Study Finds Wealthy HS's Win More Championships

This is the link to the full Charlotte Observer article:

http://www.charlotteobserver.c...article28760731.html

 

Success breeds success.

Studies have shown that kids who have parents with money get more things than the one's that don't.

 

Studies have also shown that the decisions a person makes while growing up will not only impact their life but their childrens lives.

 

Those studies were conducted by me while I walked through this world the last 56 years.

I have a few studies of my own quite similar

Yeah. I am a real "Master of the obvious".

Hmmm, waiting for the study to see if kids growing up in Minnesota are more successful in getting ice hockey scholarships than kids growing up in Florida.  I await with bated breath . . . . 

 

Here's another one that isn't sports specific, but regarding successful kids in general:

 

 http://www.businessinsider.com...p-for-success-2015-8

National Federation of State High School Associations, says the gap between the haves and have-nots is spreading to sports such as volleyball, baseball, lacrosse, softball and soccer."

 

What do these sports have in common?  Expensive facilities and cultural acceptance.

 

Expensive facilities are a barrier to participation but cultural acceptance slams the door on it. 

 

The best athletes in the US gravitate to two sports - football and basketball.  For example at the Power 5 conferences where the very best college athletes are generally congregated, it is safe to say that if you wanted to find the best 40 athletes on the campus you might have a breakdown like : 10 Basketball, 25 Football, 3/4 Track and 1/2 Baseball.  At some places you might have swimming or wrestlers or a few more track guys but this breakdown is probably representative. 

 

Perhaps the greatest lacrosse player that ever lived played it as a hobby at Syracuse, his name was Jim Brown.  Could you imagine Adrian Peterson as a lacrosse player or centerfielder?  Today Willie Mays and Hank Aaron would be DB's or RB's or a shooting guard and not outfielders.

 

The premise is wrong.  Rather than asking if Money is the reason for success, it is the lack of competition from places that have better athletes doesn't exist - because they don't participate.

 

In my area we have a HS football powerhouse that has been rated Nationally in the top 25 regularly in the last 10 years and on ESPN multiple times.  When my son was in HS they could not win a baseball game.  They got a new coach that knows his stuff and he has been in a slow building process for 5 or 6 years.  They are competitive now and might finally break through if he can pull enough of the football guys that won't play to the baseball field now that they can win.  If he stays and that happens, I suspect they will become a baseball power for a long time. 

 

It would be the text book case for addressing the correct issue - participation not skill or money.

Best Indicator for success on SAT (to a positive highest score correlation) is not level of education of parents, or student GPA (though does correlate) or student took a "Prep" course. It's the income of family.

Luv, while I do partially agree with what you say and it is certainly a factor, I grow tired of how we define 'athlete' in America.  What can be more athletic than hitting a 92mph slider?  And I have said it before and will say it again, baseball players tend to look more at home in other sports than basketball or football players.  But the truth is different 'athletic' skills are needed in different sports.  I wish we could all drop the stereotype of what 'athletic' is.

Agreed, but money drives participation.  Poor people aren't playing golf, skiing, or playing most sports that require a groomed playing surface, facility or much equipment.

 

Wonder why soccer is the number one sport globally?  All you need is a fairly flat surface of any material and something resembling a ball.

John Kruk - Not an elite athlete by his own admission.  Bartolo Colon needs 8 seconds to run 180 feet.  Baseball is replete with odd shaped guys that have the unique skills to hit or throw a baseball. Not so in basketball and football.  Guys that are considered fat in those sports would be considered to be specimens in baseball. 

 

Athletic is defined by a combination size, speed and strength IMO.  By that measure baseball players just simply are not on the same plane by and large with their football and basketball counterparts.  There is nothing stereotypical about that.  It is a simple reality. 

 

The skills to excel at any given sport such as shooting a basketball, throwing a football accurately or hitting 92 MPH fastball will certainly disqualify most that try.  But raw athletic ability as a starting point helps significantly.  Otherwise there would be no Height/Weight measurements, 60 times, Bat Speed analysis etc. in baseball scouting events.

