OldSchoolLion
-
Posts
5,957 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
199
Posts posted by OldSchoolLion
-
-
34 minutes ago, BrowardHandicapper said:
Top 10? Maybe..... I don't know if I'd shoot from the hip that fast. Take a look at the amount of points allowed by Chandler this year in state , not a traditional sign of a top 10 team IMO. Mater-Dei gave up some points but they played much stronger teams overall.
Having watched St. Frances (MD) as well, I think they would have wrecked both MNW or Chandler IMO......
Not much chatter on this game. It seems as if anytime a FL loses or gets pummeled no one wants to talk about it....Perhaps FL top teams were not as elite as some may believe.
Almost every team Chandler played in AZ put up as good or a better fight, along with more points then MNW on Chandler this year or perhaps MNW and other top FL teams were not as elite in 2017 as we believe?
It would have been good to see a MNW versus AHP this year. To me FL nationally may have been a bit down this year, 1A was par , 2A was a bit above par, 3A was above par, 4A may have been down a tad, 5A was up, 6A was par with perhaps no super elites, 7A was par with no super elites, 8A had no super elites and was par at best.
Let me ask you this 2016 Carol City or 2017 MNW?
St Frances and Chandler were indeed very impressive. I think the rest of the country is catching up with Florida. Just as teams that were doormats in the NCAA long ago are now competitive, states like Arizona and Utah have upped their game. Am not sure if Florida, as a whole, has done the same.
Here are a few of possible reasons:
-Some of our teams, though stocked with talent, still demonstrate a tremendous lack of discipline at times, ie penalties, falling apart when punched in the mouth, etc. The fundamentals are sometimes lacking. Coaching is the likely culprit.
-With the crazy transferring taking place in Florida now, how does a coach build a cohesive unit year-to-year? There is too much emphasis on individual talent, and it reflects in the level of team play by even some of our better teams.
-The offenses of many Florida teams are anemic compared to our West Coast counterparts, especially the passing games. Florida has produced some good dual-threat quarterbacks of late, but we still struggle to produce en masse the great pocket passers who can sit back and dissect a defense. ...like some of the qb's you see on the better California teams. Look at a list of Florida players in the NFL and how many qb's do you see from Florida? ...not a tremendous amount.
Florida has some outrageous WR talent, but they are not utilized as well as they could be. Below are the numbers of passing TD's scored this year by some of the better California teams compared to several Florida teams who played for state championships. And it is not as if these California teams are not scoring rushing TD's-they are scoring plenty of them, too.
California
Folsom 59
Mater Dei 54
St John Bosco 37
Mission Viejo 30
Florida
Armwood 26
Oxbridge 25
American Heritage 21
Chaminade 20
Dr Phillips 18
Cocoa 15
Here are a couple of 4-star, Florida WR's and the number of TD's they scored this year. I bet if they were on one of those high-powered California teams they would have more.
Xavier Williams 9 Chaminade
Warren Thompson 6 Armwood
-
9 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:
Yes, I don't disagree. Degrees are not what they used to be. But how many kids from the projects are going to end up pursuing a career in plumbing or some other "old blue collar job?" I would suggest not many, and if I am wrong I stand corrected.
The fact of the matter is that these days kids born on the wrong side of the tracks, black white or other don't stand a very good chance of succeeding in today's economy, period. Things have changed technologically, politically and socially. Spending 4 years in college to get a General Studies degree may be just enough to keep that kid from pursuing a "career" in something on the wrong side of the law that screws his life up forever or ends it early.
Sometimes a little maturity from the passage of time and a somewhat different environment outside the projects can get one over a rough hump. With that said, I think we are both in general agreement that the way the sports/college/professional complex currently works is probably not the best for society in general.
You are right. I simply used plumbing as an example of many things a kid could do nowadays without a college degree that could earn him just as much,if not more than a kid with a college degree. And, in that sense, many college degrees today do not have a good return on investment. The example I used is part of a problem that is much broader than football, ie kids getting degrees who 40 years ago would have been going to trade school. One of the richest guys in my area owns an HVAC business.
What it all comes down to is, "What is the best path for a certain kid, recognizing his short-term and long-term needs?" For many of these kids, a big driver for going to college is to "make it big" and go to the pros. But we all know that is like playing the lottery, with very poor odds. Universities probably rationalize that, "Well, the kid did not make the pros, but we gave him a free college degree." That is great if the kid knows what to do with it. The college degree path is a long-term investment for most kids, but many of these kids and their families have short-term needs.
Over the years, I have mentored a number of young people with college degrees, and am amazed at how poorly the schools prepare these kids to make a living. An upper middle class kid with a college degree may have some time to allow the earning power of that degree to "kick in" while he is living at home with mom and dad and finding his way. But a kid from the hood does not have that luxury. In a manner of speaking, at the end of college, he is right back to where he started, without a dime in his pocket and a fancy piece of paper.
I recently mentored a kid and encouraged him NOT to take the scholarship. Crazy? He does not have the brains for college and there is NO WAY he will ever make the pros. He does have good mechanical aptitude. If he goes to college, he is going to spend four years taking up space in a college classroom while he could be earning money(which he and his family really need-now) and setting himself up for a career that is best suited to utilize his strengths.
As mentors to these young folks, it is up to us to stop the exploitation by these universities who prey upon the dreams of kids so they can make huge bucks off of them and then throw them back on the street with a piece of paper that is proving to be of lesser and lesser value as the years go by. I agree that for some kids, sacrificing four years to get a degree may be the best path. But for some, it is clearly not. I went to college at an affluent, predominantly White school. The football team was predominantly Black. The latter lived together in dorms and did not relate well to the rich, White kids. They stuck to themselves and had an us "us against the world" mindset that was nurtured by the coach. I question whether the college experience really helped them. Again,
1 hour ago, DarterBlue2 said:It varies from kid to kid. There are two I am familiar with that I will comment on. One went to Michigan the other U. Mass. Both came very close to NFL careers but in the end were done in by size in the case of the former, and just a little lack of speed in the case of the latter. Both did graduate from college, though, one with a General Studies degree and the other with a degree in Architectural Drawing.
One of these kids was a 7th round draft pick. The other was an un-drafted free agent who got picked up on a couple practice squads along the way. The former, as a draftee, got the NFL minimum wage for one year.. The latter earned about $100,000 k over two years on NFL practice squads. One today lives in Arizona which is a long way from home. Neither of these kids came from advantageous economic circumstances. Both kept their noses clean over four years of college. Of the two one had struggled mightily in high school; the other did not have issues graduating. Both found a way to graduate from college.
In the case of both these guys, although neither made it big in the NFL, I can't in all honesty say that their time in college was wasted. In another time or place, it may not have been the best option. However, in the times in which they came of age, I think college was a net benefit to both despite never fully realizing their professional career dreams. I do feel that each was enriched to a degree by the path they took.
At the end of the day, it is up to each individual to maximize the opportunities presented them. While they are challenges, even if you don't make your ultimate goal, it does not mean that the college experience was totally not worth it. Many kids do build some relationships outside of the football squad that can serve them well post graduation. A lot depends on the individual and the efforts he makes to get outside of his comfort zone.
But again, having said all the above, I do agree with you that our current system, if not broken beyond repair, needs a lot of fixing to be best for society as a whole in addition to the individual athletes.
...great stories and so glad to hear those. Bold above-I think that is the key. It sounds like they were able to make some money off their "investment" of going to college in relatively short order and able to survive until they got their careers kick-started. The kids I worry about are the ones who are not able to do so.
