What is "it"?  You are against a travel ban, which no one, not even the MSHSL, has proposed.  Even the proposal for sports permitted travel to adjacent states, which is not a travel ban.  Also, if the MSHSL ultimately identifies a problem to be solved, digging in your heels and refusing to consider even incremental change will be a quick way to cut yourself out of the decision making process.

In no world do I believe a petition is enforceable.  Nor do I think that the MDTA will look at the petition, and decide they do not want to discuss the travel ban issue because it has signatures.  That's not my point.  There are a lot of people who do not like prospect of banned travel, a large majority of them will not be at the MDTA meeting, and many of them will not be overly vocal about the issue.  For those who consider any type of travel ban a bad idea, they have the option of expressing that collectively via petition.  Not controversial?

Limiting travel in any capacity is a form of a travel ban, and that can have serious implications for students.  It could cause problems with bid hunting as I already pointed out.  I've never operated under the assumption that teams would be barred from crossing into Iowa, that was not my point.

How are we digging in our heels?  A petition does not draw an ideological line in the sand.  And like I said, the point of all this travel ban talk seems to be about inequalities, improving the local circuit, etc.  I think it's false to believe the travel ban addresses any of those issues, so yes, I will bring up the fact that the travel ban addresses none of those issues.  Does that imply I view compromise as impossible?  Not at all.

And I wasn't going to touch this conversation...

Let me start off by saying that I am a big believer in working through the MDTA, ultimately the MSHSL. It is the on the strength of the community's cohesion and willingness to have these discussions that the MSHSL gives the MDTA the latitude it does. And I am a huge proponent of both organizations. I think the benefit of a petition is not that it in some way "jumps the gun" on the MDTA or that it will have some big impact ultimately on the MSHSL but that it provides two distinct advantages that can help compliment the very valuable discussion I know will be had at the general membership meeting in September (that I echo Cort in urging everyone to attend).

1) This is a proposition that affects coaches, certainly. And programs. But it mostly affects kids. And I think that it's easy to forget that the decisions we make for our students are often made without their input or consent. I think I probably have a better understanding of the benefits and disadvantages of a travel ban than my sophomores do, and I know that people like Cort and Pete and Tim and DJ have a better understanding of it than I do, but our kids are the ones whose experience in this activity will ultimately be affected. I'm not saying that we should listen to them all the time, but that it is important that they have a place to express their opinions about something that may matter more to them than will matter to any of us. Plus, I think that Michelle, Fresca Erik, David Allender, Robyn, Chelsea and all of the other committed Minnesota debaters who may wish to travel have a unique perspective they should offer. This petition is directed at coaches, yes, but coaches can have a say at the MDTA as well. Kids cannot be members of the MDTA and thus a petition at the very least gives them some voice at this meeting, even if only by virtue of their signature.

2) I think it's important to come to a consensus opinion on the reasoned objections to the travel ban and likewise, reasoned benefits of it (DJ, I think you should dig up those crazy ideas and circulate the same thing). The petition isn't meant to be a document that we use as an argument for or against this idea but rather a document that states our justifications and those who support it. Ultimately I think it is consensus documents like these where we can see where we can come to an agreement and where we are at odds as a community. It is my hope that the logic behind these documents appeal not only to the people who sign them but to the people who read them and who vehemently disagree.

Again, this is assuming that this even becomes an issue, which I am far from convinced will be the case. But given the potentiality for the issue and the fact that this course of action is not mutually exclusive with any other and I see no unique disadvantages, I don't know why we would NOT want to take it.

Having been alerted to the existence of this discussion, I suppose I'm sorta obligated to chime in...

Just one point for now: I respect what Joe said early on in the discussion about appreciating the concerns motivating people who want to restrict travel, but none of those concerns, however legitimate they might be, actually justify a ban on travel. At best, they justify forcing teams to choose between travel and local championships like sections, state, and conceivably Nat Quals.

All of the arguments for travel restrictions, from resource disparities to coach burnout from "arms races", hinge on the assumption that debaters who travel are still competing against debaters who don't, with something significant at stake. If that's not the case, then problem solved. Obviously, the only place where Minnesota debaters who don't travel could compete against anyone is at Minnesota tournaments, so we can limit ourselves to those. We can then divide them (at least on the LD side) into three categories:

(a) Apple Valley and Blake: No sense in stopping Minnesota debaters who travel from competing at these tournaments, since they each draw dozens of debaters from out of state who, tautologically, do travel. We had a kid at Apple Valley this year who didn't travel anywhere during the year, and I feel like even if Ben, David, Christian, Erik, Fresca et al hadn't been there to keep him from winning the tournament, Ross, Merrill, Gurdane, Danielle, Paul Tyger et al would prolly have done the job just fine.

