What's happening with NDA? 5-8 record, several blowout losses, new coach. Where did Lockhart go?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
All I know that is fact is Coach Lockhart's contract was not renewed.
NDA graduated most of last years starters. Mabe 2, 3 at most returned. Young team. Lockhart is still at NDA but not coaching.
NDA has three returning starters, P-Crosby, C-Forsten & middle infielder Wong. For the 08 season NDA is young and inexperienced. A typical line up would be made up of 2 seniors, 3 juniors, 2 sophomores & 2 freshmen. In the off season Coach Lockhart worked hard on bringing in kids. He was met with resistance from the school. The higher ups claim this is not the case but it was. Around the New Year the school made him aware a contract would not be offered to him for the 08 / 09 year. Coach Lockhart will be leaving the school to pursue another opportunities. Assistant Coach Lemley took over and has been doing a very good job under trying circumstances. He is assisted by Coach Chroniger who is invaluable to the program. Considering the facts that the boy’s basketball team was dismantled and now the baseball and girls basketball teams are following the same path it is clear some of the board members at NDA have chosen a non-athletic path for the school. Why this path is the question?
Clearly this is a change of direction. I have talked to parents whose kids attend other private schools and many of them are fed up with the win win win, recruit, recruit attitudes that they encounter, especially if they have multiple kids in line to attend the school. They are saying, heck, if we are paying $15-20K per kid per year, then we want our kids to play sports, not just to have them recruited over for a bunch of sports mercenaries who should be in their own local schools, not getting subsidized to play at privates. Not saying this is the argument at NDA, but I've heard this type of grumbling from parents at PVI, OConnell, and others locally. Certainly it's more extreme in basketball, but it's becoming more prevalent in baseball too. Whatever the case, I guess it's best for the schools to decide on a course and keep it, because switching back and forth between philosophies probably leaves the most collateral damage between parents, kids, administrators, and coaches.
Good luck to Coach Lockhart. Everyone I've ever talked with about him has had high praise.
Good luck to Coach Lockhart. Everyone I've ever talked with about him has had high praise.
Interesting that you have heard parents grumbling about other players. I have no idea what is said to parents when they meet with administrators at the schools mentioned. I do know that at NDA it is made clear to the parents that being accepted to the school and paying tuition does not guarantee a spot on a sports team or playing time, you have to earn it.
As far as private schools recruiting players and parents being upset by this I ask how else does one of these coaches put a competitive team on the field? Not one kid attending any of the private schools has to attend that school. It is their choice to attend the school. Considering the costs associated with attending a private school there has to be good reasons for doing so (superior academics, sports programs, etc). If someone believes that is going to happen by letting the chips fall as they may they are kidding themselves.
As far as NDA goes it is not the parents grumbling that is the reason for the change. Fact is most of the parents are upset at the school for the change. No one saw it coming and most do not agree with it. At a recent board/parent meeting parent after parent stood up and expressed the reason why their kid was at NDA, quality education and the possibility of playing on a sports team that is superior to others. Unfortunately at NDA there are a few board/contributor members that do not like sports and do not want sports at the school and they seem to have gotten what they wanted.
As far as private schools recruiting players and parents being upset by this I ask how else does one of these coaches put a competitive team on the field? Not one kid attending any of the private schools has to attend that school. It is their choice to attend the school. Considering the costs associated with attending a private school there has to be good reasons for doing so (superior academics, sports programs, etc). If someone believes that is going to happen by letting the chips fall as they may they are kidding themselves.
As far as NDA goes it is not the parents grumbling that is the reason for the change. Fact is most of the parents are upset at the school for the change. No one saw it coming and most do not agree with it. At a recent board/parent meeting parent after parent stood up and expressed the reason why their kid was at NDA, quality education and the possibility of playing on a sports team that is superior to others. Unfortunately at NDA there are a few board/contributor members that do not like sports and do not want sports at the school and they seem to have gotten what they wanted.
