Numbers

[ignazio]

Teams are looking at scary low numbers this year.

1. Mothers would rather their sons sit in the rec room and watch "I Am Cait" than play football.
2. A study by the Sherlock Institute says if you play a violent sport for 25 years, you may suffer adverse effects from repeated rough play.
3. A new sport is rapidly growing, offering parents who've never played instant expertise.
4. If you let your son play football, he's almost certain to beat up his woman in a casino in a few years.
5. If you can't win a state championship, what's the point of even playing?
6. Video games.
7. New app.
8. Somebody might knock me down. And a coach might raise his voice to me. And I don't want to lose any self-esteem.
9. Oh, I'm a huge football fan. NFL, NCAA, Big10, fantasy leagues ... you mean actually play? Ewww gross.
10. Because it was terribly important to my coach that we win the conference freshman and soph championships ... I sat on the bench. Now I have a better view from the stands.

Seriously, I'm hearing some places will be hard pressed to field soph and freshman teams.

 

[morgs81]

Number 10 is very true. I was coaching at Driscoll Catholic when we started our run of state championships and at the frosh and soph levels we were more concerned with getting kids playing time than winning conference championships. A lot of kids developed into decent football players who contributed to those state championship teams. That kid who is 5'8 and 140 pounds as a 14 year old all of a sudden hits a growth spurt and may all of a sudden help you win games, but only if you played him when he 5'8" 140 pounds as a freshman. Good list.

 

[Anon1754760634]

Post of the year? Talked about low numbers yesterday and have been talking about it for awhile now.....I'll give the "other" media types a few weeks before they catch on.

 

[Coalertown44]

In Coal City, we have not felt the sting of the low numbers yet. We have 27 Juniors, 26 Sophomores and 26 Freshman this season. I do coach our youth teams and the numbers at the very young levels. I feel like we have good numbers for a 4 team. I think the problem is the parents and the social bias that every football player is a thug and will be brain damaged by the time they are 30. Parents need to research more and see that football is still a safe sport.

 

[sundevil1988]

Ig, great post if allowed I'll add this

11. The Pus_ _fication of America.

Heard 3 schools in ESCC will not have soph team? Any truth to this? CoM numbers down at lower levels. What's interesting is in their state championship run in 03' enrollment was just over 1400 and had close to 100 kids on varsity and 60+ on freshman, 2015 enrollment is around 1300 and you have around 50 on varsity and maybe 35 on freshman.

 

[godfthr53]

Naz Freshman numbers up.

 

[septon34]

I understand the parents perspective of not wanting their boys to play football, but it is sad seeing the decline of a great game.

 

[Wild_Mustang]

Best of post of the year right here. Well done.

 

[Wild_Mustang]

I'm going to be proactive about this and coach youth football next year. Need to start brain washing our youth again.

 

[SiuCubFan8]

I'm interested to see if the attrition is the same over the course of a FR class to SR year or if the bottom of the roster kids are not coming out.

 

[ignazio]

Before the NFL draft, professional, full-time scouts evaluate players based on 8 years of football experience, a scouting combine where every imaginable point of strength, speed, agility, and skill is measured - plus countless statistics, points of data and mental acuity can be referenced.
And still, they make mistakes and we get Ryan Leaf, Curtis Enis on the field and morons like IK Enemkpali in the locker room.

In college, the highest paid state employees and their long-tenured staff have more video than they could ever possibly view, more data than they've ever had, more camps in which to evaluate talent, more access to potential players than ever, and more juicy recruiting budgets than they'd like to admit. And still they make mistakes and we have embarrassing examples of "student athletes" being anything but studious or athletic.

In high school, we recruit based on how the relative size and coordination of a pubescent boy is compared to his peers. "Eighth Grade All Stars." We recruit - and offer financial incentives for athletic reasons alone - to get those stars in your school and on your field. Once there, we put all our focus on those kids. You can almost hear the play calls: "get the ball to Timmy!" The only thing simpler is how to defend that ("drill that Timmy kid every play.")

Of those three groups, which is the least likely to admit they made a mistake in recruiting?

 

[LakeCtyNewt]

Before the NFL draft, professional, full-time scouts evaluate players based on 8 years of football experience, a scouting combine where every imaginable point of strength, speed, agility, and skill is measured - plus countless statistics, points of data and mental acuity can be referenced.
And still, they make mistakes and we get Ryan Leaf, Curtis Enis on the field and morons like IK Enemkpali in the locker room.

