Why one Midlands school is letting its sports teams say no to playing Gray Collegiate

Read more at: https://www.thestate.com/sports/high-school/article273402445.html#storylink=cpy

Thoughts? I am very interested in others opinions on this matter.

I understand why FC would take that stance, especially in sports that are clearly one-sided. What I'm curious to see is, if there are no fines being levied, whether the other region schools will also do the same in sports that may not be competitive at all.

Kevin, whether you will agree or not, you have an advantage that regular public schools do not have. That advantage has served Gray well as evident by the number of State Championships across sports, in a relatively short span of time.

If you were in my region, I would play. I think that a school should. I wouldn't play as a non-region game, (as I do now) because I don't need the beat down. Just like I play Flora as a region match and wouldn't schedule them as a non-region match. When we play them, we set other goals and strive for things other than the final score. We compete as well as we can, but they have too many advantages that my players do not have. I try to make the best of it and teach my girls a life lesson with it. It is not easy. It really gets a player down. I don't think in the end it helps our game at all.

I also wouldn't schedule you if you had a player that was on my team or lived in my zone. There is nothing worse than playing against a player that should, for all intent purposes, be playing on your team and helping your team get better.

Many have given ideas on how to fix this issue. Such as move Charter schools to SCISA, move them up a class, promotion/relegation, boycott them, are just a few. I am not sure any of them will "fix" the problem of lop-sided wins. But some of them would "fix" the idea that a regular public school has to compete against a charter school and the advantage that you have.

I think in all of this there is a bigger question?

What does an obviously superior team get out of beating an obviously disadvantaged team, 21-0? Never being on the winning side of this, I would love to hear your answer to this.

First, let me thank you for weighing in. Second, allow me to post a few thoughts ...

To answer your last question about beating a team 21-0, there is ZERO to gain from this game for either side. I informed the officials upon arrival that this was likely to be very one-sided and to call the game at halftime (both looked at me like, "how do you know it's going to be one-sided?") ... Our starting eleven, only played three minutes and the score was 1-0 when seven of them exited (three defenders and GK remained) ... Three JV call-ups, whom had never scored in a JV match, let alone Varsity ended the night with hat-tricks - there was no one else to play ... We played restriction soccer - had to build wide and serve in with one-touch finish; no dribbling through backline to score, etc. .... There were three own-goals ... To be fair, there was not much else we could do ... The score was 12-0 at half and all starters were bundled in warmups, jackets, blankets and street shoes ... I approached the officials at half expecting the game to be called only to have a fan of the other team lobby the officials to keep playing because he had paid $6 to watch this game ... I was beside myself -- it was cold, our bus had broke down en route and we were hitching a ride back with the softball team who had already won their abbreviated game, and the host team had just cut on the lights five minutes prior to halftime after I had to go in the weightroom to ask someone to cut on the lights because the home team was in all black and we literally could not see them across the field ... The officials yielded to the 'fan' and coach that insisted we continue play.

As for the traditional public school debate ... I have been on both sides .... I witnessed first-hand kids getting off the city bus from Richland One to attend another district's school -- but not for soccer ... We all know countless examples of someone who has property elsewhere and their kids attend, a student-athlete who attends another district school because of IB, culinary, agriculture, etc. classes ... It's a joke and anyone that thinks this is 1980 again, needs to reassess what reality is when it comes to school choice -- whether for band, sports, English, etc. It's here and the toothpaste is out of the tube and not going back in ... I realize that a 'boycott or blackball' of Charter Schools is a 'thing' now and we'll navigate that landscape, but we are just playing by the rules the S.C. Legislature established in the late 1990s -- I was on the 'anti-school choice bill' that the SCHSSCA endorsed back then and went round and round at the State House ... I did not know anything about where my professional future might lie, but know that I got an eye-opening 'what parents want, parents get' lesson from our elected officials and knew change was imminent.

I don't know the answer the question, but would be all for a multiplier that would force Charter/Privates to move up a class, but I'm not sure if that would alleviate the 'forfeits' that come with moving up a division, particularly if the SCHSL won't enforce penalties for this measure. I can remember years ago when a forfeit of any region match for whatever reason, resulted in a forfeit of all region matches, which ultimately meant you were choosing to be 0-8 or 0-10 pending your region and ineligible for the playoffs as a result. Now, it seems you can choose who you want to play even though you are assigned a region to compete in by the governing body.

Another take on this as well is that some of these teams should have to declare that they are going to only field a JV team until they are capable of fielding a competitive or want-to-be-competitive team. If they are going to choose to forfeit it should be clearly stated well in advance so the team receiving the forfeit can schedule in place of that wasted competition.

I have no doubt that you tried to everything possible to affect this game in a positive manner. We've known each other for a VERY long time and I have no doubt that you only have the best interest of our game in mind.

