this may upset some...

after doing some homework women's basketball yesterday, something occurred to me. Of all the girls I researched who graduated last year and are Seniors this year, I didn't find one girl who was taking a PG year. Why is that? Is PG not for for females? Not saying that Jane White needs it, but one more year of basketball/schooling and she is going to a DI school, and not a DII school. I never read about PG females being the best in the state, like you do on the men's side. Last year I looked at the top 10 male players in the state and 8 of them were from Prep School, doing a PG year.
Why is the ratio of men and women not equal for a PG year? Is there not something like Prop 48 for Prep school/PG year?

Megan Hardiman is doing a PG year at Brewster. Recently signed with D2, Slippery Rock.

2011 Karima Gabriel 6'2" Forward Peddie School...DePaul University Melissa Giegerich 6'5" Center Tabor Academy...Davidson University
2012 Madeline Blais 6'0" Guard New Hampton School...Marist College Samantha Brenner 6'3" Forward New Hampton School...University of Vermont Melissa Frase 5'7" Guard New Hampton School...UMass Lowell Savanna Butterfield 5'10" Forward Tilton School
2013 Katharine Fogarty 6'2" Forward Governor's Academy
Alex Cohen 5'9" Guard Tilton School

I'm sure theirs more and it will be getting more popular with the NH girls just as his has done recently with the boys.

I had a feeling people would come up with a list. Which means that people didn't read my original post. I asked why is the ratio not the same. I also mentioned this year and last year, some on the list you supplied are not doing PG years or they transferred to these prep schools before they graduated HS. Karima Gabrial falls into this category, played two years at Peddie School. If the player is at a prep school right now and is graduating in 2013 obviously they are not yet doing a PG year, they have not even graduated HS yet.

You do realize that the girls that are graduating in 2013 don't have to do a PG year. Just because you go to Prep school doesn't mean you have to do a PG year. I believe all the 2013 girls have reclassified, they are not in PG years. I think your list gets cut in half.
Now you guys can try again. Remember, once again the player has to have graduated HS and then went to a Prep school to do a PG year. If the player has been at the prep school for more than the PG year, they don't qualify. See Connor Green. See Jamie Holder. These are examples of players who qualify for men.
Once again why is the ratio not the same?
Melissa Fraze qualifies, graduated at Kennett and did a year of PG. I believe she is going to UMASS not UVM. After doing some more research many of the players on Basketballtimes list are not even right. The list is outdated.

I don't have any statistics on the exact reason, but there are probably a few assumptions that can be made. The first is that utilizing a PG year, even for NH boys is relatively new. Although it has been around for some time, it is not something that is mainstream. Therefore, the women's game is probably slightly behind in this area. Secondly, the reason behind the PG year is twofold. The first is grade issues. Not to put everybody in the same category, but the guys tend to score lower on SAT/ACT as well as GPA (remember, NOT all). The second reason is for exposure. In men's basketball there are more players competing for the same number of spots, so exposure via the prep circuit is important.

As far as the rules for eligibility into college, I believe they are the same. Must meet NCAA standards in regards to completion of the 16 core courses and have appropriate SAT/ACT score in conjunction to GPA based on the sliding scale provided by the NCAA.

Lastly, I have mentioned this before here, but no matter what a kid wants to call it, 'reclassifying' or 'post grad year', they are essentially one in the same. Once a student starts his freshman year, that student has 8 semesters to complete the 16 core courses. IF, that student chooses to reclassify by transferring the timeclock for the 8 semester rule does not change. They are able to do a 5th year of school, or semesters 9 and 10 if you will and add or replace a core class. So the days of kids doing a post grad year and getting 4 A's and 2 B's is gone, thus making academics more important throughout the high school career. IF, that student has a diagnosed learning disability, then they can utilize semesters 9 and 10 to replace 3 core courses.

Boxout: If this doesn't clarify it, send me a PM. Hope this helps answer some of your questions.

Thanks Bobcat, excellent post, appreciate you coming around.

For some reason some of the forumites are not as appreciative of what the prep schools here in NH bring to the table both from an education standpoint as well as athletically. We have some of the BEST prep schools in the country here for both yet you very rarely hear about them accept every now and then here on this forum. The list is long and prestigious and we should be proud.

