|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 13, 2024 18:11:30 GMT -6
And college scholarships are not cheap, either. That's because most of college is a racket too.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 10, 2024 7:58:56 GMT -6
Making some progress here, I think, towards the goal stated by silkyice. If we sacrifice the ability to specify the guards and ends formation separately, we lose only a little deception; I forgot what some wing T teams call it when they have the tight end and wingback on opposite sides, but it's not that popular a change-up and we'd probably have used it only rarely, so no great loss. Which means the only formation words left are "flip" and "over".
So then the longest conceivable call becomes:
Still 7 words (not counting "on"), more than 3 but less than 8 (or 10 if you count "over' in "guard over" and "ends over"). Oh, and I'm counting the 2-digit play number as one word, although I could see silkyice objecting that it's really two, since each digit conveys info independently.
But I also remembered a couple other details I wanted us to be able to call. One would be on pass plays: to specify whether the passer looks for receivers on the right, or on the left. The other would be a couple of audibles: Throw to uncovered receiver, and quarterback jailbreak against an uncovered center. The signal would be the same for either audible -- saying, "Ready, set, set-go," instead of the usual, "Ready, set, go," but the call would be which if either of the two audibles was "on", so our signal caller would look at only one place. So now I'm looking at the possibility of adding words, getting us farther from silkyice's target. So more pruning seems to be called for.
A few seasons ago I saw the value to the offense of audibles when a particular defense showed us a Bear front and left big B and C gaps. So we called time out, changed our play, and when we lined up again of course the defense had changed its look. Last season we had a "hot" call for when we had the numbers in our trips formation. Some years on defense we've had the ability to delay the look we gave the other team, but usually not.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 9, 2024 17:15:33 GMT -6
Well of course learning the calls is secondary to learning the techniques. And I'm already simplifying things by using "trap" to mean any pulling action (and having only one puller in the formation -- because in my experience at this age, it's about all you can do to have a single player good enough to play the O line and quick enough to beat the runner to the hole). So a cross-block is a trap, and a "trap" to the 1 or 9 hole means pull and protect the outside. And your system would be easier for the kids to remember if they had only a very small number of plays. But as soon as we have plays enough to hit several holes with different actions, they're going to have trouble remembering whatever they're supposed to do based on the play name. I had trouble myself last season remembering what route patterns went with what names -- and was glad that for my role in coaching, I didn't have to! (Although occasionally we did have confusion between the coaches on some assignments.) Several holes with several different actions. You don't get that on 1/2 the teams on the NFL level. How did y'all do last year? Last year I was an AC on a 13U (or 14U) team of about half rookies that went 0-fer, and none of this was in effect. We didn't even teach different blocking techniques, although we had in other years, because our HC -- a fine guy, but one I'd like to get out from under with younger players -- wanted to be conservative. Our defense was a little below average but not awful. We were getting opposing linebackers going the wrong way, but couldn't get past the line, and our pass completion percentage didn't justify the amount of shotgun we used. So what I'm looking at is, what do I really want to do? What do I think I can do with a fresh set of players? I would've been a HC back in the Bronx in 2016 but turned it down because I had to relocate. As to several holes with different actions, I don't consider that at all unreasonable. I think we should be able to have our fullback hit the 4 or 6 hole with either straight dive or trap action. Some kiddie defenses make the trap worthwhile, others don't. Same with belly at 7 blocked either straight (base) or cross (X). And I don't think it unreasonable to have a run with a lead block or a choice of a couple faking actions behind it. And I could think of lots of others. But I have other reasons for wanting to be HC. I have different ideas about practice organization and emphasis. There are certain skills that are fun but that a lot of coaches neglect -- stripping the ball, for instance. I think I could provide more fun and less waste in less total time.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 9, 2024 16:57:39 GMT -6