First, it was the parents and now it appears to be the administration at area schools. I find it interesting how when a program becomes successful, bringing local, regional and national attention to ones school and athletic program how any administration could see that as a negative. In Paul VI's case every single player in the baseball program pays full tuition to attend Paul VI. There are no athletic scholarships when it comes to Paul VI for baseball. The recent success of their program has players knocking on their door wanting to attend their school both for the education and for the baseball program. Coach Emerson has done an amazing job, similar, NDA's Coach Lockhart also developed a constant, winning program over the last several years from obscurity. I simply don't understand why you let such a quality coach go, when it's simply getting harder and harder to find good coaches these days. The administration at some schools seem to be losing focus on the fact that it's not just the academics but the athletics that leave lasting friendships and memories for all of our students.
While I only live approx 15 miles from NDA, I am not privy to the goings on there.
I can say this, I do know Coach Lockhart and I have nothing but respect for the man.
I can not speak to NDA recruiting, admissions, financial aid policies but could the current economic situation (both nationally, along with the NOVA area particularly in real estate) play any role in this shift????
I can say this, I do know Coach Lockhart and I have nothing but respect for the man.
I can not speak to NDA recruiting, admissions, financial aid policies but could the current economic situation (both nationally, along with the NOVA area particularly in real estate) play any role in this shift????
The economy? Really?
Just to clarify, the inputs I've received are from Catholic families who have brought up their kids through the Catholic elementary/middle schools, paying all along the way for school in addition to their contributions to their local parishes (who, as part of the Archdiocese, subsidize the Catholic high schools, thus keeping the tuition lower for the high school student athlete whether Catholic or not). These families planned to naturally send their kids to Catholic high schools and just figured their kids, who were competitive, if not standouts, within the athletic kids at their predecessor parish schools, would continue to have some level of success through competition within their high school. These families are upset that their kids are now getting cut or at minimum no playing time. I agree that this is a naive viewpoint, but I'm just saying its out there. Additionally, although boys basketball and football have been the historical recruiters/attractors of talent, it's becoming much more prevalent in girls basketball, baseball, and other sports.
What pressure, if any, this places on the Catholic school administrations to change is unclear. As I said, the most unfortunate is when schools change their policies and objectives midstream. This leaves a lot of current kids and their families hanging and wondering what's up.
Just to note, due to the very competitive situation at some of these privates, some well credentialled sports kids, who have grown up in public schools, are leaving the privates they joined after their sophomore seasons, because they can see who is there and who is coming, and they realize they aren't going to get much playing time. This is becoming more commonplace as the recognition that being the best requires bringing more and more good candidates, as picking out who is going to be the best as eighth graders is an inexact science.
The pressure to keep winning and getting recognition always ratchets up the pressure to find better players. So, while the WCAC transfer rules (ie no recruiting restrictions for pre high schoolers, but one year sit out rule from varsity competition for sophomores or higher transfers) have tightened somewhat, there are fewer disincentives to bring in lots of freshman and let them duke it out for a year or two.
A couple of years ago, Emerson's PVI website used have an informal warning on it for players who thought they were good enough to play at PVI. It went something like, "although there's always room for development if you put in the time and energy, if you are not a contributing varsity player as a sophomore, you are probably not going to be a successful varsity baseball player at PVI". He doesn't have this on his site or his info packet anymore, but I believe this kind of statement is good advice for rising 9th graders and their parents as they take stock of ability, competition, and investments of time and money required to attend and actually play at some schools.
It is what it is.
What pressure, if any, this places on the Catholic school administrations to change is unclear. As I said, the most unfortunate is when schools change their policies and objectives midstream. This leaves a lot of current kids and their families hanging and wondering what's up.
Just to note, due to the very competitive situation at some of these privates, some well credentialled sports kids, who have grown up in public schools, are leaving the privates they joined after their sophomore seasons, because they can see who is there and who is coming, and they realize they aren't going to get much playing time. This is becoming more commonplace as the recognition that being the best requires bringing more and more good candidates, as picking out who is going to be the best as eighth graders is an inexact science.
