|
|
Post by fantom on Apr 4, 2015 19:48:45 GMT -6
IMO, when a team is a perennial loser within their district the problem is rarely a relative lack of talent. Usually it's coaching: sometimes a poor choice of coaching but usually a lack of continuity. The guys come and go, rarely staying more than two or three years. You can't build a competitive program that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Apr 5, 2015 3:42:06 GMT -6
I think talent is relative to who else you play. There can be a 1a team whose talent is good relative to the rest of the 1a teams they play, but compared to a 4a school that is 5-5 they dont have talent. Just as that 5-5 4a school feels they dont have talent bc they are compared to the big boys in their state. Second, talent sometimes is a simple math equation. Our school has some talent, dont get me wrong, however, over the last several years our school numbers have been on a steady decline. (from as many as 1300 to less that 1100 now) This has resulted in less players on the team, which results in less talent compared to our opponents whose school numbers have stayed steady or rose.
Two schools, same class, 25 minutes drive between them.
School A has a history of NFL players, division I football stars,
School B has never had a division I football player or NFL player
one has talent, one does not.
how that happens ....its more than coaching, the difference is in WHO lives in each area. The difference is in who moves to each area, the difference is in what kind of coaches are attracted to coach in those programs.
some say "its the water"
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 5, 2015 6:49:20 GMT -6
I think a lot of what people are saying here is probably true about talent disparity in some areas. That said, I do think that there are contributing forces that can be controlled. I also think the coaches like to rationalize about their lack of talent to make an excuse for their lack of ability to develop a program in the long term. I see it a lot on this board. If you were to believe some of the coaches that post out here, there are a lot of teams with 100 pound defensive lineman going up against eight other teams with 315 pound offensive linemen. They also have their fastest WR clocking in a 5.4 and a curious and chilling lack of anyone in the entire community's history who could ever line up outside the offensive tackle and block and occasionally catch a pass.
How many "we're moving to the spread / flexbone / air raid 5-wide / A-11 because we have a bunch of blind paraplegics suffering from early Alzheimer's disease and this will help us COMPETE with schools that had 9 future NFL players each" threads are out there?
A lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on Apr 5, 2015 7:40:43 GMT -6
There are a number of obstacles for teams. We have parts of our state that due to geography (among other things) have a hard time getting players. I know not everyone has feeder programs but they are a pretty big deal. Waiting to try to get kids in HS is an uphill battle. You can end up with the soccer, baseball, basketball rejects. If you can get into the elementry and middle schools. We don't try to get the kids to give up their other sports. It's great for their development but we want them to play football. That with a great offseason program makes a big difference. We also have to get away from the eye test a little. There are some great HS players that don't look the part but can play.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 5, 2015 8:20:14 GMT -6
There are a number of obstacles for teams. We have parts of our state that due to geography (among other things) have a hard time getting players. I know not everyone has feeder programs but they are a pretty big deal. Waiting to try to get kids in HS is an uphill battle. You can end up with the soccer, baseball, basketball rejects. If you can get into the elementry and middle schools. We don't try to get the kids to give up their other sports. It's great for their development but we want them to play football. That with a great offseason program makes a big difference. We also have to get away from the eye test a little. There are some great HS players that don't look the part but can play. Do those teams play other teams with the same issues though? Or are they scheduled against teams with different circumstances? |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 5, 2015 8:39:50 GMT -6
i could give a couple, parents interests in kids, work ethic, funding, admn, But other than Admin and funding...aren't the other two going to be potentially universal to all public schools?
No, they are not.
Schools, like the communities they are located in, can be vastly different from one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by morris on Apr 5, 2015 8:49:38 GMT -6
It really varies. In KY they pretty much take all the schoo that play football and divide by 6 (6 classes). In some cases you play against schools that are similar and in other cases you have to travel a good distance for district play. The other issue is city schools compared to county schools. The city school has it's own issues but kids don't have as big of an issue getting to offseason stuff. County schools the kid might live 45 minutes or further from school and I'm not talking 45 mins of in town traffic. Add to the fact that many of the kids that live out in the county are on the lower social economic end or work ( farm, or other labor type jobs). Transportation is a big issue in county schools.