 

This site is replete with discussions about the 5'11" 170 lb. gutty righty throwing 88-90 getting no love while standing next to the 6'3" 195 lb. righty throwing the same.  He's bigger and will get stronger i.e. more athletic so his ceiling is higher. He's a better prospect almost everywhere.

 

I've said before that baseball fans love the Dustin Pedroia story because it fits the narrative that baseball somehow is exempt from the size/strength athlete paradigm and that he gets by on guts and determination.  A total disservice to Pedroia's tools in my opinion.  He has great tools which are then complemented by his effort.

 

Only game in town in places like Brazil, Argentina and Uraguay.  Plus the club system. 

 

Kids are picked off the street and sent to clubs at 10-11 years old by the hundreds and thousands world wide.  The small percentage that make it appear at the world cup and have professional careers.  The thousands that don't cut it are back in the ghettos at 20.

Imagine sending your Little Leaguer to the NY Yankees at 11.  It could never happen here but think about what is going on in the Caribbean in places like Venezuela and the Dominican Republic.  It is the same deal.  For the handful of guys that get off the island there are dozens and hundreds that never get out of the academies there.

 

In a less than lethal way they are gladiators of the 21st Century.  Amuse us with your skills and as soon as a better version appears, good bye.

The flushing sound you hwar is the rich school theory going down the drain. The following high school as an SAT of 1200+ (three tests). The graduation rate is 77%. The household income average is only 49k in one of Americas most expensive places to live (Boston).

 

All they do is win and win and win and ..... in football. The MIAA can engrave the trophy before the season starts and chances are it won't need to be changed. The conference trophy should be named after the high school. I think they've won every year for about fifteen years.

 

In the past couple of years they've been very good in basketball and baseball.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...hool_(Massachusetts)

 

i have no idea why the link won't work. I copied it right from the URL. If any cares it's Everett Highh School in MA On the wiki site.

       
       
As you stated that is your opinion.  And it IS a stereotype.  There are many different ways to be athletic.  And I am guessing a VERY high percentage of basketball players and football players would look absolutely ridiculous trying to hit a baseball.  As you state later in your post even baseball players need to be strong.  And most have to be reasonably fast.  Baseball players are incredible athletes with hand eye coordination that defies belief.

Athletes are athletes. There are certain skill sets that are required in some sports that are not required in others. Does it matter if anyone on football field can throw a football at all outside of the QB? Does it matter if anyone on a football field can hit a baseball? There are OL getting paid millions of dollars because they have great size, strength and quick feet for their size. Outside of that what is athletic about them? There are guys in MLB getting paid millions because they have the ability to throw a baseball. I think many would be surprised just how athletic your average college baseball player actually is. If there was one thing I think more young players should focus on is getting as athletic as they possibly can. It makes you a better player. 

2020 Dad - Size, strength and speed are the essence of athleticism and that really is not that debatable since it is a very commonly accepted concept.

 

I never said baseball players in general were not great athletes, they are.  What I said is that as a group compared to football and basketball players they are slower and not as strong and thus less athletic.  As Coach May points out more athletic players have an advantage which would get you thinking about guys like Trout, McCutcheon and Harper.  One of the things that makes them special in baseball is they have speed that is not common.

 

But to bring this back to the point of the thread - Why do wealthy schools win more Championships.  It is undeniable that there is low minority participation in many of the sports that are mentioned.  I attribute that to a cultural bias toward participation in football and basketball within those populations which is neither debatable or stereotypical, just factual.   Money and facilities are additional barriers but not insurmountable everywhere. 

 

The simple fact that excellent athletes never even consider playing baseball, lacrosse, volleyball etc. because they are not sports to play within their community should not be that controversial.  Hell Baseball has entire programs dedicated to trying to revive participation within minority communities.  If a bunch of out of touch dinosaurs like the baseball establishment recognize this fact - why wouldn't everyone else? 

 

More and more young baseball players are resembling   "athletes" in other sports. Trout could play a few other sports and be successful. Baseball at many levels is moving past the stage of pear shaped bodies and smoking in the dugout between innings, and closer to fine tuned athletes. Players are bigger,stronger and faster and in better condition now than just a few years ago. 

