Differences between levels 1A-6A

[mikesalem]

I'm no expert on statewide football across all levels, but I thought it would make for an interesting discussion. I generally only keep up with 3A/4A because that's what the majority of the Roanoke Valley schools consist of.

The biggest difference I've noticed is depth. Some of the bigger schools have 120+ on their Fr, JV, and Vars teams. I think the bigger rosters offer competition within the team that makes them better. I think there is a distinction between roster number and depth though.

Depth consists of numbers, but also quality, and cross training. A lot of smaller teams have 2 way starters, a bigger team may not have any. Another difference is quality of backups. Some teams #2 is as good or better than other teams #1. Good teams will rotate a good #2 in to gain experience, bring in fresh legs, and keep guys motivated. By cross training I mean having players that can play multiple positions. It may just boil down to quantity increases the odds of quality?

A good team can play opponents that are considerably bigger and consistently win, but if you look at teams that have moved up after having success at a lower level, in most cases it's difficult to maintain that level of success.

Briar Woods and Broad Run are 2 examples of teams that won at 4A ('08-'12 Champions between the 2) and then moved up and haven't been able to reach that pinnacle. Briar Woods reached the title game and have been 24-14 in the 3 years since they moved up. Broad Run has gone 39-20 since they moved up to 5A in the last 5 years. Neither was bad (BW was 3-8 last year, but their schedule was insanely hard- opponents were 100-40, 2 were runner-ups & 2 were semifinalists) It's just hard to maintain that level of success moving up levels.

So what do you guys think? Give me some opinions and perspective from 1A -6A.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

Not exactly the angle you looked at it Mike, but I think 1a teams have parents and others more personally connected. Smaller schools depend tremendously on parents and supporters for everything, from helping the coaches, to cleaning the toilets. Smaller communities mean everybody knows EVERYBODY. And every parent knows everybody else's kids. It's a legendary tradition that you go to football games on Friday nights in these smaller communities. So the personal, intimate, connection is just naturally greater, in most cases, than it is with the largest of the schools.

For example, (1a), Martha's boy sprained his ankle Friday night, but he told me at Church Sunday that he will be ok by this Friday, (6a), I hear that #27, I don't know his name, got hurt Friday night. I guess they will start that #35 this week?

 

[1MoreHokie]

It's almost entirely based on trench play. The simple fact is you are far harder pressed to find enough big boys to play at least one side of the ball up front in schools with fewer students. You can always find the natural athlete in a school of any size but the averages are simply against you to find enough kids of proper height and weight and(most importantly) athleticism to field a good line. Even good mid-level schools like Salem very often have a definitively strong side of the OL and the other side is basically "just please don't immediately collapse" praying.

It obviously goes beyond that because the more kids the more chances to find more anything but you can find 1-2 kids that are 5'10-6'1 and 180lb that can run/catch/throw in a school of 600 kids and that's often all you need at lower levels of play(one good scholarship kid can win you state in 1A-2A levels of play and a few can do it in 3A-4A) but finding 3-5+ big boys? Good luck. But widen the size of the enrollment up to 1800-2000+ kids and magically you can find at least some and often enough so that they're not playing both ways.

All things equal, a few good skill players in lower levels can play as good or better than their counterparts in higher levels, which is why 7-on-7 can yield vastly different results but the second you start getting into the big uglies and depth it just changes the ballgame. Same reason FCS teams tend to not be able to pull it out against FBS teams, eventually that all catches up to you in a game. There's just not enough big guys to go around and the smaller the level of play(everyone's got the same big guys in the NFL, slight difference in college, big difference in HS) the more it matters.

 

[cutnjump]

All good comments so far and a fair reflection of the distinctions in my opinion. You can find kids in lower classes that would be good players in the upper classifications but, the real difference is the quantity of athletes in the large schools. There are some two way players at the upper level, however, the better programs have enough quantity and quality that they can platoon with little to no drop off in production and you rarely find that situation in lower classification schools. Mike talks about Briar Woods success and Coach Pierce has done a great job at that school but, in my opinion, their championship performance reflected the reality that they were really a 5A or 6A school that benefitted from playing down in classification because of wildly fluctuating ADM. The BW team that spanked Heritage(52-0 I think) would have been competitive in a higher classification at the state level if properly classified but, I do not believe they would have won the championship in either of the upper classifications. While finding lower classification schools that would be championship contenders or even competitive in upper classifications would not yield many teams you can name lots of players from lower classifications(Thomas Jones, Vic Hall, Coleman Thomas) who in all likelihood would have been impact players even in the highest classification. Please note the three players I mentioned were just the first to come to mind and there are many more that could be added to the list. The list of schools capable of winning it all if playing up would be significantly smaller, in my opinion.

 

[DEVILSLB99]

All good comments so far and a fair reflection of the distinctions in my opinion. You can find kids in lower classes that would be good players in the upper classifications but, the real difference is the quantity of athletes in the large schools. There are some two way players at the upper level, however, the better programs have enough quantity and quality that they can platoon with little to no drop off in production and you rarely find that situation in lower classification schools. Mike talks about Briar Woods success and Coach Pierce has done a great job at that school but, in my opinion, their championship performance reflected the reality that they were really a 5A or 6A school that benefitted from playing down in classification because of wildly fluctuating ADM. The BW team that spanked Heritage(52-0 I think) would have been competitive in a higher classification at the state level if properly classified but, I do not believe they would have won the championship in either of the upper classifications. While finding lower classification schools that would be championship contenders or even competitive in upper classifications would not yield many teams you can name lots of players from lower classifications(Thomas Jones, Vic Hall, Coleman Thomas) who in all likelihood would have been impact players even in the highest classification. Please note the three players I mentioned were just the first to come to mind and there are many more that could be added to the list. The list of schools capable of winning it all if playing up would be significantly smaller, in my opinion.

