OT (Kinda?): NSAA, Class A/B Conferences, OPS, etc...

[Fullbacksympathy]

I’m glad class A finally got a shot clock.  
 

I’m also fine with kids going to school where they want.  If transfers weren’t allowed last season in Lincoln, a lot of starter level players wouldn’t have gotten nearly as many minutes.  These are kids that play AAU year round and work very hard on their game.  

 

The drama of the above scenario is that high schools are observing who is running youth AAU teams and hiring those coaches in hopes of a pipeline, so most high schools are now directly or indirectly affiliated with at least one AAU team.  This leads to outright recruiting.  
 

I know for a fact there have been tampering complaints in Lincoln with a coach texting kids on other teams during the season.  The problem is probably impossible to manage on an Omaha scale considering the NSAA didn’t do anything about Lincoln.  I’m sure there will be another free agency shakeup this summer.  

[Cazzie22]

AAU will eventually be the death of high school athletics with the notable exception of football.

[Navin R. Johnson]

I don't think as highly of a state championship team the more transfers they have.  You rounded up the best players in the state and won.  Congratulations.  You better win it.

[Fullbacksympathy]

15 hours ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

I don't think as highly of a state championship team the more transfers they have.  You rounded up the best players in the state and won.  Congratulations.  You better win it.

I’m not sure if this has changed all that much.  It was happening when I was playing 20 years ago.  That said, AAU was really just picking up then and basketball was becoming a year round sport.  I’m watching in real time now as youngsters start specializing.  It really does separate them quickly in terms of skills, and they become closer with the kids that don’t play baseball, for example.  The very best athletes can still do it all though.  
 

I think, moving forward, there probably won’t be as many transfers in Lincoln because anyone worth their salt plays AAU and gets the same training now.  There will be too many good players for transfers to make much of a difference in playing time.  But right now, in this moment, the first kids that got the crazy amount of training are shopping around and talking to one another in the spring/summer on their AAU teams.  

[hskr4life]

20 minutes ago, Fullbacksympathy said:

I’m watching in real time now as youngsters start specializing.  It really does separate them quickly in terms of skills, and they become closer with the kids that don’t play baseball, for example. 

 

This makes me sad for the long term.  Unfortunately, there'll be more kids who missed out on other opportunities by "specializing" than there will be kids who were helped by it.

[basketballjones]

On 4/23/2023 at 8:52 AM, Fullbacksympathy said:

I’m glad class A finally got a shot clock.  
 

I’m also fine with kids going to school where they want.  If transfers weren’t allowed last season in Lincoln, a lot of starter level players wouldn’t have gotten nearly as many minutes.  These are kids that play AAU year round and work very hard on their game.  

 

The drama of the above scenario is that high schools are observing who is running youth AAU teams and hiring those coaches in hopes of a pipeline, so most high schools are now directly or indirectly affiliated with at least one AAU team.  This leads to outright recruiting.  
 

I know for a fact there have been tampering complaints in Lincoln with a coach texting kids on other teams during the season.  The problem is probably impossible to manage on an Omaha scale considering the NSAA didn’t do anything about Lincoln.  I’m sure there will be another free agency shakeup this summer.  

 

1 hour ago, Fullbacksympathy said:

I’m not sure if this has changed all that much.  It was happening when I was playing 20 years ago.  That said, AAU was really just picking up then and basketball was becoming a year round sport.  I’m watching in real time now as youngsters start specializing.  It really does separate them quickly in terms of skills, and they become closer with the kids that don’t play baseball, for example.  The very best athletes can still do it all though.  
 

I think, moving forward, there probably won’t be as many transfers in Lincoln because anyone worth their salt plays AAU and gets the same training now.  There will be too many good players for transfers to make much of a difference in playing time.  But right now, in this moment, the first kids that got the crazy amount of training are shopping around and talking to one another in the spring/summer on their AAU teams.  

This is kinda where I was interested in this thread giong...

What are your thoughts about how schools effectively don't even really care if they have a teacher in the building coaching - and are more concerned if their guy is an AAU coach? 

[Norm Peterson]

AAU vs. Interscholastic Sports:

 

So, the argument I remember someone (I believe it was a girl on the high school speech team, but it was many years ago so I might be thinking of the wrong person) making back in the day about taxpayer funding of extracurricular activities goes as follows:

 

Taxpayers collectively fund this athletics stuff. Not every student gets to participate. Some get cut; many don't even try out because they know they'll get cut.

