Why doesn’t the government fund youth sports when they do fund high school sports?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Anonymous wrote:
Every high school in this area has sports that don't cut. If you want to start in a competitive sport like basketball, you will need to have started earlier, but it's not true at all that you can't start a sport in high school.

I tend to agree that schools should do more for physical development. I feel that I have to do it so that my kids can be in tip top physical shape. If they graduate from high school and aren't in the best shape of their lives. I have failed. That is the way I feel about it. If they don't make the team, they'll be signed up at LA fitness or some gym.

Though I will say. Basketball is so competitive because it so accessible. In other words, it's so competitive because so many people play. EG Plenty of people have access to teams and courts and what not. It's not like some exclusive thing like club swimming or show riding. Even travel basketball isn't that expensive compared to some athletic programs.

Want your kid to make the basketball team? Spend all summer rebounding for them at the local park, just shoot thousands of shots per day. Literally, you have the tools available. It's a low-cost thing.

Having schools provide subsidize these, will just make the basketball more competitive. Which is fine but doesn't sound like what the OP is wanting.

Personally, I feel the big schools should be required to have multiple basketball teams. If you have six hundred kids in your graduating class, you should have three basketball teams. <- That is the solution to the problem.

Us parents at smaller schools make fun of the big public athletic departments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Anonymous wrote:
Every high school in this area has sports that don't cut. If you want to start in a competitive sport like basketball, you will need to have started earlier, but it's not true at all that you can't start a sport in high school.

I tend to agree that schools should do more for physical development. I feel that I have to do it so that my kids can be in tip top physical shape. If they graduate from high school and aren't in the best shape of their lives. I have failed. That is the way I feel about it. If they don't make the team, they'll be signed up at LA fitness or some gym.

Though I will say. Basketball is so competitive because it so accessible. In other words, it's so competitive because so many people play. EG Plenty of people have access to teams and courts and what not. It's not like some exclusive thing like club swimming or show riding. Even travel basketball isn't that expensive compared to some athletic programs.

Want your kid to make the basketball team? Spend all summer rebounding for them at the local park, just shoot thousands of shots per day. Literally, you have the tools available. It's a low-cost thing.

Having schools provide subsidize these, will just make the basketball more competitive. Which is fine but doesn't sound like what the OP is wanting.

Personally, I feel the big schools should be required to have multiple basketball teams. If you have six hundred kids in your graduating class, you should have three basketball teams. <- That is the solution to the problem.

Us parents at smaller schools make fun of the big public athletic departments.

Just shooting basketballs in the park isn’t enough to pass freshman tryouts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would we subsidize youth sports?!? How about medications, mental health services, teacher’s salaries, better public transportation, food security, and the list goes on.
Get a grip, OP.

Then high schools should stop funding sports

I agree, but this is the world we live in. I don't want anything more to go to sports. The rest has to go to health, food aid, safety, etc. Life-sustaining things for the community. I couldn't care less about sports teams. They're not essential.

Sport should be for health...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth would we subsidize youth sports?!? How about medications, mental health services, teacher’s salaries, better public transportation, food security, and the list goes on.
Get a grip, OP.

Then high schools should stop funding sports

Why? Explain it to me like I am five.

[Anonymous]

They do for some sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Anonymous wrote:
Every high school in this area has sports that don't cut. If you want to start in a competitive sport like basketball, you will need to have started earlier, but it's not true at all that you can't start a sport in high school.

I tend to agree that schools should do more for physical development. I feel that I have to do it so that my kids can be in tip top physical shape. If they graduate from high school and aren't in the best shape of their lives. I have failed. That is the way I feel about it. If they don't make the team, they'll be signed up at LA fitness or some gym.

Though I will say. Basketball is so competitive because it so accessible. In other words, it's so competitive because so many people play. EG Plenty of people have access to teams and courts and what not. It's not like some exclusive thing like club swimming or show riding. Even travel basketball isn't that expensive compared to some athletic programs.

Want your kid to make the basketball team? Spend all summer rebounding for them at the local park, just shoot thousands of shots per day. Literally, you have the tools available. It's a low-cost thing.

Having schools provide subsidize these, will just make the basketball more competitive. Which is fine but doesn't sound like what the OP is wanting.

Personally, I feel the big schools should be required to have multiple basketball teams. If you have six hundred kids in your graduating class, you should have three basketball teams. <- That is the solution to the problem.

Us parents at smaller schools make fun of the big public athletic departments.

Just shooting basketballs in the park isn’t enough to pass freshman tryouts

Actually, there was video of one of the Michigan State recruits. The played it during an elite eight game. His father setup a video of the kid making 100 threes in a row at a park.

There are plenty of kids that made it on surprisingly few resources. Videos of kids shooting in square milk crates hung on trees.

Kids in Africa playing on dirt.

