|
Post by coachdirt on Feb 2, 2018 9:39:33 GMT -6
Why should HS football exist if youth football isn't allowed to? What's the argument to do one but not the other? And note - those places where youth football doesn't exist, I would imagine that isn't because of legislation, it's because of interest. No issue with that. If you can't get kids out to play, you shouldn't have the program. Youth Football isn't a means of acquiring post secondary scholarship...like all other youth sport...but HS Athletics DOES present these types of opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Feb 2, 2018 9:43:35 GMT -6
Youth Football isn't a means of acquiring post secondary scholarship...like all other youth sport...but HS Athletics DOES present these types of opportunities.
But that is not WHY HS athletics exist (in spite of what some kids-parents think).
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 2, 2018 13:01:32 GMT -6
Why should HS football exist if youth football isn't allowed to? What's the argument to do one but not the other? And note - those places where youth football doesn't exist, I would imagine that isn't because of legislation, it's because of interest. No issue with that. If you can't get kids out to play, you shouldn't have the program. Youth Football isn't a means of acquiring post secondary scholarship...like all other youth sport...but HS Athletics DOES present these types of opportunities. How many play for that reason? Besides, looking at the context in which this Q arises, someone says they want to ban a HS sport by law, you going to argue this way? They'll come back saying that if colleges don't favor athletes in that sport, or any sport, by scholarships or admissions, then that leaves that much more college opp'ty for everyone who's not a HS athlete.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 14:02:34 GMT -6
Youth Football isn't a means of acquiring post secondary scholarship...like all other youth sport...but HS Athletics DOES present these types of opportunities. How many play for that reason? Besides, looking at the context in which this Q arises, someone says they want to ban a HS sport by law, you going to argue this way? They'll come back saying that if colleges don't favor athletes in that sport, or any sport, by scholarships or admissions, then that leaves that much more college opp'ty for everyone who's not a HS athlete. That is a lousy argument...That is like saying I am going to only sell to a certain sector of the population. The problem with that is you are denying yourself income. It is stupid business. Denying others based on admissions of a special class, is Govt or the like at its best. They are cutting off their nose despite their face.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 2, 2018 14:13:19 GMT -6
How many play for that reason? Besides, looking at the context in which this Q arises, someone says they want to ban a HS sport by law, you going to argue this way? They'll come back saying that if colleges don't favor athletes in that sport, or any sport, by scholarships or admissions, then that leaves that much more college opp'ty for everyone who's not a HS athlete. That is a lousy argument...That is like saying I am going to only sell to a certain sector of the population. The problem with that is you are denying yourself income. It is stupid business. Denying others based on admissions of a special class, is Govt or the like at its best. They are cutting off their nose despite their face. Governments have been known to do that.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 2, 2018 14:35:40 GMT -6
Why should HS football exist if youth football isn't allowed to? What's the argument to do one but not the other? And note - those places where youth football doesn't exist, I would imagine that isn't because of legislation, it's because of interest. No issue with that. If you can't get kids out to play, you shouldn't have the program. Youth Football isn't a means of acquiring post secondary scholarship...like all other youth sport...but HS Athletics DOES present these types of opportunities. So if you're going to ban youth football for safety reasons, you'll justify risking the safety of HS kids for the FEW who get scholarships out of it? My local HS's entire league doesn't even see one football scholarship per year. They have kids playing at the next level, but not on any kind of ride...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 16:45:35 GMT -6
Youth Football isn't a means of acquiring post secondary scholarship...like all other youth sport...but HS Athletics DOES present these types of opportunities. So if you're going to ban youth football for safety reasons, you'll justify risking the safety of HS kids for the FEW who get scholarships out of it? My local HS's entire league doesn't even see one football scholarship per year. They have kids playing at the next level, but not on any kind of ride... It is purely Political posturing...Because everybody and the elephant in the room knows they will kill kids in the name of womens in a NY SECOND.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 2, 2018 22:44:43 GMT -6