Most of the HS in Louisville are 6A schools. Lots of transportation options and in many cases travel distance/time is realativy low. A county might only have one HS and be a 6A school. They have their players spread over a much larger area. That does take into account schools that are in the eastern part of the state where the mountains make travel a real pita time wise.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 5, 2015 9:34:17 GMT -6
But other than Admin and funding...aren't the other two going to be potentially universal to all public schools?
No, they are not.
Schools, like the communities they are located in, can be vastly different from one another.
So some schools have 0% chance of the parents level of interest in their kids being detrimental to football, or those schools have 0% chance of having students with poor work ethic? Because that is what my statement conveyed. Don't all schools have a chance at those conditions? Because I have seen plenty of threads bemoaning either A) no parental involvement because of the community or B) detrimentally excessive parental involvement because of the community. I have seen plenty of threads lamenting either A) lazy kids who can't be pushed and just want to sit at home and smoke it up and play video games because they have grown up in generational poverty or B) lazy kids who can't be pushed and just want to sit at home and smoke it up and play video games because they have grown up coddled by helicopter parents. Basically, I am stating that all schools have close to an equal chance to have students with crappy parents and lazy kids. Funding obviously is not such an equal opportunity factor. |
|
|
|
Post by blb on Apr 5, 2015 9:54:32 GMT -6
There are some schools and-or communities where the conditions, atmosphere, environment - however you want to define or label it - simply do not exist to produce a consistently successful Football program.
There are many variables, some of which have been mentioned. Socio-economic, budgetary, enrollment disparities, administrative support, feeder systems, even something as basic as community attitudes towards the sport itself.
This is why there are more good Football coaches than there are good Football programs.
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Apr 5, 2015 9:57:47 GMT -6
This is why there are more good Football coaches than there are good Football programs. Great point...and totally agreed. |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Apr 5, 2015 11:42:14 GMT -6
There are a number of obstacles for teams. We have parts of our state that due to geography (among other things) have a hard time getting players. I know not everyone has feeder programs but they are a pretty big deal. Waiting to try to get kids in HS is an uphill battle. You can end up with the soccer, baseball, basketball rejects. If you can get into the elementry and middle schools. We don't try to get the kids to give up their other sports. It's great for their development but we want them to play football. That with a great offseason program makes a big difference. We also have to get away from the eye test a little. There are some great HS players that don't look the part but can play. Do those teams play other teams with the same issues though? Or are they scheduled against teams with different circumstances? In our district for our class, the smallest of four in the state, we are split,into two regions with about 8 teams in each region. Basically split into the north and south parts of the district. The south region has won like 20 of the last 21 district championships. The last school I was at we were the only north team to win it and played in the title game twice. The north part of the district has about 300k+ people living in it. The south maybe 100k. They have also dominated the the next class up from us. Why? Simply they take it more serious down there and are located near a small city area with all the schools within a half hour or so of each other. The north region(s) are very spread out. We have a couple teams that take us about 2 hours on a bus to get to. Not like 2 hours on a highway like 2 hours of Gods country. Farm,farm,farm,farm,boom football field! Those kid live 30-40 miles from school. Hour bus rides. Think they have a great off season/ summer turn out? Think they can hang out with team mates all the time? Meanwhile teams in the south are all clustered around a place with city type amenities and what not. That plays a huge role in our district. For or example we are located right on the border of the 3rd biggest city in our state, now we are a small district but not out in the middle of no where. First round of playoffs the team we played had a 30 foot tear away banner to run through, end zone cam, 50 players, and what seemed like the whole town there at the game. Think we had about 100 fans. Not to say people don't support us but the other team had a following if you know what I mean. Its hard are to say why some places have talent and some don't but there are some factors that definitely contribute. |
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Apr 5, 2015 17:24:38 GMT -6
I think there are so many answers to this. I will just give what I saw over the last 10 years at the program I was at. Good talent and numbers for several years, but a carousel of coaches. Once the coaching situation started to settle, the economics of the community really started to tilt away from a bedroom community of working folks, to a community of renters and govt assistance families.
The involvemnent in the kids extra curriculars was non existent, and the set off the chain of events that leads to kids not being interested. Next thing you know, you have a very non-competitive bunch of programs within the school.
