One More Time on No Varsity Sports @ MVHS

[gatordog]

Mar 11, 2009 12:54:47 GMT -6 JB said:

Our SD has discretion within it's own borders; throwing another SD into the mix would really complicate things.

yes, there would be more complexity dealing with another SD. However, I think it might simplify things dealing with the UE8 and IHSA.

(I am trying to think of ways and reasons to encourage the UEC and IHSA to say"yes". Because other scenarios look to me as if there are factors that could lead either of those entities to say "no")

Someone is going to get squeezed in either scenario - it's either a MV varsity player squeezing out a WV player from Varisty to JV (co-op), or a MV varsity caliber squeezing out someone from their Soph team.

But in one case (if the squeezing happens at WV), its the result of a special excemption from some non-transparent process being granted to a favored athelete who lives beyond the attendance area of the school.

In the other, its merely the result of who trys-out for the team from the IHSA-defined attendance area.

I see a HUGE difference here.

IMH/BO, I think kids who have dedicated several hours per week over the last several years should be allowed to play at their level. If a 1 year co-op arrangement can do that, I'd move in that direction.

Thus, me thinking about the possibility of a limited one year varsity co-op with EA. Granted, this would cut down on those seeking the exceptions. (nothing wrong with a policy that reduces exceptions). we can have our ideas, but no matter what....it must meet approval with UEC and IHSA.

[doctorwho]

Mar 11, 2009 14:04:54 GMT -6 gatordog said:

Mar 11, 2009 13:06:02 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Too many problems with that as I see it - potential scheduling issues - playing on different days - transportation .and the fact that these kids know no one here...making this far more complex .

ok, doc, I have to give out an exasperated sigh here....

You say there is too much complexity here because of calender scheduling, they wont know other kids, traveling a bit further, and all....yet you are willing to tolerate the complexity of 40 or so "athletic hearings" for current freshman (and incoming 8th graders!) to determine who does or does not merit the privilege of being awarded a special exception to stay at WV?

But you are making it more complicated. This does not remove the need for varsity evaluation - it only adds another completely different set of coaches ? You've added even more steps than you say are too much now-why would we do that ? These kids are already at Waubonsie . And transportaton issues- who pays for that ?

This is why I suggested up front to let the student petition to change schools- because for the conference this is the cleanest change.
.....

Again, I am not sure if this is cleanest for the conference ( its granting a competitive advantage to WV, unprecedented, etc)

Let me give a thinking-out-loud example, St Ch North may ask "we couldn't do this when we started up." WV/MV would reply "well, you didn't ask". Then St Ch North could reply "We were worried more about starting up a new athletic program and getting our team-sports completive in the UEC as soon as possible. We didn't have the gumption to try and get a completive advantage at St C E". Sorry for the paraphrase , but I am just trying to see how the conference would view this.


One final point (and it sounds like JB is with me on this), I think the parameters of this should be at the most considering one-year "exceptions" only. Once MV varsity opens up, there is absolutely no justification at all for a student in the MV attendance area to not play sports at MV. And they most certainly should be attending class next year at MV, no matter what, even if they play as a co-op athlete somewhere else.

But you are making it more complicated. This does not remove the need for varsity evaluation - it only adds another completely different set of coaches ? You've added even more steps than you say are too much now-why would we do that ? These kids are already at Waubonsie . And transportaton issues- who pays for that ?



I have enough to do with trying to make sure no kids here are screwed over because we are opening this HS. I am concerned about the here and now , not what St. Charles East did or didn't - I am worried about our kids- period. ( btw- would have to dig deeper but I know there were also kids grandfathered into St Charles East but don't know the exact reasons. I know them because they were VB players who played there all 4 years during the opening of North- while others moved. It may have been sibling issue based on the kids I remember- and it is easy to remember them as they won 2 state VB titles in 4 years my daughter was at WVHS with that core. That feeder MS did not remain at East which is why North got a good amount of future talent. So let's not be too hasty in what they did or didn't possibly do. )


As far as the 1 year only exemption - although maybe not ideal for the kids involved- I agree they then have a complete HS opportunity - so if that what was decided upon, I would be agreeable to it also.