 

People who aren't good athletes would also benefit from participating in sports. But students who aren't good athletes are deprived of the advantages that more athletic children are allowed to have.

 

If those athletic kids' parents want to have their OWN league (like American Legion baseball in the summer) no one is stopping them. But, unless every child gets an equal opportunity to participate, then it's not appropriate for taxpayers to underwrite the cost of this competition that inures to the benefit of only a select few individuals.

 

Now, this wasn't MY argument. I LIKE high school sports. But it was an argument, nevertheless, that now seems way ahead of its time.

 

All you people lamenting the regression of public education to a time where poor kids got sent to the school for coal mines, etc., explain to me how you square this concern about the privatization of high school sports with the complaint that interscholastic sports allocates scarce resources to the benefit of the very few athletically gifted in a way that is profoundly inequitable.

[basketballjones]

33 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

All you people lamenting the regression of public education to a time where poor kids got sent to the school for coal mines, etc., explain to me how you square this concern about the privatization of high school sports with the complaint that interscholastic sports allocates scarce resources to the benefit of the very few athletically gifted in a way that is profoundly inequitable.

I feel like you know the answer to this? And that we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this. 

Also, in what way does privatizing the sports expand access to these sports? The girl in HS's argument is valid and makes logical sense. And while it's unfortunate some are not able to play due to abilities or available spots, those opportunities would not be there for many others without the public underwriting the costs. 

Edited April 24, 2023 by basketballjones

[cornfed24-7]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

AAU vs. Interscholastic Sports:

 

So, the argument I remember someone (I believe it was a girl on the high school speech team, but it was many years ago so I might be thinking of the wrong person) making back in the day about taxpayer funding of extracurricular activities goes as follows:

 

Taxpayers collectively fund this athletics stuff. Not every student gets to participate. Some get cut; many don't even try out because they know they'll get cut.

 

People who aren't good athletes would also benefit from participating in sports. But students who aren't good athletes are deprived of the advantages that more athletic children are allowed to have.

 

If those athletic kids' parents want to have their OWN league (like American Legion baseball in the summer) no one is stopping them. But, unless every child gets an equal opportunity to participate, then it's not appropriate for taxpayers to underwrite the cost of this competition that inures to the benefit of only a select few individuals.

 

Now, this wasn't MY argument. I LIKE high school sports. But it was an argument, nevertheless, that now seems way ahead of its time.

 

All you people lamenting the regression of public education to a time where poor kids got sent to the school for coal mines, etc., explain to me how you square this concern about the privatization of high school sports with the complaint that interscholastic sports allocates scarce resources to the benefit of the very few athletically gifted in a way that is profoundly inequitable.

Huh. I had never considered this. This is a very interesting argument. Gonna have to ponder on it a bit. Initial thought is this argument becomes diminished the lower class of school you go. A nice thought exercise for the day. 

[Norm Peterson]

40 minutes ago, basketballjones said:

I feel like you know the answer to this? And that we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this. 

Also, in what way does privatizing the sports expand access to these sports? The girl in HS's argument is valid and makes logical sense. And while it's unfortunate some are not able to play due to abilities or available spots, those opportunities would not be there for many others without the public underwriting the costs. 

 

I'm just asking a question.

 

To your question, privatizing sports probably doesn't expand access. It just shifts to the private sector the responsibility of paying for it. And maybe that will lead to some inequitable results, but it'll just be a different form of inequity than what we have currently (which is also inequitable) and it won't be government-sponsored inequity.

[basketballjones]

29 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

To your question, privatizing sports probably doesn't expand access. It just shifts to the private sector the responsibility of paying for it. And maybe that will lead to some inequitable results, but it'll just be a different form of inequity than what we have currently (which is also inequitable) and it won't be government-sponsored inequity.

Sounds inefficient. Seems like some cooperation between the private sector and the places who were able to spread out these massive costs of building/gym/weight room/equipment to the public is needed. 

[tcp]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I'm just asking a question.

 

To your question, privatizing sports probably doesn't expand access. It just shifts to the private sector the responsibility of paying for it. And maybe that will lead to some inequitable results, but it'll just be a different form of inequity than what we have currently (which is also inequitable) and it won't be government-sponsored inequity.

