This week's SchoolWeek had an article describing various ways the D87 schools were going to expand their athletic programs. I believe, in some respect, the majority of these increases were intended to replace cuts made during the ref fiasco a couple of years ago. Seemed like most of the projected costs were for teacher/coach stipends, although I believe at least a couple of "club" sports were being made varsity. They also mentioned making all sports "no-cut" for freshmen.

It sort of surprised me to see that the schools were in such good financial shape that the district would embark on such expansion. And I guess I wondered if I were tossing a couple hundred grand around, whether sports is where I would direct it.

Any thoughts?

Just received this and it seems to fit this situation.

**No Child Left Behind - Football Version**

1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable. If after two years they have not won the championship their footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL they do win the championship.

2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL!

3. Talented players will be asked to workout on their own, without instruction.. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic ability or whose parents don't like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th game.

This will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimum goals.

Just dreamed this up it fits better

Football Teachers Union Version.

1. Games will be played if and when the coaches feel like it. Coaches are to be given a quarter off per game and a week off every two weeks. Scores will be kept but will not be announced unless the team wins.

2. It must be acknowledged by everyone that the only reason for the victory was due to the brilliance and leadership of the coaches. This should be acknowledged by Coaches appreciation day where food and other sacrifices should be made on a weekly basis.

3. It should also be acknowledged that the losing team lost because it's players are to stupid, lazy to play the game and that is primarily the fault of the whining, complaining parents.

4. When a Player makes a team he will be considered tenured and cannot ever lose his position no matter how out of shape he becomes or if there is someone better.

5. Coaches are to receive yearly pay increases these increases are to be the same no matter how well the team does.

Just wanted to post on what I understand to be one instance of this new policy in action.

One spring sport is currently having tryouts. They normally would keep a fresh-soph team of about 20, and JV and V teams of about 15 each - essentially the number who actually compete at meets.

They have not had any new positions allocated, but are barred from cutting any of the approximately 40 freshmen who have tried out. Which means they are trying to figure how to survive with drastically smaller JV and V teams.

I understand the position of folks who say it is of value to let freshmen experience sports without being cut. But there is another side of the coin - that of a junior or senior who has experienced a sport, knows they are interested in pursuing it, and has worked on it enough that they could survive try-outs to at least participate on the bottom-half of the roster.

I heard directly from West's Athletic Director that the policy is not as stated in the press "no-cut." He called it "expanded opportunities for participation." The limitations on unlimited numbers are based on staff and facilities.

If the facilities are not large enough - for example with tennis, or there are no teams to participate against at other schools - B or even C squads - then there is no plan or reason for expansion.

I don't know what sport you are referencing, Dinsdale, but remember that each participant pays a athletic participation fee - $140/sport, I think, and there are also fundraisers. I know I had representatives of both West's baseball and softball teams helping clean out my wallet yesterday.

I agree 100% if an unlimited freshmen, reduced V/JV scenario is implemented - that doesn't make a lot of sense and certainly is not fair to the upperclassmen.

quote:

Posted March 03, 2008 08:31 AM Hide Post
Just wanted to post on what I understand to be one instance of this new policy in action.

One spring sport is currently having tryouts. They normally would keep a fresh-soph team of about 20, and JV and V teams of about 15 each - essentially the number who actually compete at meets.

They have not had any new positions allocated, but are barred from cutting any of the approximately 40 freshmen who have tried out. Which means they are trying to figure how to survive with drastically smaller JV and V teams.

I understand the position of folks who say it is of value to let freshmen experience sports without being cut. But there is another side of the coin - that of a junior or senior who has experienced a sport, knows they are interested in pursuing it, and has worked on it enough that they could survive try-outs to at least participate on the bottom-half of the roster.

the kids are calling it no-cut, and from what my child tells me the kids aren't happy either. Some want the opportunity to make a sport based on merit, and they feel the dissatifaction of the upper classman. By this age I think they can handle being cut.