(b) Every other invitational tournament in the state: I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the stakes are high enough at these tournaments that any competitive advantage enjoyed at them by some debaters over others is all that big a deal. Besides, the top travelling debaters in the state compete at these tournaments at such a low rate to begin with that their presence isn't really all that significant. I had to fight tooth and nail to get Catherine to go to one non-bidded local invitational this year, and that's still more than some of the other top kids were at.

(c) State, sections, and Nat Quals: Here, as I say, you could make the case for excluding debaters who travel, or who travel above a certain amount. I don't say that it would be a particularly compelling case, especially since it would require, which most of the people arguing for a ban don't want to, that travelling and competing at a national tournament instead of a local one actually makes kids better at debate (dunno how else they'd be competitively advantaged, since the judging pools at these tournaments, especially at State, have historically tended to strongly disfavor the style of debate that is practiced on the national circuit).

So, point is, if there's going to be a debate, it should be a debate not about banning/limiting travel but about instituting rules that make teams choose between travelling and competing at that third category of tournaments.

The only other reasonable argument that could be made is for travel limits on behalf of people who want to travel and compete on the circuit without being at a competitive disadvatnage against teams who travel more than they do, but that doesn't work for reasons already stated: Limiting Minnesota teams to four travelling tournaments a year doesn't do them any good against all the non-Minnesota teams at those tournaments who get to travel as much as they like.

Anyhow, that's my two cents for the moment; I'm not sure how much further I'll be able to participate in this conversation since I'll be down in Alabama for the next week, helping Catherine acquire the profound competitive edge that comes from knowing how to debate some kid from Guam in front of someone's dad from Missouri. Tim, if you draw up a petition, I'll sign it, provided it's not, like, non-confrontational and conciliatory or some crap like that. ;-)

I have not had the chance to read all posts carefully yet, but a few comments.

1. 1) Local, regional and national tournaments for academic competition should be encouraged. That does not mean that I would necessarily be opposed to limitations. But, I believe the presumption is that if a student wants to put in the time and energy to compete in math, science, speech, debate, etc. at the national level, then GREAT.

2. 2) Rules will limit travel. Those that argue that schools will just ignore are for the most part wrong, I think. My students ( and other coaches) know I prioritize states, NFLs, and TOC in that order. Why? Because I tend to think the school administrators and school boards look at those in that order. I believe my job is to protect the health and size of the program because as many students as possible should be exposed to debate, in any form.

3. 3) I think every coach I have met in Minnesota (and the ones I know in many other states) try hard to balance local, regional and national travel. I dictate the travel schedule in consultation with my students, they have input, not final say. I would guess that most coaches set their schedule that way. We split the squad a couple of weekends to cover different local tournaments. I like what Andy has called for at Lakeville South and we will try to support the “southern MN swing”this year. I think most coaches try and do that. Do we need a rule that demands that? From what I know of my fellow coaches, no. But, from the perspective of controlling our own destiny and not letting MSHSL dictate to us, maybe.

4. 4) Numbers of teams. Debate programs are hurting, no question. But, I would like to remind folks that Forest Lake had approximately 100 public forums team entered in a one day tournament. There are many reasons that programs disappear, I would suggest the primary two reasons are 1) lack of an adult supervisor (coach) to put in the time (even a local schedule) to coach and travel and 2) Schools failure to recognize the value of academic competition and thus the ease with which they cut those programs in hard economic times. The changing nature of debate formats and national travel may be additional reasons, but the former two reasons are the ones that hurt us the most.

5. 5) Limitations – I need to go back and look at the suggestions posted earlier. But, I would suggest that any limitation be aimed at the individual debater and not the squad. This is especially critical given the different formats of debate. Blake will continue to run at least four formats (LD, Policy, PF, and Congressional Debate). The more debate the better. If the limit has to be set, set it on the individual.

As it is 5A M and I'm probably rambling. I will add two other comments based upon what I read. Please DO NOT comment on number 6 and 7 in this thread. I don't want this thread derailed. If you want to comment on number 6, please back channel (email me). If you want to comment on number 7, then cut and paste and start a new thread. Thanks!

