|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 21, 2019 7:56:15 GMT -6
Those guys that you speak of generally bring height to the table. Plus, I think trying to compare the NBA structure (isolation, super star driven, 24 second shot clock, giant human beings, ) to lower levels just doesn't work. Plus, as you mentioned, they can't particularly dribble or shoot "FOR THAT LEVEL" meaning that their dribbling and shooting is lacking when being compared to and competing against the most talented players in the world. I am betting they probably dribble and shoot pretty well compared to others. Looking at Kobe and then saying "that other guy over there isn't all that" is a bit deceptive. Sure, they are the best in the world but that's not who these high school kids are competing against either. I think there are plenty of guys in the NBA that don't bring height relative to their opponents and aren't great dribbles or shooters relative to their opponents, but are still really effective players relative to their opponents. I'm not trying to look at Kobe and say "that other guys stinks". Im saying that at the highest level of the game there are players whose skill level is lower than that of their peers who are still valuable and effective players because of athleticism, execution, and filling a role. We can agree to disagree to avoid sidetracking the thread, my point is simply that you can be a really good basketball player without spending 12 months a year practicing your Steph Curry pregame routine. Aren't those guys you are describing practicing their basketball skills 12 months a year just to be able to compete with the others? Aren't there even more guys who are NOT in the league because their skill level kept them from playing? Is everyone going to be at the highest level? No. But you seem to be approaching this from a football first perspective. Sure, for a guy who is football first, working hard, being physical, banging cutters, getting loose balls and some garbage baskets are great. But for the basketball first kid who loves roundball more than anything that might not be satisfying. Regardless, I think you would agree that basketball requires more skill than football.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 21, 2019 7:58:28 GMT -6
Unfortunately, this isn't just lip service from some coaches that push specialization. I've seen several successful basketball and volleyball programs that basically demanded specialization and many kids wouldn't have made the team if they didn't practice and play basketball or volleyball year round. A lot of kids that didn't specialize fell behind those that did, skill wise, and ended up cut from the team.
That is the sticky part there though. As mentioned a few times by posters here, football is probably on of the least "skill based" team sports if not sports in general. So, if playing year round and "specializing" is necessary to compete at a high level (or heck, even keep up and make the team) how can football coaches begrudge an athlete for doing so, or more accurately another coach from advising an athlete on how to best mange that particular sport? Now that coaches that use the allure of "scholarships", particularly regarding those 6'3-6'5 post players, or any baseball player...they should be thumped. But if a particular program is operating at such a level that a kid who spends say June-October running buck sweep and waggle instead of taking 200 cuts a day in the cage, or a quick release jump shot 100 times a day or whatever wouldn't be able to keep up in his/her preferred sport, is it appropriate to try and discourage that for the sake of "helping the football team" ?
But, specializing isn't necessary to compete at a high level in sports such as basketball, baseball, volleyball. etc.. The programs I described were successful but we've all seen schools where the kids play multiple sports and win games consistently. The best school I have ever coached at had coaches that pushed the kids to participate in as many sports as possible, had many incredibly multiple sport athletes and the majority of their programs were incredibly successful. One year, the football, volleyball, boys basketball team, and both boys and girls track teams won state titles. The girls basketball team made it to the semi finals of the state tournament, both girls and boys soccer teams went deep into the playoffs. The kids at that school lift, play multiple sports and compete well.
Around here, we see two types of schools with dominant programs; they either tear it up in one or two sports because they specialize or they compete at a high level in the majority of their programs because their kids are multiple sport athletes. And, the schools that specialize in a couple of sports are horrendous in the rest. Numbers are way down in these other sports and because the kids that don't make the cut in a specialized sport get frustrated and quit playing ANY sport. They've busted hump year round trying to make the soccer, basketball or volleyball teams, get cut and just throw in the towel.