I've read that kids are living at home with mom and dad longer than any time in history. Some have $50k in student loans, are barely making a livable wage, if that, and would have trouble surviving if not able to fall back on their parents. As soon as I finished high school, I was on my own. I had to have a backup plan, and it was not dad's bank account.
Since then, I would have LOVED to have quit my job and gone back to school to start a new career, but could not afford to take a couple of years off with little/no income. All kids, not just football players, need to understand that college is an investment, and like any investment, some do not pan out and failure can have dire consequences.
If a kid has parents he can fall back on, good for him. Some don't, and those are the ones that I sometimes question about going to college, especially if their talents on the field and in the classroom are limited and I know their family is going to fall deeper into poverty during those four years. I dropped out of college for a while to support a parent. It was the right thing to do. .
It might seem odd to pass up "free money" in the form of a scholarship. We all know it's not really free. The kid is "working" for the university and has limited time to work a job during those 4 years if he is giving his all on the field AND in the classroom. If someone gave me $25,000 free, no strings attached, but the catch was that I could earn no other income over the next two years, hard as it would be, I would have to pass on that "free" money. I look at college scholarships much the same way. It's no free lunch.
Concerning college education, our military makes it feasible for a kid to go to college with some money in the bank. Universities do not. THAT is where they are getting away with murder and exposing the kids to some possible hard times if football does not work out.
.
-
7 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:
Yes, I don't disagree. Degrees are not what they used to be. But how many kids from the projects are going to end up pursuing a career in plumbing or some other "old blue collar job?" I would suggest not many, and if I am wrong I stand corrected.
The fact of the matter is that these days kids born on the wrong side of the tracks, black white or other don't stand a very good chance of succeeding in today's economy, period. Things have changed technologically, politically and socially. Spending 4 years in college to get a General Studies degree may be just enough to keep that kid from pursuing a "career" in something on the wrong side of the law that screws his life up forever or ends it early.
Sometimes a little maturity from the passage of time and a somewhat different environment outside the projects can get one over a rough hump. With that said, I think we are both in general agreement that the way the sports/college/professional complex currently works is probably not the best for society in general.
You are right. I simply used plumbing as an example of many things a kid could do nowadays without a college degree that could earn him just as much,if not more than a kid with a college degree. And, in that sense, many college degrees today do not have a good return on investment. The example I used is part of a problem that is much broader than football, ie kids getting degrees who 40 years ago would have been going to trade school. One of the richest guys in my area owns an HVAC business.
What it all comes down to is, "What is the best path for a certain kid, recognizing his short-term and long-term needs?" For many of these kids, a big driver for going to college is to "make it big" and go to the pros. But we all know that is like playing the lottery, with very poor odds. Universities probably rationalize that, "Well, the kid did not make the pros, but we gave him a free college degree." That is great if the kid knows what to do with it. The college degree path is a long-term investment for most kids, but many of these kids and their families have short-term needs.
Over the years, I have mentored a number of young people with college degrees, and am amazed at how poorly the schools prepare these kids to make a living. An upper middle class kid with a college degree may have some time to allow the earning power of that degree to "kick in" while he is living at home with mom and dad and finding his way. But a kid from the hood does not have that luxury. In a manner of speaking, at the end of college, he is right back to where he started, without a dime in his pocket and a fancy piece of paper.
I recently mentored a kid and encouraged him NOT to take the scholarship. Crazy? He does not have the brains for college and there is NO WAY he will ever make the pros. He does have good mechanical aptitude. If he goes to college, he is going to spend four years taking up space in a college classroom while he could be earning money(which he and his family really need-now) and setting himself up for a career that is best suited to utilize his strengths.
As mentors to these young folks, it is up to us to stop the exploitation by these universities who prey upon the dreams(many unrealistic) of kids so they can make huge bucks off of them and then throw them back on the street with a piece of paper that is proving to be of lesser and lesser value as the years go by. I agree that for some kids, sacrificing four years to get a degree may be the best path. But for some, it is clearly not. I went to college at an affluent, predominantly White school. The football team was predominantly Black. The latter lived together in dorms and did not relate well to the rich, White kids. They stuck to themselves and had an us "us against the world" mindset that was nurtured by the coach. I question whether the college experience really helped them. Again, I do believe it can be a very positive influence for some, but for some it is not.
-
34 minutes ago, DarterBlue2 said:
I read that post. And, yes, there is a lot of truth to that. But, in the case of Basketball, the numbers related to college graduation may be distorted since you can bail for the NBA after a year or two. I would guess that because of this, a lower percentage of NBA athletes have degrees than NFL athletes. Also, few degrees are totally useless, though some are much better than others. A kid that did not make the NFL cut but graduated, even with a degree in General Studies, is probably still better off than one without a degree. For one, he can probably end up as a coach/teacher back in his hometown, especially if he was well though of from his playing days.
The above is probably not the most efficient or effective way for society or the individual to get into the job market post athletics. But it does beat some of the alternatives.
I just looked at the Top 100 players for 2018 in the Dallas area. About 80% are Black. Let''s take a Black kid from the projects. We'll call him Kid#1. Nearly two-thirds of families who live in Dallas public housing make less than $10,000 per year and about 90% are Black. He doesn't get drafted. He is 22 years with a general studies degree. He doesn't have a dime in his pocket and his family can give him no financial support. Under the circumstances, he probably is not in a position to start his own business. And there is a good chance that college really did not do much to help him leverage that diploma he earned.
Now take Kid#2 with the same background. Fresh out of high school he gets a plumbing apprenticeship making $12/hour with free schooling paid for by his employer. At the end of four years, he has grossed about $100k in salary, and he is now capable of making $50k/year as a plumber. If he is good, he can become a master plumber at 23 years of age and be set for life with a good career. By the way, this is exactly what the daughter of a friend of mine did.
How long is it going to take Kid#1 with the general studies degree to catch up financially to Kid#2 with the high school diploma? Kid #2, at 22 years of age, is in a position to help support his family. Kid #1 is not until he can find a job, and finding a $50k/year job fresh out of school in today's economy would be very tough, especially without a technical degree.
My point is, of these 100 Dallas kids mentioned above, how many of them will truly be better off going to college rather than taking a path like Kid#2? In betting terms, many of these kids are likely a longshot from an academic perspective. Their main intent for going to college is to get a shot at the pros.
...versus taking the $10.2 million dollars per year Dallas spends on high school football and giving that money to high-performing kids that cannot afford college and have much higher odds of turning a college degree into gold, and thus a better return on investment for that $10.2 million dollars.
I think some make a BIG assumption that even if kids don't make the pros, that college scholarship and degree is money in the bank. I would challenge that for many of these kids, the scholarship is not really what they need, especially if they come from circumstances like Kid#1 above. If they don't make the pros, they need a way of making good money the minute they finish their college career. A general studies degree in today's business climate is not a good guarantee. I know guys with technical degrees and 25 years of Corporate experience interviewing for $15/hour jobs. It's that bad in some places.
-
2 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:
1. Maybe it would be fairer to asses the cost in relation to the number of kids from the area that got full rides in college. This is particularly relevant since you refer to providing $10,000 college scholarships as a benchmark by which to evaluate the cost.
2. I totally agree that this is is huge cost to expect the community as a whole to bear. This is especially true when you figure that a number of these kids never return or invest/spend much in their home communities. In most other parts of the world, beyond high school, athletes are developed in pro/semi-pro leagues which pay a salary; not in college.
I thought about that. Just posted something about scholarships. After reading it, maybe you'll see why I hesitated to go there, since many kids will never get a degree and some studies show that a high percentage of those that do get "useless" degrees. In other words, the return on investment of those football scholarships is sketchy.
