|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 15, 2019 8:28:07 GMT -6
First and most important, under usual peewee, middle school, jv, varsity model, or something similar, the vast 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. As I stated in another post, I would have to agree with fantom here and say that "vast" is overreaching. I have never been associated with a feeder youth system. I have been associated with 6th-8th grade jr high ball being a feeder system. My point is the mindset. You never get the vibe that they look at HS ball as "lesser" although there are objective signs that it is (When is the last time you have seen a grown man wearing a HS championship ring compared to one wearing college championship rings? If a guy walked into the office wearing his HS ring he would be a laughing stock. If he walked into the office wearing a Sugar Bowl ring it would be cool) You get that vibe a lot from HS guys. But why is HS "the top"? Why isn't college ball "the top" As I pointed out, the attrition rate from youth to HS isn't the same as HS to college, but it isn't extremely far from it. So why the difference in mindset there? ? Yes, but the above paragraph feeds directly to that mindset. The thought process of "You, youth coaches...you should keep the small crappy kid who isn't very good around because that kid might be useful to ME, the HS varsity coach, who is coaching when things are 'important'. If he doesn't pan out, oh well, I always need scout squad" |
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jun 15, 2019 8:29:54 GMT -6
Did I ever say that it wasn’t? I also wasn’t arguing that someone else’s experience was wrong as he was. I was simply offering another perspective based on my state. We do have some cities that have multiple high schools and those are the schools that have their own pee wee clubs. You go to this school in this district you play for this team etc. etc. Even the private school kids have their own teams. I guess I should apologize for not stating that every kid who plays youth sports plays until they graduate and no one quits?? I was thinking since that would be a rediculous assumption on a board of ,what I assume are, well educated adults I didn’t have to actually say that. So here it is. We have kids that quit before they reach their senior year. 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. Shocker. Here’s my experience working at 4 different schools and what my old high school did. ALL of the teams had some affiliation with the high school. ALL used the high school field. ALL used a form of the school mascot I.E. Lions—->cubs. ALL use/used the high school colors. This is including ALL of our opponents My alma maters youth teams even play the same schedule as the high school team. The pee wee team here runs our offense. Not completely, but other than option they run most everything. This is a rural state and ,for the most part, a poor state. Most kids can’t afford to pay to play so the community/schools step in to help. I have never seen a pop warner team EVER. I had never even heard of pop warner until I watched little giants as a kid. I have coaching friends all over the state and ALL of them are ran the same. I would say my reach of youth program knowledge across this state is probably close to 90% of the teams. So IME vast is probably an understatement. It’s more of an exception to the rule that a kid plays for a youth program and doesn’t play for the high school. But you go ahead and compare my situation to some of the most densely populated cities in America edit: Let me say this before you make another dumb argument. If the kid stays in the program and doesn’t quit |
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 15, 2019 8:39:16 GMT -6
In regards to Phantom's point about the cost, I totally hear that. It's a big problem in soccer. My wife is a PTA and I teach at OU, together we do alright, especially in Oklahoma, but I feel that we are probably on the lower end of the income scale.
Cost is a huge problem in soccer. Yes, there are scholarships that cover tuition and coaching, but that does not address the other issues, such as getting to practice, getting to games, and of course, traveling to tournaments, which require usually a two night stay at a hotel plus figuring out how to get there. If you're a poor kid who needs a scholarship, chances are that you are going to have problems getting to and fro practices, games, and tournies because you lack the logistics at home. All of us here who have coached football know the kinds of kids and their families that I'm talking about here.
I've commented a lot at club meetings that we are leaving a lot of talent off the field, as well as about how our club looks like the Aryan nation, and have advocated that the club adopt a means testing program in order to fund logistics and support. Unfortunately, what I've noticed is that most parents care only about number 1, even at the expense of winning. Better that my kid starts and we loose than we recruit talented but raw kids from the rec leagues who will put your kid on the bench for more minutes but will lead to better competition in practice and more wins later.
So, there 's the nut . . . isn't it. I really don't know what to do. The quality of coaching is exponentially better, which leads to retention. Most kids play club soccer through high school because of their skill development.
