wabashalwaysfights

Hey, if a school shows enough long term interest to support a soccer program and a community is willing to support it, I say go for it. That doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences though. Covington is a great example of this. They were never really a "football juggernaut" before they started their soccer program, but their football participation took a big hit when that started (I was a kid btw, so the details are a bit fuzzy). Things have balanced out now, Covington's football teams have steadily gotten better and their participation has also gone up, I don't know what their soccer participation is, but I continually hear that they are competitive. The key there is that, I assume, the Covington community did their research, saw that there was long term interest in soccer, and decided that it was worth it. Good for them, but it's not for everybody. As to co-ops, that to me is also an option, but there are some thorny issues to work through there as well. How does the revenue get split? How do you get student-athletes to facilities? Which facilities do you use? That doesn't even start to touch the "cultural" (if that is the right term) issues inherent with joining up two fierce rivals. It is a different situation, slightly, but one of the big hangups with the Turkey Run/Rockville consolidation was that there were folks on both sides, young and old, who could not stand the thought of playing with the other side instead of against them. Not that these obstacles can't be overcome, but it just takes some doing. And geographically speaking, Indiana is very similar to Illinois and Michigan in the same regard. See the above numbers. Fine, great, I support your right to have an opinion. Having seen gate numbers at small schools for years I can tell you that you are wrong, but you will never believe me, but as the text in bold indicates, it doesn't matter. Multiple athletic directors from multiple schools around the state could show you their books, you could see the numbers in black and white, and it won't matter. So again, I would respectfully ask that you start a new thread to discuss contraction issues and let this thread be for discussion about the mechanics of 8-man football, it's prevalence and structure in other states, and schools in this state who may potentially either show interest or be willing to engage in conversation around it. We all know where you stand, that is clear, so please, just leave those of us who would like to have some kind of productive discussion on this topic in peace...

*pokes head out* Which scientists though? *ducks to avoid shrapnel* In all seriousness though, I think @Raven67was one of the first to float this months ago, but I find myself contemplating spring high school football more and more. Still don't like it, still don't want it to happen, but whereas I was 100% sure it wouldn't happen 12 weeks ago, I'm only like 95% sure it won't happen today. But it's also July 10, 2020 at 8:27am.

I would say this is a fair point. Ohio is a state known for it's high school football. Let's look back at the chart @gahoosierfan posted and focus on some other states that are known for their football. How many 8 man teams does... California have? 108 Florida have? 15 Georgia have? 21 Michigan have? 64 Mississippi have? 21 Nebraska have? 113 Texas have? 0 Now let's remember what @DT said early on in this conversation: So yes, several of those states that are "known for football" have a large rural population, yet 8-man is allowed to exist, and in some cases thrive. But, you know, these are states who have "generally unsophisticated sports fan(s)." But wait, you say, Texas has zero 8-man teams and they are the gold standard for rabidness over high school football. You would be correct. They have an alternative though.... Let's look at how many 6-man teams those same states have... California 0 Florida 32 Georgia 0 Michigan 0 Mississippi 0 Nebraska 25 Texas 234 If 8-man is a "neanderthal version of the regular game," I would hate to know what the 6-man version would be. Yet the 6-man game is incredibly prominent in football rabid Texas. But sure, alternatives to the 11 man game like 8 and 6 man football are for us "neanderthals." Why don't you leave this possibility to those of us who are not "modern, sophisticated and educated Hoosiers" and pay attention to more pressing issues for you more intellectual types. P.S.: As a Wabash College graduate, I take offense to the term "neanderthal." If you must insult my intelligence, please use the term "caveman."

Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan combine for 88. See, I can play that game too... Move along good sir...

2:51, sorry, I couldn't help it... Plus this thread needs something positive...😉

I'm afraid after the last 24 hours that it will be made so difficult to make a football season happen, that it won't happen. Hope it's not the case, and will prepare as if it's not... Then again, it is July 9, 2020 and it's 3:52pm... may look completely different in an hour, day, week, or month... And @Gipper and the rest of you Boiler fans; you bite your tongue, Tom Allen is the man... but that's for the college forum...

Your point?

An uneducated guess would be typo, but it could be a private school where travel is no issue. It is a different situation obviously, but I'm thinking about Indiana Deaf who has routinely played as far away as Washington D.C and Alabama off the top of my head and a quick look at their page on Harrell shows that they have played teams from California, Maryland, Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and North Carolina dating back to 1995. Again, my guess is a typo however.

@gahoosierfan, THAT is a great chart. I had never even heard of 9 man football. By my count, Indiana is one of only 10 states that does not have ANY alternative form of football (not included in that number are the few places that list 1 alternative team, which I would assume means that they compete across their state lines).

I'm sorry... 😉 Seriously though, you are right about Turkey Run's waning years. Those kids always played hard and I always admired them for that. It would have been a loss for the Conference, but certainly understandable.

@wvigo13, you are talking about my conference, the Wabash River Conference, and that makes me happy, but as I said earlier, I think it best to focus here on the topic at hand, which is 8 man football. Not disagreeing with you, just being consistent. Perhaps, @DT, enough interest has shown itself for you to start, yet another, thread in an effort to explain your rationale for contraction.

I can't help but wonder; if, and that to me is still an if on July 9, 2020 at 1:01pm EST, the NCAA went nuclear and cancelled their Fall sports across any or all divisions, what, if any, pressure is put on the IHSAA since the NCAA headquarters is in Indianapolis? Check that, it's 1:02pm now.

And I will, just as you'll keep hijacking threads... It appears that the Michigan High School Athletic Association has supported 8 man football for at least 9 years based on their website, and as I think the initial poster may have indicated, it is growing in Illinois. I have also seen that there may bee some interest in Ohio in recent years? I'm just curious to see what led to this in some schools, whether these are new programs whole cloth or transition program from an existing 11 man program. One article I found was on an Illinois program that started their 8 man organization, which is currently not part of the Illinois High School Athletics Association. They made the move from an existing 11 man program. I couldn't find a number on how many 8 man teams there were in Michigan, but they follow a similar playoff qualification points system with a 32 team playoff.

And I will continually reject your very premise of "IHSAA mandated minimum participation levels," but again, that is not the purpose of this thread. Start another thread to discuss this if you want, but if you don't want to do that, I would ask that you take your ball and go home, we don't need it to play. To your second comment, which tread around the point; this is blatantly and completely wrong. Flag football is little more than 7 on 7; 8 man, if I understand correctly, uses the same basic rules for blocking, tackling, etc as 11 man, the differences being in, obviously, the number of players who are allowed to participate in a play at a time and the size of the field. It still allows for offensive and defensive line play, tackling, special teams, etc. The statements in bold above are contradictory. If you are really okay with small communities pursuing this, why would you continue to "lobby hard against" a proposal of this type? You can't have it both ways, either you care or you don't. Your continued insistence on posting in this thread indicates that you do, if you don't, then move on. Your thoughts on numbers and/or passion are noted and already inferred.

These, to me, are interesting questions. I think it all depends on how many/if any current 1A schools would actually make the move. It could run the spectrum from none, to a few, to a colloquial bunch. You may see more 6 and 7 team sectionals at 1A, but again, it would all depend on who would choose to stay and who would choose to go to 8 man.

I believe in the ability of a local community making an educated and informed decision on any and all after school programs, including football, based on their values and priorities. Further, I believe that individual communities do not need outside help in making these judgement unless they ask for it. Additionally, I believe, quite frankly, that those decisions are none of my, or your, damn business (unless, of course, this is an issue in your or my community). I believe that your "metrics" to define "chronically sick programs" consist, primarily, of essentially win/loss records over time, which as I have previously made clear are far from the only "metrics" at play in making a sound decision on whether any extra-curricular activity is deserving of a community's support. I believe you have the right to speak/post on this forum, and specifically this thread, as you wish, so long as it stays on topic. I believe you have made your point clear; you do not support 8-man football in Indiana and you have further stated your reasoning for that. I, and multiple other here, reject your reasoning on it's basic principles. I believe, therefore, that your contributions to this thread have run their course and that your participation therein is not longer necessary or productive. I believe that there is a group on this board who have expressed interest in this proposal as a legitimate possibility moving forward and wish to have additional dialogue on the topic without having your thoughts, to which you have made clear, continually interjected. Thus, I believe that it would be in the best interests of all if you ceased posting on this thread as you have made your point, and it is evident that no one's mind here on either side will be changed. I believe you will not stop for your own reasons and I have no way of stopping you from that. To answer your question more directly; no, I do not believe, based on my perception of the purpose of extra-curricular athletics within the framework of a young person's education that here are any "chronically sick programs in the state that are teetering on the edge of viability." Furthermore, even if there were, it is none of my business... I know I said I was done, but since you asked me a question directly, I felt compelled, out of courtesy, to respond. I have no questions for you and therefore do not expect, nor do I care for a response.

