Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?

I totally agree but also think that's the point of the thread -- the vast majority of high school athletes even on varsity squads at schools with great programs will never play past high school. So they are just playing for the general benefits of sports (which I agree there are many!).

But in order to get that general benefit you have to invest thousands of dollars starting when your kid is in elementary school and treat your kid like they are a future Olympian or likely to get a full ride at a D1 program. Like that's the level of dedication these sports require even from families whose kids will never play past high school (and in many cases don't even want to). The days of playing a few years of rec tennis and liking it and then getting a spot on your high school team and competing a few years before making it a casual hobby as an adult are over.

It used to be that at most schools (excepting situations like the weird Texas football programs that actively recruited athletes to move there to attend and other outliers) even the best sports programs would have a handful of star players who were really intense (either due to their own commitment or parent insistence or in some cases the marriage of the two) but most kids were just content to work hard in practice and try to win and maybe atted a few off-season skills clinics but that's it. Twenty years ago half the kids on a competitive high school soccer team had never played club soccer at all. Half the swimmers on my high school team had only ever competed in a few seasons of summer swim and that was it. And we had a great team! But it was possible to just be a generally strong and fast swimmer and then try out as a freshman and do really well through team development. They were still really looking for raw talent and teachability at the high school level back then -- not finished athletes. Now I just don't think you can swim in high school without having done club and they are looking for an already refined skill set. A significant portion of high school swimmers do not expect to learn anything from their high school coaches because they work with club and private coaches. It's just a very different environment.

Where does this leave middle class families who value athletics generally but do not want or have the ability to spend the time and money to get their kids onto high school teams? In limbo. And that's the frustration. A lot of us used to view high school sports as a valuable experience that builds character and discipline but also a way to make friends and find a sense of belonging. But not something you need to train for from preschool. And we haven't replaced it with anything -- rec programs do not fill this gap for the most part because they are not connected to schools and are less immersive -- fewer practices and competitions and you don't get the same benefits of team cohesion.

I don't know what the answer is. It's honestly too bad.

They've been replaced by less athletic UMC kids who have hyper focused on a sport. I think you're right about the value of athletics and the part if plays in a high school experience. UMC families realized that and realized that their athletic enough kids could have that experience if they started early, especially in a less popular sport.

Anonymous wrote:Your time would be much better spent on SAT tutoring than traveling around playing games.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?

Our child will not be a college player. Why do we do this (not DC):

1. He’s privileged and academically gifted. Sports are one of the few areas where he really has to work hard to stay in life to stay on the top level team.

2. Kids don’t play outside as much these days. The alternative is probably video games or texting. Practicing 90 minutes three nights a week and playing in tournaments is better use of time.

3. He goes to a small, academically rigorous school that will take him through high school. Half his class would rather be on the robotics team rather than on the basketball court. He’ll have the chance to play as much as he wants in high school. This is part of his skills development. He also gets exposed to kids who he would not necessarily cross paths with.

4. He loves basketball.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?

Our child will not be a college player. Why do we do this (not DC):

1. He’s privileged and academically gifted. Sports are one of the few areas where he really has to work hard to stay in life to stay on the top level team.

2. Kids don’t play outside as much these days. The alternative is probably video games or texting. Practicing 90 minutes three nights a week and playing in tournaments is better use of time.

3. He goes to a small, academically rigorous school that will take him through high school. Half his class would rather be on the robotics team rather than on the basketball court. He’ll have the chance to play as much as he wants in high school. This is part of his skills development. He also gets exposed to kids who he would not necessarily cross paths with.

4. He loves basketball.

Anonymous wrote:Your time would be much better spent on SAT tutoring than traveling around playing games.

Anonymous wrote:Your time would be much better spent on SAT tutoring than traveling around playing games.

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?

I totally agree but also think that's the point of the thread -- the vast majority of high school athletes even on varsity squads at schools with great programs will never play past high school. So they are just playing for the general benefits of sports (which I agree there are many!).

But in order to get that general benefit you have to invest thousands of dollars starting when your kid is in elementary school and treat your kid like they are a future Olympian or likely to get a full ride at a D1 program. Like that's the level of dedication these sports require even from families whose kids will never play past high school (and in many cases don't even want to). The days of playing a few years of rec tennis and liking it and then getting a spot on your high school team and competing a few years before making it a casual hobby as an adult are over.

It used to be that at most schools (excepting situations like the weird Texas football programs that actively recruited athletes to move there to attend and other outliers) even the best sports programs would have a handful of star players who were really intense (either due to their own commitment or parent insistence or in some cases the marriage of the two) but most kids were just content to work hard in practice and try to win and maybe atted a few off-season skills clinics but that's it. Twenty years ago half the kids on a competitive high school soccer team had never played club soccer at all. Half the swimmers on my high school team had only ever competed in a few seasons of summer swim and that was it. And we had a great team! But it was possible to just be a generally strong and fast swimmer and then try out as a freshman and do really well through team development. They were still really looking for raw talent and teachability at the high school level back then -- not finished athletes. Now I just don't think you can swim in high school without having done club and they are looking for an already refined skill set. A significant portion of high school swimmers do not expect to learn anything from their high school coaches because they work with club and private coaches. It's just a very different environment.