I think its great if kids have an opportunity to do a PG year, or reclassify, they're getting a GREAT education and playing some of the best competition in the country. Some of these kids are going to go to DII and DIII colleges, and in many cases, the competition they play in the NEPSAC is better than the college level. On top of it all they get a chance to enhance their minds. Make no mistake, these kids aren't lounging around the dorms waiting for basketball practice.

I find it interesting that people want this taken to a PM because of extended talk. Seems to me there is a pick and choose of extended talk. I have seen many posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
The Assistant, there is no guarantee that these kids are getting a better education. Once again I don't have a problem with Prep schools, I have a problem with PG years for players who have graduated HS. There minds are not expanding, they have already taken many of these courses. How they passed HS would be fun to find out. For every positive story about Prep school there is also a negative.
Prep schools have been famous in NH for years and years and years. It is not a new phenomenon. It is new for NH kids to do it, but the rest of the country has been coming to NH for Prep ball for decades.

Many of these kids have graduated from high school, but they did not do well enough of the SAT/ACT test to qualify to play basketball in college, therefore they go to prep school for a 5th year. Some also have poor grade point averages that would allow them to graduate from high school, but not the type of gpa that allows them to matriculate to college, therefore the options are post grad prep or juco. When you take that into account the prep option is better, because they would not lose a year of college eligibility. I'm sure there are hundreds of kids that graduate from schools with a sub 2.0 gpa. If you refer to http://www.ihoops.com/classroom/eligibility you will see that most kids who get a 2.0 will not get a 1010. Therefore they take a course over so they can improve their overall gpa which will allow them to score a lower score on SAT and become eligible.

How can you say their minds are not expanding. Many of these kids leave home and go to somewhere that is unfamiliar to them and are asked to do more in terms of homework and studying than they did at their local public high school that may have passed them along. That is not a fault of the prep school, but is a fault of the education system in the US. I'm sure we all know kids that were passed through high school by meeting the bare minimums. I also know that there are many kids that take AP courses, not offered in the average high school. There are multiple prep schools that regularly send kids to Ivy league and Patriot schools, so to classify them as not expanding their minds is not true.

Would it make you feel better if they all reclassified it and didn't call it a PG year? What is your problem with a kid doing a 5th year?

I think I have stated this a hundred times. I keep hearing the same things over and over again. I understand GPA, SAT, ACT's all that stuff. Trust me folks I am a college grad. I was not a 2.0 student. The problem I have is simple, millions and millions of kids graduate HS with a 2.0 that isn't good enough to get into college. These millions and millions of non-athletes don't get to repeat a grade to make themselves more attractive to colleges. They don't give out scholarships to these 2.0 GPA non-athletes. Most of these students have to go to JuCo or Community College and improve their grades. PG is strictly athletics and that is it. ONCE AGAIN I DON'T HAVE ISSUES WITH PREP SCHOOLS, I HAVE ISSUES WITH PG YEAR.
Reclassifying is not the same thing as a PG year, it is totally different and they really have nothing in common. Reclassifying means that you have not graduated HS yet. PG is a for students who have already graduated HS. It is the school systems problem, I agree. However, shame on the parents for knowing that their kid is struggling in school, and yet sports are more important. You do realize that it is easier this day in age to play HS sports they have lowered the standards. When I was in school, they required us, a to have no grades lower than a C. If you did you didn't play. Really simple. But someone found that this is wrong, kids should be playing sports and not focusing on their educations. I heard you can actually flunk a class now a days, and still play. You can't flunk two classes, what a joke.
If you also look at many of these Prep schools, they have about 300 students and 15 sports teams. Do the math, that means that pretty much every kid at these schools are playing sports. I looked at one school they have 4 basketball teams, Varsity, JV I, JV II, JVIII, when does it become time to tell these kids to study?
You can explain to me how they are expanding their minds, by taking classes that they have already taken? They have graduated. Naturally, if I take Algebra 1 and pass it, unless you have a serious learning issue, you should improve. Anyone would. I agree that they are going away to school, so are the millions and millions of kids who go off to college are doing the exact same thing. Sorry I don't put athletics first.

