Why are youth and high school sports so competitive to get into now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four years ago, my ES kids, a fifth grader, asked me how to get girls to like him, and I responded: be the best version of yourself. In other words, excel in sports, and music. If you can do both, girls will line up and you will have options. To be great at this, you have to work very hard, because if it were that easy, it would have no value.

This is a really strange post. Girls may line up for the star football player but they aren’t swooning over the XCountry star…in general.

Much the same that girls like the guitar players in a rock band but aren’t exactly throwing themselves at an oboe player.

Which isn’t to say either group has an issue with other XCountry girls and other girls that play in the orchestra.

Nor do charismatic class presidents and theatre kids or class clowns necessarily have issues with the opposite sex.

XCountry and oboe are for losers. Girls like guitar players and basketball/soccer players. It good to have both.

Cross country stars usually are tall with low body fat - hard to run blisteringly fast and not have a six pack for example. I can attest there are women that prefer that physique to the outside linebacker type.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:XCountry and oboe are for losers. Girls like guitar players and basketball/soccer players. It good to have both.

Cross country stars usually are tall with low body fat - hard to run blisteringly fast and not have a six pack for example. I can attest there are women that prefer that physique to the outside linebacker type.

NO, NO, and NO. Women prefer soccer players over XC stars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:XCountry and oboe are for losers. Girls like guitar players and basketball/soccer players. It good to have both.

Cross country stars usually are tall with low body fat - hard to run blisteringly fast and not have a six pack for example. I can attest there are women that prefer that physique to the outside linebacker type.

NO, NO, and NO. Women prefer soccer players over XC stars.

A lot of this depends on the person. When I was in high school, a girl broke up with the high school quarterback to date me. I think I was a lot smarter than him, which presented as being a better conversationalist and more interesting to talk to. She was pretty high IQ, I get the average high schooler wouldn’t do that. She was thin in a good way too. Like attracts like I guess.

The advice of pursuing the best version of yourself is sound across the board. If a guy has good social skills and is in shape, being a kickass oboe player probably helps too. You do know cute girls do orchestra too after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:XCountry and oboe are for losers. Girls like guitar players and basketball/soccer players. It good to have both.

Cross country stars usually are tall with low body fat - hard to run blisteringly fast and not have a six pack for example. I can attest there are women that prefer that physique to the outside linebacker type.

NO, NO, and NO. Women prefer soccer players over XC stars.

I can't believe a discussion can turn so stupid. It might be true that - statistically speaking - more women are attracted to soccer players. That doesn't mean that your XC star struggles to attract women because the XC star does not compete with the soccer players for the same pool of women. Simple minds, simple thoughts.

[Anonymous]

I think grown adults sitting on their couches with their phones insulting high schoolers over their choice of extracurricular activities is pretty loser-ish behavior, personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think grown adults sitting on their couches with their phones insulting high schoolers over their choice of extracurricular activities is pretty loser-ish behavior, personally.

+1 Totally agreed. I believe "loser-ish" is not strong enough of a word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Volleyball is very much a sport for kids from families with money. To play high level volleyball (and make the varsity team at a HS with a decent team) players have to play club volleyball, which is a significant investment of time and money. DC high schools are a good example of how this plays out. On the public side, Jackson-Reed is the largest DC HS by far and being in upper NW tends to have kids from families with more resources than other parts of the city. Nearly every player on their varsity team plays volleyball outside of school. The girls volleyball team has won the DCIAA (regular DCPS public school conference) all except one year as far back as anyone can remember. The only other DCPS HS with even a half decent team is School Without Walls which while smaller, tends to also have kids from families with more resources and therefore more club volleyball players. Most of the other other DCPS high schools have no club volleyball players and are not very good. JR wins most DCIAA matches by a huge margin. The charter schools aren't much better. St Johns had historically been the best private school volleyball in DC but GDS has take over that spot for the last few years. Both St Johns and GDS recruit players for volleyball (within whatever rules exist) and virtually every player on those teams plays club volleyball.

+1. We are not poor, but not wealthy either. We noticed our bank account taking a hit as soon as our daughter started club volleyball. It is clear though that she would likely not keep a position on a our competitive HS volleyball team with rec skills only.

The money you spend on volleyball is pittance when you compare it to golf or tennis. One of my kids is playing golf at a D1 school this year, and we spent around 45K/yr on golf travel, lessons, tournaments, etc... This is on top of the country club that we're a member. We paid 92K initiation one-time fee and another 15K/year annual fee.

