The Instigator
runnersva1
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

High school varsity restrictions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2012 Category: Sports
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,287 times Debate No: 27073
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

runnersva1

Con

Is it fair for schools to tell new students that they cannot be on varsity until they've been on the team for a year? Shouldn't it be based on the performance of the athlete? I think it should. That's what varsity is. If you are good, you deserve to be on the varsity team. Period. End of story.
RationalMadman

Pro

Varsity teams are those that represent the school, college or university against others[1]. They are not necessarily the most skilled players of their school, much like the footballers of a country leaving unknown to us the most incredible talented footballers of all time who simply weren't lucky enough to make it.

The argument I have rests on two philosophies.

Firstly, if you offered Lionel Messi $20,000,000 to play against Barcelona for a match do you know what he'd do? Spit on your money and tell you to F*** off.[3] He is purely loyal to this club for the bonds he has formed and what they've done for him, it's because he had to work year on year to get to play for them, that he had to work so hard to inspire them to hire him (and in his case give him expensive growth hormone to be decent sized[4]). To force you to play with the same team for a year to finally get the 'privilege' of playing for them makes you desperate to prove yourself to them and then stay loyal for all you have gone through with them and for them (and they for letting you finally be on the team). The truth is, if you make a man or woman desperate for an extended period of time for something, and never give it to them until that time, it forces them to push boundaries they wouldn't if they knew they could get in straight on talent alone. The fact that they have to prove themselves to you under a severely harsh regime provides the urge to help. After all how to armies work? You think you just send a man who can shoot amazingly well and fight like a boss out there? No you must force him to wait patiently until he can prove himself to be worthy to fight for your country, then you have not only a skilled soldier but also a loyal soldier. This is a key reason to have such a policy. After all, who would give up what they worked their butt off an entire year off?

Secondly, it teaches the student patience and blind work for later reward. This sort of training is similar to the philosophy of martial arts where, even if you are amazing you must work hard[5] to be able to carry it out as muscle memory. This is vital to team success. You must make them willing to sit out a whole game if need be and yet play madly well and enthusiastically in the next match. You must teach the student to work for the sake of working and train simply to be amazing, if you force them to work so hard without recognition for a year imagine how obedient they'd be the next year?

The truth is you want a loyal obedient member of a team as the coach, you don't want an amazing player who later betrays you and leaves because you let them join without proving themselves for a long time beforehand.

So from the point of view of the school and coach, This policy on varsity is beneficial. The only opposition could come from an impatient student with an inflated ego.
Debate Round No. 1
runnersva1

Con

Okay, but what about if a student transfers to a different high school for their senior year after previously playing on a varsity team at their old school for years? The student only had to move because of a parents' job or hurricane destruction. You, the coach, are not going to let the student play on varsity just because they haven't been there for years? It's not his/her fault! They were GORCED to transfer schools. Typically high school students don't just go to certain schools for the sport. Typically, it is the parent of the student who chooses to send the child to a certain school.
It's unfair to the player. Loyalty isn't what it's about. If the student proves they are a good enough player during tryouts or practices, they deserve to play or move up to the varsity team.
RationalMadman

Pro

It is indeed extremely unfair to the player and from the player's point of view is a total outrage of justice. However, it is only unfair to the player, to everyone else involved in the allowing or disallowing of a varsity team member this system is beneficial.

From the coach's perspective, forcing a player to train with the team for a year before being allowed to play for them enables them to truly crave playing for the team and hence you have a severely loyal player who will release all the anger and frustration of how hard it was to get on the team every match (probably fighting harder than students who were always at the school because they really want to become captain and get revenge by making the team train and work to THEIR orders).

From the headmaster's perspective, you know that the student could potentially be very rowdy and, since they are new to the area, are yet to develop a bad reputation outside of school (hence all other school's will say how did that jerk, or cow, get to play involving huge jeering and reduction of team morale for that very rowdy character being on it). Additionally, the student could be very bad behaved at school but amazingly good at a sport which would lead to you, yourself, having to expel the team captain of the sports team, or even a very good player. to do this would make all sports teachers despise you and several students begin to lose respect for you. Thus, by having a strict non-negotiable policy which enables you to truly analyse a student's character and behaviour before allowing them to play on your school team, you avoid such hassle and essentially maintain your own reputation if it comes to expelling them.

