socio-economics and athletics

[soccerdad]

Probably, the most difficult thing about all this "public/private debate" is the socio-economics of our culture. I believe there are two socio-economic factors, in particular, that have a lot to do with our discussion.

 

First, a high percentage of good athletes come from well-to-do families (wealth brings health and health often improves intelligence and physical skill) who would rather see their child in a school with a readily apparent mission/purpose/goal (ie. college prep, Christian, etc.) rather than the public schools that don't really have a readily apparent mission/purpose/goal (I know, I've been in both). So they send them to these schools.

 

However, this happens in the public realm also - parents send their children to better publics when they have the chance (obviously this occurs in locales where there's more than one school = urban/suburban areas).

 

The other socio-economic factor that greatly affects our discussion is the plight of the poor. There are many great athletes from the poorer parts of our communities. Many of these are minorities. Unfortunately, sports may be the only way out of poverty so they look for the best routes to success that happen to be in their area.

 

Usually, these tend to be with the schools that have a winning tradition, and can be either private or public. They look for schools that have raised the interest of the scouts. Because of my point above, the private schools who attract the wealthy, have developed a winning tradition and thus the interest of the scouts. This is true for some of the elite publics also. So when you add in the poor/minority athlete, looking for a way out, to the wealthy-family athlete you have developed quite a program!

 

There is no way to legislate against this! It's a fact of life. To try to do so (legislate against socio-economics in sports) would be to say that NASCAR can only be raced in a car of a certain make (say Ford), because others would offer too much competition. Or, it's like saying no more hispanics from the Caribbean can play baseball, or we must limit the number of southerners on NFL teams - they're just to good! Maybe these analogies aren't good, but we must admit that legislating equality is something that even the Supreme Court has trouble with.

 

The American way is to face the odds stacked against you, spit in their faces, bring your best game, and work your hardest to win. In so doing, you elevate your game and begin to build a tradition that will lead to excellence and success!!!

 

In the mean time, the schools that attract the wealthy and the poor will continue to excel, giving us all something to measure up to, something to strive for, something to make us get off our backsides and spend more time being all that we can be (great Army slogan of the past!). Isn't that a great goal for life - to be the best that we can possibly be? And not worry about our shortcomings compared to others! That's what brings joy and fulfillment!

 

So I say, lets stop whining and do something proactive. First, each individual must commit to improvement. Then, each must work on bringing up his fellow man or woman - helping them to be all that they can be. Place us all together in four divisions - but totally outlaw recruiting of any kind (leave it for the colleges and pros). There might be some others things we could do to promote competition. What we are doing now stinks!

 

The end result will be true champions of our great state who got there by being committed to excellence. Yeah, I know some of you think this is full of hogwash, but don't go on denying the facts of life: life is not fair. Well, I've said enough!

 

Your friend (of both public and private), a former athlete, a former public school athlete's parent, a current coach (in both public and private), soccerdad.

[cbg]

Probably, the most difficult thing about all this "public/private debate" is the socio-economics of our culture. I believe there are two socio-economic factors, in particular, that have a lot to do with our discussion.

 

First, a high percentage of good athletes come from well-to-do families (wealth brings health and health often improves intelligence and physical skill) who would rather see their child in a school with a readily apparent mission/purpose/goal (ie. college prep, Christian, etc.) rather than the public schools that don't really have a readily apparent mission/purpose/goal (I know, I've been in both). So they send them to these schools.

 

However, this happens in the public realm also - parents send their children to better publics when they have the chance (obviously this occurs in locales where there's more than one school = urban/suburban areas).

 

The other socio-economic factor that greatly affects our discussion is the plight of the poor. There are many great athletes from the poorer parts of our communities. Many of these are minorities. Unfortunately, sports may be the only way out of poverty so they look for the best routes to success that happen to be in their area.

