SoCalHoops Recruiting News

Point-Counterpoint:  Old School vs.
New School--Is There Really A Choice?--(Jan 6, 2001)

Two very interesting articles today, one in the San Bernardino County Sun by Paul Oberjuerge, the paper's sports editor,  and the other, a contrasting view, in today's Los Angeles Times, written by prep sports editor Eric Sondheimer.  Do these guys talk to each other before they come up with their columns?  Seems so....and even if they didn't, the irony is that they wrote about the same subject on the same day from slightly differing perspectives, affording us the opportunity to examine the underlying premise contained in each piece,  i.e., what exactly is the role of "big-time" sports at the high school level, and is there really any place for it within, as Eric Sondheimer calls it, "the system?" 

While Mr. Oberjuerge's story about San Bernardino Eisenhower, ranked as the No. 1 team in the county and on the verge of becoming a national power, is a bit tongue in cheek (including the reference to "breathless mentions in socalhoops.com."---hey, we've never been "breathless" at least not that we know of....),  he concedes that there really are two different levels of high school sports, i.e., the "old way" of games at the neighborhood school's local gym, a local tournament or two, high school cheerleaders, parents and fans watching games at home, and the "new" way, the one in which high school teams turn into traveling road-shows, playing "against People From Anywhere But Here."

It's the latter, the "big-time"  that Mr. Sondheimer rails against, and for the all but the most cynical of parents, teachers, fans, and high school coaches, it's hard to argue against the fact that there just seems to be something palpably wrong with the concept that players in their high school years should move from school to school for reasons which seem to have nothing to do with academics, and instead revolve around athletics....But the perception these days, which some would argue is more than just perception, i.e., the reality, is that if a player even wants to be considered as a walk-on at a Division I program (forget about discussing how to become one of the rare scholarship players...if you even have to ask about transferring, then you really don't get "it"), that player had better play for a high-profile program, one where kids are put under intense game pressure, playing not just against the kids over at the next school in the same suburb (who they are expected to crush when required to play them in something as quaint as a "league" game), but against the best there is, wherever the "best" may happen to be.

The perception that only the "best" competition will truly prepare a player and a team, isn't new, and it's certainly not a view that is dispelled quickly by any NCAA Division I coach or recruiter.   College coaches (who according to the NABC now want to be called "teacher-coaches") are always looking for bigger, better, stronger, and faster players, and many don't care whether a player just manages to meet NCAA minimum freshman eligibility or whether he's got a 4.5 GPA and a 1300 SAT.    "Can he defend?"  "Can he help me win, now?"  "Is he big enough, fast enough?"  "Will he get me fired?"   Unfortunately, these are the questions that are most often asked, and if the truth be told, it's the colleges and universities, particularly the "big time" programs, with high-salaried coaches, who have turned college sports into a breeding ground for the pros, and the trickle down effect has been seen in high school athletics for the past decade. When a college coach is making more than a  medical doctor, or a garbage collector, or a judge, or nurse, or you name it, is it any wonder that, we see what we see at the high school level?  Aided by changes in the educational system, including open enrollment and what many would call their right in a free society to exercise their choice in which school to attend, why not "go for it"?    

If little Johnny or Susie wants to be a concert violinist, then why not go to a school that will foster that goal,  and help make it a reality, rather than stay at a school which has a terrible orchestra, or an erratic music program, and which won't help Johnny or Susie achieve their goal?    If Bobby or Debbie want to become chemists, doesn't it make sense to find a school that will help them achieve that, rather than staying at a school which has a barely functioning chemistry lab? Why not indeed....If a player wants to play college football, is there really any truth to the view that playing in a bigger and better program than the one at Harvard-Westlake will help the player achieve his goal?  Will it matter in the long run? Do college coaches really look only at big-time programs for big-time players?   Mr. Sondheimer would argue "No, if a player is good enough, it doesn't matter where he goes to school," and for a certain level of athlete, the Casey Jacobsens (ok, bad example, his family moved him too, right?) or the Gilbert Arenases of the world, that's probably true... But try telling that to the kid who is toiling in a program which never goes anywhere, never gets to the playoffs, or is a perennial doormat.  This same kid may want to extend his playing career beyond high school, and everyone he talks to, from high school coaches, to college coaches will tell him that "big time is big time" and if he wants to play for them, he'd better "get serious."   "Want to play at the next level?"   they ask.   " Then you'd better act like it now!".  

Right or wrong, perceived or imagined, that's the way things seem to have developed.  But don't blame the kids.   Don't blame the parents, and don't blame the high school coaches who happen to accept a kid who enrolls at their high school.  They're not alone, and they didn't necessarily create the "system".  Blame the NCAA if you want to blame anyone, and blame a culture that glorifies professional athletes, who "earn" salaries that are so disproportionate to anything bearing a resemblance to anything that provides any socially redeeming value, that it ought to be a national joke....instead it's going to be our national tragedy, a legacy of kids left with disillusionment and frustrated and angry parents, who "act out" on the courts and hockey fields, an eventually, like the guy who "acted in self-defense" finally succumb to the madness and kill someone because little Johnny got bumped during a "skate-around." 

If this is what it's come to, then we all ought to be ashamed, and we all ought to look in the mirror.  And to the extent that Mr. Oberjuerge even jokes about "breathless mentions in socalhoops.com," implying that we've become a part of the problem, we want to say, in all seriousness, that aside from writing about scores of games and players, that we've cautioned for years against the over-glorification of athletics over academics.   Division I is not for everyone, in fact it's for just a few;  there's far more to life after high school for most athletes, including Division II, III, NAIA and   JUCO.....For everyone, the ball eventually stops bouncing.  The degree, for all but the few, is where it's at.

Mr. Sondheimer's piece focuses on two players, one an outgoing transfer (well, he's leaving Harvard-Westlake in Studio City for Muir in Pasadena), and another who has transferred from Tennessee to Montclair Prep, a school located in Van Nuys which has had its share problems over the years involving transfers for athletic reasons.  Sondheimer concludes that transfers are a problem, one that "compromise the integrity of sport."  Oberjuerge, on the other hand,  somewhat tongue in cheek, is at least willing to recognize the new reality for what it is. And perhaps these two pieces have more in common than not.... Decide for yourselves. Here are the two pieces, side by side (we've linked to them so you can check the originals....)

 
©Copyright SoCalHoops 1997-2002
All rights reserved
Contact: jegesq@SoCalHoops.com