Yep, the FULL sign has been up at Terrace for quite some time, so any lad introduced on a "deal" does cost somebody something, whether that be a spot at the school or a financial loss of fees. Maybe that is not the case at other schools, but surely it costs something to educate these sports stars , or is educating them not a priority? Isn't that why you go to school, to be educated?
Agree.
However , "augmenting" tends to be generally handled within a ( predominately ) fixed cost delivery structure
It then comes down to ( for a school like Terrace ) as to whether you want to accept less bucks for X number of spots against those good parishioners in the heartlands that are lined up to pay full freight. So I would suggest its a revenue decision - not a cost decision - or if it is "cost " it is only opportunity cost.
So none of this actually effects real cost per se or doesn't have significant impact on resourcing in the delivery of the education.
All I'm really saying with my "can't buy it " comment , is that recruiting some age group stars doesn't automatically give you great culture. As mentioned in your "fan boy" , it can easily erode culture, nobody is going to be overly enthusiastic about bunch of self centred sports stars taking their spot. The feeling of others getting preferential treatment can quite quickly become toxic.
I agree, again , that it doesn't "automatically" give you great culture . And I never actually said that it does in the instantaneousness of it that you infer what I meant.
As to the claim that bringing such boys in can erode culture , conversely , the responsiveness of the existing entitled ,typically, tends to contribute just as much , if not more , to the erosion of culture
With ambitious parents of modestly talented athletes not being "overly enthusiastic of self centred sports stars taking their spot and the feeling of others getting preferential treatment" contributing to the rise in toxicity levels.
It's a big generalisation to refer to every boy that comes in under an arrangement as a "self centred sports star" and sort of reads more like a sense of entitlement that full fee paying , possibly multi-generational attendees , should have first dibs in consideration , irrespective of performance and merit , and then are butt hurt when their entitlement is challenged.
To balance this out though , and in reference back to the prior "first wave" / " second wave" analogy - the first wave typically tends to be a reactive , lazy and superficial process in adding talent and you either do get some kids and families that couldn't give a shit about the school , commit breaches of behavioural standards , or -from a sporting perspective , and if you are solely focused on a consideration of talent ( comparatively as to how they sit /compare with like ) some times the "talent" that is brought in is pretty average. And I think in Terrace's case , in some instances , ( not all ) there has been a lot of excitement in some cases where its turned out to be a bit underwhelming in actual performance v other points that have done it very very well - and have done it very very well for a lot longer and maintained exceptionally strong culture. Nudgee , and to a slightly lesser degree , TSS are the benchmarks here. If a policy regime survives long enough ( for those newer to the game outside of olds hands like Nudgee and TSS ) then the second wave is where you typically start getting it right and eliminating the factors that had negative impact from the first wave.
Schools like NC, Churchie and GT have got teams down to F's in every age group and 6ths in the Opens, so it's not an issue of needing more participation or future enrolments
That's all cool with Churchie but it is probably fair to say their Rugby Program for the last 2 to 3 seasons has been anaemic with very low commitment. BBC has been quietly putting together age groups in some year levels down to F level as well in the last 3 years from when the second wave began , proving , that whilst not perfect , you can certainly build participation significantly off the back off everything falling into place with good management and leadership - good talent ID , good recruitment processes , zero tolerance for individual bullshit and behavioural issues , a year on year commitment to improving Coaching stocks , re-engaging old boys to referee games and Coach junior / lower level teams , the engagement of First XV players to run water in junior games at the start of a day
The sons of rugby playing old boys keep these schools reasonably stocked with talent that are also passionate about the school.
It is an erroneous assumption that sons of Rugby playing old boy keep a school stocked with talent . Passionate ? Maybe. Probably. But it feels we're heading back into that multi -generational ownership and entitlement vibe. Hey I'm not against concept on an individual basis if the boy is there on performance and merit and he's the son of an Old Boy legend. But let it be about performance and merit , and taking a view that what is added can be used as a spur to the existing boys to want to compete and do better rather than this idea of ownership and entitlement because we were here first.
That's how you build culture when this idea , within , catches on.