-
Less than 2% of college football players get drafted by the NFL. So, what happens to all of those kids who get football scholarships in high school but never make the pros? How many will graduate with degrees that allow them to have a successful career that they may not have been able to obtain without the scholarship? ...not as many as we might like to believe.
Some lose their scholarship
A lot of people use the term "full ride," referring to football scholarships given to high school players. The term is a bit misleading. If you read the fine print, many colleges offer 1-year, renewable scholarships. Cynics believe this is done so that universities can have flexibility to easily cull players for whatever reason.
There has been a big debate over this topic. This is a related article.
Some never graduate
Only about half of NFL players got a college degree. Only about half of Black college athletes graduate with a degree in 6-years. Although White athletes fare better, their graduation rates are still 17% below the national average. One study found that football players at the large football schools average 300 points less on their SAT scores than the regular student population, raising questions about their academic abilities. It was even worse in basketball.
Some graduate with degrees of limited value
One study found that 41% of Texas football players were majoring in youth and community services, compared to 0.2 percent of all students, and 78.4% of Michigan football players were in general studies, compared to 1.6 percent of all students there."
LET’S DO AN EXERCISE USING SOME OF THE STATISTICS..
Last year, Michigan had 30 players enroll. 7 were White and 23 were Black. Let’s say 1 of the White kids and 1 of the Black kids lose their scholarships over the next 4 years, leaving 28 players. Of those 28 players, 11 of the Black kids and 2 of the White kids will not get a degree. Of the remaining 15 kids, 9 of the Black kids and 3 of the White kids will get a degree in general studies. 3 of the original 30 kids will get a degree in something beyond general studies. Odds are that none of the 30 will make the NFL.
In this exercise, 50% of the kids got a degree and only 20% of those got a degree in something other than general studies.
-
The Highland Park school district in Texas has one high school - Highland Park High School, a perennial state contender in football with an enrollment of about 2000. In 2011, they spent an average of $8785/student on education and $3325/football player. Take the $400,000 they spent on football that year and redistribute it amongst their 2000 students, and that allows for an extra $200 for each student toward education.
In 2015, 14 players from the Dallas area were drafted into the NFL. If that number is typical, we could say Dallas area schools are investing $10.2 million dollars/year (probably more now because the numbers above are old) so that 14 individuals can "make it." Think about it, they could give 1020 Dallas area seniors a $10,000 scholarship each year with that money.
If we look at football as an investment, and high school football's main contribution is "building character and teaching teamwork," are there cheaper investments to accomplish the same?
I am NOT arguing against high school football. I share this simply to show how football "outsiders" might look at the game from a dollars-and-cents standpoint and ask, "Is high school football really a good investment in today's world of limited school resources?" I found one article in which a man felt participating in a school music program could build character and teach teamwork, for less money and without the risk of injuring its participants.
I guess we could argue that football is hands-down the best activity to build character. Are we in a good position to do so when there are frequent cases of NFL and NCAA players getting in trouble with the law broadcast on the news? When was the last time you heard of a Florida orchestra musician getting arrested for domestic violence?
-
Six years ago, The Dallas Morning News compiled financial information from 31 Dallas area school districts. The most common expenses for football are equipment, transportation, maintenance, the cost to host a home game and miscellaneous items such as trophies or food. Nothing costs a district more than coaching stipends and salaries. Of the data compiled from 102 area coaches, the average head coach’s salary was $90,911.80. Taking into account football expenses as defined by respective districts and head coaching salaries and assistant coaches’ stipends the last five seasons, the average expenses on football per school per year were $229,376.76. Plano ISD spent the most, $442,377.68 per school, and Dallas ISD the least, $120,930. High school football is rarely profitable. Of the 20-plus school districts that turned in financial records for football, only Highland Park, HEB and Coppell reported a net profit over a five-year period.
11 DISTRICTS LOST OVER $2 MILLION. THE DALLAS SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NEARLY $11 MILLION IN THE RED. TOTAL NET LOSS OVER 5 YEARS FOR ALL SCHOOLS WAS APPROXIMATELY $51 MILLION. SO, IT COSTS THE DALLAS AREA OVER $10 MILLION/YEAR TO FINANCE HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL. TEXAS HAS THE SECOND HIGHEST PROPERTY TAXES IN THE U.S., AND 60% OF PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING COMES FROM LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES. THIS % HAS STEADILY GROWN OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS.
On another note, Katy, a suburb of Houston, introduced the $72 million Legacy Stadium this year - the most expensive high school football stadium in the country. Yet it's not as big as the stadium that set the standard in 2012 - Allen ISD's $60 million Eagle Stadium seats 18,000 - but it does cost more considering infrastructure. Legacy Stadium shares space with a renovated 35-year-old Rhodes Stadium across the street. Academy Sports bought naming rights to the complex that houses the two stadiums for $2.5 million over 10 years.
Football expenses and revenue for area school districts
School districts budget for football every year. Few earn money back. Here’s how area districts stack up.
District
Revenue total
Expense total
Net
Per school per year
revenue
Per school per year
expenses
Per school per year
net
Revenue
rank
Expense
rank
Net
rank
Highland Park
$2,808,918.00
$1,995,626.00
$813,292.00
$561,783.60
$399,125.20
$162,658.40
1
2
1
Coppell
$1,336,028.97
$920,488.03
$415,540.94
$267,205.79
$184,097.61
$83,108.19
3
23
2
HEB
$2,162,687.15
$1,818,896.15
$343,791.00
$216,268.72
$181,889.62
$34,379.1
5
24
3
Carroll
$1,370,459.99
$1,503,172.60
$-132,712.61
$274,091.99
$300,634.52
$-26,542.52
2
5
4
GCISD
$1,415,029.24
$1,777,861.32
$-362,832.08
$141,502.92
$177,786.13
$-36,283.21
7
25
5
Keller
$1,653,110.00
$2,591,277.24
$-938,167.24
$94,463.43
$148,072.99
$-53,609.56
15
29
6
Denton
$1,352,931.21
$2,213,294.02
$-860,362.81
$90,195.41
$147,552.93
$-57,357.52067
19
30
7
Garland
$2,091,269.02
$5,263,956.00
$-3,172,686.98
$59,750.54343
$150,398.74
$-90,648.20
25
28
8
Northwest
$1,025,703.20
$1,598,936.02
$-573,232.82
$170,950.53
$266,489.34
$-95,538.80
6
9
9
Ennis
$613,870.00
$1,099,652.00
$-485,782.00
$122,774
$219,930.40
$-97,156.40
10
12
10
Dallas
$2,380,502.00
$13,302,387.00
$-10,921,885.00
$21,640.93
$120,930.79
$-99,289.86
31
31
11
Lake Dallas
$222,788.00
$669,521.00
$-446,733.00
$55,697
$167,380.25
$-111,683.25
27
26
12
Celina
$657,745.91
$1,237,300.52
$-579,554.61
$131,549.18
$247,460.10
$-115,910.92
8
10
13
Grand Prairie
$715,772.91
$1,887,271.00
$-1,171,498.09
$71,577.29
$188,727.10
$-117,149.81
23
22
14
Mesquite
$2,081,144.46
$5,071,945.00
$-2,990,800.54
$83,245.78
$202,877.80
$-119,632.02
20
19
15
Richardson
$1,857,302.17
$4,302,747.67
$-2,445,445.50
$92,865.11
$215,137.38
$-122,272.28
16
15
16
Wylie
$990,897.60
$2,226,793.46
$-1,235,895.86
$99,089.76
$222,679.35
$-123,589.59
12
11
17
Red Oak
$333,497.56
$965,455.32
$-631,957.76
$66,699.51
$193,091.06
$-126,391.55
24
21
18
Irving
$1,121,208.70
$3,047,625.68
$-1,926,416.98
$74,747.25