Well, golf has the reputation of being a sport for rich people. 100k for membership in a country club? No, thank you - that's just ridiculous.

So volleyball isn't a rich kid sport because two other sports are more elitist? That's like claiming golf isn't a rich kid sport because Dressage exists and your 45k/yr is a joke in comparison. Volleyball is the only sport we said no to for our DD. Playing club was almost 10x a year more than what we were paying for basketball

According to an article in ESPN

“You go where you see success and where you have access to success," he said. "Basketball is a hard sport to master. Unless you're willing to put in the time and effort and have a certain level of athleticism and hand-eye skills, you will not be successful. You will be pushed out of the sport because of what it demands. In volleyball and lacrosse, those barriers are lower."”

The same article interviewed two female volleyball players who played in college.

Hayley McCorkle, who finished her career on North Carolina's volleyball team last fall said …

@“I wanted to compete against someone, but I didn't want that physical contact," she said. "Volleyball allows you to be a little more of a girl. You get to wear the ribbons, wear pink, wear your hair however you want and still be dainty when you play the sport. That draws a lot of young athletes to the sport."”

Washington's Kara Bajema was one of many volleyball players who echoed that sentiment. She has played basketball but chose volleyball. … she said ….

"Honestly, I just like the volleyball environment better. It's a little more chill," she said. "Basketball is definitely more hard-core, and I like being a girly girl sometimes."

If people don’t believe that girls are drawn to this because they get to be cute they are delusional. Females like these ones, and there are a lot of them, might just set back female sports a few decades.

This matches what I have seen in our community. A lot of girls start out playing basketball in elementary school. The more girly ones move over to volleyball by middle school. Both teams and tall and athletic, but there’s a noticeable difference in how they carry themselves.

In other words the basketball players are athletes and volleyball players are the ones who weren’t good enough or committed enough to play a real sport.

No, stupid. Basketball players tend to be more the tomboy type, with the baggy shorts and not into hair and makeup. They are generally more masculine. A lot of high school girls don’t want to act or be thought of that way. Sorry you have some issues that you haven’t resolved from HS.

Then they don’t get to call themselves athletes. But you’re wrong about serious players. And take another look at USA volleyball team. They are big girls crammed into unflattering bike style shorts. Pony tails and no makeup. The serious ones.

It’s too bad some teens still think like it’s 1950 and claim girls don’t want to play a sport that makes them too boyish. Luckily there are plenty of female athletes that give the sport everything they got, even if they have wear baggy clothes or even more protective gear like female lacrosse and ice hockey players. They aren’t pretend athletes.

You do realize that women’s ice hockey is a completely different animal than men’s ice hockey, don’t you? And that the ladies wear full face masks and checking is only incidental contact (so no one is laying anyone out with violent, aggressive collisions)?

Are you saying that women’s ice hockey and lacrosse players are less athletic because of the rule and equipment modifications? Have you attempted to play either? I think not because if you had you’d understand that not just anyone could play and that there’s a high level of skill and athleticism involved with both. Ice hockey specifically has an incredibly steep learning curve and while there’s no checking allowed there is a ton of contact.

Obviously not. I’m responding to a PP (you?) who was implying that the further women’s sports deviate from men’s sports (or the further women deviate from men, I guess) the less right that sport has to be considered a “real sport” and the more right said girl has to call herself a “real athlete”.

So I was making the point that even a so-called “real sport” like ice hockey (as opposed to volleyball per the PP) makes drastic modifications to the rules of the game as well as the safety equipment to accommodate girls and women. Because, as you may have realized by now, men and women are actually different.

And for the record, I did indeed play ice hockey (club level only of course) in college.

[Anonymous]

Losers get a hobby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Losers get a hobby

Our hobby is discussing sports on anonymous forums. You must be less of a loser because your exciting hobbies always keep you away from this forum. Wait...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Volleyball is very much a sport for kids from families with money. To play high level volleyball (and make the varsity team at a HS with a decent team) players have to play club volleyball, which is a significant investment of time and money. DC high schools are a good example of how this plays out. On the public side, Jackson-Reed is the largest DC HS by far and being in upper NW tends to have kids from families with more resources than other parts of the city. Nearly every player on their varsity team plays volleyball outside of school. The girls volleyball team has won the DCIAA (regular DCPS public school conference) all except one year as far back as anyone can remember. The only other DCPS HS with even a half decent team is School Without Walls which while smaller, tends to also have kids from families with more resources and therefore more club volleyball players. Most of the other other DCPS high schools have no club volleyball players and are not very good. JR wins most DCIAA matches by a huge margin. The charter schools aren't much better. St Johns had historically been the best private school volleyball in DC but GDS has take over that spot for the last few years. Both St Johns and GDS recruit players for volleyball (within whatever rules exist) and virtually every player on those teams plays club volleyball.

