Jump to content

The future of high school football


badrouter
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Atticus Finch said:

You claimed that because 10-to-12 national football programs exist that local high schools will stop sponsoring athletic teams.

How does this make any sense? How is this not silly doomsday stuff?

At some point, fielding a team (which ultimately can not compete with who they'd play) becomes more of an expense than a benefit. And, players without a future in the sport will find the risk of CTE (or other long term injury) to be too great to justify continuing playing. So, schools will struggle even more to field teams. So, it's as much about the serious injury risks as it is the super team dominance. Think of the most consistently sucky teams in your area. Why would they continue to bother with fielding a team if the best players who are zoned for their school end up playing elsewhere anyway?

It makes sense for the same reason that programs like Long Beach State and Cal State Fullerton dropped football.

It doesn't have to be "doomsday" if the result is some really awesome teams playing at a higher level than previously possible. If there were a bunch of super teams, there could be parity among those teams. As it is, the likes of STA, Gibbons, AH and Chaminade would have parity among themselves if they were all in a Broward league together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, CaliNorth said:

Just put badrouter on ignore . You don't need to engage if you think his posts are shit . Do like the rest of us and comment when you feel it is relevant . 

And, should I get the impression that a majority of members here find my posts to be "shit", I'll happily logout and not come back 😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rufus69 said:

It would be nice if everybody picked ONE login and stayed with it.

What a concept....

It's the future of HSFB message boards the elite posters will transfer to a new account every season and the weaker posters will fade away. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, badrouter said:

At some point, fielding a team (which ultimately can not compete with who they'd play) becomes more of an expense than a benefit.

Running public schools is a giant expense. Much of it done at a huge loss. They still do it.

Athletics are part of the offering a school provides. Why would they stop fielding teams because 10-to-12 teams were traveling the country to play games?

It makes zero sense. There's absolutely no connection between one and the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, badrouter said:

It doesn't have to be "doomsday" if the result is some really awesome teams playing at a higher level than previously possible. If there were a bunch of super teams, there could be parity among those teams. As it is, the likes of STA, Gibbons, AH and Chaminade would have parity among themselves if they were all in a Broward league together. 

If you're going to extend this umbrella to Cardinal Gibbons than I think my point has been made. You've overshot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

If you're going to extend this umbrella to Cardinal Gibbons than I think my point has been made. You've overshot.

Birds of the same species tend to flock together, right?..... I think that might be documented somewhere. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the vast majority of a state athletic association's member schools approve of by-laws which can be exploited by a relatively small number of schools to gain an unfair competitive advantage?  The simple answer is they won't.  In Ohio, rules have been changed in recent years so that transfers are ineligible for the second half of the season and playoffs, and games against non-member schools like Bishop Sycamore and St. Frances don't count.  Considering the number of Ohio schools still trying to fill their schedules for this season, I expect the minimum number of games against OHSAA member schools will be raised from 5 to 6 and restrictions on out-of-state games will remain in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MA Fan said:

It's the future of HSFB message boards the elite posters will transfer to a new account every season and the weaker posters will fade away. 

I know I'm the weird one...but I started posting as Rufus in 1997 on the old GAVSV boards (Georgia).  And to this day...I have NOT posted under any other login than some sort of "Rufus" combination.  I believe my current login is Rufus69 (reflecting my IQ).

I have posted under Rufus...and under Rufus S DeMann and finally...Rufus69.

I was made to change from Rufus to something with more than 5 digits.  I was made to change from Rufus S DeMann to add some sort of numbers to my login...so if they make me change again...it will more than likely be some sort of "rufus" moniker.

Like I said...I'm the weird one.

 

 

Rufus>>

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

Running public schools is a giant expense. Much of it done at a huge loss. They still do it.

Athletics are part of the offering a school provides. Why would they stop fielding teams because 10-to-12 teams were traveling the country to play games?

It makes zero sense. There's absolutely no connection between one and the other.

The schools themselves serve a very real purpose that I don't think I have to explain here. Athletics are extras, and can be found elsewhere, just like they have to be for younger kids (AYSO etc). But, I think it is football specifically that will be the one sport schools start dropping. It is uniquely expensive to operate, and, without adequate financial support (people don't support perennial losers) it is a negative for the school/taxpayers. It is uniquely dangerous as well. Those actively seeking football opportunities are already finding them at other schools anyway.  If it's just the more general experience of competing on a team that is desired, there are numerous other sports and activities they can participate in instead.

IMO the long term future (30-50 years from now) of football is the 7v7 model. Already I get the impression this is more popular than the real sport among many players. They know they're not going to suffer potentially life-long debilitating injuries playing 7v7. So, perhaps some of these schools that drop the real thing will get into 7v7, which is also much cheaper to administrate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

Because that's not what it's about for like 90% of the schools in this country.

I'd dispute the 90% figure. I'd say 65-70% may be more accurate. Which means we could see 30-35% reduction in the number of programs. But, even if we were to run with 90% as you say, that could mean a ~10% reduction in programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Atticus Finch said:

If you're going to extend this umbrella to Cardinal Gibbons than I think my point has been made. You've overshot.

How so? Gibbons just beat STA in 2020, their games with AH have been very tight, they have multiple state titles in recent years, etc.

Parity doesn't mean all the teams are exactly equal; it means they can all compete with and conceivably beat each other on a given day. CG is that among the teams I listed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, badrouter said:

I'd dispute the 90% figure. I'd say 65-70% may be more accurate. Which means we could see 30-35% reduction in the number of programs. But, even if we were to run with 90% as you say, that could mean a ~10% reduction in programs.

You're confused.

I'm saying that 90% of programs aren't concerned with the talented starred players in the Rivals database nor is their #1 priority to be "competitive" with national programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, badrouter said:

How so? Gibbons just beat STA in 2020, their games with AH have been very tight, they have multiple state titles in recent years, etc.

They're not a national globe-trotting program and aren't even close. At their best, which is right now, they're 1990s STA.

Give me a break, dude.

They won one game during a COVID year and they didn't even look good doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Parity doesn't mean all the teams are exactly equal; it means they can all compete with and conceivably beat each other on a given day. CG is that among the teams I listed. 

And, I'll repeat, if Gibbons is on this list then you've wildly exaggerated the extent of this doomsday scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

You're confused.

I'm saying that 90% of programs aren't concerned with the talented starred players in the Rivals database nor is their #1 priority to be "competitive" with national programs.

oh, my mistake. 

Sure, 90% sounds about right. But I think the problem arises when they end up having to face those types of teams anyway. I think that 90% mostly wants to play others from the 90%, not get bludgeoned by the 10% loading up on stars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, badrouter said:

Sure, 90% sounds about right. But I think the problem arises when they end up having to face those types of teams anyway. I think that 90% mostly wants to play others from the 90%, not get bludgeoned by the 10% loading up on stars. 

Yeah, so there might be a future where they don't play each other. That's fine. They won't drop football though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

And, I'll repeat, if Gibbons is on this list then you've wildly exaggerated the extent of this doomsday scenario.

If they were in a league with the teams I listed, that league would have parity. Perhaps they'd finish at the bottom of that league, but that's because someone would have to end up last. Heritage beat them on a FG at the buzzer last year. Their worst outcome by far was a game they trailed STA 26-14 after 3 quarters. CG was better than every 7A and 8A team not named STA. They'd obviously fit better in a league than Davie Nova. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Yeah, so there might be a future where they don't play each other. That's fine. They won't drop football though.

OK. So, the point of the thread is to discuss ways in which such changes can happen in a way where most everyone benefits, rather than letting shysters come in and make themselves the center of attention at the expense of the schools and kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...