|
Post by Coach.A on Jul 18, 2019 20:45:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 19, 2019 17:37:28 GMT -6
Interesting. It is somewhat misleading though, as it doesn't control for single gender sports or dual gender sports. It splits baseball and softball, but combines boys and girls basketball and track and field, cross country, soccer, swimming etc.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 19, 2019 20:04:18 GMT -6
The other thing that is off here, especially if we want to use it as a measure for determining overall sport popularity is that soccer, by and large, does not care about high school too much. Far more important to soccer is the local club, and more often than not its the club coaches who college coaches, especially for girls, are more interested in talking too. I don't think that high school participation is a good measure of where a given sport is going in the country. Far more important is overall participation nationwide, which means that you have to factor in clubs in every sport, including things like AAU basketball, baseball, etc. If that system is used, football will be way down, which is problematic. Some coaches may say, well, you have to be "special" to play football. That's a load, and we all know it. You have to be special to excel in any sport. My daughter's spring season for her club ended 6 weeks ago and this week she just started her first practices for the fall season. Then there is the - well, special here means that you are tough, tougher because football, well, is football. The effectiveness of that trope is waining. Some people would say that tackling and hitting on another is not necessarily tough but dumb, and they may have a point. My daughter's team practiced for 2 hours last night in 94 degree heat and they don't stop - constant running - hmm....that sounds pretty tough and exceptional to me... So, what is football to do? How is football going to fix in the medium term its declining numbers. Some people who work in insurance believe the game might not even be insurable in the future based on where you are. That does not mean that the game would not be played, but it would be even more than it is today a spectator sport that most people watch but don't play, sort of like Rome and gladiators in the coliseum. So, how does football jack up participation, without resorting to the same tropes (they're not working anymore either, especially with more educated kids and parents)? I think one thing we can do is look north - to Canada. Their field is a no brainer - better disperser of force across the field. The added space on the LOS, that too is smart.... What else?
|
|
|
Post by jlenwood on Jul 20, 2019 6:27:39 GMT -6
Look at how around 2014 Football ticks down then starts nose diving. It is alarming to me. Overall numbers of all sports go up, but so does our population.
So with numbers increasing, meaning more kids playing sports, it looks like football is and has lost appeal to many kids. That is the issue for coaches to focus on, how do you make it more appealing to stop the decline.
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Jul 20, 2019 6:28:15 GMT -6
I think kickoffs will be gone fairly soon and I’m ok with that. I know it takes an exciting play out of the mix but getting rid of the full speed hits is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 20, 2019 6:40:28 GMT -6
I have posted this before, but it is relevant.
Don't know about other states, but the school enrollment in our state has dropped 14% over the last decade-plus.
During the same time participation in HS football in our state has gone down 18%, which is fairly close to the enrollment decrease and the difference can be attributable to several factors.
So all the hysteria over kids not playing football because of CTE-concussion concerns, at least by those figures, is somewhat overblown.
In 2010 there were 20 8-man teams here. Now there are 78.
The biggest reason there aren't as many kids playing HS football is there aren't as many kids in HS as there were, at least where I live.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 7:19:12 GMT -6
I have posted this before, but it is relevant.
Don't know about other states, but the school enrollment in our state has dropped 14% over the last decade-plus.
During the same time participation in HS football in our state has gone down 18%, which is fairly close to the enrollment decrease and the difference can be attributable to several factors.
So all the hysteria over kids not playing football because of CTE-concussion concerns, at least by those figures, is somewhat overblown.
In 2010 there were 20 8-man teams here. Now there are 78.
