|
Post by Coach JR on Mar 15, 2009 12:43:02 GMT -6
If you are from TX, Texas is better. If you are from Ga, Georgia is better. If you are from Fla, Florida is better. If you are from Ala, Alabama is better. If you are from the South, the South is better - etc. etc. I agree with that to a point, but there's no denying what areas of the country produce the most D-1 and NFL players, and I think it starts with a commitment to football. Generally speaking, I think you covered most of the best areas of HS football. I'd throw in LA too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2009 13:54:56 GMT -6
I don't know there's quite a few teams up here in Pa that I think could hold their own against some southern teams. I'd pitt that CB West team back in the 90's against darn near anyone. North Penn right now is a powerhouse too
|
|
|
Post by stone65 on Mar 15, 2009 17:33:08 GMT -6
I have coached in Texas, and in Alabama. To be honest, it's pretty much the same. The only difference I noticed was that there are a whole lot more schools in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by coachiminime on Mar 15, 2009 20:46:15 GMT -6
I coach in suburb of NYC and its a shame how little importance is placed on athletics and football specifically. I am envious of you guys that coachin the big states. We are a successful team that plays in front of about 200 fans at most on a Saturday. Besides the Principal the FB coach should be the most influential adult in th ebuilding, not around here; people think you are a dumb jock for the most part and do not see the intrinsic value of competing. Our area has big, fast, strong kids that do not play for a variety of reasons 1) Like someone mentioned the Coaching positions are not given the majority of time by merit but by union politics and longevity, this is the number one reason in my opinion why FB in the NE is total joke 2) FB is hard and the kids here and their parents because they have some money do not think they should be doing hard things 3) There are no athletic periods, facilities wt rooms are subpar compared to the rest of the country 4) Coaching salaries are very poor compared to other sports/ activities that it is hard to get talented coaches to stay in it once they have families( you can tutor 3 hours a week and make pretty much the dame $$$$$$ 5) Lacrosse ruins fb here on the island, kids do not push themselves b/c they know they are going toget a lax scholarship- even though it is only probably a half-one 6) Coaches here bury thier kids and tell them not to play FB, I mean basketball and baseball coaches telling kids they have to play fall, spring summer to compete 7) Community support is lacking compared to the other parts of the country, you can go to a pro game in every sport, college game, beaches, parks movies theater everywhere, more distractions
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Mar 15, 2009 22:42:24 GMT -6
From what I know, I'd agree that when looking at everything, Texas is the best situation for coaches. Still I'll argue with this a little:
The top teams in the other states are probably comparable but I think the difference is in the smaller schools.
In Nebraska, there is an awful lot of small school football- and it is good football. Comparing my experience in small school Nebraska vs. big school Colorado- athletically, Nebraska (small) stacks up well with CO (big).
There are a lot of what I'd call "Texas-like" schools here. For those of us who have that luxury- we have athletic period (and 3 weight training classes), football is year round (we don't get spring ball, but are pretty freed up in the summer and can have or attend camps where full pads and coaching are allowed...plus 7 on 7 where coaches can be involved). Coaching stipend is not nearly as good (but pay is relative... very cheap to live here). Attendance at games is great (and relative- when both towns population equals 1500... getting 1200 to a game is good). Our district pays for subs during the playoffs so we can drive all over to get film (we get one day a week). And I'd still put our weight room up against any other school our size in the nation (not that there are many our size...72 in the HS, but our WR here is better than the one I had in CO at a school of 2300).
Nebraska doesn't measure up to Texas across the board though because: 1) population- not near enough 5A/4A schools in this state. 28 in the largest class here, plus while there is some talent, the metro areas (Omaha and Lincoln) have very little emphasis on football, for the most part (some exceptions). 2) Emphasis on football will vary drastically 10 miles down the road. We have it good here. Very good...and I know of a lot of other schools like this who have it good. The thing is, though, for every one "Texas-situation" in this state... there are three or four that are not at all like that.
It is no real secret why certain programs are successful year in and year out in this state.
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Mar 16, 2009 8:07:29 GMT -6
[/quote]
I think what he meant was that in TX, the COACHES are real coaches. They are the guys that have 1,500 posts on this board. [/quote]
dang, i have a ways to go before I am a real coach
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Mar 16, 2009 8:31:39 GMT -6
We have played teams from Fla, Oh, Ga, NC, Tenn, and La. The biggest differences I can see:
-- OH may not have the 'athletes' of other states but their line play is incredible; very well coached and technically sound.
-- Teams from the 'athletic' states tend to get by more on that athleticism. Not saying they don't get coached, but it probably a product of simply doing what you need in order to succeed.
-- If the community thinks football is important, then the teams from that area will tend to be better than those in the surrounding areas. Therefore, the supplements are higher, more fields to use, bigger weight room, etc.... regardless of the region of the country.
-- The style of football is different from state to state. For example in Ohio, more teams focus on the running game b/c come playoff time, the weather is a lot worse than in the south. Down here you see more passing/spread teams. Very few teams in the upper divisions of SC run option or smash mouth football.
