Back in the stone age when I played at Frankfort High the team would elect captains for the next year after spring practice. It truly was an honor and you were basically given off field responsibilities of calling others on curfew nights and making sure team rules were followed. You lead warmups at practice and were expected to be the first in every drill,so it was an on and off field position. We got a star to go on top of our bars for our letter jackets. Most of the time only three were elected and every once in awhile 4. Alot of teams now have captains for game night only, that do the coin toss. I personally think this takes away from a very good leadership tool that coaches could use to their advantage.

I totally agree with you, Grant County also elects their captains.

Electing captains is good and bad IMO - I say this because I believe that a lot of times captains are elected basically on a popularity vote. Sometimes you get good captains but a lot of times you get bad leaders. IMO they should evaluate a players performance at practice and during the school week to see who has may the best effort to show leadership and maturity.

Good arguments on both sides, I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone thinks on this topic. I am undecided at this point. I can see the pros and cons of both.

I believe our team had three captains voted upon by the team. The coaches would then elect an additional captain each week depending upon who worked hard in practice or shined during the previous game. I always thought this to be a good system.

Players usually emerge as a leader, on various teams. I like the theory, of making Seniors captains. Hold them accountable, in game prep and warm-up.

 

Gives them responsibility and should make younger players, look up to and give them a peer to respect both on and off the field.

I think the staff and coaches should pick captains, sometimes leaders arent the most popular players especially if you got a group of kids that are not highly motivated. True leadership has been hard to find in sports in the new age, IMO.

When I played the coaches counted the votes. Read into that what you will.

When I played the coaches counted the votes. Read into that what you will.

Who else would count the votes?

Now days you could have board members interested in it.

Now days you could have board members interested in it.

 

 

Imagine That?? :creepy:

Good arguments on both sides, I'm looking forward to seeing what everyone thinks on this topic. I am undecided at this point. I can see the pros and cons of both.

 

I agree with the good and bad.

 

It doesn't always have to be the best player on the team that is the captain. I have seen players that were only role players on a team but they had the respect of all their teammates and were trying to lead by example and the stars followed him and the team had a lot of success.

 

The good is that it puts the captain in a leadership role and gives them some accountabilty in the teams success.

 

The bad is that it could cause jealousy among other members of the team leading to them not following the captain because they are jealous of them. Also if there is a team that does not have a captain that is willing to do the extra work and do things the right way the team could follow him in the wrong direction.

When I played the players elected the Captains. Each player turned in a name with who they wanted as Captain. The coach took the names into his office and counted them up. He announced the Captains the next practice. 30 years passed and in talking with the head coach I found out that he selected who he wanted regardless of what we wanted. We never knew the difference.

Corbin (players) elect 4 captains and they are announced by the coach at the end of the year banquet. Only Upper classmen are eligible. They must be leaders on and off the field.

LCC players elect four captains, they have two on the o-side and two on the d-side.