[doctorwho]

Mar 11, 2009 14:23:15 GMT -6 gatordog said:

Mar 11, 2009 12:54:47 GMT -6 JB said:

Our SD has discretion within it's own borders; throwing another SD into the mix would really complicate things.

yes, there would be more complexity dealing with another SD. However, I think it might simplify things dealing with the UE8 and IHSA.

(I am trying to think of ways and reasons to encourage the UEC and IHSA to say"yes". Because other scenarios look to me as if there are factors that could lead either of those entities to say "no")

The IHSA based on my conversations is only the final arbiter- this decision belongs to the SD and UEC



But in one case (if the squeezing happens at WV), its the result of a special excemption from some non-transparent process being granted to a favored athelete who lives beyond the attendance area of the school.

In the other, its merely the result of who trys-out for the team from the IHSA-defined attendance area.

I see a HUGE difference here.

IMH/BO, I think kids who have dedicated several hours per week over the last several years should be allowed to play at their level. If a 1 year co-op arrangement can do that, I'd move in that direction.

Thus, me thinking about the possibility of a limited one year varsity co-op with EA. Granted, this would cut down on those seeking the exceptions. (nothing wrong with a policy that reduces exceptions). we can have our ideas, but no matter what....it must meet approval with UEC and IHSA.

This is fine IMHO

[gatordog]

Mar 11, 2009 14:32:45 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

..... make sure no kids here are screwed over....

But any policy that grants these "special exemptions" leads to the near-certainty of the following NEW set of kids being "screwed over":

1) Kids at WV who through a "chain reaction" of adding a couple extra varsity players do not even make the lower level teams
2) kids at MV who were denied the privilege of staying at WV but feel they were judged wrongly
3) kids at MV who may be not so "elite" but are disappointed that their future "star" teammates don't want to work with them to develop their future team and build some winning momentum with successful JV seasons.
4) kids at other schools who play against WV when WV has a competitive advantage of drawing athletes outside of their normal attendance area.

For me, I think things have crystallized pretty well, and it even has a good motto.... :
team solution to a team problem

[Arch]

Mar 11, 2009 15:44:15 GMT -6 gatordog said:

Mar 11, 2009 14:32:45 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

..... make sure no kids here are screwed over....

But any policy that grants these "special exemptions" leads to the near-certainty of the following NEW set of kids being "screwed over":

1) Kids at WV who through a "chain reaction" of adding a couple extra varsity players do not even make the lower level teams
2) kids at MV who were denied the privilege of staying at WV but feel they were judged wrongly
3) kids at MV who may be not so "elite" but are disappointed that their future "star" teammates don't want to work with them to develop their future team and build some winning momentum with successful JV seasons.
4) kids at other schools who play against WV when WV has a competitive advantage of drawing athletes outside of their normal attendance area.

For me, I think things have crystallized pretty well, and it even has a good motto.... :
team solution to a team problem

1) Practice more and get better.
2) see #1
3) Huh?
4) Huh?

I think it makes the starting pool of 'screwed over' kids smaller, if you can remove some from the pool. You're not adding any to the pool. The person from #1 above would face the same 'cut' situation from a better player at their own school. If the person from MV is not good enough to make the cut, they don't move over. 3 and 4 is just throwing crap against the wall to see if it sticks. It doesn't.

[doctorwho]

Mar 11, 2009 15:44:15 GMT -6 gatordog said:

Mar 11, 2009 14:32:45 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

..... make sure no kids here are screwed over....

But any policy that grants these "special exemptions" leads to the near-certainty of the following NEW set of kids being "screwed over":

1) Kids at WV who through a "chain reaction" of adding a couple extra varsity players do not even make the lower level teams
2) kids at MV who were denied the privilege of staying at WV but feel they were judged wrongly
3) kids at MV who may be not so "elite" but are disappointed that their future "star" teammates don't want to work with them to develop their future team and build some winning momentum with successful JV seasons.
4) kids at other schools who play against WV when WV has a competitive advantage of drawing athletes outside of their normal attendance area.