How many play for that reason? Besides, looking at the context in which this Q arises, someone says they want to ban a HS sport by law, you going to argue this way? They'll come back saying that if colleges don't favor athletes in that sport, or any sport, by scholarships or admissions, then that leaves that much more college opp'ty for everyone who's not a HS athlete. That is a lousy argument...That is like saying I am going to only sell to a certain sector of the population. The problem with that is you are denying yourself income. It is stupid business. Denying others based on admissions of a special class, is Govt or the like at its best. They are cutting off their nose despite their face. No, it's just the opposite. The politicians represent the gen'l popul'n, not just the few who get scholarships or an admissions break on the basis of athelticism. Why won't people in gen'l think, if the colleges get rid of special treatment of athletes, that makes it fairer for the rest of our children? Of course, that's if the college bubble keeps inflating much longer. College is really an awful racket -- one which I participate in as an adjunct prof. Textbooks are a racket within that racket.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 2, 2018 22:45:51 GMT -6
So if you're going to ban youth football for safety reasons, you'll justify risking the safety of HS kids for the FEW who get scholarships out of it? My local HS's entire league doesn't even see one football scholarship per year. They have kids playing at the next level, but not on any kind of ride... It is purely Political posturing...Because everybody and the elephant in the room knows they will kill kids in the name of womens in a NY SECOND. Some words missing there?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2018 6:49:22 GMT -6
That is a lousy argument...That is like saying I am going to only sell to a certain sector of the population. The problem with that is you are denying yourself income. It is stupid business. Denying others based on admissions of a special class, is Govt or the like at its best. They are cutting off their nose despite their face. No, it's just the opposite. The politicians represent the gen'l popul'n, not just the few who get scholarships or an admissions break on the basis of athelticism. Why won't people in gen'l think, if the colleges get rid of special treatment of athletes, that makes it fairer for the rest of our children? Of course, that's if the college bubble keeps inflating much longer. College is really an awful racket -- one which I participate in as an adjunct prof. Textbooks are a racket within that racket. If people are able to pay? what does it matter where they come from? That all by itself is discrimination racism( which if you ask me is a great basis against your argument). Not only that, for institutions that are starving for money, you want to take away people who will write blank checks. To further that point, politicians are using other peoples in the first place. That is called taxes. Why people think that by taxing one group, they will somehow benefit is well beyond me. Your argument suggest that somehow it is good business for colleges to limit admissions. They have every right to do it, but in doing so they limit the income. They are short on their own doing. Again, why would you create a product that either only appeals to a certain sector, or worse yet, sell only to a particular sector of the economy? ITS DUMB!
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Feb 3, 2018 20:26:39 GMT -6
Youth Football isn't a means of acquiring post secondary scholarship...like all other youth sport...but HS Athletics DOES present these types of opportunities. So if you're going to ban youth football for safety reasons, you'll justify risking the safety of HS kids for the FEW who get scholarships out of it? My local HS's entire league doesn't even see one football scholarship per year. They have kids playing at the next level, but not on any kind of ride... Heck, fellas...USA Hockey & USA Soccer limit checking and heading, respectively, for 13 and under...they don't BAN. They adjust an element of adult sport to responsibly allow proper development of the youth athlete. Grow Up. Grow up a whole bunch. Quit your sky is falling tantrums and GROW UP. EVOLVE. BEND OR BREAK BECAUSE TIMES ARE A CHANGING WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. HS 'Presents Opportunities'...I mean...four five six fellas, you really think this is the thread that unravels every HS sporting outlet? Limiting tackling for under 14 all of a sudden equates to NO SPORTS. PERIOD. Ridiculous. Y'all are off yer rockers.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 3, 2018 21:25:43 GMT -6