6. 6) The Blake tournament. I wanted to remind those looking at local tournament participation that Blake is a local tournament. Are we in a unique situation, yes, the hotel has different demands. But, we worked hard to help UDL teams and a couple of schools that came to me for help.

7) I will start a new thread, so as not to tempt people to respond here.

Some very thoughtful discussion.  DCH, in particular - excellent post.  I also think Shane's observation is very important:  the most important reason programs fold is the lack of adult supervision/coaching.

Haven't we constructed a system in which it is nearly impossible for a coach to have a family?  How many MN teams are coached by such a coach?  If we construct a system in which only college/law/grad students can handle the work, should we be surprised that there is a lot of turnover in programs and coaches?  Note:  there are certainly counterexamples, in the form of extraordinary human beings such as Gail Sarff.  But Gail Sarffs tend to be rare.  What are the odds that we lose our top young coaches after they have young children?  I won't name individuals, since I don't want to start a conflict, but I think MN has a whole group of terrific young coaches at the moment.  And I bet most of them quit in the next six years after they have children.

Again, I acknowledge that travel is a huge benefit.,  But those who believe that travel has no down side, that it is not a barrier to competition, that it does not reduce participation, are simply incorrect.  Perhaps the advantages outweigh the DAs.  But case defense - it is tough to win an argument with case defense.

Joe

The answer is yes.  If you assume that most parents already work one job to begin with - and I don't know any coaches who don't fit that bill - those folks see their kids off to daycare on Friday morning and might not see the child awake again until Sunday morning.  Travelling tournaments put that next sighting out to Monday evening.  Nobody wants that, but as long as everyone feels obligated to do it because of the need to remain competitive, the conflict between family and debate will remain acute.  The disadvantage to limiting travel, particularly in the fairly libertarian way that Pete has proposed, is the marginal reduction in tournaments that kids can attend.  The advantage that Joe points out (as he has consistently, like a drum beat over time) is that livability makes it more likely that coaches will stick around.  That very likely serves a greater interest to debate as a whole than does the 3rd round robin opportunity for the kid who is about to graduate.

That unjustifiably downplays the importance of travel.  Again, what about bid hunting?  A lot of students dedicate their entire careers to qualifying to the ToC (and balance that with State, i.e. Michelle).  Some kids do not get their bids until tournament 6 or 7, why are you allowed to tell them game over?  Travel limitations are an exercise in control over what students enjoy doing.

Also, what about ToC prep?  Apple Valley added two tournaments to its schedule this year (Stanford and Berk) partially because we would not be prepared for the ToC if our last tournament was the state tournament in January.  If we want a warmup tournament, that trades off with bid opportunities, which is a pretty ridiculous forced choice for traveling teams.

No one said teams should load up on the 3 RRs, no one is entertaining that.  But what about the MBA RR?  Thats an extremely prestigious RR that would count as one of our 4 out of state travel credits.  Point being with all this, any type of travel ban is a HUGE crunch on a nationally competitive team.

On livability:

(1) I think it's great people have babies.  My guess is, when people have babies, the reason they participate less in the activity is not because they cannot travel, but because they have families and want to spend more time with their kids, and less time in debateland.  Seems pretty rational to me.

(2)  Just as you have to manage your time raising your kids, you have to manage your time participating in the activity, there is absolutely a trade off there.  But don't blame it on travel.  And if you are going to blame it on travel, then make the personal decision not to travel, and don't restrict other people's ability to travel.  I don't know why that means you have to quit.

(3) This argument relies on the coaches arms race, which, as I already said, assumes what it is trying to prove.  Namely, that if you be competitive you have to go to every out of state tournament/match other programs.  That is not the case:  you can make the decision to take 1 or 2 weekends off and not go to Dowling.  I promise, that decision will not kill your program or competitiveness.  In addition, this relies on proving a strong link between travel and success (and solely between those two things, because there is a chance that with a travel ban, big machine programs will work just as hard, and make your life just as consumed by debate if they are forced to stay in the state).

On participation/inequality

I don't know why participation is so low right now that we need an influx of people competing at the local level.  Don't get me wrong I think increased local participation is good.  But the minimal gain caused by a travel ban (which may result in a loss, if programs go really gung-ho and reject MSHSL policy) is not the right way to fix the problem.  There are positive actions you can take to improve the local debate community that actually address the problem of inequality and participation.  These steps, like outreach programs, sweepstakes state awards, minimum tourney requirements, eat up most of the advantages proposed by a travel ban, and impose way less harsh consequences.

