Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the crew situation at our school.

Are there that many different crew programs?

Yes, there are over a dozen crew clubs in the area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the crew situation at our school.

Are there that many different crew programs?

Anonymous wrote:This is the crew situation at our school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with unseating these coaches is that their entire professional and financial existence is now grafted on to the school. For them, there is almost no dividing line between the school and their business. That's why these baseball players were run out of the program - what's one player's development versus your entire business model?

If all the scandals at educational institutions over the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that the institution protects itself at almost all costs. Only when the liability and reputational risk of allowing sports programs to be run this way outweigh the desire to win will something be done.

I think this is a great post, but I'm puzzled as to what St. John's motivation is for supporting the baseball coach(es) involved given that the kids they are forcing out of the program seem to be top D1 recruits. If so, this policy would presumably hurt, rather than help, the competitiveness of the team. Is it that the coaches bring in more potential St. John's students, who know that if they sign up for Diamond Skills or the coaches' other camps they will be guaranteed a spot on the baseball team at St. Johns if they decide to go there?

And are St. John alums loyal to the coaches? Last year, there was a long thread on the lacrosse forum about Bullis firing their long time, successful lacrosse coach for dubious reasons: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/740121.page In the end, alumni and community outrage prompted the school to rehire him (or pretend they hadn't tried to fire him in the first place--it was a very strange story).

Anonymous wrote:The motivation for supporting the baseball coach is clear. If the preferences of five talented ball players conflict with a big donor who is on the board and whose kid plays baseball, who wins?

Anonymous wrote:The problem with unseating these coaches is that their entire professional and financial existence is now grafted on to the school. For them, there is almost no dividing line between the school and their business. That's why these baseball players were run out of the program - what's one player's development versus your entire business model?

If all the scandals at educational institutions over the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that the institution protects itself at almost all costs. Only when the liability and reputational risk of allowing sports programs to be run this way outweigh the desire to win will something be done.

Anonymous wrote:The problem with unseating these coaches is that their entire professional and financial existence is now grafted on to the school. For them, there is almost no dividing line between the school and their business. That's why these baseball players were run out of the program - what's one player's development versus your entire business model?

If all the scandals at educational institutions over the last 10 years have taught us anything, it's that the institution protects itself at almost all costs. Only when the liability and reputational risk of allowing sports programs to be run this way outweigh the desire to win will something be done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with the idea of pay-to-play, but it also seems short-sighted to pillory one coach. The problem is broader than one coach or one school (or even one sport). After watching my son and his teammates for years, I firmly believe that the concerns highlighted by this thread are systemic. I also believe many families ignore that they contribute greatly to the culture they lament. Parents complain that youth players are treated as commodities, but those same parents treat teams and schools as commodities.

From a very young age, families see teams (and schools) merely as way to "showcase" their individual player. (Notice they are seldom referred to as "students" or "kids", they are "players" first and foremost.) As a result, youth and high school baseball has become less and less of a youth, team sport and more as a business proposition from all sides. Schools, travel teams, and families are all caught is a vicious cycle. Parents of top players complain loudly, but the most egregious victims of the current system are education, team dynamics, and talented players who care about more than D-1 college scholarships.

I guess I see what you're trying to say, but I still think you have it wrong. The situation with SJC baseball is egregious. It doesn't appear to be just a case of parents sending their kids there to play ball in the hopes of getting a college scholarship and demanding that the school coach treat their sons in a way that gets them those D-1 scholarships. It sounds like the parents of the 5 boys kicked out of the program wanted their sons to play for high level travel teams DURING THE OFFSEASON so they could realize their dream of getting to the next level. 3 of these boys are committed to UNC, UVA and Mississippi State, so I will assume they are talented players with a bright future. Are you going to begrudge them because they possess talent (and surely work really hard) and that has gotten them scholarship money to go to college? Nothing I have read in these 18 pages tells me these boys were not team players at St. Johns or that their parents were complainers. The problem here IS the coach, who will not let very talented players on his high school team play in the offseason for high level teams, in high level showcases, etc. I don't care how good St Johns baseball is - if they have kids committed to these college programs, then those kids are significantly better than other kids in that program. Why should the most talented kids play in the summer and fall with and against less talented players? There are appropriate levels of travel sports for just about every kid. Some kids are very talented and should be "showcased," while others are less talented, are not going to play beyond high school, and should not be "showcased." Those two types of kids should be playing at different levels of travel ball. It's the St Johns baseball coach who is saying "no, this isn't how we're gonna do it."

So ask yourself again, are these families the problem because they have their talented sons play high school baseball and then want them to play at a higher level in the summer and fall?

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with the idea of pay-to-play, but it also seems short-sighted to pillory one coach. The problem is broader than one coach or one school (or even one sport). After watching my son and his teammates for years, I firmly believe that the concerns highlighted by this thread are systemic. I also believe many families ignore that they contribute greatly to the culture they lament. Parents complain that youth players are treated as commodities, but those same parents treat teams and schools as commodities.

From a very young age, families see teams (and schools) merely as way to "showcase" their individual player. (Notice they are seldom referred to as "students" or "kids", they are "players" first and foremost.) As a result, youth and high school baseball has become less and less of a youth, team sport and more as a business proposition from all sides. Schools, travel teams, and families are all caught is a vicious cycle. Parents of top players complain loudly, but the most egregious victims of the current system are education, team dynamics, and talented players who care about more than D-1 college scholarships.

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with the idea of pay-to-play, but it also seems short-sighted to pillory one coach. The problem is broader than one coach or one school (or even one sport). After watching my son and his teammates for years, I firmly believe that the concerns highlighted by this thread are systemic. I also believe many families ignore that they contribute greatly to the culture they lament. Parents complain that youth players are treated as commodities, but those same parents treat teams and schools as commodities.

From a very young age, families see teams (and schools) merely as way to "showcase" their individual player. (Notice they are seldom referred to as "students" or "kids", they are "players" first and foremost.) As a result, youth and high school baseball has become less and less of a youth, team sport and more as a business proposition from all sides. Schools, travel teams, and families are all caught is a vicious cycle. Parents of top players complain loudly, but the most egregious victims of the current system are education, team dynamics, and talented players who care about more than D-1 college scholarships.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this going on in the SJC football program too? Just curious. Is this the result of Kevin Plank's desire to have a sports powerhouse at SJC? Wow, this school really has its priorities backwards. So so so so so glad we decided to send our child elsewhere.

Baseball around here is full of rich kids from McLean or Bethesda. They are prime targets for the pay-to-play gang. Same with lax, and to a lesser degree soccer. Football is a very different demographic, as is basketball. There the sleazy coaches make money being gatekeepers to scouts and schools and shoe companies.

None of that should affect your high school. High school is for education and playing on the school team. All the travel team and pay to be play and seen stuff should be completely unrelated to your high school experience.

Written by a parent with a non-athletic child.