-- Football in the is south is THE sport to play. In other states, it is A sport to play. IE the only fall male sports are cross country, swimming, and football; soccer is played in the spring here.
-- In SC, actually the smaller schools are very competitive. I would place any of the better A/AA schools against schools of comparable size in any state. If you look at them from a per capita stand point, SC would do well (SC has a pop. of 4.2 mill). The one draw back for the lower divisions in SC is money and facilities say compare to small schools in a place like TX. The smaller schools have a relatively flat growth rate, and the 'genes' don't leave the area.
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Mar 16, 2009 8:58:01 GMT -6
I would have to agree with Tog that the level of football at the lower classifications is more than likely better in TX than in other states.
Yes the year round athletic period plays an important role. But look at the other contributing factors. I know our kids will lift before and after school, plus the athletic period. Our skill kids run, run, run, pull tires. They will do this while competing in other sports also. Football is their primary sport, they play the other sports (Basketball, Baseball, run Track) to keep competetive. In the end it all ties back to football. I would be willing to say that in most small schools in TX it is ran like this. Football is the kids first love. They live for it and work for it year round. They are coached by their football coaches in everything they do. We coach every sport here in TX. If we don't coach Basketball we are Track or Baseball coaches. That alone may be another positive.
|
|
|
Post by tiger46 on Mar 17, 2009 2:41:10 GMT -6
EDIT- Post was too long and about nothing specific. ;D
I'm not a HS coach. I played in Texas. I coach youth football in Texas. HS coaches like to debate and compare talent levels and X's & O's. Those are great to debate if you're talking about winning football games. But, I don't think either are over-riding factors in what it's like to experience football as a player, coach and with your community. I know Texas football is great. That doesn't mean that it is- or, isn't- better than in other states. I don't know if football in Texas is better than in other states. Normally, I'd say that I don't really care. But, in a way, I hope it's not. Every kid in America should experience football just like that at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Mar 17, 2009 8:51:38 GMT -6
There may be something to the Athletic period arguement. When it comes to Texas Youth football they have no real advantage other than maybe weather: The Texas youth teams do not consistently win, for that matter they rarely win the big Youth Tournaments like the ones in Daytona. LV or the Pop Warner National titles. I lived in Texas for 6 years and football is big, not bigger at the youth level or collegiate level than here in Nebraska. But MUCH bigger consistently at the HS level.
|
|
|
Post by coachbleu on Mar 21, 2009 10:10:54 GMT -6
once you get to second tier teams from each state, I would think the ones in Texas would be a lot farther along for a variety of reasons What kind of reasons? Population could not explain that, right? Reasons that Texas football is better than most states: #1. They pay better, so they can get better coaches. I personally know of at least 20 guys that moved to TX to coach because of the pay. #2. Fans. In the rural communities in TX, that's all they have and all they care about. The movies "Friday night lights" and "varsity blues" were not exaggerations. Those people worship football and the kids who play. For most of them, it's the most important thing that they ever do or witness in their lives. #3. State pride. TX people love their state and are very competitive. They love to be the best at something. People associate TX with cowboys, roughnecks, and hard workers because it's true. The people from TX love that fact and embrace it. I'm not from TX, but lived there for a while. In the big cities, football is big, but not much more than it is all over the south. In the small towns in the middle of nowhere, football is king. It's insane. Now I know that in AL and LA, people love their football. Heck, people get murdered in alabama over rivalries. But they don't have the economic power to bring in HS coaches like TX does. Also, those states are turd-bowls. TX is a much nicer place to live.
|
|
mhs99
Junior Member
Posts: 250
|
Post by mhs99 on Mar 21, 2009 12:39:49 GMT -6
Texas is probably the best in terms of coaching, support, facilities, money, kids and parent dedications. But, that being said, California has the best athletes in the country at the higher levels of CIF- schools such as LB Poly, Mater Dei, De La Salle, are loaded with D1 kids- Flordia is in the same boat at 5A
|
|
bobbyb
Sophomore Member
Posts: 105
|
Post by bobbyb on Mar 21, 2009 17:51:16 GMT -6
I think Alabama and Georgia make football apriority while Florida has some great programs it s probably not as important as those states, Texas its huge the rest of the south like football but nots as committed is my guess, I am in the rest of the south so not throwing stones
|
|
|
Post by tog on Mar 21, 2009 19:37:41 GMT -6
|
|
tarrant
Sophomore Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by tarrant on Mar 22, 2009 0:49:44 GMT -6
We have played teams from Fla, Oh, Ga, NC, Tenn, and La. The biggest differences I can see: -- OH may not have the 'athletes' of other states but their line play is incredible; very well coached and technically sound. - Growing up playing in Ohio and now coaching here, you've got my interest, who'd you play and what year? Theres a handful of great teams at the top level here, but really only recently have they been getting a lot of out of state competition through things like the Herbstreit.
|
|