That Briar Woods team that won the title in 2012 had a higher enrollment than LC Bird (D6 champ) and Lake Taylor (D5 champ) Their enrollment was massive for D4

 

[cutnjump]

That Briar Woods team that won the title in 2012 had a higher enrollment than LC Bird (D6 champ) and Lake Taylor (D5 champ) Their enrollment was massive for D4

Seems like the LT enrollment that year would have put you guys in 4. LT and Phoebus both played up for years despite ADM's that would have put you in lower classifications if my memory is correct. I raised the question one time whether the VHSL forcing teams to play in the proper class would hurt talent levels at schools that traditionally played up and you indicated you did not think so. It seems like LT hasn't been hurt much, if any, so you were correct on that account. Looks to me like Phoebus has suffered, however, there may be other more important reasons than just being forced to play down in class.

 

[SpartanOfYore]

Seems like the LT enrollment that year would have put you guys in 4. LT and Phoebus both played up for years despite ADM's that would have put you in lower classifications if my memory is correct. I raised the question one time whether the VHSL forcing teams to play in the proper class would hurt talent levels at schools that traditionally played up and you indicated you did not think so. It seems like LT hasn't been hurt much, if any, so you were correct on that account. Looks to me like Phoebus has suffered, however, there may be other more important reasons than just being forced to play down in class.

"whether the VHSL forcing teams to play in the proper class would hurt talent levels at schools that traditionally played up"

I don't understand how this would be the case. I suppose I could think of two possible reasons: kids might transfer out, to continue facing the higher level of competition that they had been; or, the coaching staffs might not feel as compelled to beat the bushes to get every kid out for football that they possibly could.

Can you expound on this? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just not grasping the concept.

 

[cutnjump]

"whether the VHSL forcing teams to play in the proper class would hurt talent levels at schools that traditionally played up"

I don't understand how this would be the case. I suppose I could think of two possible reasons: kids might transfer out, to continue facing the higher level of competition that they had been; or, the coaching staffs might not feel as compelled to beat the bushes to get every kid out for football that they possibly could.

Can you expound on this? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just not grasping the concept.

I think you grasped it pretty well. My thinking was more the first than the second reason as I believe coaches are competitive by nature ad will always beat the bushes for kids, however, some might relax. As far as competition goes in a competitive scholarship situation the higher level talent a kid faces helps the evaluator in deciding to offer. There is less need to project how a kid might fit if he is competing week in and week out in games and on the practice field against other D-1 level talent as opposed to more marginal competition. Of course with the rise of 7 on 7 and now satellite camps that consideration is probably lessened as well, particularly for skill kids.

 

[SpartanOfYore]

I think you grasped it pretty well. My thinking was more the first than the second reason as I believe coaches are competitive by nature ad will always beat the bushes for kids, however, some might relax. As far as competition goes in a competitive scholarship situation the higher level talent a kid faces helps the evaluator in deciding to offer. There is less need to project how a kid might fit if he is competing week in and week out in games and on the practice field against other D-1 level talent as opposed to more marginal competition. Of course with the rise of 7 on 7 and now satellite camps that consideration is probably lessened as well, particularly for skill kids.

Thanks for expounding. That puts it in sharper focus.

 

[71ShadesofNavy]

1morehokie, you hit the nail on the head. You can find size and speed in any division; however, its sporadic or a bit sparse the lower you go. Most of the 5a and 6a schools have consistent size across the line and depth to go with it. The skilled positions may be similar as losing a "stud" at any level will cause problems. Can't really add much to the above noted comments.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

I remember going to Kenston Forrest games in the 90's. They were at what we old say is a very small 1a level, 200-210 students). The thing that always stood out to me was there may have been only one or two linemen of any size and ability. The rest just were anyone they could get in pads and a helmet. When they played teams in similar circumstances, it would be reasonably competitive. But, when they faced a team with just a couple more capable linemen it was usually very ugly, especially by the second half.

So 1MoreHokie's comments were right on, in my experience.

 

[Olduvatechmason]

Even though Kenston is a small private school (maybe graduate 20 per year) and isn't the best example, I completely agree with you about smaller schools having tougher time finding adequate linemen. I'm a true believer that line play is most important so not having horses up front is a major disadvantage.

Small teams can over come this in the short term by finding the best athlete and scheming around him. Longterm success happens with great program building like Lunenburg and Goochland which routinely send out lines that average less than 200 pounds. (I'm talking actual weight, not what the game programs claim!!! Lol). They both have great offseason weightlifting programs and longstanding systems, ala coach mills at dinwiddie.

 

[reg b]

Agree 100 % on linemen comments. Even colleges find it hard to recruit both offensive and defensive linemen. Colleges will take chances on kids with the right frame even if they are not dominating on the high school field. Those 6'5 kids with long arms and great feet just don't come around often.

 

[DinwiddieProud]

You know what always amazes me. The speed, quickness, agility, and reaction time of the giants that play "down positions" in the NFL. It's unbelievable how quick these behemoths are. It's one thing when a 165lb kid in high school is quick. But when you see that same quickness in a 350lb NFL lineman, it makes you appreciate that they are truly freaks of nature.