Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Powderfinger
I think half the problem is that the expectation of kids playing on certain teams "or else" is implicit. Maybe I'm wrong, and tell me if I am, but are coaches outright telling kids/parents that if they don't play on X team then they won't see playing time on the school team?

It's hard to attack something deniable. That just turns into he said/she said, with the coach claiming that Y kid doesn't play because he's/she's not as good as the player on the coach's club team.


That fact that can even be a discussion about the motive tells you it is an improper situation. It puts the kids in a very uncomfortable position. I have seen similar situations in soccer where the school AD allowed school coach to coach/train for $ on the outside, but was prohbited training and coaching kids from that district. That was one districts solution to a bad problem. Maybe each AD should take a look at this as a solution, although I feel it should be enforced on an even higher level.


I give credit for that AD on taking a stand. Most of these Coaches are well entrenched within the district and most AD and school administrators turn a blind eye to the situation. what is the higher level? local section as mentioned earlier or state.


This instance was brought about internally where other coaches looking to get in or replace coach were squaking to the AD. It was an easy agreement between that coach and AD because the teams and players he was working with were from other towns anyway. So it was more of a don't take any from the school district, so it wasn't any really big stand by the AD. But at least it proves the point that this type of cross relationship is in conflict.