| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/21/14 9:59 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| IM in OC wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Actually, we've left out the single biggest restriction of them all - the draft that every pro league uses to allocate players. Unlike college athletes, pros have no choice at all in where they will play their first few years (for a period as long or longer than they spend in college), no right to change teams during those years, and their pay in the NFL and NBA is largely set by a formula, not by negotiation. So explain how they have more "freedom of movement" than college players.
Johnny Manzeil CHOSE to go to TAMU. You think he'd be playing in Cleveland this fall if he had any choice in his NFL team? ,Does he have the choice to leave Cleveland and play in NY next year if he wants? Did he have any choice in accepting a four year stint in Cleveland? College players have MORE choice, not less.
What's "false" is that players once they get out of that "unreasonably restrictive" world of college sports will get unlimited freedom to play where they want and to move whenever they want. That's a fairy tale. |
Unless your names are John Elway or Eli Manning.
Manzeil would be laughed out of the league if he tried to pull what those 2 pulled. |
The wage scale also didn't exist when they were rookies. |
Art, what would be wrong with a negotiated contract? |
Why should schools " negotiate" with players? Seriously, why? Do the pee wee or HS or AAU leagues in which you coach "negotiate" the terms under which those players participate? Are state HS associations supposed to negotiate with their players? Pop Warner football? Little League? CYO basketball?
What about Div II, Div III, NAIA? Does your crusade for "negotiation" extend to them?
Because it's all the same thing. There is ONE sport played at a small number of schools that makes a bunch of money. All the rest - volleyball, soccer, lacrosse, golf, tennis, gymnastics, baseball, softball, water polo, track, diving, etc, etc etc (oh yes, and WBB too) are just like high school sports - activities paid for by the school as part of the overall educational experience; an expensive investment done for the same reasons that high schools and Div III colleges do it.
I know you insist on denying that there is any educational mission involved, but you might as well deny water is wet. That is the mission of these institutions. And there is no reason these schools need to alter their mission or how they choose to approach it just because some pro leagues refuse to invest in their own farm systems and deny a very tiny number of players the option of turning pro, and some tiny (in the overall picture of college athletics) number of players want to be pros and don't want an education. That is not the schools'choice or responsibility. If you don't want to attend a college and play by the college rules, then don't. It's a privilege, not a right. If you want to be a pro, then don't go to college. Go to Congress and get them to force the pro leagues to let you play. It's not the schools' problem. It really isn't.
Explain why the schools should negotiate with their students over how their sports and athletic scholarships are handled any more than they should negotiate academic scholarships, the numbers of credits and courses required for a degree, or the curiculum and textbook for the quantum physics course. Seriously. Why should they?
Just repeating "well a few schools make a bunch of money off of football" doesn't even start as an explanation.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/21/14 10:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| It is very rare that I wish for active moderation on RebKell, but every once in a while . . .
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66926
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/21/14 10:43 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| IM in OC wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Actually, we've left out the single biggest restriction of them all - the draft that every pro league uses to allocate players. Unlike college athletes, pros have no choice at all in where they will play their first few years (for a period as long or longer than they spend in college), no right to change teams during those years, and their pay in the NFL and NBA is largely set by a formula, not by negotiation. So explain how they have more "freedom of movement" than college players.
Johnny Manzeil CHOSE to go to TAMU. You think he'd be playing in Cleveland this fall if he had any choice in his NFL team? ,Does he have the choice to leave Cleveland and play in NY next year if he wants? Did he have any choice in accepting a four year stint in Cleveland? College players have MORE choice, not less.
What's "false" is that players once they get out of that "unreasonably restrictive" world of college sports will get unlimited freedom to play where they want and to move whenever they want. That's a fairy tale. |
Unless your names are John Elway or Eli Manning.
Manzeil would be laughed out of the league if he tried to pull what those 2 pulled. |
The wage scale also didn't exist when they were rookies. |
Art, what would be wrong with a negotiated contract? |
Why should schools " negotiate" with players? Seriously, why? Do the pee wee or HS or AAU leagues in which you coach "negotiate" the terms under which those players participate? Are state HS associations supposed to negotiate with their players? Pop Warner football? Little League? CYO basketball?
What about Div II, Div III, NAIA? Does your crusade for "negotiation" extend to them?
Because it's all the same thing. There is ONE sport played at a small number of schools that makes a bunch of money. All the rest - volleyball, soccer, lacrosse, golf, tennis, gymnastics, baseball, softball, water polo, track, diving, etc, etc etc (oh yes, and WBB too) are just like high school sports - activities paid for by the school as part of the overall educational experience; an expensive investment done for the same reasons that high schools and Div III colleges do it.