Yep.  The kids coming to the majors now are better physical specimens than say 10 years ago.  Trout could probably be a TE or maybe a DE a la JJ Watt.  Not an NBA prayer though he'd get blown away.  I am not sure there is a single player in MLB that would be even a marginal NBA prospect physically.

 

Got a laugh out of the smoking comment.  I remember a story about the 1986 Mets talking about Santana, Backman and Hernandez being Winston, Winston to Marlboro double play combo.

I'd love to see an NBA "combine" like they do in football, where 40 times, vertical jump, etc. are measured. I think you'd be surprised by how poorly the forwards and centers would do. ~4% of the population is 6'2" or over -- and virtually the entire NBA is drawn from that 4%. They are the greatest tall athletes in the world, but I'm not sure the big men are great athletes. The only reason Trout would get "blown away" in the NBA is because he is not tall enough -- his speed and vertical jump would match up extremely well with athletes in any sport. Have you seen this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZsIXoklsIQ

 

He is the size of a NBA point guard.  Guys like Paul, Curry and every other NBA point guard would run by him, jump over him and break his ankles.  Me might be able to push around a few of them but on the whole he'd be embarrassed.  Those guys are the best athletes of all. 

 

Some of the greatest athletes you never heard of are basketball guards that didn't make the NBA. 

Any professional level athlete is going to be exceptional....either with easy measurables like height, speed, 40 times, or with an elite skill level....probably both.  Looking at kids that play sports it will run the gambit from kids that stand out to kids that are having a good day to not tip over standing still.  

There is a reason it is rare for a person to be a multi sport athlete after high school.  Raw athletic ability is not enough.  Time commitment and ability to play and understand a game at a higher level in multiple sports just does not happen that often.  Pointing to world class athletes that have done this or very rare outliers really are the exceptions that prove the rule.  

As for the rich vs non rich schools, yeah, money matters.  

For example 4 schools where I live:  School 1 is a private school, expensive to attend.  

They have facilities that are gorgeous, nicer than many D2 colleges.  Their baseball coach is just a full time coach, not a teacher.  They have trainers and a physical therapist that work with the team and a staff of about 5 or 6 guys.  

School 2 is a successful public school.  In the running the the regional title every single year.  Their coach is a teacher but has been the coach for over 20 years and is connected in the baseball community bringing in well respected guys to work with his players.  They have a full indoor baseball/softball building with cages, weights and mounds to work in the offseason and winter.  

School 3 (my sons high school) is a public school, a new school but probably serving an area considered lower middle class by most.  They have a revolving door at coach.  One teacher for a couple of years then another.  Not much experience as these guys were basically high school players who happen to teach there.  Outdoor cages, no indoor facilities at all.  

School 4 is the public school in the "bad" part of town.  Literally dads coaching and no facilities.  The field looks like a Babe Ruth public field with a temporary fence that blows over on windy days.  

So, money helps with better facilities, better coaching and the status that comes with winning.  The amount of kids that try out for these teams goes hand in hand with the amount of winning and the facilities.  At the School 4, who did not win a game last year, there is no status related to playing baseball.  At school 1 and school 2 where kids regularly move on to college, there is.  So it goes I guess.  

Probably true, but what does it mean? 

It just means they are well equipped for their sport and have developed skill.  Most high level MMA guys are very good athletically, but, it doesn't mean they could compete in other sports....even a more specific skill sport like boxing.  

It is not uncommon to see a kid who is very athletic.  Is fast can change direction and jump ect. who plays 3 or 4 sports in high school but never lands anywhere in college to play a sport.  He is athletic but probably never developed a high skill level at any sport.  

Comparing top level guys in any sport is fun but sort of like saying, "Look how fast and agile that panther is...." and the response is "True, but look how much better that bird is at flying." 

Both statements are true.  They are just different animals.  

Mike Trout would match up very well with NBA guards in terms of speed and vertical jump. Sure, he'd get blown away by Paul and Curry on a basketball court, just like they'd be overmatched on a baseball field.

