MileSplit Canada

I'm hoping my fellow coaches and teachers will help me to understand (and manage) a situation that crops up on an annual basis. Specifically it is the requirement by high school track athletes to train with their high school team as a condition of competing for their school.

My preparation for this outdoor season began last September, with each training phase microcycle and mesosycle carefully planned out and adjusted so we smoothly transition from the specific prepatation to the pre-competition phase right about now. However I find that my athletes' high school track coaches do not take any of this into account and begin once again with general preparation stuff.

One of my athletes tore knee ligament a week ago running stairs in the school. Another strained his shoulder to flys in the weight room. Yet another tore his hamstring doing a strange workout. In fact my athletes get injured training with their school coaches almost every season. I'm not sure any of these coaches are trained or certified in any was, as I do not see them during the cluns season.

How do club athletes in other sports deal with this when competing for their school? How can we effectively coordinate the training of club athletes with their school? I just want to keep them healthy and help them reach their potential without affecting their eligibility to compete at school and allow them to have a good summer season after high school is over.

@tb400

I am a high school xc and track coach with no certification! I have been a competitive runner for over 30 years and have been coached by a number of excellent individuals during my formative running years so I've got quite a bit of experience though. I was lucky enough to have my school and club coach as the same individual (he was also my dad!) so I didn't have to go through any sort of conflict in this regard. In my 18 years of coaching high school runners, I haven't encountered too many issues in this regard. One of the reasons for this is that I'm willing to work with a club coach to ensure the athlete's success. Both coaches need to show some flexibility to make this work. Problems arise when either coach believes too strongly that their strategy/plan is the only way for the athlete to succeed. I coached an OFSAA 800m/1500m silver medalist a decade ago that would bring me his workouts from his club coach (he ran for a club over an hour away and went there once/week for practice which was fine with me). I would take his workout and structure workouts for my other runners to help his progress (ie. split up repeat 600s into 3 200s so my slower runners could pace him in his 600m repeat). This worked very well since anyone running for a school team needs to do a few workouts each week with the team to be part of it so it helped if I made it worthwhile for him. This allowed me to help him and at the same time, he could provide an awesome role model for his beginner team mates. This is the reason for the minimum practice rule.

When club and school coaches egos get in the way problems arise. Communications and a mature attitude among the adults involved should solve most issues. If I had to deal with a club coach who wouldn't work with me and refused to allow the athlete to attend any of my practices, then that athlete would not be welcome on my team no matter how talented they were. A club athlete could eaily do their quality workouts with the club and do easy runs and help the school coach with the beginners on the team without screwing up any training cycles .... easily hitting the 16 practices and contributing to an improved high school team.

My recommendation for any athlete in this situation would be to have the club and school coaches meet and work out a plan that will benefit everyone (the club might even get some new athletes recommendations from the high school).

[quote=CoachFaulds]@tb400

When club and school coaches egos get in the way problems arise. Communications and a mature attitude among the adults involved should solve most issues. If I had to deal with a club coach who wouldn't work with me and refused to allow the athlete to attend any of my practices, then that athlete would not be welcome on my team no matter how talented they were. A club athlete could eaily do their quality workouts with the club and do easy runs and help the school coach with the beginners on the team without screwing up any training cycles .... easily hitting the 16 practices and contributing to an improved high school team.

@CoachFaulds
I completely agree. Coaches should be doing everything in their power to help their athletes succeed, regardless of whether they are high school or club coaches. Competition between high school and club coaches only makes it stressful for the student athlete, and could potentially affect their performance. I think both sides just need to be mature about the situation. For example, if an athlete trains twice or three times a week with their club and comes to school practices twice a week, they can still easily make the required number of high school practices needed to compete. However, things become more complicated when a high school coach insists that the athlete do a hard track workout when they come to school practice, even when the athlete explains to the coach that they have a recovery run planned. Some high school coaches mistaken athletes in the club system to be smug when they protest against their ideas. High school coaches assume that the athlete thinks they are too good for them in such a situation, but they are really just trying to stick to their training plan. An athlete can also involve themselves in their school program in other ways and still be embedded in the school without doing every workout with the team. In some situations, high school coaches know that club athletes are at a higher level than their other athletes, but refuse to let them assume their own responsibility for their running. All coaches want to feel important and have a leadership role which is fair, but they must also consider what is in the athlete's best interests and be realistic. On the other hand, club coaches must be respectful and encourage their athletes to participate on their school team. If both ends of the spectrum are mature and understanding, the high school / club running issue should be able to run smoothly.