I know you insist on denying that there is any educational mission involved, but you might as well deny water is wet. That is the mission of these institutions. And there is no reason these schools need to alter their mission or how they choose to approach it just because some pro leagues refuse to invest in their own farm systems and deny a very tiny number of players the option of turning pro, and some tiny (in the overall picture of college athletics) number of players want to be pros and don't want an education. That is not the schools'choice or responsibility. If you don't want to attend a college and play by the college rules, then don't. It's a privilege, not a right. If you want to be a pro, then don't go to college. Go to Congress and get them to force the pro leagues to let you play. It's not the schools' problem. It really isn't.
Explain why the schools should negotiate with their students over how their sports and athletic scholarships are handled any more than they should negotiate academic scholarships, the numbers of credits and courses required for a degree, or the curiculum and textbook for the quantum physics course. Seriously. Why should they?
Just repeating "well a few schools make a bunch of money off of football" doesn't even start as an explanation. |
How is the educational mission served by forcing players to sit out a year when transferring?
Pee Wee, High Schools, and AAU don't do that. Pop Warner, Little League, and CYO don't do it either. For that matter, Div II, Div III, and NAIA don't do it. It is exclusive to Div I. There is no rational basis to suggest this has anything to do with education.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/21/14 11:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| IM in OC wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Actually, we've left out the single biggest restriction of them all - the draft that every pro league uses to allocate players. Unlike college athletes, pros have no choice at all in where they will play their first few years (for a period as long or longer than they spend in college), no right to change teams during those years, and their pay in the NFL and NBA is largely set by a formula, not by negotiation. So explain how they have more "freedom of movement" than college players.
Johnny Manzeil CHOSE to go to TAMU. You think he'd be playing in Cleveland this fall if he had any choice in his NFL team? ,Does he have the choice to leave Cleveland and play in NY next year if he wants? Did he have any choice in accepting a four year stint in Cleveland? College players have MORE choice, not less.
What's "false" is that players once they get out of that "unreasonably restrictive" world of college sports will get unlimited freedom to play where they want and to move whenever they want. That's a fairy tale. |
Unless your names are John Elway or Eli Manning.
Manzeil would be laughed out of the league if he tried to pull what those 2 pulled. |
The wage scale also didn't exist when they were rookies. |
Art, what would be wrong with a negotiated contract? |
Why should schools " negotiate" with players? Seriously, why? Do the pee wee or HS or AAU leagues in which you coach "negotiate" the terms under which those players participate? Are state HS associations supposed to negotiate with their players? Pop Warner football? Little League? CYO basketball?
What about Div II, Div III, NAIA? Does your crusade for "negotiation" extend to them?
Because it's all the same thing. There is ONE sport played at a small number of schools that makes a bunch of money. All the rest - volleyball, soccer, lacrosse, golf, tennis, gymnastics, baseball, softball, water polo, track, diving, etc, etc etc (oh yes, and WBB too) are just like high school sports - activities paid for by the school as part of the overall educational experience; an expensive investment done for the same reasons that high schools and Div III colleges do it.
I know you insist on denying that there is any educational mission involved, but you might as well deny water is wet. That is the mission of these institutions. And there is no reason these schools need to alter their mission or how they choose to approach it just because some pro leagues refuse to invest in their own farm systems and deny a very tiny number of players the option of turning pro, and some tiny (in the overall picture of college athletics) number of players want to be pros and don't want an education. That is not the schools'choice or responsibility. If you don't want to attend a college and play by the college rules, then don't. It's a privilege, not a right. If you want to be a pro, then don't go to college. Go to Congress and get them to force the pro leagues to let you play. It's not the schools' problem. It really isn't.
Explain why the schools should negotiate with their students over how their sports and athletic scholarships are handled any more than they should negotiate academic scholarships, the numbers of credits and courses required for a degree, or the curiculum and textbook for the quantum physics course. Seriously. Why should they?
Just repeating "well a few schools make a bunch of money off of football" doesn't even start as an explanation. |
How is the educational mission served by forcing players to sit out a year when transferring?
Pee Wee, High Schools, and AAU don't do that. Pop Warner, Little League, and CYO don't do it either. For that matter, Div II, Div III, and NAIA don't do it. It is exclusive to Div I. There is no rational basis to suggest this has anything to do with education. |
High Schools most certainly do limit transfers. Just ask Homewood-Flossmore. Almost all public leagues limit wherestudents can attend and play sports. CYO only allows you to play for your own parish; you can't transfer to another team. Even most little leagues limit movement. All to preserve competition and prevent chaos.
Oh, and there are a whole slew of rules limiting and regulating transfers at Div II and II and NAIA too. Div III has the least, but there are still rules. Where do you get the idea that no one other than Div I limits player movement?
AAU doesn't have any educational mission.
