Is there an "attack on football this state has chosen to pursue"

[Sandman]

You know what they say about those who assume...

The feel good that I talk about is because concussion is the injury de jour, 2 years ago it was heat. They proposed this to make it look like they were doing something, no more no less. Thank goodness they came to their senses and will allow the kids to wear helmets on June 1.

 

This change would have done absolutely nothing to help prevent concussion and in my opinion would have led to more injuries because even though it isn't smart there would have been coaches doing competitive 7on7 without the helmet. Nothing in the proposed rule change would have stopped that.

If the KHSAA is serious (and I do believe they are) about player safety they will do something about the almost 40% of schools in the state that do not have an athletic trainer on site every day. LINK

 

On the bolded, that's the best you can do? Figured you to be better than that.

 

Next graph, what you call the injury de jour, I call very serious issues. I read your post and assume you are brushing them off as "much ado about nothing." We all know they are real, important, issues that need to be handled. I assume you agree, and just didn't say so in your post.

 

Second bolded, I agree on all points. Nothing in the rule change would have prevented it (except common sense); It wouldn't have been smart to have 7 on 7 under this rule; there would have been coaches doing it anyway. I don't care in the least if there is 7 on 7, but the fact that we both know they would happen without helmets is concerning to me, and I assume you as well?

 

Last graph is also concerning. My assumption is the state doesn't want to mandate it because it will A) force them to fund it in some manner, or B) cause many schools who just can't afford a trainer every day to drop football. If either assumption is correct, I think it is a poor excuse for not having a trainer on hand.

 

But, I do agree a trainer should be there every day. My assumption was that if schools were serious about football, those in charge were smart enough to know this should go along with that commitment.

 

Lastly, the guy who lives at the end of your street and his wife are having one hell of a screaming match one day. Things are heated, and neighbors can hear it. The guy leaves and walks up the street, where, as it happens, some of his other family live. Later that evening, you see the guy walking back toward his house, but now carrying a rifle. Are you going to pick up the phone, or is that an just an assumption on your part?

 

Moral, we all make assumptions/deductions/guesses based on the information we have.

[Sandman]

Basketball keeps being brought up because they can basically practice year round with no limitations on what they can do, how many days they can do it and who can supervise/coach them.

 

Football lost 7on7 against outside schools in June, what exactly is basketball giving up in July?

 

All competition against outside schools.

[Sandman]

Thanks for the clarification. I read your posts. This is not personal at all. I was just trying to figure out how you came to your conclusion on the 'spirit of the rule'. Here is the actual rule and the actual "spirit of the rule". As stated previously, it had nothing to do with 7 on 7. It was about adults that couldn't get along. Key word within the rule is 'interschool'. The rule says nothing about 'intraschool', because it had nothing to do with football teams doing 7 on 7 against themselves in June, nor anything to do with basketball teams playing 5 on 5 against themselves in July.

 

The Rule

Sec. 2) RESTRICTIONS ON FOOTBALL AND BOYS’ BASKETBALL

Students shall not participate in any school vs. school (in any

format) or team competition in football between the earlier of the

last day of school and June 1 through June 24. During this period,

students may participate in activities such as weight training, skill

development, individual camps and accepted open gym or field

activities where no inter-school competition is involved. Students

shall not participate in any school vs. school (in any format) of

team competition in boys’ basketball between the end of the dead

period and July 31. During this period, students may participate

in activities such as weight training, skill development, individual

camps and accepted open gym/field activities where no interschool competition is involved.

 

The spirit of the rule

Case BL-24-1- What is the purpose of Bylaw 24?

Section 2 of Bylaw 24 was passed by the membership as a means of addressing a burgeoning issue in boys’ basketball and football, wherein the small population of available male athletes were being forced to make choices due to the wishes of adults, many of whom may not have had the overall best interests of the student-athletes as their number one goal. The rule specifies a period where school based competition (including anything that could remotely be perceived as required or using school facilities) cannot be held in football (June prior to the Dead Period), and cannot be held in basketball (July, after the Dead Period).

 

http://khsaa.org/handbook/bylaws/20132014/bylaw24.pdf

 

Carry on...

 

My interpretation of the "spirit of the rule" part kind of makes me still think the state wanted them to go away. That's why I figured they removed helmets from the equation in June. I think the state expected they took steps to alleviate the "adults" part of the equation earlier, and some of the "adults" were still requiring participation for 7 on 7 within the team. Thus, futher action was taken.

 

I'm honestly a little puzzled about the "adults cannot get along" stuff in your posts (and I have read them). I don't doubt this has happened, but can you make this a bit more relate-able for me. Maybe explain it to me like I'm a third grader.