+1. We are not poor, but not wealthy either. We noticed our bank account taking a hit as soon as our daughter started club volleyball. It is clear though that she would likely not keep a position on a our competitive HS volleyball team with rec skills only.

The money you spend on volleyball is pittance when you compare it to golf or tennis. One of my kids is playing golf at a D1 school this year, and we spent around 45K/yr on golf travel, lessons, tournaments, etc... This is on top of the country club that we're a member. We paid 92K initiation one-time fee and another 15K/year annual fee.

Well, golf has the reputation of being a sport for rich people. 100k for membership in a country club? No, thank you - that's just ridiculous.

So volleyball isn't a rich kid sport because two other sports are more elitist? That's like claiming golf isn't a rich kid sport because Dressage exists and your 45k/yr is a joke in comparison. Volleyball is the only sport we said no to for our DD. Playing club was almost 10x a year more than what we were paying for basketball

According to an article in ESPN

“You go where you see success and where you have access to success," he said. "Basketball is a hard sport to master. Unless you're willing to put in the time and effort and have a certain level of athleticism and hand-eye skills, you will not be successful. You will be pushed out of the sport because of what it demands. In volleyball and lacrosse, those barriers are lower."”

The same article interviewed two female volleyball players who played in college.

Hayley McCorkle, who finished her career on North Carolina's volleyball team last fall said …

@“I wanted to compete against someone, but I didn't want that physical contact," she said. "Volleyball allows you to be a little more of a girl. You get to wear the ribbons, wear pink, wear your hair however you want and still be dainty when you play the sport. That draws a lot of young athletes to the sport."”

Washington's Kara Bajema was one of many volleyball players who echoed that sentiment. She has played basketball but chose volleyball. … she said ….

"Honestly, I just like the volleyball environment better. It's a little more chill," she said. "Basketball is definitely more hard-core, and I like being a girly girl sometimes."

If people don’t believe that girls are drawn to this because they get to be cute they are delusional. Females like these ones, and there are a lot of them, might just set back female sports a few decades.

This matches what I have seen in our community. A lot of girls start out playing basketball in elementary school. The more girly ones move over to volleyball by middle school. Both teams and tall and athletic, but there’s a noticeable difference in how they carry themselves.

In other words the basketball players are athletes and volleyball players are the ones who weren’t good enough or committed enough to play a real sport.

Cut this garbage out. We’re a basketball first family with no volleyball players. Volleyball is clearly a real sport. The power, speed and grace women VB players generate while maintaining the flexibility to dig from their heights is pretty damn impressive. ALMOST a completely different skill set from basketball, but it is a real sport.

Does being a basketball family mean you all play basketball?

Everyone can have an opinion on what should be classified as a sport. Bowling is a sport to some people. Ping pong, skateboarding, kickball, badminton are considered sports to some people. These all take skill to be the best. But not everyone considers them sports. Some see them as recreational activities.

Not everyone considers badminton a sport. Some see badminton as recreational activity. It is so easy to say stupid things when you are clueless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE7GTL2U7vU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:XCountry and oboe are for losers. Girls like guitar players and basketball/soccer players. It good to have both.

Cross country stars usually are tall with low body fat - hard to run blisteringly fast and not have a six pack for example. I can attest there are women that prefer that physique to the outside linebacker type.

NO, NO, and NO. Women prefer soccer players over XC stars.

I can't believe a discussion can turn so stupid. It might be true that - statistically speaking - more women are attracted to soccer players. That doesn't mean that your XC star struggles to attract women because the XC star does not compete with the soccer players for the same pool of women. Simple minds, simple thoughts.

+1. It’s also possible for high school girls to find more than one type of boy attractive at the same time. It’s not like Highlander, where there can be only one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Volleyball is very much a sport for kids from families with money. To play high level volleyball (and make the varsity team at a HS with a decent team) players have to play club volleyball, which is a significant investment of time and money. DC high schools are a good example of how this plays out. On the public side, Jackson-Reed is the largest DC HS by far and being in upper NW tends to have kids from families with more resources than other parts of the city. Nearly every player on their varsity team plays volleyball outside of school. The girls volleyball team has won the DCIAA (regular DCPS public school conference) all except one year as far back as anyone can remember. The only other DCPS HS with even a half decent team is School Without Walls which while smaller, tends to also have kids from families with more resources and therefore more club volleyball players. Most of the other other DCPS high schools have no club volleyball players and are not very good. JR wins most DCIAA matches by a huge margin. The charter schools aren't much better. St Johns had historically been the best private school volleyball in DC but GDS has take over that spot for the last few years. Both St Johns and GDS recruit players for volleyball (within whatever rules exist) and virtually every player on those teams plays club volleyball.