Where does this leave middle class families who value athletics generally but do not want or have the ability to spend the time and money to get their kids onto high school teams? In limbo. And that's the frustration. A lot of us used to view high school sports as a valuable experience that builds character and discipline but also a way to make friends and find a sense of belonging. But not something you need to train for from preschool. And we haven't replaced it with anything -- rec programs do not fill this gap for the most part because they are not connected to schools and are less immersive -- fewer practices and competitions and you don't get the same benefits of team cohesion.

I don't know what the answer is. It's honestly too bad.

They've been replaced by less athletic UMC kids who have hyper focused on a sport. I think you're right about the value of athletics and the part if plays in a high school experience. UMC families realized that and realized that their athletic enough kids could have that experience if they started early, especially in a less popular sport.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?

I totally agree but also think that's the point of the thread -- the vast majority of high school athletes even on varsity squads at schools with great programs will never play past high school. So they are just playing for the general benefits of sports (which I agree there are many!).

But in order to get that general benefit you have to invest thousands of dollars starting when your kid is in elementary school and treat your kid like they are a future Olympian or likely to get a full ride at a D1 program. Like that's the level of dedication these sports require even from families whose kids will never play past high school (and in many cases don't even want to). The days of playing a few years of rec tennis and liking it and then getting a spot on your high school team and competing a few years before making it a casual hobby as an adult are over.

It used to be that at most schools (excepting situations like the weird Texas football programs that actively recruited athletes to move there to attend and other outliers) even the best sports programs would have a handful of star players who were really intense (either due to their own commitment or parent insistence or in some cases the marriage of the two) but most kids were just content to work hard in practice and try to win and maybe atted a few off-season skills clinics but that's it. Twenty years ago half the kids on a competitive high school soccer team had never played club soccer at all. Half the swimmers on my high school team had only ever competed in a few seasons of summer swim and that was it. And we had a great team! But it was possible to just be a generally strong and fast swimmer and then try out as a freshman and do really well through team development. They were still really looking for raw talent and teachability at the high school level back then -- not finished athletes. Now I just don't think you can swim in high school without having done club and they are looking for an already refined skill set. A significant portion of high school swimmers do not expect to learn anything from their high school coaches because they work with club and private coaches. It's just a very different environment.

Where does this leave middle class families who value athletics generally but do not want or have the ability to spend the time and money to get their kids onto high school teams? In limbo. And that's the frustration. A lot of us used to view high school sports as a valuable experience that builds character and discipline but also a way to make friends and find a sense of belonging. But not something you need to train for from preschool. And we haven't replaced it with anything -- rec programs do not fill this gap for the most part because they are not connected to schools and are less immersive -- fewer practices and competitions and you don't get the same benefits of team cohesion.

I don't know what the answer is. It's honestly too bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?

I totally agree but also think that's the point of the thread -- the vast majority of high school athletes even on varsity squads at schools with great programs will never play past high school. So they are just playing for the general benefits of sports (which I agree there are many!).

But in order to get that general benefit you have to invest thousands of dollars starting when your kid is in elementary school and treat your kid like they are a future Olympian or likely to get a full ride at a D1 program. Like that's the level of dedication these sports require even from families whose kids will never play past high school (and in many cases don't even want to). The days of playing a few years of rec tennis and liking it and then getting a spot on your high school team and competing a few years before making it a casual hobby as an adult are over.

It used to be that at most schools (excepting situations like the weird Texas football programs that actively recruited athletes to move there to attend and other outliers) even the best sports programs would have a handful of star players who were really intense (either due to their own commitment or parent insistence or in some cases the marriage of the two) but most kids were just content to work hard in practice and try to win and maybe atted a few off-season skills clinics but that's it. Twenty years ago half the kids on a competitive high school soccer team had never played club soccer at all. Half the swimmers on my high school team had only ever competed in a few seasons of summer swim and that was it. And we had a great team! But it was possible to just be a generally strong and fast swimmer and then try out as a freshman and do really well through team development. They were still really looking for raw talent and teachability at the high school level back then -- not finished athletes. Now I just don't think you can swim in high school without having done club and they are looking for an already refined skill set. A significant portion of high school swimmers do not expect to learn anything from their high school coaches because they work with club and private coaches. It's just a very different environment.

Where does this leave middle class families who value athletics generally but do not want or have the ability to spend the time and money to get their kids onto high school teams? In limbo. And that's the frustration. A lot of us used to view high school sports as a valuable experience that builds character and discipline but also a way to make friends and find a sense of belonging. But not something you need to train for from preschool. And we haven't replaced it with anything -- rec programs do not fill this gap for the most part because they are not connected to schools and are less immersive -- fewer practices and competitions and you don't get the same benefits of team cohesion.

I don't know what the answer is. It's honestly too bad.

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?

Anonymous wrote:Your time would be much better spent on SAT tutoring than traveling around playing games.

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

Wait a second... How much do you guys pay for basketball? Are the basketball club fees really 10 times lower than for volleyball?

Unless its rec basketball, this can't be true.

Volleyball is expensive but its like 5K/year expensive. No travel basketball team is $500/year.

Anonymous wrote:WHAT’S the POINT of all this?? Unless you’re truly an exceptional athlete, it will have a minimal impact on college admissions. Meanwhile, if all the travel ball crap hurts your grades, it will be counter productive. So I don’t get it — what’s the objective here?