Unable to compete

[barrel]

One of the things people often over look with football when compared to other sports and even school size is coaching staffs. Look at a team like T. They have more Frosh coaches than many teams have coaches period. In basketball how many coaches do you need? If you have 2 or 3 your player ratio is pretty small. Most teams have to split the staff to coach both sides of the ball. You also have to find coaches that can coach that position. You know how hard it is to get a good OL coach to move to a very rural area? How hard it is to get a para pro in rural areas?

[Dark Horse78]

Good points on coaching staff, spot on! Very difficult in rural areas to get a good coach to move there especially since rural schools often don't lose many teachers. Para pros are few and far between that have very good football knowledge unless you inherit them.

[leatherneck]

Thx Iam for the links. I haven't had to a chance to read them yet but I appreciate you providing the background information.

[CincySportsFan]

Grant County says they can't compete in 5A and can't compete in their own district. Really? Tons of schools can say the same thing in other sports.

 

The issue with football that's different from any other sport is this...the chance for serious injury, caused by the competition. It's a collision sport.

[rockmom]

I heard a discussion on talk radio yesterday about the decline of the NFL. In this discussion, the tangents included that kids are forgoing football for other sports growing in popularity in the US. Specifically, the rise of lacrosse was mentioned. Now, I know that doesn't equate to the topics introduced in this thread, which I think are interesting arguments and worth examination. But I don't think that even assigning a mulitiplier for the number of disadvantaged students is going to have a significant impact on "leveling the playing field". For instance, Iroquois High School (used in your proposal), is a school with one of the highest ESL students. However, that doesn't necessarily preclude them from being able academically or physically in playing football. What you do have, though, is a huge cultural difference in the sports that are preferred. Given low numbers of participation, and the increased costs of transportation for a school that already struggles to field a team, I wonder if this would bring about the end of football as a sports choice at that school.

 

I understand that there are differences in the challenges of public, private, independent, rural, urban, open enrollment, district bound enrollment. But I don't think reclassifying based on the economic demographics or the demographic of learning differences accomplishes anything other than to bring a negative connotation in association with those schools, especially those with enrollment heavily skewed toward the disadvantaged circumstances of their students.

 

I think before we consider reclassification of a sport based upon such factors, we need to examine the full scope of what that means in a larger context. In the overall scheme of things, the educational experience is the most important consideration when talking about schools. The educational experience includes extracurricular participation, but does not necessarily mean a powerhouse program.

[Dark Horse78]

The issue with football that's different from any other sport is this...the chance for serious injury, caused by the competition. It's a collision sport.

 

Easy assumption but NOT true. Here are the facts: Football has nearly 100,000 less injuries than basketball per year.

 

According to data from the U.S. Consumer Produce Safety Commission on youth injuries treated in emergency rooms (2012).

 

The Top 15:

1.Basketball: Over 520K

2.Bicycling: Over 450K

3.Football: Over 410K

4.Soccer: Over 200K

5.Baseball: Over 150K

6.Skateboards: Over 100K

 

I think this can also be skewed some due to PE classes playing basketball and probably responsible for 10% of those basketball injuries...but none-the-less.

 

I know I won't let my kids have a skateboard!!! LOL

Edited May 16, 2014 by Dark Horse78

[Bluegrasscard]

Okay, basic question: What defines "weakest"?

 

One way to do would be this:

 

Let it be defined at the end of the season.

 

Some here have indicated that the current methodology for post season lets too many schools in. Or that the playoffs are 'watered down'. Not invalid arguments or points at all.

 

I have advocated all schools getting into post season. If that is all in one tournament then the length of playoffs (adding another week) and the 'watered down' or blowout effect would get worse.

 

Another method that would be a post season tournament of the 'weaker schools' for each class. It would not be a 'state championship' and should not such a title. But a post season tournament where schools that are either constantantly struggling and never have anything to build on for next season or schools that are down for a year would have the following possible benefits:

 

a) Get all schools into a post season format and give every player a post season experience and not just let the season with a regular season game.

b) Allow schools that are similiar in 'strength' (as defined by that years record) play against each other at the end of the season

c) Reduce the blowouts and watered down concerns and;

d) Shorten or at least not lengthen the playoff schedule.

 

Coaches are under pressure to 'make the playoffs'. While we get 90% of the schools 10% do not make it. Some in repeated years. It has to be a negative atmosphere in such situation. It only hurts a down team even more. But if they had a chance to play in a post season game, maybe get a win or 2 in a 'win-or-go-home' format it would give the players something and take some pressure off the coaches.

 

With this you could take the top 3 from each district into the actual Championship tournament.