+1. We are not poor, but not wealthy either. We noticed our bank account taking a hit as soon as our daughter started club volleyball. It is clear though that she would likely not keep a position on a our competitive HS volleyball team with rec skills only.

The money you spend on volleyball is pittance when you compare it to golf or tennis. One of my kids is playing golf at a D1 school this year, and we spent around 45K/yr on golf travel, lessons, tournaments, etc... This is on top of the country club that we're a member. We paid 92K initiation one-time fee and another 15K/year annual fee.

Well, golf has the reputation of being a sport for rich people. 100k for membership in a country club? No, thank you - that's just ridiculous.

So volleyball isn't a rich kid sport because two other sports are more elitist? That's like claiming golf isn't a rich kid sport because Dressage exists and your 45k/yr is a joke in comparison. Volleyball is the only sport we said no to for our DD. Playing club was almost 10x a year more than what we were paying for basketball

According to an article in ESPN

“You go where you see success and where you have access to success," he said. "Basketball is a hard sport to master. Unless you're willing to put in the time and effort and have a certain level of athleticism and hand-eye skills, you will not be successful. You will be pushed out of the sport because of what it demands. In volleyball and lacrosse, those barriers are lower."”

The same article interviewed two female volleyball players who played in college.

Hayley McCorkle, who finished her career on North Carolina's volleyball team last fall said …

@“I wanted to compete against someone, but I didn't want that physical contact," she said. "Volleyball allows you to be a little more of a girl. You get to wear the ribbons, wear pink, wear your hair however you want and still be dainty when you play the sport. That draws a lot of young athletes to the sport."”

Washington's Kara Bajema was one of many volleyball players who echoed that sentiment. She has played basketball but chose volleyball. … she said ….

"Honestly, I just like the volleyball environment better. It's a little more chill," she said. "Basketball is definitely more hard-core, and I like being a girly girl sometimes."

If people don’t believe that girls are drawn to this because they get to be cute they are delusional. Females like these ones, and there are a lot of them, might just set back female sports a few decades.

This matches what I have seen in our community. A lot of girls start out playing basketball in elementary school. The more girly ones move over to volleyball by middle school. Both teams and tall and athletic, but there’s a noticeable difference in how they carry themselves.

In other words the basketball players are athletes and volleyball players are the ones who weren’t good enough or committed enough to play a real sport.

Cut this garbage out. We’re a basketball first family with no volleyball players. Volleyball is clearly a real sport. The power, speed and grace women VB players generate while maintaining the flexibility to dig from their heights is pretty damn impressive. ALMOST a completely different skill set from basketball, but it is a real sport.

Does being a basketball family mean you all play basketball?

Everyone can have an opinion on what should be classified as a sport. Bowling is a sport to some people. Ping pong, skateboarding, kickball, badminton are considered sports to some people. These all take skill to be the best. But not everyone considers them sports. Some see them as recreational activities.

This comment is so stupid that it deserves some mocking. Here we go: "I once went to park and I saw two people playing badminton. They didn't seem to put too much effort into it, they barely moved from their spot and they had to restart multiple times because they missed so much. Based on my unique experience, I have no clue why people would think about badminton as a sport. They likely don't know what they are talking about. "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:XCountry and oboe are for losers. Girls like guitar players and basketball/soccer players. It good to have both.

Cross country stars usually are tall with low body fat - hard to run blisteringly fast and not have a six pack for example. I can attest there are women that prefer that physique to the outside linebacker type.

NO, NO, and NO. Women prefer soccer players over XC stars.

I can't believe a discussion can turn so stupid. It might be true that - statistically speaking - more women are attracted to soccer players. That doesn't mean that your XC star struggles to attract women because the XC star does not compete with the soccer players for the same pool of women. Simple minds, simple thoughts.

+1. It’s also possible for high school girls to find more than one type of boy attractive at the same time. It’s not like Highlander, where there can be only one.