The cost is a problem. . . . clearly, but as coaches we should be treated like professionals, accept the expectations that come with it, and get paid like it. I know that sounds materialistic, but really . . .
Do football players deserve less than soccer players?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 15, 2019 10:55:58 GMT -6
Shocker. Here’s my experience working at 4 different schools and what my old high school did. ALL of the teams had some affiliation with the high school. ALL used the high school field. ALL used a form of the school mascot I.E. Lions—->cubs. ALL use/used the high school colors. This is including ALL of our opponents My alma maters youth teams even play the same schedule as the high school team. The pee wee team here runs our offense. Not completely, but other than option they run most everything. This is a rural state and ,for the most part, a poor state. Most kids can’t afford to pay to play so the community/schools step in to help. I have never seen a pop warner team EVER. I had never even heard of pop warner until I watched little giants as a kid. I have coaching friends all over the state and ALL of them are ran the same. I would say my reach of youth program knowledge across this state is probably close to 90% of the teams. So IME vast is probably an understatement. It’s more of an exception to the rule that a kid plays for a youth program and doesn’t play for the high school. But you go ahead and compare my situation to some of the most densely populated cities in America edit: Let me say this before you make another dumb argument. If the kid stays in the program and doesn’t quit I understand your point of view. I am just pointing out that by your own statements, you admit that your situation and experience doesn't really seem to involve a lot of people and therefore a relatively small number of football players. I do think that is a pretty cool situation, and could be a very rewarding experience for nearly everyone involved if handled well. To be clear I am not advocating a position. I am just pointing out the mindset often seen here as coaches on huey lament about how horrible youth coaching is and the "war on football" |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 15, 2019 11:36:22 GMT -6
Shocker. Here’s my experience working at 4 different schools and what my old high school did. ALL of the teams had some affiliation with the high school. ALL used the high school field. ALL used a form of the school mascot I.E. Lions—->cubs. ALL use/used the high school colors. This is including ALL of our opponents My alma maters youth teams even play the same schedule as the high school team. The pee wee team here runs our offense. Not completely, but other than option they run most everything. This is a rural state and ,for the most part, a poor state. Most kids can’t afford to pay to play so the community/schools step in to help. I have never seen a pop warner team EVER. I had never even heard of pop warner until I watched little giants as a kid. I have coaching friends all over the state and ALL of them are ran the same. I would say my reach of youth program knowledge across this state is probably close to 90% of the teams. So IME vast is probably an understatement. It’s more of an exception to the rule that a kid plays for a youth program and doesn’t play for the high school. But you go ahead and compare my situation to some of the most densely populated cities in America edit: Let me say this before you make another dumb argument. If the kid stays in the program and doesn’t quit I understand your point of view. I am just pointing out that by your own statements, you admit that your situation and experience doesn't really seem to involve a lot of people and therefore a relatively small number of football players. I do think that is a pretty cool situation, and could be a very rewarding experience for nearly everyone involved if handled well. To be clear I am not advocating a position. I am just pointing out the mindset often seen here as coaches on huey lament about how horrible youth coaching is and the "war on football" We all need to remember that coaches on this board work in diverse environments. What's vastly popular in one place is unusual, if not unknown, in another. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 15, 2019 14:06:00 GMT -6
blb I think you are the guy who posted on here a couple years ago something to the effect of "football is not as important to the kids as it is to us (coaches)". That has stuck with me. Profound observation. I think if more coaches recognized that fact, more kids would want to play. I have always said the same. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think given our technological advancements kids "have been changed" to some extent b/c they can hang w/ their friends w/o even getting out of bed nowadays via social media , etc. I would argue many of us would be similar had we grown up in this era. However, I also blame adults for not pushing more kids away from that stuff and setting stricter boundaries. It may be because those adults, particularly parents, are in awe of their children for being able to deal with tech casually. Depending on how old they're having children, many parents, and at any rate older adults they're friendly with, because they grew up without such equipment's being available, are amazed that children pick it up so easily. In their minds the kids using the Internet and electronic games are equated to the few of their generation who when they were that age were into ham radio or hot rodding or the like. No matter how many kids they see now doing it, it doesn't sink in at the emotional level that this is indeed routine and not of much education value per se. These adults may comprehend, but not have fully internalized, that kids texting to each other are not doing something with the difficulty of those of an earlier generation who were building electronics from components, learning code, etc. They're thinking, this is great, my kid's a genius, he's going to be the next Bill Gates. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 15, 2019 14:12:32 GMT -6