I hope this next story will give you a different perspective. As we prepared for a team that had already beat us down and have beaten us down for years, I asked my players if they wanted to pack it in or try something different. They wanted to compete! They just wanted to play, come what may. I was taken aback. I came to realize that often for the kids on the unfortunate team it is about playing. It is about just getting out there and playing regardless of the score. In the end that is the best thing for our players.

I see who is in your region and I am sure that you can have 20-0 games often if you want to push it.

Best of luck in the remainder of your season. Mine will end much sooner than yours.

A few thoughts here.

1. I have seen on other boards, for other sports, people discuss this topic as well and there are a few misconceptions.

A. State law prohibits Charter schools from having rules placed on them that have discriminatory or adverse effects. Districts tried coming up with ideas, but these were fruitless for this reason.

B. Charters are public schools that are either approved at the county level (James Island) and thus their attendance is limited (relatively) to their county residents. Others are state level, (Gray, Oceanside) and can thus accept students from anywhere in the state.

2. Many districts in the state have open enrollment, or other means for kids to choose schools. Fort Dorchester magically gets kids zoned for Stall to play football there every year. Kids in Dorchester 2 may go to any school that offers a program their own school does not have, thus the wanna-be farmers at Ashley Ridge zoned for Summerville. Chapin has kids zoned for DF and Irmo. The list goes on.

3. Those in the Lowcountry well remember a similar issue Hanahan had with Bishop England, a private school located in their attendance zone and in their region. B-E is historically strong in the “country club” sports.

4. Perhaps the biggest grievance Lowcountry schools have with Oceanside, is not simply that they can, and do recruit, from all
over the state (in fact, Sam Hartman, former Wake Forest quarterback, now at Notre Dame, and a legit NFL prospect, transferred there for his senior year from Charlotte), but rather the schedule. What other school allows kids to go class for half the day, and then work on their sport the other other half?

On the one hand, I see many large schools complain, but they also have been recruiting (McKissick at Summerville anyone). On the other hand, the private and charter schools in 1A and 2A are so disproportionately dominant in the SCHSL, that it is understandable that schools due to what has become an obvious advantage, that I cannot blame for not wanting to force the kids, on either side, into playing such a situation. Woodland vs Oceanside hardly seems fair in soccer, where one school has one club player, and the other has nothing but ECNL/NPL. There is no way to level that playing field in a respectful manner.

As an aside, one might suggest those schools play up in non-conference games, but I do know that most schools in the Lowcountry have boycotted playing Oceanside.

The only viable solution from a competitive standpoint that I can foresee, is for those schools to petition the SCHSL to play up two levels - 1A to 3A for example. The downside, some schools would get bumped down. I am not sure that moving to SCISA is a viable option for the charter schools, it maybe for St. Joseph or Christ Church though.

This is a complex issue with know solution that won’t seem unfair to someone.

Promotion/relegation (or some form of that regarding regions or classification) would solve a lot of these competitive issues.

With such a system in place, it would ensure that there would be a more consistent level of competitive balance across regions/classifications. For every charter/private school, there are traditional public schools with ‘built-in advantages’ for certain sports (regardless of enrollment); for example, the presence of a strong club team in town, sport-specific classes, etc.

We already do this with our tournaments in this State: The Viking Cup is for the best girls teams in the state, and has been for some time. It’s a badge of honor to get invited, let alone compete for a bracket championship or tournament championship. Why not develop a similar system for region championships and/or playoffs, but based off of merit instead of simply student enrollment?

If this were the case, a lot of programs would find more success that they could normally. This would increase the popularity of the sport in rural areas, as well as giving student-athletes (who might not have the means to play club soccer) a way to compete for something meaningful, outside of a moral victory against a stronger team.

The SCHSL is not going to do something for one sport that is not good for all so Pro/Rel won't happen. Hell, we can't even get professional soccer in the country to do it, never mind the HLS.

I'm fairly certain the same competitive-balance argument can be made across the board for all high school sports.

My question is why did their softball team not forfeit to Ridge View after losing by 16 in three innings? Also their softball team won a game by 17 last year. The baseball team has won quite a few games by double digits, including one game they were up 18-0 in the first! And I understand in those two sports, it's a little tougher to stop runs coming in, but you kind of lose credibility when you complain about competitive disadvantages and your teams have run it up on other teams. Some times you just have to admit you aren't going to be very competitive in certain sports.

We need to bury the thought of pro/rel in SC HS soccer. We can't even get the league to allow ties, imagine trying to figure out how pro/rel would work.

I do think that these schools that have a distinct recruiting advantage over the traditional high schools should be required to play a level higher than their student population. Georgia implemented this recently for their league & it has created a more level (not perfect) playing field b/w the private/charter schools & traditional schools.