If people are going to support a travel ban, you have set the bar pretty high for yourself to prove that it will fix problems of inequality and participation, because you need a compelling reason to dictate to programs what tournaments they can go to.  You are functionally controlling the resources of those programs.  The only arguments I've seen thus far state some minor convenience to limiting travel for a select group of people, and those advantages don't even come close to off-setting destroying national circuit competition.

Tim, if you seriously think that retaining coaches is less important than the third bid for a graduating senior, then I think we just need to agree to disagree.

Travel restrictions are an exercise in control over student behavior.  Correct.  So are requirements that students have adult supervision at tournaments, prohibitions against falisification of evidence, requirements that students maintain an adequate GPA, etc.  The question is whether the control is justified.  Control is not per se wrong.

You say that when people have babies (might want to rephrase that) that is their choice (true) and they leave to spend more time with their family (also true).  But it begs the question of whether that is necessary - i.e., whether it might be possible to do both.  People with children coach lots of other activities.  Maybe we could consider a compromise?

You say that people should just stay home.  As you correctly note, that is the arms race argument.  And with all due respect, you're being unfair about the argument.  No one is saying that it will "kill" your program if you miss Dowling.  People are saying that when the activitiy becomes too demanding (in part due to travel) then they feel like they have to quit.  I really think that's a true argument; you may disagree, but you need to do better than the Dowling example there.  I guess for evidence for my position I could list a bunch of coaches who quit . . . of course travel was only one factor, but it was one factor in many departures.

Joe

Why are people making this my position?  Re-read everything I wrote.  This has never been my argument, so please stop prefacing arguments with "we should not let kids go to 12 round robins," or "we should not let kids get 13 bids."  My point is that there are students who do not have A SINGLE bid or TWO bids until tournament 6 or 7 in the year, I know this to be true because it happened to my kids this year, and I would feel awful telling them they have to be done doing what they love because some coaches have children.  Also, you are not answering my argument about ToC preparation:  are programs supposed to waltz into the ToC without any form of national warmup?  You are also not answering my argument about how prestigious RRs conflict.  That destroys national programs, and you fail to take any of those arguments into account.  A travel ban screws over kids who want to make the national circuit important to them, and no one is answering that concern.  This is the main problem everyone has with the travel ban.

Travel restrictions do not have anywhere near the same justification as these constraints.  We supervise kids at tournaments so they don't do drugs and die. Travel ban doesn't do that.  We don't allow kids to falsify evidence because that's academic dishonesty.  Travel ban doesn't check that.  We require students to have a good GPA because that's why they have school in the first place.  Travel ban has nothing to do with that.  This is a list of false analogies.

If you have babies you need to manage your time, the activity should not bare a burden for the fact that people have children.  This is about personal choices, you want to have kids, fine, great, probably a smart life choice.  Make your choices and deal with them, but we are not obligated to accept burdens from other people having kids.  Joe, I will absolutely agree with you on one point:  if you have children and want to coach debate, you are encouraged to do so.  But that is NOT a justification to impose HUGE BURDENS on other programs.  In the end, those people have to make decisions not to travel, I find it unreasonable to ask for huge sacrifices for the convenience of those coaches.

Why do people feel like they have to quit?  I don't understand that point.  Yes debate requires time, but that doesn't mean you quit, that means you miss a couple tournaments.  But you're missing my point:  a travel ban will not fix the fact that big machine programs will invest a lot of time on prep. That prep now will just stay in Minnesota, so the competitive disadvantages between schools will not go away in any shape or form.  Also, again, this argument relies on what it tries to prove.  Namely, that travel is inextricably linked to success.  In order for your argument about retaining coaches with children to make any sense, someone needs to answer this.  So this clarifies my earlier argument too:  I'm not against people with kids coaching at all, mostly because I don't see a link to a travel ban helping them.

I feel like so many people are dismissing the end all be all of this, which is there is a huge cost to the freedom of programs to do what they want, with at best a marginal benefit to participation and equality.  Again, the burden is on proponents of the ban to provide compelling argument as to why we should limit travel as they are the ones asking for a huge restrictive change in the status quo.  I hope these posts are not coming off as divisive, I think the discussion is a really productive one, and I appreciate the feedback.

How about flipping that one around?  Now it becomes "I would feel awful telling coaches they have to be done doing what they love because some students have larger-than-life high school debate desires".  Is the coaching side becoming a bit more clear?