So if you're going to ban youth football for safety reasons, you'll justify risking the safety of HS kids for the FEW who get scholarships out of it? My local HS's entire league doesn't even see one football scholarship per year. They have kids playing at the next level, but not on any kind of ride... Heck, fellas...USA Hockey & USA Soccer limit checking and heading, respectively, for 13 and under...they don't BAN. They adjust an element of adult sport to responsibly allow proper development of the youth athlete. Grow Up. Grow up a whole bunch. Quit your sky is falling tantrums and GROW UP. EVOLVE. BEND OR BREAK BECAUSE TIMES ARE A CHANGING WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. HS 'Presents Opportunities'...I mean...four five six fellas, you really think this is the thread that unravels every HS sporting outlet? Limiting tackling for under 14 all of a sudden equates to NO SPORTS. PERIOD. Ridiculous. Y'all are off yer rockers. How do you "limit tackling" in football? There are those who limit it in practice, but the consensus I see is that substantial limits on it are fruitful only w older, more experienced players. I attended Gabe Infante's clinic for USA Football last summer which went w the gen'l practice of having fairly little contact in practice sessions, & lots of substitute drills for contact ones -- but he's a HS coach. From what I've read, those coaching children who don't practice enough body-on-body technique at speed wind up playing not-so-safely in games. Do you have any ideas for how to limit tackling in games, yet still have it be tackle football? The only changes that I can think of to do that would make the game quite different, more like Rugby Union. You'd have to either make tackling less rewarding, so that the defense benefits less by doing it, or more difficult, or enough more rewarding that the offense takes greater pains to avoid being tackled. So you could make it legal for the offense to hold the ballcarrier up to prevent his being taken to the ground -- which would result in rugby mauls -- or make it so that the ballcarrier has a greater risk of giving up possession of the ball on being tackled, by having him release the ball such that it remains in play -- which would result in rugby rucks. Somebody I sat down w once explained an alternative a few yrs. ago that he's promoting: single scrimmage football. Pretty much the same as we have now, but w a big change: only 1 down, & no line-to-gain. You get tackled on 1st (& only) down, it's 1st (& only) down for the other team. So there'd be an awful lot of kicking; he'd allow Canadian/rugby style onside kicks, which would be the only way to put together a drive. Players in scoring position would lateral off the ball a lot to avoid being tackled.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Feb 5, 2018 12:44:57 GMT -6
So if you're going to ban youth football for safety reasons, you'll justify risking the safety of HS kids for the FEW who get scholarships out of it? My local HS's entire league doesn't even see one football scholarship per year. They have kids playing at the next level, but not on any kind of ride... Heck, fellas...USA Hockey & USA Soccer limit checking and heading, respectively, for 13 and under...they don't BAN. They adjust an element of adult sport to responsibly allow proper development of the youth athlete. Grow Up. Grow up a whole bunch. Quit your sky is falling tantrums and GROW UP. EVOLVE. BEND OR BREAK BECAUSE TIMES ARE A CHANGING WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. HS 'Presents Opportunities'...I mean...four five six fellas, you really think this is the thread that unravels every HS sporting outlet? Limiting tackling for under 14 all of a sudden equates to NO SPORTS. PERIOD. Ridiculous. Y'all are off yer rockers. What are you talking about? First you mention hockey modifying rules, but this is a thread about banning the sport below age 12, not "modifying the rules". And who is saying anything about "NO SPORTS. PERIOD." in HS? What on earth are you talking about? I also can't believe anyone would ever point to youth hockey as support for anything resembling reasonableness...the only thing youth hockey is good for is to point out how screwed up adults are when it comes to youth sports. Being in Boston I have a front row seat to that madness.
|
|
|
Post by CoachM58 on Feb 6, 2018 7:11:05 GMT -6
The war on football is a travesty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2018 7:17:10 GMT -6
The war on football is a travesty. Its pathetic, and maybe the saddest part is the biggest enemies of the sports seem to be coming from within. Can you imagine if everybody who was accused of a crime, signed a confession of guilt? That is what is happening with football.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Feb 8, 2018 8:34:08 GMT -6
Heck, fellas...USA Hockey & USA Soccer limit checking and heading, respectively, for 13 and under...they don't BAN. They adjust an element of adult sport to responsibly allow proper development of the youth athlete. Grow Up. Grow up a whole bunch. Quit your sky is falling tantrums and GROW UP. EVOLVE. BEND OR BREAK BECAUSE TIMES ARE A CHANGING WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. HS 'Presents Opportunities'...I mean...four five six fellas, you really think this is the thread that unravels every HS sporting outlet? Limiting tackling for under 14 all of a sudden equates to NO SPORTS. PERIOD. Ridiculous. Y'all are off yer rockers. What are you talking about? First you mention hockey modifying rules, but this is a thread about banning the sport below age 12, not "modifying the rules". And