If you want to see how the NCAA considers transfer restrictions important to its educational mission, read their own statements on the subject. They explain it. You'll probaly dismiss their explanations, but then you're probably not a university president.
|
|
willtalk
Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 1098
Location: NorCal
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/24/14 6:01 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
Art, what would be wrong with a negotiated contract? |
Who would do the negotiations? A union? A students association?. Who would organize and then administer it?. Students usually only go to college for four years. Does one group or class negotiate policy for all those that follow? How often would they reorganize and negotiate a new contract?. Every four years? two? There is no logistical way it could be set up so that the students subjected to any contract would be able to have a voice or any control over what it includes. What would transpire is a created Union administered by a continuing body that every incoming student athlete would have to join and support financially ( where else would they get their financing?). Just another agency that would end up serving it's own selfish agenda's that students and Universities would have to kow tow to. It's simple to say let the student athletes negotiate their own contract but not so easy to put into practice with out creating a worse problem than presently exists
Oh then another question comes up. Who do they negotiate with. Each University or the NCAA?
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11151
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/24/14 11:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I would say that existing students and grad students who are on scholarship would form a committee to negotiate how the contract should read, just as professional players negotiate for players not yet in the league.
Paying for that association is an issue, but perhaps $10 a year dues from each athlete receiving athletic financial aid would suffice.
To start with, let's say each D-1 school had its scholarship athletes (full and partial) elect one representative for a convention, paid for by the NCAA, and that group could gather, form an executive committee and begin the process.
I don't think the details are a major issue. To me, what's important is that the athletes have a voice in the process and access to independent arbitration of conflicts.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
POLOinMD
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 27
Location: Washington DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/26/14 9:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I feel those who are against students being able to transfer are not really concerned for the students, but are only saying so for selfish reasons. I'm sorry if a transfer causes your team to no longer be as competitive as it would have been, if the player had stayed, but the bottom line is if someone wants to leave they should have the right to do so, and with no restrictions. Not only that, but why would anyone want to force a disgruntled player from being able to transfer. That player is only going to become a cancer to the team and it's cohesion. Just let the player go and move on.
Anti transfer pettiness is really big on the high school level. I hate when a HS team is good and other teams who couldn't beat them in competition, tries to get them disqualified by using petty residency rules, or some other trick. Folks just need to mind their own dam business. The decision to transfer should be between a student and their parents only. Schools should not have the ability to limit where anyone's child decides to go to school and if they decide to transfer to be on a better team, so be it.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 1:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| POLOinMD wrote: |
I feel those who are against students being able to transfer are not really concerned for the students, but are only saying so for selfish reasons. I'm sorry if a transfer causes your team to no longer be as competitive as it would have been, if the player had stayed, but the bottom line is if someone wants to leave they should have the right to do so, and with no restrictions. Not only that, but why would anyone want to force a disgruntled player from being able to transfer. That player is only going to become a cancer to the team and it's cohesion. Just let the player go and move on.
Anti transfer pettiness is really big on the high school level. I hate when a HS team is good and other teams who couldn't beat them in competition, tries to get them disqualified by using petty residency rules, or some other trick. Folks just need to mind their own dam business. The decision to transfer should be between a student and their parents only. Schools should not have the ability to limit where anyone's child decides to go to school and if they decide to transfer to be on a better team, so be it. |
Are you referring to fans or to school and team officials?
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 6:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| I don't think the details are a major issue. To me, what's important is that the athletes have a voice in the process and access to independent arbitration of conflicts. |
The details actually are a significant issue. There's a diversity of interests among athletes and among the institutions. If you get the wrong students negotiating with the wrong institutions, you'll get a bad result. (This is one of the reasons that I find the Northwestern case troubling - if it's just the football team negotiating, that's bad news for the other sports.)
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 9:14 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| POLOinMD wrote: |
| Anti transfer pettiness is really big on the high school level. I hate when a HS team is good and other teams who couldn't beat them in competition, tries to get them disqualified by using petty residency rules, or some other trick. Folks just need to mind their own dam business. The decision to transfer should be between a student and their parents only. Schools should not have the ability to limit where anyone's child decides to go to school and if they decide to transfer to be on a better team, so be it. |
Wow...not even sure where to begin. First off, yeah, it sucks when those "petty residency rules" come into play. Seriously? Those rules have a lot to do with budgets, preventing school overcrowding and a whole host of other factors, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with athletics. They are there to hopefully help with quality of education.
So you're ok with a kid going to a different high school in a different district just to play on a better athletic team? What is the mission of a high school? Athletics are NOT the mission...they serve a tremendous purpose and I wish everyone participated in a sport because of the lessons that can be learned. However, it is NOT a reason to transfer schools.