Again, should coaches then accept burdens from other programs having kids who have national circuit desires?  We're all part of a community, and as much as you'd like to think that we operate as single units in this chaotic framework - we don't.  If coaches don't feel they have the time to be doing what they love (coaching) and being with what they love (family), then the community as a whole will fall apart.  The same goes for the bottom up - if kids don't feel that the activity will allow the level of participation they desire, they may not participate.  At that point, there's no need for coaches.

I don't think Joe is advocating a complete travel ban.  However, there are some concerns over the amount of travel that exists in both LD and Policy that warrant a real discussion, especially when other extracurricular activities are getting pinched.

Something needs to change, but we can't just bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we aren't all connected by this activity.  Chances are we'll all have to sacrifice a little for the activity...but is that so much to ask?  If your students love the activity, are they going to give up because they can't have exactly what they want?  Doubtful.  No one thinks that limiting opportunity and success is desirable.  But what if the current trend nearly dissolves debate as we know it in 10-15 years...Do we want the future of our activity to inherit a broken system?  Hell no.

Honestly I think KBK was 100% spot on.

PS - Reminds me of that poem in every high school history room...

Tim, this is a double turn.   In order for you to win your argument that reasonable travel restrictions would harm your (kids) performance at the ToC you must concede that travel is inextricably linked to success.  But then you implicity deny that claim.

Fundamentally, we are NOT ignoring the claim that more debate is good.  We are spotting you that claim.  All we ask, in return, is you recognize there are external costs to unlimited, unfettered travel.  Namely, the psychological pressure it puts on other coaches  to keep up with the joneses, and the actual pressure of traveling.

Mike Steffen says

:

I have nothing exceptionally substantive to add because I think I made myself pretty clear when this discussion was had on the old forums three years ago, but DID YOU SERIOUSLY JUST TRIVIALIZE THE HOLOCAUST BY COMPARING IT TO SPEECH AND DEBATE TRAVEL?

I'm not questioning the validity of your position on this...but wow, I do sort of question that add-on.

When did the activity become about coaches?  We are here to enable kids to enjoy their high school experience.  Also, not all coaches are lifers.  If you are a lifer, then you have to accept and bare responsibility for what the activity is, or you find some way to balance them yourselves.  You have to integrate the activity into your life, not the other way around.  Others do not have the obligation to make your life easier for the choices you have made.

Aaron Timmons has a healthy family life while still traveling actively with the Greenhill program from Texas.  Dave McGinnis has kids and is able to commit himself to the debate community.  Scott Voss chose the opposite route, he LIMITED his travel but is still IN THE GAME.  He made that choice.  It's a personal choice, and no one will fault you for making those choices, but you cannot fault us for doing what we want, and for putting kids and their success first.

If you concede there is a link to success, regardless of my double turn (which I'll explain that's not what it is), then your argument becomes that we should lower the bar for everybody.  Everyone in the state should be bad?  Do you accept that conclusion?

But this isn't a double turn.  My argument is that you need to travel to prepare for the ToC, and that prepares you for debating people outside the state who are not as ideologically similar as the schools in Minnesota.  That has nothing to do with creating success against programs in Minnesota during the regular season (which is over when ToC warmup starts).  Also, the marginal cost of missing a few tournaments will not kill your competitive ability GENERALLY,  but it DOES restrict the ability for kids to get bids, which is the advantage I'm claiming:  kids wanna go, they like competing, our function as coaches is to make the activity continually accessible to students.  As a student, I was lucky enough to have coaches that prioritized my needs and desire to travel, and I feel like as a coach it is my obligation to return that favor to my current kids.  We may disagree, perhaps our motivation is different, but it's hard for me to believe this activity is anything but for the kids.  

I can see how you would interpret that as a double turn, however.

Yes, I totally am.  It also didn't happen, and Ahmadinejad is the next prophet.

Are you serious?

That poem was touted around by my teachers all over the place to forward the point that we're all connected - we all need to stick up for each other and fight for each other.  And in that instance of the Holocaust, people kept to themselves, and only fought for themselves.  If you think for a single minute that I am trivializing the Holocaust by posting it because similar issues of selfish desires are propping up in this debate over travel restrictions, then I am completely stunned.  I didn't know that a poem about the event IS the event, but I guess I don't know much?

