|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 24, 2023 12:20:03 GMT -6
I don't have a child, but I'll answer hypothetically. I’m coaching middle school right now. I’m in the process of starting my own family and was thinking of the following questions 1. When would you let your son play football? As soon, and as long, as s/he: - showed interest in the game by playing informally (padless, peer-organized);
- begged and bargained with us to play adult-organized ball; and
- kept hir part of the bargain.
We could skip condition A if s/he was already playing another team sport and wanted to switch to or add football. Depends. Are they mostly bad, or just a few bad apples? If they were just a few, were bad in some obvious way, and I saw administration not trying to help the situation in some way, I'd assume those coaches were "connected" somehow, and see if we could get lucky by not winding up on one of those teams. And if we were unlucky, quit! Here I'm understanding "bad" to mean dangerous or abusive. Just bad at coaching, or at football -- I don't care. If the organization was rife with them, go elsewhere. If for some reason my kid protested that hir friends were playing for the bad coaches, or that s/he unaccountably loved the dangerous or abusive coach, I'd have to explain that such people are no good for them.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 16, 2023 8:20:07 GMT -6
Then let's change vlcvinegar's statement from "not play anything other than tag" to "not play organized tackle football with equipment", which looks a lot less like helicopter parenting! Unless he really meant it. 1) It should have said flag not tag. Must have been an auto correct. Yes, that one little difference would've changed my understanding.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 15, 2023 7:59:05 GMT -6
Haha. No, I meant how would you make sure your child played nothing other than tag until he (or she) was in middle school? Goodness Bob--this conversation topic as a whole and vicvinegar 's reply in specific is absolutely 100% positively about organized tackle football with equipment. Then let's change vlcvinegar's statement from "not play anything other than tag" to "not play organized tackle football with equipment", which looks a lot less like helicopter parenting! Unless he really meant it.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 14, 2023 8:46:05 GMT -6
How are you going to assure that? Or is that just a prediction? IF Haha. No, I meant how would you make sure your child played nothing other than tag until he (or she) was in middle school?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 13, 2023 14:41:42 GMT -6
Geez, for all the talent and massive population base in southern California, only 13 CFB participating schools. No wonder all our kids leave to go out of state. I guess a ton of lower FCS fringe style teams have gone away, St Mary's, Pacific, and Cal State Fullerton, all used to have teams (not even all that long ago, St Mary's had a team in 2003, Pacific 1995, Fullerton 1992). I'm sure there are several more I'm just not familiar with. Just to show how out of the scene I am, I hadn't realized Iona College had dropped football in 2009.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 13, 2023 11:37:24 GMT -6
I have a daughter, so one could say my opinion doesn't matter. However, we have just begun trying for number 2. If it's a boy, he will not play anything but tag until M.S. How are you going to assure that? Or is that just a prediction?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 11, 2023 14:19:17 GMT -6
Comporting with my observations about football interest generally, the area centered on Ohio is especially dense. However, the narrow band in western Penna. going into W. Va. makes more of a contribution to that cluster than I'd even thought.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 11, 2023 14:03:01 GMT -6
I don't think so! What makes you think liability would be any less on the part of the club, the league, coaches, administration, or the owner of the ground, if the coaches went to a league-mandated clinic? The only thing I can see from that is that the clinic would be yet another possible target of the lawsuit. "So, you sent your coaches to a clinic? That means you recognized your existing practices as dangerous. What steps did you take to make sure your coaches then applied what was taught at the clinic?" Clinics can be very good. I know I've learned at some. But they can also be controversial in their instructions, even as to safety. Many of those purporting to teach safer blocking, tackling, and even conduct and emphasis of practice can be disagreed with by those who think their own methods are safer. or at least as safe. When I started coaching in 2007, the club (which was also the league -- house ball) hosted a clinic that included video instruction from NAYS (I might be slightly messing up the acronym) that showed horrible tackling technique -- aiming the face mask squarely at the chest; it was unspoken that they expected you to bend your head out of the way at contact. Fortunately I and the other coaches I talked to after we watched the video said we would never teach tackling as shown. And that wasn't the last time I and other people I've coached with knowingly coached contrary to instructions we'd received at video and in-person clinics. So, maybe vet the clinic? Who watches the watchmen? The philosophy of "plant the face mask between the numbers" came into vogue in the 1970s at the same time as voices within the NCAA (at least) were becoming alarmed at how widespread and dangerous that was.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 11, 2023 13:55:25 GMT -6