There are many people that need a reality check when it comes to high school sports in general.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11151
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 9:38 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| POLOinMD wrote: |
| Anti transfer pettiness is really big on the high school level. I hate when a HS team is good and other teams who couldn't beat them in competition, tries to get them disqualified by using petty residency rules, or some other trick. Folks just need to mind their own dam business. The decision to transfer should be between a student and their parents only. Schools should not have the ability to limit where anyone's child decides to go to school and if they decide to transfer to be on a better team, so be it. |
Wow...not even sure where to begin. First off, yeah, it sucks when those "petty residency rules" come into play. Seriously? Those rules have a lot to do with budgets, preventing school overcrowding and a whole host of other factors, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with athletics. They are there to hopefully help with quality of education.
So you're ok with a kid going to a different high school in a different district just to play on a better athletic team? What is the mission of a high school? Athletics are NOT the mission...they serve a tremendous purpose and I wish everyone participated in a sport because of the lessons that can be learned. However, it is NOT a reason to transfer schools.
There are many people that need a reality check when it comes to high school sports in general. |
In high school, you can transfer to a school with a better drama program or a better music program, with no issues. You can transfer for a better debate team or better marching band, both of which can get you a scholarship.
Presumably, all of those are part of the educational process, and important to the overall function of a high school.
If athletics is like other extracurricular activities, and is important to the educational function, then why should it be treated any differently?
Or, to put it another way, a student should be able to transfer (if there is room in the school) to a school that offers a better educational experience, whether in math or science or drama or music.
If athletics is part of the educational experience, then it should be treated in the same way as math or science or drama or music.
If it is not part of the educational experience, then why do high schools support it?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 10:08 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| POLOinMD wrote: |
| Anti transfer pettiness is really big on the high school level. I hate when a HS team is good and other teams who couldn't beat them in competition, tries to get them disqualified by using petty residency rules, or some other trick. Folks just need to mind their own dam business. The decision to transfer should be between a student and their parents only. Schools should not have the ability to limit where anyone's child decides to go to school and if they decide to transfer to be on a better team, so be it. |
Wow...not even sure where to begin. First off, yeah, it sucks when those "petty residency rules" come into play. Seriously? Those rules have a lot to do with budgets, preventing school overcrowding and a whole host of other factors, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with athletics. They are there to hopefully help with quality of education.
So you're ok with a kid going to a different high school in a different district just to play on a better athletic team? What is the mission of a high school? Athletics are NOT the mission...they serve a tremendous purpose and I wish everyone participated in a sport because of the lessons that can be learned. However, it is NOT a reason to transfer schools.
There are many people that need a reality check when it comes to high school sports in general. |
In high school, you can transfer to a school with a better drama program or a better music program, with no issues. You can transfer for a better debate team or better marching band, both of which can get you a scholarship.
Presumably, all of those are part of the educational process, and important to the overall function of a high school.
If athletics is like other extracurricular activities, and is important to the educational function, then why should it be treated any differently?
Or, to put it another way, a student should be able to transfer (if there is room in the school) to a school that offers a better educational experience, whether in math or science or drama or music.
If athletics is part of the educational experience, then it should be treated in the same way as math or science or drama or music.
If it is not part of the educational experience, then why do high schools support it? |
Maybe we should set up a union so these 13-17 year old kids can negotiate with schools. We can have reps from the glee club, math club, drama club, dance team, chess club, etc.
Where are all these transfers for drama & music taking place? Don't all cities, counties, states have borders that designate what schools the students are supposed to attend, with the exception of private schools obviously? Parents have to actually pick up & move the family to switch schools...since when can people just transfer high schools because they want their son to be on a better math team? I assume there are several requirements, including actually living within the school zone, that don't allow people to just transfer whenever and wherever they wish.
Sadly, a lot of schools are no longer supporting theatre, art, music and some have severely cut back on the athletic part as well. Those are NOT treated like math, science, social studies...never have and never will. There is a pecking order within the world of high school education and there is no way they can all be treated equally.
Lastly, I highlighted a part that I thought was interesting. I never thought I would see someone make the claim that athletics was as important and should be treated the same as math in the scheme of high school education.
|
|
POLOinMD
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 27
Location: Washington DC
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 1:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| POLOinMD wrote: |
| Anti transfer pettiness is really big on the high school level. I hate when a HS team is good and other teams who couldn't beat them in competition, tries to get them disqualified by using petty residency rules, or some other trick. Folks just need to mind their own dam business. The decision to transfer should be between a student and their parents only. Schools should not have the ability to limit where anyone's child decides to go to school and if they decide to transfer to be on a better team, so be it. |
Wow...not even sure where to begin. First off, yeah, it sucks when those "petty residency rules" come into play. Seriously? Those rules have a lot to do with budgets, preventing school overcrowding and a whole host of other factors, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with athletics. They are there to hopefully help with quality of education.