For me, I think things have crystallized pretty well, and it even has a good motto.... :
team soluntion to a team problem

The concern seems about everyone but the kids drawing the deuce from the deck- what about them ? - that's where we will differ,, I am concerned about those getting the proverbial short end of the stick. It is what it is, I am not going to dress that up. ( think lipstick on a pig here ) . I seems as I found out it's easier to move them than to get a fair shake. I have seen parents physically move in the past here also, I guess that's the one option they have. I've already lost one neighbor for that reason - very sad.

A successful JV season that ends with no playoffs/ no state tourney/no varsity letter/no homecoming et al > I don't discount what you're saying but there is another side to it as well...and those kids don't get a do over..

-- ' normal attendance area' - I have purposely stayed away from that - as this affects all team athletes there..but be aware for some parents involved it's just another brick in the wall..so to speak

[doctorwho]

I have run across a very interesting fact re: The new Metea Valley AD ( whom I heard speak last week and I really like ) -
We all know he was the AD when St. Charles North opened with Freshman and Sophomores only - but did everyone know that by Spring sports- he fielded VARSITY squads of girls soccer and softball because parents convinced them they would be competitive and were ?
OK- so if it worked in the spring for SCN - why wouldn't it work out of the gate at MVHS ? Unless the admin has put the clamps on this - and how fair is that then ?

So for those who keep defending how other schools have done it - here we have an extremely experienced and capable AD- why not let him start varsity sports out of the blocks also - solves a lot of the equity situation for athletics doesn't it ? Is that a bad thing ?

Also I understand - 2nd hand- that he agrees the IHSA defers to the district on these decisions - someone needs to let one of our candidates know to alter the party line.

[steckdad]

Mar 24, 2009 11:40:15 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

I have run across a very interesting fact re: The new Metea Valley AD ( whom I heard speak last week and I really like ) -
We all know he was the AD when St. Charles North opened with Freshman and Sophomores only - but did everyone know that by Spring sports- he fielded VARSITY squads of girls soccer and softball because parents convinced them they would be competitive and were ?
OK- so if it worked in the spring for SCN - why wouldn't it work out of the gate at MVHS ? Unless the admin has put the clamps on this - and how fair is that then ?

So for those who keep defending how other schools have done it - here we have an extremely experienced and capable AD- why not let him start varsity sports out of the blocks also - solves a lot of the equity situation for athletics doesn't it ? Is that a bad thing ?

Also I understand - 2nd hand- that he agrees the IHSA defers to the district on these decisions - someone needs to let one of our candidates know to alter the party line.

define competitive. what were their records the first year?

[doctorwho]

Mar 24, 2009 20:41:34 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Mar 24, 2009 11:40:15 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

I have run across a very interesting fact re: The new Metea Valley AD ( whom I heard speak last week and I really like ) -
We all know he was the AD when St. Charles North opened with Freshman and Sophomores only - but did everyone know that by Spring sports- he fielded VARSITY squads of girls soccer and softball because parents convinced them they would be competitive and were ?
OK- so if it worked in the spring for SCN - why wouldn't it work out of the gate at MVHS ? Unless the admin has put the clamps on this - and how fair is that then ?

So for those who keep defending how other schools have done it - here we have an extremely experienced and capable AD- why not let him start varsity sports out of the blocks also - solves a lot of the equity situation for athletics doesn't it ? Is that a bad thing ?

Also I understand - 2nd hand- that he agrees the IHSA defers to the district on these decisions - someone needs to let one of our candidates know to alter the party line.

define competitive. what were their records the first year?

you'd have to ask Schweer-
In the UEC I'm willing to be at or around 500. Let me ask you this - I will go find out if it makes a difference --

the issue was they did do it - we aren't. Why ? Instead of singling their team players out for less opportunity they decided it was worth it.