@gtownrunner I think you're right in emphasizing the importance of adults having respect for the ability of teenaged athletes to make their own decisions about what's best for them in this situation. Over the years, I've noticed that discussions about this so-called problem amount to adults arguing over the heads of students athlete about what is legitimate to force these athletes to do (although, I must say, most of the forcing tends to come from the school coach side, because club coaches have nothing they can withhold from their athletes*.) The simple solution is to let the athletes decide where and with whom they would like to do their training, subject only to rules stemming from administrative necessity (i.e. keeping track of athletes to make sure they are duly prepared to compete in their events). The imperative for allowing athletes to make these decisions for themselves follows both from the fact that the training and competition processes in our sport are essentially individual (emotions aside, the "team" aspect of track and X-C is really just an aggregation in individual performances), and from the recognition that kids don't freely chose their high school (i.e. they are legally required to attend school, and are assigned a school by administrative fiat). In my very long experience of dealing with this problem, difficulties tend to arise when school coaches attempt to impose requirements on student athletes that stem from their hurt feelings about being rejected in favour of club coaches and/or their attempts to force individual athletes to support their pet concept of a "team" approach that interferes with individual athlete's own understanding of what is best for him/her. I agree that in the vast majority of instances, school coaches are happy to allow serious athletes (who are mostly club athletes) to do their key training sessions with their year-round coaches, and I know that most athletes are more than happy to do their easier sessions (including runs and strength work) from school. In my experience, difficulties arise when school coaches insist on pulling serious athletes out of their club groups to perform key workouts in the presence of school coaches (sometimes completely alone, or with far less able or committed athletes) in pursuit of some misguided notion of "team building". For serious athletes, there is far too much at stake not to resist this imposition; thus, fights will continue, and talented athletes will be driven from school programs, as long as these practices continue. Again, the solution: Take student athletes seriously when it comes to their ability-- and, indeed, their right within the context of a public institution-- to make decisions about what's best for them. Isn't this, after all, what the formal curriculum is supposed to encourage?

And about the OFSAA "minimum practice" rules: Very few OFSAA sports have these; and, where there are such rules, there is no preamble to explain their rationale, leaving them open to interpretation by school and club coaches. Some school coaches will say they are to ensure that athletes are physically prepared to compete safely in their events (a legitimate concern in my view), and others will say it is to ensure "team participation" (but then the rules go on to say that schools have the right to impose requirements over and above these minimum practices, making the whole thing moot). If the rules are about ensuring readiness, then they should never be used to exclude duly qualified student athletes whose superior performance level proves their readiness to compete. And, if they are about ensuring team participation, then club athletes should always be allowed to meet them by doing training sessions with their school teams that don't interfere with their year-round programs. As it stands, the lack of clarity around these rules allows them to be frequently abused by school coaches (who are, let's recall, merely volunteers, just like the rest of us-- something they remind us of every time they withdraw their services during contract disputes.)

*I've been hearing about and dealing personally with the situation for literally decades, a I can't recall a single instances of a club coach successfully preventing an athlete from working with a school team, but I allow that it could possibly happen. In this instance, the imperative to respect the autonomy of athletes would equally apply.

