|
Post by coachks on Dec 7, 2009 22:11:12 GMT -6
Great coaches make great football players.
Unless you think the drinking water in small town A is laced with HGH, they probably have comparable talent with small town B, C, D, E, F. The issue is, what does the coach do to develop this talent into football players.
Is he getting the schools athletes to play? Is he playing kids in the right position? Is he developing toughness? Are they learning fundamentals? Do they play the game the right way?
It's amazing how untalented "soft" kids look. How slow a confused kid looks. How weak an unmotivated kid looks.
Athletes don't win games, football players do. Great coaches develop football players (who, amazingly enough, look like much better athletes on the field than they do in shorts).
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Dec 7, 2009 17:09:52 GMT -6
was anyone thinking during the majority of the DI game, "THROW THE FREAKING BALL, DAVIDSON?" I didn't know how they were going to score at the end there with 3 mins left without throwing. guess they showed me. I thought the same thing 3 minutes into the game. It looked like Glenvile was in a bear look (nose, 3 threes) and had 7 guys on the line (including a cover 3 corner). They were playing man on the receiver...and the FS was the only other deep defender and he was only about 6 yards off the ball and flying up on the veer. Nobody was guarding the wing. Very strange alignment. But I heard that Davidson only completed 20 passes this season...so throwing it isn't their game.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Dec 6, 2009 15:00:28 GMT -6
Attended 5 of the games. Here are some thoughts....
Altar played some outstanding defense. Incredible speed (especially at OLB) for a school of that size. Their DL manhandled the CF offensive line, just at on of pressure.
I was disapointed with my first impression of Cleveland Glennville. Completely undisciplined (really stupid penalty cost them a 99 yard TD), gave up a pretty cheap 2 pt play because they didn't properly align. Their offense looked like a sandlot football game, the QB took the snap ran around and heaved it. Their defense was very unsound, but they had some studs upfront that blew up the Davidson rushing attack (and, Davidson had no passing game what-so-ever).
I was very impressed with Winton Woods. Incredible speed and a very good flexboen attack. Their FB hit the dive like a freight train and got a ton of tough yards. The QB had a pair of huge midline runs (Looked like he was shot out of a canon) and they had flat out ridiculous speed at the slot (pair of huge Rocket toss TDs).
I'd love to watch Mooney and Winton Woods battle for the best team in Ohio. Mooney had a great OL (#56 and #75 where incredible...and massive) and a pair of BCS conference backs. Just ran zone and stretch, got a lot of movement and let those backs plant a foot in the ground and take off. Very solid defense as well, though, it was tough to evaluate because St. Francis kept fumbling.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Dec 3, 2009 17:14:10 GMT -6
Always want to learn new (defensive) drills. Anything involving jam-technique for the corners (man or zone).
I'd like to hear a great 4-3 speaker, and just listen to him describe the defense. Hopefully I can steal a nugget from that speech that makes it easier to teach the kids. Learning different ways to phrase the idea should help me reach some kids.
Same idea with a great tackling speech (a few new drills wouldn't be so bad either). I want to listen to an expert talk about the shimmy (or, any method) and steal any part of his terminology I think would be helpful.
Schematically....
How 4-3 teams handle 2 TE looks. Learn about defending 3-back looks from the under front (READS!!!)
Anything about option offense.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Dec 1, 2009 15:34:44 GMT -6
If he disobeyed your rules 5-6 times...why is he still on the team?