The pressure to keep winning and getting recognition always ratchets up the pressure to find better players. So, while the WCAC transfer rules (ie no recruiting restrictions for pre high schoolers, but one year sit out rule from varsity competition for sophomores or higher transfers) have tightened somewhat, there are fewer disincentives to bring in lots of freshman and let them duke it out for a year or two.
A couple of years ago, Emerson's PVI website used have an informal warning on it for players who thought they were good enough to play at PVI. It went something like, "although there's always room for development if you put in the time and energy, if you are not a contributing varsity player as a sophomore, you are probably not going to be a successful varsity baseball player at PVI". He doesn't have this on his site or his info packet anymore, but I believe this kind of statement is good advice for rising 9th graders and their parents as they take stock of ability, competition, and investments of time and money required to attend and actually play at some schools.
It is what it is.
Where do you draw the line with "recruiting"? If you are not opposed to NDA, PVI, or G Prep going out and recruiting, say, a 2012 kid from Manassas, would you be opposed to them recruiting, say, a 2014 kid from PG Co, MD? How about a 2010 kid from the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico? Say that none of these kids is Catholic--does that matter? How about one of those schools recruiting a kid, say, a 2010, from one of the other of those schools?
This discussion raises many issues about a school's and a conference's policies. Given the ridiculously competitive nature of high school sports in the D.C. metro area, coaches are often tempted to go out and get the kids they think will help them excel, even if that means crossing some lines (the WCAC schools--each of them brings, for example, basketball players in from all over the area (and often from other countries)). Baseball may be headed in this direction. Is it such a stretch to foresee NDA or PVI or St. John's or Dematha going out and bringing in a 2012 player from the DR or PR or Venezuela?
So, a school must openly discuss this and figure out what policies it must set and enforce to ensure consistency with that particular school's vision. It appears that NDA wanted to go in a different direction. Currently, the WCAC schools have chosen to go in the competitive sports direction. The questions for all of them have to do with whether the direction they are going is consistent with where the leadership of the school (the Diocesan leadership, school leadership, parental leadership) wants the school to go.
Turning from school policy and school interests to the interests of the athlete. If a kid chooses to go to a school, and if the kid is kept on the team and appears to be making progress as a frosh or a soph, and if the coach encourages the kid to return, and the kid works hard and develops, does the coach owe that kid any loyalty in return? Does he owe the kid a spot, playing time, opportunity? The beef for some parents is likely that the coach brought the kid into the program, kept him, but never gave him the opportunity the parent expected. Whose fault is that? Is it purely a function of poor communication? It seems to me that the coach OWES that kid opportunity. If, after being given that opportunity, the kid does not stack up, then the coach can turn to another kid. But a coach should give a chance to those kids who have been with him through thick and thin.
Finally, Coach Emerson did have that language on the PVI website. I think that if you dig around in there (parent information, maybe?) you will still find it or something like it. That said, if you look at the PVI roster this year, you will see 10 seniors, 7 juniors, 2 sophs, and 1 frosh. 10 seniors, 1 junior, and 1 frosh play alot. 6 juniors and 2 sophs play some. Now, does anyone really think that those remarks pertain to a year like this one? If so, then PVI is in trouble for next year because only 2 players on the current roster fit the description. You would have to throw out all the juniors but Chad Morgan and the two sophs (though you would keep Tyler Costello, perhaps, because of his pitching talents). This is one of those years where it is simply difficult for anyone but the seniors, Chad, and the frosh, Lansing Veeder, to find playing time.
That said, next year looks good for PVI. They lose 10 seniors, but their 7 juniors, 2 varsity sophs, 1 varsity frosh, and a very good group of sophs and frosh on JV will stack up nicely next year. They will have Chad anchoring the team, with Lansing Veeder likely leading off and playing CF, with juniors like Carlos Mateos, Justin Puentes, and Charles Beacom, and sophs like Tyler Costello and Lem Zeigler to pick up right where the seniors leave off. So, don't think that just because they aren't playing right now, the 2009s and 2010s and 2011s cannot carry PVI next year--the team may surprise alot of people.