 

This requires a longer response than I can make at the moment. It gets at the very heart of the question as to whether or not competition can be a social good at all. The Greeks, I think, answered this question nicely enough. But being sophists, their answer is lengthy. Remind me to take a shot at it when I feel better, which should be about wednesday. 

[Huskerpapa]

My kids wnt to private schools, which were paid for by me (my choice).  But I also paid taxes that in part funded public schools.  My tax dollars also go to other items that I may not fully support.  This is likely the same for nearly every tax payer in this fine country. 

Point being, to simply isolate high school  athletics because not everyone partakes seems narrow minded.  By the way, many kids are also involved in other extra-curricular activities such as band, theater, speech, et al.  So if one extra-curricular activity is cut, do you cut them all?  

We simply go back to the 3 R's and call it good?

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, Huskerpapa said:

My kids wnt to private schools, which were paid for by me (my choice).  But I also paid taxes that in part funded public schools.  My tax dollars also go to other items that I may not fully support.  This is likely the same for nearly every tax payer in this fine country. 

Point being, to simply isolate high school  athletics because not everyone partakes seems narrow minded.  By the way, many kids are also involved in other extra-curricular activities such as band, theater, speech, et al.  So if one extra-curricular activity is cut, do you cut them all?  

We simply go back to the 3 R's and call it good?

 

I think that's certainly the counter argument. All the other activities cost something, too.

 

Keep in mind I'm going by deep memory here, but my memory of what got the discussion started was a report that the laundry budget for the football team at our school was X thousands of dollars, and the speech and debate girl was out having to do fundraising. And she thought it was bullshit that she was having to fundraise and that the football team had so many more thousands of dollars allocated just to do their laundry.

 

And I can't vouch for the statistic, and of course this was many decades ago so things have probably changed a lot, but I remember the argument being made that participation in football is limited to a very select few, and yet their budget is so large. Should taxpayers be footing the bill for it when resources are scarce? I mean, how do you justify significantly inequitable allocation of financial resources?

 

The counter argument people made at the time was that football would go away if schools didn't pay for it (i.e. taxpayers didn't fund it) and that would clearly be a bad thing. But I think AAU and club sports have made that argument somewhat less compelling in the intervening decades.

 

I gotta tell ya, I had not given any thought to that conversation for years, decades even, but as I'm trying to describe it I keep on remembering aspects of it like the cost of laundry services for the football team. For some reason, $17,000 stands out as the number for how much they spent on laundry (maybe it was $13,000), but I'm struggling to remember where that number came from, whether it was from an article in the school newspaper or the local daily or just something that someone made up and asserted as being true.

 

And as I continue to type this out, it's triggering more recall. There was also debate about whether the cost of laundry services was for ALL the athletic programs or JUST for our football team. And I don't honestly remember how that question was answered, but it didn't really matter because no one could disprove the interpretation most helpful to whoever was making an argument about it.

 

Anyway, I remember it being an interesting discussion back at the time and it seemed apropos to this topic.

[cipsucks]

I never thought to ask my mom what our laundry service cost.

[Cazzie22]

5 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

AAU vs. Interscholastic Sports:

 

So, the argument I remember someone (I believe it was a girl on the high school speech team, but it was many years ago so I might be thinking of the wrong person) making back in the day about taxpayer funding of extracurricular activities goes as follows:

 

Taxpayers collectively fund this athletics stuff. Not every student gets to participate. Some get cut; many don't even try out because they know they'll get cut.

 

People who aren't good athletes would also benefit from participating in sports. But students who aren't good athletes are deprived of the advantages that more athletic children are allowed to have.

 

If those athletic kids' parents want to have their OWN league (like American Legion baseball in the summer) no one is stopping them. But, unless every child gets an equal opportunity to participate, then it's not appropriate for taxpayers to underwrite the cost of this competition that inures to the benefit of only a select few individuals.

 

Now, this wasn't MY argument. I LIKE high school sports. But it was an argument, nevertheless, that now seems way ahead of its time.

 

All you people lamenting the regression of public education to a time where poor kids got sent to the school for coal mines, etc., explain to me how you square this concern about the privatization of high school sports with the complaint that interscholastic sports allocates scarce resources to the benefit of the very few athletically gifted in a way that is profoundly inequitable.

