Anonymous wrote:And when my XC son, who is quite handsome, gets selected for a top college, I hope he avoids people like you that thought of him and his teammates as losers.

I hope they go for higher quality girls, unlike you.

Anonymous wrote:And when my XC son, who is quite handsome, gets selected for a top college, I hope he avoids people like you that thought of him and his teammates as losers.

I hope they go for higher quality girls, unlike you.

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 Iexample. 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.

Gosh, I do hope and pray, as a mom of a handsome XC player, that he never sets his sights on you. I would definitely steer him elsewhere.

And we he gets into a top college…



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.

Women will overwhelmingly choose soccer/baseball/tennis players over XC superstars. Think of it like this: XC is like a violinist, while soccer/baseball/tennis players are like lead singer/guitarist. You can be the most famous violinist, Joshua Bell, play the most difficult piece at the metro station and 99% of the people would not know who you are. On the other hand, if you are Shawn Mendes or Bruno Mars, play the guitar and sing at the metro station, the women will mob you, for good reasons. FWIW, Joshua Bell played 45 minutes and got $32, LOL.... In summary, XC is for losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women will overwhelmingly choose soccer/baseball/tennis players over XC superstars. Think of it like this: XC is like a violinist, while soccer/baseball/tennis players are like lead singer/guitarist. You can be the most famous violinist, Joshua Bell, play the most difficult piece at the metro station and 99% of the people would not know who you are. On the other hand, if you are Shawn Mendes or Bruno Mars, play the guitar and sing at the metro station, the women will mob you, for good reasons. FWIW, Joshua Bell played 45 minutes and got $32, LOL.... In summary, XC is for losers.

You are making such strange references. No high school soccer or tennis player has any more cachet vs a XC runner.

It’s football and basketball…then far behind that baseball…then there is 10 miles of shit and there is every other sport.

In no universe is a high school tennis player considered a rock star.

At elite private school, tennis players are rock stars. Tennis players do not hang out with Football & BB because most of them are poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women will overwhelmingly choose soccer/baseball/tennis players over XC superstars. Think of it like this: XC is like a violinist, while soccer/baseball/tennis players are like lead singer/guitarist. You can be the most famous violinist, Joshua Bell, play the most difficult piece at the metro station and 99% of the people would not know who you are. On the other hand, if you are Shawn Mendes or Bruno Mars, play the guitar and sing at the metro station, the women will mob you, for good reasons. FWIW, Joshua Bell played 45 minutes and got $32, LOL.... In summary, XC is for losers.

You are making such strange references. No high school soccer or tennis player has any more cachet vs a XC runner.

It’s football and basketball…then far behind that baseball…then there is 10 miles of shit and there is every other sport.

In no universe is a high school tennis player considered a rock star.

At elite private school, tennis players are rock stars. Tennis players do not hang out with Football & BB because most of them are poor.

Aristocrats, not rock stars.

The FB and BB are the people who are paid to attend because they have something worthwhile to offer besides daddy's money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Women will overwhelmingly choose soccer/baseball/tennis players over XC superstars. Think of it like this: XC is like a violinist, while soccer/baseball/tennis players are like lead singer/guitarist. You can be the most famous violinist, Joshua Bell, play the most difficult piece at the metro station and 99% of the people would not know who you are. On the other hand, if you are Shawn Mendes or Bruno Mars, play the guitar and sing at the metro station, the women will mob you, for good reasons. FWIW, Joshua Bell played 45 minutes and got $32, LOL.... In summary, XC is for losers.

Somebody’s hitting the boxed wine hard tonight.

At least we know what sports her kids play.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a fact that xc people are universally weird

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

Thank you for explaining, Captain Obvious! You may be correct: in some HSs it may be easier to make the volleyball rather than basketball team with moderate skills (it is very typical to start basketball at a younger age than volleyball, which is likely the reason). You must understand that we were dealing with someone who kept claiming that volleyball is not a sport. It felt like that person still kept trying to put down volleyball in any way they could. However, volleyball athletes who plan to get into a college team work with the same intensity as the basketball players. Just watch a national tournament to see them in action.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Women will overwhelmingly choose soccer/baseball/tennis players over XC superstars. Think of it like this: XC is like a violinist, while soccer/baseball/tennis players are like lead singer/guitarist. You can be the most famous violinist, Joshua Bell, play the most difficult piece at the metro station and 99% of the people would not know who you are. On the other hand, if you are Shawn Mendes or Bruno Mars, play the guitar and sing at the metro station, the women will mob you, for good reasons. FWIW, Joshua Bell played 45 minutes and got $32, LOL.... In summary, XC is for losers.

Somebody’s hitting the boxed wine hard tonight.

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.

Women will overwhelmingly choose soccer/baseball/tennis players over XC superstars. Think of it like this: XC is like a violinist, while soccer/baseball/tennis players are like lead singer/guitarist. You can be the most famous violinist, Joshua Bell, play the most difficult piece at the metro station and 99% of the people would not know who you are. On the other hand, if you are Shawn Mendes or Bruno Mars, play the guitar and sing at the metro station, the women will mob you, for good reasons. FWIW, Joshua Bell played 45 minutes and got $32, LOL.... In summary, XC is for losers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women will overwhelmingly choose soccer/baseball/tennis players over XC superstars. Think of it like this: XC is like a violinist, while soccer/baseball/tennis players are like lead singer/guitarist. You can be the most famous violinist, Joshua Bell, play the most difficult piece at the metro station and 99% of the people would not know who you are. On the other hand, if you are Shawn Mendes or Bruno Mars, play the guitar and sing at the metro station, the women will mob you, for good reasons. FWIW, Joshua Bell played 45 minutes and got $32, LOL.... In summary, XC is for losers.

You are making such strange references. No high school soccer or tennis player has any more cachet vs a XC runner.

It’s football and basketball…then far behind that baseball…then there is 10 miles of shit and there is every other sport.

In no universe is a high school tennis player considered a rock star.

At elite private school, tennis players are rock stars. Tennis players do not hang out with Football & BB because most of them are poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women will overwhelmingly choose soccer/baseball/tennis players over XC superstars. Think of it like this: XC is like a violinist, while soccer/baseball/tennis players are like lead singer/guitarist. You can be the most famous violinist, Joshua Bell, play the most difficult piece at the metro station and 99% of the people would not know who you are. On the other hand, if you are Shawn Mendes or Bruno Mars, play the guitar and sing at the metro station, the women will mob you, for good reasons. FWIW, Joshua Bell played 45 minutes and got $32, LOL.... In summary, XC is for losers.

You are making such strange references. No high school soccer or tennis player has any more cachet vs a XC runner.

It’s football and basketball…then far behind that baseball…then there is 10 miles of shit and there is every other sport.

In no universe is a high school tennis player considered a rock star.

At elite private school, tennis players are rock stars. Tennis players do not hang out with Football & BB because most of them are poor.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s a fact that xc people are universally weird