In college, the highest paid state employees and their long-tenured staff have more video than they could ever possibly view, more data than they've ever had, more camps in which to evaluate talent, more access to potential players than ever, and more juicy recruiting budgets than they'd like to admit. And still they make mistakes and we have embarrassing examples of "student athletes" being anything but studious or athletic.

In high school, we recruit based on how the relative size and coordination of a pubescent boy is compared to his peers. "Eighth Grade All Stars." We recruit - and offer financial incentives for athletic reasons alone - to get those stars in your school and on your field. Once there, we put all our focus on those kids. You can almost hear the play calls: "get the ball to Timmy!" The only thing simpler is how to defend that ("drill that Timmy kid every play.")

Of those three groups, which is the least likely to admit they made a mistake in recruiting?

Ig I would say all of them.

No matter what type of stats or film you look at or review, this is and will always be an inexact science.

Nowadays recruiters and scouts have much more material to work with but it guarantees nothing.

For every 4 and 5 star can't miss recruit, their will always be a Todd Marinovich - for every highly rated NFL can't miss QB their will always be a Ryan Leaf.

Scouts will always pass on a Tom Brady or Arian Foster for the next Johnny Manziel or Rashan Salaam.

I respect the guys that do the rankings and profiles because it's hard to pick the best. But to say their is an exact science to it would be incorrect.

With the talent pool getting shallower by decreasing numbers it's going to make jobs like Edgy or Dallas Jackson that much mor challenging.

 

[mc140]

Multiple schools in south suburbs with less than15 sophomores out for football.

 

[LHSTigers94]

It all depends on how you see things. For me, having more that 25 per class is not needed to play the sport. Yes it is a luxury to have a class of 40 kids however realistically the most that you will every use in one class is 30. Football has been played for years by most team with the current numbers that new teams are experiencing. It is true that this is no longer a vacation sport for a kid that just wanted to wear the uniform. There is a strong possibility that the kid that really wasn't interested in playing but like being with his friends will get hurt by simply not playing hard. I will also add that with the decline of paid coaching staff at some schools, the reduction in players is better. As practice days (contact) and restrictions are implemented, it is important to focus on a handful of kids as oppose to a ton of kids filling up rosters. I am in no way saying having numbers is a bad thing but, I am definitely saying its not as bad as people are making it out to be. Having 100 kids on the sideline to only play 30 is not different that having 50 to play 30. It helps with the cost of gatorade during the season.

 

[SiuCubFan8]

It all depends on how you see things. For me, having more that 25 per class is not needed to play the sport. Yes it is a luxury to have a class of 40 kids however realistically the most that you will every use in one class is 30. Football has been played for years by most team with the current numbers that new teams are experiencing. It is true that this is no longer a vacation sport for a kid that just wanted to wear the uniform. There is a strong possibility that the kid that really wasn't interested in playing but like being with his friends will get hurt by simply not playing hard. I will also add that with the decline of paid coaching staff at some schools, the reduction in players is better. As practice days (contact) and restrictions are implemented, it is important to focus on a handful of kids as oppose to a ton of kids filling up rosters. I am in no way saying having numbers is a bad thing but, I am definitely saying its not as bad as people are making it out to be. Having 100 kids on the sideline to only play 30 is not different that having 50 to play 30. It helps with the cost of gatorade during the season.

I think a lot of the concern is if the decline continues. If it levels off I agree with it not being a huge issue.

 

[illini14]

It all depends on how you see things. For me, having more that 25 per class is not needed to play the sport. Yes it is a luxury to have a class of 40 kids however realistically the most that you will every use in one class is 30. Football has been played for years by most team with the current numbers that new teams are experiencing. It is true that this is no longer a vacation sport for a kid that just wanted to wear the uniform. There is a strong possibility that the kid that really wasn't interested in playing but like being with his friends will get hurt by simply not playing hard. I will also add that with the decline of paid coaching staff at some schools, the reduction in players is better. As practice days (contact) and restrictions are implemented, it is important to focus on a handful of kids as oppose to a ton of kids filling up rosters. I am in no way saying having numbers is a bad thing but, I am definitely saying its not as bad as people are making it out to be. Having 100 kids on the sideline to only play 30 is not different that having 50 to play 30. It helps with the cost of gatorade during the season.

Its declining because kids/parents don't want to play. I don't think administrators should be happy they need to order less uniforms and Gatorade. Isn't the point of HS athletics to get kids involved and busy with something? Not every kid is going to play, and I'd say most kids that are on the bench by their JR/SR years are well aware of their place in the pecking order.

