Jump to content

BHC article: SWVA football decline


Beamerball
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know if I'd say it was Bedford's by default that year,..didn't Graham beat them? To me, with everyone healthy that year Graham, Grundy, and Bedford all had state quality teams...any of them could have won it that year of the 3...Bedford obviously had the talent and kept everyone healthy. 

 

Graham beat Liberty (Bedford) in 2001.  And I'll chime in with the opinion that nobody in Division 3 was going to beat the Minutemen in 2002.  That team didn't really have much luck and it wasn't a matter of health.  They lost 4 regular season games in the Seminole that season before cruising through the playoffs.  In the title game they rushed for 529 yards in a 41-6 victory that could've actually been a lot worse for New Kent.

 

Maybe not...done and over with now though and the variables don't really count for much outside of when you actually play the game...it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

While I see both of your points, I would point to the fact that Graham lost the entire right side of the offensive line ( the side Ahmad ran to), guard tackle end,in two consecutive games. That slowed us down in the playoffs in 02. But that's the breaks sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When there were 8 or 10 elementary schools and they each had teams that played all the other teams in the county a couple of times a year, you had 8 or 10 teams that all had starters who got a lot of playing time to pick from at the high school level...kids that had grown up playing the game and understood it and had a ton of playing time....once those closed you had 1 team with 1 group of starters and the rest were back ups...and most of the time the starters that wrestled didn't play football in high school...so...you do the math there on that one. Once the feeder schools closed, the talent level dropped.

I can see that but it sounds like Grundy needs to restructure the Little League program. A school the size of Riverview should have 2-3 teams at least. If they would play in a county wide league they would have 5-6 teams in the league.  Riverwiew should be able to divide up into 2 middle school teams no problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can see that but it sounds like Grundy needs to restructure the Little League program. A school the size of Riverview should have 2-3 teams at least. If they would play in a county wide league they would have 5-6 teams in the league.  Riverwiew should be able to divide up into 2 middle school teams no problem.

 

They have about 30 kids total playing right now from what I understand.

 

 

While I see both of your points, I would point to the fact that Graham lost the entire right side of the offensive line ( the side Ahmad ran to), guard tackle end,in two consecutive games. That slowed us down in the playoffs in 02. But that's the breaks sometimes.

 

yep...that's what I'm saying...couple of injuries and 5 or 6 people out with the flu and you find yourself short dicked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Even tho its just been a decade or so ago it really is sorta like comparing apples to oranges.  15 years ago most teams didn't/couldn't throw the ball 20 times a game(except Haysi ;) ) but now that's almost the norm and a lot of schools do it on a high level. Just different.

 

Robbins size argument doesn't hold water to me, look at Unions OL and RBs now. The OL is really big and they go 2TE T-Formation and none of their players is exactly small.

Back in the day, most any of the Region A&B teams you would meet in the state finals could throw the football every bit as well as teams can now...Central of Lunenburg had a higher number of better athletes than any team in this area on a yearly basis.  The difference was Region D used to produce better FOOTBALL PLAYERS...and the other Regions had a problem dealing with the physical nature of the game that teams from arouond here brought.  Kids used to go outside and learn to tackle in the back yard with no pads...now they play playstation.  The back yard is where the toughness and foundation for a good football player is born.  Kids nowdays just have too many other things to occupy themselves with.  I will tell you this...the Coeburn teams from 1989 and 1990 never won a single championship (district, region, state) only because of the district and region they were in...but, you put that team on the field against any of the present day local teams and they'd beat 'em by 3 TDs.  And that's a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Those Coeburn teams were VERY good, even into the early 90s. But thats where the enrollment part of the discussion comes back in, those Coeburn teams were from a school with probably 600 students as where Eastside now only has 425-440). They should beat most of the local schools now, they would be alot larger.

 

In D1/A the East teams still have a problem dealing with the physical game played by SWVA teams.(West 4  East 0 the past 2 seasons). At the D2/AA level its different because you start getting more city/town/urban schools instead of community schools. Trainning comes more into focus(speed schools, more weightlifting, etc). Are kids today as rough and tough as kids from 10-15 years ago, overall no. But SWVA still plays a different, tough, hardnosed brand of football.

