RECRUITING!!!!

David H21 said:
Haven’t been on in a while. Interesting the recruiting topic still discussed. Though veered off course a bit but I guess thats what these forums are for. I have read most of the newer comments. You don’t have to agree but coaches going and taking kids from other HS just to get more W’s is wrong. Especially when these kids get tuition breaks just to come play a silly HS sport. These kids aren’t going pro. Those kids are identified early on. It’s warped sense of thinking on school/coaches part and it’s a warped sense of thinking on the kid being recruited parents part. The focus should be on education. And people who know, know education is not the draw with what goes on with the school in question. Good education but thats not the premise these kids from other HS’s are being sold on. They are being asked to go there for one purpose. Win more games. If you knew you wouldn’t try to defend it. That’s not what HS should be about. Again, warped sense of thinking. The state rules may allow this garbage to go on but it shouldn’t. Problem with the world today IMO. No ethics or standards. Plenty people see the hypocrisy of it. And not just the players and parents of the school.
Click to expand...
It's up to them and their families why they go to certain high schools. Not for you to decide.
 
winbypin said:
It's up to them and their families why they go to certain high schools. Not for you to decide.
Click to expand...

right. the public is supposed to accept the insult without protest, and throw their neighbor to the wolves.

they are not their brother's keeper after all, and as long as their own toes aren't being stepped on they don't care that their neighbor's toes are being crushed.
 
HippyDippy said:
right. the public is supposed to accept the insult without protest, and throw their neighbor to the wolves.

they are not their brother's keeper after all, and as long as their own toes aren't being stepped on they don't care that their neighbor's toes are being crushed.
Click to expand...
Yes....what my family does is none of your damn business.

End of discussion.
 
HippyDippy said:
It may be or it may not be, depending on where you live.

but anything to do with the public education system is EVERYBODY'S business.
Click to expand...
Unless I am living in communist china, what I do with my family is nobody else's business. Period.

You don't like the open enrollment policies? Don't blame the families participating. Take it up with the officials that put them in place.
 
winbypin said:
Unless I am living in communist china, what I do with my family is nobody else's business. Period.

You don't like the open enrollment policies? Don't blame the families participating. Take it up with the officials that put them in place.
Click to expand...

I can comment as I wish and hold any opinion I wish.

so are you now disclosing that your position is taken out of your own self interest and that you have transferred a child out for primarily athletic reasons?

Is that what's bothering you Bunky? You don't like having the other side of the pancake you cooked, discussed?

You don't really think I GAF what you or your family does, do you?
 
HippyDippy said:
I can comment as I wish and hold any opinion I wish.

so are you now disclosing that your position is taken out of your own self interest and that you have transferred a child out for primarily athletic reasons?

Is that what's bothering you Bunky? You don't like having the other side of the pancake you cooked, discussed?

You don't really think I GAF what you or your family does, do you?
Click to expand...
Yes, you can hold any opinion you wish and comment as you wish. This is America after all. Ain't that awesome?!?!?

No. My kids never transferred anywhere. Big swing and a miss there. I just don't worry about what other people do with their families and certainly don't find fault with anyone that is taking advantage of existing rules.

You seem obsessed with what other people decide to do with their kids.
 
What is the purpose that any high school coach in a public school setting would recruit a student for athletic purposes? What benefit does such recruitment provide to the school district, discounting any State funding that might follow the student as irrelevant?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
winbypin said:
Policy yes.... people's personal decisions no.
Click to expand...

I might not want my school district polluted with undesireables.

I might want to protect my school district and children from that. So it might be a concern of mine.

I might not want your kid ruining the chemistry of my school soccer team.
 
HippyDippy said:
I might not want my school district polluted with undesireables.

I might want to protect my school district and children from that. So it might be a concern of mine.

I might not want your kid ruining the chemistry of my school soccer team.
Click to expand...
Take the POLICY up with your BOE.

It's not the families that transfer fault you're evidently some sort of bigot.
 
HippyDippy said:
What is the purpose that any high school coach in a public school setting would recruit a student for athletic purposes? What benefit does such recruitment provide to the school district, discounting any State funding that might follow the student as irrelevant?
Click to expand...
Brings in a quality student athlete. Ups the game for everyone around him or her. Classroom too.

Sorry your kid got benched because be wasn't good enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
winbypin said:
Brings in a quality student athlete. Ups the game for everyone around him or her. Classroom too.