So you're ok with a kid going to a different high school in a different district just to play on a better athletic team? What is the mission of a high school? Athletics are NOT the mission...they serve a tremendous purpose and I wish everyone participated in a sport because of the lessons that can be learned. However, it is NOT a reason to transfer schools.
There are many people that need a reality check when it comes to high school sports in general. |
In high school, you can transfer to a school with a better drama program or a better music program, with no issues. You can transfer for a better debate team or better marching band, both of which can get you a scholarship.
Presumably, all of those are part of the educational process, and important to the overall function of a high school.
If athletics is like other extracurricular activities, and is important to the educational function, then why should it be treated any differently?
Or, to put it another way, a student should be able to transfer (if there is room in the school) to a school that offers a better educational experience, whether in math or science or drama or music.
If athletics is part of the educational experience, then it should be treated in the same way as math or science or drama or music.
If it is not part of the educational experience, then why do high schools support it? |
Maybe we should set up a union so these 13-17 year old kids can negotiate with schools. We can have reps from the glee club, math club, drama club, dance team, chess club, etc.
Where are all these transfers for drama & music taking place? Don't all cities, counties, states have borders that designate what schools the students are supposed to attend, with the exception of private schools obviously? Parents have to actually pick up & move the family to switch schools...since when can people just transfer high schools because they want their son to be on a better math team? I assume there are several requirements, including actually living within the school zone, that don't allow people to just transfer whenever and wherever they wish.
Sadly, a lot of schools are no longer supporting theatre, art, music and some have severely cut back on the athletic part as well. Those are NOT treated like math, science, social studies...never have and never will. There is a pecking order within the world of high school education and there is no way they can all be treated equally.
Lastly, I highlighted a part that I thought was interesting. I never thought I would see someone make the claim that athletics was as important and should be treated the same as math in the scheme of high school education. |
When did it become any of your business where someone else's child go to school? Just about all school districts take federal tax dollars to operate, so as far as I'm concern kids should be able to go to school where ever they choose too. If school districts want to keep kids from other zones from attending their schools then they should become self sufficient and stop taking the federal handout.
|
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7848
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 2:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| POLOinMD wrote: |
| Anti transfer pettiness is really big on the high school level. I hate when a HS team is good and other teams who couldn't beat them in competition, tries to get them disqualified by using petty residency rules, or some other trick. Folks just need to mind their own dam business. The decision to transfer should be between a student and their parents only. Schools should not have the ability to limit where anyone's child decides to go to school and if they decide to transfer to be on a better team, so be it. |
Wow...not even sure where to begin. First off, yeah, it sucks when those "petty residency rules" come into play. Seriously? Those rules have a lot to do with budgets, preventing school overcrowding and a whole host of other factors, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with athletics. They are there to hopefully help with quality of education.
So you're ok with a kid going to a different high school in a different district just to play on a better athletic team? What is the mission of a high school? Athletics are NOT the mission...they serve a tremendous purpose and I wish everyone participated in a sport because of the lessons that can be learned. However, it is NOT a reason to transfer schools.
There are many people that need a reality check when it comes to high school sports in general. |
In high school, you can transfer to a school with a better drama program or a better music program, with no issues. You can transfer for a better debate team or better marching band, both of which can get you a scholarship.
Presumably, all of those are part of the educational process, and important to the overall function of a high school.
If athletics is like other extracurricular activities, and is important to the educational function, then why should it be treated any differently?
Or, to put it another way, a student should be able to transfer (if there is room in the school) to a school that offers a better educational experience, whether in math or science or drama or music.
If athletics is part of the educational experience, then it should be treated in the same way as math or science or drama or music.
If it is not part of the educational experience, then why do high schools support it? |
Maybe we should set up a union so these 13-17 year old kids can negotiate with schools. We can have reps from the glee club, math club, drama club, dance team, chess club, etc.
Where are all these transfers for drama & music taking place? Don't all cities, counties, states have borders that designate what schools the students are supposed to attend, with the exception of private schools obviously? Parents have to actually pick up & move the family to switch schools...since when can people just transfer high schools because they want their son to be on a better math team? I assume there are several requirements, including actually living within the school zone, that don't allow people to just transfer whenever and wherever they wish.
Sadly, a lot of schools are no longer supporting theatre, art, music and some have severely cut back on the athletic part as well. Those are NOT treated like math, science, social studies...never have and never will. There is a pecking order within the world of high school education and there is no way they can all be treated equally.