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 29, 2009 20:51:29 GMT -6
Neither of these games qualify as traps, though, IMO. I'm sure that both the Clemson and GT staffs had these games, against in-state major recruiting rivals and big, bad SEC schools, circled on their calandars the minute the schedule came out. But, that doesn't mean the players did. Both 'Bama and GT are ranked very highly. Both of their rivals are down this season. Ok, maybe you don't call it a trap game, maybe it's that the kids bought into their own hype, got caught staring in the mirror or whatever other cliche you like. I find it amusing that, as fans, we think the players (and now, coaches) care so much about these rivalry games. But when you look at how the rosters are composed, they aren't hometown kids. You think Ingram (RB, ALA) really, really cares about beating Auburn? He's from Michigan, that's hardly some life long hatred of his. With ESPN and the Internet you don't even need to cheer for home teams anymore. I know plenty of fans (In SE Michigan) that like teams from strange places because they can follow them on TV. I can watch Florida, Va Tech, Miami and GT just as easily as I can watch Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State. Then you consider recruiting, and camps and how the coaches kiss the players ass. If a kid from Florida is being wined and dined from Miami, FSU and Georgia, but he ends up going to Florida...is he really going to HATE those schools. Then you look at the coaches. Lets take Rich Rodriguez at Michigan as an example. He played at WVU (I believe), lived in West Virginia. Coached in the gulf and the eastern seaboard. Goes back to coach at West Virginia. Do you think he really cares about the Ohio State rivalry like the fans do? Then you look at the staffs from these schools. Guys are hired and fired all the time and they come from everywhere. Heck, a lot of guys coached at the rival at some point. I just don't buy the rivalry game anymore. So I can definitely see kids looking past their "rival" when they are ranked in the top 10 and the rival is talking about firing their coach.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 29, 2009 19:23:15 GMT -6
If you don't want to the other team running it up, don't suck.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 27, 2009 23:17:03 GMT -6
What issue did you get? The last I got was a hyrbid Aug/Sept issue (I think....) which had about 3 artciles.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 27, 2009 17:09:11 GMT -6
Your creating strawman arguements. How? I'm not arguing anything. I'm just articulating known issues. I haven't "argued" (for or against) anything Forgive me for mistaking you addressing my comments (that you specifically quoted and responded to individually) I still don't see ANYONE making the assertion about profitablity in PW. We're talking about the self-sufficiency required (operate from gates) to run the team/league). What kind of specialized coaching are you talking about? If it isn't the same system he'll be running, it isn't going to help. If fundamentals (that are inherent in any system) are being stressed more than the competition (in this case, public school), THAT is the superior instruction. Now, you can open it up to the sub-discussion that we have every year regarding "should feeders run what the Varsity runs". There are two (or more) sides to every situation. I am not advocating PW ball, I am merely pointing out issues that PW brings up. Purposefully misrepresenting what I have posted to "win" some Internet argument does nothing to this discussion. I really have no idea what the issue here is. I laughed at the article claiming 400 fans is the equivalent to a varsity crowdy. You responded to me about the financial needs to make Pee Wee work and how that holds people accountable (IE, you can't be a crappy coach like those teachers because the team folds). I really don't know why. I was just amused with the writer. I still don't know why you are bringing up financials. As to the rest... If your kid is going to play Varsity, he should be in the program once he hits high school. If you don't like the schools coaching staff, find a new school. I don't see why Pop Warner is an option. I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you think the Pop Warner coaches are better than the high school coaches, I'd find a different high school. I just disagree with any arguement to leave a kid in Pop Warner. I'm not sure how any of that offends you.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 27, 2009 15:15:59 GMT -6
2. you do a disservice to all those teaching and coaching who coach fundamentals and demand excellent production. you mean that cannot possibly be done elsewhere? I'm a little foggy on the rationale with that statement. What secrets can only teachers conjure up that anyone else couldn't? what doesn't (make it work)? I linked to articles that mention the expenses incurred by PW teams. You would have to work like a mofo to cover those costs. That isn't a pro/con statement, that is just a fact. I don't know what you're contesting here My statement about ancillaries actually supports that they likely doctored the attendance (because it DOESN'T have the draw that School football does). UNLESS the local public school SUCKS (little community support....happens when you don't win). People will come see quality product, regardless of what it is. If that product is "just showing up" (which may be the case for many 'schools'), why should people show up? However, if the private 'club' doesn't put out a quality product, guess what happens? People lose their jobs/team. They have a vested interest in winning. who said it was? Not to the gate receipts its not, which is what I was referring to, and which is why school football has a natural, bigger draw than club football, more invested parties. When your program relies on gate receipts and seats in the stands, it means everything. I don't see how PW could compete with a school's draw. probably the exact reasons I listed (that you apparently didn't read)...........