 

Usually, these tend to be with the schools that have a winning tradition, and can be either private or public. They look for schools that have raised the interest of the scouts. Because of my point above, the private schools who attract the wealthy, have developed a winning tradition and thus the interest of the scouts. This is true for some of the elite publics also. So when you add in the poor/minority athlete, looking for a way out, to the wealthy-family athlete you have developed quite a program!

 

There is no way to legislate against this! It's a fact of life. To try to do so (legislate against socio-economics in sports) would be to say that NASCAR can only be raced in a car of a certain make (say Ford), because others would offer too much competition. Or, it's like saying no more hispanics from the Caribbean can play baseball, or we must limit the number of southerners on NFL teams - they're just to good! Maybe these analogies aren't good, but we must admit that legislating equality is something that even the Supreme Court has trouble with.

 

The American way is to face the odds stacked against you, spit in their faces, bring your best game, and work your hardest to win. In so doing, you elevate your game and begin to build a tradition that will lead to excellence and success!!!

 

In the mean time, the schools that attract the wealthy and the poor will continue to excel, giving us all something to measure up to, something to strive for, something to make us get off our backsides and spend more time being all that we can be (great Army slogan of the past!). Isn't that a great goal for life - to be the best that we can possibly be? And not worry about our shortcomings compared to others! That's what brings joy and fulfillment!

 

So I say, lets stop whining and do something proactive. First, each individual must commit to improvement. Then, each must work on bringing up his fellow man or woman - helping them to be all that they can be. Place us all together in four divisions - but totally outlaw recruiting of any kind (leave it for the colleges and pros). There might be some others things we could do to promote competition. What we are doing now stinks!

 

The end result will be true champions of our great state who got there by being committed to excellence. Yeah, I know some of you think this is full of hogwash, but don't go on denying the facts of life: life is not fair. Well, I've said enough!

 

Your friend (of both public and private), a former athlete, a former public school athlete's parent, a current coach (in both public and private), soccerdad.

 

You talk of sports being the only way out of poverty for some poor athletes and I have a problem with that. Sports may be the easy way out for those athletes but EDUCATION is the best way out of poverty for those same athletes. Athletics is a quick fix but in the long run those with the most education will make more money and have a much better quality of life. Those same athletes have a much better chance of being admitted to medical, law or graduate school than they do of playing professional sports if they worked on academics. We often hear of how some kids from the housing projects play basketball ten or twelve hour each day but I ask you just how smart would they be if they worked on academics for five or six hours per day? How many times have we heard of the ex professional athlete that was broke and on the streets when they were in their 50's and beyond? Never under estimate the power of education.

[VolunteerGeneral]

One thing for certain, there is no way on this earth you can fairly legislate socio-economic differences.

[Baldcoach]

One thing for certain, there is no way on this earth you can fairly legislate socio-economic differences.

 

 

Agreed. Russia and China tried it for years. Russia fell and China gave up. Why would we expect different results than those that have happened all throughout history? Sounds like the definition of insanity to me...

[soccerdad]

You talk of sports being the only way out of poverty for some poor athletes and I have a problem with that. Sports may be the easy way out for those athletes but EDUCATION is the best way out of poverty for those same athletes. Athletics is a quick fix but in the long run those with the most education will make more money and have a much better quality of life. Those same athletes have a much better chance of being admitted to medical, law or graduate school than they do of playing professional sports if they worked on academics. We often hear of how some kids from the housing projects play basketball ten or twelve hour each day but I ask you just how smart would they be if they worked on academics for five or six hours per day? How many times have we heard of the ex professional athlete that was broke and on the streets when they were in their 50's and beyond? Never under estimate the power of education.

 

What I was refering to was THEIR perception of how to get out of thier rough spot. Hopefully, they will become better educated and succeed in high school, college, and life. Having taught students from these backgrounds in the past, I've found that they come to their new schools somewhat deficient in both academics and social relations (due to a wider array of cultures/personalities in the new school). So, as they work hard on the field or court, they have to work hard in their academics and personal relations - its pretty hard on most of them.