+2. I find a lot of different types of guys attractive and always have. That said, I actually genuinely prefer guys who are tallish and lean- always have. I do know my preference is probably less common, but everyone has their type. Silly discussion anyway, but wanted to stick up for the XC types. Yes- some women do like that build!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Volleyball is very much a sport for kids from families with money. To play high level volleyball (and make the varsity team at a HS with a decent team) players have to play club volleyball, which is a significant investment of time and money. DC high schools are a good example of how this plays out. On the public side, Jackson-Reed is the largest DC HS by far and being in upper NW tends to have kids from families with more resources than other parts of the city. Nearly every player on their varsity team plays volleyball outside of school. The girls volleyball team has won the DCIAA (regular DCPS public school conference) all except one year as far back as anyone can remember. The only other DCPS HS with even a half decent team is School Without Walls which while smaller, tends to also have kids from families with more resources and therefore more club volleyball players. Most of the other other DCPS high schools have no club volleyball players and are not very good. JR wins most DCIAA matches by a huge margin. The charter schools aren't much better. St Johns had historically been the best private school volleyball in DC but GDS has take over that spot for the last few years. Both St Johns and GDS recruit players for volleyball (within whatever rules exist) and virtually every player on those teams plays club volleyball.

+1. We are not poor, but not wealthy either. We noticed our bank account taking a hit as soon as our daughter started club volleyball. It is clear though that she would likely not keep a position on a our competitive HS volleyball team with rec skills only.

The money you spend on volleyball is pittance when you compare it to golf or tennis. One of my kids is playing golf at a D1 school this year, and we spent around 45K/yr on golf travel, lessons, tournaments, etc... This is on top of the country club that we're a member. We paid 92K initiation one-time fee and another 15K/year annual fee.

Well, golf has the reputation of being a sport for rich people. 100k for membership in a country club? No, thank you - that's just ridiculous.

So volleyball isn't a rich kid sport because two other sports are more elitist? That's like claiming golf isn't a rich kid sport because Dressage exists and your 45k/yr is a joke in comparison. Volleyball is the only sport we said no to for our DD. Playing club was almost 10x a year more than what we were paying for basketball

According to an article in ESPN

“You go where you see success and where you have access to success," he said. "Basketball is a hard sport to master. Unless you're willing to put in the time and effort and have a certain level of athleticism and hand-eye skills, you will not be successful. You will be pushed out of the sport because of what it demands. In volleyball and lacrosse, those barriers are lower."”

The same article interviewed two female volleyball players who played in college.

Hayley McCorkle, who finished her career on North Carolina's volleyball team last fall said …

@“I wanted to compete against someone, but I didn't want that physical contact," she said. "Volleyball allows you to be a little more of a girl. You get to wear the ribbons, wear pink, wear your hair however you want and still be dainty when you play the sport. That draws a lot of young athletes to the sport."”

Washington's Kara Bajema was one of many volleyball players who echoed that sentiment. She has played basketball but chose volleyball. … she said ….

"Honestly, I just like the volleyball environment better. It's a little more chill," she said. "Basketball is definitely more hard-core, and I like being a girly girl sometimes."

If people don’t believe that girls are drawn to this because they get to be cute they are delusional. Females like these ones, and there are a lot of them, might just set back female sports a few decades.

Volleyball can be as demanding as any other sport but it doesn't draw the same athletes as basketball does in this country, so you have to be really competitive to survive in basketball while a more moderate level of intensity can be enough for success in volleyball.

So in your pretend world everyone tries to play basketball and then goes to other sports when they can’t make it. Got it.

I am not sure the PP says that athletes try to start with basketball, they can't make it, then shift to volleyball. But still hints to the idea that volleyball is less of a sport. After the previous misogynist comments were called for what they were, this is an attempt to make the point using "reasonable" arguments. Equally stupid, but "reasonable."

I'm not saying it's less of a sport, it just doesn't have the same draw.

Now you are trying to rewrite history and it doesn't work. Just read a few posts up, where you came with your macho attitude and claimed that volleyball is not a sport. After you've been called out, you are pretending that all you said was that it doesn't have the same draw. Just go away, this is getting embarrassing for you after everyone understood exactly what you were saying.

This is the post you are talking about:

I think you're talking about some other poster. This is my first post in this thread.

"Volleyball can be as demanding as any other sport but it doesn't draw the same athletes as basketball does in this country, so you have to be really competitive to survive in basketball while a more moderate level of intensity can be enough for success in volleyball."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Losers get a hobby

Our hobby is discussing sports on anonymous forums. You must be less of a loser because your exciting hobbies always keep you away from this forum. Wait...

Ooh sick burn