Anonymous wrote:Well this is all quite interesting but what’s even more interesting is that the international sports in college are primarily dominated by international students so they must be practicing somewhere somehow 🤔

Look at college soccer and the average age of the players…it is now early 20s…why? It’s a lot of European players that were on the pro route but were told their pro careers were not leading anywhere. Those players now come to the US (many TO) and are populating college teams.

Again, those players essentially went pro as teenagers.

It would be the equivalent of all the American kids on academy teams basically going to academy HS where you take class for 3 hours in the AM and then practice soccer for 5 hours. One day Johnny was going to school with your kid and the next Johnny is now living at the DC United facility and that’s that.

Those kids would be the only ones playing in college and going pro and all the remaining kids would just play for fun.

America's Pastime is baseball. Everyone gets a turn at bat, not just the biggest/fastest/strongest. The strike zone adjusts to the size of the batter. And the defense posseses the ball. It allows smaller, less athletic...but smart ballplayers to thrive. More kids play and that leads to more kids playing other sports as well.

I think sports are great because it's working really hard at something very difficult. And failing (a lot!) in a public setting. Good life skills.

Anonymous wrote:

But American kids literally do these same things. Club sports are travel teams. Tennis lessons are tennis lessons. Kids balance activities and homework and all parents (and coaches) preach that school work come first. American kids hang out, go to parks, swim in lakes, go hiking etc.

I have lived in the US and abroad. Youth sports abroad are not nearly practiced with the same intensity as they are here (unless like another PP noted about a few prodigy athletic kids going the professional route early on).
In general, the approach to sports and extracurriculars is way more relaxed and does not affect college admissions. There, it is pretty much only based on grades and test scores and any extracurricular achievements done outside of school related to the major the student wants to specialize in. So for example, a high schooler applying to be the computer science program will get favored by colleges if he developed an app or a website or did coding outside of school, not because he is good at tennis and can be on the college's tennis team.

I am not saying one approach is right and the other is wrong given all the benefits of athletics that many PPs have posted about. I am just pointing out the difference as a fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely curious which countries in which youth don’t play sports?

I think most do not (at the same level in the US)? Especially on the girls side. It makes me wonder - what do all those high school kids in, e.g., Paris, do after school is out for the day, since (as far as I know), kids aren't playing for high school sports teams (because there are none). Genuinely curious, since it is such a big part of American high school kids' lives.

If you play a sport, it’s done outside of school. So if you play soccer, you have practice at your club in the afternoon. But not every afternoon for 3-4 hours. If you play tennis, you go to the tennis club and play there. And so on.
You also have a lot more homework, and school work comes first.
European kids also just hang out. If you live near a lake, you’ll go swimming with your friends. If you live in the city, you’ll go to the park or the city center. If you live near the mountains, you’ll go hiking.

But American kids literally do these same things. Club sports are travel teams. Tennis lessons are tennis lessons. Kids balance activities and homework and all parents (and coaches) preach that school work come first. American kids hang out, go to parks, swim in lakes, go hiking etc.

Anonymous wrote:I’m new to this one but I think the following is a non-comprehensive list:

1. Sports keep your kid healthy
2. Sports keep your kid out of trouble
3. Sports are fun to play and watch
4. Sports give the family something to do to keep them busy outside of school
5. Sports are a good way to make friends (for both kids and parents) and regularly see others
6. If your kid happens to be amazing, maybe they could play in college / the sport helps them to get into college
7. Sports can teach social skills like teamwork
8. Sports teach your kids values like discipline and perseverance
9. If you’ve got disposable income, what better thing to spend it on?
10. Some parents live vicariously through their kids and get super into it (and often in a weird way)
11. All that said, it’s definitely an American thing just like saying the pledge of allegiance and forging ourselves on junk food. Just part of our culture I guess.

This. US is sports focused. When are you inclined to be outdoorsy and athletic, you are hard core into it. When not, it usually swings the other way. I prefer that my children lean athletic because those healthy habits will carry them through life. I particularly want my girls to be able to hold their own and maintain physical strength. My DH is from a country that does not prioritize athletics and it really shows in his habits and those of his family. Many of siblings are now learning healthy exercise habits later in life, which has been tough. I will say that my DH grew up with better eating habits than I did.

Sports also keep us outside, off devices, and with a cohort of like-minded people. It creates a sense of discipline and self confidence in the kids. Americans like confidence. Will my kids be professionals? Absolutely not. Do I want them to play in college? No chance. I want them to focus on academics. But I am in favor of the athletic focus. It'll serve as an excellent foundation for adulthood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

While I realize you probably feel better about yourself writing this, it’s ignorant. Universities do not care whatsoever about sports parents and how they feel. What they care about — the only thing they care about — is the money that athletes bring to the school. “Money for universities” is literally the only answer to OPs question. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant of how the business of universities work.

