|
Post by beauchenecoach on Sept 30, 2010 20:10:13 GMT -6
I also just want to add that this rule has ALWAYS been this way as long as I can remember. When I went to high school, which was a K-12 school, I actually played JV basketball as a 7th and 8th grader. Was it an advantage? Competition wise... absolutely not. It is usually a sign of weakness or lack of numbers of the varsity or JV program to have a Junior high kid playing in it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2010 10:40:03 GMT -6
Coach I'm not disagreeing with you on rules or policy. I realize that the rule covers "member high schools" that happen to have lower grades attached under one roof.
Still, no matter what you call it, you still have jr. high players participating in high school sports.
I will disagree that, where soccer is concerned, an 8th grader playing varsity can make a difference. Someone mentioned a German kid (7th grader) playing very well in central midfield.
I merely posted the question of why not open up the opportunity for ALL jr high kids to play high school footy if they are qualified?
Understand this may present administrative issues for the larger schools. On the other hand, how is oversight of home schooled athletes any easier? Their eligibility is currently being debated.
And apparently this bears repeating. If I really want my son to play high school soccer, even as a 7th grader, I can make that happen.
I just believe that if we have to tolerate players whose first touch lands in a different zip code, then we can do no worse by allowing skilled younger players to raise the standard of play.
For the good of the game.
|
|
|
Post by parkwaydad on Oct 1, 2010 14:41:46 GMT -6
Bottom line is that all rules and laws in society should be applied equally to everyone. Either disallow all junior high kids or allow them all to play. Take your pick but we should all support policies that promote fairness across the board, even if "that's the way it's always been" or "administrators will not support change" or "this is not something we should fight for because we have bigger battles". Fairness to all children should be the fundamental principle of the policies that we support.
|
|
|
Post by beauchenecoach on Oct 1, 2010 15:38:08 GMT -6
This will be my last word on this... but for Hall and parkwaydad, go ask your high school principal if he would like to be responsible for all of his/her feeder schools, their athletes, and making sure all of the rules are followed with eligibility. Afterall, it is the responsibility of the prinicipal of the member school to make sure that it is all followed. If he/she says yes, then by all means, have him write up a proposal by Nov. 15 and send it before the membership for vote in January.
If you cut the rule out as it currently stands, you will kill many soccer programs and other small sports around the state... mostly at small schools. If you try to add the rule to feeder schools that are not members because they are not high schools, it will never pass as no principal of a high school would like to be responsible for all of the LHSAA paperwork, eligibility, coaches education, ect... We are a 4A school, a small 4A school, and I promise you that our principal would not want to be responsible for junior high kids playing sports at the high school. He would be responsible for 5 feeder schools. A couple of years ago it would have been 7. I venture to say that the Lafayette 5A schools have a lot more than that to worry about. Now go to NOLA or BR... how many feeder schools does each high school have? So its either leave it as it is now or cut the rule that is currently in place to keep small programs alive. If we cut that rule, let's just continue on and cut another rule that is in place to keep small sports alive like the CECP Rule (non fa-y coaches).
I respect both of your opinions. But if you want it to be fair across the board, I think the rule in place now is fair across the board as it deals with MEMBER schools only, while helping the smaller schools be able to field teams in less popular sports.
|
|
|
Post by goat on Oct 2, 2010 12:23:15 GMT -6
Two questions Hall. Who does your son play select for? Who is his coach or the director of that program and where does he coach highschool? Once you answer those two I think we will know why you are on this topic and why you haven't started your son at calvery. Just my opinion. No harm meant at all.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Oct 2, 2010 14:58:48 GMT -6
If Loyola had a 7th and 8th grade, he could play... and he will be elibible next year as a 9th grader. That school should be a good fit, good school, good program.
I had two 8th graders on varsity team last year... both good soccer players, and good athletes. I played both in games where the issue was decided. I held my breath most of the time except when they were playing teams with mostly 8th-9th graders.
I also worried when we played Riverside with their 7th grade center-mid.
I do not care if a boy can play club up a class, such as U-14 playing against U-16. What is being proposed is U-14 playing against U-18... and the physical differential, speed, strength of the high school game, which is generally faster, with more contact than club, places the 8th grader at unnecessary risk.
It is one thing to have 7th-8th integral to the school. It would be quite another thing to have kids from outside the school trying out for the team with questions of grades, credit hours, age, living address, districts, history, medical forms, parential expectations. Thanks, but no thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2010 9:43:41 GMT -6
I think in the case of smaller or weaker programs, we aren't looking at many "U14 vs U18" scenarios. Let's say the bulk of DII and DIII soccer schools.
Jesuit, Laffayette, Acadiana, Shreve? Definitely more so. But it isn't the same as a team of U14's playing a U18 team as in club soccer. Maybe in St. Louis, SoCal or one of the east coast states the prep teams are loaded with club players.
But your typical Shreveport high school teams may have anywhere from 5 to 10 'club' players total. I'm talking 9th thru 12th grade.
beauchenecoach, I certainly see your point concerning logistics, administrative burdens associated with opening up the junior high debate. And for that reason, it will probably never be implemented.