(IF) you received specialized coaching. If you plan on playing high school football, you should begin playing high school football when you enter high school. Any other option is counter productive to the end goal. probably Would I put my son in 'club ball'? Most likely NOT. I would want him bonding with his school mates and using the sport as a social springboard. The only reason I would look at club ball is if the public system he was in was sub-standard (what would have to happen to CHANGE it? If they are teachers....NOTHING). If they suck, I'll look for competing services (is that wrong?). Your creating strawman arguements. I'm replying to the article, which compared the experience of varsity football to the peewee experience in an erroneous fashion. All other factors (accountability, profitability ect..) are irrelevant to the fact the article stretched the truth. I'm not sure how that branched into the factors that make pee wee football profitable, I really don't care. The artcile was misleading to the experience the players will receive, which is all I'm interested in. The issue is that Pop Warner coaches are encouraging high school kids to play Pop Warner ball. If you want to play pop warner over middle school, that's fine, because the pop warner coach may be better or any other reason. If you don't have faith in the high school staff, put your kid in another school (school of choice). If he plans on playing Varsity football, he should spend his high school career preparing for it. Be it in his home district or school of choice or private, whever he is going. What kind of specialized coaching are you talking about? If it isn't the same system he'll be running, it isn't going to help. Who cares how good he is throwing if he is going to be a varsity receiver. If they teach him the in's and out's of the Wing-T blocking (flipper, shoulder blocks ect..) and he's going to zone, then how is that a benefit. If you're kid is a "prospect", but him in a school that will maximize it.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 27, 2009 13:40:23 GMT -6
LOL @ the article comparing the crowdy sizes. 400 people in the stands vs a varsity home game? Talk about stretching the truth to make a story. Sure, there may be some games with under 400 fans....but even small schools can pull in the thousands. yeah, I don't know how anyone overcomes that situation. You would have to be one helluva promoted to make peewee "work". The calculus of it all would require PW to work twice (or more) hard than a school. It is a self-contained operation. ( yikes more yikes ) www.popwarner.com/football/pop.aspIt has nothing to do with making Pop Warner work. The article implies that the PW games are drawing crowds comparable to a varsity game. They aren't. They implied a pop warner player gets a varsity like game-day experience, they don't. They stretched the truth to make the point. I don't really care about profitability, and I don't doubt they have a good time playing Pop Warner. But, it is not the same experience. How many people go to college games because of other factors (social scene, tailgating). How many go to NFL games because it's popular. It's irrelevant. Why would it beat the school option? How would playing for a private club beat out playing with your classmates (all things being equal)? Why is it even a contest? If you plan on playing high school football, you should begin playing high school football when you enter high school. Any other option is counter productive to the end goal.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 27, 2009 0:37:22 GMT -6
However, that kid needs to be on the freshman team and in the program by fall of his freshman year. He needs the weight room, he needs to learn the terminology and the varsity coaches need to start to get a look at him and get him in the proper position. By his sophmore year, he's one small step from varsity football (ok, for some it's a decent sized step). When I coached Pop Warner, we had a two freshmen and a sophomore come back and play for us instead of playing for their high school teams. The year before, we were a game away from going to Orlando and they had "unfinished business". Needless to say we made it to Orlando that year. Now these three the next year all started on their varsity programs which were top tier schools, not bottom feeders. They were all selected to the county all star game in their senior years. So there's no "need" to be with your high school program as a freshmen. Besides the obvious reply (There are exceptions to every rule), here are a few things to consider. Being good doesn't mean you reached your potential. Being a D1 recruit doesn't mean a player maximized his potential in high school. Being named all county doesn't mean he couldn't have been better. (Actually, awards are meaningless as it is). Just because their career wasn't ruined doesn't mean it wasn't setback by missing a year. Further, they have (future) teammates to consider. So you have a couple of players who made the choice to NOT play with you and had success at the pee wee level, while the other 30 of you played freshman ball. That isn't an atmosphere I'd want to create. Do these kids even want to play for us, I mean, they did choose their pop warner team over our team. I'll go out on a limb and assume these kids are talented. Now the message is sent to johnnie, who was the tailback on the JV team who is now benched for Kevin since he made the choice to play with us instead of his pop warner team.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 26, 2009 23:45:13 GMT -6
LOL @ the article comparing the crowdy sizes. 400 people in the stands vs a varsity home game? Talk about stretching the truth to make a story. Sure, there may be some games with under 400 fans....but even small schools can pull in the thousands.
To the point...
To me it's not a big deal if a kid wants to play pee wee vs middle school. If he likes to play with his friends (from different schools) or he likes the coach or the MS program stinks great.