@JackFin Unfortunately, this is all pretty typical. Coaches like this-- and, thankfully, they are in the minority-- have decided that you somehow owe it to them and other kids in the school (even though the other kids rarely care what you do, and may even respect the fact that you're a serious, year-round athlete) to interrupt your program in support of some vague notion of "team building"-- and this, despite the fact that track is not a team sport, and you did not have a free choice in deciding where to go to high school in the first place. Coaches like this, in spite of being volunteers, have decided to make themselves gate-keepers of a program that you, as the child of taxpayers, have a basic right to access, and to guard this gate for entirely arbitrary reasons. After all, gathering to practice as a group is in no way functionally necessary to the operation of a school track team; track is, in reality, about 5 different sports, none of which involves any systematic interaction on the field of play. But, none of this seems to matter when confronted with the brainless and chauvinistic cult of compulsory "school spirit". Someone needs to do some growing up in this instance, and it's not the students!

Agreed, unfortunately some high school coaches just flat out refuse to acknowledge that there are many, many coaches out there that know much more than they do about the sport.

My daughter is caught in the middle of this very situation now, only in our case it is not the school coach that is being unreasonable. She is a sprinter as well as a jumper, but the school did not have a jump coach, so we had to find a private coach in order for her to continue to progress. In middle school things were fine, she worked with her jump coach 2 days a week after team practice, but then when she got to high school we ran into major problems because her jump coach has a personal grudge against the school coach (no valid reason, just an ego thing) and began making unreasonable demands, expecting her to only work with him, and not with the school team at all.

Besides being understandably unacceptable to the school coach, it is not what SHE wants, and would not be good physically or mentally for her. She doesn't want to be isolated, working out by herself just on jumps all the time; she wants to be part of the team and do running workouts with them. THe school coach has been very reasonable and willing to compromise, but her private coach is not, and constantly complains about her not working with him 4 days a week. He can't see that he is letting his ego ruin the relationship they had built and caused her so much stress being put in the middle that she no longer wants to work with him, even though it will mean not having a jump coach at all.

@trackmom10

Obligatory insidious comment pertaining to username choice.

gtownrunner

Agreed, unfortunately some high school coaches just flat out refuse to acknowledge that there are many, many coaches out there that know much more than they do about the sport.

@gtownrunner

... and some club coaches can't admit that they may not know as much as the school coach :)

... and some club coaches can't admit that they may not know as much as the school coach :)

@CoachFaulds I would argue that this is much less prevalent because most high school coaches are volunteers who don't have much background experience or knowledge on the sport, but I guess it does exist in cases such as yours. But regardless of which side of the dilemma athletes end up on in terms of which coach the prefer, I think it's fair to say that coaches' egos are usually a large part of the problem.

I have no doubt I'll get blasted for this comment so I just wanna preview by saying that this situation sucks and any coach who knows an athlete doesn't trust them, but still insists the athlete work with them full time clearly has an ego problem. I'm glad I never had to deal with anything like that.

Having said that, it is reasonable for a school coach to force a certain amount of participation with the school team for his athletes (if they want to be part of the team). The worst part of the debate is when people act as if their school coach is forcibly messing up their seasons and they have nothing they can do about it. All a coach can do is set rules for which he requires of team members in order to be a part of his team (and if those rules include attendance requirements, that's not necessarily unreasonable). If going to school practice is so detrimental to some one, nobody's forcing them to be a part of the school team - lots of pretty elite runners (Devries, Asselstine to name a couple off the top of my head) have avoided school teams and it's seemed to work out okay for them. School sports competitions are not based on evaluating which school has the best athletes that happen to go there, or the best athletes that happen to go to a high school, but the best athletes actively competing on their school team. There's nothing wrong with competing for one's self (and to a certain extent we all do this in an individual sport like track), but if a guy can't accept that part of his effort has to go towards being a part of that team he's not a part of it and the coach has every right to not allow him to race with them. This isn't a diss towards the athlete, but simply showing that he was never on the team. There's more to the great world of distance running than OFSAA anyways.

