|
Post by rsmith627 on Aug 18, 2017 15:17:31 GMT -6
I was mistaken in this post. One program doesn't have a JV, the other is refusing to play top tier teams in our conference because they don't want to get pummeled. I've never heard of that being a thing, but it is what it is.
If that latter school has enough players to field a JV team and refuses to play the schedule - that's a conference issue.
Maybe they need to examine their football program, or find a new league to play in.
That's the weird thing. Should be program on the rise. I think they were undefeated in the regular season at the varsity level. Unless the varsity completely plundered the sophomore class this year, I just don't get their decision.
|
|
|
Post by huskerhoyahawk on Aug 18, 2017 20:22:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Old Pro on Aug 21, 2017 16:08:56 GMT -6
Middle school in our town of 20,000. Has about 120-140 kids in 7th and 8 grades combined. 15 boys out for football.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Aug 23, 2017 9:06:54 GMT -6
We may be an anomaly, our numbers have increased each of the past 3 years...may see a slight increase next year (real small senior class this season) then I'd expect it to level out. Parents have approached me about fears of numbers in the future bc of youth football numbers but we have added a lot of kids that didn't play youth or middle school anyway. Have gone from walking in to a program with numbers in the mid 70s to having 115 this year 9-12.
I've seen declining or stagnant numbers most other places though.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Aug 23, 2017 10:37:17 GMT -6
We may be an anomaly, our numbers have increased each of the past 3 years...may see a slight increase next year (real small senior class this season) then I'd expect it to level out. Parents have approached me about fears of numbers in the future bc of youth football numbers but we have added a lot of kids that didn't play youth or middle school anyway. Have gone from walking in to a program with numbers in the mid 70s to having 115 this year 9-12. I've seen declining or stagnant numbers most other places though. Oddly, our youth numbers are actually up.
|
|
|
Post by CoachHess on Aug 23, 2017 10:58:29 GMT -6
Once had a team with 17 TOTAL players, including a foreign exchange student. Brought lube to opening kickoff and hoped for the best.
|
|
|
Post by smileez on Aug 29, 2017 1:02:01 GMT -6
I come from a small town / school, 160 kids in 9-12 max. I see multiple factors to decline. 1. Various sports, 25 years ago boys had 4 sports, football, basketball, track, and baseball. Now they have soccer, wrestling, cross country, gymnastics, tennis, and more. 2. Less rough and tumble playtime. Kids now have more choices for play and many are less physical. Let alone violent. We get kids who won't push a kid because it is so anti to what he is taught is acceptable to do. 3. social standard. Football has long been seen as a dumb jock & bully sport. It's image goes against the grain of nonviolence and intelligence is better than physical prowess that is a common theme taught to youth. Parents who have kids playing no longer have physical jobs. Physical ability is no longer valued as much as learning, math, business, computers, and technology. 4. Corruption of the game, too often it is about winning, and not about having fun. I remember pick up games during the summer and during brake at school. Not any more, can't play on the field because insurance and liability, can't play at school during break because it's not safe. Every thanksgiving was a game of tackle, no pads, and just for fun. Now people get hurt too mutch, or it not safe. We knew how to take a guy down, how to back off and not hurt a guy. Now it's all about the win. About the money, the college, the stats, the title. 5. Home life, probably the biggest factor. It has become standard now for all adults in a home to work a job and a good portion are non traditional times, not 8 to 5. Many homes are now single parent homes, and that makes it rough to make time for sports, and medical bills are expensive. So why have Johnny play football when he can do soccer or track, not get hurt as offten, cost is less, not as much hype to make it big.
The reality is this, make it fun, keep it positive, encouraging team and sportsmanship at every chance. Be engaged after football. These aren't just players but also your neighbor, future coworkers, service provider, nurse, engineer, contractor. These people are the people who will run this world after we retire.
|
|
|
Post by olcoach53 on Aug 29, 2017 9:44:09 GMT -6
More sports means more kids "specializing"
We have 42 kids right now 9-12 with many in the building who have no real reason to not play other than "I don't know" Some of them played last year during an 0-9 season and decided not to come out even with a change at head coach. We did pick up a few players who did NOT play last season and they fell in love. I wish more kids would give our sport a shot but on the flip side of that there are less kids playing in ALL sports these days. All numbers are down in all sports and that is the sad state of this generation.
