Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think schools, including colleges, should not be associated with sports at all.
If there is a demand for these sports, the market will support it. Clubs will be formed, players will join these clubs and play, people and businesses will sponsor.
I do not see the need for the whole dog and pony show linking sports with education, especially in college. Let the NFL sponsor clubs, and let players join these clubs without the BS of school with it. No different than someone joining an apprentice program or something.
In high school my district felt is was more important to renovate the football field, stadium, and track around the field, than to actually update the over fifty year old high school with no air conditioning or any ventilation other than fans running; Oh yes, and purchasing enough textbooks for students.
Absolutely. The taxpayers should not be supporting anything more then the "three R's". Only a very small percentage of players will make it in pro football (or any other sport), and there is little or no return to the taxpayers. Let the teams/clubs/franchises pay the freight. The public has no duty to have their tax dollars sucked out of them to pay for these extracurricular activities.
There has been a longstanding mandate that the public support a certain amount of education to [try to] ensure that children can read and write and do some math, to give them a foundation to do something with their lives and become contributing members of society, but that should not include the spending of billions of tax dollars on 'sports' so that a very few can go on to become pro 'athletes', being paid multi-millions of dollars to play in exhibitions for which advertisers pay exorbitant prices for ad spots which further inflates the costs of goods and services and takes even more money out of the taxpayers pockets.
The person I was responding to was talking about taking sports out of high schools and having them privately funded. Where would the poor kids get the money for that? If they didn't have the opportunity to participate during the high school years how would they get recruited for those scholarships?
Who cares? It isn't the taxpayers' duty to support 'advancement' based on 'athletic prowess'. 'Sports' activities should be privately funded by those who *choose* to contribute, the public shouldn't be footing the bill.
I believe a lot of folks who are chiming in against school sports are lazy and won't put in any effort beyond typing on their keyboards. They won't go to school board meetings and plead their case.
Absolutely. The taxpayers should not be supporting anything more then the "three R's".
In the main I agree with the comment. Surely readin', 'ritin' and 'rithmetic are important to the education of youth. Yet I'd think it's also the responsibility of school systems to introduce kids to some things which would enhance their quality of life in the present as well as for the future and impacts their physical well-being. Sports particpation does teach students the importance of being sensitive to their bodies. A 'tired' body affects performance not only physically but intellectually as well. And considering the nation's health bill, school systems I think would be remiss in not paying attention to that since decisions there affect the overall society at large.
The person I was responding to was talking about taking sports out of high schools and having them privately funded. Where would the poor kids get the money for that? If they didn't have the opportunity to participate during the high school years how would they get recruited for those scholarships?
Ah, I need to clarify. By private, I mean private business. Investors form leagues where making profit is the goal. They'd have a real chance at making a profit due to selling tickets, advertisements etc. This would be realistic if the leagues featured the very best players and coaches in the sport at that level. Not private as in the players pay tuition/fees etc. It would be similar to, but hopefully better than like what we already see in AAU and 7-on-7 passing leagues.
Why would it take away scholarship opportunites? Athletic scholarships are given to kids who show promise to help the college's sports team win games and, ultimately, make money. The only academic requirements are that the kids meet the absolute bare minimum academic standards set forth. All of that would still exist. The kid would still be expected to meet the minimum academic standards and then, from there, it's all about athletic prowess. And that's already measured by the athletes performances at camps and other events ran by the college. If there were an entire league of sport-specific programs, those programs could compete against one another and that would provide more evidence of athletic ability. Making kids play for sports programs not run by the school system would have no bearing on their prospects of earning a college scholarship.
This is partly true. Much basketball recruiting is done at AAU tournaments where the best players compete and a coach can many very good players at one location. It is not true in football. Girls' volleyball and softball are more similar to basketball in that there are numerous tournaments that make it easier for coaches to see the best players at one location.
(All of that said, I think sports should also be separated from universities as well. But, that's another discussion for another day.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyway31
Ah, I need to clarify. By private, I mean private business. Investors form leagues where making profit is the goal. They'd have a real chance at making a profit due to selling tickets, advertisements etc. This would be realistic if the leagues featured the very best players and coaches in the sport at that level. Not private as in the players pay tuition/fees etc. It would be similar to, but hopefully better than like what we already see in AAU and 7-on-7 passing leagues.
Sorry but this is not feasible. Sports at the high school level are never going to make a profit. You might see HS football games grossing $15-20,000 but that barely covers the expenses. The HS football teams that draw the most fans have the school and community behind them and have usually have a history of winning seasons. If you have ever been to an AAU or 7-on-7 passing league, you would know that they play those games mainly in front of the parents.
Ah, I need to clarify. By private, I mean private business. Investors form leagues where making profit is the goal. They'd have a real chance at making a profit due to selling tickets, advertisements etc. This would be realistic if the leagues featured the very best players and coaches in the sport at that level. Not private as in the players pay tuition/fees etc. It would be similar to, but hopefully better than like what we already see in AAU and 7-on-7 passing leagues.
I don't think you could make a profit that way. The current model for private sports teams includes the players paying a fee. There probably is not enough demand for minor sports to charge an entrance fee to anyone outside of the players immediate family members. We charge an entrance fee for our varsity lacrosse games. We make enough money to feed the kids a few meals during the season. If we had to pay employees to collect the money it would not be worth collecting the fee. There is no way we would make enough money to pay coaches salaries, referee fees or transportation.
I don't know what other sports charge but in my area a summer tournament team for boy's lacrosse will run the parents around $700. That includes uniforms, permits for fields, tournament fees and coaching salaries. Each player has to pay their own travel costs which brings the total cost to well over $1,000 for the summer season. Players are expected to have their own equipment. There are several tournament teams in my area and they all charge about the same amount. I don't see how poor kids could afford that sort of expense.
Sorry but this is not feasible. Sports at the high school level are never going to make a profit. You might see HS football games grossing $15-20,000 but that barely covers the expenses. The HS football teams that draw the most fans have the school and community behind them and have usually have a history of winning seasons. If you have ever been to an AAU or 7-on-7 passing league, you would know that they play those games mainly in front of the parents.
The other thing you have to remember is that much of the gate is paid by students. If the games were not affiliated with the school the crowds would be much smaller. My kids wrestle and play lacrosse, both minor sports. Both sports have events run outside of high schools. Most of the spectators are parents and other immediate family members of the players.
I agree. I guess my problem with the idea of taking sports out of high schools is that it increases the already large gap between rich/middle class and poor kids. Why would we want to increase that, and take away opportunities from kids who wouldn't have them otherwise?
Why? What increases the gap between rich and poor (in schools) is lack of a quality education.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