I have always said the same. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think given our technological advancements kids "have been changed" to some extent b/c they can hang w/ their friends w/o even getting out of bed nowadays via social media , etc. I would argue many of us would be similar had we grown up in this era. However, I also blame adults for not pushing more kids away from that stuff and setting stricter boundaries. It may be because those adults, particularly parents, are in awe of their children for being able to deal with tech casually. Depending on how old they're having children, many parents, and at any rate older adults they're friendly with, because they grew up without such equipment's being available, are amazed that children pick it up so easily. In their minds the kids using the Internet and electronic games are equated to the few of their generation who when they were that age were into ham radio or hot rodding or the like. No matter how many kids they see now doing it, it doesn't sink in at the emotional level that this is indeed routine and not of much education value per se. These adults may comprehend, but not have fully internalized, that kids texting to each other are not doing something with the difficulty of those of an earlier generation who were building electronics from components, learning code, etc. They're thinking, this is great, my kid's a genius, he's going to be the next Bill Gates. going to go with a solid "no" on this theory. Not too sure many of the parents of the athletes we talk about on this board were utilizing ham radios as tech. I would bet that the majority of them were playing Nintendo or Sega (or probably at least Atari or intellivision) and are not terribly impressed with watching a 7 year old swipe and click |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 6:08:34 GMT -6
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. Isn't this a bit of "apples vs. oranges" though? I mean, how many coaches does it successfully take to run a soccer team vs. a football team? I'm only going off of experience here, but at our school for both JV and Varsity soccer there's never been more than 4 coaches and there have been as little as 2. I just came from a 3 tier (Freshmen, JV and Varsity) football program that had 22 coaches on staff. I'm currently at a 2 tier school with just JV and Varsity and we have 10 coaches. Hell of a lot easier to find 2 to 3 solid coaches and get them certified vs. having to fill 10 or 20 spots. And listen we are all assuming some of the volunteers we speak of are sh!t coaches. I have some that work for me that do everything I ask them to do and are creating relationships with players, and helping to mold men which is worth its weight in gold, even if he doesn't know what an RPO is. You take the good with the bad (b/c we have a few slap d!cks too). I'm just not sure that taking from an already strained pool of potential coaches and making it harder is going to achieve the results you want. Don't get me wrong, I completely see where you're going with this suggestion, but the 2 models don't really coincide IMO. I coach in FL where our coaches are paid very little and we lose guys every day to the likes of Georgia and Alabama for better jobs with better salaries. Asking someone, who can barely justify the hours they put in vs. the compensation they receive, to then increase said hours b/c you now have to pass some certification, would be suicide. Duece |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 16, 2019 8:26:31 GMT -6
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. Isn't this a bit of "apples vs. oranges" though? I mean, how many coaches does it successfully take to run a soccer team vs. a football team? I'm only going off of experience here, but at our school for both JV and Varsity soccer there's never been more than 4 coaches and there have been as little as 2. I just came from a 3 tier (Freshmen, JV and Varsity) football program that had 22 coaches on staff. I'm currently at a 2 tier school with just JV and Varsity and we have 10 coaches. Hell of a lot easier to find 2 to 3 solid coaches and get them certified vs. having to fill 10 or 20 spots. And listen we are all assuming some of the volunteers we speak of are sh!t coaches. I have some that work for me that do everything I ask them to do and are creating relationships with players, and helping to mold men which is worth its weight in gold, even if he doesn't know what an RPO is. You take the good with the bad (b/c we have a few slap d!cks too). I'm just not sure that taking from an already strained pool of potential coaches and making it harder is going to achieve the results you want. Don't get me wrong, I completely see where you're going with this suggestion, but the 2 models don't really coincide IMO. I coach in FL where our coaches are paid very little and we lose guys every day to the likes of Georgia and Alabama for better jobs with better salaries. Asking someone, who can barely justify the hours they put in vs. the compensation they receive, to then increase said hours b/c you now have to pass some certification, would be suicide. Duece At the youth level-- 2 coaches I think hemlock 's point was to create an environment where you have to "be a coach" to be a coach in football. Currently as you point out, that isn't the case, at nearly any level of schoolboy football. I understand your point about a small pool of coaches, but in all honesty, does football require that many coaches? Isn't that a situation coaches ourselves have created, with some teams having a DT coach, a DE coach, and ILB coach, and OLB coach, a safety coach, a corner coach and a Defensive coordinator. Are we that far away from having a 3 tech's coach, a nose Coach, a boundary corner coach etc? You say that at your current program you have 10 coaches for JV and Varsity. Don't you think that you and say maybe 2 or 3 of your favorite Huey posters here could handle that? I do believe it is a construct you would have to build up to, and that ramrodding cert requirements into the current landscape would probably not work well in the short term. But maybe it would be best in the long run? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 8:44:33 GMT -6
No I don't think we could handle it with 2 or 3. We currently have 4 on defense. Myself as the coordinator, and then a DL, LB and DB coach. Only 1 of the 4 is a teacher, and 0 of the 4 teach in the high school building. Sure, that's probably a rarity for most, but not around here. Are we aiming to change that? Absolutely. I'd say at a minimum we would need 6 coaches. However that would mean they would all coach JV and Varsity. For what we earn, you're not going to keep guys around, too many hours vs. money earned. It's much better if you can have 2 staffs for that, or at the very least be able to split the guys up.
Not to mention all of the outside work we do with fundraising, youth clinics and camps etc. Having 2 to 3 guys would suck. Again, different locales might be able to make that work, but for where I'm at, it would be a disaster.
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 16, 2019 11:08:18 GMT -6
No I don't think we could handle it with 2 or 3. We currently have 4 on defense. Myself as the coordinator, and then a DL, LB and DB coach. Only 1 of the 4 is a teacher, and 0 of the 4 teach in the high school building. Sure, that's probably a rarity for most, but not around here. Are we aiming to change that? Absolutely. I'd say at a minimum we would need 6 coaches. However that would mean they would all coach JV and Varsity. For what we earn, you're not going to keep guys around, too many hours vs. money earned. It's much better if you can have 2 staffs for that, or at the very least be able to split the guys up. Not to mention all of the outside work we do with fundraising, youth clinics and camps etc. Having 2 to 3 guys would suck. Again, different locales might be able to make that work, but for where I'm at, it would be a disaster. Duece Will have to disagree with your assessment that you couldn't handle it with just those 4 coaches. Sure, you would have to change things, but that is the point. Now, if you are saying that because your JV/VARSITY is 110 players...I will say that changes things. But if you are at 45/50 ... Now, you point to a bunch of logistics, but I do have to ask if the soccer coaches are all teachers? Lastly, I do think hemlock 's original post was talking primarily about youth/club ball and not HS. I think (could be wrong) that often the youth/club soccer coaches are considered "better" than the HS guys, unless they are one and the same. Hemlock is just proposing a way to increase the coaching skill level, particularly for youth football |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 11:32:41 GMT -6
Disagreeing respectfully...
While he may have been talking about club ball he was saying or inferring that model would work in high school and I disagree.
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 16, 2019 11:49:31 GMT -6
Disagreeing respectfully... While he may have been talking about club ball he was saying or inferring that model would work in high school and I disagree. Duece I think it would absolutely work, but much like school curriculum, it would need to be phased in to prevent dumpster fire status for sure. That would be quite a large hurdle to overcome, I agree. What is the alternative? Howl at the moon and complain about youth coaches who yell at kids and do bull in the ring and the lack of people interested in HS coaching? I just don't see how one can lament about the pool of coaching candidates, but also not consider models proven to improve that pool. I will be honest here, with each thread regarding the current issues with football (and school sports in general) I begin to feel more and more that pulling sports out of schools and moving to a club model would be the prudent move. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 12:01:31 GMT -6
Oh so only the more affluent people can play? Makes sense...
Our Pop Warner charges $125/player here and over 3/4 of the team can't afford it. Not sure club and pay for play helps participation.