Any coach should want what's best for his team (which means having the best athletes run for his team). Therefore, most athletes are able to work out something reasonable with their school coaches if they (and their club coaches) don't get too militant and show some willingness to incorporate some amount of the team's training into their own training. Anyways, it's useful for school teams to have the club guys around every so often to help teach others and get better groups out for the workouts. Club guys should be sensitive about that. If an athlete is really trying to show a school coach that he cares about the school team and the school coach still is threatening to not allow the athlete to race then he's probably an asshole and who wants to run for a guy like that anyways.

Just my 2 cents.

@donjuan No blasting, but please consider the following:

1. That school coaches, backed by principals, have the power to set rules that may exclude certain athletes from participation (even when they are athletically qualified to compete) is not in question. The question is why any school coach would choose to do this in situations where it is not strictly necessary for the functioning of a team, and when the potential benefits to the team as a whole are not proportional to the sacrifice of the individual athlete. If we were talking about a basketball or football team, which operates as a unit on the field of play, it would be a whole different discussion, or no discussion at all. (But, ironically, OFSAA basketball and football have no mandatory minimum practice rules!)

2. Who should be allowed to decide what's an "acceptable" sacrifice for an individual track athlete to make? And, if a sacrifice contributes nothing at all, then it doesn't matter how small it is. It is unacceptable. It is, for instance, the easiest thing in the world to simply get up out of one's chair; but, it makes no sense to expend even this much energy for no appreciable gain.

3. Who should get to decide the precise nature of the "team" requirement in track, the volunteer coach or the actual team members themselves? I have never heard of a high school coach, when confronted with the situation in question, asking the team members themselves whether or not they need to see so-and-so perform a "key workout" on school property, in front of the school coach? In my experience, most members of high school teams couldn't care less what their club-based teammates do; that, or else they are inclined to support them. And those few who are concerned about actual team scores are actually more inclined to accommodate their club teammates. Again, see my point about just letting kids themselves decide.

4. Given that kids are assigned to high schools by administrative fiat in the first place, why is it more meaningful in terms of inter-school competition that members of a school team, particularly in an individual sport like track, do certain workouts at the same time, under the guidance of the same coach? Since the whole business is made essentially arbitrary by the fact that kids don't even choose their school team and coach in the first place, why would any coach want to mess, even a little, with an the desire of an individual athlete to stick to his or her training plan and training group for key workouts?

5.Granted, OFSAA track is not the be-all and end-all; but, it is a program offered by a publicly funded high school system. One would think that it would not be as easy as it is for volunteer coaches to exclude athletically qualified students from accessing it. As I said in relation to the Yves Sikuwabo affair last fall, everything is bullshit except kids actually getting to compete. Every single barrier to this happening should be judged in terms of what end it actually serves, and whether this end is more important than the goal of having more kids participate. (And, from what I can see, only age, academic qualification, and safety, should be grounds for barring participation.)

And finally, re: the issue of relative coaching expertise, the beauty of this question is that it's entirely up to athletes to decide who knows best. Your value as a coach is determined strictly by the number of athletes who would freely choose to seek your guidance. The thing about some high school coaches is that they are not prepared to let athletes themselves deliver this verdict; instead, they use the authority loaned to them by their school, along with the aforementioned nonsense about "team-building", to compel athletes, who did not freely choose to attend their school in the first place, to work with them (i.e. in return for getting access to a publicly funded school program). Whatever else one might want to say about them, club coaches do not have this option, for the simple reason that any athlete can access the club system without actually joining a club. All club athletes have therefore, by definition, chosen to work with their club coach (much the way all university-based athletes have had at least some choice in working with their school coach).

Though I didn't experience this problem in high school, I think that if a club athlete feels that they are more knowledgeable than their HS coach, there is an opportunity for the student-athlete to educate their HS coach, assuming the coach's ego doesn't get in the way.

For example, my high school swim team was coached by teachers who had been involved with aquatics (lifeguarding etc.) but who didn't have an extensive knowledge of competitive swimming. They were glad to hear input from swimmers on the team who had a more extensive background in competitive swimming, and allowed them to design their own workouts.

If this can occur, I think this is ideal, since it satisfies both the athlete's desire to not have their performance compromised by incompetent coaching and the coach's/school's desire for the athlete to have some sort involvement/connection to their HS team.