Anyway, I agree that guards in basketball tend to be great athletes, as they have to compete with millions of similarly sized guys. But when it comes to big guys, I guess I just disagree that height is an athletic skill. It happens to be a huge advantage in basketball, but in other sports not so much (see, for example, soccer, where I the greatest players tend to be <6 ft.).

By the way, John Kruk went to college (juco) on a basketball scholarship. He was a point guard! Same thing with another fat baseball player, Tony Gwynn.

       
       
2019 you are my new idol!  Nice catch on Kruk!  And I am negotiating for height to equal athleticism then my son could be a great athlete!  Lol.  But any way bottom line again is different athletic skills/body types for different sports.  Baseball players are not only athletic they are extremely athletic.  I have seen more basketball players than I can count (coached basketball for many years) who look absolutely lost in other sports.  Same for football players especially the non skill positions.   And to me.hand eye coordination is the number one factor in athleticism not speed strength or size.  Of course that is just my opinion.  Nobody has the right to definitively decide what is athleticism.  Not even webster!  So why can't we just agree that all athletes at the highest level are great athletes and have the attributes needed for their particular sport?  I am ok with that compromise.  Anyone else?

You and I can get a couple of guys together and play some hoops. I can take an athletic kid who is tough - teach him in 5 mins what a 3 technique is and tell him to go get it and if he is capable of playing. Baseball is a sport that takes time. It's not an instant gratification sport. In fact at the early learning years its boring as hel for most kids. They can't catch. Many can't throw. They end up chasing the ball. They can't make contact most of the time. They end up spending practice standing around waiting for their 5 mins of batting practice. Its a sport that takes time. It takes someone engaged with them. Let's play catch! You want to hit? Let me hit you some grounders! You just can't say here is a basketball go out with your boys and shoot some hoops. It doesn't work that way.

 

Come on all you Dads and Mom's here invested and are investing TIME and effort into your son's playing baseball. It didn't start once they were in HS. It wasn't them out in the sand lot with their buddies while you were at work. Many of these areas where baseball is and has been suffering - lets be honest no one is investing the time and effort that it takes to aquire these basic fundy's that allows a kid to enjoy the game or build a fire for the game. We don't have to go there. But come on let's be honest about it.

 

I coached football in HS as well as baseball. I had football players that never played a down until HS. Most only played once Middle School came around. They were athletic enough in a sport that did not require years of instruction and reps before they started to compete. Now how many kids can start playing baseball once in Middle School or HS and compete? I don't care how athletic you are. There are rare exceptions. But lets talk about the norm not the exceptions.

 

When those responsible for raising the kids and investing in the kids take ownership and "HELP" them in these other sports forget it. I am not complaining about it. Because the serious issues with these "non engaged" parents are much more impactful than them not playing baseball. IT is not the fault of the one's that are engaged. IT is not going to be solved with money. IT is not going to change because someone writes a story and complains. When parents get engaged good things happen. When they don't it is what it is. Baseball is not a sport that can just be picked up and overcome with raw athletic ability. Not by the norm.

 

These areas where baseball is weak and that's saying it kindly suffer from issues much deeper than kids not playing baseball. But really it's for the same reason. The exceptions are tremendous talents who someone saw something and assisted them along the way.

 

 

 

 

OK by me! 

 

My curiosity got the best of me, though, so I actually looked it up and found the following statistics for a no-step vertical jump:

• Mike Trout: 33.5" (SPARQ testing at 2008 Area Code Games, referenced here: http://baseballanalysts.com/ar.../yesterday_and_t.php
• Steph Curry: 29.5" (2009 NBA Draft Combine: www.draftexpress.com/profile/Stephen-Curry-1170/)
• Chris Paul: 31" (2005 NBA Draft Combine: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Chris-Paul-14/)
• FWIW, Jacoby Ellsbury had a 38.5", which is really, really high. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs3JYCQ8kN0). He had the highest SPARQ score for a baseball player. And, yes, the baseball SPARQ testing is a no-step vertical, as you can see in the Ellsbury video (also see, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as-8PlOTC1s)

Net, net, there are great athletes at the top of every sport.