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Aug 29, 2017 12:14:41 GMT -6
One of the coaches I talk with says that he considers a program to be healthy when it gets about 10% of the school enrollment out for football. Today we're at 54/~650 so we're at 8% or so. Last year we were 68/700 or 9%. His school has 190/2050 so he's at 9%.
You guys buy into that idea, that a healthy program should have close to 10% of total enrollment? If that is 'good', can you then say that 'when we get to X% then we are hurting, and when we get to Y% we are in real trouble?
We have a state champ team from 5 years ago that has 18 on their roster this year. Apparently finished a game last week with 12 active.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 29, 2017 12:23:09 GMT -6
One of the coaches I talk with says that he considers a program to be healthy when it gets about 10% of the school enrollment out for football. Today we're at 54/~650 so we're at 8% or so. Last year we were 68/700 or 9%. His school has 190/2050 so he's at 9%. You guys buy into that idea, that a healthy program should have close to 10% of total enrollment? If that is 'good', can you then say that 'when we get to X% then we are hurting, and when we get to Y% we are in real trouble? We have a state champ team from 5 years ago that has 18 on their roster this year. Apparently finished a game last week with 12 active. How big is the school where this guy coaches?
|
|
|
Post by 53 on Aug 29, 2017 12:30:15 GMT -6
I think it's more about the type of players you're getting out instead of some magical number.
There's no way I'd want to handle the logistics of having 190 players.
|
|
|
Post by olcoach53 on Aug 29, 2017 12:54:48 GMT -6
I can see pros and cons of the 10% number. I would say if you have less than 1000 kids you should be aiming for 10%. I say anything over 1000 kids you should have at least 100 in your entire program. Just my thoughts
|
|
|
Post by carookie on Aug 29, 2017 13:04:38 GMT -6
One of the coaches I talk with says that he considers a program to be healthy when it gets about 10% of the school enrollment out for football. Today we're at 54/~650 so we're at 8% or so. Last year we were 68/700 or 9%. His school has 190/2050 so he's at 9%. You guys buy into that idea, that a healthy program should have close to 10% of total enrollment? If that is 'good', can you then say that 'when we get to X% then we are hurting, and when we get to Y% we are in real trouble? We have a state champ team from 5 years ago that has 18 on their roster this year. Apparently finished a game last week with 12 active. Honestly I think you have to consider the population and a couple other variables- I have been at a couple private schools, each of which have about 15% of their population coming from abroad (mostly China or Korea)- most of those kids have no clue what to think about football. Both of which have been very good some years recently (though it can be up and down in these situations). I grew up near a school that was in a sanctuary city and the school population was made up of over 50% students from migrant families- there is no way they could pull anywhere near 10% no matter how healthy. Conversely, I was once at a school of about 1800 in an upper middle class area; we would have about 175-200 in the program (10%); as has been mentioned before, having a frosh team of 110+ can be a pain. (Eventually split into two teams and even that is rough)
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Aug 29, 2017 13:15:43 GMT -6
I can see pros and cons of the 10% number. I would say if you have less than 1000 kids you should be aiming for 10%. I say anything over 1000 kids you should have at least 100 in your entire program. Just my thoughts I've played and coached in some outstanding programs and I've never been in one that had 10% of the enrollment. When I played at a smaller school it may have been close but at the bigger schools where I've coached it hasn't. I've never coached in a program with 100 kids.
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Aug 29, 2017 13:23:32 GMT -6
He coaches at a school of 2050 or so, hard to tell day to day. He's got 190 - contacted me to see if we had some extra shoulder pads and knee pads he could purchase.
This isn't hard/fast rule, I mean I can't imagine the sheer logistics of 150+ players in a program. The intent here was to see if a program has close to 10% of the overall school enrollment could that me a measure of a good program. I think that there would be some real diminishing returns here - I coached against a team that the school was 4500 students. By that rule they would have 450 players which is just not real.
But I think that for most of us we would be pretty happy to get 10% of the students in the program.
|
|