And, there have been multiple studies that show that kids who specialize run a higher risk of injury, either through over use or because they develop muscle imbalances as they don't learn as many movement patterns as possible. Here is just one article that details the issue:
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 21, 2019 8:04:55 GMT -6
That is the sticky part there though. As mentioned a few times by posters here, football is probably on of the least "skill based" team sports if not sports in general. So, if playing year round and "specializing" is necessary to compete at a high level (or heck, even keep up and make the team) how can football coaches begrudge an athlete for doing so, or more accurately another coach from advising an athlete on how to best mange that particular sport? Now that coaches that use the allure of "scholarships", particularly regarding those 6'3-6'5 post players, or any baseball player...they should be thumped. But if a particular program is operating at such a level that a kid who spends say June-October running buck sweep and waggle instead of taking 200 cuts a day in the cage, or a quick release jump shot 100 times a day or whatever wouldn't be able to keep up in his/her preferred sport, is it appropriate to try and discourage that for the sake of "helping the football team" ?
But, specializing isn't necessary to compete at a high level in sports such as basketball, baseball, volleyball. etc.. The programs I described were successful but we've all seen schools where the kids play multiple sports and win games consistently. The best school I have ever coached at had coaches that pushed the kids to participate in as many sports as possible, had many incredibly multiple sport athletes and the majority of their programs were incredibly successful. One year, the football, volleyball, boys basketball team, and both boys and girls track teams won state titles. The girls basketball team made it to the semi finals of the state tournament, both girls and boys soccer teams went deep into the playoffs. The kids at that school lift, play multiple sports and compete well.
Around here, we see two types of schools with dominant programs; they either tear it up in one or two sports because they specialize or they compete at a high level in the majority of their programs because their kids are multiple sport athletes. And, the schools that specialize in a couple of sports are horrendous in the rest. Numbers are way down in these other sports and because the kids that don't make the cut in a specialized sport get frustrated and quit playing ANY sport. They've busted hump year round trying to make the soccer, basketball or volleyball teams, get cut and just throw in the towel.
And, there have been multiple studies that show that kids who specialize run a higher risk of injury, either through over use or because they develop muscle imbalances as they don't learn as many movement patterns as possible. Here is just one article that details the issue:
I don't disagree, and I don't advocate specialization at all. I am simply saying that if someone is running a program like you described, where if a kid isn't doing that sport year round he/she can't keep up with the other participants and the kid is not a football first kid...well I can't fault him for not playing. To me, that is different than a situation where the coach makes it known that by policy (either official, or "understood") if you play other sports you ride the pine or get cut.
|
|
|
Post by coachcb on Jun 21, 2019 8:27:50 GMT -6
coachd5085It's just pathetic as those teams that are specializing would still be highly competitive without pushing the kids to play basketball/volleyball/baseball (etc) year round. They're well coached programs and the kids could be getting a much broader athletic and social experience while still being winning in the sport they love. A close friend of mine was the head track coach at a small school that had a highly specialized volleyball program and it killed the girl participation in track. Some of girls refused to specialize, went out for track and did well, even with low numbers. His last year there, they took six girls to the state track meet and the team managed to take fourth place. But, that success wasn't enough to keep bring up the numbers in track. Unfortunately, we're running into more and more coaches that do what you described in your second paragraph. It's become notorious in Legion baseball in some areas of this state.Apparently, there's an unwritten rule for some of these programs; if you don't play fall baseball and participate in winter conditioning then don't bother coming out for spring ball. And, those Legion teams have limited rosters so I've heard of many kids who start specializing in baseball at an early age, don't make the A or AA roster and quit playing sports all together.
|
|
|
Post by irishdog on Jun 21, 2019 13:22:24 GMT -6
As long as the high school basketball, baseball, and soccer coaches are allowed to continue to emphasize specialization in their own sports... high school football programs in small high schools will continue to see participation numbers drop. Very large high schools may be able to get away with it without football losing numbers, but if "specialization" in small high schools continues it will certainly kill the 11 man game in those schools. Very soon we will see a jump in the number of small high school districts around the country lobbying for their state associations to allow co-ops, or ask to sanction 6, 8, or 9 man football if their particular state has not supported it in the past.