The biggest reason there aren't as many kids playing HS football is there aren't as many kids in HS as there were, at least where I live. coach-according to the census bureau, high school Enrollment numbers have not changed significantly in the last 15 years. Since the data being discussed here is on a national level those decreased numbers from Michigan are represented as increased numbers somewhere else. Basically, the kids from Michigan had to go somewhere And they would be represented in this data set if they chose to play
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Jul 20, 2019 7:37:24 GMT -6
The other thing that is off here, especially if we want to use it as a measure for determining overall sport popularity is that soccer, by and large, does not care about high school too much. Far more important to soccer is the local club, and more often than not its the club coaches who college coaches, especially for girls, are more interested in talking too. I don't think that high school participation is a good measure of where a given sport is going in the country. Far more important is overall participation nationwide, which means that you have to factor in clubs in every sport, including things like AAU basketball, baseball, etc. If that system is used, football will be way down, which is problematic. Some coaches may say, well, you have to be "special" to play football. That's a load, and we all know it. You have to be special to excel in any sport. My daughter's spring season for her club ended 6 weeks ago and this week she just started her first practices for the fall season. Then there is the - well, special here means that you are tough, tougher because football, well, is football. The effectiveness of that trope is waining. Some people would say that tackling and hitting on another is not necessarily tough but dumb, and they may have a point. My daughter's team practiced for 2 hours last night in 94 degree heat and they don't stop - constant running - hmm....that sounds pretty tough and exceptional to me... So, what is football to do? How is football going to fix in the medium term its declining numbers. Some people who work in insurance believe the game might not even be insurable in the future based on where you are. That does not mean that the game would not be played, but it would be even more than it is today a spectator sport that most people watch but don't play, sort of like Rome and gladiators in the coliseum. So, how does football jack up participation, without resorting to the same tropes (they're not working anymore either, especially with more educated kids and parents)? I think one thing we can do is look north - to Canada. Their field is a no brainer - better disperser of force across the field. The added space on the LOS, that too is smart.... What else? I have always felt adding more space whether it be on the LOS or on field creates more severe collisions and greater risk. This is the reason there is always ongoing discussion about eliminating the kick-off.... Ultimately, eliminating the 3 point stance and penalizing offensive/defensive players from all head to head contact I think would have the largest safety impact however I'm not sure that would be a very watchable game....
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 7:39:47 GMT -6
The other thing that is off here, especially if we want to use it as a measure for determining overall sport popularity is that soccer, by and large, does not care about high school too much. Far more important to soccer is the local club, and more often than not its the club coaches who college coaches, especially for girls, are more interested in talking too. I don't think that high school participation is a good measure of where a given sport is going in the country. Far more important is overall participation nationwide, which means that you have to factor in clubs in every sport, including things like AAU basketball, baseball, etc. If that system is used, football will be way down, which is problematic. Some coaches may say, well, you have to be "special" to play football. That's a load, and we all know it. You have to be special to excel in any sport. My daughter's spring season for her club ended 6 weeks ago and this week she just started her first practices for the fall season. Then there is the - well, special here means that you are tough, tougher because football, well, is football. The effectiveness of that trope is waining. Some people would say that tackling and hitting on another is not necessarily tough but dumb, and they may have a point. My daughter's team practiced for 2 hours last night in 94 degree heat and they don't stop - constant running - hmm....that sounds pretty tough and exceptional to me... So, what is football to do? How is football going to fix in the medium term its declining numbers. Some people who work in insurance believe the game might not even be insurable in the future based on where you are. That does not mean that the game would not be played, but it would be even more than it is today a spectator sport that most people watch but don't play, sort of like Rome and gladiators in the coliseum. So, how does football jack up participation, without resorting to the same tropes (they're not working anymore either, especially with more educated kids and parents)? I think one thing we can do is look north - to Canada. Their field is a no brainer - better disperser of force across the field. The added space on the LOS, that too is smart.... What else? A couple of things- Regarding your first point, while yes club soccer is "more important" than HS soccer, I still don't recall anyone who participated in club soccer NOT playing for their HS team. It mirrors the International/Professional soccer process a bit. The players all play for different pro teams (high schools in this comparison) but come together to play on the National Team (Club teams in this comparison) to compete in international matches. Just because HS soccer isn't as "important" doesn't mean the HS participation # are skewed because nearly all of those club players are also playing for their HS. Same goes for your comments on club/AAU in nearly every sport with the exception of those sports so "niche" that they don't have a widespread presence in interscholastic competition and a significant number of athletes competing in that sport do not have an opportunity to do so through a HS team. Regarding your football based comments.. I agree and I do think the "well, because it is football" answer is not only losing its effectiveness, but is now being recognized as historically kind of foolish. The same with any of the "why kids need football" type of lists or lectures.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 20, 2019 7:42:58 GMT -6
I have posted this before, but it is relevant.
Don't know about other states, but the school enrollment in our state has dropped 14% over the last decade-plus.
During the same time participation in HS football in our state has gone down 18%, which is fairly close to the enrollment decrease and the difference can be attributable to several factors.
