Ok, I'll back up a half step as well...I think perhaps we're talking about two different systems of value. If the point of high school ball is to win--and I won't argue against that at all--and the only standard for winning is to beat Wando or Irmo or Northwestern or Fort Mill or Dorman, or B-E for that matter--then I'll agree, JV and MS participation alone probably isn't going to get the job done, and I'd also have to say a lot of high school programs in this state might as well just hang it up, because it is comparatively only an elite few who compete at that level. I have said more than once that it is unrealistic to expect to compete with players who put in a long-term, year-round investment in the sport unless you are willing to make a comparable investment.
On the other hand, there are measures of success in HS ball that don't necessarily culminate in state championships...which is a good thing, or otherwise there would be only three girls' and four boys' teams that are successful per year. If we are talking about development--which, if you truly are doing it to make kids better, cannot be irrespective of results--then anything that makes a team more competitive than it was before is a help. If the difference is playoffs vs. no playoffs, last in the region vs. middle of the pack, losing 15-0 to Wando vs. losing 3-0, and maybe developing a player here and there who can go on to play at the next level rather than just marking time till graduation, then there are definitely developmental opportunities there that can make a difference in overall team performance and self-perception. My stance is against taking an "all or nothing" view that if it's not winning championships, it's not helping at all and therefore isn't worth doing. Again, everyone isn't in the same situation, so it's more about the relative value of things than a single absolute value that can be applied across the board.