who is saying anything about "NO SPORTS. PERIOD." in HS? What on earth are you talking about? I also can't believe anyone would ever point to youth hockey as support for anything resembling reasonableness...the only thing youth hockey is good for is to point out how screwed up adults are when it comes to youth sports. Being in Boston I have a front row seat to that madness. Follow along, though I doubt you will. Willingly ignorant seems to be a theme around here. Maybe the concept of Hockey still being called hockey without the checking (and fighting!!) element...Maybe if your lot didn't have a raging fit at the idea of scaling aspects of an adult sport for developing youth, you'd not have to be legislated like...what...yardapes? So perhaps digest the fact that FLAG FOOTBALL FOR 14 AND UNDER is How The Sport Should Be. Now if you are still paying attention and keeping up, you might be aware that DRAMATIC here cry foul at IF FOOTBALL NOW THEN EVERYTHING IS GONNA GET BANNED WAAAH WAAAH BOOO HOOOO. So that's where the 'Thread that unravels all HS sporting outlets' is derived from. Ya Keeping Up?? Yeah PAL...CRO-MAG GOONHAVEN HOCKEY HAS MANAGED TO NOT HAVE TO BE LEGISLATED INTO RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES...THOSE KNUCKLE DRAGGING SCUMBUCKETS MANAGED TO WHAT ...GROW UP? EVOLVE? TAKE RESPONSIBILITY? SORRY PAL...WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? ABSURD.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Feb 8, 2018 8:51:35 GMT -6
Heck, fellas...USA Hockey & USA Soccer limit checking and heading, respectively, for 13 and under...they don't BAN. They adjust an element of adult sport to responsibly allow proper development of the youth athlete. Grow Up. Grow up a whole bunch. Quit your sky is falling tantrums and GROW UP. EVOLVE. BEND OR BREAK BECAUSE TIMES ARE A CHANGING WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. HS 'Presents Opportunities'...I mean...four five six fellas, you really think this is the thread that unravels every HS sporting outlet? Limiting tackling for under 14 all of a sudden equates to NO SPORTS. PERIOD. Ridiculous. Y'all are off yer rockers. How do you "limit tackling" in football? There are those who limit it in practice, but the consensus I see is that substantial limits on it are fruitful only w older, more experienced players. I attended Gabe Infante's clinic for USA Football last summer which went w the gen'l practice of having fairly little contact in practice sessions, & lots of substitute drills for contact ones -- but he's a HS coach. From what I've read, those coaching children who don't practice enough body-on-body technique at speed wind up playing not-so-safely in games. Do you have any ideas for how to limit tackling in games, yet still have it be tackle football? The only changes that I can think of to do that would make the game quite different, more like Rugby Union. You'd have to either make tackling less rewarding, so that the defense benefits less by doing it, or more difficult, or enough more rewarding that the offense takes greater pains to avoid being tackled. So you could make it legal for the offense to hold the ballcarrier up to prevent his being taken to the ground -- which would result in rugby mauls -- or make it so that the ballcarrier has a greater risk of giving up possession of the ball on being tackled, by having him release the ball such that it remains in play -- which would result in rugby rucks. Somebody I sat down w once explained an alternative a few yrs. ago that he's promoting: single scrimmage football. Pretty much the same as we have now, but w a big change: only 1 down, & no line-to-gain. You get tackled on 1st (& only) down, it's 1st (& only) down for the other team. So there'd be an awful lot of kicking; he'd allow Canadian/rugby style onside kicks, which would be the only way to put together a drive. Players in scoring position would lateral off the ball a lot to avoid being tackled. FLAG FOOTBALL FOR 14 AND UNDER. FLAG. FLAG. FLAG. EVER HEARD OF IT? GREAT SHOWCASE PRIOR TO PROBOWL...PUTS 7V7 INTO A TOILET...YEAH BOB...ACT DUMB. HAVE TO BE TOLD HOW TO ADAPT. BE DIFFICULT TO COACH. BE DEAF TO THE OBVIOUS. HAVE TO BE LEGISLATED. CRY ABOUT THAT, TOO. WHO SETS THE STANDARD? COACH OR CHILD? WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF CLINGING LIKE A CHILD TO OUTGROWN ASPECTS OF LIFE?? WHAT EXAMPLE DOES THAT SET? SCALE ADULT ASPECTS OF ADULT SPORT INTO YOUTH COMPETITION AT RESPONSIBLE AGE/PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT LEVELS...Soccer & Hockey does it just fine...Since the Majority here seem to be HS Coaches, what the freakout is about is beyond me...spend your energies keeping up the structures of your programs to match the realities of the new day...evolve beyond the 'nah everthangs A-OK nevermind them fearmongrin doctors n hollywood moms...we do all the respect talks n heads up belly hugging drills so doncha worry none' to something a bit more akin to proactive and prudent preparation of athletes via a Neck strengthening protocol that begins prior to HS and continues throughout HS...Or just flail around sayin THEY'RE FOOKIN KILLIN FOOTBALL WAAAHWAAAHWAAAAH.
