For the two posters squabbling over this:

You are both correct, to some degree.

IME there is a small subset of kids that are simply incredible athletes, very talented, and can easily play multiple selective sports all the way through HS varsity (if they want to). Even at very large, competitive suburban high schools. It ends up being pretty unusual by the time they are upperclassmen, however- many choose to focus on the main sport (& college recruiting etc). These are the kids most likely to play in college, often D1. At least at our HS. There seem to be a few in every grade.

But that is a very small portion of kids. Most have nowhere even close to that type of talent or athleticism. These are the kids that are reasonably athletic and just want to make a very competitive HS team and contribute. Some might end up playing in college but not most. And these kids makeup the majority of (most of) the competitive high school varsity teams. For these kids, eventual specialization is what works (focusing on the sport they are best at, rather than being mediocre at 2 sports and potentially mot making either team). Sure, maybe they will do a no cut sport in the offseason to keep in shape, but two intensive cut sports like basketball/baseball? No. Most aren’t talented enough. And that is OK.

I also think the above becomes obvious to most parents around the middle school years or so. Most just want their kid to play a high school sport for the experience, having a “group” etc. - most know their kids will never be D1 recruiting material.

I don't think your school is more competitive just because you have 600+ kids in a graduating class. I grew up in a 3a school that had to play 4a because they were so much better than their competition. Yes, the state champ running back and QB's played three-four sports. This is going to be a majority of school districts. Even in the urban areas there aren't that many 600 kid school districts. Take your average 3a school district then take one third of those kids and they get to play on the team. When you combine them into 600kid school. Yes it may be pretty competitive to get on that basketball team, but how many fewer kids even try. That is the problem. How many fewer kids get coaching year after year. Now if you had three teams at your 600kid school, I could see it might be equivalent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

If you’re saying kids play basketball, baseball and soccer that’s laughable if you’re in a competitive HS.

What exactly is a competitive high school? I assume your definition is tautological, in that if any school has kids playing two or more varsity sports you will declare the school to be not competitive.

If you have an actual definition, let’s hear it, then we can waste our time looking up the rosters of the varsity teams and seeing how much overlap there is.

Any top 10 in the state public high school.

There are over 20,000 public high schools in the US. Your position is that only 500 of these (approximately 2.5%) should “count” in the discussion as to whether or not multi-sport varsity athletes still exist? That’s not much better than just limiting the discussion to whatever school your own kid goes to.

It’s just not relatable to people who don’t have kids in these top schools and you see that with some of the comments.

And yet the folks with kids in these “top schools” refuse to acknowledge that their experience isn’t universal or even common. They engineer their kids’ lives to be as ultra competitive as possible and then whine that the world is ultra competitive.

They can have at it, normal people don’t give a shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

If you’re saying kids play basketball, baseball and soccer that’s laughable if you’re in a competitive HS.

What exactly is a competitive high school? I assume your definition is tautological, in that if any school has kids playing two or more varsity sports you will declare the school to be not competitive.

If you have an actual definition, let’s hear it, then we can waste our time looking up the rosters of the varsity teams and seeing how much overlap there is.

Any top 10 in the state public high school.

There are over 20,000 public high schools in the US. Your position is that only 500 of these (approximately 2.5%) should “count” in the discussion as to whether or not multi-sport varsity athletes still exist? That’s not much better than just limiting the discussion to whatever school your own kid goes to.

It’s just not relatable to people who don’t have kids in these top schools and you see that with some of the comments.

McLean Langley top 2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

If you’re saying kids play basketball, baseball and soccer that’s laughable if you’re in a competitive HS.

What exactly is a competitive high school? I assume your definition is tautological, in that if any school has kids playing two or more varsity sports you will declare the school to be not competitive.

If you have an actual definition, let’s hear it, then we can waste our time looking up the rosters of the varsity teams and seeing how much overlap there is.

Any top 10 in the state public high school.

There are over 20,000 public high schools in the US. Your position is that only 500 of these (approximately 2.5%) should “count” in the discussion as to whether or not multi-sport varsity athletes still exist? That’s not much better than just limiting the discussion to whatever school your own kid goes to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

If you’re saying kids play basketball, baseball and soccer that’s laughable if you’re in a competitive HS.

What exactly is a competitive high school? I assume your definition is tautological, in that if any school has kids playing two or more varsity sports you will declare the school to be not competitive.

If you have an actual definition, let’s hear it, then we can waste our time looking up the rosters of the varsity teams and seeing how much overlap there is.

Any top 10 in the state public high school.

Top 10 for what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

If you’re saying kids play basketball, baseball and soccer that’s laughable if you’re in a competitive HS.

What exactly is a competitive high school? I assume your definition is tautological, in that if any school has kids playing two or more varsity sports you will declare the school to be not competitive.

If you have an actual definition, let’s hear it, then we can waste our time looking up the rosters of the varsity teams and seeing how much overlap there is.

Any top 10 in the state public high school.

Anonymous wrote:First grade? So we’re talking a 6 or 7 year old?

Right now it’s not a even a question of specialization or “dropping” a sport… just stop having him do so much right now!

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

If you’re saying kids play basketball, baseball and soccer that’s laughable if you’re in a competitive HS.

What exactly is a competitive high school? I assume your definition is tautological, in that if any school has kids playing two or more varsity sports you will declare the school to be not competitive.

If you have an actual definition, let’s hear it, then we can waste our time looking up the rosters of the varsity teams and seeing how much overlap there is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

Did you read the thread? It’s about doing less and just one rec sport which happens to be 2 practices a week. Sorry that’s offensive to you but carry on with karate and cello. Why are you even on a sports forum if you have this much hatred towards parents putting their children in youth recreational sports leagues? get. a. grip. Kids play on teams. Some kids actually love it and would rather do that than math flash cards at home with mom.

Not every post in this thread is about OP’s specific question, dummy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

Did you read the thread? It’s about doing less and just one rec sport which happens to be 2 practices a week. Sorry that’s offensive to you but carry on with karate and cello. Why are you even on a sports forum if you have this much hatred towards parents putting their children in youth recreational sports leagues? get. a. grip. Kids play on teams. Some kids actually love it and would rather do that than math flash cards at home with mom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

If you’re saying kids play basketball, baseball and soccer that’s laughable if you’re in a competitive HS.

Anonymous wrote:People are responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Non-sensical reply. From the grammatical errors and bizarre sentence structure, to the fact that you have absolutely no idea who any of these respondents are or what schools they’re talking about.

There is so much cope in this thread. We get it, you need to feel like making your six year old take private lessons three times a week and play their sport year round to the exclusion of all else just to have a shot at riding the bench on varsity someday is just how everyone has to do it these days.

Anonymous wrote:People are
responding for non competitive schools so that makes sense but those kids aren’t recruitment schools for the most part. They may have a kid who goes off each year but not a number from each team to play in college.

Werd?