hard work got them where they were and that is what it takes to make it far in life, but those schools who get annhiliated in the first round of playoffs go to sleep with the lesson that hard work only earns them a spot on the bench for the rest of the season.
Wow, read recruitment and thought this was going into military...I have no opinion one way or the other on this as I have no idea what the problem actually is.
I can see both sides of the argument and they both make sense in certain aspects. When it comes down to it, for me, it's their right as a private school to recruit. As far as competing against them, I would welcome the competition. I find that sometimes it takes someone better than you to bring out your full potential.
I don't think the argument can be made the rules should be changed because one school is winning or not winning. The life lesson that should be taught are doing your best and facing competition with your head held high... the only time winning makes a difference is in popularity of the teams. Which is where I think the matter lies. Many schools (especially small schools) rely on athletic events to create revenue for the school. If one school is allowed to create an all-star team (which they usually do to drive up revenue) then the smaller schools lose out. If they have their own league, then perhaps some will stay in order to really win the "state" championship and not the private one.
As far as evening the playing field, what are we teaching. This has nothing to do with racism or any other legitimate problem. It then becomes "well it's not fair, they're (fill in the blank) than us". What are we teaching, that effort and doing your best no matter the odds aren't important? That's it's only worth doing if you're gonna win? Yes we all have dreams, and yes we've all had dreams slip away, does that mean it's all pointless? No, it simply means that dream didn't pan out, but I can still be proud of the effort and the guts to try. How many people rip on their bad teams but aren't willing (or close to being able) to help it. I read a story about a school losing the entire season and while I feel bad for them (and if it's my team wish they'd win) but I'm proud of them for trying. We are a society that has determined that winning is the only thing that matters. Yes it's important in the context of the game, but at the end of the day for most athletes (non-professional) does it make much of a difference? Really? My daughter may some day play sports (which as a sports nut I'd love) but win or lose I want her to fight and be proud of the effort. Too many of us have lost sight of that. Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now and let someone respond. :D
I suppose you make a good point...I am a little bias seeing as I watched the State games on t.v. for high school sports and there was only like 1 public team that won higher up. Every other school was a private catholic school. That is really what gets to me...even though I spoke to my father(he went to a catholic school in chicago) and he said most private schools from that are don't like going to state championchips. They all compete for city championchips and stay out of the state ship which I respect. That state needs to provide more funding to eduation anyways. From what I hear from the teachers, the grants given out each year gradually decreases in value, which is absurd. Kids in school are the future leaders of America. That is where funding should all be placed.
Yes, I am agreeing with the point. Recruiting is very important. For the recruitment students also develops the feeling of confidence. junior private schools recruit students according their abilities.
http://www.teensprivateschools.com/schooltypes/Private-Schools/index.html
Post a Comment