Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
C
hat-trick
Offline
hat-trick
C
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
Exactly..So why not look at these schools records over the last five years and classify them in an order that most will have competitive games? And save me the travel issue..It can be done with the travel that most teams see now..

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 211
C
Corner Kick
Offline
Corner Kick
C
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 211
Hurst
My answer to that is if we lose than at least we lose to a AA public school who are playing by the same rules. We can deal with that. Just tip your hat to them for outplaying you.

Last edited by TabVermes; 05/20/10 03:49 PM.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854
brace
Offline
brace
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854
Proximity is not the essence of classification, but the population size from which you draw a team is. Thus, asking for equity related to the nature of classification is DIFFERENT than the issue you raise, Hurst.

I do not mean that you are not raising an valuable question, but I do not see the issue of proximity to club as the same as attendance zone.

Asking for equity as some have here related to private schools is well within the power of the HSL to address as this is commonly addressed in states throughout the country.

Your concern about the aspects of equity, Hurst, I believe is nearly impossible to address unless we go to an entirely different system unlike the current classification system based on school size (thus not one based on potential populations for teams to draw from).

For the record, when I coached at Woodruff I was adamant that a year-long commitment to soccer through club was the way to success for the girls, who routinely lost by double-digit goal totals to CC and Emerald. And there is no question that Coach Gomez has created a top program in part benefiting from club play. This is exactly the same dynamic that you find at other outstanding programs such as Riverside, Dorman, Mauldin. . .

Has Woodruff benefited from club access? Yes. Is that an unfair advantage because of proximity? Maybe. Can the HSL do something about that? Seems impossible. . .


"Living well's the best revenge." r.e.m.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
Hurst66 Offline OP
world cup
OP Offline
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
Cat,

You and Gooooaal have done a great job building the program at Woodruff. You had access.....and you used it. You got the girls to play high-level club year 'round and the formula worked. (We embarked on the same philosophy a few years back up here in York County as well.)

BE is using what they have as well.....access to good players and good club structure. Can't hate on them for their success. Why isn't the program at St. James at the same level as BE? Both are Catholic schools? Good soccer in Myrtle Beach and Whack 'Em All.

I had an appointment in uptown Charlotte this past Monday and I told the person I was visiting at 4 PM, "I have to get out of here. I have to beat the traffic".

She told me that traffic was no longer that bad. There are less people on I-77 coming home from work now due to:
1. Lay-offs
2. People now working out of their home office
3. Less people transporting their kids to/from private schools

Wow. I thought about #3. Is this why BE didn't win 2A this year? Is enrollment down? Did they lose potential players from the girls soccer pool because parents couldn't afford tuition?

Seems like schools where the tax payer picks up the total tab would have an advantage over schools where mom & dad have to fork it over in these tough times.


Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854
brace
Offline
brace
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 854
The Woodruff program is all Fernando. . .

Hurst, you are dead on about taking advantage of opportunities, and I have never expressed any hate/dislike/animosity for CC or BE. . .All of my concern is about the system that allows/ignores addressable inequities. . .

About your economic-impact idea. . .So far, I believe the economic downturn has impacted mid-range private schools. . .But high-end private schools with a powerful tradition momentum are showing less of an impact, but I feel any impact will be down the road and less so recently. . .But I am offering only an educated guess here. . .

And BE not making it as far as usual, I speculate, is the inevitable results of AM, Waccamaw, CC, and Woodruff knocking on their door for several years now. . .Dynasties do occasionally lose in sports. . .but they tend to be momentary lapses. . .That is the hallmark of a PROGRAM v. a good team. . .I suspect BE has nothing to worry about. . .


"Living well's the best revenge." r.e.m.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3
C
bench
Offline
bench
C
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3
I agree with The Chief. The Public school players who have been denied a Championship opportunity is the issue. I don't have anything against the BE players winning anything, if it's fair and square. It's just a shame for the little Guys that no one has leveled the playing field and given them a chance.

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
brace
Offline
brace
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 855
Quote:

Absolutely, the central concern that we should all agree on is about equity, level playing fields. ANY schools benefiting from inequities (such as attendance zone inequities) should be placed into the larger or largest classifications since the point of classifications is to have schools competing against each other with approximately the same opportunities to field teams from similar populations.

But we should also be more open and honest about the success that some teams have had historically. Some teams have succeeded from BOTH quality programs within a system that affords them inequitable advantages—again by no fault of the school but by the failures of the system to insure equity.

Ultimately, these inequities make a mockery of the classification system and allow only the appearance of fairness.

Again, why do we have classifications? To level the playing field.

I think it also perfectly fair to ask that those schools benefiting from advantages speak up for equity along with those schools who feel disadvantaged. It would be an act of honor suitable for educators to model for those children we claim to be teaching.




When the leauge decided to allow teams who who 4A size to play 3A and allowed teams who were no longer 4A size stay up they created an unfair advantage for those larger schools. There may have been reasons for the decision but that does not remove the fact that an unfair advantage was created. From my point of view it was clearly a mistake as the schools left in 3A have dominated that level of play.

Without blaming/naming the teams and those associated with them I think it is clear that the choice to allow this took away from those schools who were 3A sized a fair shot at greater sucess and obviously a school that actually was 3A sized would have won a title instead of teams who were not. I know not all 3A titles in all sports were won by the larger schools but even one is a denial to schools who were at this disadvantage.

The schools left in 4A, at their own request as I understand it, also suffered becasue the athletes (across all sports) were not given the chance to succeed against other schools with who they were on a level field, at least as the current classifaction system goes. The students were done a disservice by the ????(not sure to blamce admin or school board here) and the leauge.

Thank you cat your post dovetails with what I was trying to say but manages to do it with out being as inflamatory as mine tend to be but still makes the point that "UNFAIR is UNFAIR".

Last edited by The Chief; 05/21/10 05:54 AM.
Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.045s Queries: 29 (0.015s) Memory: 3.1820 MB (Peak: 3.5872 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 14:32:57 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS