I think this is a poor decision. Sports are good for teens to participate in. It teaches them something, and it doesn't require winning to get those benefits. I have a hard time believing that this team was any less safe than anyone else who goes out there on the field.
Not really. There are two conferences (at least 11 teams per conference) in Nassau County on Long Island that typically only field teams that are 28-35 kids in size.
Back when I played, on a championship team no less, there weren't more than 32 kids on the team.
I am also assuming the 530 was a total school (Kindergarden - 12th Grade). This is only roughly 41 kids per grade, 200 between freshman and senior. And and estimated 100 males total. Only Sophmore - Senior typically play at a Varsity level, so that 75 total. Thats not many.... at all...
No. What you're thinking of is district. The article says 530 in the school, which would mean ~132 kids per grade. So accounting for 50% girls, you need to field a team of 30 kids out of 132 total kids (two grades) for a varsity squad. It's also not uncommon for the better JV players to get brough up to varsity.
I'm sure that 530 was just the High School. When I was going to school are football team was small. Most people played both defence and offense except for the QB and RB
Sounds like the coach is making a good decision. It's not a won-loss thing, it's a safety issue.
MmmSkyscraper
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2004
- 9,472
- 1
- 76
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,480
- 8,340
- 126
I can certainly understand the safety thing. My old high school recenly got bumped up a notch in conferences and is in a much more comptetive field now. The players on the other teams physically dominated my old school.
There are safety issues when you can't match up physically. Not being able to block effectively can turn things into a bad team to a very unsafe one, as the coach mentioned.
Same thing on defense. If you are physically outmatched by a running back they will simply run you over.
Football is dangerous by nature, but it can be made even more dangerous by having very lopsided size missmatches.
There are safety issues when you can't match up physically. Not being able to block effectively can turn things into a bad team to a very unsafe one, as the coach mentioned.
Same thing on defense. If you are physically outmatched by a running back they will simply run you over.
Football is dangerous by nature, but it can be made even more dangerous by having very lopsided size missmatches.
suck for the students. Maybe the coach and get JV play varsity and make as the rest of the season.
No I mean let them play amongst each other. Unless the skill levels between the two are huge. With the team that bad I doubt this the case.
what are the students going to do now? Say that's it your done, go home.
oogabooga
Diamond Member
- Jan 14, 2003
- 7,806
- 3
- 81
Sounds like a good idea to cancel the season actually. It's not just about the 0-4 start, losing is one thing, but they are getting creamed. You don't post scores like that if you're within the talent bracket of that league
i'd be worried for all the kids getting crushed out there.
i'd be worried for all the kids getting crushed out there.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Pussification of America continues
Ah, I knew you'd be along eventually.
Please Dave, tell me how this contributes to the so-called pussification of America. They're not doing this to spare the kids hurt feelings. They're doing it to spare them broken bones and torn ligaments. Are we to teach our children that playing football is worth risking life-long damage to their bodies? Of course there always a risk of injury in sports, but if the coach feels that it is unsafe to put his team on the field, how can they ignore that and say play ball?
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Pussification of America continues
Ah, I knew you'd be along eventually.
Please Dave, tell me how this contributes to the so-called pussification of America. They're not doing this to spare the kids hurt feelings. They're doing it to spare them broken bones and torn ligaments. Are we to teach our children that playing football is worth risking life-long damage to their bodies? Of course there always a risk of injury in sports, but if the coach feels that it is unsafe to put his team on the field, how can they ignore that and say play ball?
YES! What is safe about tackling people (kids) at full speed?? It is the intention that, per play, you are to picture the person with the ball as your hated rival and you want nothing more than to get them to the ground. Anything less than that mentality only contributed to the "pussification of America."
ViviTheMage
Lifer
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
You're really confusing me, because you agreed with IceBergSlim (who is supportive of this decision) but you're disagreeing with me...
Kids tackling kids can be reasonably safe if the kids are evenly matched and wearing pads. This guy, a football coach of 28 years, knows when he's sending his kids out on the field with a high likelyhood of being injured, and could not in good conscience continue to do that. I respect him for having the balls to care about his players' well-being. The article said they had already lost several players to injury. I wasn't at the games, so I can only take the coach's word for it.
Speaking of pads, who needs them? Just another contributor to the pussification of America.
Two different arguments: IceBergSlim was arguing the football game and you're arguing for moderation and protection in general. Your argument is much broader than IBS' was.
To your pads comment, although it was meant to be a snide attack, I agree with it. Football is just the bastardized form of Rugby. It's a sport for people who can't handle the full contact aspects that Rugby has to offer.
Gooberlx2
Lifer
- May 4, 2001
- 15,381
- 6
- 91
I thought so too after reading the topic title, but when some kids are probably playing multiple positions because they barely have enough players, getting exhausted, probably physically undersized compared to their opposition (due to no pre-varsity training, lifting and diet) ...their safety really is compromised.
Being highschoolers, they'll play themselves into the ground before stopping, and to the point of potentially becoming seriously hurt. Someone more objective has to make that decision for them.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Nah I was just talking about this specific situation. I don't have anything against football or sports or risky activities in general. But if a football coach of 28 years thinks it's too dangerous to let his team play, I'd tend to take his word for it.
Edit: I guess I was too vague with the sentence I bolded. I elaborated with the next sentence to indicate that in general there is an accepted risk involved in playing football, but this situation appears to be way beyond the normal risk of playing football.
Not really an attack, just a parallel.
If a kid wanted to play without pads because he can run faster and be more agile, we wouldn't let him. Not because we want to pussify him, but because a school has a duty to ensure the safety of its students.TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter