Anderson should drop its football program

[Muda69]

1 hour ago, TheStatGuy said:

It's called sarcasm bob. 

Which in a written medium like an internet message forum is notoriously hard to detect at times.  I suggest you use <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> tags in the future around such statements, it removes such doubts.

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Muda69

[HoosierFB_JG]

Pulling kids off the football field in a city such as Anderson means potentially putting them in the streets.  These young men need football and ending the football program could lead to much worse.

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, HoosierFB_JG said:

Pulling kids off the football field in a city such as Anderson means potentially putting them in the streets.  These young men need football and ending the football program could lead to much worse.

I think many feel this way, but I’ve never seen any hard data. That doesn’t mean the data do not exist somewhere, nor does it mean it’s incorrect, even if there are no data. But you would think that enough schools have discontinued a program that some doctoral candidate in education, or sociology, or something, would have done a study to determine if there really is a correlation between closing down a program and some set of adverse consequences.

[Hornetcoach]

Dropping a football program is not the answer and would be doing a disservice to these young men that have committed to a TEAM.  If these young men are learning discipline, respect, teamwork, and accountability, this football program is a success.  Some of these young men will not be taught these imperative life lessons anywhere else.  

[Lysander]

2 hours ago, Bobref said:

I think many feel this way, but I’ve never seen any hard data. That doesn’t mean the data do not exist somewhere, nor does it mean it’s incorrect, even if there are no data. But you would think that enough schools have discontinued a program that some doctoral candidate in education, or sociology, or something, would have done a study to determine if there really is a correlation between closing down a program and some set of adverse consequences.

I’m surprised that someone hasn’t.  I was never a believer in school extracurriculars (including sports) as regards keeping kids out of trouble when I played simply because I was never going to get into trouble - it just wasn’t part of my make up.  Admittedly, the fact that sports allowed me to go to college was a bonus, though.

In the rear view mirror of life, having raised kids and seeing others grow up with them, I now have little doubt that sports and other extracurricular activities are an absolute salvation for many.  I’ve seen more than a few kids that fell into the cracks of life once those things were taken away.  
 

Frankly, my oldest could have cared less for school and would admit that it was ONLY sports that made him care about his grades.  In his case, he cared about grades all the way through college sports and ended up with a paid masters degree as a grad assistant.  Honestly, not sure where he would have ended up without football.  He was a pretty headstrong (or hard headed..) kid that needed coaches just as headstrong.

[BDGiant93]

I'd wager to say there are a lot of young men (and maybe some young women too) who need football to keep them in school. If you take that away from them, you are taking away more than a sport.

[Bobref]

Not directly on point, but I found this with a minimum of effort. The gist of it is that student athletes score better in every indicator of academic success than non-athletes: grad rates, dropout rates, etc.

http://ihsaa-static.s3.amazonaws.com/resource_center/Academic_Assistance/2013_Slashing_Sports_DrTuPrice_Results.pdf

[Gipper]

2 hours ago, Hornetcoach said:

Dropping a football program is not the answer and would be doing a disservice to these young men that have committed to a TEAM.  If these young men are learning discipline, respect, teamwork, and accountability, this football program is a success.  Some of these young men will not be taught these imperative life lessons anywhere else.  

Dropping the program is never the answer.   Teams do get better, the culture does change, etc.

Edited October 1, 2020 by Gipper

[Gipper]

4 hours ago, Bobref said:

I think many feel this way, but I’ve never seen any hard data. That doesn’t mean the data do not exist somewhere, nor does it mean it’s incorrect, even if there are no data. But you would think that enough schools have discontinued a program that some doctoral candidate in education, or sociology, or something, would have done a study to determine if there really is a correlation between closing down a program and some set of adverse consequences.

Have you been to Anderson?

[Bobref]

Just now, Gipper said:

Have you been to Anderson?

As infrequently as possible.

[Gipper]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

As infrequently as possible.

I was stuck there when the Gippermobile broke down—longest two hours of my life.

[Ballhawk]

This type of topic gets attention, but I can't disagree more with the notion that a school should just give up and call it quits.  I think of a school like Caston.  They had a long losing streak and barely enough kids to field a team.  They've won two games this year, and are much more competitive.  Two years ago they would have been told to fold up the team and let's concentrate on cross country and basketball.

While there may not be research to back up the theory that playing keeps kids off the street or out of trouble, I would think giving them something to belong to and hold them accountable would be a good thing.  I had kids who didn't play who I saw later hanging with the wrong people and getting in trouble, so from what I saw when they were on a team and following the rules they did stay out of mischief and keep their grades up.

[Gipper]

Congratulations to the Indians in their hard fought 18-15 victory over Tech tonight.

[starbacker]

Saw where Elwood broke their losing streak tonight as well. Congratulations on 2 big wins tonight from teams in Madison County. Always happy to see kids and coaching staffs who have obviously worked hard get a victory.

 

 

[Impartial_Observer]

On 10/1/2020 at 2:08 PM, Gipper said:

Have you been to Anderson?

