|
On November 21 2011 08:50 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 08:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
Why is this a question of competition fairness?
Would it be fairer to tell the boys they can't swim, period? Cause that sounds way more unfair to them.
High school sports aren't all about competition and winning. If the boys can't swim because they don't have enough members for a boys-only swim team, then this situation is the best way to accommodate them. To tell them they can't compete because it would be unfair would actually be pretty ironic. No one is saying this. There are accommodations that can be made, but for whatever reason the school/state organization is not making them. In my state there are schools that "coop" smaller sports, pooling the two schools together for the purposes of competition. The boys could compete for another school and could even continue training in their own pool with the girl's team if they wished (although if the transportation wasn't too inconvenient it would be preferable for them to train with the team they will be competing for).
No, not always. All of those things cost money, which obviously no one has right now.
|
this is just something unavoidable and that school has a major advantage now, and so be it. it sucks but it is unavoidable
|
On November 21 2011 10:02 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 08:50 Runnin wrote:On November 21 2011 08:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
Why is this a question of competition fairness?
Would it be fairer to tell the boys they can't swim, period? Cause that sounds way more unfair to them.
High school sports aren't all about competition and winning. If the boys can't swim because they don't have enough members for a boys-only swim team, then this situation is the best way to accommodate them. To tell them they can't compete because it would be unfair would actually be pretty ironic. No one is saying this. There are accommodations that can be made, but for whatever reason the school/state organization is not making them. In my state there are schools that "coop" smaller sports, pooling the two schools together for the purposes of competition. The boys could compete for another school and could even continue training in their own pool with the girl's team if they wished (although if the transportation wasn't too inconvenient it would be preferable for them to train with the team they will be competing for). No, not always. All of those things cost money, which obviously no one has right now.
Cooperative do not cost money. They save money for the schools in question, allowing them to effectively provide athletics for the student bases of two schools for the cost of one. Two schools of boys get access to swimming, but the cost remains the same of paying one coach, one bus for the team, etc.
A quick glance on the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association website lead to what I believe is the problem.
On this page regarding cooperative teams, (http://www.miaa.net/contentm/easy_pages/view.php?sid=38&page_id=61) it states that a cooperative team proposal may be rejected if it is deemed to "deny opportunity to students at the host school".
Cooperative requests are not granted if one school has sufficient participation to support a varsity program. Even though their were no “cuts” made during the previous two years, students from School B were taking time and opportunity away from students at the host school.
I am willing to bet that this school was denied a request for a cooperative team on this basis. So the boys only option at this point was to use this loophole to join the girls team - this is not the boys fault. The failures here are the people at MIAA who refused the coop on the basis of "taking time and opportunity away from students at the host school". So instead, time, opportunity, and competitive fairness is taken away from the girls competition. It is completely backwards and a monstrosity of a situation created by the MIAA.
|
a mod should really change the title or something..it sounds like boys are dressing up as girls swimming, but instead its about boys competing in a girls swim team because of funding of the school.
really just came here with a huge wtf, but read the OP n it was totally different then what the title said.
|
On November 21 2011 08:18 BlackJack wrote:
I'm late to the thread - does anyone know if Title IX is involved in this in any way?
Title IX only works in a sense that if you have a "boys sport" such as football then you must also have a "girls sport" such as volleyball. A lot of High School sports have a boys and girls team for a lot of sports (basketball, baseball, etc). The only way Title IX could possibly be involved is that since the school has a girl's swim team but no boy's swim team they need to have a boy's team for some other sport.
|
On November 21 2011 10:18 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 10:02 wherebugsgo wrote:On November 21 2011 08:50 Runnin wrote:On November 21 2011 08:41 wherebugsgo wrote:
Why is this a question of competition fairness?
Would it be fairer to tell the boys they can't swim, period? Cause that sounds way more unfair to them.
High school sports aren't all about competition and winning. If the boys can't swim because they don't have enough members for a boys-only swim team, then this situation is the best way to accommodate them. To tell them they can't compete because it would be unfair would actually be pretty ironic. No one is saying this. There are accommodations that can be made, but for whatever reason the school/state organization is not making them. In my state there are schools that "coop" smaller sports, pooling the two schools together for the purposes of competition. The boys could compete for another school and could even continue training in their own pool with the girl's team if they wished (although if the transportation wasn't too inconvenient it would be preferable for them to train with the team they will be competing for). No, not always. All of those things cost money, which obviously no one has right now. Cooperative do not cost money. They save money for the schools in question, allowing them to effectively provide athletics for the student bases of two schools for the cost of one. Two schools of boys get access to swimming, but the cost remains the same of paying one coach, one bus for the team, etc. A quick glance on the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association website lead to what I believe is the problem. On this page regarding cooperative teams, (http://www.miaa.net/contentm/easy_pages/view.php?sid=38&page_id=61) it states that a cooperative team proposal may be rejected if it is deemed to "deny opportunity to students at the host school". Show nested quote +Cooperative requests are not granted if one school has sufficient participation to support a varsity program. Even though their were no “cuts” made during the previous two years, students from School B were taking time and opportunity away from students at the host school. I am willing to bet that this school was denied a request for a cooperative team on this basis. So the boys only option at this point was to use this loophole to join the girls team - this is not the boys fault. The failures here are the people at MIAA who refused the coop on the basis of "taking time and opportunity away from students at the host school". So instead, time, opportunity, and competitive fairness is taken away from the girls competition. It is completely backwards and a monstrosity of a situation created by the MIAA.