Play calls don't work like that. I understand what you are saying, but that 10 year old guard who is chewing on his mouthpiece, trying to pull up his pants, while hearing his dad yell from the stands "block someone", can't just magically hear some words and not the other. Some words might mean things to him and some words he might can ignore, but he HAS to LISTEN to it all. I am going to help you here since you asked for it and just said you haven't done it before, three words is the limit for 10 year olds. You go over three words it has to go back to one. Three words is the limit for ALL 11 players to hear it, understand it, and execute it during an entire series of downs in a game situation. Of course that doesn't mean by game 5 after your players have shown they can handle that, that you can't add another word to a play or two. I would be willing to bet that most coaches here would agree that play call is too long for high school kids that play both ways. I get what you're saying: That even if the tags are kept in the proper order, it's too hard for a player to note the absence of a tag, and therefore that he doesn't have to listen for it but can mentally move on to the next one. The temptation would be to fill in by putting in a "negative" tag for every possible one, but then all the play calls would be as long as the above "longest possible" one. So I have to figure out what can be pruned. All the formation tags could be pruned from the call if the formation's sent in first, but then either there has to be a no-huddle signaling system for the play call -- which I think would either require wristbands for every position -- or some way to line up in the huddle pre-positioned. In the sidesaddle T with 9Us, we had only one formation (until the HC decided mistakenly to also put in I formation), and that would still be my preference over formationing. But in this club I want to meet their wing T system at least halfway. I do know there've been a couple other teams in this club since I've been coaching here who put in some single wing plays -- I'd just like to do it without "showing" it pre-snap. Another way to shorten some calls would be to "marry" the motions to certain play series, thereby losing the flexibility to add some pre-snap decoy action to other series. Also, I should say that many of my projected plays would go out the window on finding out, for instance, that we didn't have backs with certain combinations of talents.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 9, 2024 16:32:29 GMT -6
I think it's a lot but I see where you're coming from. I've not coached that level of ball, I've only been as low-age as MS, but one thing I keep in mind even at the HS level is all these words are just words to the kids. "Trap" to them is what they put down in Fortnite right now. They don't know what Trap is in football until you teach them. If you tell the kids this whole play is called Skittles, they don't have to know everything about Skittles like you do as a coach. They have to remember "Ok on Skittles I line up on the other side and pull". Then you base the tags off of those. "Skittles Pass". ok same as skittles but now it's a pass. The tags should build on the playcall, not be the playcall. Well of course learning the calls is secondary to learning the techniques. And I'm already simplifying things by using "trap" to mean any pulling action (and having only one puller in the formation -- because in my experience at this age, it's about all you can do to have a single player good enough to play the O line and quick enough to beat the runner to the hole). So a cross-block is a trap, and a "trap" to the 1 or 9 hole means pull and protect the outside. And your system would be easier for the kids to remember if they had only a very small number of plays. But as soon as we have plays enough to hit several holes with different actions, they're going to have trouble remembering whatever they're supposed to do based on the play name. I had trouble myself last season remembering what route patterns went with what names -- and was glad that for my role in coaching, I didn't have to! (Although occasionally we did have confusion between the coaches on some assignments.)
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 9, 2024 16:17:42 GMT -6
But then the players have to memorize and decode the whole thing. They have to know Banana means a lot of things that aren't easily relatable to the word "banana". My idea is that by making the play call modular, they don't have to do all that memorizing. Each word means something simple and following simple rules. You're right, I would not expect to practice every combination, so some "plays" would be unadjusted. However, I'd expect that once they get certain rules down, then it won't matter what the "whole play" is, they'll execute the same. Very little changes with each tag. The only tag that requires its own practice is "flip" because everything is mirror image. Doesn't mix well with man-in-motion. If the back has to be just there for the play to work, it has to be timed to the snap. One thing I've thought about, is to have the signal caller watch and call for the snap at just the right moment -- but that sacrifices both the element of surprise against the other team and the value of rhythm for our own team. The man-in-motion would be a complete decoy in many cases, added to a play just to see if it gets the linebackers leaning the wrong way. So we could add "rocket...on two", say, to many plays it has nothing to do with -- in fact, losing a lead blocker on belly -- as long as the tag is available. But that works only if rocket sweep gets established as a threat. The teams I've coached with here in Newton have never used rocket, and I don't know why. Maybe they've been afraid to lead a pitch to a man in motion, maybe they think it works only if you have a real speedster halfback. Meanwhile they've used jet, never with much success, telegraphing it by running it only from double wings and running very little else from double wing -- and never seriously teaching reach blocking steps to go with it. I've already done it with 9Us, no problem. The snapper's head is up, and he either hands it to the QB (sidesaddle T) or throws it between his legs just one way regardless of which of the deep backs catches it. 3 counting "flipped" ones separately? I've coached with 10Us where we had more formations than that -- 5 IIRC, and this was considered fairly