At larger schools the % is less than at smaller schools I believe. Hard to play your Jr and Sr years when you are not an outstanding talent and are 1 of 75 than if you are 1 of 35.

That's not entirely true. Cooper for instance the last 3 years has had less than 50% of the freshman players go out for varsity, in some years only about 10-20% went on to varsity. The talent level isn't all that outstanding at the varsity level or they wouldn't have to have so many play both ways each and every year.

 

For some reason the kids lost interest while playing freshman ball several years ago and they need to get that interest back and I think they finally are.

I made this argument in another thread about what it takes to win at the high school level...it all comes down to the administration before the coach can really make his impact.

 

You want to give out "swag"...you have to have an administration that allows the boosters to do their thing or that doesn't handcuff the coach with a million costs and $100 bucks to pay for them.

 

You want coaches in the building...it comes back to an administration willing to hire them.

 

You want a solid JV program...got to have coaches for that...got to have money to pay those guys...see the administration.

 

Want the middle school program to hire and emphasize having coaches that are aligned with the high school, who take practice and development seriously...gotta have an administration that backs that.

 

Facilities, upkeep, coaching responsibilities outside the football team, flexibility...all administration.

 

Show me a school with a solid athletically supportive administration and I'll show you a team with 100 kids, regarless of how good the team is. Give me a building where you have a great coach and an administration that could care less, and I'll show you a good team with 35-50 kids on it.

 

Just my two cents.

I think something that has hurt rural numbers is the onset of middle schools. Think about it, before middle schools, you had youth leagues. Those teams would have 4,5, or 6 teams at that age level, depending on the size of the league - with 15-20 kids on the team. You are talking 60-120 6th-8th graders, most getting some playing time.

 

Few middle schools match that number, probably because kids aren't stupid - and many figure out they aren't going to play a lot - so they focus on other things. Some may make the argument that it just separates the wheat from the chaff earlier, but I would argue that a lot of kids don't really develop until they are sophomores anyway. Limiting the number of kids playing earlier cuts the number of candidates later, IMO.

After school activity bus.

I think something that has hurt rural numbers is the onset of middle schools. Think about it, before middle schools, you had youth leagues. Those teams would have 4,5, or 6 teams at that age level, depending on the size of the league - with 15-20 kids on the team. You are talking 60-120 6th-8th graders, most getting some playing time.

 

Few middle schools match that number, probably because kids aren't stupid - and many figure out they aren't going to play a lot - so they focus on other things. Some may make the argument that it just separates the wheat from the chaff earlier, but I would argue that a lot of kids don't really develop until they are sophomores anyway. Limiting the number of kids playing earlier cuts the number of candidates later, IMO.

 

Agree. Agree. Agree. Agree!