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 16, 2019 12:09:38 GMT -6
Oh so only the more affluent people can play? Makes sense... Our Pop Warner charges $125/player here and over 3/4 of the team can't afford it. Not sure club and pay for play helps participation. Duece Why assume that moving from school sports to club sports would follow the same funding models? Why wouldn't the clubs be funded through more civic funds, since the schools were no longer responsible for the expense? Don't equate "club model" with "current baseball/volleyball travel model" I don't believe they are synonymous. I don't have all the answers either, but I do realize that it is important to realize that changes in a model results in changes up and down stream. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 12:14:46 GMT -6
I think that funding idea is a stretch. Especially in the communities I'm talking about. Urban and suburban maybe it would work but I doubt it would in a poor rural setting. I'd be interested to see what other rural coaches see at the youth level when it comes to pay to play leagues funding and participation.
Duece
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 16, 2019 13:12:49 GMT -6
I think that funding idea is a stretch. Especially in the communities I'm talking about. Urban and suburban maybe it would work but I doubt it would in a poor rural setting. I'd be interested to see what other rural coaches see at the youth level when it comes to pay to play leagues funding and participation. Duece keep in mind I am suggesting taking money from school districts (that would have been athletic money) There is no easy solution, that is for sure |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jun 16, 2019 18:36:25 GMT -6
I think that funding idea is a stretch. Especially in the communities I'm talking about. Urban and suburban maybe it would work but I doubt it would in a poor rural setting. I'd be interested to see what other rural coaches see at the youth level when it comes to pay to play leagues funding and participation. I guess that's me. I coach in the Newton (NJ) Braves Youth Football "League" (really a club, with cheerleading too), located in an area of Sussex County that you might consider either rural or distant suburban to New York City, and we compete in the Morris County league. Overlapping (?) our territory is the Kittatinny organization. The Braves act very much as a feeder to the local high school, and my understanding is that that's the norm in the MCYF organization, but our only formal tie is to the municipal Parks and Rec Dept. in that we use their facilities, and some horizontal ties to lacrosse and other sports. As to funding, there's no free lunch. It's not as if whatever the schools have grows on trees there. It's just as with other extracurricular activities. Why certain youth activities are school-based and others not is historic accident. Largely it goes back to a time when there was no obvious division between the public and private realms. John Chodes explained to me years ago that the start of public schooling in British North America (the colonies) was a very subtle thing, wherein the people may have been instituting what we recognize today as a government function but back then was just thought of as "what we do", and was dirt cheap, and that this tradition of common schools continued after the revolution and later slowly evolved into the very formal and expensive institution we see now, with districts instituted and so on. As near as I can tell, interscholastic sports was a student-initiated thing on both sides of the Atlantic, and in the USA when it came to football followed much the same pattern as intercollegiate sports did. That is, the faculty and governance of the institutions got involved to keep things from getting out of hand, and gradually took "ownership" of them. As with schooling generally, at first sports cost practically nothing. But then liability law hadn't squeezed assumption of risk into the small corner it occupies now! To me this is the main hurdle privatization has to get over. |
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 17, 2019 16:57:30 GMT -6
I don't want anyone to take offense at what I"m putting out there. The commitment that coaches like Deuce and Phantom display is evident to all, and I share it with them.
In response to duece's "apples and oranges" comment, I see what you are saying. Soccer coaching staffs, even at the highest levels, are smaller than most football staffs. The average soccer staff has five or six field coaches. That said, I think football has too many coaches. Even the highest levels do not need separate coaches along the d-line, with the linebackers etc. It helps at the highest levels, of course, but really you don't need all those coaches.
And of course, I don't believe that sports should be something that only the privileged play.