So all the hysteria over kids not playing football because of CTE-concussion concerns, at least by those figures, is somewhat overblown.
In 2010 there were 20 8-man teams here. Now there are 78.
The biggest reason there aren't as many kids playing HS football is there aren't as many kids in HS as there were, at least where I live. coach-according to the census bureau, high school Enrollment numbers have not changed significantly in the last 15 years. Since the data being discussed here is on a national level those decreased numbers from Michigan are represented as increased numbers somewhere else. Basically, the kids from Michigan had to go somewhere And they would be represented in this data set if they chose to play
Actually not. Birth rates in Michigan have declined significantly this century as well.
The decrease in enrollment is not solely or perhaps even primarily attributable to people leaving the state, especially those with school-aged children.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 7:46:09 GMT -6
Wouldn't that apply if you only increase vertical space as in the kick off example you mentioned. Lots of vertical space as players run down the field but they are still bound by 53 1/2 yards. Picture your open field tackling drills. I don't think those are high impact collisions, but rather a lot grab on and hope for the best type of tackles right?
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 20, 2019 7:47:29 GMT -6
I graduated high school in 1971 so I've seen a lot of these changes happen. I can only speak of my HS appearance. I'll leave others to decide how they pertain to their area's situations.
When I played my HS had four athletic options: football, basketball, baseball, and golf. Since then many sports have been added. When I went to that HS if you wanted to play a fall sport it was football. Now they also have soccer and cross country. There were no offseason programs then. In fact the same guy coached two or three sports, so there was no competition between football and winter and spring sports.
As 5085 said, the study does not differentiate between male and female sports. At my HS the female athletic rate was simple to figure- zero. There were no girls' sports. Now a lot of girls participate in basketball, soccer, and track but not football.
Of course the rate of participation in football has declined.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 7:57:15 GMT -6
coach-according to the census bureau, high school Enrollment numbers have not changed significantly in the last 15 years. Since the data being discussed here is on a national level those decreased numbers from Michigan are represented as increased numbers somewhere else. Basically, the kids from Michigan had to go somewhere And they would be represented in this data set if they chose to play
Actually not. Birth rates in Michigan have declined significantly this century as well.
The decrease in enrollment is not solely or perhaps even primarily attributable to people leaving the state, especially those with school-aged children.
But the data being discussed is still national data which according to the Census has been the same over the last 15 years or so. Without going into a long social science discussion over Michigan's numbers (such as pointing out that the emmigration of those in childbearing years from Michigan would result in lower population rates etc.) , stating that Michigan's birthrates have fallen doesn't really factor into nationwide data.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 8:04:37 GMT -6
I graduated high school in 1971 so I've seen a lot of these changes happen. I can only speak of my HS appearance. I'll leave others to decide how they pertain to their area's situations. When I played my HS had four athletic options: football, basketball, baseball, and golf. Since then many sports have been added. When I went to that HS if you wanted to play a fall sport it was football. Now they also have soccer and cross country. There were no offseason programs then. In fact the same guy coached two or three sports, so there was no competition between football and winter and spring sports. As 5085 said, the study does not differentiate between male and female sports. At my HS the female athletic rate was simple to figure- zero. There were no girls' sports. Now a lot of girls participate in basketball, soccer, and track but not football. Of course the rate of participation in football has declined. Exactly. The comparative value (particularly for football, baseball and wrestling) from this data is not terribly useful particularly because the basketball , soccer, and Track data are combined by gender which skews any rankings
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jul 20, 2019 8:16:25 GMT -6
Here are the last three schools I coached at, their enrollments during that time, and now.
School A (1999-2003, 1161-1277), 860
School B (2004-09, 1670-1723), 1512
School C (2010-14, 477-428), 374
The declines at city schools are even bigger. As one example a former player of mine coaches at an urban school. Ten years ago their enrollment was 1149. This year it is 598.
With those numbers it's easy to see why there are fewer kids playing HS football.
I can only speak for my state, not the entire nation.
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Jul 20, 2019 8:19:37 GMT -6
Wouldn't that apply if you only increase vertical space as in the kick off example you mentioned. Lots of vertical space as players run down the field but they are still bound by 53 1/2 yards. Picture your open field tackling drills. I don't think those are high impact collisions, but ratherY a lot grab on and hope for the best type of tackles right? Any space theoretically would add additional velocity, additionally with more horizontal space you would have to play with more vertical space to ensure angles to cut off players....