 

I guess my overall arguement is the talent level is less now than before because of the decline in enrollment. The less size arguement is not legit. The less strength arguement is legit but thats mostly because back in the day there was more competition(larger schools = more kids fighting for a position/time)

 

I just honestly think its that much different in terms of speed, size, physicality or anything else. Although physicality does play a part of it. The difference is enrollment and talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

wow    thats not very many for a school that size. Riverview isint huge but they should have more than that out. I would have thought atleast 50.  Looks like Grundys struggles begin there(as most teams do)

Grundy, as is Hurley, is in the Richlands League. We are divided by age group 5-7, 8-10 and 11-13. Grundy had about 50-55 boys between those 3 groups. The largest group was the oldest group with about 20-25 kids. The 2 younger groups were the smallest in numbers that I've seen for Grundy since my son started playing in 2010 with about 15 per group. I think that might be a sign that either kids are losing interest or they(parents) are growing tired of the lack of playing time. Hurley's numbers haven't really changed much since 2010. We have averaged about 35-40 boys since 2010, which is about 12 per team.  We have the kids, we just can't get the parents and kids to get involved but they are the 1st. in a group of men or in the stands to bitch about the varsity team. Hell, I'm not going to lie, I begged guys I worked with from Grundy to bring their kid to Hurley to play football in Little League. You have parents frustrated about their son not playing much and so I offered a solution but you never would get a kid. Some parents could actually be to our practice area quicker than they could go to Grundy's but would rather have them stand on the sideline for a winning LL team than get significant playing time.

 

I don't know about you guys but I can't remember too many LL championship teams. I remember District titles, Region titles and State titles on the varsity level. I think I would rather get some playing time which in turn might get you a starting position on the varsity.

 

So, I think Lance's point about the feeder schools helping the varsity is right. You had more kids starting instead of just the same old 11 from elementary up to high school. You had more competition at practice. When those kids moved up from Vansant, Harman, Big Rock, J M Bevins, Russell Prater and P.V Dennis (Grundy) you had 6 kids that played QB now you got 1QB per team at 1 school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree with most of the points raised by the majority of the posters. Coach Robbins was 100% on the mark on his observations especially as towards Wise County,

 

Earlier in the thread a comment was made that consolidation would help :

 

"Nobody doubts that population numbers might have an impact, but when 15+ years ago, teensie-tiny schools in SWVA were trotting out rosters of 25 kids (or less) something needed to happen. If anything, more consolidation might be a good thing and benefit the schools athletic programs and budgets"

 

One major problem with consolidation and athletic programs is the distance between  house and the new school. This is as important at the elementary level as at the high school level. When gas prices are low and when you have a decent economy parents can afford to take the kids 5 or more extra miles. The economy  in the Coalfields no longer permits this. It is  a lot cheaper on a parent to encourage the kid to stay at home on social media or gaming than to transport them around. This is and will be a problem for all extracurricular activities.. I am familiar with some of the closed schools and it would be interesting to see what the spatial relationship would be between home and school of the current Riverview squad. Would presume most are from Grundy rather than the outlying areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My opinion...for Grundy to improve long term, and this is just my 2 cents...5 things that would really help:

 

-kicker training. Doug Blevins has a kicking camp and is considered one of if not THE best kicking instructors in the world...and he is right in our back yard and willing to help kids learn. I would be sending some of those 9th graders that will otherwise be standing on the sidelines doing nothing for years to come to learn how to kick and also long snap. Every year there should be at least 2 of the 9th graders trained and whoever was sent previously continued training. With work these kids who would otherwise never see the field would become assets to your team. We had to go for 2 every time this year because we really just can't kick an extra point. Last year we had the Mutter kid kicking (self trained with Blevins) and he was all state and we were a threat to score anytime we got near the 30 yard line. I can point to examples where that kid turned a game around and pretty much won the game or allowed Grundy to be in a position to win the game just with his leg.