|
|
|
Post by 53 on Feb 8, 2018 9:05:54 GMT -6
I’m sure you’re making some good points but coming across poorly with walls of text and going all caps.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 8, 2018 9:27:14 GMT -6
How do you "limit tackling" in football? There are those who limit it in practice, but the consensus I see is that substantial limits on it are fruitful only w older, more experienced players. I attended Gabe Infante's clinic for USA Football last summer which went w the gen'l practice of having fairly little contact in practice sessions, & lots of substitute drills for contact ones -- but he's a HS coach. From what I've read, those coaching children who don't practice enough body-on-body technique at speed wind up playing not-so-safely in games. Do you have any ideas for how to limit tackling in games, yet still have it be tackle football? The only changes that I can think of to do that would make the game quite different, more like Rugby Union. You'd have to either make tackling less rewarding, so that the defense benefits less by doing it, or more difficult, or enough more rewarding that the offense takes greater pains to avoid being tackled. So you could make it legal for the offense to hold the ballcarrier up to prevent his being taken to the ground -- which would result in rugby mauls -- or make it so that the ballcarrier has a greater risk of giving up possession of the ball on being tackled, by having him release the ball such that it remains in play -- which would result in rugby rucks. Somebody I sat down w once explained an alternative a few yrs. ago that he's promoting: single scrimmage football. Pretty much the same as we have now, but w a big change: only 1 down, & no line-to-gain. You get tackled on 1st (& only) down, it's 1st (& only) down for the other team. So there'd be an awful lot of kicking; he'd allow Canadian/rugby style onside kicks, which would be the only way to put together a drive. Players in scoring position would lateral off the ball a lot to avoid being tackled. FLAG FOOTBALL FOR 14 AND UNDER. FLAG. FLAG. FLAG. EVER HEARD OF IT? GREAT SHOWCASE PRIOR TO PROBOWL...PUTS 7V7 INTO A TOILET...YEAH BOB...ACT DUMB. HAVE TO BE TOLD HOW TO ADAPT. BE DIFFICULT TO COACH. BE DEAF TO THE OBVIOUS. Flag football doesn't limit tackling, it prohibits it. So excuse me for not understanding your English when you use words like "limit". The trouble is, for many children the only time in their lives they'll get to play tackle football is when they're less than 14 yrs. old., maybe less than 12. They're simply not the type of athlete that could play a passable open field game like flag; pretty much, they're not athletes, period. Tackle football is one of the few field games suitable for Fat Freddie, Slow Slim, or Clumsy Clem. Meanwhile, do you eliminate the "mat" contact sports for them, such as wrestling & judo, as well? But from what I've read, the experience of those coaching flag football thru the teen years is that it leads to more concussions and injuries in general than tackle football does. Incidental collisions seem to be the worst kind!
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Feb 8, 2018 12:31:55 GMT -6
FLAG FOOTBALL FOR 14 AND UNDER. FLAG. FLAG. FLAG. EVER HEARD OF IT? GREAT SHOWCASE PRIOR TO PROBOWL...PUTS 7V7 INTO A TOILET...YEAH BOB...ACT DUMB. HAVE TO BE TOLD HOW TO ADAPT. BE DIFFICULT TO COACH. BE DEAF TO THE OBVIOUS. Flag football doesn't limit tackling, it prohibits it. So excuse me for not understanding your English when you use words like "limit". The trouble is, for many children the only time in their lives they'll get to play tackle football is when they're less than 14 yrs. old., maybe less than 12. They're simply not the type of athlete that could play a passable open field game like flag; pretty much, they're not athletes, period. Tackle football is one of the few field games suitable for Fat Freddie, Slow Slim, or Clumsy Clem. Meanwhile, do you eliminate the "mat" contact sports for them, such as wrestling & judo, as well? But from what I've read, the experience of those coaching flag football thru the teen years is that it leads to more concussions and injuries in general than tackle football does. Incidental collisions seem to be the worst kind! Is MOLECH gonna come down on all y'all for not feeding the child sacrifice? Is that your beef? BULLGOD gonna be mad? Who cares about the useless snowflakes that don't play beyond their childhood? They aren't playing for anybody, so really who cares?? Not even a demographic that matters by your maths...WHO CARES IF KIDS WITH ZERO PERSEVERANCE DON'T GET AN 'OPPORTUNITY' TO QUIT/WASHOUT? BEFORE THEY EVEN SHADOW YOUR DOORSTEP??? NOBODY SHOULD.
