|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768
World Cup
|
World Cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768 |
Maybe it's all in your head CC. It's probably just an random occurance on the girls side. I'm sure the private schools on the boys side are barely making playoffs and SURELY not making it to state, much less winning it 
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 27
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 27 |
i agree that woodruff is the public school state champions! i wonder if BE and Christchurch ever get tired of winning state, they need to be moved up to 3A or put in a private school league. Public school kids do not get to choose their school unlike those that go to BE. Some BE athletes are their on scholarship. i think that public schools like emerald and woodruff should boycott next year to get the private schools out of their league!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 57
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 57 |
There is no good answer for the matter at hand. Like Kyle said "they compete across the board in all athletics".
It is frustrating to all public schools that get dominated by them. Ok don't flame me for this but they seem to succeed in the sports that are perceived to be rich kid sports here in the good ol USA. More money better facilties = better coaching...more coaches...the 2A boys team had 4 keepers on their team. I envy their program and what they have done with it. All I can say is they will continue to do this every year until a public school has a magic season like the Emerald boys did in 2004. We have to work twice as hard to equal them.
Last edited by Keeperdad; 05/19/08 02:00 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Cat, My point is that you should be extremely proud of how well the Woodruff program has come along in the past few years. You, yourself, have certainly had a direct, or indirect, role in getting the girls to where they are today. SCHSL 2A Upperstate Champions.  The reason that you didn't win the state title this year is not because BE is a private, Catholic school. It's because on the afternoon of May 16, in the last 40 minutes of the match, the Battling Bishops proved to be the better team. That's all....no shame in losing. You had a great year. If you want to talk about kids in a "disadvantaged situation", with respect to soccer, I'd be more open to listening about the trials and tribulations of a 4A Hartsville or a 4A Darlington. Those kids do not have immediate access to a high-level club soccer program. Again, kudos to Woodruff....great season.  (PS - Watch out for Barnwell in three years!)
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768
World Cup
|
|
World Cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768 |
Quote:
Cat,
My point is that you should be extremely proud of how well the Woodruff program has come along in the past few years. You, yourself, have certainly had a direct, or indirect, role in getting the girls to where they are today.
SCHSL 2A Upperstate Champions.
The reason that you didn't win the state title this year is not because BE is a private, Catholic school. It's because on the afternoon of May 16, in the last 40 minutes of the match, the Battling Bishops proved to be the better team.
That's all....no shame in losing. You had a great year.
If you want to talk about kids in a "disadvantaged situation", with respect to soccer, I'd be more open to listening about the trials and tribulations of a 4A Hartsville or a 4A Darlington. Those kids do not have immediate access to a high-level club soccer program.
Again, kudos to Woodruff....great season.
(PS - Watch out for Barnwell in three years!)
Is that you, Jerome Singleton?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 283
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 283 |
Statisitics are just that, statistics. They can be made to say exactly what you want them to say. What you CAN'T know through statistics is how many parents at these private schools work 2 jobs to be able to put their kids into a school that will provide an incredible education for them.
Also, the rosters of some of these private schools include less than 50% club players (25% in my case). Perhaps this statistic speaks to why certain public schools are closing the gap. Or perhaps the low % just speaks to the fact the coach does an amazing job. I will leave that to others to decide (but if you agree I won't let it go to my head).
I've been on both sides of the fence here, and quite frankly all I care about is that the kids enjoy themselves and respect the job an performance they give on the field. At the end of the day, a state championship doesn't define me. Watching my one year old son is what amazes and defines me right now. Coming home at the end of the day knowing that he doesn't care if we won or lost...well, that's what's amazing in this life.
These kids should be proud of their season, regardless of how they do. Every coach and every player can find some positive in their season. If not, then we aren't doing our jobs as coaches.
Fletch: It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854
brace
|
|
OP
brace
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854 |
formerhscoach:
With all due respect, making a statement about stats meaning whatever one wants them to mean is also an implication by you that someone is being DISHONEST. An unfair game to play with stats. That some people are dishonest with stats does not mean that all people are. If I ever am dishonest with stats, call me on the dishonesty. If that is proven true, I would apologize and change publicly my stance. Otherwise, we should all address the issues and use the value in the stats.
