Sidwell football article in post....what are the parents saying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather have my student in an activity that is 2-3 hours after school than a 45 minute yoga class and then walking to z burger as their afternoon activity.

What schools have ALL hs/us students involved in afterschool activities or afterschool gym classes that are 2-3 hours long?

There isn't one.

Actually my DD goes to a girls school in the area and all girls are required to do an afterschool activity every term. If it's a sports team or theater it will be 2-3 hours every afternoon. If it is a PE class it will be more like 1.5-2 hours.

Okay. Please name the school.

[Anonymous]

I'd say NCS comes pretty close.

required till 2nd quarter senior year.

http://www.ncs.cathedral.org/podium/default.aspx?t=112647

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell just isn't a meathead school. The emphasis at Sidwell is on academics as opposed to football--as well it should be.

Of course emphasis should be on academics. Intelligence and football are not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather have my student in an activity that is 2-3 hours after school than a 45 minute yoga class and then walking to z burger as their afternoon activity.

What schools have ALL hs/us students involved in afterschool activities or afterschool gym classes that are 2-3 hours long?

There isn't one.

I recommend the Sidwell parents converge on the school and petition for the dissolution of football, basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc. It seems that such endeavors are not supported by most parents at the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd say NCS comes pretty close.

required till 2nd quarter senior year.

http://www.ncs.cathedral.org/podium/default.aspx?t=112647

They basically have the same requirement sidwell does. Seniors get a season off and anyone not playing on a team takes a 45 min gym class 2-3 times a week. Choices include conditioning, personal fitness and yoga.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recommend the Sidwell parents converge on the school and petition for the dissolution of football, basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc. It seems that such endeavors are not supported by most parents at the school.

I'm a Sidwell parent, and I'd be against that. My kids aren't in high school yet, but I'd want them to have the option of playing all those sports if they choose. In the long run, I don't care whether they win or lose -- if the team has an 0-10 season, that's fine by me. I don't understand why so many people here seem to think that being on a winning team is important. If you're ever played competitive sports, you should understand that sometimes you lose (and sometimes you lose a lot). That's just part of the game. Get over it, and start getting ready for next week.

[Anonymous]

Good job, PP, healthy attitude. I wish more shared it.

[Anonymous]

Please--no one applies to Sidwell for their football team! That's so trivial. People who want Sidwell are in search of stellar academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell just isn't a meathead school. The emphasis at Sidwell is on academics as opposed to football--as well it should be.

Of course emphasis should be on academics. Intelligence and football are not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend the Sidwell parents converge on the school and petition for the dissolution of football, basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc. It seems that such endeavors are not supported by most parents at the school.

I'm a Sidwell parent, and I'd be against that. My kids aren't in high school yet, but I'd want them to have the option of playing all those sports if they choose. In the long run, I don't care whether they win or lose -- if the team has an 0-10 season, that's fine by me. I don't understand why so many people here seem to think that being on a winning team is important. If you're ever played competitive sports, you should understand that sometimes you lose (and sometimes you lose a lot). That's just part of the game. Get over it, and start getting ready for next week.

Do you think the issue is winning or losing? Sidwell is putting those students at risk. Starting 10 freshmen and playing them both ways is more indicative of a small youth league team roster rotation. Those teams are in leagues with age/weight matrixes.

The most appropriate thing for Sidwell to have done is explored a combined varsity team with a school like Maret. If they play a school with normal high school rosters like Potomac or Flint hill it's not fair to the kids at those schools either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend the Sidwell parents converge on the school and petition for the dissolution of football, basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc. It seems that such endeavors are not supported by most parents at the school.

I'm a Sidwell parent, and I'd be against that. My kids aren't in high school yet, but I'd want them to have the option of playing all those sports if they choose. In the long run, I don't care whether they win or lose -- if the team has an 0-10 season, that's fine by me. I don't understand why so many people here seem to think that being on a winning team is important. If you're ever played competitive sports, you should understand that sometimes you lose (and sometimes you lose a lot). That's just part of the game. Get over it, and start getting ready for next week.

Do you think the issue is winning or losing? Sidwell is putting those students at risk. Starting 10 freshmen and playing them both ways is more indicative of a small youth league team roster rotation. Those teams are in leagues with age/weight matrixes.