standard for that age playing wing T in our club. By the time they were 12Us we had more formations, and more than that as 14Us. All of what you said can certainly work. No doubt. But is it? If it is, truck on. If not, think about major simplification. Since I haven't tried it, I'm trying to predict whether it will. I'm sure that's true, but I can't predict what point one way surpasses another. What I'm counting on is that most of the players won't have to listen to much of the full call. They all have to know the snap count. All except the center have to listen for "flip" in the formation. Only the puller (I expect one pull-capable player on the field at a time) has to listen for "guards over", and only the ends have to listen for "ends over". Only the tailback has to listen for "rocket", and only the wingback has to listen for "fly" or "blimp". Some of the line has to listen for "trap", which in this code won't always mean what you'd consider a trap play, but the same general action. The line has to listen for "pass". The center, fullback, and tailback have to listen for "direct". Most of the players have to listen to both digits of the play number. Most of these words won't be there most of the time. 2 digits and a snap count will always be there, and the rest are tags. But I'm concerned the number of words on some plays will still be too much for some to listen to, and particularly for whoever's relaying the play in. When I played rugby by the time I took 10 running steps all the blood would drain from my brain and I was a deaf amnesic zombi. I'm even thinking of having the field captain select the plays for the reason that then nobody has to convey the call from a coach. The only advantage I'd have calling it from the sideline would be a printed table telling me we couldn't use this motion with that count on that play.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 8, 2024 13:06:34 GMT -6
First, once it gets that long, just tag the whole thing one word. Call it Banana. Call it Chevy. Call it Scooby Doo. Call it whatever. My rule is once the play call gets over about three words, then it gets its own word. But then the players have to memorize and decode the whole thing. They have to know Banana means a lot of things that aren't easily relatable to the word "banana". My idea is that by making the play call modular, they don't have to do all that memorizing. Each word means something simple and following simple rules. You're right, I would not expect to practice every combination, so some "plays" would be unadjusted. However, I'd expect that once they get certain rules down, then it won't matter what the "whole play" is, they'll execute the same. Very little changes with each tag. The only tag that requires its own practice is "flip" because everything is mirror image. Doesn't mix well with man-in-motion. If the back has to be just there for the play to work, it has to be timed to the snap. One thing I've thought about, is to have the signal caller watch and call for the snap at just the right moment -- but that sacrifices both the element of surprise against the other team and the value of rhythm for our own team. The man-in-motion would be a complete decoy in many cases, added to a play just to see if it gets the linebackers leaning the wrong way. So we could add "rocket...on two", say, to many plays it has nothing to do with -- in fact, losing a lead blocker on belly -- as long as the tag is available. But that works only if rocket sweep gets established as a threat. The teams I've coached with here in Newton have never used rocket, and I don't know why. Maybe they've been afraid to lead a pitch to a man in motion, maybe they think it works only if you have a real speedster halfback. Meanwhile they've used jet, never with much success, telegraphing it by running it only from double wings and running very little else from double wing -- and never seriously teaching reach blocking steps to go with it. I've already done it with 9Us, no problem. The snapper's head is up, and he either hands it to the QB (sidesaddle T) or throws it between his legs just one way regardless of which of the deep backs catches it. 3 counting "flipped" ones separately? I've coached with 10Us where we had more formations than that -- 5 IIRC, and this was considered fairly standard for that age playing wing T in our club. By the time they were 12Us we had more formations, and more than that as 14Us.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 8, 2024 8:40:10 GMT -6
Can you think of a shorter way to do it? How about sending in just the formation tags (if any), and then after they line up, sending in the motion, play, and snap count? I don't care much how long the defense has to look at the formation. Or sending in one messenger with the formation tags (if any) and another to call the motion, play, and snap count? The first messenger calls out the formation first ("normal" if no tags), then the other messenger gives the rest? Or is the problem still with having other positions remember where to line up and then what to do and when?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 7, 2024 17:28:32 GMT -6
Picking the longest I could construct for this system:
Flip, guards over, and ends over are formation calls:
Flip: Mirror the formation left-right. Everyone flips. The opposite of "flip" is no tag. Guards over: The pulling guard (there's only one, keeps 2-point stance) plays inside the other guard on the same side. No tag means the line's balanced. No "tackles over" tag. Ends over: The tight and split ends trade. I just thought "over" could be said a little faster than "trade" in a signal call even though it's an extra syllable.