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Jul 20, 2019 8:24:37 GMT -6
Wouldn't that apply if you only increase vertical space as in the kick off example you mentioned. Lots of vertical space as players run down the field but they are still bound by 53 1/2 yards. Picture your open field tackling drills. I don't think those are high impact collisions, but rather a lot grab on and hope for the best type of tackles right? I would also add in our state there are many many more educational opportunities then there were 15 years ago that do not provide opportunities to participate in athletics. There are many Virtual Programs, Middle Colleges, Small Charter entities, and a growing home school population although some of these have athletics many don't and even more do not sponsor football. Prior to these existing students had to attend their local public school or pay to attend a area private school.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 8:43:01 GMT -6
Here are the last three schools I coached at, their enrollments during that time, and now. School A (1999-2003, 1161-1277), 860 School B (2004-09, 1670-1723), 1512 School C (2010-14, 477-428), 374 The declines at city schools are even bigger. As one example a former player of mine coaches at an urban school. Ten years ago their enrollment was 1149. This year it is 598. With those numbers it's easy to see why there are fewer kids playing HS football. I can only speak for my state, not the entire nation. Yes coach.. but again, the OP was national data. The census info I provided is national data. That includes all states. Saying "Michigan is lower" doesn't really factor in because obviously someone else is higher. The pie didn't shrink. Michigan's wedge got smaller and another state's got larger. When looking at data discussing the sum of the wedges, that doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 8:46:33 GMT -6
Any space theoretically would add additional velocity, additionally with more horizontal space you would have to play with more vertical space to ensure angles to cut off players.... I disagree, again asking you to envision the violence of your open field tackling drills compared to the violence of a hit from an oklahoma, or eye opener or whatever one calls the a drill where a ball carrier runs through a small defined area (two bags) and the defender "meets him in the hole". Increasing the horizontal space DECREASES the "certainty" (I can't think of a better term) of where the offense is going and therefore slows the closing speed of the defender right?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 20, 2019 8:55:37 GMT -6
So, what is football to do? How is football going to fix in the medium term its declining numbers. Some people who work in insurance believe the game might not even be insurable in the future based on where you are. That does not mean that the game would not be played, but it would be even more than it is today a spectator sport that most people watch but don't play, sort of like Rome and gladiators in the coliseum. So, how does football jack up participation, without resorting to the same tropes (they're not working anymore either, especially with more educated kids and parents)? I think one thing we can do is look north - to Canada. Their field is a no brainer - better disperser of force across the field. The added space on the LOS, that too is smart. You're going to have to explain that better. Are you addressing the insurance problem or something else? I could argue for going the opposite way in terms of space on the line, if the object is to make the game less scary looking to insurers. If we abolished the neutral zone and allowed the lines to engage before the snap, akin to a linear version of rugby scrum, that would zero out the speed at which they hit each other. That change alone might not do it, because it had already become popular for offensive lines to lay back, trading space for speed at the snap, before the neutral zone rule was adopted. Similarly, bigger field => players getting up more speed before colliding.
