<p>Football takes up 10 hours per week in the offseason (9 months per year) and 25 hours per week during the season (3 months per year).</p>
<p>Most other EC's I see on here (Key club, French Club, Student Government, Peer Group, etc) generally consume about 1 to 2 hours per MONTH. </p>
<p>To me that means that a student who does not play a sport would need 10 EC's to equal a student who plays football.</p>
<p>What's your opinion on this?</p>
<p>I agree with you, but I doubt schools do.</p>
<p>(also a football player, and it takes a RIDICULOUS amount of time)</p>
<p>Our team is only 15 hours during the 3 month season. (O.K., so we're not that great!) You are right, though. V.P. of the once-monthly Spanish Club might look better on my resume and it shouldn't.</p>
<p>That's my point....club grubbers take notice! The colleges are onto your little schemes...moo ha ha ha ha!</p>
<p>It's not what your title is, it's what you do with it.</p>
<p>Football isn't some god-almighty ec. Sorry to burst your bubble</p>
<p>I think maybe the point is that some ECs are more time consuming, and not everyone is recognizing them as that. My varsity dance team practices 11 months a year, 7 hours a week. Then there are halftime performances at football soccer and basketball, plus competitions and fundraisers and community things we do as a team. We have the longest running season (not counting those kids that do like lifting to supplement football or whatever) in the entire school. However we are the least recognized team in the school. </p>
<p>Also, I doubt colleges give too much consideration to "Varsity Dance Team, 9-12, Captain 12" vs. Pres of XXX Club and Tutor and researcher, etc that takes the same amount of time and effort.</p>
<p><<<<football isn't="" some="" god-almighty="" ec.="" sorry="" to="" burst="" your="" bubble="">>>></football></p>
<p>Ok..let's have examples of a "god-almighty ec" please...</p>
<p>Isn't this why they ask for hours spent on each activity on the common app.?</p>
<p>I have seen lots of posts from kids who are applying to Ivy League schools. Many of these kids list 20 different EC activities in their profiles. Having said that, I still haven't seen any lists that would exceed 100 hours per month.</p>
<p>I would argue that football is the king of all EC's.</p>
<p>^i would disagree. its a nice ec, very time consuming and all, but no way it beats being a state or national officer of something (unless your a recruited athlete)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Isn't this why they ask for hours spent on each activity on the common app.?
[/quote]
QFE
The same goes for many sports (and other activities)
I run XC and track, and I spend about 18 hours a week for about 48-50 weeks a year.</p>
<p>There are a lot of apples and organge types of comparisons here. But the bottom line is the time spent for whatever activity(ies) and the level of success at these. Clearly for revenue sports there are many rewards for good players not available to people in what the NCAA calls other sports category even though they may spend more time. My D is a nationally ranked fencer and I can assure you spends more hours doing that than the numbers given for football above. Furthermore, even at schools that may claim they do not give any non-need scholarships revenue sports athletes manage to get financial aid regardless of need -- often it is not called a scholarship. It is similar for non-sport ECs, who mostly will get nothing for their ECs other than to get in to the college of their choice. I believe in the end it is related to performance and time, and the schools try to do a decent job at making those trade-offs. Plus often you see people who "collect" ECs, not get into their first choice schools.</p>
<p>Football teaches you teamwork, cooperative skills, leadership and sportsmanship. It's also very time consuming, and much more strenuous and demanding than some other EC's. I agree, it should stand out more.</p>
<p>I assume you are referring to all team sports, not just football. And sportmanship, is generally a requirement of all sports team or not. Any competitive level sports person will gain these things, but one could argue that a quarterback get more leadership skill than a lineman. And first string players benefit more then second, or third stringers. At the same time, one can suggest that basketball, soccer, hockey, and Lacrosse players (to name a few) gain more in terms of teamwork and cooperative skills because the flow of action in the games is longer and more regularly covers the "field?court" than a typical play in football. </p>
<p>The point is that sports provides a set of benefits different that many other ECs may not. On the other hand, many other ECs provide benefits that are not available through sports (including leadership cooperation etc). So arbitrarily saying football should count more is not in the best interest of schools in the selection process. And in the end how good is the person at the sport? A third string guard for a team with a 5/5 record is not the same as the first string guard on the state champions team.</p>
<p><<<a third="" string="" guard="" for="" a="" team="" with="" 5="" record="" is="" not="" the="" same="" as="" first="" on="" state="" champions="" team.="">>></a></p><a third="" string="" guard="" for="" a="" team="" with="" 5="" record="" is="" not="" the="" same="" as="" first="" on="" state="" champions="" team.="">
<p>Depends...do the colleges know what kind of team a kid comes from? For example, a 3rd string guard on a Group IV (biggest) state championship team can probably make a 1st string guard on a Group 1 (smallest) team into his girlfriend on the gridiron.</p>
<p>Say the 1st string guard is the Captain of his tiny team that only has 25 kids on it. Does that count more than the bench warmer on the big team, even though the bench warmer is the better player? Sounds kind of unfair to me. </p>
<p>Hopefully the college admissions folks know the difference between playing football at nationally ranked Don Bosco in NJ and someone who plays at some rural farm school with total enrollment of 200 kids.</p>
</a>
<p>Unless you're being recruited by a coach, I think they care more about the time/commitment that you put into it than how good you are.</p>
<p>Yeah I only played freshman year b/c I simply didn't have enough time w/ school and tennis at a very high level, but football is extremely rewarding and time consuming. I think colleges should look at it very highly, especially if you do well.</p>
<p>I played football 2 years. The other two years I did clubs. I regret everyday in the season I didn't continue. Although I wasn't good (I started few games and played mainly as backup and special teams), it was possibly the most rewarding experience ever. One practice, 3.5 hours, took more time up then 2 clubs in a month. Colleges know that. They don't care about an array of clubs. Maybe if you were President. Maybe if you actually impacted the school or community in some way. BUT Colleges care about the dedication to an EC activity. And Colleges know that football is dedication to the max.</p>