I think that there are lots of different funding models out there that football can and will need to explore at some point in the future. In Europe, the clubs generally sponsor the youth clubs. This is something that football should look into. It makes sense. This is your future labor pool. Rarely do kids who play soccer in Europe pay to do so; fees are paid for by the community and the clubs. I could see something like that being pursued here, kind of a three legged stool model where football programs are funded by the community, college football programs, and the NFL. Again, I'm just thinking aloud here.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 17, 2019 17:28:06 GMT -6
I don't want anyone to take offense at what I"m putting out there. The commitment that coaches like Deuce and Phantom display is evident to all, and I share it with them. In response to duece's "apples and oranges" comment, I see what you are saying. Soccer coaching staffs, even at the highest levels, are smaller than most football staffs. The average soccer staff has five or six field coaches. That said, I think football has too many coaches. Even the highest levels do not need separate coaches along the d-line, with the linebackers etc. It helps at the highest levels, of course, but really you don't need all those coaches. And of course, I don't believe that sports should be something that only the privileged play. I think that there are lots of different funding models out there that football can and will need to explore at some point in the future. In Europe, the clubs generally sponsor the youth clubs. This is something that football should look into. It makes sense. This is your future labor pool. Rarely do kids who play soccer in Europe pay to do so; fees are paid for by the community and the clubs. I could see something like that being pursued here, kind of a three legged stool model where football programs are funded by the community, college football programs, and the NFL. Again, I'm just thinking aloud here. The NFL and colleges would pay for something that they get for free now? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 17, 2019 18:10:05 GMT -6
I don't want anyone to take offense at what I"m putting out there. The commitment that coaches like Deuce and Phantom display is evident to all, and I share it with them. In response to duece's "apples and oranges" comment, I see what you are saying. Soccer coaching staffs, even at the highest levels, are smaller than most football staffs. The average soccer staff has five or six field coaches. That said, I think football has too many coaches. Even the highest levels do not need separate coaches along the d-line, with the linebackers etc. It helps at the highest levels, of course, but really you don't need all those coaches. And of course, I don't believe that sports should be something that only the privileged play. I think that there are lots of different funding models out there that football can and will need to explore at some point in the future. In Europe, the clubs generally sponsor the youth clubs. This is something that football should look into. It makes sense. This is your future labor pool. Rarely do kids who play soccer in Europe pay to do so; fees are paid for by the community and the clubs. I could see something like that being pursued here, kind of a three legged stool model where football programs are funded by the community, college football programs, and the NFL. Again, I'm just thinking aloud here. The NFL and colleges would pay for something that they get for free now? Maybe...if they weren't getting it for free anymore. It would be different , that is for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jun 17, 2019 18:34:51 GMT -6
The NFL and colleges would pay for something that they get for free now? Maybe...if they weren't getting it for free anymore. It would be different , that is for sure. And how would that transition take place? |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 17, 2019 19:23:38 GMT -6
Maybe...if they weren't getting it for free anymore. It would be different , that is for sure. And how would that transition take place? "Sorry guys, we can't afford to fund football anymore. You want 8-18 year old players who one day will be 19-22 year old players and then adult players... here is the hat, pass it around. I know it seems like a completely different universe, but in watching the USWNT dominate the last two opponents and extend their unscored on streak to almost 600 minutes of play, isn't it obvious that is a result of Title IX which was also a massive shift in mindset? |
|
|
|
Post by somecoach on Jul 1, 2019 22:28:06 GMT -6
I don't want anyone to take offense at what I"m putting out there. The commitment that coaches like Deuce and Phantom display is evident to all, and I share it with them. In response to duece's "apples and oranges" comment, I see what you are saying. Soccer coaching staffs, even at the highest levels, are smaller than most football staffs. The average soccer staff has five or six field coaches. That said, I think football has too many coaches. Even the highest levels do not need separate coaches along the d-line, with the linebackers etc. It helps at the highest levels, of course, but really you don't need all those coaches. And of course, I don't believe that sports should be something that only the privileged play. I think that there are lots of different funding models out there that football can and will need to explore at some point in the future. In Europe, the clubs generally sponsor the youth clubs. This is something that football should look into. It makes sense. This is your future labor pool. Rarely do kids who play soccer in Europe pay to do so; fees are paid for by the community and the clubs. I could see something like that being pursued here, kind of a three legged stool model where football programs are funded by the community, college football programs, and the NFL. Again, I'm just thinking aloud here. I have seen this play out and imo it is working out very well! ... We have a local youth team in NYC sponsored by the Kansas City Chiefs (ran by Buck Buccannon's Son!) It has allowed under-privileged kids to play a high level of youth football at no cost! |
|
|
|
Post by somecoach on Jul 1, 2019 22:49:51 GMT -6
Besides the obvious concussion scare issues, I think the bigger issue is that Generation-Z just doesn't want to play. (goes for all sports not just Football).