Then again, that being the case, I don't feel home schooled kids should be allowed to participate in high school sports. Most parents that home school their kids do it because they feel the public and private schools are lacking.
Essentially, this presents more of a headache for principals than dealing with jr high students not under their direct supervision.
That is a choice (and sacrifice) that you have to live with when you decide to home school your kids.
Finally, I resent the that, just because I happen to have a son in jr. high that this somehow has become a 'lobbying effort' on my part. Anyone that knows me will tell you that I am a fan, supporter and advocate of this game.
I have no intention of promoting my son on this forum. (And frankly, I don't need to.)
I could care less about and don't follow the Saints, LSU, the NBA, MLB, etc. etc. I'm much more interested in the Champions League. If my kid quit playing I'd still follow the EPL, Serie A and the Champions league.
The underlying theme in this discussion is simple:
What are we (meaning the soccer community) doing to make a so-called 'less popular sport' more popular? Especially given how the sport is managed at the scholastic levels?
|
|
|
Post by futbolfiend on Oct 4, 2010 16:22:00 GMT -6
Mods, I think it is time this thread be closed its gotten WAAAAYYY off topic. We all come on this board with our own inherent bias. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is KING. (Erasmus 1510 AD)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2010 16:38:16 GMT -6
Probably right, fiend.
I'm not going to put up with personal attacks. Give me credit for keeping it civil....
|
|
|
Post by ShreveDad on Oct 4, 2010 19:43:15 GMT -6
Stay on topic or we will lock the thread. Everyone knows the rules about personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by The Irish Fro on Oct 5, 2010 0:11:08 GMT -6
I need the sparknotes version of this thread to issue my opinion. It definitely got too wordy for my taste.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 13:26:23 GMT -6
Okay fro:
I brought up the possibility of allowing jr high players from feeder schools to play varsity soccer.
Those in opposition said they couldn't see it happening to the administrative burden.
And that some felt 8th graders were too frail physically to play varsity. Especially at the bigger schools.
Pretty concise, eh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2010 13:27:41 GMT -6
sorry, "due" to the administrative burden.
|
|
|
Post by goat on Oct 7, 2010 12:28:06 GMT -6
hall check your messages
|
|
|
Post by assaultsoccer on Oct 8, 2010 10:08:51 GMT -6
Could a lot of this be solved if kids playing club would not have to stop playing club when they play high school.
I did not see it mentioned on this thread but Katy J, an 8th grader, was leading scorer for the Calvary HS women.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2010 13:22:43 GMT -6
Well, the conflict between club and high school is another subject altogether.
The way it has been approached is primarily from a logistical and administrative standpoint. There are LHSAA member schools that are k-12 or 7-12. Therefore those schools have one principal and junior high students are eligible to play varsity.
Some have also voiced their opposition due to the physical disparity between 8th graders and say, senior players.
With girls, it is less of an issue where physicality is concerned. Girls are usually fully grown by the 8th grade. (Generally speaking.) Boys, generally are not.
|
|
|
Post by bergkamp on Oct 8, 2010 15:18:51 GMT -6
Any player if he/she attend a school should be able to play Varsity. We see in girls soccer all the time. Many HS teams have few middle schoolers.
If the player is a stud and he is in 6th grade then he should be allowed to play if he meets all the the requirements.
|
|
|
Post by Mung on Oct 8, 2010 15:24:14 GMT -6
With girls, it is less of an issue where physicality is concerned. Girls are usually fully grown by the 8th grade. The boys are hoping they fill out a bit more. ;-) Having had 3 girls, I must agree that they are waaay more physically and mentally mature at the Jr High age than the boys. Some can play varsity, but usually at smaller schools with fewer players. I can't imagine a 5A school needing Jr High players. Of course, the schools that are K-12 or 7-12 tend to be in the smaller classifications.
|
|
90
Bench Warmer
Posts: 24
|
Post by 90 on Oct 8, 2010 16:08:17 GMT -6
No reason why not to let the boys play... They're needed for alot of small k-12 or 6-12 schools, etc, who do not have enough to have an adequate number of players... their are plenty of rules to protect every player... yes, it gets very aggressive, but the boys should know what they're getting into, they can probably see it in practice... and some 8th graders are key assets to many squads...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2010 14:01:31 GMT -6
Well, my feeling is that those who are good enough should be able to play.
Unfortunately, there are administrative issues preventing more (younger) players from participating.
Going to be interesting to see how this affects kids that are 'home schooled'. By that I mean how it will be handled administratively by the principals of member schools.
I have heard that home schoolers have to be at least "part time" students (taking 2 or 3 classes at the local high school) to be eligible to participate in school sports.
Sounds like a great compromise in theory. But how will academic eligibility be determined and managed by school administrators. Especially if half the courses are taught by mom?
How will academic eligibility be verified?
"Mrs. Smith, is little Johnny passing English lit?"
"Why yes, Mr. Principal!" "Look at the last paper he wrote!"
I don't know. It is hard enough keeping kids from smoking on campus. Yet they are somehow able to manage students eligibility that aren't even on campus full time?
|
|