However, that kid needs to be on the freshman team and in the program by fall of his freshman year. He needs the weight room, he needs to learn the terminology and the varsity coaches need to start to get a look at him and get him in the proper position. By his sophmore year, he's one small step from varsity football (ok, for some it's a decent sized step).
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 26, 2009 11:14:28 GMT -6
I'd love the idea, but state championships are Friday/Saturday in Michigan.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 24, 2009 23:03:12 GMT -6
Is stalk blocking really harder than playing man defense? Just keep the opponent in front of you, and you don't even have to backpedal. It doesn't have to be harder. Man coverage is an option, stalk blocking is a neccesity (let alone the whole QB has to complete the pass thing...) It requires balance, foot quickness and aggression. Not the most prominent traits for kids at that age. Also...you don't have to backpedal playing man coverage either... How is that throwing uncovered? ...................................S................. ..C..........................L..........L......................C ........................L...........................L ............................V....V.......V....V..................... X.........................T....G...C...G...T....................Y ........Z...................................................H .................................H..Q Z and H are "uncovered" If you were to put one of them into motion, wouldn't you be, in essence, running them into "covered."
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 24, 2009 12:41:19 GMT -6
Just a few things about our philosophy against the spread.....
1) You aren't going to throw uncovered every play. You're receiver is going to get crushed when our corner, safety and linebacker all converge on him, and he probably isn't going to catch the 2nd or 3rd one. It isn't an "easy" throw and catch. If the receiver stands at the line, he has no momentum on the catch, limiting his ability to get yards. If he jogs off the line, now you have to throw it over lineman. You're also going to end up giving us 6 points on the play. By either scaring the receiver, making the QB throw it over a lineman, rushing the QB (again, fear) or the reality of the execution level (and yes, this even applies at the varsity level) you're going to throw one too high, or it's going to get tipped/bobbled and we're taking it for 6. Uncovered is a hollow threat.
Secondly, the idea that we can't get to your QB on a 3 step drop. Besides the idea that we can just play man, all we need to do is collision the receiver to beat the timing. It gives the QB no true read (he's neither running with the flat, nor sitting) and slow your play. Let alone if we have two coverages (say cover 2 and cover 3 or cover 4 and cover 3), is you're 11/12 year old going to identify us each time? What if we start zone blitzing?
And lastly, what if we just start getting into a track stance with our fastest kid and beating your tackles off the edges? Since I'm not going to honor uncovered, I have #'s in the box. Just take two fast kids, put them at end and test your pass pro footwork.
------------------------------------
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but these are serious issues. I don't' believe the spread can work at the youth level (in fact, it struggles at the freshman and JV levels) because of the incredible amount of mental reps kids need (as well as a lack of motor skills. Do you have receivers who can adjust to poorly thrown balls, make one handed catches, make sliding catches like your typical spread team requires. I really don't think many 13 year olds have developed those skills. Let alone tough catches like on the bubble, where they need to run to the sideline, but twist their body to the QB. Plus, you need to teach stalk blocking (which is very tough) to a kid who probably isn't a great athlete (or, he'd get the ball).
And the QB. You need to teach mechanics (they have none), plus you need to teach them to identify coverages. You also need to teach receivers to identify coverages. As a varsity program we spend over 10 hours in the summer doing this before we even touch the run game (and, we two platoon so that is just offensive time). Do you have that kind of time?
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 22, 2009 23:28:16 GMT -6
I agreed with the Belichick move.
I think this was pure stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 22, 2009 23:25:05 GMT -6
I'm not sure if he was calling to spike it either. I can see where the QB thought he was saying spike it, however, just watching it I can't say for certain he was trying to signal spike.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 17, 2009 9:04:17 GMT -6
Nebraska had plenty of running backs and even a reciever or 2 go the NFL back in the day they were running option. And Tom Osbornes recruiting classes were rarely rated in the top 20. If you can play, the NFL will find you no matter what offense you are in. What about the great HS option QBs out there? Very few places they can go play. What about the great passing QBs out there? EVERYONE wants them. So you have your pick of the option QBs or you compete with 100+ schools for the passing kid. Seems like it would be much easier competing against Navy for kids instead of USC, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas, the list is endless. Well said. There are plenty of top football players who aren't ranked highly. The recruiting sites are a compilation of favoritism and NFL projections. Kids bump from 2 star to 4 star players just because FSU starts to recruit them. Kids drop from 4 star to 3 star becaue Ohio State doesn't want them anymore. Secondly, the projections are largely based on NFL potential. You look at the case of Michael Oher (just because it's a famous example). He was rated highly because he was huge and fast (big NFL potential). However, he played at a very small school, with very limited experience and a very poor background. He didn't go to camps all 4 years of school and get better instruction. He had no bussiness being rated higher than many, many other kids except that he had NFL potential. Good thing Georgia Tech plays in the ACC.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 14, 2009 12:36:04 GMT -6
During you're indy session, how many different drills do you run (during the season)? How many drills do you run that work on similar skills?