Thanks Bobcat and Assistant for trying but some people will just stick to their old and strange material? And to say the list is old or that some people are not PG's again dead on Bobcat with it's the same thing as reclassifying. I also love how some people think you can put everyone in the same category that does a PG. I know off hand many different reasons why kids do a PG its not rocket science? But some people would try and make you believe it's only kids that have a 2.0 and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get into college via prep school? What a wonderful theory that is? How about the kids that had courses during high school that didn't put them into d1 colleges because their school adviser didn't know that you couldn't qualify with certain courses or didn't bother help the student athlete should those kids suffer? I know of many of cases that kids worked hard and were honor roll students but didn't have enough qualifying courses to go d2 or d1? As most of us all know each division carries a certain amount of requirement courses and if you don't get the right info on which ones you need you don't qualify. Therefore if a student athlete can make that up with a PG why would anyone in their right mind have a problem with it?That's just one of many examples out there. Most kids struggle with tests but its a proven fact that boys struggle much more than girls do with testing. So does that mean we should just give on them because they don't do well with ACT's or SAT's? Or should we be happy they want to keep trying to qualify and further their academic career? Like i said before i will take the advise of professionals in the school system any day over someone who's has a weird gripe over PG's kids?

boxout wrote:The Assistant, there is no guarantee that these kids are getting a better education.

I never said they were getting a "better" education at a Prep School, just that they were getting a "great" one.

I'm struggling here, what is your desired outcome of this discussion (initially comparing girls prep enrolees vs. boys) and (PG years in general)? Are you looking for justification on something? I just don't understand where you're going with all of this, why so bitter towards Prep institutions?

All I see is student-athletes looking to enrich their future both educationally and athletically. Seriously, what could be so bad about that?

Just an additional thought as I re-read this thread - Bobcats point about living on campus, being away from home, is a really good one. These kids learn a LOT from being in this environment before moving on to College. Time management, responsibility, etc. Lots of great lessons for any kid doing a PG year.

Boxout unless you've got something we haven't heard before I'm not sure why we need to continue debating this beaten topic.

are not the same. Reclassifying is not a PG year. Not all kids who go to Prep schools need a PG year. There are certain people that just don't get it. Some people are so focused on athletics that they miss the educational part of this.
Now the strange thing is the examples that were used. Maybe some kid didn't know and neither did the counselor. Just so this person knows, this happens with millions of students every year, not just athletes. So why should an athlete get a second chance to improve their grades through a PG year? And with a scholarship to boot, who has ever heard of a child with a 2.0 getting a scholarship? Just doesn't happen, unless you are an athlete.
I have done thorough investigations on this subject and many states are waking up to the flaws of this unjust. States like Florida, Maryland, and Texas are doing away with being allowed a PG year for athletics. The wheels are in motion.
Once again The Assistant I have nothing against Prep schools, I have something against the fact that athletes get a second chance and the millions of non-athletes who graduate with a 2.0 don't get a second chance. See I would have no problems with any of this if little Johnny Doe who had a 2.0 in HS could go to a Prep school for free to improve their grades so they can get into a better college. Last I looked this is still America and all are suppose to be created equal. Clearly by giving athletes scholarships, who lets be honest don't deserve one, get one.

So Boxout by your own words why don't we stop giving all scholarships out period if you want fair across the board? I didn't hear you posting about the kid that never has to study because they are gifted when it comes to academics but still gets the scholarships? Why leave out poor johnny because he can't compete against an athlete or academic genius? You can't have it both ways your argument is pointless. Here's a possible solution if you want to give scholarships to poor Johnny Doe who apparently isn't being treated the same well by all means put your money where your mouth is and start a scholarship fund I'M sure Maryland, Florida and Texas will lend you money right? In fact lets start a fund for all the people in the world that don't get to be a model or famous actor or singer or a get to have that great job because they don't look or can't perform the part?

The student with a 4.0 is not taking a PG year. These students understand the importance of an education. Now if they gave a 4.0 scholarship to these schools that would be great. The singer has nothing to do with it. You can sing at any age and yes, everyone in the world has a chance to be a famous singer. There are no rules or grade requirements to be a singer. Actors are also not the same.

I am locking this thread while I edit all the namecalling.
Thread will be unlocked after I am done, but frankly I don't know why

OKay - edited and unlocked.

But I'm going to address this pointless name calling AGAIN


All three of the mods for the bleachers have had to address terms of service violations for this thread today.


You are all too smart to result to name calling or to react to obvious baiting.

Taking it to PM's doesn't work because I sent some today that were not responded to.

I won't have the time to edit things again tonight - so if it starts up - I will lock it and either
a. edit it when I'm near a computer and not my phone

or

b. you can wait for The Assistant or Tuesday and Friday to edit and unlock it.

I think we're done here.