$203,175.05
$-128,427.80
22
18
19
Arlington
$2,731,643.79
$6,591,345.35
$-3,859,701.56
$91,054.79
$219,711.51
$-128,656.72
17
13
20
Lewisville
$1,594,564.94
$4,186,704.04
$-2,592,139.10
$79,728.25
$209,335.20
$-129,606.96
21
17
21
Lancaster
$46,588.00
$321,516.00
$-274,928.00
$23,294
$160,758
$-137,464
30
27
22
Frisco
$1,367,330.21
$4,944,704.01
$-3,577,373.80
$59,449.14
$214,987.13
$-155,537.99
26
16
23
Forney
$145,940.00
$779,691.00
$-633,751.00
$36,576.44
$195,411.28
$-158,834.84
29
20
24
CFB
$1,034,945.00
$4,307,970.00
$-3,273,025.00
$51,747.25
$215,398.5
$-163,651.25
28
14
25
Lovejoy
$291,942.09
$809,166.22
$-517,224.13
$97,314.03
$269,722.07
$-172,408.04
14
8
26
Midlothian
$565,024.81
$1,439,923.29
$-874,898.48
$113,004.96
$287,984.66
$-174,979.70
11
7
27
Plano
$3,643,635.59
$6,635,665.16
$-2,992,029.57
$242,909.04
$442,377.68
$-199,468.64
4
1
28
McKinney
$1,365,054.59
$4,498,394.81
$-3,133,340.22
$91,003.63933
$299,892.99
$-208,889.35
18
6
29
Rockwall
$984,586.97
$3,134,068.90
$-2,149,481.93
$98,458.70
$313,406.89
$-214,948.19
13
4
30
DeSoto
$640,684.40
$1,721,287.12
$-1,080,602.72
$128,136.88
$344,257.42
$-216,120.54
9
3
31
-
7 minutes ago, Sharkbait said:
I think it has more to do with nutrition. In 1985 Armwood had an O-line that averaged 250 pounds and that was huge compared to most high schools then. My son played this year at 285 and is obviously not "skinny" but is very fit. I look at the numbers these kids are hitting in the weight room and it is baffling.
I was a competitive weightlifter and bodybuilder back in the 1980's. I managed a hardcore gym and knew guys who competed at the Mr Olympia and won world championships in powerlifting, so I have some perspective on heights,weights, bodyfat, etc
Most of us are not as fit as we think. I knew some guys who were pretty tall, with pretty big frames, and genetic freaks. Dieted down, they would be 235 and huge. At 260 pounds, you would probably say they looked to be in "good" shape. Keep in mind, these guys have been lifting weights for many years and were taking large amounts of anabolic steroids, and light years ahead of even the freakiest teenager in terms of muscle mass.
My point is that any kid running 300 pounds is WAY overweight to be healthy and a LOT of that weight is not muscle. To find a kid with low bodyfat weighing 235 pounds, who has never taken performance-enhancing drugs, is pretty rare. These big hs linemen today are 75-100 pounds over a weight I would consider healthy, even for a tall teenager. Doctors might even say more.
You might say "no way," but I knew many big bodybuilders who routinely lost 50 pounds to get to their contest weight, and they were starting at a point that is WAY leaner than most of these hs linemen.
-
25 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:
OldSchoolLion is right, football is cracking the under the weight of it's own hubris and greed.
While sports are designed to fun, build character, social events that allow students to showcase a different set of skills that are not always able to seen in a standard classroom. At some point, college athletic scholarships were designed for a poorer student who maybe had the mind, but not the $$$ to make it to college and not pay. Today, the scholarship becomes the goal to try and get to the NFL.
The cost of football (and all sports) is absurd. New uniforms, new helmets, new pads, new cameras, Hudl, security, ticket takers, ushers, travel to the games, new weight rooms, more coaches. The real amateur level is not designed to support this type of cost. Add in the time commitment that some coaches demand from players in a year round way. Football season is over and then starts weightlifting season, 7 on 7 games every weekend, track season, spring football, and back to the grind of summer workouts again. Ask yourself if that was really the same commitment 30 years ago, or was football something fun you participated in. Even the serious kids of yesteryear wouldn't do some of the things that are required to do today.
Ask yourself is it really worth the time and money that it takes to be successful? Could a student earn an academic scholarship with the same amount of time dedicated to the task of sports? Could a student work a minimum wage job and have as much money socked away by the end? With the continual push of "Scholarship or Bust" or "State Championship or Bust," students have the ability to read the tea leaves and as a 6"0 245 lb lineman the likelihood of earning a scholarship in football is not high.
So as a community, we have set unrealistic expectations of the prize (Scholarship or State), we have set unrealistic expectations of what it takes to earn that prize (the amount of hours and $$$), and we are surprised when parents, students, and communities start turning off football?
Finally, institutionally, football has failed to sell itself. There is an old joke , "What doe you call your Social Studies teacher?" The answer is "Coach." How many educational opportunities were ruined because a school had to hire a defensive line coach and the only teaching position was US History. The coach put on some history channel documentaries and that was the end of the class. High School coaches (all sports, but most publicly, football) did this to themselves by not holding their own coaches in to the highest standards. The community has soured on it. Classroom education comes first...so well said, gatorman. I am MUCH more concerned about the greedy SOB's seducing our kids with fame to make a buck than the "social justice warriors." Here's an old news article about Southlake Carroll in Texas-million dollar stadium naming rights!
http://www.myplainview.com/news/article/Southlake-Carroll-football-creates-quite-a-cash-8666168.php
...one more thing that may be tarnishing the high school game in the eyes of the public. Football has become unhealthy way beyond concussions. Human growth hormone(hgh) use really started exploding about 30-35 years ago. Isn't it interesting that a lot of the pro wrestlers and pro bodybuilders from that time are dropping like flies now that they are hitting their 50's? There was a confidential survey done a few years back involving several thousand high school athletes. 11 percent reported using synthetic HGH at least once.
Those pro wrestlers and bodybuilders were carrying around 275-350 pounds for years, and we are learning how hard that is on the body, especially the heart. If they are taking anabolic steroids, it is that much worse on the heart and arteries. We are already starting to see the effects on retired NFL linemen.
A college, senior lineman who has been carrying around 300+pounds for the past 6 years has already put a tremendous strain on a body that ideally should last him another 50 years or more. People are smart enough about health nowadays to look at these monster hs linemen and know that this is unhealthy and harmful, and it reflects terribly on our game. People have become very turned off by bodybuilding because it became a freak show, and the average person couldn't relate to some 300-pound guy on the stage with 24" arms and a bubble gut. I can see some of the same turn-off when the public sees a 350-pound hs lineman and thinks, what the heck are they doing to this kid?
-
9 minutes ago, mbhs69 said:
I agree with the comments in your reply. But all that you mentioned are aspects and developments of the game that have largely risen from within the sport itself, from players, coaches, parents, fans, etc who enjoy the game now. The consequences of much of what you say may erode support and growth of the game at the school levels in the future, and some of those elements you mentioned may even be used as additional ammo by outsiders to argue against the game.
My point about the WaPo article, as evidenced by the the mostly anti-football comments to that article, is about the broader cultural opposition to pee wee through HS football in society by those totally outside the game. That's where the main social culture attack is coming from, and most of us are so involved in our own football world with other fans like ourselves that we don't see it coming.