At my high school, we had a cooperative in place for academics; we didn't have enough students for certain classes, so we pooled with other schools so that certain classes could be offered. We had a satellite campus, essentially, where five schools from nearby districts would send students.
While it's true that this would save money over each school having its own individual offering of a particular course/sport, it doesn't save money over simply taking an existing team and then putting the boys into it.
Taking the girls team and putting boys on it probably costs next to nothing. Running a cooperative team would actually cost something, regardless of how you look at it. It saves money over having separate teams, but when you don't have separate teams in the first place it costs more.
|
I'm not sure what the additional cost would be other than transporting the students to the other school. True, it's more than nothing, but it's a small cost compared to ruining the competition for the girls. I am guessing that the school in question is more than willing to accommodate their students at this small cost, but had their petition to coop denied by the MIAA.
|
You'd be surprised at how much bussing students actually costs. That was the single most expensive item on my school's marching band budget, even though we routinely dealt with instruments that cost thousands of dollars.
|
On November 21 2011 10:33 Runnin wrote:
I'm not sure what the additional cost would be other than transporting the students to the other school. True, it's more than nothing, but it's a small cost compared to ruining the competition for the girls. I am guessing that the school in question is more than willing to accommodate their students at this small cost, but had their petition to coop denied by the MIAA.
What are you talking about? It doesn't seem like the competition was ruined, after all it was a girl who won the meet.
|
On November 21 2011 10:34 wherebugsgo wrote:
You'd be surprised at how much bussing students actually costs. That was the single most expensive item on my school's marching band budget, even though we routinely dealt with instruments that cost thousands of dollars.
Very true. However with only a few students to bus, a full-size is not needed. I'm not sure about this school district, but my high school had a few smaller, 10-12 person shuttles that were used for things like this. If that's not an option, we already know that these boys have access to a pool, so there isn't necessarily a need to shuttle them, it would just be nice for the team aspect to train together. They could continue to work out at their school, with their girls team and possibly e-mailed workouts from the coach, and join up with the host school for competition purposes.
|
On November 21 2011 10:35 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 10:33 Runnin wrote:
I'm not sure what the additional cost would be other than transporting the students to the other school. True, it's more than nothing, but it's a small cost compared to ruining the competition for the girls. I am guessing that the school in question is more than willing to accommodate their students at this small cost, but had their petition to coop denied by the MIAA. What are you talking about? It doesn't seem like the competition was ruined, after all it was a girl who won the meet.
What are you talking about? Just because an incredible female athlete won the meet over a male does not mean that the competition was fair or not ruined for the other girls at the meet or the girl who lost her spot in the finals due to the boy being in the meet.
|
On November 21 2011 10:39 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 10:35 overt wrote:On November 21 2011 10:33 Runnin wrote:
I'm not sure what the additional cost would be other than transporting the students to the other school. True, it's more than nothing, but it's a small cost compared to ruining the competition for the girls. I am guessing that the school in question is more than willing to accommodate their students at this small cost, but had their petition to coop denied by the MIAA. What are you talking about? It doesn't seem like the competition was ruined, after all it was a girl who won the meet. What are you talking about? Just because an incredible female athlete won the meet over a male does not mean that the competition was fair or not ruined for the other girls at the meet or the girl who lost her spot in the finals due to the boy being in the meet.
What about the boy who can't get on the wrestling team because a girl beat him out? Or the girls who wants to play football and now a boy can't play? You can't have it both ways. In an ideal world we'd have High School sports for both sexes, including a boys swim team and a girls wrestling team. But we don't live in an ideal world. They need funding and they need interest.
If the school doesn't have a boys swim team it's likely that it's due to lack of interest to run a team or lack of funding. Or potentially both factors. It's the reason why there aren't boys volleyball teams or girls football teams in America. So yes, while it would be fantastic if we could have a boys swim team at this school it's likely that they don't have the funding or the interest to justify a boys swim team. I guess you could change the law but then you'd have to ask if it's fair to tell a boy he can't swim for his school or tell a girl she can't play football for her school.