But if you have to question that idea, it's probably not for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Anonymous wrote:
Every high school in this area has sports that don't cut. If you want to start in a competitive sport like basketball, you will need to have started earlier, but it's not true at all that you can't start a sport in high school.

I tend to agree that schools should do more for physical development. I feel that I have to do it so that my kids can be in tip top physical shape. If they graduate from high school and aren't in the best shape of their lives. I have failed. That is the way I feel about it. If they don't make the team, they'll be signed up at LA fitness or some gym.

Though I will say. Basketball is so competitive because it so accessible. In other words, it's so competitive because so many people play. EG Plenty of people have access to teams and courts and what not. It's not like some exclusive thing like club swimming or show riding. Even travel basketball isn't that expensive compared to some athletic programs.

Want your kid to make the basketball team? Spend all summer rebounding for them at the local park, just shoot thousands of shots per day. Literally, you have the tools available. It's a low-cost thing.

Having schools provide subsidize these, will just make the basketball more competitive. Which is fine but doesn't sound like what the OP is wanting.

Personally, I feel the big schools should be required to have multiple basketball teams. If you have six hundred kids in your graduating class, you should have three basketball teams. <- That is the solution to the problem.

Us parents at smaller schools make fun of the big public athletic departments.

Just shooting basketballs in the park isn’t enough to pass freshman tryouts

Actually, there was video of one of the Michigan State recruits. The played it during an elite eight game. His father setup a video of the kid making 100 threes in a row at a park.

There are plenty of kids that made it on surprisingly few resources. Videos of kids shooting in square milk crates hung on trees.

Kids in Africa playing on dirt.

But if you have to question that idea, it's probably not for you.

Here I found an article. Nik Stauskas. It was Michigan not Michigan State. Not exactly a park either. His back yard and just gym time. Father there rebounding. Also drafted into the NBA 14th pick.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/stauskas-102-3-pointers-video-goes-viral-nik-stauskas-takes-up-5-minute-3-pointer-challenge-video.html

So, yeah, just shooting at a park, back yard, open gym etc.

People really don't understand how much time it takes to develop a game like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Last I checked, high school sports WERE youth sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

It’s even weirder that colleges have athletic scholarships. So the question is : what are the purposes served by HS sports? Health and well-being? Leadership and teamwork experiences? Opportunities for access to scholarships and particular types of future educational and job opportunities? Something else — like building a culture for the school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Anonymous wrote:
Every high school in this area has sports that don't cut. If you want to start in a competitive sport like basketball, you will need to have started earlier, but it's not true at all that you can't start a sport in high school.

I tend to agree that schools should do more for physical development. I feel that I have to do it so that my kids can be in tip top physical shape. If they graduate from high school and aren't in the best shape of their lives. I have failed. That is the way I feel about it. If they don't make the team, they'll be signed up at LA fitness or some gym.

Though I will say. Basketball is so competitive because it so accessible. In other words, it's so competitive because so many people play. EG Plenty of people have access to teams and courts and what not. It's not like some exclusive thing like club swimming or show riding. Even travel basketball isn't that expensive compared to some athletic programs.

Want your kid to make the basketball team? Spend all summer rebounding for them at the local park, just shoot thousands of shots per day. Literally, you have the tools available. It's a low-cost thing.

Having schools provide subsidize these, will just make the basketball more competitive. Which is fine but doesn't sound like what the OP is wanting.

Personally, I feel the big schools should be required to have multiple basketball teams. If you have six hundred kids in your graduating class, you should have three basketball teams. <- That is the solution to the problem.

Us parents at smaller schools make fun of the big public athletic departments.

Just shooting basketballs in the park isn’t enough to pass freshman tryouts

It certainly is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Anonymous wrote:
Every high school in this area has sports that don't cut. If you want to start in a competitive sport like basketball, you will need to have started earlier, but it's not true at all that you can't start a sport in high school.

I tend to agree that schools should do more for physical development. I feel that I have to do it so that my kids can be in tip top physical shape. If they graduate from high school and aren't in the best shape of their lives. I have failed. That is the way I feel about it. If they don't make the team, they'll be signed up at LA fitness or some gym.

Though I will say. Basketball is so competitive because it so accessible. In other words, it's so competitive because so many people play. EG Plenty of people have access to teams and courts and what not. It's not like some exclusive thing like club swimming or show riding. Even travel basketball isn't that expensive compared to some athletic programs.

Want your kid to make the basketball team? Spend all summer rebounding for them at the local park, just shoot thousands of shots per day. Literally, you have the tools available. It's a low-cost thing.

Having schools provide subsidize these, will just make the basketball more competitive. Which is fine but doesn't sound like what the OP is wanting.

Personally, I feel the big schools should be required to have multiple basketball teams. If you have six hundred kids in your graduating class, you should have three basketball teams. <- That is the solution to the problem.

Us parents at smaller schools make fun of the big public athletic departments.