"I also wouldn't schedule you if you had a player that was on my team or lived in my zone. There is nothing worse than playing against a player that should, for all intent purposes, be playing on your team and helping your team get better."

I understand, and agree to a point. But as a current parent see another side to it. Maybe your program (both academic and sports) is great, run great, offers every opportunity and chance that any program should, and has infinite roster spots (at least relative to the players available). Maybe you work to build a relationship with each athlete that is respectful and deserving of loyalty in both directions. But that is not true for every program out there. And what has any program, academic or sports, done to be the sole arbitrer of a student's HS sports experience besides share a ZIP code?

If school choice is real, and it really is about education first, then students should not be punished in the secondary aspect of sports for pursuing better education. Current HS student of mine plays two sports at a 5A school. Lack of true academic guidance at this school hurts this student. Counselor just goes through graduation checklist once a year, doesn't actively monitor progress or what student wants to do. Student was recently struggling badly in a class for better part of a full quarter, but to my surprise when we go in to select next years classes she is recommended for AP/Honors in this subject. In other words, Teacher/counselor both completely unaware of the struggles. Student has good attitude and tries hard. No issues with any teachers, and even this one class was recommended for higher level based on something. But this same pattern of lack of engagement I also saw with our first kid who, literally all A's and took every AP/Honors they could take, asked a teacher for a reference for a college application and the teacher said "I don't have the time for that.". I asked counselor for help, counselor said "Your student just has to keep bugging the teachers for what they need". While the lack of support didn't really matter with the first kid, I actually went to a lunch and learn at Gray's looking for an alternative for the second. (FWIW -- Was impressed with the mechanisms for support in place there.) Should my student athlete sit out a year of HS athletics, an experience they will never get back, if she applies to and transfers to Gray's? The rules say yes.

Yes, some will and do really transfer just because of sports, but is that really a bigger problem to the "home" school than kids transferring for academics? One of the HS sports programs my current student is in has been an extremely positive experience for this student athlete. The other sport, where the student is actually more naturally gifted and has more interest (follows pros, etc), has not been. I won't go into details or blame, because why should you blame the coach, the athlete (or me) based only on my word/post? Bottom line, neither the team nor the athlete are going to benefit fully if this athlete continues to stay with this program. It happens at all levels of all sports, some programs and athletes don't "fit" together. Sometimes for bad reasons, sometimes "just because". I don't want the athlete to give up this other sport, but expect that is the writing on the wall at our current school. And unlike soccer, this other sport does not have a club or rec system for the athlete to turn to. So, let's just say there are some good faith reasons an athlete might want to change schools for sports. The current status quo is that sports are important enough that you can't just change schools outside your district and play without sitting a year, but it isn't important enough that a student can change schools to get away from a bad situation, or in some cases to even have a chance to play.

(FWIW -- In the end we didn't apply to Gray's even though I believe the academic support and opportunities there would be better. We are engaged parents and hope to overcome the issues we see at our "home" school and, among other considerations, want to avoid taking the opportunity for the HS team experience from our student athlete for a year. I struggle with whether we have made the best choice, and to be honest, do not feel we would have made the same choice if not for the steep punishment imposed on the student athlete for transferring. And that, to me, says that maybe the wrong thing is being protected.

There are already too many instances in our state throughout all sports of families trying to find any imaginable loophole to transfer to a preferred school and athletics being a primary reason for the state to allow any situation to be acceptable and not get the 1 year ban. While I understand your situation (we are currently dealing with something similar academically with one of our children, but sports isn't involved), I know that it would be a nightmare because many people will try to take advantage and say that they're transferring to X school for academic reasons.

Ultimately the HSL is restricted on what they can do to make the playing field as fair as possible given the distinct advantages some of the schools have in regard to zoning, recruiting, half day schedules for athletics, etc. But if these 1a/2a schools decide that it's not fair to play these schools that have a distinct advantage and there are no repercussions except a 1-0 forfeit loss on your record, I will not be surprised if more schools opt to do that to try and send a message to the league.

They don't even have to look for a loophole. The ones who really want to do it are just moving and avoiding the year off anyways, or going to private schools where they don't have to sit. Had a neighbors nephew from FL move in with them for 2 years to play football at the local HS football factory. Current rules aren't stopping any of the people chasing the prestige programs, especially in a sport that leans to the wealthy like soccer. The kids displaced on the "home" teams? Tough luck. Meanwhile, some nearby schools in some sports can't even get enough interest to field JV teams.