Lastly, I highlighted a part that I thought was interesting. I never thought I would see someone make the claim that athletics was as important and should be treated the same as math in the scheme of high school education. |
Many, if not most, school systems have a transfer process whereby a student can apply for a transfer to a school out of their designated district for whatever reason they wish to. Often, though, the transfers are only granted on racial lines; at least, that is the case in Knoxville, TN, which I am most familiar with. A transfer will not be allowed if it would upset a school's racial balance. However, recent Supreme Court rulings have muddled that somewhat. There are also cases of divorced parents where a student goes to live with a parent who resides in a different district, or a grandparent or other family member who resides in a different district. And some cities have "open enrollment" policies whereby a student can choose any school they wish to; I believe Milwaukee experimented with that at one time but may have reverted to traditional districts. "Open enrollment" works best, IMO, if certain schools become known for emphasis on particular subjects or activities.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 2:27 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| POLOinMD wrote: |
When did it become any of your business where someone else's child go to school? . |
What do you mean "when did it become." It has ALWAYS been the "business" of elected school boards and other elected bodies to decide how to assign kids to public schools.
Welcome to the real world.
Oh, by the way, the feds provide about 10% of funding overall to public schools, and most of that goes to low income and underperforming areas. The rest comes from local governments (about 50%) and state governments (about 40%). So don't tell me that you can send your kid to a school in my district where I pay astronomically high property taxes to pay for top flight schools just because you choose to save taxes by living in a jurisdiction that chooses to have low taxes and crappy schools.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 2:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
Many, if not most, school systems have a transfer process whereby a student can apply for a transfer to a school out of their designated district for whatever reason they wish to. Often, though, the transfers are only granted on racial lines; at least, that is the case in Knoxville, TN, which I am most familiar with. A transfer will not be allowed if it would upset a school's racial balance. However, recent Supreme Court rulings have muddled that somewhat. There are also cases of divorced parents where a student goes to live with a parent who resides in a different district, or a grandparent or other family member who resides in a different district. And some cities have "open enrollment" policies whereby a student can choose any school they wish to; I believe Milwaukee experimented with that at one time but may have reverted to traditional districts. "Open enrollment" works best, IMO, if certain schools become known for emphasis on particular subjects or activities. |
I think most these days start with an assignment based on geography, may have some "magnet" or specialized schools with programs designed to serve the entire district for which you have to apply and be accepted, perhaps some "charter" or other privately run/publicly funded schools, and then typically there are, these days, opportunities to choose to attend a different neighborhood school than your own neighborhood school, for which there is a hierarchy of priorities, and then typically a lottery, and your choice is usually severally limited by capacity. They also typically allow these choices only at specific points in time, like 1st, 5th, 7th and 9th grades. I'd be surprised if there are any public school districts that lets kids go anywhere they want anytime they want.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 4:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| POLOinMD wrote: |
| When did it become any of your business where someone else's child go to school? Just about all school districts take federal tax dollars to operate, so as far as I'm concern kids should be able to go to school where ever they choose too. If school districts want to keep kids from other zones from attending their schools then they should become self sufficient and stop taking the federal handout. |
Art pretty much answered this for me so no real need to comment except for your final sentence. I highlighted the interesting part and would you also apply this logic to people as well? Seriously, just because we live in a free society doesn't give people the right to do whatever the hell they want to all the time regardless of any consequences that may happen to others. Seems like the kids are entitled IYO to go wherever they want but the schools aren't entitled to take who they want...why? The "rights" of a single kid outweigh the "rights" of the other hundreds of kids, teachers, etc currently at the school?
How many 13-17 year olds are old enough to make a decision that is right for them? That's what parents are for...to look out for the wellbeing of their kids. I never got in trouble but I guarantee I made some bad decisions during those teenage years.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8229
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 6:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
High school students can transfer ad libitum if they want a different science, math or theater department? Where?
Not in any of the various places I or my kids grew up.
Public schools all had districts based on home address of residence. So did the Catholic private schools, which were organized on a parish, diocesan or other geographic basis. I dimly recall there were exception rules for cases of hardship or expulsion, but I never personally encountered an out-of-district student.
There were some special science and math high schools in NYC, which admitted only on the basis of competitive exam. There may now be more (supposedly) specialized curriculum high schools without district boundaries in large cities, such as Murry Bergtraum in NYC. Also now, there are magnet schools that mainly serve underprivileged kids, often on some sort of waiting list or lottery basis.
Of ten Murry Bergtraum famous alums listed on Wikipedia, two are Shannon Bobbitt and Epiphanny Prince. Bergtraum is evidently allowed to recruit athletes.
