Combating the "War on Football"

From a purely objective point of view, can you tell me why it should be different?   

I don't have solid stats on total "youth" (nebulous term) tackle football participation numbers.  Statista.com reported (but I couldn't find their source) that a little over 5.2 million people over the age of 6 participated in tackle football.   About 1 million of those are HS kids (according to the Federation Stats) and about 70,000 play NCAA ball. So out of that means that 4.1 of the 5.2 million only play youth ball.  So why should HS varsity coaches get to say "This is 'what counts, you sit the bench" but the coaches of around 80% of the participants don't get that same stature? 

It would sound pretty ridiculous to hear Swinney or Saban or Harbaugh to lament HS's not focusing on developing players but rather on winning, but is it all that different other than just the mindset of HS coaches? 

Okay, I admit that I have not read all of the posts here, so if I touch on things others have, please forgive me.

I think football faces a number of serious challenges in the near future; and I'm not sure how the sport will fare in the medium to far future.

Over the past few years I've had the opportunity to go through the youth soccer experience with my daughter. She will be playing her first year of competitive next year after three years of academy.

From the perspective of a coach, the produce youth soccer offers players is exponentially better than the one offered at the high school level on down. It is especially notable at the youth levels. The quality of coaching is better because all of the coaches are certified and many of them go and get their "A" level certifications in Europe. This shows all the time on the practice field. Most of the coaches only coach. Most make enough coaching soccer with their club and doing camps in the summer that they do not need to do other things. Put differently, they are not coaching for a stipend.

Obviously, this comes at a cost. Soccer, which should be an incredibly cheap sport to play, is very expensive. This year we spent well over $3.000 on tuition, coaching fees, travel, tournies, uniforms, etc . . . and we are not crazies like some of the parents that I see at practice and at games. That's the huge downside of it, and I have huge problems with it.

That said, the quality of coaching on the field is stellar. My daughter never played soccer until three years ago and now she's an incredibly capable player that plays Forward, Center Mid, and Center Back.

What I'm trying to get at is this: the idea that you coach because you love the game is great, I'm done it for manyy years, but football needs to create a certification process with levels and commensurate pay grades associated with it to ensure that football players are being coached by real coaches who are technicians on the field. And this has to start from youth all the way up.

I sometimes wonder whether out model has become antiquated and that it's served its purpose. By this, I mean that we are the only major country where sports are tethered to schools. This has clearly has done a lot of good - please do not get me wrong. I came out of this system and coached in it for many years. But this year when we were in Russia and my daughter was playing for her Club I saw the difference, and it was even greater than the club experience. Her coaches there were all professionals who coached not 5 teams a season but 1 and usually would coach the same team for 2 years. This is par for the course throughout most of Europe. When I hung out with the coaches they all wanted to now why we do it the way we do in the US. I gave all the reasons that we usually give - community, family, etc - but as they pointed out, the club there provides all of those things too, but with one difference: consistent coaching from youth to the national level.

Anyway, I'm just trying to think outside the box here. I think football has some serious structural and instructional issues that need to be confronted. First and foremost, the standard for coaching has to go up.

I understand your point, but there are some differences.

First and most important, under usual peewee, middle school, jv, varsity model, or something similar, the NOW RETRACTED v**t majority of those kids will play for the same school or organization. Meaning that Central peewee team will become Central middle school and Central JV and the Central High School. So of course, developmental logically follows there.

It isn't like Saban has Alabama peewee, ms, jv, and High School and ALL those kids will go to Alabama and that is ALL he will have. If that were the case, you better believe Saban would demand development for those high school kids.

Next, when you have a organization that transitions upward, the top is more important. It is the culmination. It is what people are playing for, striving for, shooting for. It is what drives the whole organization for the most part. It is what more people care about. It is what gets in the newspapers, yearbooks, tv, etc.

Lastly, in high school the kids are older. There is "less" development to be had. You don't look at the 18 year old and go, oh, he is bigger and stronger cause he hit puberty early. Or, you never know, The 5'2" kid might be 6'3" in three years. Well first the 18 year old 5'2" isn't ever going to be 6'3". Plus, in three years, he ain't playing football anymore anyways.