CC and BE are outstanding schools and programs. Absolutely nothing I have stated is intended to discount anything by the students, parents, or athletes of these schools. And per Hurst66's comment, which I already noted, BE won the state championship the last two years ON THE PITCH, fairly—absolutely nothing to complain about.
I believe people tend to be too emotional, and jump to conclusions, feeling somehow that people or schools are being attacked.
In my field, my research often focuses on the impact of poverty/affluence on ACHIEVEMENT. I am highly sensitive to both the advantages and disadvantages faced in classrooms and on soccer pitches. I feel it is our obligation to address inequities so that CHILDREN and YOUNG ADULTS can receive the credit they deserve (and avoid unfair criticism for things beyond their control).
If Woodruff had defeated BE, that would not have changed my stance one millimeter. I also feel that inequities among our public schools should be addressed. If you notice I have for a while now emphasized the poverty index for the PUBLIC schools here to make a point about disparity within that context.
Anyone reading this web site associated with any private school, whether it competes in SCHSL or not, please accept my apologies if you have ever thought my comments and stances were disparaging of your or any private school. My discussion is not about the schools; it is about policies that fail to address equitably issues we can address (not my earlier post about how other states do this).
Thanks all for chiming in on this thread. I think this is important.
"Living well's the best revenge." r.e.m.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 283
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 283 |
cc,
I didn't mean for my post to make it seem as though you were being dishonest. I guess reading what has been written regarding affluence is what I was addressing. I just want others to understand that private does not ALWAYS, 100% of the time equal affluence.
I myself went to a small (now closed) private school growing up and I can assure you we were not affluent by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't believe that you are attacking the kids or the institutions. I just felt the need to offer a few stats of my own...ones that I can back up with proof of my own knowledge. That isn't to suggest yours are not truthful.
I know that back in the years when CCES was very strong as a team, the ratio of club players was much higher. I would like to think that even though those numbers have declined, we have managed to remain marginally competitive.
I would also like to mention that the reason CCES competes in the SCHSL is because the administrators and coaches feel that the SCHSL gives the student athletes a great arena within which to compete and perform against the best student athletes around the state. (NOTE: This is not to say that SCISA is not competitive or does not have great talent within it's ranks.)
Fletch: It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am NOT a big man.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768
World Cup
|
|
World Cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 4,768 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854
brace
|
|
OP
brace
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854 |
Quote:
cc,
I didn't mean for my post to make it seem as though you were being dishonest. I guess reading what has been written regarding affluence is what I was addressing. I just want others to understand that private does not ALWAYS, 100% of the time equal affluence.
I myself went to a small (now closed) private school growing up and I can assure you we were not affluent by any stretch of the imagination.
I don't believe that you are attacking the kids or the institutions. I just felt the need to offer a few stats of my own...ones that I can back up with proof of my own knowledge. That isn't to suggest yours are not truthful.
I know that back in the years when CCES was very strong as a team, the ratio of club players was much higher. I would like to think that even though those numbers have declined, we have managed to remain marginally competitive.
I would also like to mention that the reason CCES competes in the SCHSL is because the administrators and coaches feel that the SCHSL gives the student athletes a great arena within which to compete and perform against the best student athletes around the state. (NOTE: This is not to say that SCISA is not competitive or does not have great talent within it's ranks.)
Thanks for offering more. I would like to emphasize that you are making a HUGE and important point.
The reality is that affluence and poverty do not CAUSE anything, but that they are MARKERS (correlations) for many elements that are causational. Your specific example of "number of club players."
When I started coaching at Woodruff, CC's girls keeper would STAND AT MIDFIELD during our matches. . .Woodruff has achieved some parity with CC because the direct influences (such as year-round/club soccer) have balanced, thus eliminating the value of the marker (relative affluence).
"Living well's the best revenge." r.e.m.
|
|
|
|