There isn't going to be "unionization" of college students. That is fantasy. There is a veritable web of rules deterring, limiting and conditioning athletic transfers, and they come from three different sources: the individual schools, the various conferences and the NCAA. |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11151
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 6:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
High school students can transfer ad libitum if they want a different science, math or theater department? Where?
|
And another quote
>Where are all these transfers for drama & music taking place? Don't all cities, counties, states have borders that designate what schools the students are supposed to attend, with the exception of private schools obviously? Parents have to actually pick up & move the family to switch schools...since when can people just transfer high schools because they want their son to be on a better math team? I assume there are several requirements, including actually living within the school zone, that don't allow people to just transfer whenever and wherever they wish.
In California, by law, any student can transfer to any other public school if that school has room. This is to encourage competition among school districts to provide quality education.
Children do transfer for music and drama, and in the case of magnet and charter schools (which are everywhere across the country), all students within a district can go there. Murry Bergtraum, home of Epiphanny Prince and others, is a magnet school, so any student in New York City, I believe, can apply to go there.
Sacramento High School, in Sacramento and revitalized by the mayor, former pro basketball player Kevin Johnson, is a magnet school so any student in Sacramento can go there. The fact that all the good basketball players, male and female, attend is coincidence, I am sure.
Music and drama magnet schools abound, as do technical high schools devoted to computers.
The whole charter school movement is based on allowing parents and students to send their children wherever they wish, and some of those schools are focused on athletics. Check out IMG in Florida ...
So yes, students transfer to schools for drama and debate and music. And yes, charter schools can cherrypick whoever they want in any school district in which they are formed, and in some cases, throughout the state.
So why should athletic transfers be the only ones that are scrutinized and prevented? Shouldn't families be allowed to choose which schools they think are best for their children and their children's future? And if a poor or middle class family feels a particular school is the best place to maximize the chances of an athletic scholarship, what precisely is wrong with allowing that student to transfer?
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 8:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
High school students can transfer ad libitum if they want a different science, math or theater department? Where?
|
And another quote
>Where are all these transfers for drama & music taking place? Don't all cities, counties, states have borders that designate what schools the students are supposed to attend, with the exception of private schools obviously? Parents have to actually pick up & move the family to switch schools...since when can people just transfer high schools because they want their son to be on a better math team? I assume there are several requirements, including actually living within the school zone, that don't allow people to just transfer whenever and wherever they wish.
In California, by law, any student can transfer to any other public school if that school has room. This is to encourage competition among school districts to provide quality education.
Children do transfer for music and drama, and in the case of magnet and charter schools (which are everywhere across the country), all students within a district can go there. Murry Bergtraum, home of Epiphanny Prince and others, is a magnet school, so any student in New York City, I believe, can apply to go there.
Sacramento High School, in Sacramento and revitalized by the mayor, former pro basketball player Kevin Johnson, is a magnet school so any student in Sacramento can go there. The fact that all the good basketball players, male and female, attend is coincidence, I am sure.
Music and drama magnet schools abound, as do technical high schools devoted to computers.
The whole charter school movement is based on allowing parents and students to send their children wherever they wish, and some of those schools are focused on athletics. Check out IMG in Florida ...
So yes, students transfer to schools for drama and debate and music. And yes, charter schools can cherrypick whoever they want in any school district in which they are formed, and in some cases, throughout the state.
So why should athletic transfers be the only ones that are scrutinized and prevented? Shouldn't families be allowed to choose which schools they think are best for their children and their children's future? And if a poor or middle class family feels a particular school is the best place to maximize the chances of an athletic scholarship, what precisely is wrong with allowing that student to transfer? |
This all is fascinating, but the high school case isn't really remotely like the college situation. In practice transfers are more restricted for high school students than for college students. In most cases students can't transfer out of the geographic regions where they live, for athletic or other reasons, if they stay in public schools. Even magnet schools have defined geographic areas - Piph could go to MB, but she couldn't go to school on Long Island or in Albany unless she moved out of the district. Students certainly can't transfer from public school in one state to public school in another without moving. And of course, private schools are a different case.
Truth be told, I don't think the situation at high schools has much bearing one way or the other on the case for changing the college transfer rules. The situations are too different.
|
|
Nixtreefan
Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 8:55 pm ::: Hmmmm |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| POLOinMD wrote: |
When did it become any of your business where someone else's child go to school? . |
What do you mean "when did it become." It has ALWAYS been the "business" of elected school boards and other elected bodies to decide how to assign kids to public schools.
Welcome to the real world.
Oh, by the way, the feds provide about 10% of funding overall to public schools, and most of that goes to low income and underperforming areas. The rest comes from local governments (about 50%) and state governments (about 40%). So don't tell me that you can send your kid to a school in my district where I pay astronomically high property taxes to pay for top flight schools just because you choose to save taxes by living in a jurisdiction that chooses to have low taxes and crappy schools. |
.
There is a lot to take from this post- interesting that you use the word choice in feeling that someone Chooses to live in less lucrative circumstances and shouldn't be allowed the choice if having a better education as you claim. Hmmm
Didn't people use that same argument for keeping slavery?