 

[LHSTigers94]

Its declining because kids/parents don't want to play. I don't think administrators should be happy they need to order less uniforms and Gatorade. Isn't the point of HS athletics to get kids involved and busy with something? Not every kid is going to play, and I'd say most kids that are on the bench by their JR/SR years are well aware of their place in the pecking order.

I agree but I also feel that it is not a concern if a kids is not interested in "wasting his time". Kids that want to play football, play football and that will never change. On any team that has 100 players, there are at least 40 players that could care less either way. I don't think it is a reflection of anything that the kids who really didn't care either way is no longer playing football. I am not suggesting that anyone should be happy about it or celebrating the fact that there or less kids. It's just not something to lose sleep over.

 

[septon34]

I agree but I also feel that it is not a concern if a kids is not interested in "wasting his time". Kids that want to play football, play football and that will never change. On any team that has 100 players, there are at least 40 players that could care less either way. I don't think it is a reflection of anything that the kids who really didn't care either way is no longer playing football. I am not suggesting that anyone should be happy about it or celebrating the fact that there or less kids. It's just not something to lose sleep over.

I respectfully disagree. I went to SR in the early 90s and we had a bunch of very tough (I was NOT one of them, lol), blue-collar kids who loved football. When I meet my old classmates for drinks at the bar, they tell me that they hope their sons don't play football. If these guys (who grew up loving and playing the game and everything it stood for) are steering their sons away from football, I think the sport has a huge problem, as we already know that the Dan Bernsteins of the world (and his loyal clones) make it to their mission to "educate" people about the risks of CTE from football.

 

[SweetWalter34]

I share your concern but I think we might be a little too focused on short-term trends.
For the last 100 years or so, the game of football (including high school football) has found a way to tweak it's rules and injury protocols to survive and in fact thrive.

The game may change slightly -- for example the much-discussed "3 concussions and you're done" rule will likely bring about the demise of the zone-read spread offense due to QB concussions -- but there is little reason to believe football will go away, even at the high school level.

 

[jwarigaku]

Sounds like Marian Catholic has serious number problems. I can only assume most if not all attrition can be claimed by HF success and their outstanding college level facilities!

 

[godfthr53]

Sounds like Marian Catholic has serious number problems. I can only assume most if not all attrition can be claimed by HF success and their outstanding college level facilities!

Yep Marian has dropped freshman ball and will only play a varsity and JV game. Not sure how many kids they had in HF district but I'm sure it was a lot. Too bad they looked promising on the lower levels. Heard lots transferred out. Most likely to HF.

 

[eireog]

Marian's current Junior class was loaded as Freshman

 

[mc140]

Marian's current Junior class was loaded as Freshman

I think a lot of those kids are know longer there.

 

[ignazio]

I share your concern but I think we might be a little too focused on short-term trends.
For the last 100 years or so, the game of football (including high school football) has found a way to tweak it's rules and injury protocols to survive and in fact thrive.

The game may change slightly -- for example the much-discussed "3 concussions and you're done" rule will likely bring about the demise of the zone-read spread offense due to QB concussions -- but there is little reason to believe football will go away, even at the high school level.

Sweetness: I agree with you that football needs to adjust the rules. Keep in mind, rugby has been played for 144 years without helmets. Insist that the players must "wrap up" on a tackle and you'll see much less of the head-first tackling, shoulder-hit tackling that plagues the sport. Shorten the time between downs, and it'll be a problem for massive size to stay on the field.

 

[WestSuburbanCatholicConference]

What is more startling is even at the younger levels. The SPL is a
Catholic grade school conference that Im very familiar with. Just over 5 years ago the biggest problem was enough playing time for everyone. The varsity went from having just an extra quarter for the 2nd string to having another B game. Now a school like St. Cletus in LaGrange who would be like the St. Rita of this grade school league can't even field a varsity team and every team is dealing with number issues in the conference, expect St. Francis.

My prediction is that 20 years from now the game will become like boxing or the army. Middle class families will not let their children play football unless the game dramatically changes. It will only become an outlet for low income families or true die-hard football parents.

Even though I love the game, I think over time more research will show more dangers of football.
A doctor once told me "there is no good way or safe way to hit your head, no matter how old you are." Especially since the brain does not fully develop until you're 25.

I just don't think 20 years from now parents are going to let their children's developing brains be hit over and over again. Or it just won't be the politically correct thing to do among middle class families.

 

[HillRock86]

Here is a link to some recent research done on high school football players by Purdue University. It's not encouraging.

http://www.purdue.edu/differencemakers/nauman.html