The core belief and main cultural point against school football by "social justice warriors" against the game are that it is an uncivilized, neanderthal sport unworthy of a role in their new world order, with no redeeming values nor acceptable PC character traits to be learned, that further the aggressive masculinity of young men in a world that opponents believe should be softer, kinder, gentler. Read their many and varied comments to the article. In addition, there's many journalists, tv and media commentators, news sources, social media bloggers, etc, who are with them, so they have the means to spread their ideas and twisted agenda to the many sheep who'd buy into it.
...see bold above-that's where my comments were coming from, sir. In other words,I believe football is doing a fine job on its own doing itself in, without any coup d'etat's from the "outside" world. The world is becoming a more socially conscious place. Other than the occasional "feel good" story we see about a football player/coach, what do we have to offer the world about high school football. ...kids on ESPN with limited intellect(not all) making "dramatic" announcements about what college they are going to attend. ...Lou Saban landing at a high school in a helicopter, like the President, to visit an individual recruit.
I can understand why people looking from the outside world see this stuff and question how football is doing much to further society other than lining pockets. We glamorize individuals, not teams. I would bet the farm that there are more people in Alabama who could name the 5-star recruit coming to Tuscaloosa than could name our Secretary of the Interior. The latter is probably a tad more important, especially if you are outdoor sportsman.
I used to be able to argue that high school football was "different" than the college and pro games, and DID build character. My argument is getting weaker when I see how selfish the game has become. Last night I watched two high schools games on ESPN. I heard all kinds of stuff about individual stars on the field, but little about the about the schools themselves-sad.
I'm not sure if it is football, itself, that the the "social justice warriors" don't like. Maybe it is more what the game has come to represent. I think we need to be careful not to put people in boxes because they support or don't support football as it is today. ie "you don't like football so you must be a liberal or softie."
I read a number of comments from people who spoke of the damage it can do to the body. I live in constant, BAD pain and walk with a permanent limp as a result of earlier playing. I can understand some of those"softies"out there saying I am a hypocrite for encouraging kids to play football. And historically, hs football has been neanderthal in taking forever to adopt certain safety standards, ie heat stress. I think some of those concerns are very legit.
I hate to tell you this, but I know people in Asia from the martial arts world who think football is a stupid sport. And believe me, these fellows have no issue with their masculinity and you would not call them a liberal, snowflake! I respect their opinion. One could say that the sparring we do is very violent, but there are elements in true martial arts that are often missing in football-restraint, discipline, the same coach for many years, etc
Finally, as far as violence goes, I can see people having a concern, and not just the "social justice warriors." NFL players are about four times more likely to be arrested for domestic abuse than you'd expect, based on their overall arrest rates. If football is building character in these young men, what's missing? These fellows are not very good advertisements for the benefits of football in building character.
I am not defending anyone's stance. I love high school football but don't like what it is becoming. I cannot build character in a young man in 4 months. I need him for a few years, and that is becoming less and less common with kids moving around.
Happy holidays to you and all!
-
1 hour ago, mbhs69 said:
We don't see such subtle news articles in FL that undermine the future of school football. But I've read many similar articles by the so-called elite and enlightened about doing away with school football, beginning at the pee-wee up through HS levels. Like this Washington Post article from the DC area, veiled attacks on school football is mostly centered in the large urban areas, mostly the political centers on both coasts.
Don't be fooled thinking this is just one article, the opinion of one journalist. It's far, far bigger than ya think. And the root dislike for football goes way beyond "Demographic shifts, concussions, single-sport specialization and costs". The grander strategy is to change all of American culture, including doing away with football.
If ya think I'm cryin wolf and that ain't so, then forget the single author's article itself, and just read the 700+ comments at the bottom of this Wash Post link, especially in the "most liked" and "most comments" sections. Then you'll see how the vast majority of regular "normal" citizens living in the DC area believe and think at THEIR grass-roots level - and hate football and all it stands for to the point of seeing the end of it. They're overwhelmingly anti-football, the typical mindset of the "it takes a village to tell you how to raise yer own child, and how to think" fringe extremists. Journalists, and these citizens living in this area of the seat of our national power want their version of a new world order for all the rest of us, and school team football just ain't in their playbook.
I think it is harder for mainstream Americans to relate to high school football today than in the past, on many fronts. There was a time when an 18 year-old high school athlete of average height/weight (let's say 5'9"and 160 lbs) could realistically play any position on the field-not today. In the 1980s, the average offensive lineman was 6-foot-4, 272 pounds. There are high school lines as big or bigger than that today. If you were a parent of a kid in the 1980's, would you have allowed him to play in the NFL? Crazy, right? Well, I can see parents not wanting their kids to play with the giants of today.
Then there is the speed issue. How many of us slow white boys are going to watch today's game and feel confident that we can be competitive, even in high school. I can lift weights and get much stronger, but if I am naturally slow, I am not going to change that much. ..and demographics. At the beginning of this season, I saw pictures of the Top 25 players in Broward County and there was not one white kid in the bunch.
...high school coaches making six figures, cross-country games, extravagant uniforms, high school athletes all over the TV, etc. It is bigger than life and I can see the average Joe of today not relating to it like the game of 30 years ago ...not to mention the resentment some folks might feel when they are losing their homes and seeing young athletes wearing $300 sneakers. Such resentment used to be reserved for the pros, but I think it has trickled down. HS football has gone from obscure, back page of the sports section stuff, to in-your-face commercialization. It has lost its innocence.
-
1 hour ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:
Something interesting is raines is only public school duval team to ever win state
How does a city with 1m people only have 1 public win state?
Also you mentioned areas being better in certain region for certain sports
Football is dominated by south Florida but when looking at baseball and softball the better teams for most part are from North Florida
Then you look at Leon county which is very good in soccer
Very interesting how the successful teams in sports come from different regions than ones successful in others
Kinda crazy in Columbia's case that the most monetary support goes to football but spring sports have been most successful last few years despite limited resources
If they had resources that our football had we would average top 50 in nation in baseball and softball
May not be an issue, but I wonder if the numbers get skewed a bit due to certain sports not offering as many state championships (less classes), ie wrestling, giving an edge to the areas who excel in the sports that historically have had a lot of classes
-
2 minutes ago, Proseteye said:
Agree with you 100%. A great part of a school's responsibility is building character in their students regardless of whether one says that it's the parent's job exclusively. Considering that there are a lot of absent and/or irresponsible parents somebody has to do it. The schools are the last bastion of transitioning from child to adult. IMO, when you have a great amount of transfers into a school for a particular sport you tend to disrupt the cohesion of the team. If you have 10 outstanding players transfer into a system you obviously have at least 10 and possibly as many as 20 players that probably will be sitting on the bench. Maybe these players grew up in the town and have gone to the that one HS. Maybe they were on the JV or played a year or two already on the varsity. All of a sudden they don't play anymore, deposed by a transfer that may only be there for one season. This is going on with many HS football programs as I speak. I just don't think it builds good character, confidence, nor does it build good teamwork.
Amen. We often speak of transfers as a positive for a program, but dealing with a substantial number at one time must make things very difficult for the coaches and, ironically, could hurt a team's performance in the end due to jealousy and infighting. Some of us may remember when the Dream Team from Northwestern sent all of those kids to the U in one year and things did not work out nearly so well as many thought it would.
How many of these kids who are tranferring are thinking, "Gee, I might disrupt the cohesion of the team if I go there and/or hurt some other kid's chances to play." Nope..it's all about me, baby. A kid transferring into a program his senior year is not invested in the program. Only an extraordinary kid is going to be giving his all to the team and not thinking of his own self-interests. We are turning these kids into amazing self-promoters.