I am not a psycho sports parent. But I was in admissions.

That’s obviously true for the most popular college sports : football, basketball, ice hockey , baseball …
But there are a lot more sports that must barely bring colleges money but yet they still recruit for … crew, badminton, fencing, squash , wrestling …
Are the popular sports subsidizing the not so popular sports for colleges?

Yes, the popular sports subsidize the less popular ones, which includes nearly all women’s sports. The money that comes in can be very significant.

However, the financial calculation also takes into account alumni donations and likelihood of alumni to donate. At many highly selective colleges, athletes (even from unpopular sports) donate more and more consistently over the years than other groups. Their families donate more as well. Essentially athletes as a whole bring money to schools more than other groups.

Part of why schools keep the less popular/money losing sports is inertia. If they cut them, alumni who played will get upset, plus schools have to be careful in how they cut sports to avoid a Title IX situation.

The unpopular sports are usually the country club sports where you generally have to be wealthy in order to play in HS. Crew, squash, fencing, etc. it is a way to accept wealthy kids under athletic recruiting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

While I realize you probably feel better about yourself writing this, it’s ignorant. Universities do not care whatsoever about sports parents and how they feel. What they care about — the only thing they care about — is the money that athletes bring to the school. “Money for universities” is literally the only answer to OPs question. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant of how the business of universities work.

I am not a psycho sports parent. But I was in admissions.

That’s obviously true for the most popular college sports : football, basketball, ice hockey , baseball …
But there are a lot more sports that must barely bring colleges money but yet they still recruit for … crew, badminton, fencing, squash , wrestling …
Are the popular sports subsidizing the not so popular sports for colleges?

Yes, the popular sports subsidize the less popular ones, which includes nearly all women’s sports. The money that comes in can be very significant.

However, the financial calculation also takes into account alumni donations and likelihood of alumni to donate. At many highly selective colleges, athletes (even from unpopular sports) donate more and more consistently over the years than other groups. Their families donate more as well. Essentially athletes as a whole bring money to schools more than other groups.

Part of why schools keep the less popular/money losing sports is inertia. If they cut them, alumni who played will get upset, plus schools have to be careful in how they cut sports to avoid a Title IX situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

While I realize you probably feel better about yourself writing this, it’s ignorant. Universities do not care whatsoever about sports parents and how they feel. What they care about — the only thing they care about — is the money that athletes bring to the school. “Money for universities” is literally the only answer to OPs question. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant of how the business of universities work.

I am not a psycho sports parent. But I was in admissions.

That’s obviously true for the most popular college sports : football, basketball, ice hockey , baseball …
But there are a lot more sports that must barely bring colleges money but yet they still recruit for … crew, badminton, fencing, squash , wrestling …
Are the popular sports subsidizing the not so popular sports for colleges?

Yes, the popular sports subsidize the less popular ones, which includes nearly all women’s sports. The money that comes in can be very significant.

However, the financial calculation also takes into account alumni donations and likelihood of alumni to donate. At many highly selective colleges, athletes (even from unpopular sports) donate more and more consistently over the years than other groups. Their families donate more as well. Essentially athletes as a whole bring money to schools more than other groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you're posting this in tgr sports forum so all the psycho sports parents are responding.

All of the parents who have spent thousands of dollars on travel sports and hours every week driving around to tournaments need a reason to justify why they chose that path instead of encouraging rec sports, or playing tennis at the park, going jogging with friends, basketball at the park etc. It is totally insane here and for many kids gives them a warped sense of what sports are all about. It's about winning and giving up everything to win. A lot of these parents and kids have lost all perspective. Just watch them if they lose the game, not even an important one. It's the end of the world, the kids are devastated, the parents are pissed. It's pathetic how sports culture has sucked a lot of the pure joy of sports for children.

While I realize you probably feel better about yourself writing this, it’s ignorant. Universities do not care whatsoever about sports parents and how they feel. What they care about — the only thing they care about — is the money that athletes bring to the school. “Money for universities” is literally the only answer to OPs question. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant of how the business of universities work.

I am not a psycho sports parent. But I was in admissions.

Interesting. Your response reveals the crass opportunism driving parents to do all this then. You didn't even make a lame attempt to make this about sportsmanship or teamwork or athleticism. It's all about the money, all about the admissions. So gross.

Sure. Whatever. Shake your hands at the sky and decline to apply to selective colleges because they prioritize athletics as a factor. Tell your kid that they’re better than the athletes and deserve admissions because they are special special snowflakes and mom definitely knows better than the admissions committees of elite universities. Call up Admissions at Yale and complain. I don’t care.

These temper tantrums from DCUMs crazed anti-athlete posters are so tiresome, entitled, and whiny.

I’m new to this one but I think the following is a non-comprehensive list:

1. Sports keep your kid healthy
2. Sports keep your kid out of trouble
3. Sports are fun to play and watch
4. Sports give the family something to do to keep them busy outside of school
5. Sports are a good way to make friends (for both kids and parents) and regularly see others
6. If your kid happens to be amazing, maybe they could play in college / the sport helps them to get into college
7. Sports can teach social skills like teamwork
8. Sports teach your kids values like discipline and perseverance
9. If you’ve got disposable income, what better thing to spend it on?
10. Some parents live vicariously through their kids and get super into it (and often in a weird way)
11. All that said, it’s definitely an American thing just like saying the pledge of allegiance and forging ourselves on junk food. Just part of our culture I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you're posting this in tgr sports forum so all the psycho sports parents are responding.

All of the parents who have spent thousands of dollars on travel sports and hours every week driving around to tournaments need a reason to justify why they chose that path instead of encouraging rec sports, or playing tennis at the park, going jogging with friends, basketball at the park etc. It is totally insane here and for many kids gives them a warped sense of what sports are all about. It's about winning and giving up everything to win. A lot of these parents and kids have lost all perspective. Just watch them if they lose the game, not even an important one. It's the end of the world, the kids are devastated, the parents are pissed. It's pathetic how sports culture has sucked a lot of the pure joy of sports for children.

While I realize you probably feel better about yourself writing this, it’s ignorant. Universities do not care whatsoever about sports parents and how they feel. What they care about — the only thing they care about — is the money that athletes bring to the school. “Money for universities” is literally the only answer to OPs question. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant of how the business of universities work.

I am not a psycho sports parent. But I was in admissions.

Interesting. Your response reveals the crass opportunism driving parents to do all this then. You didn't even make a lame attempt to make this about sportsmanship or teamwork or athleticism. It's all about the money, all about the admissions. So gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

While I realize you probably feel better about yourself writing this, it’s ignorant. Universities do not care whatsoever about sports parents and how they feel. What they care about — the only thing they care about — is the money that athletes bring to the school. “Money for universities” is literally the only answer to OPs question. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant of how the business of universities work.

I am not a psycho sports parent. But I was in admissions.

That’s obviously true for the most popular college sports : football, basketball, ice hockey , baseball …
But there are a lot more sports that must barely bring colleges money but yet they still recruit for … crew, badminton, fencing, squash , wrestling …
Are the popular sports subsidizing the not so popular sports for colleges?

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:Americans love winners. It isn't about doing a sport to go pro and making money when you graduate playing the sport. Obviously most parents of kids in travel sports realize this is unlikely.

However, playing on a high level team and competing for your school does open doors in the business world and many other jobs. You have a proven record you are a team player, you get along with others under stress, you area willing to put in the work even if you are tired and have other things going on. All things being equal the kid that played even a division 3 sport in college will get hired over someone who didn't. My nephew played baseball for a division 3 college. When he graduated it was a selling point. He was invited to go to a ballgame with some top executives as a prospective hire. His eventual bosses liked him as a person. It doesn't hurt that he also plays on their company softball team.

Ridiculous. Pretty much every female I know could care less about that and we are now the majority in the professional world. And many guys would not care about this either. Maybe your average frar boy would care about it but the idea that it plays into hiring beyond the age of 23, is a joke.

Anonymous wrote:[

While I realize you probably feel better about yourself writing this, it’s ignorant. Universities do not care whatsoever about sports parents and how they feel. What they care about — the only thing they care about — is the money that athletes bring to the school. “Money for universities” is literally the only answer to OPs question. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant of how the business of universities work.

I am not a psycho sports parent. But I was in admissions.

That’s obviously true for the most popular college sports : football, basketball, ice hockey , baseball …
But there are a lot more sports that must barely bring colleges money but yet they still recruit for … crew, badminton, fencing, squash , wrestling …
Are the popular sports subsidizing the not so popular sports for colleges?

Anonymous wrote:OP, you're posting this in tgr sports forum so all the psycho sports parents are responding.

All of the parents who have spent thousands of dollars on travel sports and hours every week driving around to tournaments need a reason to justify why they chose that path instead of encouraging rec sports, or playing tennis at the park, going jogging with friends, basketball at the park etc. It is totally insane here and for many kids gives them a warped sense of what sports are all about. It's about winning and giving up everything to win. A lot of these parents and kids have lost all perspective. Just watch them if they lose the game, not even an important one. It's the end of the world, the kids are devastated, the parents are pissed. It's pathetic how sports culture has sucked a lot of the pure joy of sports for children.

While I realize you probably feel better about yourself writing this, it’s ignorant. Universities do not care whatsoever about sports parents and how they feel. What they care about — the only thing they care about — is the money that athletes bring to the school. “Money for universities” is literally the only answer to OPs question. Anyone who tells you differently is lying or ignorant of how the business of universities work.

I am not a psycho sports parent. But I was in admissions.