Sorry your kid got benched because be wasn't good enough.
Click to expand...

not necessarily, could be a total creep who was promised he would start and be a total arrogant ahole.
 
HippyDippy said:
not necessarily, could be a total creep who was promised he would start and be a total arrogant ahole.
Click to expand...
There also could be a total creep that was promised to start and is a total arrogant ahole that is already in the district. ?‍♂️

Different personalities are kind of normal when you are part of a group of people.
 
winbypin said:
There also could be a total creep that was promised to start and is a total arrogant ahole that is already in the district. ?‍♂️

Different personalities are kind of normal when you are part of a group of people.
Click to expand...
you still haven't answered the question: What is the benefit to the school district and taxpayers of said school district to recruit a student for athletic ability.

but I'll answer for you: there is none. the winner of the State tournament gets the same thing as an 0-10 team but has to play five more games to get it, incurring financial loss and injuries to students, to get it.
 
HippyDippy said:
you still haven't answered the question: What is the benefit to the school district and taxpayers of said school district to recruit a student for athletic ability.

but I'll answer for you: there is none. the winner of the State tournament gets the same thing as an 0-10 team but has to play five more games to get it, incurring financial loss and injuries to students, to get it.
Click to expand...

Extracurricular activities (sports, music, art) do not exist to satisfy the needs of the school district or its tax payers. They solely exist for the individual participant. There are positive impacts to the school district and tax payers. But, there is zero designed benefit. It is for the participants. If the individual participant learns more about music from a graduate from the Julliard School in Public district B they should move into that district and participate. The individual will get a better experience than the current music instructor trained at Sinclair in public district A. It is common sense. No one has common sense anymore.
 
yakyak said:
Extracurricular activities (sports, music, art) do not exist to satisfy the needs of the school district or its tax payers. They solely exist for the individual participant. There are positive impacts to the school district and tax payers. But, there is zero designed benefit. It is for the participants. If the individual participant learns more about music from a graduate from the Julliard School in Public district B they should move into that district and participate. The individual will get a better experience than the current music instructor trained at Sinclair in public district A. It is common sense. No one has common sense anymore.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying I disagree, but on average district budgets towards athletics amounts to 5% of the budget. There is a lot of "community" that does rally around interscholastic athletics.

That said...the same can be done outside of the scholastic-ties.
 
belied dat said:
I'm not saying I disagree, but on average district budgets towards athletics amounts to 5% of the budget. There is a lot of "community" that does rally around interscholastic athletics.

That said...the same can be done outside of the scholastic-ties.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is very costly to provide students opportunities in band, sports, art etc. that have a meaning impact in their lives. And its not getting cheaper.
 
yakyak said:
Extracurricular activities (sports, music, art) do not exist to satisfy the needs of the school district or its tax payers. They solely exist for the individual participant. There are positive impacts to the school district and tax payers. But, there is zero designed benefit. It is for the participants. If the individual participant learns more about music from a graduate from the Julliard School in Public district B they should move into that district and participate. The individual will get a better experience than the current music instructor trained at Sinclair in public district A. It is common sense. No one has common sense anymore.
Click to expand...

School districts exist to satisfy the needs of the taxpayers, period, and all activities intra or extra curriculars exist to satisfy the need of the taxpayers at large to educate their children, grandchildren.

you are playing word salad here. if the purpose for the school district to exist was not to satisfy the needs of the taxpayers, school districts could not put levies on the ballot for taxpayers approval or disapproval. Tax levies are collected whether or not an individual has a child in the school district, thus, the levy is legal and justified to educate the children of the district being to the greater good of the public at large. Otherwise it would be legal only to levy the tax on the citizen with a child attending the school in the school district.

athletics or more properly, physical education is seen to enhance the educational process. there is no inherent educational value to having a winning record, thus recruiting a student for athletic purposes only, is not justified as the additional student causes the school district to incur additional expenses which are not reimbursed by the State and the school district benefits no more by any athletic enterprise winning games than losing games and winning games is not the purpose to have an athletic program in high school interscholastic competitions because it is a zero sum game: for every winning team there is a losing team and the losing team must be gaining as much educational benefit as the winning team, or else the expensive activity cannot be justified, musical activities are not like this, with a winner and a loser: every child in every band gains approximately equal educational benefit. the same goes for debate or chess team or academic challenge or theater: while there is a winner and a loser theoretically in a debate, or chess tournament, or robotics competitions: the team that doesn't "win" learns as much as the winner in theory.