This discussion raises many issues about a school's and a conference's policies. Given the ridiculously competitive nature of high school sports in the D.C. metro area, coaches are often tempted to go out and get the kids they think will help them excel, even if that means crossing some lines (the WCAC schools--each of them brings, for example, basketball players in from all over the area (and often from other countries)). Baseball may be headed in this direction. Is it such a stretch to foresee NDA or PVI or St. John's or Dematha going out and bringing in a 2012 player from the DR or PR or Venezuela?
So, a school must openly discuss this and figure out what policies it must set and enforce to ensure consistency with that particular school's vision. It appears that NDA wanted to go in a different direction. Currently, the WCAC schools have chosen to go in the competitive sports direction. The questions for all of them have to do with whether the direction they are going is consistent with where the leadership of the school (the Diocesan leadership, school leadership, parental leadership) wants the school to go.
Turning from school policy and school interests to the interests of the athlete. If a kid chooses to go to a school, and if the kid is kept on the team and appears to be making progress as a frosh or a soph, and if the coach encourages the kid to return, and the kid works hard and develops, does the coach owe that kid any loyalty in return? Does he owe the kid a spot, playing time, opportunity? The beef for some parents is likely that the coach brought the kid into the program, kept him, but never gave him the opportunity the parent expected. Whose fault is that? Is it purely a function of poor communication? It seems to me that the coach OWES that kid opportunity. If, after being given that opportunity, the kid does not stack up, then the coach can turn to another kid. But a coach should give a chance to those kids who have been with him through thick and thin.
Finally, Coach Emerson did have that language on the PVI website. I think that if you dig around in there (parent information, maybe?) you will still find it or something like it. That said, if you look at the PVI roster this year, you will see 10 seniors, 7 juniors, 2 sophs, and 1 frosh. 10 seniors, 1 junior, and 1 frosh play alot. 6 juniors and 2 sophs play some. Now, does anyone really think that those remarks pertain to a year like this one? If so, then PVI is in trouble for next year because only 2 players on the current roster fit the description. You would have to throw out all the juniors but Chad Morgan and the two sophs (though you would keep Tyler Costello, perhaps, because of his pitching talents). This is one of those years where it is simply difficult for anyone but the seniors, Chad, and the frosh, Lansing Veeder, to find playing time.
That said, next year looks good for PVI. They lose 10 seniors, but their 7 juniors, 2 varsity sophs, 1 varsity frosh, and a very good group of sophs and frosh on JV will stack up nicely next year. They will have Chad anchoring the team, with Lansing Veeder likely leading off and playing CF, with juniors like Carlos Mateos, Justin Puentes, and Charles Beacom, and sophs like Tyler Costello and Lem Zeigler to pick up right where the seniors leave off. So, don't think that just because they aren't playing right now, the 2009s and 2010s and 2011s cannot carry PVI next year--the team may surprise alot of people.
PVI will be fine in the future. The success of the team each year seems to encourage the next group to work harder and reach higher. With a great coaching staff, strong JV program, year round practices, links to top travel teams, and an active recruiting network, they will reload and continue their success.
For those juniors who have patiently waited behind this strong group of seniors, rather than probably starting for 3 years on the varsity teams at their respective public schools, they will have their chance next year to shine.
The Emerson admonition makes sense to me in the sense that it warns those who think they are good enough with some hard truth. If you are going to one of these schools just for the sports, it may not work out the way you want because the competition is tough and there are no guarantees.
For those juniors who have patiently waited behind this strong group of seniors, rather than probably starting for 3 years on the varsity teams at their respective public schools, they will have their chance next year to shine.
The Emerson admonition makes sense to me in the sense that it warns those who think they are good enough with some hard truth. If you are going to one of these schools just for the sports, it may not work out the way you want because the competition is tough and there are no guarantees.
