Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

You folks are truly lost. There is no nationally recognized coach that does not have their own side AAU, soccer club, and/or camp. Anyone worth hiring that has a track record will have these “conflicts” as you call them. This is not pay to play. The coach is more familiar with kids he has coached. If your child is not coachable or maybe the coaching staff does not have confidence in their ability they will not he that much playing time.

A family might be significantly happier if the school did not have a "nationally recognized coach" with a side club the family has to pay for -- a school team should be a school team, in my humble opinion.

If this is the case don't send your child to an athletic powerhouse, bottom line. Sports bring in the highest donor money.

That was my point, and we didn't. We could tell when we met the "powerhouse" coach that it was going to be an unhealthy situation, so we turned the school down. Now my child is having a great time playing sports in high school, and won the small school championship with his friends (as a freshman), and will be a 4-year letter winner, and will someday go to college for academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

You folks are truly lost. There is no nationally recognized coach that does not have their own side AAU, soccer club, and/or camp. Anyone worth hiring that has a track record will have these “conflicts” as you call them. This is not pay to play. The coach is more familiar with kids he has coached. If your child is not coachable or maybe the coaching staff does not have confidence in their ability they will not he that much playing time.

A family might be significantly happier if the school did not have a "nationally recognized coach" with a side club the family has to pay for -- a school team should be a school team, in my humble opinion.

If this is the case don't send your child to an athletic powerhouse, bottom line. Sports bring in the highest donor money.

Exactly

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

You folks are truly lost. There is no nationally recognized coach that does not have their own side AAU, soccer club, and/or camp. Anyone worth hiring that has a track record will have these “conflicts” as you call them. This is not pay to play. The coach is more familiar with kids he has coached. If your child is not coachable or maybe the coaching staff does not have confidence in their ability they will not he that much playing time.

A family might be significantly happier if the school did not have a "nationally recognized coach" with a side club the family has to pay for -- a school team should be a school team, in my humble opinion.

If this is the case don't send your child to an athletic powerhouse, bottom line. Sports bring in the highest donor money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of an issue is this at your regular neighborhood public high school?

It can be way worse because the coaches make less. Really depends.

The teachers earn less in private, but the coaches earn more? Hmm.

This is not true in most cases.

Anonymous wrote:Surprise, surprise -- the make-up of youth sports teams is not a meritocracy.

+1000

Surprise, surprise -- the make-up of youth sports teams is not a meritocracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of an issue is this at your regular neighborhood public high school?

It can be way worse because the coaches make less. Really depends.

For the record public school pays coaches more than private.

Really? When I coached track for a local public school, I was paid a pittance and strongly urged to donate that pittance back to the school, which I happily did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

You folks are truly lost. There is no nationally recognized coach that does not have their own side AAU, soccer club, and/or camp. Anyone worth hiring that has a track record will have these “conflicts” as you call them. This is not pay to play. The coach is more familiar with kids he has coached. If your child is not coachable or maybe the coaching staff does not have confidence in their ability they will not he that much playing time.

My son's experience of being coached by a nationally recognized coach was that the coach recommended that DS play for the AAU program that he was affiliated with (which happened to be sponsored by the same shoe company that sponsors the high school team) but didn't require that kids play for it. In fact, the coach pulled key players from the school into a completely different (essentially fake) AAU team to play together for some AAU tournaments. This was not a money making venture - there were no fees nor uniforms, the kids just wore ratty old jerseys that the coach had and entry fees were paid by the school team budget. Instead, this was a mechanism for getting around league rules about how much the school team could practice together and how much they could be coached by the school coach in the offseason. In addition to violating high school team rules about how much kids could play together in the offseason, I think this violated tournament rules about kids being on multiple rosters (DS played for two different teams in one tournament -- his 15U AAU team and the coach's 17U team). But, this was not pay to play.

Basketball may be different than other sports (because the very top teams are entirely paid for by sponsorships and free to kids) but I've never seen the kind of pay to play that OP describes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of an issue is this at your regular neighborhood public high school?

It can be way worse because the coaches make less. Really depends.

The teachers earn less in private, but the coaches earn more? Hmm.

Depends on the school.

It would be very foolish to assume this does not go on at some public schools. (Not knocking public schools either, just being realistic.)