|
|
|
Post by coachjm on Jul 20, 2019 9:00:02 GMT -6
Any space theoretically would add additional velocity, additionally with more horizontal space you would have to play with more vertical space to ensure angles to cut off players.... I disagree, again asking you to envision the violence of your open field tackling drills compared to the violence of a hit from an oklahoma, or eye opener or whatever one calls the a drill where a ball carrier runs through a small defined area (two bags) and the defender "meets him in the hole". Increasing the horizontal space DECREASES the "certainty" (I can't think of a better term) of where the offense is going and therefore slows the closing speed of the defender right? Although I agree with your example, my anecdotal example would be a receiver getting hit coming over the middle or a safety flying up in the box with a big hit in comparison to a gator roll tackle by a DL.... Looks we have differing opinions that really can't be answered unless significant changes or significant research that has not been done (to my knowledge) on the CFL which even that would be tough to do a comparison as their players aren't the same with any other league.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 9:09:31 GMT -6
I disagree, again asking you to envision the violence of your open field tackling drills compared to the violence of a hit from an oklahoma, or eye opener or whatever one calls the a drill where a ball carrier runs through a small defined area (two bags) and the defender "meets him in the hole". Increasing the horizontal space DECREASES the "certainty" (I can't think of a better term) of where the offense is going and therefore slows the closing speed of the defender right? Although I agree with your example, my anecdotal example would be a receiver getting hit coming over the middle or a safety flying up in the box with a big hit in comparison to a gator roll tackle by a DL.... Looks we have differing opinions that really can't be answered unless significant changes or significant research that has not been done (to my knowledge) on the CFL which even that would be tough to do a comparison as their players aren't the same with any other league. I don't see how your comparison fits here though coach. You are comparing two different events. Enlarging the field size is changing the environments. If the ball carrier had a wider area in which he was travelling, the safety may not be "flying up" as fast (again, open field tackle) because he is less certain as to where the ball carrier is going. bobgoodman I would have thought a scientist would have recognized that defenders reach maximum striking velocities on the current American field dimensions pretty quickly, and that increasing the field size would not increase THEIR maximum striking velocities, but it would indeed increase the space in which the offense could maneuver. This would likely result in DECREASED striking velocities by the defense.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 20, 2019 9:14:53 GMT -6
Look at how around 2014 Football ticks down then starts nose diving. It is alarming to me. Overall numbers of all sports go up, but so does our population. So with numbers increasing, meaning more kids playing sports, it looks like football is and has lost appeal to many kids. That is the issue for coaches to focus on, how do you make it more appealing to stop the decline. But as we discussed in another recent thread, demographics is/are huge here. The overall population is one thing, but how many of them are at various ages? And of those, how many are in families that've recently relocated from countries where American football is a foreign game? AYSO figures report a substantial decline in youth soccer participation over the past 25 years or so in the USA, after a big rise over the previous 25 or so. However, a soccer referee reports in a thread on Quora that around him, in Brooklyn, they've been having an increase in participation due to immigration. Similarly I mention how so many bowling alleys have gone out of business, but the ones near him are doing fine, and he goes there with his family several times a year. So there are always local factors.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 20, 2019 10:10:39 GMT -6
coach-according to the census bureau, high school Enrollment numbers have not changed significantly in the last 15 years. Since the data being discussed here is on a national level those decreased numbers from Michigan are represented as increased numbers somewhere else. Basically, the kids from Michigan had to go somewhere And they would be represented in this data set if they chose to play
Actually not. Birth rates in Michigan have declined significantly this century as well.
The decrease in enrollment is not solely or perhaps even primarily attributable to people leaving the state, especially those with school-aged children.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 20, 2019 10:23:58 GMT -6
Coach5085,
I see your point, yes, club players do play for their high school, but most kids, if there is a conflict between the two, will pick the club. And there are a lot of reasons for that. Playing for you high school is important, but because the season is so restricted it's less important. You get far more touches playing for your club and that's were your real development happens.
All the points above are, I think, valid. We can parse things as much as we want, but the fact is that perception is reality. Honestly, I think my daughter suffers more routine injuries playing soccer than most guys do playing football. By routine, I mean cuts from cleats, bruises from tackles, etc. The problem we have with football is with the severe injuries, obviously. Until we fix that we will continue to lose the war of perception, especially among more educated and affluent people. Football will be increasingly played by kids that "have" to play it in order to climb out of their situation. Don't get me wrong, by the way, I was one of those kids - I would never have gone to college without football....
One thing too, and I've started to think about it myself more: Over the years, I've heard people say, if football is so great, why do we need all this equipment to play? It's a fare question. I mean, really, shouldn't you just be able to show up on field with a ball and play? I mean, I'm 44, I play on a competitive adult club in my town. I only started playing soccer four years ago. I'm no all-star, but I'm not bad either. Can't play football anymore . . .