If I had said "this is like the Holocaust", sure.  If I said that coaching and travelling is like the suffering Jews endured in that time, sure.  But citing a poem that teaches and invaluable lesson - no.  This is why my post count will always remain abysmally low.

I'm not engaging in this discussion on a public forum that is supposed to be about the travel ban.  As a teacher, I'm just not okay with people making comparisons between tragic historical events and comparatively VERY minor issues we as an activity are facing.  But, if you want to engage this further, shoot me an email: zachprax AT gmail DOT com.

I'm not criticizing you personally and I'm sure nothing at all was meant by it.  I'm not at all mad about this and there's absolutely nothing I'm going to hold against anyone with it.

Coaches quit because they frankly believe that their input into the activity is meaningless. Two reasons why:

1) Not every school has the Tim Hogan's, the Zach Prax's, etc. to be able to travel on a consistent basis. They don't have the young, yet to be married (Prax is looking folks ) coaches that can travel with the students withouth having a family to look after. When it comes time for sections/state and other local tournaments, the schools without these coaches do not succeed as often. While in theory it is great to think that these debaters bring in outside information that local debaters can model, there is no way that these local debaters actually DEBATE like the students that travel every weekend. Why? Because they do not have the same experience. The coaches feel like there is nothing they can do to make their debaters debate better, aside from travel with them to the same tournaments.

2) I have also seen instances where there are teams that have a mix of coaches that travel a heavy schedule and coaches that rarely travel. The latter have their opinions tuned out by their debaters because they feel that those coaches' arguments are not as sophisticated, unique, etc. These coaches are once again left feeling like if they don't travel, their coaching is obsolete.

While we like to pretend that the above two things don't exist, they do. That's why coaches feel like quitting.

Couple things:

1.)  This statement is just inaccurate.

2008 State Finals:  Akshar (Eastview) v. Dan (Cooper)

2007 State Finals:  Alex (Eagan) v. Dan (Cooper)

2006 State Finals:  Alex (Eagan) v. Mike (Eastview)

2005 State Finals:  Lauren (Eagan) v. Katie (Highland Park)

That's 4 years of state finals with AMAZING representation from the local circuit.  If coaches are demoralized, I dunno what to tell you.  Local teams are competitive against national circuit teams.  There's no way around that

2.)  Why can these kids not debate like the national circuit kids?  They see an idea, they can model it.  Victorybriefs also has videos of rounds, they can model those ideas.  More importantly, Minnesota rounds are not national circuit rounds.  The circuit has not taken over Minnesota and there is a style in this state that is in pristine condition and unique to us.  That style has built in tools to deal with national circuit issues like "speed."  You can leverage our local norms against national ones.

3.)  Seriously, marriage and babies are not a good argument.  You are making life choices outside of debate, that is fine.  The activity goes on even if you have decided that it's not for you and you are making choices that conflict with it.  Again, no one is answering what I'm saying.  Scott Voss has kids, he withdrew because he had different priorities, he's still in the game.  But he's responsible enough to realize if he's going to be making choices about HIMSELF and his life he cannot expect everyone to bow to those decisions.  It's not the job of a 17 year old to worry about your kids.  We should encourage them to make friends in other states etc, not be forced to do what married people want.

Damn.  I mean, that's a pretty terrible attitude for kids, but I don't think it's a result of travel.  Probably more a result of a teenagers tendency to not listen.  Pam Wycoff, who for all intents and purposes, does not travel for debate, gives us ideas.  Our kids respect those ideas.  Todd Hering, who doesn't really travel in LD, is someone who is really respected by our squad for a variety of reasons, but most of it is just that he's a smart guy.

If you let your kids get away with disrespecting adults, that's not okay.  Don't blame that on traveling.  Teach your kids life lessons and some respect for authority.  

You are missing the point of the argument. Two observations:

1) If time demands are such that people who love the activity do not feel comfortable coaching because it imposes too steep a tradeoff with parenting and partner responsibilities, time demands are too high.

2) You view multi-coach programs as the norm (and use them as D against the time demands args) ONLY because this is the only sustainable program model given MN's competitive norms. That means that it is less likely that single coach schools will succeed (some do because their coaches are ridiculously dedicated, but you miss the point), survive the loss of their coach, or even START because people look at the competitive landscape and say "I cannot be competitive, so why even start." Do you want a list of 'lone wolf' programs that have died in the last 10 years? Circuits that have lower time demands, such that a single coach can field a competitive squad without selling their soul to debate, have more teams... see: Kansas.