If it was as easy as making a boys swim team they would've done so years ago.
|
There were girls on a few of the boy's water polo teams when I was in HS. Wasn't a huge deal other than they were a lot more vicious than the guys in terms of scratching with nails etc... not good memories of having giant red lines all the way down my back after games with them.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On November 21 2011 10:47 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 10:39 Runnin wrote:On November 21 2011 10:35 overt wrote:On November 21 2011 10:33 Runnin wrote:
I'm not sure what the additional cost would be other than transporting the students to the other school. True, it's more than nothing, but it's a small cost compared to ruining the competition for the girls. I am guessing that the school in question is more than willing to accommodate their students at this small cost, but had their petition to coop denied by the MIAA. What are you talking about? It doesn't seem like the competition was ruined, after all it was a girl who won the meet. What are you talking about? Just because an incredible female athlete won the meet over a male does not mean that the competition was fair or not ruined for the other girls at the meet or the girl who lost her spot in the finals due to the boy being in the meet. What about the boy who can't get on the wrestling team because a girl beat him out? Or the girls who wants to play football and now a boy can't play?
That can't be so hard to understand, can it?
|
On November 21 2011 10:47 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 10:39 Runnin wrote:On November 21 2011 10:35 overt wrote:On November 21 2011 10:33 Runnin wrote:
I'm not sure what the additional cost would be other than transporting the students to the other school. True, it's more than nothing, but it's a small cost compared to ruining the competition for the girls. I am guessing that the school in question is more than willing to accommodate their students at this small cost, but had their petition to coop denied by the MIAA. What are you talking about? It doesn't seem like the competition was ruined, after all it was a girl who won the meet. What are you talking about? Just because an incredible female athlete won the meet over a male does not mean that the competition was fair or not ruined for the other girls at the meet or the girl who lost her spot in the finals due to the boy being in the meet. What about the boy who can't get on the wrestling team because a girl beat him out? Or the girls who wants to play football and now a boy can't play? You can't have it both ways. In an ideal world we'd have High School sports for both sexes, including a boys swim team and a girls wrestling team. But we don't live in an ideal world. They need funding and they need interest. If the school doesn't have a boys swim team it's likely that it's due to lack of interest to run a team or lack of funding. Or potentially both factors. It's the reason why there aren't boys volleyball teams or girls football teams in America. So yes, while it would be fantastic if we could have a boys swim team at this school it's likely that they don't have the funding or the interest to justify a boys swim team. I guess you could change the law but then you'd have to ask if it's fair to tell a boy he can't swim for his school or tell a girl she can't play football for her school. If it was as easy as making a boys swim team they would've done so years ago.
There are ways to allow the boys to compete without taking anything away from the girls. Coops, separate heats, etc.
You're right that ideally we'd have teams for both genders in every sport. I agree with you there. The difference between girls taking boys spots is that the girls are overcoming a disadvantage to take that spot. An insanely talented girl might take a football spot from a mediocre boy, but he will still hopefully get an opportunity on a JV team and was at least given the chance to earn his spot at a tryout, which is preferable to denying the girl any opportunity whatsoever. In this case, a mediocre male swimmer is taking accolades and attention away from top notch female swimmers. I understand that boys losing spots to these girls is less than ideal, but as you said this world isn't ideal and this is the better of the two options.
|
On November 21 2011 11:07 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 10:47 overt wrote:On November 21 2011 10:39 Runnin wrote:On November 21 2011 10:35 overt wrote:On November 21 2011 10:33 Runnin wrote:
I'm not sure what the additional cost would be other than transporting the students to the other school. True, it's more than nothing, but it's a small cost compared to ruining the competition for the girls. I am guessing that the school in question is more than willing to accommodate their students at this small cost, but had their petition to coop denied by the MIAA. What are you talking about? It doesn't seem like the competition was ruined, after all it was a girl who won the meet. What are you talking about? Just because an incredible female athlete won the meet over a male does not mean that the competition was fair or not ruined for the other girls at the meet or the girl who lost her spot in the finals due to the boy being in the meet. What about the boy who can't get on the wrestling team because a girl beat him out? Or the girls who wants to play football and now a boy can't play? You can't have it both ways. In an ideal world we'd have High School sports for both sexes, including a boys swim team and a girls wrestling team. But we don't live in an ideal world. They need funding and they need interest. If the school doesn't have a boys swim team it's likely that it's due to lack of interest to run a team or lack of funding. Or potentially both factors. It's the reason why there aren't boys volleyball teams or girls football teams in America. So yes, while it would be fantastic if we could have a boys swim team at this school it's likely that they don't have the funding or the interest to justify a boys swim team. I guess you could change the law but then you'd have to ask if it's fair to tell a boy he can't swim for his school or tell a girl she can't play football for her school. If it was as easy as making a boys swim team they would've done so years ago. There are ways to allow the boys to compete without taking anything away from the girls. Coops, separate heats, etc. You're right that ideally we'd have teams for both genders in every sport. I agree with you there. The difference between girls taking boys spots is that the girls are overcoming a disadvantage to take that spot. An insanely talented girl might take a football spot from a mediocre boy, but he will still hopefully get an opportunity on a JV team and was at least given the chance to earn his spot at a tryout, which is preferable to denying the girl any opportunity whatsoever. In this case, a mediocre male swimmer is taking accolades and attention away from top notch female swimmers. I understand that boys losing spots to these girls is less than ideal, but as you said this world isn't ideal and this is the better of the two options.