Who says inter scholastic athletics has to be equitable?  Who says life has to be equitable other than the woke crowd.  Not everyone has musical ability to be in band or chorus, not everyone can be a thespian and be in the plays and not everyone has athletic ability.   These are all cocurricular or extra curricular activities.   You try out and hope to make the team.  In small schools you are going to make the team.  Hence, the success of small class parochial schools having success.  Opportunities are provided for most students just as life provides opportunities.  Opportunity does not mean success.

[cornfed24-7]

2 hours ago, Cazzie22 said:

Who says life has to be equitable other than the woke crowd. 

 

[Norm Peterson]

14 hours ago, Cazzie22 said:

Who says inter scholastic athletics has to be equitable?  Who says life has to be equitable other than the woke crowd.  Not everyone has musical ability to be in band or chorus, not everyone can be a thespian and be in the plays and not everyone has athletic ability.   These are all cocurricular or extra curricular activities.   You try out and hope to make the team.  In small schools you are going to make the team.  Hence, the success of small class parochial schools having success.  Opportunities are provided for most students just as life provides opportunities.  Opportunity does not mean success.

 

That's a good question. Some people advocate for "equity" and other people say life isn't fair and you should just accept that and worry about you.

 

For the people who push principles of "equity," it seems like the argument from the speech and debate chick 3 or 4 (or more) decades ago has some merit. Why spend so much on football? An activity that automatically excludes 51% of the student population (the girls) and then only provides opportunities to a narrow slice of the other 49%? If "equity" is your bag, then you have to concede football is a very significant drain on school resources, which allocates them in a very inequitable manner.

 

But then you can say, well, Title 9 means we come up with an equal (equitable) number of sporting activities for the girls. And that's all well and good for the uber athletic girls, but what about the slightly-less-than-uber athletic girls who get cut from the volleyball team or the girls' basketball team or the soccer team? Why should PUBLIC resources be allocated to the really fast girl with a 2.0 GPA to the exclusion of the slightly less fast girl with the 3.8 GPA? That's not equitable.

 

I propose a rule that says that public schools can't cut. And playing time should be allocated based on a lottery or a rotating schedule. Because if experiencing the thrill of athletic competition is beneficial to one's growth and development into adulthood, those opportunities shouldn't be denied to kids whose parents couldn't afford select baseball or who weren't quite athletic enough to beat out all the fast kids.

 

OR we can just let AAU take over.

 

OR we can just drop the "equity" bullshit because our commitment to "equity" clearly only depends on whose ox is being gored.

[basketballjones]

50 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

then you have to concede football is a very significant drain on school resources.

Do you? I am not sure that is even true. They charge money to get into the games. Most coaches I know do a TON of fundraising. It's a major catalyst source of donation (specific to football AND general ed). And would kids or all types be flocking to go to "Westside/Bellevue West/Gretna" of the worlds if they didn't have phenomenal extracurricular activities? A high quality football team at a school is rarely a one-off - it's typically a sign of a very healthy activities and academic culture. 

[Huskerpapa]

"If you have observed wildlife for any length of time, you may have realized that life for these critters can appear to be cruel and unfair; very few, if any, wild animals die of old age.

The perils of life and living often take a heavy toll with disease, injury, violent competition, harsh weather, famine and predators all combining to make day-to-day survival a skill-testing event.

The animals near the upper end of the food chain are often cast as the villains: cunning wolves, sly coyotes, large snakes, fierce hawks and opportunistic man, to name a few. These are the meat eaters, the ones which prey upon other life to ensure their own survival.

However, predators have every right to survive and instead of scorning these creatures it may help to have a closer look at their role in Nature. In the intricate world of nature, something must die for something else to live - it's that simple. It’s called energy transfer."

 

The above is an exert from an article written by David Hawke associated with living in nature and requirements of survival.  It kinda sorta relates.  Life certainly can be lived through participation awards; but those living life through competition should not be chastised.   It is called energy transfer.

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, basketballjones said:

Do you? I am not sure that is even true. They charge money to get into the games. Most coaches I know do a TON of fundraising. It's a major catalyst source of donation (specific to football AND general ed). And would kids or all types be flocking to go to "Westside/Bellevue West/Gretna" of the worlds if they didn't have phenomenal extracurricular activities? A high quality football team at a school is rarely a one-off - it's typically a sign of a very healthy activities and academic culture. 

 

Well, we know with the Huskers that only football and men's hoops are self-sustaining. Granted, HS sports teams aren't paying their coaches millions of dollars per year, but neither do they get TV deals. Surely, someone has looked into which HS programs are self-sustaining and pay for themselves with the tickets that are purchased. Or maybe not.