I would edit my previous post, but my phone will not allow. Two more things and then I'm done with the @DT. First of all, your lane is very obviously not Indiana high school football in general, it is the promotion of "big school" football that produces the majority of the "talent" in the state. If that's your focus, fine, but that makes you the guy on the interstate who puts his cruise control on right at 70 and tries to pass a semi without accelerating. Sure, you're "in your lane" and "following the letter of the law" but it's also inconsiderate at best and dangerous at worst. Finally, I've coached teams that went 9-1 and teams that went 0-10 and don't you dare tell me that those kids that went 0-10 didn't take away anything positive from that season because they did. I've spoken to those kids, who are now young men, and they certainly wished things would have gone differently, but they wouldn't trade those experiences for anything. But sure, go ahead and pound the table demanding that all those experiences shouldn't happen. It's insulting, and contrary to the purposes of this forum. I'm done.

Incorrect. At most small schools that currently have a football team their athletic department's budget relies on that income to support multiple other programs. You take that income away, you force the department to make deeper cuts across the board. I too share the idea that football is not a "holy grail," if a kid doesn't want to play, a kid shouldn't play. But where there is enough interest, whether it is for 11 or 8 man, a school and community should be allowed to offer it as an option, regardless of the quality of the "product" on the field. You are, in fact, for taking opportunities away from kids, but you will never admit it. Moving on... I watched some 8 man stuff on YouTube, it looked pretty cool. I'd still like to hear some of the coaching side of things.

No list posted, but it matters not. I've never coached at an urban school, large or small, but I have plenty of friends that do. I can tell you from conversations that I have had with those coaches that while we in "rugged rural outpost communities" need sports like football for our student-athletes, those urban areas need them equally as bad. Of course, that doesn't matter to you; all you care about is the "product." By the way, those large school colleagues I referenced are often some of the biggest admirers of small school football in general. Not all of them, but many. They recognize the mental gymnastics small school coaching staffs have to go through in order to solve personnel issues and, more importantly, the physical, mental, and emotional toughness of the student-athletes who play both sides of the ball and special teams. But, again, that doesn't matter to you, all you care about is the "product." I'm going to do something that I am pretty sure you are incapable of; I apologize. I try to ignore your contraction talk as much as I can, but when you weasel your way into EVERY thread with this nonsense, you make it impossible. "Clicks, clicks, clicks, they'll do anything to get a few, Tick, tick, tick, that's the sound before my head explodes, Quit, quit, quit, look at you up on your pedestal, Quick, quick, quick, hear the critics come, it's time to go..." ("Paid My Dues, NF) Go ahead, stay on your ignorant pedestal, but I make it a point to stay in my lane, it's time you learned to stay in yours.

At this point I don't wonder, I fear.

Preposterous. If small school football is that far beneath you, disregard it and move on. No one is forcing you to watch/comment on us small town folks who support kids in an attempt to give them an opportunity to compete and become better, more well rounded young men (and women, I've seen a few girls play here in recent years). If a community wants to and is able to support a program, let them, if not, that is fine, but we "neanderthals" do not appreciate or need you descending from on high telling us how to best support our kids and our communities. High school football is not about producing "more talent" than our neighboring states or for "the next level." As a coach, that is the furthest thing from my mind. If a student-athlete has the capacity to compete at the next level, I/we support that pursuit, but my focus is typically on the student-athlete who needs football because he doesn't have much else to motivate him. But sure, go ahead and let's tell a community that our state's overall "product" trumps their willingness and desire to provide opportunity for their student-athletes that they see fit. Rant over.

This is not good to say the least.

Love that song. So I didn't say anything about mama... or trucks... or trains... or prison... or gettin drunk... what else did I miss?

Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that they weren't student-athletes at all.