For teams that seem to have a few years of "no talent", I think talent levels at the HS level are very cyclical, unless you are a private (catholic) school that has had success and the sports are a draw for talent.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachdawhip on Apr 6, 2015 16:00:43 GMT -6
I see posts on Huey quite frequently inquiring about schemes for "less talent" or looking for ways to give your lilliputian squad a chance against a schedule of juggernaut teams. Most recently a new thread inquiring about how to apply the movie "Moneyball" to a HS football squad brought up this concept again. I think all of these posts raise the question "WHY DON'T YOUR TEAMS HAVE TALENT???" Why are all of the OTHER teams more talented than you? Why do you not have ________ "types". Is there something in your school's water supply that keeps your kids small slow and weak, and the opponents big, fast, and strong? Do other schools serve something in their cafeteria salad bar that allows HS kids to throw 35 yard out routes on a line year after year after year and your cafe doesn't? A lot deals with school make-up and economic status and history.. The fact is in my state kids move a ton open season! Some times it is a bad coach, but some areas have a great history of talent. Parents also move where the winners are. You can make your players bigger, faster and stronger no doubt. But when the team next door is starting of with 10 6'2, 235 gazelles then you are already behind the 8-ball. For a lot of schools, until you can talk certain populations out to play ball you are behind the 8 ball. At my previous stop the school was 50% Hispanic/Asian and guess what they don't historically play football. So 2600 is really 1300. Where as the school next door has 2600 which was 86% black and guess what (us African-Americans do play football more than Hispanics/Asians). So there 2600 has more to choose from. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 6, 2015 18:56:28 GMT -6
i could give a couple, parents interests in kids, work ethic, funding, admn, But other than Admin and funding...aren't the other two going to be potentially universal to all public schools? those things would follow economic demographics more than anything. If your school resides in the lower economic demographic, you will generally have a more transient population (less stability) and the factors impacting the parent's finances would be the same thing undermining the success of their kids (your athletes). Not an excuse, but all things aren't equal with the "public" school animal. Its better to be lucky and get a few studs from bad homes than get a dozen hard-nosed duds from good homes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 19:50:01 GMT -6
I agree that the factors contributing to said problem are dam near limitless. Every situation is different. At the school I'm at now (my alma mater) they've been playing football since 1966. In that time, there has been 2 Div I players and 2 NFL players (both kickers). There are 0 state championships, 1 state runner up, 2 district titles, 7 playoff appearances and 10 winning seasons. Overall in that span, there have been 3, 0-10 seasons and the win/loss factor is .371. That's a lot of data to process, but the glaring fact is this, the most successful coach they've had, was there for 16 years (actually posted 1 of the 0-10 seasons), but he was there, and finished with a .519 win percentage in those 16 seasons. The next longest tenure, was 5 years, of which the percentage was .406, after that several 3 year stints. Take out the 2 longest tenures, and the average length a coach has stayed at this program as been 1.8 years, so basically 2. You can't build a program like that. The pay sux, so coaches end up skipping town once they realize the talent pool is pretty bare. Funny thing is, the coaches w/the longest tenure, were graduates of this school. They only seem to be the ones who care enough to stick around, even when things are bad.
The point is this, I think these posts come from guys who are trying to win instantly, create any spark they can in an abysmal situation. Others are just "Johnny Come Lately's" who are trying to make a name and put it on a Championship Productions DVD series "From Worst to First" set. Number one, scheme is of such little importance when it comes to truly building championship programs, that as soon as I see one of these threads it's "ho hum, here we go again". The idea that the Air Raid or flexbone will lead to wins, in the grand scheme of things is ludicrous. The idea is to find a place where you can have some stability. Unfortunately that is becoming a thing of the past. With school districts looking to keep the teaching tenure at a minimum years of experience and with college football's popularity on Saturday's, blind admins think that's how it's done, so they judge their hires on creating the next Urban Meyer. In reality, this is a farce, yet coach after coach falls into this trap. There is no possible way to judge a HS coach based on the college mold, the 2 dynamics are so drastically different. Yet, that's how it is. Mr. High School is given 2 to 3 years to turn it around, and if he can't, see you later. In the case of where I'm from, where the stipend for head coaches is between 10 and 12 percent of the coach's salary, it's a joke to put yourself through this meat grinder. Who wants to put in the hours for pennies and be judged by folks that have no phucking clue what they are talking about? Now, in states where they pay you bigger bucks (GA and TX come to mind), you better have your sh!t together or your sent packing. In some regards those states may model college a little closer, but many still cannot recruit like the colleges do. Anyhow, I'll step off my soapbox, but I think in many cases it's a bastardized system that is simply grinding up and spitting out coaches. If you think player numbers are down, you should look at coaching staff sizes too. In some of the poor socioeconomic areas around here, there are programs (not teams, this is JV and varsity) with only 4 coaches on staff! I was a part of one of these, and it ain't no fun...