All of these are issues that we need to address. This is a good discussion.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jul 20, 2019 10:24:04 GMT -6
Although I agree with your example, my anecdotal example would be a receiver getting hit coming over the middle or a safety flying up in the box with a big hit in comparison to a gator roll tackle by a DL.... Looks we have differing opinions that really can't be answered unless significant changes or significant research that has not been done (to my knowledge) on the CFL which even that would be tough to do a comparison as their players aren't the same with any other league. I don't see how your comparison fits here though coach. You are comparing two different events. Enlarging the field size is changing the environments. If the ball carrier had a wider area in which he was travelling, the safety may not be "flying up" as fast (again, open field tackle) because he is less certain as to where the ball carrier is going. bobgoodman I would have thought a scientist would have recognized that defenders reach maximum striking velocities on the current American field dimensions pretty quickly, and that increasing the field size would not increase THEIR maximum striking velocities, but it would indeed increase the space in which the offense could maneuver. This would likely result in DECREASED striking velocities by the defense. Is increasing the size of the playing field even an option for some schools? The Canadian field is roughly ten yards wider that the American. We've played in stadiums where teams can barely fit into the bench area as it is. They don't have an extra ten yards. As for the extra 30 yards in length, well that would put the ticket booth in the field of play.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 10:24:39 GMT -6
Look at how around 2014 Football ticks down then starts nose diving. It is alarming to me. Overall numbers of all sports go up, but so does our population. So with numbers increasing, meaning more kids playing sports, it looks like football is and has lost appeal to many kids. That is the issue for coaches to focus on, how do you make it more appealing to stop the decline. AYSO figures report a substantial decline in youth soccer participation over the past 25 years or so in the USA, after a big rise over the previous 25 or so. However, a soccer referee reports in a thread on Quora that around him, in Brooklyn, they've been having an increase in participation due to immigration. Similarly I mention how so many bowling alleys have gone out of business, but the ones near him are doing fine, and he goes there with his family several times a year. So there are always local factors. Bob.. was that a decline in AYSO participation or TOTAL soccer participation? Could the numbers be due to other organizations? USYS claims a participation number of over 3 million? Just saying that 1) Data can be somewhat misleading and "incomplete"
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 20, 2019 10:26:59 GMT -6
I don't see how your comparison fits here though coach. You are comparing two different events. Enlarging the field size is changing the environments. If the ball carrier had a wider area in which he was travelling, the safety may not be "flying up" as fast (again, open field tackle) because he is less certain as to where the ball carrier is going. bobgoodman I would have thought a scientist would have recognized that defenders reach maximum striking velocities on the current American field dimensions pretty quickly, and that increasing the field size would not increase THEIR maximum striking velocities, but it would indeed increase the space in which the offense could maneuver. This would likely result in DECREASED striking velocities by the defense. Is increasing the size of the playing field even an option for some schools? The Canadian field is roughly ten yards wider that the American. We've played in stadiums where teams can barely fit into the bench area as it is. They don't have an extra ten yards. As for the extra 30 yards in length, well that would put the ticket booth in the field of play. Absolutely valid points in a broad discussion. I was just pointing out the kinesiology/physics behind the idea.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 20, 2019 10:35:54 GMT -6
A couple more things.
As far as participation goes. One way the H.S. model hurts is that there is only one team that is fielded. That's just not enough. The idea, and I went through this, of developing and riding the pine in games and developing in practice and playing some JV games and whatnot, well, that's nice, but who really wants to do that.
You get better by playing in competitive games. My daughter's age group for competitive field four teams, A, B, C, D. All of those kids will play at least 30 meaningful games this year between the fall and spring seasons, plus three practices / week.
Football needs to field more teams at more levels so that more kids can play and not just practice.
Phantom's response to my comments about the field, well, yes . . . . that's a problem, but again, does a community want to do things that will make the game safer, and also perhaps more exciting. NFL and college people routinely cite that as a problem - they would lose about 15,000 seats. But here's the thing. The field they play is the same one that Thorpe and Heisman played on, but those guys were a quarter the size and speed of today's players. The field is a bandbox. This should not be a problem. My daughter's club has 6 full size soccer fields, along with numerous smaller ones for 9v9, 7vs7, and down. This is an easy fix....
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 20, 2019 10:37:42 GMT -6
Wouldn't that apply if you only increase vertical space as in the kick off example you mentioned. Lots of vertical space as players run down the field but they are still bound by 53 1/2 yards. Picture your open field tackling drills. I don't think those are high impact collisions, but rather a lot grab on and hope for the best type of tackles right? Sometimes. But once you get around the end, the amount of space in those situations hardly ever affects the violence of the hit. But that's on sweeps. If you look at the types of plays encouraged by Canadian rules -- quick pitches and quick passes -- I think you'll see an increase in the violence of the collisions.
|
|