This whole topic is a difficult one. Between sport specific schools (with a half day of class and a half day of practice), magnet schools (there are a lot) and schools that have sport specific class (the coach brings in all of their program and has them in class 5 days a week for the entire first semester so they start practicing 5 months before everyone); you are talking about approximately 2/3 of the high schools in SC. There are only 2 real solutions, but the HSL will never do it and the sport specific schools would absolutely sue. The solutions...

1. Pull all of the above schools and split them into 3 divisions based on size. Take all the remaining schools and split them into 3 divisions. Allow regions to be a mix of the two and let everyone into the playoffs (except football maybe because they would be playing into January).
OR
2. Have every school submit a master list of every student that went through the eligibility process. Put schools in divisions based on the total number of athletes. The sport specific schools that require you play a sport to attend would have 600 athletes in a school of 600. I would guess that there are some current 4A schools if not some 5A schools who don't have that many athletes and the 1A-3A schools definitely not have that many athletes. Students can't play without going through the eligibility process and the HSL could put in severe punishments for incorrectly submitting a total athlete list (1st offense no home playoff games in any sport, 2nd offense no playoffs in any sport).

But like I said, some of the schools that think the current set-up is fair would immediately sue saying they are being punished. If you look at the state titles in team sports in A-AAA over the last 10 years, it would be hard to argue that the smaller public schools are not currently being punished.

It's all going to be a moot point soon when the state passes a law that allows any student to go to any school in the state. It's going to be the Wild West in terms of recruiting when everyone can do it.

OK, here is my proposal, based partly on the system in the state I grew up in, and partly on the belief that the current SC system is divided into groups too small. If you stay with me, I'll get to how it addresses the original topic. Root cause: too many regions and too many school size divisions creates a regular season that doesn't have any flexibility resulting in unfair pairings and qualifications. Schools have such little freedom/control over who they play.in the games that "count". We have regions with only 5 teams, and 4 of them make the state playoffs. And that 4th team, with a losing regional record, might even be a top 10 team in the state and make the second or third round of state playoffs, but we already know they aren't winning it all. Meanwhile, teams in some uneven regions with "advantaged" programs and only 1 or 2 playoff slots have no legitimate chance of making the playoffs, while those in others are practically guaranteed to. My proposal:

-Reduce the school size divisions from 5 to 4. Least critical part of proposal, but feel sliced too thin now. Any team can request to "play up". Allow teams/schools within some % of size cut-offs to apply to move up/down to balance a particular region or for specific circumstances. Mechanics for determining size division are probably not much different than now, just one less.
-Reduce the number of regions in the state to 4. This will put about 16-20 schools in each region at each size division.
-Instead of requiring a full regional regular season, institute regional play-offs. Top 2-4 teams from regional playoffs qualify for the state playoffs, depending on how big we want the state playoffs to be (8 teams, 12, 16?). Can be distributed evenly between districts, or weighted if regions aren't "even" on a sport by sport basis. With only 4 regions, probably evenly. In additional to regional champs, regions can have a meaningful consolation game to determine entry/placement in state playoffs.

To qualify for regional playoffs (regions could adjust terms to some level based on region/sport), teams have to:

-have a winning record OR one of the top 8-12 records (depending on size of regions/sport/etc) in the region. Can incorporate first round BYES to deal with fluctuating number of qualifying teams year to year.
-Play at least 50% of games against teams in same school size rating or bigger, and not more than 30% against schools from a smaller size ratings. Schools can push themselves against higher competition, but not to the point they play up and essentially "drop down" for playoffs.
-Play some % of games (50% maybe) against teams within the region (no size restriction). This combined with above size requirements will mean a team is playing a meaningful number of games against relevant competition.
-Regional administrators can waive above requirements for situations like uncontrollable hardships (games cancelled due to weather, illness, etc.)

How does this address the issue at hand? Teams have freedom to schedule whoever they want. Schools can schedule "independently" or groups of schools can form 4-8 team leagues if they want. The leagues can cross regional and school size boundaries, and schools can still qualify for their regional playoffs. Schools can try to game the system and schedule only cupcakes, but all that gets them is a first or second round beat down in the regional playoff. It doesn't knock anybody else out of the same opportunity. A team in a stacked area or league can still earn there way to regional playoffs because out of size division/region games aren't meaningless. Both the teams I described in the original paragraph can get in the district playoff and see how far they can go. Teams have more flexibility in who they schedule to have meaningful and competitive regular season. Regular season maintains more meaning for more teams through potential HS leagues and Regional qualification/rankings. With more flexible scheduling, teams near regional boundaries aren't penalized compared to those more centrally located.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and it's clear that you genuinely care about your players and the spirit of the game. Sometimes, the love for playing and the camaraderie between teammates matter the most.

The dynamics you mentioned, such as students moving or attending private schools to participate in certain sports programs, can indeed create imbalances and challenges for other schools.