My biggest piece of advice for the new coaches is this, research the he!! out of any job you are looking to take, and don't just take any job. You really need to find one you fit in with and that is willing to work with you. Anyhow...take that for what it's worth...
Duece
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 19:55:24 GMT -6
IMO, when a team is a perennial loser within their district the problem is rarely a relative lack of talent. Usually it's coaching: sometimes a poor choice of coaching but usually a lack of continuity. The guys come and go, rarely staying more than two or three years. You can't build a competitive program that way. And there's usually something messy going on behind the scenes that causes all that and drives the coaches, and in turn the talent, away. I mentioned my alma mater earlier in this thread and how they have a lot of very talented players in their backyard, but those kids choose to go to other schools with better tradition, facilities, and media coverage. If they could keep those kids in, they'd be in good shape. The same could be said for coaches, too. One of those schools my alma mater loses all its players to currently has 6 COACHES on staff who worked at my alma mater at some point, including 2 former HCs, who left to take assistant jobs up the road that pay $8K+ a year better. If the salary's just not competitive, you won't keep coaches. Also, if you don't have enough stipends, you won't ever build enough of a staff to develop the stability it takes to build a program. If you have 12+ coaches, as some of the teams they play have, it's not that a big deal when one assistant leaves. If you've got 4, you just lost 25% of your staff every time a coach takes another job. That's going to have a ripple effect. But a relative lack of talent makes it even harder to turn around when they do get the right coaches in place. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2015 20:05:48 GMT -6
I think a lot of what people are saying here is probably true about talent disparity in some areas. That said, I do think that there are contributing forces that can be controlled. I also think the coaches like to rationalize about their lack of talent to make an excuse for their lack of ability to develop a program in the long term. I see it a lot on this board. If you were to believe some of the coaches that post out here, there are a lot of teams with 100 pound defensive lineman going up against eight other teams with 315 pound offensive linemen. They also have their fastest WR clocking in a 5.4 and a curious and chilling lack of anyone in the entire community's history who could ever line up outside the offensive tackle and block and occasionally catch a pass. How many "we're moving to the spread / flexbone / air raid 5-wide / A-11 because we have a bunch of blind paraplegics suffering from early Alzheimer's disease and this will help us COMPETE with schools that had 9 future NFL players each" threads are out there? A lot. This actually sounds suspiciously like my last school. Our fastest kid was 4.8 and then no one else ran better than 5.1. It was like herding cats getting more than 70% of our starters to even show up for practice. We got to play 3 teams with multiple D1 signees. You can figure out how that went. |
|
|
|
Post by coach2013 on Apr 7, 2015 7:49:24 GMT -6
I forgot about the schools that have a number of kids who were held back and are far more physically mature than other schools who have kids who are accelerated in terms of grades. Those matchups physically aren't always the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbs on Apr 7, 2015 8:35:50 GMT -6
every town is different. some place priorities on athletics, some place priorities on academic, some place priority on having fun... some are simply apathetic. either way a town has to raise its kids a certain way for sustainable success. It first lies with the parents, then the community. the deed is usually done by the time they get to us, and we have to make due with what we have at that point. Not to say that we don't do just that, because we absolutely do, but cannot dictate the talent we have, we can only react to it. those that wonder about the importance of talent level have probably always had talent. I also know plenty of coaches that blame everything on lack of talent, but when you watch their teams play it's painfully obvious that their kids don't know the game ON TOP of having no talent. that's on the coach.
|
|