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Bullis parent whose kids play on varsity teams for each season in different sports. I can tell you that there aren't any coaches or sports who are doing what the OP described at Bullis. Also, could people please just stop randomly stop slamming Bullis when it's not even being discussed? THere's already a 30+ page thread full of nonsense and half truths. It's tiresome.

Perhaps not in the sports your child plays, but I can tell you we experienced exactly what has been described the original poster at Bullis. What is most tiresome are the Bullis boosters' knee-jerk reaction to anything negative revealed about the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

What makes you assume these coaches aren't in alignment with the institutions' values?

that’s a very good point - perhaps I’m mistaken about the institution’s values.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

You folks are truly lost. There is no nationally recognized coach that does not have their own side AAU, soccer club, and/or camp. Anyone worth hiring that has a track record will have these “conflicts” as you call them. This is not pay to play. The coach is more familiar with kids he has coached. If your child is not coachable or maybe the coaching staff does not have confidence in their ability they will not he that much playing time.

What you describe might be the case at some schools. But there is definitely a pay to play requirement at other schools. Our son plays baseball in the WCAC and many are waiting to see what St Johns is going to do next. As other posters have said word is they have kicked 2 sophomores out of the program for not paying to play in the coaches offseason travel program. These aren’t lesser players. One was best player in the team last year and first freshman to ever be named first team all met, and both are committed to ACC schools and ranked in the top 30 nationally in there class. If not letting these players to play at St Johns isn’t pay to play then I don’t know what is. Now word is that 3 other St Johns players have done the same thing and decided to play for other travel programs and not the coaches. The coach will have to be consistent and also not let them play in the spring which will make the team much less competitive, or he will realize he has to win and will let the 3 play in which case he kicked 2 really good players out of the program for no reason. Theyll have a hard time winning without those 3 so its a pretty safe bet what he’ll do. Whatever he decides it won’t look very good. Pretty glad our son is at another school.

Similar situation in soccer. One of the best players on last years team (now a Junior) has been replaced by a freshman who is on the coach’s club team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

You folks are truly lost. There is no nationally recognized coach that does not have their own side AAU, soccer club, and/or camp. Anyone worth hiring that has a track record will have these “conflicts” as you call them. This is not pay to play. The coach is more familiar with kids he has coached. If your child is not coachable or maybe the coaching staff does not have confidence in their ability they will not he that much playing time.

A family might be significantly happier if the school did not have a "nationally recognized coach" with a side club the family has to pay for -- a school team should be a school team, in my humble opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

You folks are truly lost. There is no nationally recognized coach that does not have their own side AAU, soccer club, and/or camp. Anyone worth hiring that has a track record will have these “conflicts” as you call them. This is not pay to play. The coach is more familiar with kids he has coached. If your child is not coachable or maybe the coaching staff does not have confidence in their ability they will not he that much playing time.

What you describe might be the case at some schools. But there is definitely a pay to play requirement at other schools. Our son plays baseball in the WCAC and many are waiting to see what St Johns is going to do next. As other posters have said word is they have kicked 2 sophomores out of the program for not paying to play in the coaches offseason travel program. These aren’t lesser players. One was best player in the team last year and first freshman to ever be named first team all met, and both are committed to ACC schools and ranked in the top 30 nationally in there class. If not letting these players to play at St Johns isn’t pay to play then I don’t know what is. Now word is that 3 other St Johns players have done the same thing and decided to play for other travel programs and not the coaches. The coach will have to be consistent and also not let them play in the spring which will make the team much less competitive, or he will realize he has to win and will let the 3 play in which case he kicked 2 really good players out of the program for no reason. Theyll have a hard time winning without those 3 so its a pretty safe bet what he’ll do. Whatever he decides it won’t look very good. Pretty glad our son is at another school.

Anonymous wrote:Schools that invite third parties in to operate sports teams have an obligation to ensure those third parties behave in ways that align with the institutions values and in ways that don’t exploit the school, students, applicants, or parents, financially or otherwise.

You folks are truly lost. There is no nationally recognized coach that does not have their own side AAU, soccer club, and/or camp. Anyone worth hiring that has a track record will have these “conflicts” as you call them. This is not pay to play. The coach is more familiar with kids he has coached. If your child is not coachable or maybe the coaching staff does not have confidence in their ability they will not he that much playing time.