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.