Those of you who've answered or are about to answer regarding when your children started playing football, are you counting only adult-supervised ball? Were there previous times your kid would come home and tell you he'd been playing football? Might there have been times he'd been playing football and you didn't know it? If they had been playing football, do you think they would've told you or concealed it from you? Adults are consistently the worst part about youth sports, so yeah, I'd be A-OK with my child playing sports at the park with their friends. Hell, I'd encourage them to do it more. That's great. But I do think that when it comes to contact sports, although adults can certainly screw things up, good instruction and supervision by adults makes the kids safer. I don't have data regarding injuries, but from what I've seen coaching children in football, judging by the moves some kids make before instruction, I can't imagine we didn't make them at least somewhat less dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 11, 2023 13:46:11 GMT -6
I've never understood why these youth leagues don't make it mandatory their coaches go to a clinic. The game isn't played the way a lot of these coaches were taught. That would alleviate a lot of poor coaching methods. It doesn't even need to be about some exotic scheme, just go learn the basics from those that know and teach it. Even just liability makes it a great idea. I don't think so! What makes you think liability would be any less on the part of the club, the league, coaches, administration, or the owner of the ground, if the coaches went to a league-mandated clinic? The only thing I can see from that is that the clinic would be yet another possible target of the lawsuit. "So, you sent your coaches to a clinic? That means you recognized your existing practices as dangerous. What steps did you take to make sure your coaches then applied what was taught at the clinic?" Clinics can be very good. I know I've learned at some. But they can also be controversial in their instructions, even as to safety. Many of those purporting to teach safer blocking, tackling, and even conduct and emphasis of practice can be disagreed with by those who think their own methods are safer. or at least as safe. When I started coaching in 2007, the club (which was also the league -- house ball) hosted a clinic that included video instruction from NAYS (I might be slightly messing up the acronym) that showed horrible tackling technique -- aiming the face mask squarely at the chest; it was unspoken that they expected you to bend your head out of the way at contact. Fortunately I and the other coaches I talked to after we watched the video said we would never teach tackling as shown. And that wasn't the last time I and other people I've coached with knowingly coached contrary to instructions we'd received at video and in-person clinics.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 1, 2023 7:17:28 GMT -6
Those of you who've answered or are about to answer regarding when your children started playing football, are you counting only adult-supervised ball? Were there previous times your kid would come home and tell you he'd been playing football? Might there have been times he'd been playing football and you didn't know it? If they had been playing football, do you think they would've told you or concealed it from you?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 17, 2023 11:07:06 GMT -6
Try your public library for Epler's book.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 9, 2023 18:35:37 GMT -6
Just what the NFL needs another rule that up to the refs to interpret. And it really is a tough judgment. The NFL defines handing the ball forward differently from Fed and NCAA. In NFL rules whether a handoff is a forward pass depends on the direction of motion of the ball by the player handing it.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 9, 2023 18:29:29 GMT -6
Looking over the new NFL rules it says: -To make handing the football forward a penalty like an illegal forward pass, proposed by the Competition Committee. Rule change: This will penalize teams handing off the football forward on a read-option, for example, or any other running play a penalty. Handoffs will have to be made next to or behind the quarterback, not in front of. Am I reading this right? I can hardly believe the NFL would want to ban handing the ball forward. What problem are they seeing that that would address? What imbalance between offense and defense, or between running and passing? This is a rule that's existed in some form since before there was a NFL.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on May 1, 2023 21:01:39 GMT -6
I frequent the multiple American Football subreddit forums often (it's my "bored at work desk" activity), and more and more frequently (almost hourly now), there's a new post in one of these forums where it's a kid asking questions that could be answered very quickly and accurately by their own program's coaches. "What position should I play? Can I play if I am under 5'8"? What is the best workout to bench a lot for an 8th grade center?" The kinds of questions kids worry about really. I get those all the time on Quora, but my guess was that they were insincere questions, probably 'bot-generated, to take advantage of Quora's content incentive program. But if you're seeing them on Reddit, my conclusion was probably wrong. Then again, someone could be lifting them from Reddit to copy to Quora.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Apr 25, 2023 18:09:09 GMT -6