Why is anyone opposed to a private school recruiting? Is there some evil that is attached to recruiting? What is wrong with a coach wanting a kid who is next door, one state away of for that matter and ocean away? What is important to remember is that a kid does not have to go to a private school he or she chooses to attend. Because of this the private school coach has to go out and find kids. He has to sell his program and the school to the parents & the kid. If providing parents with information and letting a kid know he is wanted is bad someone is going to have to explain that one to me. As long as the coach is straight with the parents and kids and no guarantees are made there is absolutely nothing wrong with recruiting.
Superball--I agree. PVI will be much better than many people would think. They will lose 10 seniors but bring back 7 juniors, 2 sophs, and 1 frosh--all capable of starting at most area HS. Tyler Costello will be a shut-down #1 starter. Veeder, Morgan, Marks, and several others will step into key pitching roles. Puentes and Beacom will help Morgan behind the plate. Costello, Zeigler, Savage, Mateos, McDonald, Conyngham (sp?) and several rising juniors and rising sophs will get playing time. This will be a very good team capable of competing in the WCAC for a title.
GT--I think people whose kids go to a school that is capable of recruiting believe that their kids invest time, energy, loyalty, and their very souls into the sports programs. If, after two or three years of doing this, the school recruits a kid to come in from nowhere and that kid then starts and plays ahead of the kids who have given two or three years of their lives to the school, there is a sense of betrayal--a lack of loyalty in return for the player's loyalty and commitment. These schools HAVE to respect the player's sacrifice and commitment and reward that. If they don't, they will be seen for what they are--users. Ask a kid for his soul, and you had better reward him with your own loyalty.
GT--I think people whose kids go to a school that is capable of recruiting believe that their kids invest time, energy, loyalty, and their very souls into the sports programs. If, after two or three years of doing this, the school recruits a kid to come in from nowhere and that kid then starts and plays ahead of the kids who have given two or three years of their lives to the school, there is a sense of betrayal--a lack of loyalty in return for the player's loyalty and commitment. These schools HAVE to respect the player's sacrifice and commitment and reward that. If they don't, they will be seen for what they are--users. Ask a kid for his soul, and you had better reward him with your own loyalty.
When the coach goes out a "recruits" a player he is telling that kid I would like for you to be part of my program. He is offering an opportunity not a guarantee to play. Second private or public, recruiting or not new or younger players come into programs and take positions from other players. Whether the parents are paying tuition or not this occurs. Not to sound like a smart %$# but that is life. It happens in the youth leagues, high school, college and beyond. You are given an opportunity to play, if you’re not better than the other guy you’re not going to play. Paying tuition at a private school pays for the academics it does not buy a spot on the team or playing time.
very interesting topic! while I agree with you both (GT and is), let's not forget what we all want for an outcome: to win! Is: VERY glad you speak with morals and values.......these are two things most coaches, parents and kids lack today. but on the other hand, in life...should a company keep an employee due to loyalty, when they may not be producing, or find someone else 'out there' who can produce? it's tough call, i have high morals/values and honor committment, but business is business. it is OUR job to prepare these young boys for the future and help them thru the challenges that are ahead. if they stumble or fall, they'll get back up.....
I don't disagree that alot of this reflects life more generally. I try often to tell kids, my own and the kids I coach, that what they are going through is just practice for what they will be going through their whole lives. By competing, they are facing life lessons.
That said, by giving energy, dedication, and sacrifice to a sports program at a school they are building relationships and demonstrating enormous loyalty to a coach, the team, the program, and the school. The question is, does the coach give that sort of loyalty back? Does he owe the kid who has been in the program for three years? I am not saying that he owes him a spot. I am asking if he owes him OPPORTUNITY.