 

This method is how some travel sports are done for weekend tournaments. Everyone gets into the playoffs. But in different brackets. If you are in the lower bracket you clearly are not the best there that weekend. And if you win you win you can claim to be the best of the lower 50%or 33% but at least it gives every participate the same experience. A 'Tier-2' tournament in football could do the same thing

[Dark Horse78]

The NIT for high school football...interesting.

[kypride]

That is a cool idea.

[CoachReedWingNut]

Treat it like D-I football. Bowl Games for winning 60% of games, Playoffs for the 70% and higher...

[CincySportsFan]

Easy assumption but NOT true. Here are the facts: Football has nearly 100,000 less injuries than basketball per year.

 

According to data from the U.S. Consumer Produce Safety Commission on youth injuries treated in emergency rooms (2012).

 

The Top 15:

1.Basketball: Over 520K

2.Bicycling: Over 450K

3.Football: Over 410K

4.Soccer: Over 200K

5.Baseball: Over 150K

6.Skateboards: Over 100K

 

I think this can also be skewed some due to PE classes playing basketball and probably responsible for 10% of those basketball injuries...but none-the-less.

 

I know I won't let my kids have a skateboard!!! LOL

 

Not going to argue with your data. However, telling me WHAT happens, doesn't clarify HOW it happens. Basketball is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport. Yes, there can be injuries that happen out in the open, away from the opponent in any sport. But, football is a sport that is centered around physically hitting your opponent. Again, and again, and again.

[Harry Doyle]

Hands and feet. Hands and feet. Hands and feet. Hands and feet.

[BigVMan23]

Look at it like a boxer. I weight 250, i am a skilled fighter, posses a killer right hand, fast feet and great endurance. You also weigh 250 but you don't possess any of those traits. You are a fat, slow, and weak 250. I might beat you silly. Just because you weigh 250 doesn't mean you can compete with me. Just because you weigh 250 doesn't make it a fair fight. I don't have a God given right to beat on you because you weigh 250. I and my fans would probably enjoy a fight more against a different fighter.

 

My argument would have been he shouldn't have shown up fat, out of shape and unprepared to compete. And even if he did show up in great shape and trained, he still might get clobbered because...well...sometimes the opponent is just that much better.

 

Things will never be exactly equal. Some will work harder, longer. Some will be more focused. Some have the attitude and desire it takes to win and beat the other guy down. Some are just going to be naturally bigger, stronger and faster. You will have coaches that spend more time and more effort preparing kids.

 

If XYZ County has 1,400 kids and can only get 32 to come out for football, then that's a "them" problem and not a classification problem. If they want to better compete then they better work harder getting more kids out and getting the kids they do have in a better position to be competitive.

 

I have no problem trying to "even things up" more in the younger age groups up through middle school age. Once in high school, step up to the plate or get left behind in the dust. Just my personal opinion.

[CincySportsFan]

Just had a wild thought, and figured I throw it out there for the wolves to tear apart.

 

But, rather than determining class size based upon enrollment...what if you did it by a game-day roster size? It wouldn't necessarily restrict a school from having a lot of students come out for the team...but, it would restrict the coach on how many would be on the sidelines with him each week.

 

You could have one division for teams of less than 35 players, another for 35-44, another for 45-54, and another for 55 and up (or whatever numbers you wanted to work with). Schools would have to submit their choice for a two year span, before they could change divisions. For the bigger schools (like Grant County that was mentioned), they'd be able to play according to what they felt they'd be able to field, so to speak. If that's 35-44 players, so be it. Game day rosters could change from week to week, to allow for injuries, suspensions, etc...and could even be a motivating factor for practices.

 

And for the schools that field larger teams to begin with, I think there'd be incentive to still play at the higher divisions. First of all, if they want to be able to continue to have players dedicated to just offense, or just defense, etc....you're going to need extra bodies. Plus, you'll have to account for in-game injuries or substitutions. And, if you have a really good team, you're going to definitely want not only those 2nd string, but also maybe even 3rd teamers available for any blowouts that you may get into...whether it be to avoid injuries to your starters, or to just get game experience for some of the underclassmen. But, the other fact that I think would keep teams from "playing down" is the fact that if they said they were only taking 44 players to the game, that they'd be hurting themselves by the exclusion. And by that, I mean that if only a select few get to travel with the team, then the notoriety of program itself takes a hit. Maybe fewer and fewer kids start coming out, knowing that there's less chance of them getting into a game, even if it's in a mop-up situation.

 

Does it have any impact on the potential for blowouts? Absolutely not. That's still going to happen.

 

Like I said, just a thought.

[frankdracman23]

Isn't that what playing an independent schedule is basically? You opt out if the class you fall into enrollment-wise and schedule teams who have similar size rosters