Am I the only one who on seeing the topic "Offensive Goal Boards" thought I'd stumbled into a basketball forum?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Apr 3, 2023 12:17:53 GMT -6
This state senator should get a legislative participation trophy.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 29, 2023 14:29:20 GMT -6
If the economy falls off the cliff it may be headed for, we may find out. Schools might start dumping sports left and right. May have to save the fundraising efforts to run the schools, instead of play sports. If the cliff results in greatly reduced employment, there will be less total schooling time demanded. A great deal of elementary schooling is babysitting, they don't need that many hours just for teaching. The more parents are at home, the less babysitting they need. When the economy picks up again, it might resume the same old, same old. Or maybe the lesson that we're overschooled will be learned, and that babysitters needn't be certified teachers.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 29, 2023 10:57:25 GMT -6
Who wrote anything about scaring the NFL? I don't think the XFL owners care at all what happens to the NFL. I'm just saying that all businesses remotely similar to each other are in competition with each other. Anything that can substitute to the slightest degree for anything else is a competing product. Both the NFL and XFL are competing with movie theaters and with streaming of movie videos. The point of this discussion though was the viability of a major professional sports league starting its own club system to develop young talent. The XFL or USFL won't because it remains to be seen if they can make enough money to sustain even their own minor league operations. The NFL won't because they have no incentive to spend a lot of money for what they get now for free. Oh. I wasn't thinking of anything nearly that big or far ahead. It came into the discussion when the model of soccer development in many countries was brought up. I don't see any likelihood of that happening over the course of less than a couple of generations, and probably not even then, when it comes to an existing big-time sport in any country. If something like that were happening here, it'd be with rugby, and that's probably not happening either as long as football's drawing a lot of entertainment dollars. I think most of us (maybe I'm misreading this) weren't thinking about a supply-driven "push" caused by the entry of something like a major pro sport like football into such a massive developmental program, but rather a "pull" caused by the exit of schools from interscholastic sports. Something like that wouldn't occur all at once on a nationwide basis, but school by school, town by town, etc. over probably many years, and maybe never going to completion, maybe affecting only a minority of places -- or maybe a lot.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 29, 2023 9:29:38 GMT -6
Whenever there's a change, you'll lose some support for some period of time. It'd be the same if club sports were replaced by interscholastic ones in a given community. People used to one thing won't all transfer loyalty to something else. Interscholastic sports became a thing in the USA by a funny sequence of influences, but history is never straightforward. Basically they -- and most specifically football -- arose as an extension of intramural sports. It started with the colleges, whose crazy students wanted to play different and often more violent forms of football intramurally than the general population in the vicinity did. After some other sports began to be contested intercollegiately, football spread to be played intercollegiately too, and quickly drew audiences because it was different football from what children and adults usually played. But the reason secondary and even primary schools got into the act was partly in imitation of the colleges and partly because of the influence of the British novel Tom Brown's School Days, in which descriptions were given of intramural sports at a private boarding school. This got adapted to the very different environment of American public schools. It didn't really make sense, because since the children didn't live there and the schools usually weren't that big, there was really no reason to organize kids' games there. But then, look how popular Rowling's fantasy novels and movies about a boarding school for wizards and their attendant games are now! Anyway, American educators were looking for things to imitate pedagogically, and sports got caught up as part of that. Anyway, to make competitions feasible, teams were organized to represent whole day schools rather than houses of a large boarding school. Probably had it not been for football, interscholastic sports wouldn't be much of a thing. Kids organized baseball on their own, and when you think youth baseball you tend to think of Little League even today. Basketball was the YMCA. Swimming, wrestling, boxing, tennis...all sports that didn't owe much to schools. Schools moved in on these activities relatively late. But they glommed onto football right from the start. I understand your point. I just don't fully agree with it. Parents are always going to support their children and I think that would be the same regardless of athletic model. I think the people you would lose are the members of the community who support programs and go to games because of their past links to the school. I guess only time would tell. What makes you think I don't agree with that? Those are exactly reasons some people's interest would be lost. Same when a pro or am club moves from one location to another.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 29, 2023 9:27:04 GMT -6