I was on the G basketball team (ie 7th best) at my high school in another country. We played similarly bad teams from other high schools in the city. The idea was exercise and fun, not excellence. There again, the universities only cared about our grades not our extracurriculars for admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Anonymous wrote:
Every high school in this area has sports that don't cut. If you want to start in a competitive sport like basketball, you will need to have started earlier, but it's not true at all that you can't start a sport in high school.

I tend to agree that schools should do more for physical development. I feel that I have to do it so that my kids can be in tip top physical shape. If they graduate from high school and aren't in the best shape of their lives. I have failed. That is the way I feel about it. If they don't make the team, they'll be signed up at LA fitness or some gym.

Though I will say. Basketball is so competitive because it so accessible. In other words, it's so competitive because so many people play. EG Plenty of people have access to teams and courts and what not. It's not like some exclusive thing like club swimming or show riding. Even travel basketball isn't that expensive compared to some athletic programs.

Want your kid to make the basketball team? Spend all summer rebounding for them at the local park, just shoot thousands of shots per day. Literally, you have the tools available. It's a low-cost thing.

Having schools provide subsidize these, will just make the basketball more competitive. Which is fine but doesn't sound like what the OP is wanting.

Personally, I feel the big schools should be required to have multiple basketball teams. If you have six hundred kids in your graduating class, you should have three basketball teams. <- That is the solution to the problem.

Us parents at smaller schools make fun of the big public athletic departments.

I was on the G basketball team (ie 7th best) at my high school in another country. We played similarly bad teams from other high schools in the city. The idea was exercise and fun, not excellence. There again, the universities only cared about our grades not our extracurriculars for admission.

👏 Love your school district for organising that. I would have nicknamed that league competition The G spot and said it with pride 😁. Yes I was that bad but loved excercise and messing about with friends.

[Anonymous]

Why don't they fund youth chess? Or youth orchestra? Or math league?

[Anonymous]

I don't think you will like what dedicated funding will do to youth sports because then the kids will need to specialize by 3 yo instead of 5 yo and cut down even earlier. I don't know that Youth Club Soccer should become a bigger business than it is already. I am hoping when my kids are parents youth sports can go back to being for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just pick up a sport in high school usually. You need to play from a young age, but there the schools don’t really fund this pipeline. It’s just weird that schools do fund sports at the high school level when you can’t start in high school [img]

Anonymous wrote:
Every high school in this area has sports that don't cut. If you want to start in a competitive sport like basketball, you will need to have started earlier, but it's not true at all that you can't start a sport in high school.

I tend to agree that schools should do more for physical development. I feel that I have to do it so that my kids can be in tip top physical shape. If they graduate from high school and aren't in the best shape of their lives. I have failed. That is the way I feel about it. If they don't make the team, they'll be signed up at LA fitness or some gym.

Though I will say. Basketball is so competitive because it so accessible. In other words, it's so competitive because so many people play. EG Plenty of people have access to teams and courts and what not. It's not like some exclusive thing like club swimming or show riding. Even travel basketball isn't that expensive compared to some athletic programs.

Want your kid to make the basketball team? Spend all summer rebounding for them at the local park, just shoot thousands of shots per day. Literally, you have the tools available. It's a low-cost thing.

Having schools provide subsidize these, will just make the basketball more competitive. Which is fine but doesn't sound like what the OP is wanting.

Personally, I feel the big schools should be required to have multiple basketball teams. If you have six hundred kids in your graduating class, you should have three basketball teams. <- That is the solution to the problem.

Us parents at smaller schools make fun of the big public athletic departments.

Just shooting basketballs in the park isn’t enough to pass freshman tryouts

It certainly is.

Here’s my experience with this:

I’m a dad who was fortunate enough to be able to take time off work whenever my kid needed someone to rebound for him, drive him to the gym, drive to a tournament, etc. We were also able to pay a man who played basketball professionally for 10 years and coached professional for another 10 to train my kid from an early age. By freshman year of high school, my kid was (because of the trainer and because he is a nice, humble kid with a great jump shot and a surprising vertical) regularly training with a group of HS senior D1 commits and occasionally invited to runs with current college players and some current international pros.

The summer before freshman year, we used to see an acquaintance of DS’s at the park every day working out at the same time my kid was. The acquaintance had played on his MS team, was headed to the same high school as my DS and hoped to make the freshman team at tryouts. DS had been working out with the HS team since March of his 8th grade year and had been promised a spot on the team at that time.

One day, DS invited the other boy to work out with us, and they played one on one afterward. After my kid got up 20 baskets to zero, they quit playing. Note that this was a tall kid who played for his MS team and worked out on his own pretty diligently every single day.

The kid ended up not even trying out. He saw a coach in the gym the week before tryouts and asked the coach to watch him work out and suggest what he should work on. The coach basically told him he had zero chance of making the team and not to bother. Yes, that’s awful and represents everything wrong with the system. It’s also reality.