There are a lot of hidden costs associated with all of these transfers, and you give a great example. In business we call them transactional costs. You don't see them on your balance sheet, but they effect you big-time
As much as many of us dislike the IMG's, unless we change our current path in hs football, I would almost like to see football academies where the kids who want to take their chance on a pro career can go and stop wasting public school resources for their personal campaigns. If kids and their families want to shamelessly promote for their gain, let them do it on THEIR dollar and not mine. I don't mind contributing taxes so a poor kid can eat or get an education. I do mind when my taxpayer dollar is supporting some young recruit flaunting himself like a peacock, acting like a thug, and leaving a trail of damage on his way to the NFL to make millions.
.
-
Who is playing football? a state-by-state analysis
Demographic shifts, concussions, single-sport specialization and cost are among the issues causing youth football numbers to plummet around the country
-
8 minutes ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:
...fascinating..some random thoughts...
-bigger metro area=bigger resources, in some cases??
-demographics-some counties have lower percentages of high school age kids, ie Pasco, Pinellas, etc??
-domination in certain sports by certain counties due to regional preferences for certain sports, ie girls volleyball in the orlando area??
-how many of those private school titles belong to Bolles and Aquinas-skewing the numbers??
-
1 hour ago, Proseteye said:
Even more evidence is that there are approximately 755 private high schools that are mostly non competitive and approximately 1545 public high schools that are non competitive. Only a very few high schools in Florida, that have a football team, are competitive at all. Most of the private and public high schools, that are competitive, are so because of receiving extensive transfers every season. Or, in other terms, "recruiting". Since Florida now allows transferring from any school nation wide to any other school, the public schools have no restrictions. The private schools still have inbred restrictions, such as high tuition costs and certain academic standards, which lower the transfer pool significantly. In the old days when I went to school, you played with the students you had. Most families didn't move around the way they do today and you usually went from K-5 to 12th grade with the same students. The HC built his team with what he had year in and year out and some of those teams were outstanding.
I appreciate your comments. I do think we need to be a bit careful, though, assuming that if a public or private school gets a number of transfers it is absolutely due to active recruiting. Sure it is suspect when a big slug of players transfers. But certain elite programs like Aquinas, Plant, etc, are going to attract a lot of good players without any effort on their part. And it's not their fault if kids are lining up outside the door to come there. We have created that madness that is high school football today.
With today's transfer rules and our making of high school football into big business, kids are behaving like rock star free agents. We blame schools and coaches for "the problem." But how about the self-serving behavior of some of these kids and the parents who enable it? Is that not just as big, if not a bigger part of the problem?
More and more, they are using schools like football prep academies to selfishly further their athletic careers...on OUR dollars. It breeds an entitlement mindset that can follow these kids into adulthood. I bet if these parents had to pay a big administrative fee every time their kid switched, they would be thinking twice. Maybe we need to spend less time calling out coaches for recruiting and more time calling out these parents for wasting the time and limited resources of our public school system for their financial gain. If they put their foot down, we would have a lot less of this musical school scene.
Years back I knew a coach who had a rule. Once you committed to a college, that was it. That sent a huge message about values to the players.
-
Just curious...When kids transfer today, are there any administrative charges that the student is responsible for?
It seems we get administrative fees for everything nowadays, so I would certainly hope so.
-
1 hour ago, SPCjessica2004 said:
Yes, I know I'm "gone" for the offseason- but I'll still post about transfers when I hear about them or they're brought up to me. One of the bigger ones in the Tampa private school area is that Steven Sargeant TC OL Co 19 has transferred to Tampa Plant according to this twitter page. That's a big loss for Tampa Catholic if that turns out to be accurate which it was hinted at a few weeks ago..
DISCLAIMER - I don't know the first thing about this kid or his life circumstances, so forgive me if I sound a bit critical without having all of the facts. And, I am making a big assumption here that indeed he is transferring. I cannot see someone accidentally typing in "Plant High School" by mistake, though.
As we all know, we are increasingly judged by what the world sees on the internet. So, let's just look at it from that perspective. I clicked on his twitter page and front and center, this young man is advertising highlights from his sophomore season at Tampa Robinson. He has a picture of himself in a Tampa Catholic jersey at the top. And, off to the left, you see what Jessica has posted.
Is it just me, or is something wrong with this picture? How many of us adults would be so blatant about advertising our job hopping on our social media sites? The football season is barely over and someone is announcing to the world he is transferring, like a senior who has just gotten an offer from an NCAA school or a college athlete drafted by a pro team? If this is all true, I certainly hope this young man makes the pros or changes his ways. No HR recruiter in the professional world will touch someone who so blatantly job hops, or, in this case, school hops.
It might be "cool" to flaunt one's rock star status in the sports world, but it is NOT cool in the business world. Sorry to sound preachy, but the high school football world is becoming less and less like real life. I really worry these kids grow up thinking certain things are "normal," and then the harsh reality sets in. Companies are becoming increasingly sensitive to what they see on social media sites, and most larger companies now ARE looking...AND making judgments based on what they see.
Anyone who knows Tampa knows those schools are all relatively close to each other, raising the ...hmmmm factor. It is this kind of stuff that makes at least one coach I know of outside Florida think we allow recruiting in Florida. Who wouldn't when seeing this kind of stuff. These kids behave like free agents. As I have mentioned in other posts, it is not just kids leaving the public schools to go to the private school powers. It's working in both directions.
-
MANY years ago, there were some great rivalries in Florida. One of those was the Belle Glade Central vs Chaminade rivalry. Back then, there were only a few classes, and schools didn’t shift nearly as frequently. The way the playoff brackets were arranged, it was not uncommon for certain teams to face off against each other year after year, allowing for some great rivalries to develop. Chaminade was a small, all-boys school with a strong program and “played up” in class. Glades was a tough team from the Muck. Here’s a description of those games.
Glades won the regional title 18-16 at home in 1969 before 4000 fans.
Chaminade won the regional title 26-13 in 1970 at Hollywood McArthur stadium.
Glades won the regional title at home in 1971 with a 31-0 victory and went on to win the state title.
Glades won the regional title 20-6 in 1972 at South Broward Stadium before 2500 fans and then went on to win the state title.
Chaminade won the regional title 15-13 in 1974 at South Broward Stadium and eventually advanced to the state title game. David Shula played on that team. Yep, that Shula. This was an infamous game, as there was a riot on the field after the game ended. There was a police helicopter with searchlight flying overhead and police dogs on the field. Multiple police officers and fans were injured in the melee. There was such bedlam that police officers had difficulty figuring out who was fighting and who was trying to quell things.
Needless to say this was an intense rivalry. Amazing that these games, played nearly 50 years ago, pulled as many or more fans than some modern-day state championship games. And getting to/from such locations was much more challenging then.
In the late 70’s and early 80’s, St Thomas Aquinas played a series of classic playoff games against Belle Glade Central and Homestead. All but one of those games was decided by less than a touchdown.
Imagine the mystique of playing a team you knew relatively little about-no internet to research. In the early days, you may not even be aware the other team had a new coach until you played them the following year. It is my belief that back then some public schools relished the thought of playing the “privileged” private schools and giving them a good butt-kicking. We still have some of these good rivalries today, but it seems that maintaining them is more difficult because alignments are so much more fluid, or so it seems.
Don’t mean to sound as if things were better back then-just very different. I do think the atmosphere at some of those early games was more electric. Today we take for granted the ability to follow high school games on TV or on-line. It’s no big deal to sit at home instead of going to the stadium. Half the people in the stands are too busy texting to cheer. There was tremendous anticipation built up in the days before these earlier playoff games. Nowadays, there has already been so much analysis in the days leading up to a big game that it is almost anticlimactic when the game gets played. That statement might be hard to fully appreciate unless you are one of us dinosaurs.