How was Waubonsie's girls soccer record when their best 3 players and leading scorers were 2 freshman and a sophomore ? Oh yeah - they won a state title. And another one the following year.

[doctorwho]

Mar 24, 2009 20:41:34 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Mar 24, 2009 11:40:15 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

I have run across a very interesting fact re: The new Metea Valley AD ( whom I heard speak last week and I really like ) -
We all know he was the AD when St. Charles North opened with Freshman and Sophomores only - but did everyone know that by Spring sports- he fielded VARSITY squads of girls soccer and softball because parents convinced them they would be competitive and were ?
OK- so if it worked in the spring for SCN - why wouldn't it work out of the gate at MVHS ? Unless the admin has put the clamps on this - and how fair is that then ?

So for those who keep defending how other schools have done it - here we have an extremely experienced and capable AD- why not let him start varsity sports out of the blocks also - solves a lot of the equity situation for athletics doesn't it ? Is that a bad thing ?

Also I understand - 2nd hand- that he agrees the IHSA defers to the district on these decisions - someone needs to let one of our candidates know to alter the party line.

define competitive. what were their records the first year?

Okay Steckdad-
The 2000 St Charles North girls soccer team went 22 - 5 - 2 ( St Charles East won state) -- is that competitive enough for you ? With only 1000 kids in the school and only freshman and sophomores.

Oh btw - St Charles East only lost 2 matches that year- one of them to St Charles North.! So their first year with Fresh & Sophs they were one of 2 teams to beat the state champs...I'll bet that didn't make the ENTIRE school proud.so club sports don't make teams competitive by soph year - I'm really tired of reading that from some others here, as it's uniformed at best, disingenuous at worst.

media.www.dennews.com/media/storage/paper309/news/2007/08/28/Sports/Same-Uniform.No.Problem-2939100.shtml


And the softball team went 22 - 10 playing a split JV - varsity schedule and made it to the 2nd round of the State playoffs


All under the new MV AD - enough argument on being able to be competitive -- I rest my case ....it's just because your Admin doesn't want to - no other reason, none of them have kids involved so I guess it doesn't matter.

[doctorwho]

Mar 24, 2009 22:28:32 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Mar 24, 2009 20:41:34 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

define competitive. what were their records the first year?

Okay Steckdad-
The 2000 St Charles North girls soccer team went 22 - 5 - 2 ( St Charles East won state) -- is that competitive enough for you ? With only 1000 kids in the school and only freshman and sophomores.

Oh btw - St Charles East only lost 2 matches that year- one of them to St Charles North.! So their first year with Fresh & Sophs they were one of 2 teams to beat the state champs...I'll bet that didn't make the ENTIRE school proud.so club sports don't make teams competitive by soph year - I'm really tired of reading that from some others here, as it's uniformed at best, disingenuous at worst.

media.www.dennews.com/media/storage/paper309/news/2007/08/28/Sports/Same-Uniform.No.Problem-2939100.shtml


And the softball team went 22 - 10 playing a split JV - varsity schedule and made it to the 2nd round of the State playoffs


All under the new MV AD - enough argument on being able to be competitive -- I rest my case ....it's just because your Admin doesn't want to - no other reason, none of them have kids involved so I guess it doesn't matter.

paging Steckdad and Gatordog -- white courtesy phone please. Really interested in your reactions since you at least have shown an open mind in these things vs. some others who view everything as an attack on MV

[steckdad]

Mar 25, 2009 9:51:01 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Mar 24, 2009 22:28:32 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Okay Steckdad-
The 2000 St Charles North girls soccer team went 22 - 5 - 2 ( St Charles East won state) -- is that competitive enough for you ? With only 1000 kids in the school and only freshman and sophomores.