Rocket is a motion call. It sends the tailback into rocket motion to the strong side. There'll be "fly" and "blimp" calls for the wingback. Maybe "glider" for the quarterback. The "r" and "l" in the words mean "right" and "left" respectively, but just the opposite if "flip" is on. We expect to flip only a minority of the time.
Direct tells the center to snap between the quarterback's legs.
20 series mostly tells the quarterback, fullback, and tailback what to do. It's an extension of the wing T 20 series. However, with "direct" the quarterback isn't going to be taking his usual steps, though the fullback does, and "rocket" is already telling the tailback what to do.
1 is where the play is going -- the point of attack. The hole numbers flip with the players left/right.
Trap tells the pulling guard what to do. In this case it's "trap the opponent past the 1 hole", which really means the guard is the outside blocker on a sweep. We'll call any pull-and-out block a "trap". If the POA is from 2 thru 8, it's telling the other linemen to block down or away from the play direction.
Pass tells ineligible receivers not to go downfield. This tag will be the way of calling play-action passes, but there'll also be a "pass" series that'll mostly be about the routes.
One is the snap count, calling out that actual word. The cadence will be, "Ready, set, go, one, two, three...." "Go" starts the motion. We can snap on anything but "ready"; if we snap on "set", the whole line will be in 2-point, otherwise the line except the pulling guard will be 3-point. If we snap on "go" of course there's no motion.
All this may be preceded by a personnel tag, though that'll be called first and in advance of the actual play call, so nobody will have to keep it in mind once the right players are on the field.
The advantage of the long play call is that the players don't have to memorize much once the play starts. They'll have blocking rules, and they should line up knowing what to do without having to remember a list of plays. The disadvantage is that whoever gets the signal and relays in the play in the huddle is going to have to remember this long list of words during that interval. Keep in mind that most play calls will be shorter, like "24 on go".
I've thought about adding an overall description at the end of the call, but I don't want to have a redundant name like that for every play.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Feb 6, 2024 19:41:08 GMT -6
To try coaching football. A few coaches on Delphi's single wing, etc. forum suggested it, and (after a year in which I had a heart attack) I eventually took it up as almost a dare. I'm so glad I did, and I've never been able to put it down for long since. I thought I might try coaching adult women, but instead I've been coaching children. It feels good just being around kids having fun.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 30, 2024 7:07:42 GMT -6
Still, I can't help but try to do a little guesswork as to how Congress might react. There are winners and losers by every development, and those who anticipate being losers could try to stop developments if they see money flowing out of their state. But they're going to have a hard time anticipating that, because no matter how much money's coming into your state in the form of college athletics, how do you know it couldn't be even more? So my guess is that even if this change takes many years, Congress won't react quickly enough to affect it, and it'll be a fait accompli.
We see this in marijuana policy, where states have now for years benefited from businesses going against federal law and operating cannabusinesses. Congress has seemed content for all these years to leave things in this inconvenient state -- nominally illegal, but not enforced, although the fear of even slightly possible enforcement has made federally regulated financial institutions afraid to participate. On the other hand, members of Congress are afraid to take a public stand by legislation affecting these operations one way or another. If and when Congress finally does act, it will probably be to simply ratify, and probably skim from, existing modes of operation.
If there had been a federal-government commission over football or basketball, just as there are state commissions on gaming, horse racing, and boxing, Congress would probably now be too chicken to interfere with whatever decisions such unelected bureaucrats made, even if the commission's overall mode was a general one of corruption favoring the established enterprises. If Congress does act regarding intercollegiate athletics in the current environment or in one as it develops in the near future, they could well establish such a commission and let them catch both the flak and the graft from constituents.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 29, 2024 15:01:14 GMT -6
The short run -- say, the 5 years to come -- I can't say anything about. The longer run of course depends on whether Congress acts. Congress is a loose cannon. You never know what they might do. You might say the rule is always, "Follow the money," but that's a useless guide here, because moneyed interests may well be divergent. So rather than speculate about legislation, I'll just lay out what must happen, inexorably although not on any predictable timetable, if the laws stay as they are.