[Sandman]

That's part of the season!!!! Not the offseason or summer. It's not different that the beginning of basketball. That's what basketball people forget or don't care about.

 

If that's all basketball got besides 10 practices bball people would flip. That's the fact.

 

Sandman,

What one has to do with the other is that it seems to many football people that June passing league was eliminated so kids could focus on summer basketball.

 

Now if we want we have to do it during the practice season and are severely limited as to when. It cuts into potential practice time.

 

With summer basketball camps you lose nothing. It's not during the season and there seems to be no limit as it seems to go on until dead period.

 

It's not about safety. Passing league is as safe as basketball if not safer. It's either the state choosing one sport over the other or just not really knowing the value of summer work in football and the safety it can provide.

 

I appreciate both of your posts. I think both have some flaws, but I do appreciate your passion.

 

That said, let me make sure everyone understands, I have no problem with 7 on 7 in June. I posted simply to give my take on what was happening (via the state rules). Nothing more. That's what the thread was mostly about, from my perception.

 

I am more than a little surprised by what seems like a rift between football and basketball, and the adults that coach each. I come to this conclusion based on the number of posts about basketball in this thread, and the posts that mention adults not being able to get along. If true, that's a real shame.

[All Tell]

On the bolded, that's the best you can do? Figured you to be better than that.

 

Next graph, what you call the injury de jour, I call very serious issues. I read your post and assume you are brushing them off as "much ado about nothing." We all know they are real, important, issues that need to be handled. I assume you agree, and just didn't say so in your post.

 

Second bolded, I agree on all points. Nothing in the rule change would have prevented it (except common sense); It wouldn't have been smart to have 7 on 7 under this rule; there would have been coaches doing it anyway. I don't care in the least if there is 7 on 7, but the fact that we both know they would happen without helmets is concerning to me, and I assume you as well?

 

Last graph is also concerning. My assumption is the state doesn't want to mandate it because it will A) force them to fund it in some manner, or B) cause many schools who just can't afford a trainer every day to drop football. If either assumption is correct, I think it is a poor excuse for not having a trainer on hand.

 

But, I do agree a trainer should be there every day. My assumption was that if schools were serious about football, those in charge were smart enough to know this should go along with that commitment.

 

Lastly, the guy who lives at the end of your street and his wife are having one hell of a screaming match one day. Things are heated, and neighbors can hear it. The guy leaves and walks up the street, where, as it happens, some of his other family live. Later that evening, you see the guy walking back toward his house, but now carrying a rifle. Are you going to pick up the phone, or is that an just an assumption on your part?

 

Moral, we all make assumptions/deductions/guesses based on the information we have.

 

It's not just football, it's all sports. There are concussions in soccer, basketball, lacrosse etc. All schools with sports (not just football) need to have athletic trainers on site every day. As long as that doesn't happen then I don't feel that the powers that be are truly serious about player safety and are just passing a bunch of feel good measures to make people think they are doing something.

[Builder1214]

My interpretation of the "spirit of the rule" part kind of makes me still think the state wanted them to go away. That's why I figured they removed helmets from the equation in June. I think the state expected they took steps to alleviate the "adults" part of the equation earlier, and some of the "adults" were still requiring participation for 7 on 7 within the team. Thus, futher action was taken.

 

I'm honestly a little puzzled about the "adults cannot get along" stuff in your posts (and I have read them). I don't doubt this has happened, but can you make this a bit more relate-able for me. Maybe explain it to me like I'm a third grader.

 

Per the bylaw, I would interpret the bold and underlined portion as adults not being able to get along. "addressing a burgeoning issue in boys’ basketball and football, wherein the small population of available male athletes were being forced to make choices due to the wishes of adults, many of whom may not have had the overall best interests of the student-athletes as their number one goal."

 

When summer basketball games and summer football 7 on 7 were both in June, kids at some schools were being forced by adult coaches to choose 1 over the other. Lets say for example the starting QB on the football team is also the starting point guard on the basketball team and both teams have scheduled a game on June 10 at 6PM. The basketball coach wants the kid at basketball and the football coach wants the kid at football. Because the 2 adult coaches did not work together in creating the schedule or setting up a system for which game the kid should attend, the kid is forced to choose. Hence adults couldn't get along.

 

The KHSAA correctly said, 'this shouldn't be the case and a kid should be able to do both without having to choose 1 over the other. We will legislate that basketball games against outside competition will be played in June and football 7on7 against outside competition will be played in July.' That way the basketball games will trump football practice in June and football 7 on 7 will trump basketball practice in July. The kids no longer had to choose between which game to attend.

