Maybe without football, we'd be closer to finally decoupling youth sports from the education system.
Going off track, but by finally are you saying that's a positive thing?
I'm a nerd. I've always been a nerd. I had the absolute minimum mandatory participation in sports during school. That is one of my biggest regrets. Sports have incredible importance in so many ways.
Youth sports are a great thing, I just don't think they're a great use for public education funding. Physical education is good. Having a high school football team with tons of expensive equipment and coaching that sucks up money while the actual schooling goes to waste, not so much.
I feel the same way except that I changed my ways in college.
How old are you, because you probably have time to make sports a part of your life.
My mother, never having run more than five kilometers at once, ran her first marathon at 66 -- http://joshuaspodek.com/redefining_possibility -- and she talks about running more. Plenty of other sports are available to people of every age.
I'm proud to have inspired her. I'd love to inspire others!
Totally off topic, but what about team sports? I played teeball when I was six and flag football in the 5th grade, but other than that, I totally missed out on organized sports as a kid. (I played a lot of "unorganized" sports in the back yard though). I run, but that's an individual thing.
Where would an adult go to learn to play baseball, basketball or football? I know there are after-work adult leagues, but do they let people with no talent and experience play? What about coaching?
Physical and team activities are important. Sports and sport stars are less so. It's nice to have the "team" to look up to in school, since we are social creatures and demand to belong to something greater than ourselves (and alpha males demand attention from the lessers), but there aren't many people who participate in the high school football team. It'd be nice to transition those funds into a more well-rounded physical/team activities department.
The post I replied to opined that "Maybe without football, we'd be closer to finally decoupling youth sports from the education system.": Their issue wasn't just with football, and instead football was the beachhead to try to excise physical activity.
In my high school there were a large number of prominent sports, with participation covering a hefty percentage of the student base. Wrestling, basketball, football, swimming, badminton, track and field, volleyball, among others. There was something for almost anyone, and it was a fundamental part of the social, learning, and physical wellness recipe. The school heavily promoted and celebrated academic excellence as well (and, contrary to the common bigotry, many of the academic leaders -- the ones who I competed with -- excelled at sports as well).
If a particular school focused only on football, then of course that would be a problem.
I think you and I read that sentence differently. I don't believe the author of that post meant that physical exercise is a bad thing in schools, but rather sports stars should not be "better" or "different" from any other student. At my school (and a lot of schools judging from people I met in college), we had dozens of sports but only football and basketball players were routinely excused from class for practice, drills, and travel to games. Only football had their travel expenses paid for by the school. You were at a severe disadvantage if you decided to play any other sport.
What I read that post as saying is "sports should be extracurricular activities that do not interfere with or take the place of education". This doesn't necessarily preclude your normal PE classes.
Going off track, but by finally are you saying that's a positive thing?
I'm a nerd. I've always been a nerd. I had the absolute minimum mandatory participation in sports during school. That is one of my biggest regrets. Sports have incredible importance in so many ways.