@oldster

I agree with some of what you wrote, but have a couple issues.

While having athletes work out with the school team isn't strictly necessary, it doesn't take a genius to see how it's certainly advantageous for the other athletes involved with the school team. So to use the chair example saying that there is no appreciable gain in their participation is a bit farfetched. From a personal perspective (and I don't think this is exclusive to me), whenever I've had the chance to chose a training group, one of the biggest attractions is having the best possible athletes to train with. Therefore, high schools should be able to get more participation if there are elite club runners around the team often; the incentive to join a team and work out with those athletes is a lot stronger even to somebody who knows nothing about running than the incentive to join a team and work out with all the fat kids who joined to lose weight because they couldn't make any other teams. Having more elite runners around often increases participation, workout, quality and general enthusiasm for the sport and is therefore beneficial.

As for what's an acceptable sacrifice to make, I agree it's a slippery slope, but an athlete's attendance requirements should be based on the fact that an athlete may have to inconvenience himself to be part of a team, but should not have to put his overall development at a disadvantage. While doing easy runs, assisting with workouts, or doing personalized workouts during school practice time may be inconvenient, they're not really disadvantageous. It's tough when an egotistical coach tries to make an athlete do something that puts himself at a disadvantage and there certainly should be some way to appeal something like that (maybe there is, I really wouldn't know). As for the other teammates not caring, this may sometimes be the case, but I think a kid saying otherwise would create bad blood between him and the club athletes and I don't think putting the other athletes in that kind of uncomfortable position is ideal.

As for one's school being arbitrary and not their choice, you may have a point, but while we're discussing OFSAA, which scores athletes as a part of their school and has most of its qualifiers (at least in cross country) qualify as a part of that school team, then the school they go to and their participation with that school's team is relevant.

Point 5 is really well stated, and the fact that OFSAA is publicly funded program could be taken to mean that all students athletically and academically qualified should be able to participate. If we're considering the fact that it's publicly funded to be important though, then it should also be recognized that high school coaching (whether done well or poorly) is often the only form of coaching available publicly and there is some onus on the institution that runs school sports to therefore promote these high school programs. That can be done partially by encouraging participation from the best athletes, not just at races but on a year round basis.

One important aspect to keep in mind is that it is a school sport and not a club sport so any arguments that kids should be able to opt out of school practices and then compete for their school is absolute garbage. It is not unreasonable in any manner for a coach to expect someone to attend their practice. There is a very good reason that there is no minimum practice rule for basketball ..... if you skip practice all the time then you get cut from the team!

As for team building, the best teams I've had the pleasure of coaching have great team spirit. They may be competing in individual events but they will get together and cheer their team members in a wide variety of events which is fantastic. I had a track club prima donna a number of years ago that didn't interact at all with any of the other kids on the team. His elitest attitude (and he wasn't that great a runner to warrant it!) really made coaching the group a chore. In hindsight, I would have to think hard about keeping someone like this on my team today.

One thing that makes track so unique is that OFSAA is way more competitive than the OTFA (this shows my age .... I can't get used to calling it AO!) championships so it is the showcase for track ability for teenagers in this province. This makes club coaches get way more involved than in other sports. As a comparison, my daughter's club swim coach didn't have any input or even care about what events she did at OFSAA swimming this year since OFSAA swimming doesn't come remotely close to the level of competition/significance as the provincial swim championships.