The XFL has answers to two of those problems. One is that it doesn't have franchise clubs, but is a single business entity that owns all the teams. The other is that it competes against the NFL and USFL clubs for business. Another model that can be looked at is a sparse one, but provides a few examples: musical bands and choirs that were brought up and promoted professionally since childhood. I disagree on the XFL, USFL, or any other spring league scaring the NFL into desiring a competitive advantage via youth development. The only real hope is a directly competing fall league or football taking off in Europe and there being a competing league. Who wrote anything about scaring the NFL? I don't think the XFL owners care at all what happens to the NFL. I'm just saying that all businesses remotely similar to each other are in competition with each other. Anything that can substitute to the slightest degree for anything else is a competing product. Both the NFL and XFL are competing with movie theaters and with streaming of movie videos.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 28, 2023 13:04:46 GMT -6
The XFL has answers to two of those problems. One is that it doesn't have franchise clubs, but is a single business entity that owns all the teams. The other is that it competes against the NFL and USFL clubs for business. Another model that can be looked at is a sparse one, but provides a few examples: musical bands and choirs that were brought up and promoted professionally since childhood. Hold on. Are you saying that the XFL is trying to compete with the NFL? They emphatically are not. That's why their championship game is in May. The last football league that tried to directly compete with the NFL was the old USFL and that was a disaster. Florida vacation spots compete with ski resorts too. They compete for vacation money. Same thing for things people have budgeted that they might spend on entertainment and recreation at different times of the year. So say you're an advertiser and can't afford much. You could sponsor NFL or XFL events. You have to look at prices and figure what will give you the most exposure for your business. I'm not talking about a big business that can afford to advertise with both. So sure, they're competing for business.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 28, 2023 12:56:54 GMT -6
We could as a society move towards club sport full time and many kids would still benefit. People would still show up to events and root on their children. Would communities follow? I am not sure they would to the extent they do now in some areas. Whenever there's a change, you'll lose some support for some period of time. It'd be the same if club sports were replaced by interscholastic ones in a given community. People used to one thing won't all transfer loyalty to something else. Interscholastic sports became a thing in the USA by a funny sequence of influences, but history is never straightforward. Basically they -- and most specifically football -- arose as an extension of intramural sports. It started with the colleges, whose crazy students wanted to play different and often more violent forms of football intramurally than the general population in the vicinity did. After some other sports began to be contested intercollegiately, football spread to be played intercollegiately too, and quickly drew audiences because it was different football from what children and adults usually played. But the reason secondary and even primary schools got into the act was partly in imitation of the colleges and partly because of the influence of the British novel Tom Brown's School Days, in which descriptions were given of intramural sports at a private boarding school. This got adapted to the very different environment of American public schools. It didn't really make sense, because since the children didn't live there and the schools usually weren't that big, there was really no reason to organize kids' games there. But then, look how popular Rowling's fantasy novels and movies about a boarding school for wizards and their attendant games are now! Anyway, American educators were looking for things to imitate pedagogically, and sports got caught up as part of that. Anyway, to make competitions feasible, teams were organized to represent whole day schools rather than houses of a large boarding school. Probably had it not been for football, interscholastic sports wouldn't be much of a thing. Kids organized baseball on their own, and when you think youth baseball you tend to think of Little League even today. Basketball was the YMCA. Swimming, wrestling, boxing, tennis...all sports that didn't owe much to schools. Schools moved in on these activities relatively late. But they glommed onto football right from the start.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 28, 2023 5:29:57 GMT -6