 

To my point, the rule had nothing to do with the action of playing 7 on 7. It was implemented so that kids would not be forced to choose between a basketball game or football 7 on 7 against outside competition in June. IMO, if the KHSAA didn't want football to practice 7on7 in June, then they would have made a rule that states football teams cannot practice 7on7 in June. That rule would have been like telling basketball teams that they can have open gym in July, but they could only play 5 on AIR. It doesn't matter at this point anyway, because the KHSAA is still allowing helmets in June.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Builder1214

[Cats3x]

I appreciate both of your posts. I think both have some flaws, but I do appreciate your passion.

 

That said, let me make sure everyone understands, I have no problem with 7 on 7 in June. I posted simply to give my take on what was happening (via the state rules). Nothing more. That's what the thread was mostly about, from my perception.

 

I am more than a little surprised by what seems like a rift between football and basketball, and the adults that coach each. I come to this conclusion based on the number of posts about basketball in this thread, and the posts that mention adults not being able to get along. If true, that's a real shame.

 

Basketball does not share anything in this state. Its 1, and the rest of us are 2.

 

A fair compromise would be to go back to the old way, or prevent basketball from scrimmaging in June. That would be the only two fair and even ways. No other way around it.

 

Anything we do in football against another team is during our season. I don't think any other sport is limited like that.

[Cats3x]

Per the bylaw, I would interpret the bold and underlined portion as adults not being able to get along. "addressing a burgeoning issue in boys’ basketball and football, wherein the small population of available male athletes were being forced to make choices due to the wishes of adults, many of whom may not have had the overall best interests of the student-athletes as their number one goal."

 

When summer basketball games and summer football 7 on 7 were both in June, kids at some schools were being forced by adult coaches to choose 1 over the other. Lets say for example the starting QB on the football team is also the starting point guard on the basketball team and both teams have scheduled a game on June 10 at 6PM. The basketball coach wants the kid at basketball and the football coach wants the kid at football. Because the 2 adult coaches did not work together in creating the schedule or setting up a system for which game the kid should attend, the kid is forced to choose. Hence adults couldn't get along.

 

The KHSAA correctly said, 'this shouldn't be the case and a kid should be able to do both without having to choose 1 over the other. We will legislate that basketball games against outside competition will be played in June and football 7on7 against outside competition will be played in July.' That way the basketball games will trump football practice in June and football 7 on 7 will trump basketball practice in July. The kids no longer had to choose between which game to attend.

 

To my point, the rule had nothing to do with the action of playing 7 on 7. It was implemented so that kids would not be forced to choose between a basketball game or football 7 on 7 against outside competition in June. IMO, if the KHSAA didn't want football to practice 7on7 in June, then they would have made a rule that states football teams cannot practice 7on7 in June. That rule would have been like telling basketball teams that they can have open gym in July, but they could only play 5 on AIR. It doesn't matter at this point anyway, because the KHSAA is still allowing helmets in June.

 

So football gets no offseason competition but basketball does? How is that fair? Its not. I just don't see a valid argument.

 

How about limit the days for each? Give basketball Monday-Wednesday, and football thursday-saturday (and then switch it next year). No outside competition outside your days during June. Limit teams to 5-6 passing league competition days, and basketball to 10 competition days in the month of June. That would be a compromise and would keep coaches from forcing a kid to choose.

[Sandman]

It's not just football, it's all sports. There are concussions in soccer, basketball, lacrosse etc. All schools with sports (not just football) need to have athletic trainers on site every day. As long as that doesn't happen then I don't feel that the powers that be are truly serious about player safety and are just passing a bunch of feel good measures to make people think they are doing something.

 

Okay. But you bolded part of my post on the subject and never really gave an answer to how to solve it. State can't mandate it, state can't pay for it. What's the state to do?

 

I'll read your reply, but at this point I think we're drifting away from the starting point of the thread. This wasn't a concussion thread, and I offered much more in the thread you quoted than just this pigeon hole.

[Sandman]

Per the bylaw, I would interpret the bold and underlined portion as adults not being able to get along. "addressing a burgeoning issue in boys’ basketball and football, wherein the small population of available male athletes were being forced to make choices due to the wishes of adults, many of whom may not have had the overall best interests of the student-athletes as their number one goal."

 

When summer basketball games and summer football 7 on 7 were both in June, kids at some schools were being forced by adult coaches to choose 1 over the other. Lets say for example the starting QB on the football team is also the starting point guard on the basketball team and both teams have scheduled a game on June 10 at 6PM. The basketball coach wants the kid at basketball and the football coach wants the kid at football. Because the 2 adult coaches did not work together in creating the schedule or setting up a system for which game the kid should attend, the kid is forced to choose. Hence adults couldn't get along.

