Athletes with children

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:06 pm

Should MSU coaches recruit athletes with children

anacondagriz · Post by **anacondagriz** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:43 pm

The Lady Griz had a point guard a few years ago who had a child. (sorry her name escapes me). She did just fine. I don't see why you wouldn't, as long as they are mature enough to handle the stresses.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:49 pm

I see no problem with it, although I am not in the camp that suggests that people with kids (or people that are married, for that matter) are necessarily any more mature than anybody else. Whether or not they have kids seems like a somewhat neutral quality to me.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:43 pm

Would it bother anyone if a MSU or UM coach and staff, implimented such a policy

JahGriz · Post by **JahGriz** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:52 pm

That would be an utterly ridiculous policy, it has no bearing that I can see.
I'd love to hear the excuses they come up with if it were to be implimented.

What is going on here mslacat, is this some kind of get the opinions first then break the news type game, or the remnants of a dicussion at the end of a bar, backyard BBQ, or card game?

what up B

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:23 am

Just a conversation, on some coaches thoughts about developing a successful team. I was a little shock about how many coaches around the nation just plain will not recruit athletes (some male, some female). I never considered it before. At first I thought it was stupid, But then in in todays climate of making sure a coach recruits the "right" athlete it is becoming a bigger issue. Some coaches do not want to risk recruiting an athlete who must ballance acedemics, athletics AND THEN a family life with kids and a spouce. It can be a complex issue. The conversation grew out of how does a coach evaluate the athletes coming into a program.

JahGriz · Post by **JahGriz** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:34 am

Interesting mslacat. I can see both sides, but think a kid with a kid would in more cases than not be more of an asset to the team in many ways. It would be crazy not to look at each individual case and decide. But in general, and for the most part, I think it would keep the player more focused, keep them out of trouble, and give them a better appreciation of the oppportunity they have...in attending college and playing a sport.

VictorG · Post by **VictorG** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:29 am

Athletes with children DOES somewhat speak to the level of maturity of the individual. At least they owned up to the fact that they are responsible for the child and take ownership for the child's care and guidance.

For the males, I'm speaking of the ones who claim the child as theirs and take an active part in parenting weather married or not. They could have claimed the child is not theirs and settled for just paying some support money and not having anything to do with it. That would have been a cop out.

For the females, they could have given the child up for adoption and or aborted the pregnancy. That is their choice (and the fathers in my opinion) but the fact that they chose to keep the child speaks of commitment.

Of course there are people who should never be allowed to be parents but that is in all classifications of people not just athletes.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:06 am

VictorG wrote:Athletes with children DOES somewhat speak to the level of maturity of the individual. At least they owned up to the fact that they are responsible for the child and take ownership for the child's care and guidance.

For the males, I'm speaking of the ones who claim the child as theirs and take an active part in parenting weather married or not. They could have claimed the child is not theirs and settled for just paying some support money and not having anything to do with it. That would have been a cop out.

For the females, they could have given the child up for adoption and or aborted the pregnancy. That is their choice (and the fathers in my opinion) but the fact that they chose to keep the child speaks of commitment.

Of course there are people who should never be allowed to be parents but that is in all classifications of people not just athletes.

To further expand on the arguements, it is also generally assumed that athletes with children (who have accepted the responciblity), also tends to have far less problems with the law (fightinh, dui, Mip's etc.), generally tend to be more mature, and more motivated to perform well in the class room. On the negitive side (from a coaches perspective) there order of priorties tend to be Family, education, then athletics (young athetes tend to be athletes then acedemics). It is also assumed that childless/single athletes are much more capable of focusing putting in the time to develope their talents needed to be successful. Childless student/athletes tend to be more easily "molded" and less independent (I argue this point)

JahGriz · Post by **JahGriz** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:12 am

No doubt VG. Look at Lex. Though he didn't have kids before or while being recruited he did hook up with a girl with kid(s) and took them on as his own. He would take them to school, pick them up, and do all the dad things with them. Then they had their own child together.
IMO, Lex is the best RB in I-AA, a humble, hardworking kid, who is dedicated to both football and family. Could you find a better kid without kids? It would be tough. I can't even imagine how he manages school, family, and football.

BobcatBlood · Post by **BobcatBlood** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:13 am

This kind of policy seems pretty descriminatory to me and doesn't really "solve" any problem. What if someone becomes a parent while on scholarship here? Would that encourage the men NOT to be responsible, at least until they finish their degree? Or would athletes have to live a lie until out of school? And what if the athlete is married... isn't that a similar distraction - or if the person is married, is it okay to have a kid? And live-in girlfriends/boyfriends can be even more distracting than spouses, so that should probably not be allowed either - or for that matter, dating should also be discouraged at the least. What if the athlete cares for a sick grandma - could be time consuming and distracting - maybe that shouldn't be allowed either? Really... does anything get solved by saying athletes can't have kids?

I think its much better to establish recruiting guidelines around academics. If someone has struggled in highschool with grades, maybe they should be encouraged to come to college for a year -not on a team - to get used to life away from home (whether home is Chinook MT or Chicago), get a relationship with the academic advisor, etc. Then, if the student does well, they get a scholarship and added to the team. This doesn't eliminate anyone, but it does give borderline "students" a chance to acclimate themselves before adding the pressure of competing.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water... evaluate each potential student athlete based on their ability to earn a degree and contribute to the Bobcat legacy. Race, religion, hometown, marital status, etc. should not play a role in the decision to recruit a student. If someone has demonstrated academic ability, is determined to be of good moral character and is motivated and comptetive, let's not exclude them based on some random policy.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:50 am

VictorG wrote:Athletes with children DOES somewhat speak to the level of maturity of the individual. At least they owned up to the fact that they are responsible for the child and take ownership for the child's care and guidance.

For the males, I'm speaking of the ones who claim the child as theirs and take an active part in parenting weather married or not. They could have claimed the child is not theirs and settled for just paying some support money and not having anything to do with it. That would have been a cop out.

For the females, they could have given the child up for adoption and or aborted the pregnancy. That is their choice (and the fathers in my opinion) but the fact that they chose to keep the child speaks of commitment.

Of course there are people who should never be allowed to be parents but that is in all classifications of people not just athletes.

If they are good parents, then I completely agree that it is a sign of maturity.

But simply being a biological parent is an indication of nothing more than a healthy reproductive system.

I agree with your last line ... although unfortunately those seem to be the people who are most likely to have kids in many cases.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:18 am

BobcatBlood wrote:Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water... evaluate each potential student athlete based on their ability to earn a degree and contribute to the Bobcat legacy. Race, religion, hometown, marital status, etc. should not play a role in the decision to recruit a student. If someone has demonstrated academic ability, is determined to be of good moral character and is motivated and comptetive, let's not exclude them based on some random policy.

Very well said.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 4:37 pm

I'm guessing that Marquette and UCLA don't have too much of a problem with this. (Dewayne Wade + Ed O'Bannon = 2 final fours and 1 national cahmpionship.)