So really is it all about power and money and keeping people down, or is the right thing to do to allow choice in this country so the underprivileged can choose to succeed also. None was saying a pkayer can walk into another or any school they want, the argument is that if a player wants to leave they should be allowed to without someone at that school vindictively dictating where they can or cannot go. And that's what this is really all about , letting them go NOT where they go.
Btw the Homewood Flossmore situation involved unethical behavior, ie perjury.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 9:27 pm ::: Re: Hmmmm |
Reply |
|
| Nixtreefan wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| POLOinMD wrote: |
When did it become any of your business where someone else's child go to school? . |
What do you mean "when did it become." It has ALWAYS been the "business" of elected school boards and other elected bodies to decide how to assign kids to public schools.
Welcome to the real world.
Oh, by the way, the feds provide about 10% of funding overall to public schools, and most of that goes to low income and underperforming areas. The rest comes from local governments (about 50%) and state governments (about 40%). So don't tell me that you can send your kid to a school in my district where I pay astronomically high property taxes to pay for top flight schools just because you choose to save taxes by living in a jurisdiction that chooses to have low taxes and crappy schools. |
.
There is a lot to take from this post- interesting that you use the word choice in feeling that someone Chooses to live in less lucrative circumstances and shouldn't be allowed the choice if having a better education as you claim. Hmmm
Didn't people use that same argument for keeping slavery?
So really is it all about power and money and keeping people down, or is the right thing to do to allow choice in this country so the underprivileged can choose to succeed also. None was saying a pkayer can walk into another or any school they want, the argument is that if a player wants to leave they should be allowed to without someone at that school vindictively dictating where they can or cannot go. And that's what this is really all about , letting them go NOT where they go.
Btw the Homewood Flossmore situation involved unethical behavior, ie perjury. |
No, actually, what is absolutely pathetic is that anyone would trivialize something as tragic and horrific as slavery by comparing it to 20 year olds being prevented from getting a free ride to play a game for a different team.
Your violin is badly out of tune. The rules apply to those poor oppressed Duke and Stanford and Georgetown and Princeton students too. Try harder.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/27/14 9:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
The whole charter school movement is based on allowing parents and students to send their children wherever they wish, and some of those schools are focused on athletics. Check out IMG in Florida |
So now anyone can transfer to IMG? Charter school? What?
IMG is a PRIVATE boarding school. Half its students are from foreign countries. Tuition room and board is $68,000 per year. It's more expensive than college.
Yeah, I guess anyone that can get accepted and has a couple hundred thousand laying around is free to go to IMG.
|
|
scfastpitch
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/14 7:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| ClayK wrote: |
The whole charter school movement is based on allowing parents and students to send their children wherever they wish, and some of those schools are focused on athletics. Check out IMG in Florida |
So now anyone can transfer to IMG? Charter school? What?
IMG is a PRIVATE boarding school. Half its students are from foreign countries. Tuition room and board is $68,000 per year. It's more expensive than college.
Yeah, I guess anyone that can get accepted and has a couple hundred thousand laying around is free to go to IMG. |
IMG awards a lot of scholarship money , both athletic and academic . Don't know if any are full-ride or not , but I've heard of some getting 90% . South Carolina has a baseball recruit named LT Tolbert who is moving from Wren High School in South Carolina to IMG for his senior year . He wants to get drafted high enough to go pro , and there has been some debate around here about whether he is making a good move or not .
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11151
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/28/14 10:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
The high school situation has little to do with the college situation, granted, except for this ...
Individuals and families, I feel, should be able to make decisions based on what they feel is best for them. They should be able to do so without the threat of loss of eligibility for athletics or drama or music or any kind of activity connected to the educational institutions involved.
I do not know Art Best, but I would guess from his posts that he would classify himself as a political conservative, and if he is not, I apologize. I can say that many other conservatives, who believe that government/authority should get out of the way of private business, not raise taxes and remove itself from supervision of many activities, oppose individual freedom in specific cases (abortion, sexual practices, etc.).
This, of course, is a very minor example of that, and just because it's not slavery or a more major restraint of freedom, does not mean it shouldn't be addressed -- especially since it would be relatively easy to correct.
For whatever reason, colleges and high schools have decided that athletics should be treated differently than any other extracurricular activity for reasons that have never been satisfactorily articulated. (The usual justification is "competitive equity," which of course does not exist at either level and never has. And why is "competitive equity" applied only to athletics and not to other competitive activities such as debate, marching band and choral performances?)
Lacking such justification, the restraint on individual freedom seems completely arbitrary and should be condemned by any who value the ability of individuals to make those choices that they believe are best for them and their families.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
|
|