 

The KHSAA correctly said, 'this shouldn't be the case and a kid should be able to do both without having to choose 1 over the other. We will legislate that basketball games against outside competition will be played in June and football 7on7 against outside competition will be played in July.' That way the basketball games will trump football practice in June and football 7 on 7 will trump basketball practice in July. The kids no longer had to choose between which game to attend.

 

To my point, the rule had nothing to do with the action of playing 7 on 7. It was implemented so that kids would not be forced to choose between a basketball game or football 7 on 7 against outside competition in June. IMO, if the KHSAA didn't want football to practice 7on7 in June, then they would have made a rule that states football teams cannot practice 7on7 in June. That rule would have been like telling basketball teams that they can have open gym in July, but they could only play 5 on AIR. It doesn't matter at this point anyway, because the KHSAA is still allowing helmets in June.

 

Excellent synopsis. And I totally get your point of view, and see where you are coming from as far as adults not getting along. On the latter, I think that's a shame. On the former, we're going to end up with a different perspective (though you may be as correct as I).

 

On the bolded, from the get go. It's a basketball game in June, or a football arena game in June, neither mean anything other than player development. Just because another school is involved should not make this a bigger deal to the "adults" involved. It's off-season, not a "game."

 

On the rest of the bolded, based on what I know and what info you and others have provided; it's my assumption that just stopping outside competition wasn't stopping the battle over players commitment.

[Sandman]

Basketball does not share anything in this state. Its 1, and the rest of us are 2.

 

A fair compromise would be to go back to the old way, or prevent basketball from scrimmaging in June. That would be the only two fair and even ways. No other way around it.

 

Anything we do in football against another team is during our season. I don't think any other sport is limited like that.

 

Graphs one and two certainly tell me more about what AllTell and Builder spoke of as far as a rift between football and basketball coaches. What a shame. Do you agree? You sure seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason.

 

On the last graph, football is unique in several ways. One of which is SIX classes which means a SIX times greater chance of being a state champion than most other sports (all other sports except track and cross country).

[Cats3x]

Graphs one and two certainly tell me more about what AllTell and Builder spoke of as far as a rift between football and basketball coaches. What a shame. Do you agree? You sure seem to have a chip on your shoulder for some reason.

 

On the last graph, football is unique in several ways. One of which is SIX classes which means a SIX times greater chance of being a state champion than most other sports (all other sports except track and cross country).

 

Yeah I have a chip on my shoulder. I feel that the state is slowly sucking the life out of football, which is the sport in which more kids can play than any. I'm ready for one change that actually benefits football.

[uk#1fan]

Why Football Matters, By John Harbaugh

[Sandman]

Yeah I have a chip on my shoulder. I feel that the state is slowly sucking the life out of football, which is the sport in which more kids can play than any. I'm ready for one change that actually benefits football.

 

I'll play along though, frankly, you're boring me.

 

First bolded: So you admit you have a problem with other sports and multiple sport athletes doing what's in their best interest? You certainly seem to have a football at all costs mentality. How's that best for the actual player?

 

Second bolded: The state gave football Spring practice, flex scheduling, varying playoff formats, and finally 6 classes. The state has been pumping new life into football for 15 years.

 

Third bolded: I'd go easy on that statement. Soccer puts 11 kids on the field at a time, and also obviously has subs regularly. Baseball has nine, plus a possible AH to bring it to 10. With pinch hitters, pinch runners, alternate runners, and relief pitchers, a lot of kids can play in a game. Track has a ton of events, including relays. Guessing a lot of kids get to compete at a typical track meet.

 

Last bolded: See second bolded.

[rjs4470]

[/b]

 

I'll play along though, frankly, you're boring me.

 

First bolded: So you admit you have a problem with other sports and multiple sport athletes doing what's in their best interest? You certainly seem to have a football at all costs mentality. How's that best for the actual player?

 

Second bolded: The state gave football Spring practice, flex scheduling, varying playoff formats, and finally 6 classes. The state has been pumping new life into football for 15 years.

 

Third bolded: I'd go easy on that statement. Soccer puts 11 kids on the field at a time, and also obviously has subs regularly. Baseball has nine, plus a possible AH to bring it to 10. With pinch hitters, pinch runners, alternate runners, and relief pitchers, a lot of kids can play in a game. Track has a ton of events, including relays. Guessing a lot of kids get to compete at a typical track meet.

 

Last bolded: See second bolded.

 

Don't forget year round (aside from holiday breaks and the dead period) lifting programs which at some schools are closer to mandatory than voluntary. Football has only gained extra time over the years (Which I'm happy about).

 

And as far as participation, don't forget about wrestling where there is 14 spots (plus exhibition matches, and often extra spots to fill in individual tournaments) and you get to compete against someone that is actually your size.