|
|
dbeck84
Sophomore Member
Posts: 170
|
Post by dbeck84 on Feb 8, 2018 12:45:11 GMT -6
How long will this thread keep going?
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Feb 8, 2018 12:55:18 GMT -6
I've coached all levels of football: youth through HS varsity. Concussions in the youth leagues were few and far between because a) we taught safe blocking and tackling technique and b) the younger kids just aren't big enough or fast enough to truly generate the momentum to cause many concussions.
I got into it with our boys basketball coach last week because he made a comment about how "dangerous" football is. I had to point out to him that a) we've lost two boys to concussions this season and neither of them played football and b) that we only had four diagnosed concussions in football this season versus ten in basketball and three in volleyball.
What's more dangerous? A kid tackling and blocking with proper form or a kid rebounding his head off of the basketball floor after taking a charge?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Feb 8, 2018 12:57:02 GMT -6
Flag football doesn't limit tackling, it prohibits it. So excuse me for not understanding your English when you use words like "limit". The trouble is, for many children the only time in their lives they'll get to play tackle football is when they're less than 14 yrs. old., maybe less than 12. They're simply not the type of athlete that could play a passable open field game like flag; pretty much, they're not athletes, period. Tackle football is one of the few field games suitable for Fat Freddie, Slow Slim, or Clumsy Clem. Meanwhile, do you eliminate the "mat" contact sports for them, such as wrestling & judo, as well? But from what I've read, the experience of those coaching flag football thru the teen years is that it leads to more concussions and injuries in general than tackle football does. Incidental collisions seem to be the worst kind! Is MOLECH gonna come down on all y'all for not feeding the child sacrifice? Is that your beef? BULLGOD gonna be mad? Who cares about the useless snowflakes that don't play beyond their childhood? They aren't playing for anybody, so really who cares?? Not even a demographic that matters by your maths...WHO CARES IF KIDS WITH ZERO PERSEVERANCE DON'T GET AN 'OPPORTUNITY' TO QUIT/WASHOUT? BEFORE THEY EVEN SHADOW YOUR DOORSTEP??? NOBODY SHOULD. What the phuk are you talking about?
|
|
SconnieOC
Junior Member
Just here to learn the facemelter
Posts: 411
|
Post by SconnieOC on Feb 8, 2018 13:28:46 GMT -6
How long will this thread keep going? Possibly forever if ol 'Dirt keeps spouting gibberish... To answer one of the original questions.. I think a huge threat to the game is lack of information, especially in the minds of youth parents, and future parents. If they believe the game is too dangerous, they won't let their kids play, on whatever level that may be. There has to be a movement to show the general public that our game does not just consist of those "Friday Night Tykes" type coaches who are clinically insane. Taught that if your kid plays football he's not going to leave the game brain damaged.. taught that football (and sports in general, but I think most of us would agree football does it better than others) can teach incredible life lessons on teamwork, perseverance, and accountability. I don't have these answers, other than being able to converse with these types of people in 1 on 1 settings. I'm 30, so I have a lot of friends who have young kids, and when the subject comes up, and they say they don't want them to play football, I do my best to speak to their experiences as high school and college players and hope they see the light.. The other big concern I have, and I have zero clue if there even is a solution... kids these days have so many options. Its not just about sitting behind a screen all day as they grow up, but between video games, the trumpet, science club, sport specialization, etc. I think there may be a future decline in all sports.. not just football.. not to mention the increase on emphasis for individuality that I believe has a direct effect on team sports.