[basketballjones]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Well, we know with the Huskers that only football and men's hoops are self-sustaining. Granted, HS sports teams aren't paying their coaches millions of dollars per year, but neither do they get TV deals. Surely, someone has looked into which HS programs are self-sustaining and pay for themselves with the tickets that are purchased. Or maybe not.

I hope you don't view me as being contentious or rude in this discussion, as these are all just my opinions and own views - but I feel like you are looking at this too specifically and too "brass tax" (I'm not sure this captures what I'm trying to say)? I think all of these sports and activities need to be viewed much more holistically.

 

For instance, let's put it this way. The town of Aurora, Nebraska and Aurora High School... It doesn't matter if their High School Basketball team is in the black or red via how much it actually costs to run the basketball program versus what they receive in ticket sales and donations (combined with fund-raising). It's all a part of the community and culture of school and town. AAU is never going to provide an alternative for that, especially in the state of Nebraska and similar situations.

 

Now, as I said in earlier posts - I think where you could see AAU start to have a massive impact is in the urban inner-cities, with OPS being a perfect example. I can definitely see a future where, let's say, Omaha Benson says, "we are no longer providing athletics as an option," where others potentially follow. And their athletics are effectively outsourced to community programs/AAU/private programs/whatever you want to call it. 

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, basketballjones said:

I hope you don't view me as being contentious or rude in this discussion, as these are all just my opinions and own views - but I feel like you are looking at this too specifically and too "brass tax" (I'm not sure this captures what I'm trying to say)? I think all of these sports and activities need to be viewed much more holistically.

 

For instance, let's put it this way. The town of Aurora, Nebraska and Aurora High School... It doesn't matter if their High School Basketball team is in the black or red via how much it actually costs to run the basketball program versus what they receive in ticket sales and donations (combined with fund-raising). It's all a part of the community and culture of school and town. AAU is never going to provide an alternative for that, especially in the state of Nebraska and similar situations.

 

Now, as I said in earlier posts - I think where you could see AAU start to have a massive impact is in the urban inner-cities, with OPS being a perfect example. I can definitely see a future where, let's say, Omaha Benson says, "we are no longer providing athletics as an option," where others potentially follow. And their athletics are effectively outsourced to community programs/AAU/private programs/whatever you want to call it. 

 

I'll be honest: I don't really have an opinion on it. I was throwing some stuff out there for just kind of broader consideration. I have seen groupthink in action too many times and so I was just trying to throw out an alternative idea.

 

So I'm not taking any of this as a heated discussion. I like sports. I liked participating in sports. Now I enjoy watching sports. And I think sports in high school is generally a good thing. But if AAU comes in and supplants some of the major HS sports, I'm thinking it might not be as bad as some people worry it might be.

[Cazzie22]

I coached boys basketball at a large Middle School in suburban Austin, Texas.  Tryouts were Wednesday-Friday after the last Tuesday night FB game .  Texas has an athletic period built into the schedule so the 109 boys who played FB had a built in advantage on making the team of which I kept 22, 10 for A and 12 for B team.  All B team members were to play in every game.   In football I had to play 63 boys in every B game.   A few boys made the BB squad without playing FB which required them to change their academic schedule to practice in activity period.  Unknown to me, one of the boys was on an AAU Select Soccer squad.  He missed an important tournament for the BB team because he had Soccer that weekend.  He let his teammates down.  

 

You try out for a school team then you have a commitment to your teammates. If soccer was more important then he should have focused on soccer and I would have selected someone else.  Plus,  top players leaving our school district because an Austin H.S. Coach was also a select BB Coach.  Our district lost a Division I player (Stanford) because he went to play at the Austin High School. These experiences really soured me on AAU.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Cazzie22
Addition

[Fullbacksympathy]

On 4/24/2023 at 9:01 AM, hskr4life said:

 

This makes me sad for the long term.  Unfortunately, there'll be more kids who missed out on other opportunities by "specializing" than there will be kids who were helped by it.

 

I'm not sure that's true.  There are the Erick Stricklands of the world who could go pro in three sports, and the just good athletes who need the advanced skills required to have their college paid for at a lower level.  More kids in the area are getting opportunities to play collegiate sports because of specialization.  

 

I understand your sentiment though.