No doubt talent today is more widespread. But do not believe for a moment that some of the old-time players could not dominate today. Despite some amazing talent in the years following, it took 25 years for someone to break Emmitt Smith's(Pensacola Escambia) rushing record. Deacon Jones, Warren Sapp, Michael Irvin...put them in a uniform today with today's resources and they would likely dominate just as they did then.
- DisabledAccount and DarterBlue2
-
1
-
1
-
29 minutes ago, gatorman-uf said:
As I posted in another post, NJ has separated the schools for playoff purposes since 1974 and it has worked fine, but now they are separating them in terms of regular season for safety factor (teams of 60 completely dedicated players vs teams of 25 we are doing this because it is fun).
I am product of 12 years of Catholic schools. I know the recruitment that happens both in terms of academics and athletics. I wasn't the athlete, but my friends were. I was the kid who actually was recruited to the Catholic school because of my Academic abilities. My friends (who did not receive a scholarship) were heavily recruited by the coach and his assistants. There was no doubt of that.
I transferred schools to another state. Two of my fellow sophomore transfers were All-Area players in their respective sports (soccer and basketball) as freshmen. Talent like that just doesn't walk in the door randomly. I would also say that one of bi
-----------------
As for playing the best team regardless of classification, I think there are limits on such things. Should Stanton or Paxon choose to play Bolles? Probably not. As Paxon and Stanton gain nothing. Yes, it is important to challenge one's team, but challenging them and setting them up for failure are 2 different things. A coaching for dummies book I once read talked about scheduling (non-football). They said in an ideal world a schedule should reflect the reality of your team. Let's assume you have an average team in terms of talent. They talked about the idea that you should schedule an "easy" game, a team where it is 50/50 in terms of winning, and a stretch game. A game where if you were to play perfectly the game might be close, but you would most likely lose. They suggested you do that for the whole season. As your team improves, what was an "easy" team gets dropped off the schedule to add a tougher team.
Part of the idea of splitting private/public is that you want teams facing similar situations and resources/dedications as your school. It is one of the reasons, I advocate for a promotion/relegation system based on success. If your team is very successful than you move up a class. If your team is bad, than they move down a class. Does Bolles make it 8A probably not. Does Booker T Washington or Cocoa make it 8A maybe, but at the same point do teams like Jupiter, Varela, and Winter Springs stay in 8A? No, they move down so they are competitive.
Competitive doesn't have to mean they are winning state championships, it just means that they are on the same talent/skill level as the teams playing. If you look at florida high schools sports in things like Volleyball and Soccer, the same teams dominate each year (Private or Public). Some of the small private schools could win large classification state championships. It is in these sports that we see the private school domination even more.Truly appreciate the comments. Yes, it is very suspect when a great player "magically"shows up" at a private school, and undoubtedly that happens. As you put it, gatorman, talent like that doesn't just walk through the door. Unfortunately, I have heard an increasing number of similar stories involving public schools in recent years...
A talented sophomore qb who has been a 2-year starter for a historically poor team transfers(legally) to a perennial state championship contender 25 miles away and starts both his junior and senior years. He supplants the qb who started the prior year and lead his team to the state finals.
An elite level wrestler from the Northeast transfers to a powerhouse wrestling program in Florida and becomes a state champion and eventual NCAA champion.
I am willing to wager that if those events took place at private schools and I argued that those guys just walked in off the street, a lot of people would people say "Get real, dude." If we are going to give the public schools the benefit of the doubt, we should do the same for all. Or, if we are going to be raising our eyebrows at funny stuff at the private schools, nobody should get their shorts in a wad when somebody raises their eyebrows for instances like those above. Whatever stance we take, let's be consistent.
When I am reading that the average high school football coach in Texas is making almost $100k/year, it is hard for me to believe that most elite-level public school program coaches are sitting back passively and just taking their chances at what walks through door, knowing full well that they are out of their big salary if they do not win.
http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/dfwvarsity/prep-football/article171482762.html
Although Florida is not that extreme, all of the firings I have been hearing about must be putting increasing pressure on Florida coaches to "win" or risk losing one's job. And we all know some individuals will use that as justification to bend the rules, regardless of where they are coaching. Until I see some facts on paper, I am not convinced that bending of rules is any more prevalent in private schools.
Absolutely agree that scheduling needs to be within reason. Not playing another team to keep the kids safe from injury-absolutely. My problem is with driving 200 miles to meet an opponent when there are all kinds of legitimate local opponents on even keel. That is time away from the books, not to mention the risks of transport. It just seems so bizarre to me...teams right down the street...who we played every year...fantastic rivalries. Now it has been years since we have played them and we are struggling to find teams to play.
If the relegation could be accomplished simply, I'd support. The approach makes a lot of sense. I am a little skeptical, though. Nowadays we have become very good at over-complicating things and spending more time figuring out how to manipulate systems than doing stuff. Many years ago, teams were fairly consistent in terms of their performance and transferring was a rarity. Nowadays, things seem so fluid because of players and coaches moving so frequently. I could imagine a team being relegated, then a big flood of transfers comes in and the teams they are playing are crying they are overmatched. I can only imagine what schemes someone might come up with in our win-at-all-costs mentality.
"Part of the idea of splitting private/public is that you want teams facing similar situations and resources/dedications as your school."
Absolutely agree that we should be making an effort to pair teams with similar resources. As I mentioned in another post, though, I question if public vs private is the big equalizer today-not when I see pictures like below. No doubt there are some very affluent private schools and some incredibly resource-limited public schools. But it works the other way, too. Here are some public school weight rooms in the pictures below. Many of the Catholic high schools in Florida are 50+ years old and I would be willing to wager that some of them have weight rooms that look like holes in the wall compared to this. ...the school buildings, too.
I don't think a school like Ponte Vedra could be playing in a state title game and nearly beating one of the best teams in the country within 10 years of opening its doors unless it had some MAJOR support and resources. Some private schools took MANY more years to get to a state final game. Maybe we should pair teams up in competition by considering student population AND budgets.
e we
-
16 minutes ago, s1nglewing said:
As of 2015, there are only eight football-playing private schools in Mississippi - 4A St Stanislaus, 3A St Andrews, 2A St Patrick and Madison St Joseph, 1A Sacred Heart, Resurrection, French Camp Academy, and Tupelo Christian Prep. The other two private schools are Piney Woods, which has never fielded a football team, and Our Lady Academy which is an all-girls Catholic school in Bay St Louis.
The MHSAA adopted the enforcement of a rule in 2015 that forced three Catholic high schools (Greenville St Joseph, St Aloysius, and Cathedral) to join the MAIS - the private school league in MS. The rule forbade students from adjacent states from attending Mississippi private schools, as you noted - as all three of those schools border Louisiana and much of their student population resides there, they chose a different path with the MAIS which has 85 football playing schools (although several are 8-man), roughly 1/4 the size of MHSAA.
Private schools in MS rarely win championships in football - as a matter of fact, they have only three times since MS started their playoff system in 1981: St Stanislaus in 2009, French Camp in 2013, and Cathedral in 2014. The 2014 championship win by Cathedral created some serious sour grapes with the losing team who claimed that Cathedral cheated by having out-of-state kids (nearly all of which had attended Cathedral since elementary school) - those sour grapes were the impetus for the rule.
...sounds like they must have a squeaky clean hs football system if they have time to pick at lint like they did in 2014 with a catholic school that has been in existence for 160 years.