|
|
els36
Sophomore Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by els36 on Feb 8, 2018 14:06:06 GMT -6
That would've meant many of those who've played football would never have played football in their lives. Not that many take it up at 12, and even of those who would, many might wind up playing only that year. Was an assistant in a league that didn’t have tackle football until middle school (7th and 8th grade). Often times their HS rosters more than doubled competition from outside the league. The league is home to 38 state football titles. They don’t have tackle youth football and are better for it. I’m not sure there are any arguments for youth tackle football that would convince me it’s great for multiple reasons but the one tangible reason is the league I know of that doesn’t have it is arguably the most successful in the state. for what it’s worth, there are two schools in the league that have tackle...one has never won a title and is a perennial bottom dweller with significantly smaller HS numbers. MAC conference?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 8, 2018 19:21:00 GMT -6
Flag football doesn't limit tackling, it prohibits it. So excuse me for not understanding your English when you use words like "limit". The trouble is, for many children the only time in their lives they'll get to play tackle football is when they're less than 14 yrs. old., maybe less than 12. They're simply not the type of athlete that could play a passable open field game like flag; pretty much, they're not athletes, period. Tackle football is one of the few field games suitable for Fat Freddie, Slow Slim, or Clumsy Clem. Meanwhile, do you eliminate the "mat" contact sports for them, such as wrestling & judo, as well? But from what I've read, the experience of those coaching flag football thru the teen years is that it leads to more concussions and injuries in general than tackle football does. Incidental collisions seem to be the worst kind! Is MOLECH gonna come down on all y'all for not feeding the child sacrifice? Is that your beef? BULLGOD gonna be mad? Who cares about the useless snowflakes that don't play beyond their childhood? They aren't playing for anybody, so really who cares?? Not even a demographic that matters by your maths...WHO CARES IF KIDS WITH ZERO PERSEVERANCE DON'T GET AN 'OPPORTUNITY' TO QUIT/WASHOUT? BEFORE THEY EVEN SHADOW YOUR DOORSTEP??? NOBODY SHOULD. Hmmm, fairly ignorant perspective here. First, you clearly miss the fact that some here are discussing this from the point of view of a youth football coach, not a HS coach worried about losing youth feeder programs. There is a difference. Also, while you do seem to try and bring up an intelligent point mentioning how youth hockey modifies its game, certainly you can recognize that flag football is NOT a modification in the same vein, but rather a completely different sport. That is crux of the problem, football fundamentally is a contact game. Blocking and tackling are fundamentals--and although we have a substitute for tackling (pulling a flag) is there a viable substitute for physically driving an opponent from one location to another? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by hsrose on Feb 9, 2018 10:51:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Feb 9, 2018 11:37:58 GMT -6
Yeah...Flag Football isn't football.. it's like Air Soccer or NoBasket Ball.. . The inability to adapt means what? Varied elements of beefing here. Poorly veiled politics fwiw. Here's the boildown: Prudently Prepare All Athletes Prior to 'Full Contact Ages' no matter talent level or athletic interest. Develop SKILLS and PHYSICAL STRENGTH. Teach The Sport/Game during their respective seasons and coach age appropriate techniques...Be Proactive and LEGISLATORS won't have much to REACT to. Be Proactive and Parents and Students won't have to be hard sold...Show Proactive Beats Reactive With Mindfulness. Sure...Reactive Due To Training...Thoughtless Repetition Of Mindless Drilling Feeds This Zombie Response. Great For Generals and Coaches To Feed Bodies To The Machine...Not So Great For Everything Else. Coaching Youth DOESN'T Have To Be Child Sacrifice. Unless YOU Insist.
|
|
|
Post by 50slantstrong on Feb 9, 2018 12:43:51 GMT -6
The older I get, the more I hate California. If that bill passes, I'm going to have a serious conversation with my wife about moving.
Can somebody tell me what state(s) 1) Doesn't have a significant club passing league culture? 2) Isn't dominated by private schools who poach players from other schools?
I'm interested in moving there.
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Feb 9, 2018 13:29:26 GMT -6
Now that is funny... Not sure if those would be my criteria's in picking a state however, there are certainly some states whose values are different then others. I live in the great state of Michigan and I love it for lots of reasons, however last year I moved to a community right on the Ohio line and the difference in general perspective and value from Michigan to Ohio is very significant to me especially when it comes to the perspective and role of HS sports and HS football.
|
|