From a psychologist's perspective, making people work severely hard and long to earn a reward leads to them perfecting what they do so much more since they have to prove themselves for an extremely long time. Why do you think we have school reports, mock exams and behaviour records as opposed to just an exam? So that a university can observe a students entire profile, not just their ability at a subject. You could be getting 100% every exam and be denied from Harvard, Yale or Oxbridge if all your teacher's and work experience (apprenticeship) employers give you a bad an inconsistent reputation. This is the same theory applied to the varsity policy. You need to know the player is going to play their hardest for our team, not just rely on natural talent and merely get on the team and then be snobbish or arrogant to team members. There is so much more to a person than natural talent. Natural talent is minimum requirement.

In summary, only from the student's perspective is it unfair. It is a beneficial and justified system by all other parties that would be involved in analysing the situation.
Debate Round No. 2
runnersva1

Con

I completely disagree. If there IS any sign of misbehavior from that student, then a consequence should be imposed. That's why there are credentials for all team players. They must maintain a certain GPA and maintain behavior to a certain degree. This applies to all players, so this is completely irrelevant to their Varsity or non-Varsity status. The Varsity title simply categorizes and separates the best players from the poor ones.
If the new student maintains their GPA, passes drug tests, and maintains good behavior in and out of school, there is absolutely no reason why they cannot be placed on the Varsity team from the beginning or within the season of their first year. It IS fair. The other team members who have been paying for years and are still on Junior Varsity or get bumped down just because there is a better new member can just suck it up. It's about how well you play in order to win.
So in summary, if the new incoming student meets all requirements, they should be able to play fr the Varsity team if they are good enough to be on it.
RationalMadman

Pro

"The Varsity title simply categorizes and separates the best players from the poor ones." It also separates those loyal to the school to those who simply use the school to play the sport.

"If the new student maintains their GPA, passes drug tests, and maintains good behavior in and out of school, there is absolutely no reason why they cannot be placed on the Varsity team from the beginning or within the season of their first year" What if they get on with no-one in the team, are particularly aggressive and foul a lot on the pitch or simply are very lazy and rely purely on natural talent and don't do as told in training sessions.


"It IS fair." You never justified this. Nothing in life is truly fair.

"The other team members who have been paying for years and are still on Junior Varsity or get bumped down just because there is a better new member can just suck it up." The fact that they can suck it up doesn't justify it occurring. This was irrelevant to the debate.

"It's about how well you play in order to win." It's also about how willing you are to be the substitute on the bench the entire match and not complain about it as well as how good a team player you are and how humble an individual you are in taking criticism and improving.

"if the new incoming student meets all requirements, they should be able to play for the Varsity team if they are good enough to be on it." Ironically, if one of the requirements is to have trained with the team for a year, then that requirement must be met. So yes, you are correct but this doesn't support your side of the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
VOTEBOMB! I HAD BETTER SPELLING AND GRAMMAR AND NOT WORSE CONDUCT?! wtf
Posted by runnersva1 4 years ago
runnersva1
Yeah it is about my school. It's not fair for students that are forced to change to schools to be permitted from participating in varsity. Like I said before, if a varsity basketball senior's home was destroyed during a hurricane, so they have to change schools, they should be able to continue playing on varsity at their new school if they prove they are a good enough player.
Posted by angrymen 4 years ago
angrymen
I might accept this if no one has by monday. Also im assuming this is about your school as my high school has no rule or is it coaches saying this?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LaL36 4 years ago
LaL36
runnersva1RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro I think is the first person who changed my view. And he also used sources.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
runnersva1RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countern UtahJoker's unexplained points.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
runnersva1RationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was better this debate but Pro did give sources.