A friend of mine runs a stolen vehicle unit with ISP. He says any time they have some downtime they take their bait car to Anderson. 

[Guest DT]

On 10/2/2020 at 7:46 AM, Ballhawk said:

This type of topic gets attention, but I can't disagree more with the notion that a school should just give up and call it quits.  I think of a school like Caston.  They had a long losing streak and barely enough kids to field a team.  They've won two games this year, and are much more competitive.  Two years ago they would have been told to fold up the team and let's concentrate on cross country and basketball.

While there may not be research to back up the theory that playing keeps kids off the street or out of trouble, I would think giving them something to belong to and hold them accountable would be a good thing.  I had kids who didn't play who I saw later hanging with the wrong people and getting in trouble, so from what I saw when they were on a team and following the rules they did stay out of mischief and keep their grades up.

I agree with your premise.  I just dont agree that football must always be on the menu of choices to keep kids occupied.

Football is a very costly endeavor.  It consumes vast amounts of resources, and in the case of Anderson, and many other schools, provides little to no tangible return on that resource investment.

And in the case of Anderson, how many kids really benefit from the existence of the high school football program.  Anderson enrollment post consolidation is approx 1800.  I would guess they might have 100 kids in the football program grades 9-12.  Thats 5% of the student population.  Reallocate those football dollars to other activities that benefit a broader segment of the total student population.

 

 

[Whiting89]

35 minutes ago, DT said:

I agree with your premise.  I just dont agree that football must always be on the menu of choices to keep kids occupied.

Football is a very costly endeavor.  It consumes vast amounts of resources, and in the case of Anderson, and many other schools, provides little to no tangible return on that resource investment.

And in the case of Anderson, how many kids really benefit from the existence of the high school football program.  Anderson enrollment post consolidation is approx 1800.  I would guess they might have 100 kids in the football program grades 9-12.  Thats 5% of the student population.  Reallocate those football dollars to other activities that benefit a broader segment of the total student population.

 

 

I don’t think a school should ever give up on football unless the numbers aren’t there. It’s the only sports where all segments of students can play.
  You use business jargon like investment, return, resources etc. Schools aren’t businesses, they’re schools. If they were businesses not sure there would be any sports.

[wabashalwaysfights]

Same old story, same old song and dance...

[Ballhawk]

On 10/3/2020 at 11:20 PM, DT said:

I agree with your premise.  I just dont agree that football must always be on the menu of choices to keep kids occupied.

Football is a very costly endeavor.  It consumes vast amounts of resources, and in the case of Anderson, and many other schools, provides little to no tangible return on that resource investment.

And in the case of Anderson, how many kids really benefit from the existence of the high school football program.  Anderson enrollment post consolidation is approx 1800.  I would guess they might have 100 kids in the football program grades 9-12.  Thats 5% of the student population.  Reallocate those football dollars to other activities that benefit a broader segment of the total student population.

 

 

Football reaches out to more than just the players on the team.  The band and cheerleaders get to participate, as well as any students who help in support positions like managers and concession workers.  That would reach out a little further in the student population.  Even students in attendance are at a supervised event and not looking for other things to do.

I don't agree with this as an investment.  If you save one child from turning the wrong direction, what is that worth?

[Indian72]

Has anyone ever thought that it needs the right coach to connect with the students.

[Coach Nowlin]

41 minutes ago, Indian72 said:

Has anyone ever thought that it needs the right coach to connect with the students.

I would say Ron Qualls is that guy 

[BDGiant93]

On 10/3/2020 at 11:20 PM, DT said:

I agree with your premise.  I just dont agree that football must always be on the menu of choices to keep kids occupied.

Football is a very costly endeavor.  It consumes vast amounts of resources, and in the case of Anderson, and many other schools, provides little to no tangible return on that resource investment.

And in the case of Anderson, how many kids really benefit from the existence of the high school football program.  Anderson enrollment post consolidation is approx 1800.  I would guess they might have 100 kids in the football program grades 9-12.  Thats 5% of the student population.  Reallocate those football dollars to other activities that benefit a broader segment of the total student population.

 

 

Because of the financing of Indiana schools, money spent on athletics is not money spent in the classroom or on activities and vice versa.

[btownqbcoach]

It's amazing it's 2020 and some cannot still grasp that winning isn't everything. 

Football doesn't need Anderson, but son of a gun Anderson needs football. Telling me with a straight and honest face the students at Anderson would be better off without football? What planet are you from? That doesn't even add up, even in the least bit. You have no clue what you are talking about. 

[Muda69]

53 minutes ago, btownqbcoach said:

It's amazing it's 2020 and some cannot still grasp that winning isn't everything. 

Football doesn't need Anderson, but son of a gun Anderson needs football. Telling me with a straight and honest face the students at Anderson would be better off without football? What planet are you from? That doesn't even add up, even in the least bit. You have no clue what you are talking about. 

There are numerous government, parochial, and private schools in this state that don't have a football program and are doing just fine.  Are you going to tell those communities that they "need" football?