If the males in this swimming competition are mediocre, then how are the taking wins away from a supposedly top notch female? You are arguing against your own point, and it's kind of funny to see you do it. By your definition, males are biologically superior to females from the start, and that's how they can be sub par yet still win.
|
On November 21 2011 09:58 Runnin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 09:57 Marcus420 wrote:
It clearly says they dont have a boys league. Its not their fault they have too, they have no other option to do what they love. Are you implying that there is no boys swimming in that state? Other posts "clearly say" that there are other options that do not ruin the competition for females.
No? Sorry, maybe they dont have a car or something to make it to the next city where there is a "boys team". I never implyed that at all.
|
On November 21 2011 11:13 TheToaster wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:07 Runnin wrote:On November 21 2011 10:47 overt wrote:On November 21 2011 10:39 Runnin wrote:On November 21 2011 10:35 overt wrote:On November 21 2011 10:33 Runnin wrote:
I'm not sure what the additional cost would be other than transporting the students to the other school. True, it's more than nothing, but it's a small cost compared to ruining the competition for the girls. I am guessing that the school in question is more than willing to accommodate their students at this small cost, but had their petition to coop denied by the MIAA. What are you talking about? It doesn't seem like the competition was ruined, after all it was a girl who won the meet. What are you talking about? Just because an incredible female athlete won the meet over a male does not mean that the competition was fair or not ruined for the other girls at the meet or the girl who lost her spot in the finals due to the boy being in the meet. What about the boy who can't get on the wrestling team because a girl beat him out? Or the girls who wants to play football and now a boy can't play? You can't have it both ways. In an ideal world we'd have High School sports for both sexes, including a boys swim team and a girls wrestling team. But we don't live in an ideal world. They need funding and they need interest. If the school doesn't have a boys swim team it's likely that it's due to lack of interest to run a team or lack of funding. Or potentially both factors. It's the reason why there aren't boys volleyball teams or girls football teams in America. So yes, while it would be fantastic if we could have a boys swim team at this school it's likely that they don't have the funding or the interest to justify a boys swim team. I guess you could change the law but then you'd have to ask if it's fair to tell a boy he can't swim for his school or tell a girl she can't play football for her school. If it was as easy as making a boys swim team they would've done so years ago. There are ways to allow the boys to compete without taking anything away from the girls. Coops, separate heats, etc. You're right that ideally we'd have teams for both genders in every sport. I agree with you there. The difference between girls taking boys spots is that the girls are overcoming a disadvantage to take that spot. An insanely talented girl might take a football spot from a mediocre boy, but he will still hopefully get an opportunity on a JV team and was at least given the chance to earn his spot at a tryout, which is preferable to denying the girl any opportunity whatsoever. In this case, a mediocre male swimmer is taking accolades and attention away from top notch female swimmers. I understand that boys losing spots to these girls is less than ideal, but as you said this world isn't ideal and this is the better of the two options. If the males in this swimming competition are mediocre, then how are the taking wins away from a supposedly top notch female? You are arguing against your own point, and it's kind of funny to see you do it. By your definition, males are biologically superior to females from the start, and that's how they can be sub par yet still win. Yes, and he's right. The males in this swimming competition are near the top of their female competition (as witness their times). However, they are mediocre by comparison to the top-notch male competition ("").
|
Swimming isn't too bad I suppose. If this were American football or something there might be some issues. As for this though, it's just funny.
|
are sports in the US always centered around the highschool?
All this mixing of scholarships, highschool, competetive sports, hobbies seems awefully inapropiate.
We have all kinds of clubs here where you can join if you are interested at something.
Noone is forced to join competitions, you have the ability to do so, but none of that affects education.
I always trained swimming with girls/women, but ofc in competitions i swam against other guys. Its silly not to as its about individual ability. There was almost no other male in my hometown that was my age and was interested in swimming, but this system works well enough to still allow me to do my favorite sport (which requires an expensive location and trained lifeguards and trainers) in a small town.
anyways, it is wrong to let males and females compete together in swimming, but its also wrong to not let males wim if females have that possibility. I dont get why males and females cant just be seperated in a competition, its individual anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