Oh btw - St Charles East only lost 2 matches that year- one of them to St Charles North.! So their first year with Fresh & Sophs they were one of 2 teams to beat the state champs...I'll bet that didn't make the ENTIRE school proud.so club sports don't make teams competitive by soph year - I'm really tired of reading that from some others here, as it's uniformed at best, disingenuous at worst.

media.www.dennews.com/media/storage/paper309/news/2007/08/28/Sports/Same-Uniform.No.Problem-2939100.shtml


And the softball team went 22 - 10 playing a split JV - varsity schedule and made it to the 2nd round of the State playoffs


All under the new MV AD - enough argument on being able to be competitive -- I rest my case ....it's just because your Admin doesn't want to - no other reason, none of them have kids involved so I guess it doesn't matter.

paging Steckdad and Gatordog -- white courtesy phone please. Really interested in your reactions since you at least have shown an open mind in these things vs. some others who view everything as an attack on MV

first of all, nice homework..greatly appreciate it

I would say if you could put a team or two together that would not be a doormat it would be OK. It would have to be on a team by team basis.

I think the slippery slope you continue to ride is the fact is out of 28,000 kids, there are going to be some(and parents) that are not happy with the logistics of adding a third HS. I would venture to say it is impossible to make everyone happy.

[steckdad]

Mar 24, 2009 22:14:25 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Mar 24, 2009 20:41:34 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

define competitive. what were their records the first year?

you'd have to ask Schweer-
In the UEC I'm willing to be at or around 500. Let me ask you this - I will go find out if it makes a difference --

the issue was they did do it - we aren't. Why ? Instead of singling their team players out for less opportunity they decided it was worth it.

How was Waubonsie's girls soccer record when their best 3 players and leading scorers were 2 freshman and a sophomore ? Oh yeah - they won a state title. And another one the following year.

my only problem here is you continue to point out special or rare cases. this is not the norm. I could probably find a similar scenario where the teams were the doormat of the league.

[doctorwho]

Mar 25, 2009 10:10:39 GMT -6 @steckdad said:

Mar 24, 2009 22:14:25 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

you'd have to ask Schweer-
In the UEC I'm willing to be at or around 500. Let me ask you this - I will go find out if it makes a difference --

the issue was they did do it - we aren't. Why ? Instead of singling their team players out for less opportunity they decided it was worth it.

How was Waubonsie's girls soccer record when their best 3 players and leading scorers were 2 freshman and a sophomore ? Oh yeah - they won a state title. And another one the following year.

my only problem here is you continue to point out special or rare cases. this is not the norm. I could probably find a similar scenario where the teams were the doormat of the league.

well why don't you do that then - this is the BEST example around here of the last d**n HS to open with freshman and sophomores. Show me one with all club players that has a worse record -- anywhere instead of calling this a rare example. This area IS NOT bumpkinville somewhere-

How is St Charles north a rare or special case ? They fielded 2 teams and they did excellently - just as the parents said they would. Sorry, but that response is lame. Face it - admit it - NOTHING will ever be good enough for you to admit these kids deserve the opportunity just like everyone else in the district.

I freakin' give up - sorry for trying to bring some sunshine to this crappy situation.. Nobody's gonna move the d**n thing- I really hate this whole protective of the mothership scenario. Killer here is your kids and your area not affected.
Yep- fairness all around - as long as it isn't for our areas kids...screw them as many ways as one can -- how special

[gatordog]

Mar 11, 2009 15:44:15 GMT -6 gatordog said:

team solution to a team problem

thanks, doc, for the background with St C N. Good precedent with the conference. I absolutely would support MV fielding varsity girls soccer and softball, if the admin thinks they would be competitive (my gut says they would be).

As I said before, I think this is certainly the way to go, as opposed to some cumbersome "exception" policy.....which MV admin has already said is not going to happen. (Ref MV parents mtg discussion comments from green message board)

I dont know if I made the point early, but I think it is important: I think girls sports probably have a better chance of having the freshman & sophs compete at varsity level, just because of girls physically developing faster than boys. So just because some teams would be appropriately competitive (girls soccer, softball) that is not saying that others would be (boys soccer, baseball).

I think St C N did it exactly right. Maybe MV can do it just that same way. I think there is time to make that happen.