High school notebook: New Big 10 Conference set | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3883937)

The biggest benefit of high school athletic conferences is for basketball scheduling purposes. So the newly formed Big 10 Conference is off to a good start.

Teams claiming 16 boys basketball state championships since 1998 are now in the same conference, which became official when Big 10 officials released the information to the media Tuesday morning.

Putnam City and Midwest City, which have four Class 6A titles each in the last 16 years — along with multiple runner-up finishes — are joined in the conference by Bishop McGuinness, which won seven 4A championships and the 2012 Class 5A title in that same span.

PC North, PC West, Del City, Choctaw, Enid, Lawton and Lawton Eisenhower are all a part of the conference, which has been in the works since the formation of the Central Oklahoma Athletic Conference in mid-August. That conference included the schools from Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, Mustang, Deer Creek and Stillwater.

The Big 10 Conference will begin play for the 2014-15 seasons.

I've gotta wonder what the significance the number "10" has?

Isn't it 10 high schools?

Yes, you are right. In my initial reading I was counting the schools in the other newly formed conference as well. There is that proof reading thing again that was brought up earlier by Kevin. Thanks

It's not online yet and I got my Atlantic magazine in the mail just two hours ago, but the cover in big bold type:
"How Sports Are Ruining High School"
The Real Reason U.S. Students Are Falling Behind

October issue.

The cover photo is striking. It shows a football player in uniform colliding into a student with a textbook and papers flying everywhere.

When is the last time you saw 10,000 fans at a spelling bee?

It's now online. Since I brought it up, I thought I should post the link.

The Case Against High-School Sports
The United States routinely spends more tax dollars per high-school athlete than per high-school math student—unlike most countries worldwide. And we wonder why we lag in international education rankings?
The Case Against High-School Sports - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/)

No matter how you feel, this article is serious food for thought.

I think there are a lot of intangibles (mostly good) that result from high school sports.

I think there are a lot of intangibles (mostly good) that result from high school sports.

Did you read the article? I think it presented a case that the intangibles in high school sports are (these days) mostly bad. Most every country in the world thinks our pitting individual schools against each other in competitive sports is just plain strange. And to go so crazy about it that priorities are obviously way out of whack. I've learned a lot lately about how the U.S. is unique in this aspect. Yet, as the writer points out, it's never discussed in polite company when trying to figure out why our schools rank somewhere around 25 in math and science. I was glad to see a bold cover story like this one from The Atlantic. It's time for this country to have a very difficult family table talk.

I'll read it eventually, but I'm with Dubya61. However, it depends on the school and coaching staff. I was fortunate enough to have coaches who cared about personal & educational growth as well. The number one lesson I learned from HS sports was accountability.

It is an interesting topic though, one that I'm sure is extremely polarizing. zookeeper, did you play HS sports?

I would be more than happy if we removed most of the connection between schools and sports. I would much prefer private athletic leagues where parents pay the cost of playing and the only relationship to a school would be the verification of 'good academic standing'. And before anyone cries, what about the kids in poverty who can't afford it. My answer to that is that not playing sports and focusing on academics is what these kids should be doing in the first place. They aren't going to change their station in life with sports - but they can with education.

The US will never actually make education a real priority. We will talk and talk and talk about it until we're blue in the face, but nothing will change.

JTF, In some areas, that's happening already, but not for the reason you want. Many club teams don't want their players playing on school teams for fear of injury.

If anything, I think club sports is more of a detriment than the school sports. Club teams and coaches have zero interest in anything other than the kids development and benefit to the pay for play club team.

At least with school sports, there are limits and rules in place on practice and dedicated time to the activity.


My answer to that is that not playing sports and focusing on academics is what these kids should be doing in the first place. They aren't going to change their station in life with sports - but they can with education.

Tell that to the poor kid who is already making outstanding grades and wants to play sports.

Good discussion, but with most topics about education, there is a bunch of gray area. The article is about funding for sports and how it compares to other school funding. I thought we've learned that throwing money at this problem isn't always the solution?

While "throwing money at the problem isn't always the solution", you can't use this canard as an excuse to not fund adequately. Drivers ed is now predominantly a pay for extra. Does the community benefit more from a population of young people who have had driver ed or from a very limited number of kids who got to play sports for free? There are more kids who need to drive than those who play sports. Accountability can be learned from part time employment just as much if not more so than from playing on a high school team.

Did you read the article? I think it presented a case that the intangibles in high school sports are (these days) mostly bad. Most every country in the world thinks our pitting individual schools against each other in competitive sports is just plain strange. And to go so crazy about it that priorities are obviously way out of whack. I've learned a lot lately about how the U.S. is unique in this aspect. Yet, as the writer points out, it's never discussed in polite company when trying to figure out why our schools rank somewhere around 25 in math and science. I was glad to see a bold cover story like this one from The Atlantic. It's time for this country to have a very difficult family table talk.

I did read it (and re-read it to see what you think I missed), and stand by my statement. Google the term "benefits of high school sports" and you find team building, location affiliation, etc. I don't believe the author of the article addressed the intangibles except to say that they were generally good things. I think the author's biggest problem with high school sports was the financial cost.

It's a huge financial cost that benefits a very select few.

that benefits a very select few.

debatable

I'm guessing this argument is going to be split by who played (and benefited from HS sports) and those who didn't, just a hunch.


While "throwing money at the problem isn't always the solution", you can't use this canard as an excuse to not fund adequately.

Agreed, but that's not what I was getting at.

I'm guessing this argument is going to be split by who played (and benefited from HS sports) and those who didn't, just a hunch.


I played multiple HS sports, but I tend to agree that schools put way too much focus on sports and not enough on education.

I won't argue that, but not to the point I advocate getting rid of high school sports.

I just can't figure out why this thread was hijacked, instead of starting a new one.

That being said, most local schools the sports and other non-academic activities are self supporting. If you had kids in those programs, you'd know that. Activity fees up the wazoo, from a few hundred for band, to up to $1000 for football players.

I'm not for getting rid of HS sports, I am against the idea that those who benefit do not shoulder the cost, especially if the cost is borne by those that do not benefit.

I'm not for getting rid of HS sports, I am against the idea that those who benefit do not shoulder the cost, especially if the cost is borne by those that do not benefit.

I do not believe that only the active participants (players) benefit from the sports programs.

I won't argue that, but not to the point I advocate getting rid of high school sports.

I agree.

I'm not for getting rid of HS sports...

Maybe we need to make a new thread because I would like to makes some comments that will blow this thread out of the water and take us way off course.

to up to $1000 for football players.

Not in my experience. The only thing my parents ever had to purchase were personal things like gloves. We even had cleats purchased for us by the school. Same for basketball.

Not in my experience. The only thing my parents ever had to purchase were personal things like gloves. We even had cleats purchased for us by the school. Same for basketball.

Certainly things vary between districts, and change over time. When I went to school they didn't have these fees. As a parent of two teenagers now, I'm finding they do. I'd be shocked if the "School" purchased the cleats (and such) rather than the boosters though. Even when I was in school, the boosters were very, very active. There's also a reason why you see all those car washes and mattress sales.

I know in Edmond, for example, even using a bus for a game requires the boosters to pay for the bus and the driver.

Maybe we need to make a new thread because I would like to makes some comments that will blow this thread out of the water and take us way off course.

Just go ahead and let it flow, I'm sure you're just itching to blast those of us who support high school athletics :)