well, with the exception of debate (and I suspect even a tournament championship debate doesn't fill a gym with spectators), those other activities are not competitive--a typical performance doesn't end with a "winner " and a "loser". our culture emphasizes and places a high value on winning. I'd guess the involvement of lots of adults adds to the hanky-panky quotient in sports, and hence the rules. I'd also guess the prohibited behaviors pre-dated the rules. not sure how many debate, drama, music and choir college scholarships are available, but their number is dwarfed by athletic scholarships. so there's money (or dreams of money) involved, which can bring out the worst in people.
WhichTeams Will Be in the Top 20 in NorCal 2017?
- Thread starter RespectBBGame
- Start date
well, with the exception of debate (and I suspect even a tournament championship debate doesn't fill a gym with spectators), those other activities are not competitive--a typical performance doesn't end with a "winner " and a "loser". our culture emphasizes and places a high value on winning. I'd guess the involvement of lots of adults adds to the hanky-panky quotient in sports, and hence the rules. I'd also guess the prohibited behaviors pre-dated the rules. not sure how many debate, drama, music and choir college scholarships are available, but their number is dwarfed by athletic scholarships. so there's money (or dreams of money) involved, which can bring out the worst in people.
Choir competitions are very competitive, as is debate (top debate teams qualify for national events), and high school auditoriums are often filled for plays.
But if scholarships/money is the issue, then shouldn't families and students have the opportunity to maximize their chances of hitting the jackpot? There are scholarships in music, and a student who sings with an elite choir has a better chance to get one -- so why can the singer transfer with impunity but the softball player (who doesn't draw a single paying customer) cannot?
But if scholarships/money is the issue, then shouldn't families and students have the opportunity to maximize their chances of hitting the jackpot? There are scholarships in music, and a student who sings with an elite choir has a better chance to get one -- so why can the singer transfer with impunity but the softball player (who doesn't draw a single paying customer) cannot?
I like freedom of choice, especially when it doesn't physically harm anyone. If the current situation was so good, and always right, what child would want to leave the school? Everyone should have the right to do what they believe is best for them. Perhaps giving children the freedom of choice to stay or move on will force all schools and athletic directors, coaches, etc... to be more reasonable, fair, and accountable..... Not bureaucratic. If not let them exercise different options.
Last edited:
My suggestion would be this:
1) A student who legally transfers into a school at the start of a school year will automatically be eligible for all extracurricular activities that school offers.
2) A student may not participate in athletics in more than one school per school year without going through the existing transfer process.
This means eligibility is determined by the school or school district. If a student is properly enrolled, he or she can participate in whatever activities the school offers.
1) A student who legally transfers into a school at the start of a school year will automatically be eligible for all extracurricular activities that school offers.
2) A student may not participate in athletics in more than one school per school year without going through the existing transfer process.
This means eligibility is determined by the school or school district. If a student is properly enrolled, he or she can participate in whatever activities the school offers.
That seems very reasonable. I still think you're being disingenuous or were at Head Royce too long if you think that all those other extracurriculars, even combined, carry the importance of athletics. Pick your measure--student participation, performance attendance, column inches in the local newspaper. Remember, we're talking about all sports teams, not just girls' basketball.
Which brings up the question: why, in fact, the eligibility regulation for athletics? Athletics has a long tradition of cheating, probably predating the Greek Olympic games and carried forward to Rio. I doubt that the legacy extends to singing, performing in plays, or arguing (although I won so many high school debates that some accused me of being a mass debater. At least I think that's what they were saying...). I don't particularly support these eligibility rules, but what did CIF have in mind? The illusion of a level playing field? Administrative job creation? Power (always valued by bureaucracy)?
I'm guessing that nobody who wasn't in the room knows. And you make a compelling case that they're unfair to the kids. Since restricting individual choice wasn't the point, what was(is) the point?
Which brings up the question: why, in fact, the eligibility regulation for athletics? Athletics has a long tradition of cheating, probably predating the Greek Olympic games and carried forward to Rio. I doubt that the legacy extends to singing, performing in plays, or arguing (although I won so many high school debates that some accused me of being a mass debater. At least I think that's what they were saying...). I don't particularly support these eligibility rules, but what did CIF have in mind? The illusion of a level playing field? Administrative job creation? Power (always valued by bureaucracy)?
I'm guessing that nobody who wasn't in the room knows. And you make a compelling case that they're unfair to the kids. Since restricting individual choice wasn't the point, what was(is) the point?
Last edited:
The idea was to level the playing field, usually promoted by those coaches and schools that weren't winning. They had to blame something ...
And of course players have always migrated to strong programs. In ancient Greece, they would go to the cities where former Olympic laurel wreath winners ran the gymnasium. People are people, and many want to be the best they can be. To do that, you try to get to the place with the best situation for excellence.
And of course players have always migrated to strong programs. In ancient Greece, they would go to the cities where former Olympic laurel wreath winners ran the gymnasium. People are people, and many want to be the best they can be. To do that, you try to get to the place with the best situation for excellence.
Similar threads