I know coaches who have 4 ball security drills they'll use. I know coaches who have one. We have coaches who do the same 4-5 drills every practice, we have coaches who never repeat drills.
Do you feel it's better to have 1 or 2 tackling drill you really believe in, or 5 that all teach tackling slightly different? 1 or 2 catching drills, or 6 different ones?
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 13, 2009 15:14:06 GMT -6
One thing I've wondered about: is it worth it to totally 2 platoon even if you don't have 22 solid starters? Does the focus on one position in practice, reduced injury risk, and the ability to keep your players fresher make up for having to play some "inferior" players on one side of the ball or the other? Or do you find that the benefit isn't nearly as much as having your best kids wear themselves out by playing 100+ snaps every week? It seems to me like this may be an advantage for smaller schools who play other small schools that have a lot of kids going both ways, so long as you're not putting someone out there who just can't play at all. In my ideal situation there would be at least 23-25 starters: 11 on each side, plus a punter, kicker, and long snapper who could work on the kicking game while the other kids are busy with the offense and defense. I guess my question would be, how different is player #8 from player #20. At our school (around 500, maybe a tick less) we tend to have about 3-5 kids a year who can really play. The kind of kids who really don't need that much coaching to perform, they have the insticts and athleticism to just play. After that, we'll have about 15 or so kids who are alright. Some may be below-average athletes with good attitudes, some may be great athletes who can't align. Most mill around as decent athletes who like football (but don't live and breath it) and work fairly hard. So the question is, how much better is kid #6 than kid #20. Your first "non stud" vs a kid who maybe works hard, but has poor feet. It really comes down to can more in-depth technique, an extra scheme (since you have more practice time, in theory, you can have a bigger package) and more repitions make up for some loss in athletic ability. Will fewer reps "level" the playing field by keeping your kids fresher. ----------------------------------------------- This is obvioulsy predicated on having 20 (ish) capable bodies. If you only have 25 kids playing, and 5 can't step foot on the field then you obviously can't two platoon. If you have 35, now you have a quesiton. We feel like there isn't that great of an athletic difference between the kids who aren't studs. If you have a good athlete who is a bit lazy, or you have an average athlete who works pretty hard, we feel like you're going to get a similar result. You might as well try and maximize the production of both by getting them more reps. If you'd grade player A out as a 7 on an athletic scale (for his position), Player B as a 6, Player C as a 6 and Player D as a 5 should you split reps between all 4, with three of them sitting behind "A" or split them between 2 positions and give them extra practice to make up for athletic defeciences.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 11, 2009 19:46:05 GMT -6
Tons of things....
Some little ones: Playing are strong end in an 8 was a mistake, should have left him in a 9. The kid was not as good as we thought he was going to be, and putting him head up really hurt him.
In fact, we probably should have left him inside, and moved are 3-tech out to end.
Personel wise we really hampered ourselves. A couple of safeties really should have been LB's. A couple of younger guys should have played more defense. We really over-rated a couple of our kids.
We weren't physical enough early in practice. Waited to long to start doing Oklahoma and other "classic" tackling drills. We waited too long to do the big team drills (like in the Ohio State video). It really helped us get more physical, but we some damage was already done.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 9, 2009 14:47:13 GMT -6
Separate staff. JV plays on Thursday in Michigan and you can't play in both. The JV team is a separate entity from the Varsity team.
Our JV staff is made up of nice guys who don't usually know much about football and/or a couple of young coaches who don't know a ton. Relatively high turnover, outside of the head coach who has been with the program for over 10 years (only a couple as the JV head coach).
Some of us want the JV's doing their indy's with the Varsity so we can ensure that they learn the basics (stance....reads...how to tackle and block). However, as we don't have a freshman team we would have a lot of extra bodies and we'd have to deal with the obvious physical differences between 14 and 18 year olds.