|
|
|
Post by coachdubyah on Jun 21, 2019 13:49:23 GMT -6
As long as the high school basketball, baseball, and soccer coaches are allowed to continue to emphasize specialization in their own sports... high school football programs in small high schools will continue to see participation numbers drop. Very large high schools may be able to get away with it without football losing numbers, but if "specialization" in small high schools continues it will certainly kill the 11 man game in those schools. Very soon we will see a jump in the number of small high school districts around the country lobbying for their state associations to allow co-ops, or ask to sanction 6, 8, or 9 man football if their particular state has not supported it in the past. We are not far from that in Louisiana.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 21, 2019 14:26:03 GMT -6
As long as the high school basketball, baseball, and soccer coaches are allowed to continue to emphasize specialization in their own sports... high school football programs in small high schools will continue to see participation numbers drop. Very large high schools may be able to get away with it without football losing numbers, but if "specialization" in small high schools continues it will certainly kill the 11 man game in those schools. Very soon we will see a jump in the number of small high school districts around the country lobbying for their state associations to allow co-ops, or ask to sanction 6, 8, or 9 man football if their particular state has not supported it in the past. I get that...but allow me to offer a contrarian point of view (but not necessarily one I would advocate). In the small schools like you mention, if the same group of kids get the PT for football, then go and get it in roundball, then get it on the diamond...does that help or hinder overall participation?
|
|
|
Post by 44dlcoach on Jun 21, 2019 15:32:36 GMT -6
Sure, they are the best in the world but that's not who these high school kids are competing against either. I think there are plenty of guys in the NBA that don't bring height relative to their opponents and aren't great dribbles or shooters relative to their opponents, but are still really effective players relative to their opponents. I'm not trying to look at Kobe and say "that other guys stinks". Im saying that at the highest level of the game there are players whose skill level is lower than that of their peers who are still valuable and effective players because of athleticism, execution, and filling a role. We can agree to disagree to avoid sidetracking the thread, my point is simply that you can be a really good basketball player without spending 12 months a year practicing your Steph Curry pregame routine. Aren't those guys you are describing practicing their basketball skills 12 months a year just to be able to compete with the others? Aren't there even more guys who are NOT in the league because their skill level kept them from playing? Is everyone going to be at the highest level? No. But you seem to be approaching this from a football first perspective. Sure, for a guy who is football first, working hard, being physical, banging cutters, getting loose balls and some garbage baskets are great. But for the basketball first kid who loves roundball more than anything that might not be satisfying. Regardless, I think you would agree that basketball requires more skill than football. I do agree that basketball requires more skill than football, but I think the two sports are much much closer in skill level required than things like hitting a baseball or hitting a golf ball consistently. I don't want to derail this into hair splitting but I'm a big big believer that in almost every single year I've coached our best football players either were real assets to the basketball team or would have been big assets to the team had they played.
|
|
|
Post by KYCoach2331 on Jun 21, 2019 16:35:56 GMT -6
Our basketball coach if given the option would eliminate football.
We don’t do anything to discourage it. In fact we take an interest in their other sports they play.
We’ve made our program an enjoyable thing to be around and a part of and we have a few kids from other sports out now.
I’ll say this, if the basketball coach were to embrace pushing multi-sports he’d have about 5-6 kids on his roster that are better than what he has. We arguably could’ve put 5 of our football kids on a basketball floor last year and beat their best 5 when it comes to talent.
|
|
|
Post by cbnindian on Jun 21, 2019 19:21:00 GMT -6
Blessed where I am when it comes to multi sport athletes. Our baseball coach is our RB’s coach for me and our basketball coach loves football players that play basketball. (Funny our basketball team stays in foul trouble throughout the year and our baseball players play with a toughness that is brought on from football.)
The College World Series announcers just said “there is probably not a head coach here that doesn’t want a multi sport athlete on their team.” I can understand that statement because baseball is a proven fact that by playing the sport you are not becoming a better athlete whereas football, basketball you get better from doing all the drills.
|
|