It's not about who wins: its about learning. if it's not about learning, it has no place in the education system. kid's parents can pay for their own recreational activities except for recreational activities provided to EVERY student. respectfully submitted
 
HippyDippy said:
School districts exist to satisfy the needs of the taxpayers, period, and all activities intra or extra curriculars exist to satisfy the need of the taxpayers at large to educate their children, grandchildren.

you are playing word salad here. if the purpose for the school district to exist was not to satisfy the needs of the taxpayers, school districts could not put levies on the ballot for taxpayers approval or disapproval. Tax levies are collected whether or not an individual has a child in the school district, thus, the levy is legal and justified to educate the children of the district being to the greater good of the public at large. Otherwise it would be legal only to levy the tax on the citizen with a child attending the school in the school district.

athletics or more properly, physical education is seen to enhance the educational process. there is no inherent educational value to having a winning record, thus recruiting a student for athletic purposes only, is not justified as the additional student causes the school district to incur additional expenses which are not reimbursed by the State and the school district benefits no more by any athletic enterprise winning games than losing games and winning games is not the purpose to have an athletic program in high school interscholastic competitions because it is a zero sum game: for every winning team there is a losing team and the losing team must be gaining as much educational benefit as the winning team, or else the expensive activity cannot be justified, musical activities are not like this, with a winner and a loser: every child in every band gains approximately equal educational benefit. the same goes for debate or chess team or academic challenge or theater: while there is a winner and a loser theoretically in a debate, or chess tournament, or robotics competitions: the team that doesn't "win" learns as much as the winner in theory.

It's not about who wins: its about learning. if it's not about learning, it has no place in the education system. kid's parents can pay for their own recreational activities except for recreational activities provided to EVERY student. respectfully submitted
Click to expand...
Ok, I will do it: What are you arguing about again? I have totally lost the purpose of this discussion. Is it public schools should not recruit athletes? Well, they are not supposed to. And honestly I don't know any public school that actually "recruits" players. But success breeds success and open enrollment schools that have successful athletic programs recruit themselves. My parents lived in Mt. Healthy on the eastern side of that small town and years ago the starting fullback for Colerain lived next to them. It was open enrollment and Colerain was known for helping good football players get exposure and potentially help pay for the their college. At the time Mt. Healthy was not known for that. No harm. I can go over why some school districts are open enrollment but suffice to say that the incremental additional cost of the student does not outweigh the additional incremental revenue otherwise the whole concept would not make sense. I will say that with the cost of college, the value of any type of scholarship has increased dramatically in the last ten or so years.
 
belied dat said:
I'm not saying I disagree, but on average district budgets towards athletics amounts to 5% of the budget. There is a lot of "community" that does rally around interscholastic athletics.

That said...the same can be done outside of the scholastic-ties.
Click to expand...

and there is a much larger part of the community, that has no interest in interscholastic athletics, even in the most rabid "fanbase" school districts

in the great majority of all school districts, the following consists of parents and grandparents, and a few hundred more. There is no database of attendance at interscholastic competitions but you know as well as I know that at most contests, 5000 is considered a to be a huge crowd..
BASESWIMPARENT said:
Ok, I will do it: What are you arguing about again? I have totally lost the purpose of this discussion. Is it public schools should not recruit athletes? Well, they are not supposed to. And honestly I don't know any public school that actually "recruits" players. But success breeds success and open enrollment schools that have successful athletic programs recruit themselves. My parents lived in Mt. Healthy on the eastern side of that small town and years ago the starting fullback for Colerain lived next to them. It was open enrollment and Colerain was known for helping good football players get exposure and potentially help pay for the their college. At the time Mt. Healthy was not known for that. No harm. I can go over why some school districts are open enrollment but suffice to say that the incremental additional cost of the student does not outweigh the additional incremental revenue otherwise the whole concept would not make sense. I will say that with the cost of college, the value of any type of scholarship has increased dramatically in the last ten or so years.
Click to expand...

success what? so a school wins completely meaningless games and is successful winning completely meaningless kiddie games

so what.
 