@donjuan You're clearly making an honest effort to think this through, but I'm not sure you sufficiently register what it unique about the problem we're discussing. Ask yourself, to begin with, why it is that this problem is exclusive to the public high school system. It's because it is only in this context that athletes can be compelled to participate in a particular program, under a particular coach, in order to be able access competitive opportunities against the majority of their peers. And the element of compulsion here arises because public high school students do not have unfettered choice when it comes to where they go to school (and for some very good reasons, having nothing to do with sport). And it is beside the point that they have the option of running for a club, because every student has that option, including those who are also allowed to run for their school (not a point you were making, I understand). Regarding group training in individual sports, and particularly in distance running: yes, it's lots of fun, and is integral to an athlete's development. It does not work, or at least not as effectively, however, when athletes are compelled to participate when doing so is not optimal or strictly necessary. And, again, it is only in the public high school system where it is possible for this to occur. (Nationally funded athlete are sometimes induced, but never compelled, to train with certain coaches for prolonger periods, and, occasionally, university athletes end up with a different coach from the one upon which their original choice of schools was made; but, this is exceptional, and transfers within university systems are typically easier than in high school systems).

The vast majority of high school coaches in the system appreciate the uniqueness of the fact that athletes don't get to freely choose their school or coach, and may want to access better (as they see it) coaching, yet still avail themselves of the high school championship system. They seem to recognize that it is not their place to dictate what a student athlete ought to consider an acceptable sacrifice, no matter how small, to a team he or she did not have a genuinely free choice about joining in the first place. (And, granted, life is often neither free nor fair; but, that doesn't mean we don't work to make it as free and fair as possible.) It's only when a coach cannot get this, or refuses to get it, that problems arise. And I'm actually pleasantly surprised how often school coaches do get this and are willing to accommodate individual athletes. Their position is typically that they will coach the athletes who freely choose their guidance, and leave the others to themselves, subject to a few minimal administrative requirements. Even coaches without a lot of experience or expertise seem to recognize instinctively that, while it may help other less serious and/or talented kids to have more serious and talented kids around (although I have extreme doubts regarding the difference this makes to less serious kids, at least in distance running), you don't get anywhere trying to force really driven, committed people do things they perceive as counter to their interests, particularly when they have not had a genuinely free choice to begin with. This is why the vast majority of school coaches are flexible about how club athletes are allowed to meet their practice requirements, and generally contribute to the school team. It's the ones who are not-- the ones who make rules that they are fully aware prevent kids from adhering to their year-round training program when other perfectly good options are available-- that keep this problem festering year after year, and, occasionally, force very serious and dedicated student athletes off of school teams completely, to the benefit of absolutely no one.

@CoachFaulds While it's true that team sports don't need practice rules because they have fewer team positions on offer than they do interested players, it is also true that the don't want them because they don't want to be forced to cut star players who may not be able to attend many team practices because of commitments to outside (read: club) teams. (Ask any kid on a high school hockey team how this works). It's not that team coaches are necessarily more enlightened or generous when it comes to club athletes; it's that they want the best players at their school on their teams. And it's not that track and X-C coaches are more principled when it comes to the "purity" of school teams; it's that track and X-C are not really team sports (or else fewer people care about who wins the team component of them), and that some school track coaches have allowed themselves to become entangled in jealous rivalries with club coaches, and have been willing to sacrifice club athletes in order make a point about who runs the show. That some of these volunteer coaches refer to school teams as "mine" (i.e. not the school's, the school board's, the taxpayer's, or the athlete's themselves) tells you about all you need to know about the origin of "mandatory minimum practice rules" in OFSAA track and X-C.

P.S. I coach at the primary school, high school, club, and university levels and have never had anything like "mandatory practice rules" (although I like to keep track of what athletes are doing for admin purposes). Any coach, at any level, who relies on the threat of expulsion to get athletes to follow his/her program has simply failed to win the confidence of his/her athletes. My motto: coach the athletes who want you, leave the others alone, and let the fastest runners form the "team", if there is to be one.