Rather then Derailing this thread I am making another one.
To make it short and sweet, We are now dealing with "the ipad" generation in which they (statistically speaking) never had the "playing outside experience" to the extent us Millennial's did due to the influx of technology and sports have become a chore for them...
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 24, 2021 19:15:14 GMT -6
Reading about the enormous backlash against the European soccer "Super league" idea made me remember this thread and have an even deeper understanding about what was being discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by stilltryin on Apr 26, 2021 10:52:46 GMT -6
I coach in a very small rural/farm town. I've been around our football programs (Pop Warner, Middle School and High School) since 1997. In that span, I've seen an overall drop in numbers at every level. I think most programs are seeing something very similar as well, or at least many of the local ones I see around us are also experiecing this. My question is, what are we, as coaches, doing about preserving this great game? The concussion scare is a major factor to blame for this, but I also feel there are some social factors chipping away at the fabric of football as well. What are you doing, to combat a drop in numbers? If you had access to all levels of a town's football programs (youth, junior high to high school), what would you do to combat a drop in participation? I have some ideas, but would love to hear others. Duece Is it a drop in just football? Are you seeing declines in other sports as well? Part of the problem may be that in the pursuit of glory, parents/adults have taken leisure activities and turned them into work. I do think those who say "there is nothing to worry about, the NFL is so popular..." are missing football's shift from participatory sport to spectator. It is becoming almost gladiatorial in nature. Something to watch, not something to do, like Boxing. I would be interested to see the declining participation in youth football when flag football is factored into the numbers. That said, I do think one important step is trying to figure out why it is "great"? I realize that might be sacrilegious here, but in all honesty, what makes footbal l"great". I enjoy it, played it for years, coached teams ranging from 8 years old up to Div 1 football. But I would be hard pressed to say that tackle football provides ________ which can't be experienced or gained through other means. Maybe it would be beneficial to start there, and focus on spreading the word about those attributes? |
|
|
|
Post by stilltryin on Apr 26, 2021 11:32:26 GMT -6
I had forgotten all about this thread until this morning, when I noticed it had popped up again after an almost two-year-old "dead" period.
I don't claim to have an "answer" ... only a few observations from an old guy who's a lot closer to the end of my run than the beginning:
In response to 5085's question, it seems the drop-off in high school participation goes beyond football. The last study I saw showed the greatest drop-off wasn't even in football; it was in baseball and softball.
The reasons are many, and most have been mentioned here:
Technology: To borrow from Coach Pat Fox, "When I was a kid, we used to do something kids don't do anymore, and we did it almost every day. It was called 'Go out and play.'"
Specialization: As soon as a kid shows a little promise at anything, that coach wants him to play his sport 12 months a year. Travel coaches are the worst, but our high school basketball coach discourages kids not only from playing football, but from lifting (as if getting stronger wouldn't help in hoops).
Motivation: The parents are looking for the sport where they think their kid might get a scholarship, and are willing to pay for private coaching, training, travel all over the country, etc., even though most of their kids will be lucky to get a baseball or lacrosse scholarship that will pay for the cost of books.
The kids are looking for "fun," or to wear the uniform and be part of the team that gets all the attention around town. The last time we won state, we had about 45 kids, and about 13 who could play. The next year we had 65 kids, and still had about 13 who could play. I've had a few who were honest in saying lacrosse practice was most socializing, interspersed with short periods of throwing the ball around. Football practice was more like work. (The same reason, basically, that so many of them would rather "lift" at a private gym than in our weight room.)
As for "what makes football great," I think that's largely the same as it's always been. The bonding, built from a bunch of kids from disparate backgrounds doing something hard, together, and learning to do it well.
That's no small thing. And if, along the way, they learn a little something about accountability, responsibility, and sacrifice, even better. And I believe that still happens. End of sermon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2021 5:50:24 GMT -6
We are now a school of 1400 kids and had a total of 32 players at the first day of spring football yesterday. Worst in my 15+ years coaching here.
Duece
|
|