Do you really think child labor laws would get in the way? That would be a problem only if sports consumed so many hours as to interfere with schooling, and that doesn't seem to be a problem with professional entertainers of other kinds who are children. The laws are crafted so as to allow children to be schooled while making money, and other countries have such laws too. What type of "direct competition" do you mean that most US sports leagues lack? The reason the youth development system works in Europe is because I can have players under contract and sell them off, it how lots of clubs stay financially sound, but as seen with some US players the inablility to sign players to senior contracts until their 18 creates the opportunity for a player to leave for free. The fact that the NFL, MLB, NBA, and even the NHL don't have a direct peer to compete against means spending money on youth development becomes less important. The XFL has answers to two of those problems. One is that it doesn't have franchise clubs, but is a single business entity that owns all the teams. The other is that it competes against the NFL and USFL clubs for business. Another model that can be looked at is a sparse one, but provides a few examples: musical bands and choirs that were brought up and promoted professionally since childhood.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 27, 2023 12:24:13 GMT -6
But isn't that only as compared to countries in which the professionals take a much bigger hand in player development? In that comparison, whether young players are school-sponsored or join self-funded amateur clubs (or even for-profit developmental clubs) may not really matter, because both are inferior for development to a regime of pro clubs seeking to further themselves. Your correct, but the OP was arguing for the current club model used in other sports in the US such as basketball and soccer. Both of which there are issues with development of players in both and safety concerns in basketball. I like the European model, but I don't see it working in the US with most US sports leagues lacking direct competition and child labor laws. Do you really think child labor laws would get in the way? That would be a problem only if sports consumed so many hours as to interfere with schooling, and that doesn't seem to be a problem with professional entertainers of other kinds who are children. The laws are crafted so as to allow children to be schooled while making money, and other countries have such laws too. What type of "direct competition" do you mean that most US sports leagues lack?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 27, 2023 10:40:28 GMT -6
There are like zero regulations for travel;/clubs now. Need clearances to coach? Ehh maybe. Need to take all the NFHS "trainings" each year? Nawww. Adhere to time constraints on practices/games each week? No way Eligibility checks? More like did the check clear. Play all year round with no off-season/time to strength train or recover? Of course! Just a few great examples of why we need regulated sports in educational settings still in this country. I hope to God it never goes to a club system. Leaves way too many gray areas and cuts back on kids ability to be, just kids playing a sport. There are club systems and club systems. School-sponsored is just one system, while "clubs" cover various types. The YMCA is a system of sport clubs, but they don't have the defects you point out. Major league baseball with their farm system is "clubs" too.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 27, 2023 10:33:17 GMT -6
Also, as someone that follows soccer, the pay for play nature of soccer in the US is pointed to as a big issue with player development. But isn't that only as compared to countries in which the professionals take a much bigger hand in player development? In that comparison, whether young players are school-sponsored or join self-funded amateur clubs (or even for-profit developmental clubs) may not really matter, because both are inferior for development to a regime of pro clubs seeking to further themselves.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 26, 2023 7:04:58 GMT -6
It was only historic accident by which school-sponsored interscholastic team sports became a thing in the USA. If you look at almost all of the rest of the world, it's not.
In the USA we've made schools and school-sponsored activities in general a big thing that didn't need to be, because one thing attracted another. Schools just became "the place". There has been some degree of that in certain other countries, as in France where preschool and early school grades are kind of a family-consuming thing, involving parents and children in the making of lunch there, but I think that's more or less a result of the tendency of individual families in France to disappear from the child-rearing process; in the US it's more a matter of the school getting sucked into the family rather than vice versa.
Politically this would be hard to unravel, as parents feel they have a stake in the schools and are driven to protect their investment.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Mar 8, 2023 10:41:39 GMT -6
I'm an AC whose players never have to look at me during games. About once or twice a game I like the view down the line at just enough angle to see around the wing official. The rest of the time I like the view 20-30 yards off the line of scrimmage in either direction -- but preferably behind our team if available -- farther if play's on the far hash, nearer if on the nearer.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Dec 23, 2022 7:48:49 GMT -6
Wow, and he'd previously dodged a few bullets healthwise. When someone does that, I tend to develop the idea in the back of my mind that he's immortal.
|
|