HippyDippy said:
School districts exist to satisfy the needs of the taxpayers, period, and all activities intra or extra curriculars exist to satisfy the need of the taxpayers at large to educate their children, grandchildren.

you are playing word salad here. if the purpose for the school district to exist was not to satisfy the needs of the taxpayers, school districts could not put levies on the ballot for taxpayers approval or disapproval. Tax levies are collected whether or not an individual has a child in the school district, thus, the levy is legal and justified to educate the children of the district being to the greater good of the public at large. Otherwise it would be legal only to levy the tax on the citizen with a child attending the school in the school district.

athletics or more properly, physical education is seen to enhance the educational process. there is no inherent educational value to having a winning record, thus recruiting a student for athletic purposes only, is not justified as the additional student causes the school district to incur additional expenses which are not reimbursed by the State and the school district benefits no more by any athletic enterprise winning games than losing games and winning games is not the purpose to have an athletic program in high school interscholastic competitions because it is a zero sum game: for every winning team there is a losing team and the losing team must be gaining as much educational benefit as the winning team, or else the expensive activity cannot be justified, musical activities are not like this, with a winner and a loser: every child in every band gains approximately equal educational benefit. the same goes for debate or chess team or academic challenge or theater: while there is a winner and a loser theoretically in a debate, or chess tournament, or robotics competitions: the team that doesn't "win" learns as much as the winner in theory.

It's not about who wins: its about learning. if it's not about learning, it has no place in the education system. kid's parents can pay for their own recreational activities except for recreational activities provided to EVERY student. respectfully submitted
Click to expand...
HippyDippy said:
and there is a much larger part of the community, that has no interest in interscholastic athletics, even in the most rabid "fanbase" school districts

in the great majority of all school districts, the following consists of parents and grandparents, and a few hundred more. There is no database of attendance at interscholastic competitions but you know as well as I know that at most contests, 5000 is considered a to be a huge crowd..


success what? so a school wins completely meaningless games and is successful winning completely meaningless kiddie games

so what.
Click to expand...

What is the point you are trying to make?
 
BASESWIMPARENT said:
Ok, I will do it: What are you arguing about again? I have totally lost the purpose of this discussion. Is it public schools should not recruit athletes? Well, they are not supposed to. And honestly I don't know any public school that actually "recruits" players. But success breeds success and open enrollment schools that have successful athletic programs recruit themselves. My parents lived in Mt. Healthy on the eastern side of that small town and years ago the starting fullback for Colerain lived next to them. It was open enrollment and Colerain was known for helping good football players get exposure and potentially help pay for the their college. At the time Mt. Healthy was not known for that. No harm. I can go over why some school districts are open enrollment but suffice to say that the incremental additional cost of the student does not outweigh the additional incremental revenue otherwise the whole concept would not make sense. I will say that with the cost of college, the value of any type of scholarship has increased dramatically in the last ten or so years.
Click to expand...

What about the kid from Colerain who would have started instead of the kid from Mt. Healthy?

He got no looks because he rode the pine. What about him? Colerain coach just screwed him to death, and that;s just fine. ?

He got the "sucks to be you" treatment.
 
HippyDippy said:
What about the kid from Colerain who would have started instead of the kid from Mt. Healthy?

He got no looks because he rode the pine. What about him? Colerain coach just screwed him to death, and that;s just fine. ?

He got the "sucks to be you" treatment.
Click to expand...
Life isn't fair. Good life lesson.

Of course, if he was that good the coach would have found playing time for him. Possibly another position.
 
HippyDippy said:
What about the kid from Colerain who would have started instead of the kid from Mt. Healthy?

He got no looks because he rode the pine. What about him? Colerain coach just screwed him to death, and that;s just fine. ?

He got the "sucks to be you" treatment.
Click to expand...

What about two equally qualified candidates for a promotion at work? There is one spot. Leaders have these choices all the time and it stinks as someone will be unhappy. The kid who sat (Who is not going to earn money in Basketball) has a choice to make. That choice happens probably daily in adulthood. He/She cannot control being placed on the bench. But how they respond, or more importantly learn to respond, will define their adult hood.
 
yakyak said:
What about two equally qualified candidates for a promotion at work? There is one spot. Leaders have these choices all the time and it stinks as someone will be unhappy. The kid who sat (Who is not going to earn money in Basketball) has a choice to make. That choice happens probably daily in adulthood. He/She cannot control being placed on the bench. But how they respond, or more importantly learn to respond, will define their adult hood.
Click to expand...
Don't try the common sense angle with hippy-dippy-do. He doesn't understand that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top