The JV staff also likes their independence. They don't do things exactly as we would, but they get the basics of the scheme and they get to play a lot of football. The staff is lackluster (and not interested in learning), but at least the kids have fun (as compared to being smacked around as a scout team)
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 8, 2009 12:51:02 GMT -6
Platooning is great if you have enough coaches. Play a few studs both ways, but if you can get 19 or so different starters you're in great shape. You allows for greater participation/owernship in the team, you allow average kids to be better than average because they get daily reps at their positon and you create compeition between the units.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 5, 2009 22:12:46 GMT -6
Definately not A, B or F.
Of the options, C is probably the best (IMO). Good people and very little outside interference is the key to enjoying the experience. Losing isn't fun (duh), but it's even less fun when you are losing because of administration, other coaches and a poor community. Those things are going to be beyond your control as an assistant.
Spending 2 or 3 years there getting yoru feet wet may be the best otpion.
Otherwise, J sounds decent. The lower the level, the more emphasis on fundamentals you can use and the less distraction with X's and O's.
D would probably alright....but why D over C?
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 3, 2009 17:59:49 GMT -6
My opinion of Urban Meyer is really dropping lately. Firth the alleged Percy Harvin punches a coach and nowhe basically lets Spikes off for eye-gouging.
Really makes me think "Urban's Way" is a crock of {censored}.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 2, 2009 21:57:40 GMT -6
Perhaps it's more implied tone, but coachorr (and other quips) with the attitude that JV stands for Just for Varsity. The general idea that the JV program simply exists to create football players for the Varsity. Taken a step further, the idea is that the youth, middle, fresh and JV programs simply exist to groom young men into Varsity football players.
Basically, winning is a nice little addition as long as the players are being groomed for the Varsity, but winning itself is not the goal.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting people (it is the internet afterall, tone is subject to interpretations). I just get the impression that there are a lot of coaches who think that football life begins and ends with the varisty program, disregarding the individuals playing/coaching at that level who put in the time and effort to win too.
Which is beyond the debate of should the JV run the varisty scheme, but rather, an entire attitude towards the lower tiers of the program.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Nov 2, 2009 9:46:37 GMT -6
I'm really shocked at how so many people disregard the importance of the youth, middle, fresh and JV games. Assuming a kid was to play from age 8 to age 18, he'll play roughly around 75 football games in his life (actual time may vary).
And the assumption is that less than one third of those games matter?
And of course, the vast majority of kids won't make it too varsity, so their entire career didn't even happen?
Sure, the JV exists to prepare kids for Varsity, but those games still matter to the kids playing them, the parents watching them and the coaches coaching them. As football coaches, I'm really shocked that so many people believe that a game of football is irrelevant. In fact, it really goes against everything we ever tell our players.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 30, 2009 8:26:01 GMT -6
You know.. I don't know if we can ever get teenagers away from distractions..part of being a teenager....My quick thoughts...put your offense on a video game...make highlights for your kids to watch on the video....get the girlfriends on your side..maybe a special T-shirt for them..my boyfriend is a varsity FB player??? IDK....tell kids it's okay to have a job..lifting is from 7:30-9:00...you can work anytime after that and on weekends... I'm not old enough to have played in the 'good ole days", but from what I gathered, football is no longer the only game in town. You gotta advertise your product. If you aren't winning, you do need some way to make the football program special. We have stat-girls who besides the obvious (keeping stats) do act as a sort of prestiege thing. The kids all buy various shirts to wear around (2 from us, one's a team thing). The kids associated with football are very visible. A highlight video would be cool, especially if you have a school-broadcast capabilities. Trying to get the girls as managers/stat girls/filmers or whatever else would probably garner some interest. Maybe slip in a few reminders to the team over the PA system (Team dinner is at ...., football players remember to bring....,) anything to spotlight the football players.
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 30, 2009 8:16:38 GMT -6
My girlfriend comes to all the games (the only exceptions are blowouts to be in poor weather conditions). She goes to the post-game gatherings. She actually likes going to games (college/pro), but hates watching them on TV.
She's had brothers who taught her the basics, and she's starting to pick up on some of the more detailed stuff (defensive positionss, names of each running back/receiver spot). She even knows all our coverages (which is better than a couple of coaches on staff.....).
|
|