Nice to know that all of that corruption MS and LA are historically famous for has not influenced the public school programs.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
-
1 hour ago, gatorman-uf said:
OldSchoolLion,
I am not sure what you are trying to prove... is your point that private schools aren't dominant or aren't better than public schools? Or that public schools shouldn't complain because private schools aren't really taking players?
In the past 10 years there have been 35 private school state champions out of 80 state championships that is 44% of the state championships. Considering they make up 14% of the teams that seems a little outsized for their participation. 26 out of 80 state runner-ups were private schools so 38% of the teams participating in the state championships were private schools.
If we only look at the top 4 classifications 12 out of the 80 teams participating were private schools or about 15%, but they currently represent 4% of the teams.The problem is that 1 or 2 athletes leaving each public school to go to a private school makes that school much better than they should be for a school that size. It is not every private school, it is the elite schools like STA, Bolles, Trinity Christian, American Heritage (Plantation/Delray), Bishop Moore, Tampa Catholic, University School, taking 1 or 2 from each public school in the area ends up with a super team.
------
Appreciate you asking, Gatorman
! Although private schools only represent 14%, we all know that those schools are not equally distributed amongst the 8 classes. Simply due to the law of numbers, there is a very high probability that the state champions of classes 2A and 3A are going to be private schools. So, there is a pretty good chance that you are going to have at least 2 private school champions each year. Just like it wouldn't be a stretch to say that there is a pretty good chance that the 1A and 8A champ every year is going to be a public school. That's "domination" because the system skews it in that direction.
l would propose we just look at the state champions of classes 4A-8A. Since the privates are at lower lower percentages in these classes, a disproportionate number of private state champions in these classes might be a sign of some unfair advantage.
And, just to keep things tidy, would appreciate it if we could start in 2011 when we went to 8 classes. In classes 4A-8A since 2011, 35 state champions have been crowned(including any forfeitures). 10 of those championships went to private schools. So 10/35 champions, or about 29%, were private school programs. Is that disproportionate? Yes, indeed. So you are right, there are a disproportionate amount of private school championships!
American Heritage (Plantation)-4(5A)
Bishop Moore -1(5A)
Bolles-1(4A)
St Thomas Aquinas -4(7A)
However, 8/10 were won by two schools. And it is those two schools that really skew the numbers.
As I stated in a prior post, I think it is more accurate to call out the few dominant, private schools who we think have an unfair advantage, rather than make generalizations, as some do, that "private schools dominate." Even then, I think the folks at Aquinas have an argument that their academic and athletic programs are so excellent, they do not need to resort to recruiting or other funny business. Kids want to go there, and their parents do, too.
...as far as public schools losing 1-2 players to private schools. Nowadays, I think the shoe is just as likely to be on the other foot, with private school kids leaving to go to "better" public schools when it is in their best interest. I shared the data on the original post to help us visualize the football scene in certain regions of the state. Except for possibly Broward County, I am not totally convinced that "raiding" by private schools is having a profound effect on public school football performance.
...as far as "school(s)s much better than they should be for a school that size." I see where you are coming from. Relatively speaking, I don't think there are as many of these as some people may think. There are relatively few private school programs who are routinely beating the bigger, public schools with solid football football programs. I think there are some fine, small, private school programs, but I think they are often rated higher than they should be. Is Madison County not "better than they should be?" How about Booker T, Cocoa, Pahokee? I can name a number of small, public schools who one could argue are "better than they should be." I would like to think this is due to hard work, not raiding talent from nearby schools. And I would say the same for some of the small, private schools.
I think any of us get annoyed when we are not given the credit we think we are due. Some have a perception that private schools are dripping with money and resources. That is hardly the case. I have been to public schools that look like the Taj Mahal compared to my old, private school. And yeah, my tax dollars are paying for those kids to get a free education in a beautiful school, with a beautiful stadium, while I am also paying $15k/year for my kid to sit in a 50 year-old classroom with an unsafe chemistry lab and no stadium to play in . Talk about an unfair advantage, and one much more important than an advantage on the field.
It's an insult to the kids and the coaches to play the "private school card," as some do when the small privates win. And it would be no different than someone crying foul when Madison County or Pahokee stomp a much bigger program.
My biggest beef with the whole private vs public kids debate is that it is not really about the kids. We overblow these gross inequities to justify manipulation of the system for the sake of "fairness." We deprive our kids of experiencing the excitement of playing in a playoff game against an age-old local rival now because, heaven forbid, if they lose to that little private school, it might scar the kid forever. We make them drive 200 miles to play in a game because those guys down the street have an unfair advantage. We put them in this football "bubble" that supposedly protects them from inequity.
For all you young "grasshoppers" out there, it's the failures and losses that really build your character, not the victories. It's not the worst thing in the world to get humiliated by an American Heritage, but to do so with grace. Hate to tell you this, but the "other" guy often has an unfair advantage, grasshoppers. The quicker you learn that life lesson, the better you will get at dealing with it in a constructive manner, and the stronger you will be able to deal with adversity in your life.
-
35 minutes ago, dawgs said:
bishop moore? in east central florida?
That's a good catch. Bishop Moore would be a good one to include with Melbourne Central Catholic as a competitive private school in East Central Florida. A quick look over the past years and they certainly have had very good success against public schools, winning about 80% of their games. They have also gotten the best of the public schools in the playoffs.
I don't believe East Central Florida is home to a lot of 5A schools except for Palm Bay and Merritt Island. Bishop Moore may have knocked them out of the playoffs certain years, but am not sure BM cost those schools any state championships in doing so. And even if we add BM to the mix, the Orlando metro area has such a large population, I think it would be questionable to conclude that private schools in that areas are causing a significant talent drain.
Florida HS's Outgunned on National Stage
in The Huddle
Posted
Below are the results of 20 games played in recent years by some of Florida’s top high school teams against top-ranked, out-of-state competition. Florida schools were 5-15 in those games, and were outscored 487-279. On average, out-of-state teams scored 24 points, versus 14 points scored by Florida schools.
There is no way Florida teams can expect to consistently beat teams of this caliber averaging only 14 points per game. We certainly don’t lack talent on the offensive side of the ball, so what is missing?
Chandler (AZ) 55 vs Northwestern 20
Bishop Gorman (NV) 24 vs Miami Central 20
Dematha (MD) 38 vs Miami Central 14
Miami Central 24 vs Hoover (AL) 21
St Joseph (NJ) 44 vs Deerfield Beach 21
Colquitt County (GA) 42 vs Plant 8
Bishop Gorman (NV) 46 vs Cocoa 10
St Edward (OH) 24 vs Cocoa 14
Buford (GA) 17 vs Trinity Christian 0
Archbishop Wood (PA) 14 vs Oxbridge 13
St Thomas Aquinas 9 vs St John Bosco (CA) 3 (OT – Aquinas scored 3 in regulation)
Centennial (AZ) 12 vs St Thomas Aquinas 0
Bishop Gorman (AZ) 25 vs St Thomas Aquinas 24 (3 OT’s –Aquinas scored 10 in regulation)
Don Bosco (NJ) 24 vs St Thomas Aquinas 7
American Heritage(PL) 14 vs Bishop Sullivan (VA) 7
American Heritage(PL) 17 vs Colquitt County (GA) 14
American Heritage(PL) 21 vs Don Bosco (NJ) 0
Dematha (MD) 23 vs American Heritage 22
Marist (GA) 17 vs Godby 14 (Godby was state runner-up that year)
Bergen Catholic(NJ) 37 vs American Heritage(Delray) 7 (AH was state runner-up that year)