For college sports and teams that don't make a lot of money, nothing will change. However, the NCAA was organized to do something about big-time money making football, and the issues today as concern other significant money making sports -- basketball and possibly some tournaments -- are the same. The legal regime as it stands will convert all those who play on those teams -- and anyone else who might currently be volunteering their help as costumed mascots or towel carriers -- into employees. There's really no way around it. And since they're employees, they could not be discriminated against by having to be enrolled at the institution to be hired, so eligibility rules could not be applied to them. Competitiveness will lead to teams composed entirely of professionals. And IRS will then look at those operations and question whether they're really integral to the institution's overall operation and part of their tax treatment, and decide "no". So the colleges will spin those programs off, licensing their name, as arm's-length passive investments, like the royalties they collect on inventions.
So the great majority of intercollegiate competition, whether NCAA or otherwise, will be unaffected, while the big time money makers will become professional clubs connected in name only to the institutions. It won't be about the type of sport -- there'll be football and basketball teams on either side of this divide -- only about the individual entries. There may be some schools that spin off a pro team in a sport but also keep a team of their own students so as to be part of their traditional competition -- or the students may organize student clubs to do that. Old rivalries that'd become lopsided in the competition may thus be revived! There was precedent for that in Life Chiropractic College, whose rugby team over the years got too good for the graduate and professional school division; they wound up as home to a team in the nominally professional Super League, and a team of (relatively speaking) scrubs who played in the graduate and professional school division.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 18, 2024 13:04:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 18, 2024 9:43:39 GMT -6
Meanwhile I've figured out that olliebaba meant "full contact" by "FC", but "tacklebar" I had to look up: tacklebar.com/ Apparently it's like flag football but the flags are on the small of your back and your opponent is allowed to hold you while grabbing for it. The video probably has edited out of it the many times I'm sure the ballcarrier and/or tackler wound up going to the ground inadvertently, as in "thud" practice if you did it competitively and swallowed your whistle. I don't know about you, but if I were coaching in a tacklebar league, rather than having my players reach for those "bars" while the runner is held up, I'd have them go for the ball. I imagine the officials are told not to whistle forward progress, but wait for the bar to come off. I don't know whether the rules bar a second tackler from coming in, but my way wouldn't require that. Maybe they anticipated my method and treat a lost ball as dead with no change in possession. I gather they wanted to get away from the high speed collisions that I'm told tend to occur in flag. But after collisions related to the tackle are addressed, you still have the collisions related to blocking, which is allowed in this game.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 18, 2024 9:18:58 GMT -6
The California bill was vetoed by the governor. Meaning it'd not only passed the committee (as the story said), but while we were discussing this, it actually passed the entire legislature?!! I know a lot of crazy things happen as a legislative deadline approaches, but this is awful news. Meanwhile I've figured out that olliebaba meant "full contact" by "FC", but "tacklebar" I had to look up: tacklebar.com/ Apparently it's like flag football but the flags are on the small of your back and your opponent is allowed to hold you while grabbing for it. The video probably has edited out of it the many times I'm sure the ballcarrier and/or tackler wound up going to the ground inadvertently, as in "thud" practice if you did it competitively and swallowed your whistle.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 14, 2024 17:11:52 GMT -6
That's good, because the last version of the Benedetto bill in NY I looked at -- which was close to a decade ago -- actually was to make illegal even the playing of tackle football by those under age, and also imposed criminal liability on those whose land was being played on. I don't recall seeing any of these bills as having a definition of tackle football, so it's not clear whether loopholes were possible by changing a few things and saying, "This is not football." What if, for instance, they played rugby? Or American Sevens? Or Canadian football? No, that's not what the Benedetto bill said: nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=A01269&term=2017&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%26nbspVotes=Y&Floor%26nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y Then either that was a phantom of mine to begin with, or else after I left NY it was amended to exclude peer-organized play. However, it does include rugby. Still, it seems to allow tackling under adult supervision as long at the adult is not doing it as part of an organization.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 14, 2024 12:15:07 GMT -6
Played "youth" sports when I was a kid. We would gather at a local field in the fall and choose sides to play a little tackle football. Or, gather at that same field in the summer and choose sides to play a little baseball. Or, when I lived in the city the neighborhood kids would get together and play a little stickball. Played Babe Ruth baseball in JH, but didn't play organized football until I went to high school. My parents NEVER forced me to play any sport, but they always encouraged me to go out and play with my friends. When I got to HS some of my friends who played football in JH convinced me to play in HS and were more experienced and advanced than I so I spent most of my HS time learning how to play the game as a freshman, honing my skills as a sophomore, serving as a backup as a junior, and playing a lot as a senior. All of those experiences taught me to LOVE playing the game, and WANTING to play more after HS. Couldn't get enough of the gamet. I had fun playing in college, and was NEVER misled to believe I had the talent to become a pro. I enjoyed the game so much I wanted to write about it so I majored in journalism. However my old HS coach contacted me to ask if I would be interested in helping coach his freshman team and, well...50 years later I still LOVE the game, but hate seeing what's happening to it. A state government, or federal government taking away the freedom for us to choose whether our kids should play the game before age 12 or not is NOT the answer though. I "liked" your post because I agreed with most of it. Your experience with "youth" sports mirrored mine: We played a lot of tackle football, just not on organized teams. Your last statement contradicts that, though. As far as I know the bill in Cal. would only ban ORGANIZED tackle football for kids under 12. The cols will NOT be on the lookout for backyard 3-on-3 games. That's good, because the last version of the Benedetto bill in NY I looked at -- which was close to a decade ago -- actually was to make illegal even the playing of tackle football by those under age, and also imposed criminal liability on those whose land was being played on. I don't recall seeing any of these bills as having a definition of tackle football, so it's not clear whether loopholes were possible by changing a few things and saying, "This is not football." What if, for instance, they played rugby? Or American Sevens? Or Canadian football?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 14, 2024 8:56:35 GMT -6
1. A good number of the kids clearly don't want to be there; they're being made to play by their parents. I This is what bothers me the most about coaching, but fortunately "a good number" doesn't have to be "many" everywhere. Kids subjected to bad coaches is bad, but not as bad as kids who didn't want football at all. I'm writing as someone whose parents tried to convince me that piano lessons was my idea. They bought a Steinway. And put it in the part of the living room where the roof leaked. I quit as soon as they'd let me, years later, which was the time I was entering a prep school. And never since then has it occurred as people say, "You'll regret quitting."
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 13, 2024 7:53:17 GMT -6
Honestly, I'm not that worried about this one. I've been pretty vocal that I don't think tackle is necessary until Jr High, this more or less does that. A lot of the youth football players that we see do become pretty good high school players, but we also see just as many youth players that peak earlier and get caught up by late developers. I'd love to see some kind of progression that starts with flag, goes on to rugby, then finally tackle around jr high. I just don't see why it's necessary to have little bobbleheads running around hitting each other poorly. None of it is necessary. High school football certainly isn't. No football is. But why look at it as a matter of necessity? Necessity for what? What justification do we need, other than that some people of any age like playing it, and that some people like watching others play?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 13, 2024 7:50:55 GMT -6
I’d do tacklebar until 6th grade then give them 3 years of FC football in a grade by grade league What are tacklebar and FC? I'll be 70 in March. Adult-organized football (tackle or otherwise) below high school was much less common for my generation, but the same was true of soccer, lacrosse, and hockey; baseball was the only adult-organized team sport for most children in the USA. I don't think children play such games any more than we did, only that we didn't usually have adult supervision or equipment. I think the boom is mostly because as humanity gets richer we can afford more. At least in my experience, children's football and to a large extent other sports is a distinct crowd, a different phenomenon from interscholastic competition. Many play as children and not teens, and others as teens and not children. I don't think we should look for a continuity between these activities over a lifetime. I don't think either much helps or hurts the other, with a few local exceptions. We see for instance a huge disconnect between organized soccer for those under 10 YO and those older; I think some people were hoping children's soccer in North America would feed the game at higher levels, but at least a couple generations have shown it doesn't. For an even starker example, see speedball, a century-old type of football home-grown in North America that's managed to stay popular as a summer camp and intramurals activity (even on college campuses) for pickup play but never grows into established clubs or teams. I'm interested in experience from parts of the world where American football has been growing. Is there more of a connection there between the children's game and that of adolescents or adults?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 12, 2024 14:42:31 GMT -6
Weird take. This could inadvertently lead to an increase in participation at the older levels. How?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 12, 2024 11:56:21 GMT -6
This doesn't bother me at all because I think kids' lives are too regimented. I think that, rather than playing organized team sports, they should be playing outside, figuring out things for themselves. Yes, but there are a few who want and seem to do well with the regimentation. They're already used to it from school, and if they like it, why not? If anything, it's school hours that should be cut down; it's for the convenience of parents anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 11, 2024 13:00:08 GMT -6
Apparently, they don't watch 8-year-olds play football. It's more wrestling than hard-htting football. But...they're probably against wrestling, too.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 11, 2024 12:58:37 GMT -6
football-related injuries tend to vary inversely with the players’ age (and associated size and force exerted through contact) in that youth players sustain less than one-third the injuries of high school football players, less than one-fifth the injuries of collegiate players, and less than one-ninth those seen in professional football players. All the more remarkable when you consider that the older the players get, the less playing time they get. There are no bench sitters in children's football. I don't know what the median age of active football players is, but it's got to be below teen age. If you were to re-figure the median age of players who were actually in the game on a given play, it'd skew even younger, because there are so many interscholastic and intercollegiate players "on the team" who aren't often on the field. Only the pros are an anomaly because they can't afford to carry no-play players, although they do have specialists.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 14, 2023 9:56:59 GMT -6
I just dont see "you know what, those little league coaches were completely right and we need to do what they were doing" as being the case. If it is the LL coaches may be more knowledgeable than the varsity coaches(hence my comment about being more sophisticated and outpacing them). The lower the level, the more coaches (and players) there are, so just by the law of averages you'd expect more to percolate up from below than to filter down from above. The only countervailing factor is money, since at higher levels you can make money from coaching and therefore have that incentive to stay ahead of the field. However, my observation is that this late in the development of football, the game is pretty mature, and practically all changes are just recycling. Doesn't matter whether it comes from pee-wees or pros, they read/saw/heard about it somewhere, they didn't invent it.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 14, 2023 5:50:27 GMT -6
What if it turns out the little league has success with their own thing, and as they grow the higher levels see it and adopt it? The varsity's system should be flexible enough to accommodate variances in talent from year to year. If the Little League is so sophisticated that it outpaces the varsity id say there are bigger issues within the program. Is it a matter of sophistication and pace? I think that by now practically all differences in system in football are matters of fashion and taste; it's all been done, but institutions and people change from time to time. When that program was doing one thing one year and another the next, how/why does that change come about? Could it never happen that they went with the flow from below, rather than importing the ideas from who-knows-where, or what the new staff were doing elsewhere? Not like the kids were "ahead" or sophisticated, just that this is what their coaches happened to be doing and what they've become used to.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 13, 2023 18:35:42 GMT -6
Scaled down with some tweaks is the way to go imo. There needs to be some cohesion, especially in terms of terminology but also scheme. I did JV this past season and our Varsity was 3 or 4 wide, we kept a TE and a HBack in as it fit our talent better. Our kids are also comfortable with running Bucksweep and I like it so I kept it but it went from the backbone of our offense to something we ran 4-5 times a game when the Defense gave it to us. Some of the smoothest offenses Ive seen are a Wing-t/Double Wing team and a Single Wing team(been doing it for 60+ years). They run their stuff from Little League on up, adding a little more every year. What if it turns out the little league has success with their own thing, and as they grow the higher levels see it and adopt it?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 12, 2023 18:25:09 GMT -6
This is one of the advantages of the sidesaddle T. If the QB muffs the snap, it's very unlikely to bounce toward the defense, it's nigh impossible to go behind the QB's back, and it's very likely to land on the ground in full view of the QB.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 2, 2023 9:44:45 GMT -6
Kick the ball out of bounds and make them try go go 60 in one play. Heh...like they're going to let you kick out of bounds on purpose and take that penalty.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Nov 30, 2023 9:32:28 GMT -6
If your kicker knows the whirlybird kickoff, do it. Otherwise ground ball, and not so hard that it's liable to bounce to the deep people.
|
|