Agree with the folks saying it was a dick move. The purpose of the football program isn’t to have “the best team possible.” It’s to engage students in extracurricular activities while training them for the sport. Putting the team above the students doesn’t do anything for anyone except boost the egos of a relatively few people.
Yes, it really, really is. Coaches can and have lost their jobs for losing seasons. And no, the purpose is not to engage students in extracurriculars. There are numerous youth leagues and such that students can play in should they so choose. Like it or not, schools almost always want winning teams. It’s not friendly pickup games, it’s often intense competition. The team is almost always put above a few students, and students are only evaluated on the basis of what they can bring to the team.
It’s just how it works. Students who don’t like it are generally more than able to join a local pickup or youth league.
Part of the problem is that the girl’s basketball team does not have an extra tryout later in the year.
From Arkansasmatters.com
http://arkansasmatters.com/fulltext?nxd_id=536702
Pulaski County’s attorney says the following:
I assume the attorney is talking about the 14th Amendment.
Then maybe we should reexamine high school athletic programs. I say this as someone who participated in athletics all through high school. Given the amount of money spent on sports programs, maybe we should work to make it so more students can participate.
I disagree. We can have, for instance, touch football games in school. But real, competitive sports? Yeah… we already baby, spoonfeed, coddle and ego-stroke our students to an unrealistic view of the world in which everybody is special, regardless of their skills, talents, drive, dedication or successes. Let them learn, as early as possible, that in order to make the cut for highly selective positions, they need to be the best of the best and have an awesome work-ethic to boot.
That’s a real life lesson that they have to learn, ideally way, way before they start applying to colleges. We do them no favors by teaching them that everybody gets to participate all the time. It’s not only acceptable, I contend that there are valuable lessons to be learned by missing out on a round of selection.
I think the key point here is this:
Nobody is setting their HS basketball team in August. Especially for a small school (no idea the size of this HS), there just aren’t that many athletes available. In our fairly large HS, I think half of the varsity basketball team was also on the football team.
My guess is that the kid/mother didn’t understand that this was some sort of development team, as someone mentioned above.
For what reason? Will students transfer to that high school to be on the football team? Do they get larger enrollment in the school? More funds? I can see fundraising might be slightly more effective and some extra income from more ticket purchases (if they charge). But if the entire purpose of the football team is to have a winning team at all costs, then I think that’s a shitty paradigm to have for a school. It’s not about coddling students, it’s about treating everyone fairly. And what kind of lesson does this teach the students that came in and took over the spots that the other team already worked for and earned? That rules don’t apply to them?
I agree with csarcazm. Unless this was a known practice (that you were only guaranteed a couple of months of pre-season practice on the team before you had to fight for your spot on the team again when football season was over), it is a really really shitty thing to do.
Basketball is a winter sport. Tryouts in August (during football season) are clearly not getting the best players available, nor would it be reasonable to assume that additional tryouts wouldn’t happen before the season starts.
Whether the parent or child understood the situation I think it’s pretty clear that the teams selected in summer were not intended to be the final team. Communication and expectations are key, but nothing here falls into the realm of “dick move” and definitely not something worth suing over.
High school sports, for better or worse, can be highly competitive and some communities take them *very *seriously. Effectively telling your best athletes that they cannot be multi-sport players seems a poor strategy. The alternative would be to have no basketball tryouts until after football season completes. That means those kids would miss out on months of skills building and fitness. Perhaps they’ll be able to make the team in future years.
I don’t know…maybe I’m reading it differently. It seems like he made the team last season but had to try out again for the next season. Some of the team regulars may not have had to go through tryouts, as their skill level was already known (I admit that I am guessing wildly)
This line:
suggests something that is business as usual after football season ends, happens every year. There is an influx of new potential players, and they held tryouts in order to strengthen the team.
I suspect that there are league rules on how many members a team can have. So it makes sense to have only the best that you have available.
Here is the roster rule for Arkansas:
So smart schools would wait until November 8th to post a final roster.
I looked up the school, and found their booster page:
http://maumellehighschoolhornets.com/BoysBasketball.html
Looks like a pretty successful program. I also noticed no JV listed, just a Freshman team and the Varsity.
In Texas, at least, a winning program, especially if they place anywhere near the stat level can indeed generally expect an influx of funds. It also helps build school spirit and cohesion to have a winning team to root for.
No, it’s not about treating students fairly. Being treated fairly means that you rise to the level of your abilities, and if someone is better, then they beat you. The lesson that they learn is that your position, especially on a highly competitive sports team is not ‘earned’ in a once-only event, but something you continually have to work for, maintain and strive for, and that there might be people who are better than you who deserve it more. We’re supposed to prepare students for the real world, and in the real world it’s perfectly fair, and right, just, and to be expected that if you’re good at a job but another applicant can do better work and is better for your company, that you may very well be out. It teaches kids that they’re responsible for working for their success, and that even that doesn’t guarantee anything, that continual hard work, perseverance and diligence are prerequisites for, but do not guarantee, ultimate success.
I don’t know about in the US, but here (the UK) employers generally can’t employ someone then keep holding interviews until they find someone better.
Besides, there would be a strong argument to say it’s better to have a team with high morale than 11 good players.
They already have a competitive sport in school - it’s called “getting good grades”. That’s what’s important, not running around playing games.
They’re both important and not mutually exclusive.
It depends on the state, but usually employers here can do just that. It’s certainly the case in Arkansas and here in Texas.
They generally don’t because it’s a huge pain in the ass to hire a barely acceptable candidate only to replace them later. It involves loss in productivity to train the new employee and some potential costs in terms of benefits to the old employee and scads of paperwork to process. You generally want to get the best candidate up front.
Also, it’s not like football/basketball where good potential employees will come along after a couple months. If you’re hiring straight out of college, you get a large influx after each semester. Otherwise, waiting for an even better candidate can get to be a mug’s game.
But if we’re talking about the “real world”, for the vast majority of people getting good grades is more important, and the vast majority of people surely cannot be at their best (as you suggest they should try to be) in both sport and academics simultaneously.
Here (I believe, maybe I’m wrong) if you have an actual salaried employee they can only be fired if they don’t do their job properly or if they make you redundant (and therefore don’t plan to replace you with someone, at least not directly).
It’s just not that simple, and not all kids are the same. Being on a team and competing can help build leadership skills, the ability to set and meet goals, healthy exercise habits, cooperation, etc. Those are all important in the real world. And, while there are kids whose school work slacks because they spend all their time practicing, there are also kids who are motivated to do enough schoolwork to keep the C+ average (or whatever) that they need in order to stay on the team.
Not everyone learns or is motivated the same way.
Most states in the US are “at will”. That means that a private company can fire anyone they like for any reason other than discrimination against a protected class. E.g., they can legally fire you for wearing red shoes to work, but they can’t fire you for your race, gender, age, etc. (protected classes can differ by state). They can even fire you for no reason.
But firing a salaried employee usually involves a lot of paperwork, which translates to paying someone money to do the paperwork rather than them doing stuff that makes money, so companies usually try to avoid hiring people that they know they’re going to fire shortly thereafter.
Huh?
Of course the purpose of the football program is to have the best team possible. Otherwise, play pick up in PE. The coach should absolutely be trying to get the best possible players
That said, it was still a dick move. If the coach knows that the best basketball players are on the football team (which is very common), he should have held tryouts on a day/time without football games and practice (weekend, after practice, pull them all out of lunch period, whatever). And made it dead clear to the second string/placeholders that that’s all they were. This three levels of tryouts is kind of evil to do to a kid who thought that he’d made the team.
But no one should sue because a high school basketball coach was a jerk.