The most appropriate thing for Sidwell to have done is explored a combined varsity team with a school like Maret. If they play a school with normal high school rosters like Potomac or Flint hill it's not fair to the kids at those schools either.

Schedules are set before team rosters are finalized. Sidwell hasn't had a problem fielding a team in the past and they have played with no major injuries/problems. Why would they have explored a combined team? Unless they could see into the future there was no way for them to know that the season was going to turn out like this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend the Sidwell parents converge on the school and petition for the dissolution of football, basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc. It seems that such endeavors are not supported by most parents at the school.

I'm a Sidwell parent, and I'd be against that. My kids aren't in high school yet, but I'd want them to have the option of playing all those sports if they choose. In the long run, I don't care whether they win or lose -- if the team has an 0-10 season, that's fine by me. I don't understand why so many people here seem to think that being on a winning team is important. If you're ever played competitive sports, you should understand that sometimes you lose (and sometimes you lose a lot). That's just part of the game. Get over it, and start getting ready for next week.

Do you think the issue is winning or losing? Sidwell is putting those students at risk. Starting 10 freshmen and playing them both ways is more indicative of a small youth league team roster rotation. Those teams are in leagues with age/weight matrixes.

The most appropriate thing for Sidwell to have done is explored a combined varsity team with a school like Maret. If they play a school with normal high school rosters like Potomac or Flint hill it's not fair to the kids at those schools either.

Oh, please. Sidwell currently has some below average athletes playing football, and some younger athletes, but they aren't matched up against Behemoths or even DeMatha. Concussions occur in football, even between teams of equal size and ability (like the NFL). To get rid of the risk, don't field a team at all (which may be on the table as troubling research comes in about dangers)--but don't act like fielding a team in a crappy DC league (the MAC) is like sending kids off to war in Afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend the Sidwell parents converge on the school and petition for the dissolution of football, basketball, lacrosse, baseball, etc. It seems that such endeavors are not supported by most parents at the school.

I'm a Sidwell parent, and I'd be against that. My kids aren't in high school yet, but I'd want them to have the option of playing all those sports if they choose. In the long run, I don't care whether they win or lose -- if the team has an 0-10 season, that's fine by me. I don't understand why so many people here seem to think that being on a winning team is important. If you're ever played competitive sports, you should understand that sometimes you lose (and sometimes you lose a lot). That's just part of the game. Get over it, and start getting ready for next week.

Do you think the issue is winning or losing? Sidwell is putting those students at risk. Starting 10 freshmen and playing them both ways is more indicative of a small youth league team roster rotation. Those teams are in leagues with age/weight matrixes.

The most appropriate thing for Sidwell to have done is explored a combined varsity team with a school like Maret. If they play a school with normal high school rosters like Potomac or Flint hill it's not fair to the kids at those schools either.

Oh, please. Sidwell currently has some below average athletes playing football, and some younger athletes, but they aren't matched up against Behemoths or even DeMatha. Concussions occur in football, even between teams of equal size and ability (like the NFL). To get rid of the risk, don't field a team at all (which may be on the table as troubling research comes in about dangers)--but don't act like fielding a team in a crappy DC league (the MAC) is like sending kids off to war in Afghanistan.

It's all relative. Why are you people so mean?

[Anonymous]

Because haters are going to hate.

[Anonymous]

Sidwell has neither the talent nor the school backing to have a serious team in either football or lacrosse. Sidwell parents should know this going in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids aren't in high school yet, but I'd want them to have the option of playing all those sports if they choose. In the long run, I don't care whether they win or lose -- if the team has an 0-10 season, that's fine by me. I don't understand why so many people here seem to think that being on a winning team is important. If you're ever played competitive sports, you should understand that sometimes you lose (and sometimes you lose a lot). That's just part of the game. Get over it, and start getting ready for next week.

Do you think the issue is winning or losing? Sidwell is putting those students at risk. Starting 10 freshmen and playing them both ways is more indicative of a small youth league team roster rotation.

9/27@18:34 again. Aren't we now coming full circle back to where this whole discussion started? Sidwell's athletics director looked that the football team's depleted roster, and decided to forfeit a game rather than put kids at risk. So Sidwell did exactly what you (and I) think is right -- she put the safety of her students ahead of winning. Like I said in my earlier post, I don't care in the long run whether my child's team wins or loses. (Of course I will be standing on the sidelines cheering for my kid's team when it plays, but just between you and me, I don't care whether or not they win.)