[BDURHAM]

You are a coach, right? If you coach soccer, then I'm

having a tough time following your thinking. "Poor

kids" are going to a school with a strong soccer program

in hopes of getting a scholarship -- in Tennessee?

 

I personally find it uncomfortable to read your posts about

"well-to-do" and "poor" kids. I know what you mean, but

I think you over-simply the issues and strip people of their

dignity by using these classifications. Your intent may not

be to insensitive, but these words are very awkward.

 

People in poverty don't need this type of help.

 

They need good schools, hospitals, jobs, housing, etc.

 

Sports may be a part of the development, but not "the"

factor.

 

A coach helping a kid makes the difference. A teacher

and/or administrator can help a kid. A pastor or

volunteer at a church may help a kid. Someone at

the boys club may help someone.

 

 

 

The other socio-economic factor that greatly affects our discussion is the plight of the poor. There are many great athletes from the poorer parts of our communities. Many of these are minorities. Unfortunately, sports may be the only way out of poverty so they look for the best routes to success that happen to be in their area.

 

Usually, these tend to be with the schools that have a winning tradition, and can be either private or public. They look for schools that have raised the interest of the scouts. Because of my point above, the private schools who attract the wealthy, have developed a winning tradition and thus the interest of the scouts. This is true for some of the elite publics also. So when you add in the poor/minority athlete, looking for a way out, to the wealthy-family athlete you have developed quite a program!

 

The American way is to face the odds stacked against you, spit in their faces, bring your best game, and work your hardest to win. In so doing, you elevate your game and begin to build a tradition that will lead to excellence and success!!!

 

Your friend (of both public and private), a former athlete, a former public school athlete's parent, a current coach (in both public and private), soccerdad.

[soccerdad]

You are a coach, right? If you coach soccer, then I'm

having a tough time following your thinking. "Poor

kids" are going to a school with a strong soccer program

in hopes of getting a scholarship -- in Tennessee?

 

I personally find it uncomfortable to read your posts about

"well-to-do" and "poor" kids. I know what you mean, but

I think you over-simply the issues and strip people of their

dignity by using these classifications. Your intent may not

be to insensitive, but these words are very awkward.

 

People in poverty don't need this type of help.

 

They need good schools, hospitals, jobs, housing, etc.

 

Sports may be a part of the development, but not "the"

factor.

 

A coach helping a kid makes the difference. A teacher

and/or administrator can help a kid. A pastor or

volunteer at a church may help a kid. Someone at

the boys club may help someone.

 

I'm not sure why you're not following Stan. I am a teacher (who's helped coach football) and I'm talking about how people in our society try to better themselves through sports AND education. Cuz if you don't get the grades you don't play. No one comes to Goodpasture looking for a ride based on their soccer abilities - however, Goodpasture attracts many other kinds of athletes. Sports is not THE factor, education is. If they don't get it they don't play in sports or succeed in life. This was an observation about how schools don't have to recruit to get quality student-athletes, quality student-athletes (rich, middle, and poor) are drawn to them by their quality programs. No judgements involved.

[oknative]

I think both of you are right, in the context of the arguments you put forward. I think soccerdad was trying to say that many perceive athletics as means out of poverty. We see athletes on television everyday who make millions upon millions of dollars, and many aspire to that end, not fully understanding the miniscule odds of ever achieving that goal. The odds are much greater through education.

 

Yet StanTrott is absolutley right that education is by far the best route out of poverty. However, the problem is that most of our educational systems are simply broke. Why do we have teachers that can't teach, or students that won't learn, or parents who don't involve themselves in their students lives and school systems. I'm not trying to indict our teachers, parents or schools, so don't go there, but we are passing students through grades without them knowing the material of the grades? Why, because it does them more psychological harm to hold them back than to pass them through without knowing the material.

 

Football and the socio-economics of sports is a minor issue when compared to the much larger issue of our failing school systems.