Sidwell Friends Boys Soccer

[Anonymous]

Another jealous Sidwell hater...yawn...what else is new?

Anonymous wrote:PP, I've got to agree with 21:42. It's not that Sidwell sports programs "suck". But as that poster said, generally "3rd or 4th tier" is a pretty accurate way of describing the athletic teams. They may fare well for certain teams on occasion in the MAC, but the reality is that the MAC is a pretty mediocre sports conference overall.

Sidwell does have what seems to be a consistenly excellent soccer team that can compete at a top level. However, other than that, there does not appear to be any consistency of excellence with their other teams that would transcend the MAC. Perhaps this will change with the new facilities but it is much more than that. It takes a concerted objective and initiative for the school, starting at the very top. That is a tangible level of commitment in what the school wants to be and clearly would be a change from their current makeup. This is very similar to my experience at Potomac.

BTW, there is nothing that would prevent them from excelling both academically and athletically. They don't need to be mutually exclusive. There are other examples of this where one doesn't have to compromise the other. Georgetown Prep comes to mind.

[Anonymous]

About as boring as your athletics program, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Paste decade? Why does Sidwell need such a large sample. That's kind of lame.

Why lame? Classes do vary year to year, so a multi-year sample is statistically more robust than looking at one or two years. You can, of course, also look for trends over the 10 years (e.g., a steady decline) but, barring that, a 10-year sample is an excellent indicator of quality.

If you don't like the longer time horizon, the NMSF tab on the FAQ spreadsheet also has 3-year and 6-year breakdowns for each school. For most schools, the percentages remain pretty consistent, with some upward blips and other downward blips.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why people think getting a new gym is going to improve the Sidwell sports program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why people think getting a new gym is going to improve the Sidwell sports program.

We don't. We already have a phenomenal athletics program. We can compete with anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why people think getting a new gym is going to improve the Sidwell sports program.

New facilities have helped at other schools such as NCS and Prep. But Sidwell has nothing to be ashamed of now-- they have broad participation rates, show good sportsmanship, and send plenty of kids on to play in college.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a Sidwell parent--just a DCUM poster who is bored with the hypocrisy of people like you who spend WAY too much time bashing/obsessing about Sidwell. Believe it or not, there are other schools in the D.C. metropolitan area. Get over it already!

Anonymous wrote:About as boring as your athletics program, right?

[Anonymous]

We loved Sidwell, but my son, who is a serious athlete, couldn't envision himself in the old facilities and chose a different school (with our support). If he had the choice withe the new gym, I would guess it would have made the choice either different, or much hard for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all are battling over mutual mediocrity. It's like arguing over who's better, the Orioles or tha Nationals.

Hey, sports fans, Nats are now playing .500 ball, while Os are around .300 -- a significant difference.

My point is that teams have their ups and downs, so I wouldn't pick a school based on the performance of any one team, especially if your child is years away from high school. Of course, if your child is applying for 9th, lives and breathes one particular sport and is really talented at it, that's a different story, but otherwise, there are so many other factors to consider that this argument becomes a little far removed from reality.

[Anonymous]

I'm a Sidwell parent who has been very frustrated with the sports program. But that's not really why I sent my kids there. Still I wish athletics lived up to the quality of the rest of the curriculum at the school.

[Anonymous]

I used to help coach at a DC private. It was a revelation, and not in a good way. Parents would complain about stuff like ther child not being selected JV captain (by peers in a vote). Other parents of lovely kids with mediocre athletic ability would, for example, assert that their child's Division I chances were being crushed by playing time decisions. Kids were uniformly terrific to work with, but it gave me a very jaundiced view of the parent body. I guess that is to be expected--there are so called "Little League" parents everwhere--but it was still very off- putting. So I take these sorts of 'dont like school x's athletic program ' with a grain of salt. For example, saw a Sidwell football game within the past few years-- they just didn't look very athletic. Do these parents really want Sidwell to go out and recruit football players-- taking playing time or an admissions slot from their own smart 5' 8 not vey fast kid?

[Anonymous]

Saying Sidwell's kids are unathletic is silly. Look at the other teams, soccer, wrestling, cross country. More than a dozen kids are committed to playing on college teams. The problem with the football team is that it's not supported at all by the school's athletic director who has disdain for the program and won't support it. She has been quoted in the press referring to Sidwell as a ``soccer school'' which really pissed off the football parents. That said Sidwell is paying more attention to athletic ability during the admission process which should help down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying Sidwell's kids are unathletic is silly. Look at the other teams, soccer, wrestling, cross country. More than a dozen kids are committed to playing on college teams. The problem with the football team is that it's not supported at all by the school's athletic director who has disdain for the program and won't support it. She has been quoted in the press referring to Sidwell as a ``soccer school'' which really pissed off the football parents. That said Sidwell is paying more attention to athletic ability during the admission process which should help down the road.

If your cross- country and soccer teams are winning in the fall that's where your good athletes are. I have seen Sidwells football team: hey Sidwell football parents, your kids aren't that talented. They looked small and slow. Why do you think you are entitled to win in every sport? At St. albans the football team has been winning recently but not soccer. People aren't ripping the Athletic Director-- they realize sports are cyclical and one team can go thru a hotter phase. What should the AD do to "support" your football team--put your kids on steroids? Sorry to be so harsh but I think too many people teach their kids that if they don't win there is an external cause, instead of focusing on the joys of sport and on lessons ( sportsmanship, perseverance) to be learned in defeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying Sidwell's kids are unathletic is silly. Look at the other teams, soccer, wrestling, cross country. More than a dozen kids are committed to playing on college teams. The problem with the football team is that it's not supported at all by the school's athletic director who has disdain for the program and won't support it. She has been quoted in the press referring to Sidwell as a ``soccer school'' which really pissed off the football parents. That said Sidwell is paying more attention to athletic ability during the admission process which should help down the road.

Number 1 in the Washington Post? You are a soccer school. You people have way too much time on your hands if THAT made you mad. Sounds like Shakespeare's Green Eyed Monster at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saying Sidwell's kids are unathletic is silly. Look at the other teams, soccer, wrestling, cross country. More than a dozen kids are committed to playing on college teams. The problem with the football team is that it's not supported at all by the school's athletic director who has disdain for the program and won't support it. She has been quoted in the press referring to Sidwell as a ``soccer school'' which really pissed off the football parents. That said Sidwell is paying more attention to athletic ability during the admission process which should help down the road.

Interesting comment. I think it's great that Sidwell is devoting more attention to fostering athletic talent and devoting more resources to it's athletic program and exciting that they are investing in a state-of-the-art athletic center. This is a huge step. Honestly, I don't see how Sidwell could ever feel it was being true to it's Quaker roots and advocate for a superior football team, so I understand the AD take on football. Let's face it football is a violent contact sport and there's a part of the sport that goes against the fundamentals principles of non-violence. But, I'm not letting the AD off the hook all together, I too find it annoying and quite frankly limiting that she publicly calls the school a "soccer school," that comment undermines student athletes who aren't soccer players and shows favoritism. In the years to come, I think we will see stronger basketball, lacrosse (not nearly as violent contact sport), baseball and other teams where the school used to languish. Should be interesting now that Sidwell has decided to finally committed to the sports program. Finally, kudos to the soccer team!!