If the goal is to increase participation how does this model help?

Your statement is purely anecdotal. EVERY town in my state that has its own pee wee program feeds directly to the high school. Not all are run by the school but they wear the colors and use the mascots. And all the kids ,barring them moving into another school district, plays all the way through to the high school team.

Reading this thread while watching "Real Sports" on HBO. Good segment on Norway and how they treat youth sports


www.hbo.com/real-sports-with-bryant-gumbel/all-episodes/may-2019


Definitely some connections to things on this thread.

In response to Phantom, I would stress quality. We all know what the average high school coaching staff is like. There is the header and hopefully two coaches, usually his coordinators, who are real coaches. The rest of the guys, while well meaning, are maybe a step or two ahead of the kids they are coaching, and it gets worse the lower you go, which is dangerous.

That is not the case with youth soccer. Because you need to have your credentials in order to coach academy and competitive, you need to know your stuff. The process weeds out people who do not want to invest in time and resources into the craft of coaching.

I do not have to confront this issue because I have a daughter, but if I had a son I'm not sure that I'd want him to play football over soccer, in large part because of the coaching.

One image remains burned on my memory. My daughter's team once had to move their practice from the complex to a local middle school where the youth football team was practicing. I watched both practices and from a coaching perspective the difference between the two practices was night and day. The soccer practice was crisp, had a clear focus, and the girls were moving all the time. Moreover, the girls all looked professional and sharp. The football practice, well, the less said the better. The coaches just seemed like a bunch of former players or Madden wannabes. They screamed and hollered, made pointless comments, and just ran plays. The soccer practice, the coach never once raised her voice, but she had complete command of the field.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that the AFCA should become a credentializing board that certifies coaches. You can't coach unless you've been certified and been through the process. One of my daughter's coaches played professionally in Europe, clearly knows the game, but he had to go through the certification process, which took two years for him to earn his "A" status.

Such a process would weed out a lot of people at all levels and create a demand for qualified individuals. I can tell you now , and I am not chummy with any of these people, but the parents of my daughter's soccer team value these things. And to be honest, the proof is in the pudding. I routinely see kids whose teams in August looks like crap-shows making it to the finals in the Oklahoma State Cup in June.

If you don't think that this would go a long way towards increasing participation and assuaging safety concerns then do you think that "football" parents are different from "soccer" parents?

And for what its worth, soccer is a violent game, even at the youth level. My daughters legs and face are banged and cut up from numerous collisions and tackles. So soccer has its health issues too.

Same reason ten year olds are learning multiplication tables and 17 year olds are taking the ACT.

They grow up. Things get more serious.

More girls are in dance when they are ten, then when they are 17.

More kids play the piano when they are ten, then when they are 17.

More kids play baseball and basketball too when they are ten, then when they are 17.

IDK if it requires an entire structural change but I cannot argue w/ any said regarding youth ball. My son played FB for the 1st time last year as an 8th grader (his choice) and it was not a good experience for either of us. The coaching was abhorrent. Cannot tell you how many times I saw 10 dads standing around watching 2 kids beat on each other while the other 18 stood in line. 

10 coaches, 2 kids active running a drill I did not recognize, 18 kids watching and doing nothing, waiting to participate in an unrecognizable drill. That about summed up my kids season. 

With that said, I thought several (not all) of our opponents teams looked sharp and well coached. So, maybe not total structural changes but definitely develop stronger criteria to coach youth sports. 

Or dare I say, no tackle ball until middle school? 

No need to apologize. I was just pointing out that you said the exact opposite in your post. You stated that "all the kids, [barring a move] play all the way through to the HS team.    If you weren't trying to highlight zero attrition, I don't know what the purpose of that statement was. 

I have never seen school based Pee Wee Clubs where the youth sports set ups are based on HS geography.  I don't know that it would ever work in places like New Orleans, Dallas, Houston, Baton Rouge, Miami, Hotlanta, Tampa, Nashville, Memphis, etc. etc. etc.  Also, many areas now are going to open enrollment which further muddles that design, as well as the idea of feeder schools.   Point being I would have to agree with fantom that the using the word "Vast" was probably overreaching.