Because let's face it, unless a kid is Peter Verdin or LJ Hoes, he is one of 14 or 16 kids on a team that is of about equal talent. So, to what kid does the coach give the opportunity? The kid who has given him two or three years of 100% dedication and loyalty, or the kid who transfers in his junior year? My view--talents being equal or about equal, you ALWAYS give back the loyalty the players have demonstrated over the years. This is a life lesson as valuable as any other a kid can learn in sports. If they coach does not give the loyalty back, you learn that people can smile at you in the face and take all they can and then stab you in the back. If the coach gives the loyalty back, you learn that people can be as loyal to you as you are to them. To some extent, the value of the lesson is in learning to distinguish between the sorts of people you encounter in life.
No, it is not all about who is best and the coach should play that kid. I have been involved in baseball for nearly 50 years, and I will tell you that other than the rare find like Peter Verdin or LJ Hoes, it all boils down to who the coach wants to give the opportunity to play, day-in and day-out. Most of the 14 or 16 kids are of very close-to-equal talent. Give one kid all the innings and THAT kid will improve and PROVE THE COACH right. Had the coach given the OTHER kid those same innings, THAT kid would have done the same thing--improve--and PROVE THE COACH right. It is all about which kid gets the OPPORTUNITY. And opportunity, genuine opportunity, is what the coach owes back to the kid who has given him everything for two or three years.
That said, by giving energy, dedication, and sacrifice to a sports program at a school they are building relationships and demonstrating enormous loyalty to a coach, the team, the program, and the school. The question is, does the coach give that sort of loyalty back? Does he owe the kid who has been in the program for three years? I am not saying that he owes him a spot. I am asking if he owes him OPPORTUNITY.
Because let's face it, unless a kid is Peter Verdin or LJ Hoes, he is one of 14 or 16 kids on a team that is of about equal talent. So, to what kid does the coach give the opportunity? The kid who has given him two or three years of 100% dedication and loyalty, or the kid who transfers in his junior year? My view--talents being equal or about equal, you ALWAYS give back the loyalty the players have demonstrated over the years. This is a life lesson as valuable as any other a kid can learn in sports. If they coach does not give the loyalty back, you learn that people can smile at you in the face and take all they can and then stab you in the back. If the coach gives the loyalty back, you learn that people can be as loyal to you as you are to them. To some extent, the value of the lesson is in learning to distinguish between the sorts of people you encounter in life.
No, it is not all about who is best and the coach should play that kid. I have been involved in baseball for nearly 50 years, and I will tell you that other than the rare find like Peter Verdin or LJ Hoes, it all boils down to who the coach wants to give the opportunity to play, day-in and day-out. Most of the 14 or 16 kids are of very close-to-equal talent. Give one kid all the innings and THAT kid will improve and PROVE THE COACH right. Had the coach given the OTHER kid those same innings, THAT kid would have done the same thing--improve--and PROVE THE COACH right. It is all about which kid gets the OPPORTUNITY. And opportunity, genuine opportunity, is what the coach owes back to the kid who has given him everything for two or three years.
Couldn't have been said better!
Interesting article in today's Washington Post on changes and conflicts at NDA. Won't settle the issues no matter what side anyone is on, but illuminates both sides of the debate. Clearly not fair to kids/families currently in the program who may have thought they were signing up for something different.
So, given situation at NDA, where will these players be next year? Will most stick it out with NDA or will they scatter to other schools (public or private)? I have heard that Stonebridge, St. John's, PVI, Westfields, and other area schools may end up with players from this mess. Who goes where and can they compete at those schools?
why do you care?
Maybe it means an improvement for some area teams? Is that not of interest?
Additionally, what if these kids were getting looks from scouts--would it not be worthwhile to know where these kids are going to be next year?
And the NDA story, by itself, is a lesson for all private schools. Where these kids end up, and how they come out of this mess individually, is of interest to a broad audience.
Why do you?
Additionally, what if these kids were getting looks from scouts--would it not be worthwhile to know where these kids are going to be next year?
And the NDA story, by itself, is a lesson for all private schools. Where these kids end up, and how they come out of this mess individually, is of interest to a broad audience.
Why do you?