Just say no, show some values. Lacrosse is a small part of your sons life. Teach him what’s important, or don’t, it’s up to you to parent him. Don’t judge others, just do what you tho k is right. That’s all I’m saying. If you can’t do that, you’re not much of a dad.
Maybe you should tell (HS coaches, youth league board members, Athletic Directors, School Administrators and BOE members) to do the right thing. School sports should not be pay to play. There is an obvious conflict of interest. Parents and players in public school districts should not have to deal with the BS.
Let me guess. If the coach didn’t do any off-season stuff you would be the first one to come on this forum and complain that he doesn’t do enough and doesn’t care about the program.
Exactly. Fall ball gives teams an opportunity to gel before the season starts and also gives underclassmen exposure at recruiting events. Players sometimes play better team lacrosse with the boys they are familiar with as opposed to club where there may not be cohesion and a lot of selfish play.
So, what exactly is "Fall Ball" is it the varsity? (there have not been any tryouts yet). Who is invited? How do the coaches determine who is invited to play? Is it the Summer "Pay to Play for profit" town/HS team? Who is invited to play? What is the cost? Who profits? If it is a recruiting event is their equal playing time? Are the coaches playing to win or does everyone get to play so they can be seen?
As far as complaining about the HS coaches not doing anything in the off season give it a rest. Coaches are using their position to enrich themselves on the backs of the players. They are not operating in the free marked they are being enabled by the BOE, School Administration, Athletic Directors, butt kissing parents and youth league parents.
Big conflict of interest when HS Coaches are profiting for any out of season games, practices, tournaments, training etc...
-------------
Definition of Coercion:
"The broad definition of coercion is "the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will." Actual violence, threats of violence, or other acts of pressure may constitute coercion if they're used to subvert an individual's free will or consent.
In legal terms, it's often said that someone who's been coerced was acting under duress. In fact, "duress" and "coercion" are often interchanged. Black's Law Dictionary defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or to refrain from acting] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."
It's not always easy to tell when the line between subtle intimidation and coercion has been crossed and even harder to prove. A shrewd business negotiation may be considered contract coercion only if it can be proven that it was signed under duress. Similarly, proving criminal coercion (or duress) rests on the surrounding facts of the incident and may be quite subtle. For example, telling someone "Gee, I'd detest for something to happen to your daughter" is technically vague even when it's said with coercive intent."
--------------
"Well son, if you want a shot at playing on the varsity you have to first play for my summer team (that will cost your parents thousands of dollars...). I know your parents have four kids but hay, if you want to play you have to pay."
If you can not see that there is a conflict of interest and that it is wrong you are not being honest.