@oldster
The concept of team is elemental to what I do as a club coach and a highschool coach. Membership on a team (in my estimation) requires investment, leadership and empathy and I think we can all find value in these qualities. Maybe the lack of a team concept has allowed athletics to be relagated to a seasonal investment (at best) for kids. I am glad to say the team concept is stil alive in track and field as the Achilles Track and Field Society (Doug Clement) recently sponsored a meet called the Gran Forza V which places athletes on teams of five and values their combined performance using IAAF tables. Kids loved this opportunity to compete together. Athletics (at large) in Canada is in desperate need of a team concept. Why are club and high school coaches not pulling on the same rope in the same direction? Why are they not partners on the same team with the mandate to serve kids and grow the sport of athletics? When I look around at succesful programs,(participation+service+performance=success) I do not see a line that divides club and high school athletes, responsibilities or resources. In these model programs, the club establishes an umbrella providing service to a number of elementary and secondary schools. This means that club coaches inform the program at the high school level and attend high school practices and meets. The club exists (in part) to provide assistance and guidance to high school coaches in the development of a program that serves all kids (not just the fast ones) and serves them all year (not just during track season). Imagine pooling high school and club resources, expertise and efforts to create a year long program for all participants in athletics. Why not work with high school coaches and parents to develop a comprehensive year-long program? This would allow for the early identification of kids willing to invest in athletics (as athletes, future officials and future coaches). This "conundrum" exists not because of a misplaced sense of team in athletics, but because club coaches and high school coaches are not on the same team.

@slowandsteady If I may, I think you're making two separate points here: One, you suggest that a "team" approach to athletics is attractive to young athletes, and is essential for eliciting a more serious, year-round round commitment to the sport. I would agree, but I don't think this is what drives the few school coaches in Ontario (and I stress, again, that they are in the minority) who are bent on compelling individual club athletes to follow their plan even when alternative arrangements are possible and reasonable. These coaches talk about "the team", but they violate its basic spirit, which is freely chosen participation; And two, you present a very attractive vision of unified system in which those with a year-round commitment and the requisite expertise (and, let's face it, this is most often found in the club system) take a leadership/educational role vis a vis other stakeholders in the sport (parents and school coaches). I'm not sure this has anything to do with the "team" concept you reference in your first point, unless by team you simply mean people working together within a single system. We could well do this, but it would still not turn track or X-C into "team" sports in any integral sense. If track and X-C really were team sports, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Does anyone have to argue for a "team" approach when it comes to, say, hockey? It is only possible to argue that track and X-C training and competition should be approached as team sports because they are actually not inherently team sports.

But, to take your point on its merits, clubs may be leading schools in creating year round programs in your jurisdiction, but such an approach has been, and would be, a much more difficult sell here in Ontario, to put it mildly! Many in the OFSAA system, from the leadership on down to individual school coach, would reject out of hand the very suggestion that school sport ought to be about developing serious, year round programs of the kind you (and I) might envision. They stress the "educational" dimension of school sport, which roughly translates to not taking it too seriously, becoming too specialized, or otherwise trying to become as good as you can be (ironic, considering the general stress on independent student decision-making, and the embrace of "excellence" in other aspects of the curriculum and extra-curriculum). Many think the system is fine as it is, and accuse club system of being jealous of it, and of wanting a piece of it without playing by the rules (at least in track and X-C). They believe in enforcing deference to volunteer school coaches, regardless of their level of commitment or expertise, based on the logic that a team, is a team, is a team, regardless of the nature of the sport in question, and that teams need rules that everyone must abide by. The "team" approach on offer here is therefore not the one you reference; it is a compulsorily collective approach that violates the free and voluntary spirit of teams, not to mention the very logic of the sport itself, if we're talking about track and X-C. I'm afraid the best we can hope for in this jurisdiction is a little enlightenment, understanding, and flexibility on the part of those with the power to deny serious student-athletes access to the competitive system their parents taxes pay for. And, for the most part, this is what we get, thankfully. If there is a way to successfully appeal to the minority of less flexible, enlightened, and understanding coaches and administrators in system, I would love to hear it (as would the many serious young athletes making pointless sacrifices to appease these same school coaches and administrators as we speak.) I've recently come to the conclusion that the only solution to this "conundrum" is for the enlightened majority of school track and X-C coaches to start educating their less enlightened colleagues; club coaches or club athletes who attempt to make this case are too easily dismissed as "selfish" or "egotistical" for simply asking for some understanding and accommodation.