 

-weight lifting - essential year round. We had all the football players lifting weights in 7th period gym year round. You can't wait until august to start lifting and expect any results. You get your linemen and you tell them in no uncertain terms that you don't lift then you don't play...I don't care who it is, no lift then no play. Lots of improvements could be made here, starts with the kids getting in there and putting in the time.

 

-speed and resistance training - right now it simply doesn't exist...and it needs to.

 

- schedule - Look, I like playing the old SWD teams as much as anyone...but getting beat 60-0 is not putting more kids in the program. Short term I think you have to look at who you can beat and schedule the easy game, get your 10 wins and go 1 and out in the playoffs if you have to. I hate it's like that but I think if the kids know they are going to win some games I think more would stick with it and want to play...over time you could increase the level of competition once you get your program on more solid ground. For now, take the wins and get more kids involved. Strength in numbers. I'm not saying play a bunch of 1 win teams, but find some people you can at least compete with.

 

- focus on getting the lower level kids out and actually playing and learning the game...tradition and work ethic starts young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is all very interesting debate, especially how the sandlot level of play filters to the high school level.  

 

The year before Mark Dixon took over as the head coach at Galax, he convinced the recreation department to convert all football to what he grew up playing in Reidsville, NC.  They started an 8 man football league to get more kids playing significant time.  The fifth "8-man" season just ended a week ago and Galax had 106 players competing in two "age specific" divisions.  By having 8 players, more kids get significant playing time.  This year, the varsity team members are all products of the first season or two of "8-man" and Galax has more kids staying with football after sandlot is over.  

 

I wasn't sure about it when it was first discussed, but I am a huge proponent now.  Before 8-man, Galax would field two teams of 20-25 kids.  Fast forward 5 years and they are fielding 10 teams of 11 or so kids.  The ceiling is enormous for what can be done with this model.  We are currently looking into different ways to have a regular season, playoff and super bowl for next season.  

 

In years past, Galax played in a league that consisted of Carroll and Grayson Counties.  The Galax kids would travel regularly to the opposite end of a county only to find no team to play.  A schedule of 10-12 games would routinely produce 6-8 actual games.  Something had to be done and I am very excited about the results of our decision.  Carroll and Grayson are now begging us to allow them into our 8-man league.

 

Football looks bright for the foreseeable future in Galax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
 
 

If you could find someone who had them the old VHSL handbooks have the enrollments- at least 10-12. Had an old '69 handbook and gave it away years ago- to my great regret. Coeburn suffered some heavy enrollment losses in the late 60's early 70's. I do believe they had over 600 in the mid 60's. When Vrginia reclassified following the '69-70 school year only two LPD teams were AA- Gate City and Kelly. Wise appealed- threatened legal action etc.- I believe they knocked the enrollment down enough to go A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I thought they were significantly larger than that.

 

Does anyone have any idea where enrolment #s from years past could be found?

I know at the time PV was the largest school outside of maybe Wise in the LPD...and PV at the time had an enrollment that was a little over 500 in grades 9-12.  The Classification number was lower than that because they only counted grades 10-12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ahh,I forgot that enrollment was calculated for 10-12. For our conversation I think we can safely assume they had around 575 (450 + 25%, 425-450 was Coeburns enrollment prior to consolidation). Near the 600 I had assumed, in all likleyhood it was larger than that. 

 

JJK was always the largest Wise co school. I have heard that they got "creative" when figuring their enrollment to keep Kelly in A and even up until right before consolidation there were fairly large. Still A sized but close to AA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ahh,I forgot that enrollment was calculated for 10-12. For our conversation I think we can safely assume they had around 575 (450 + 25%, 425-450 was Coeburns enrollment prior to consolidation). Near the 600 I had assumed, in all likleyhood it was larger than that. 

 

JJK was always the largest Wise co school. I have heard that they got "creative" when figuring their enrollment to keep Kelly in A and even up until right before consolidation there were fairly large. Still A sized but close to AA.

I know in 1990 PVs "official" number for classification was in the neighborhood of 400-425. But in those days a 9th grader at PV didn't play varsity football either.  Coeburn was D2 but quite a bit smaller than PV...back then the Single A cutoff number was in the vicinity of 500 students 10-12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PV was around 500 just before consolidation(2000s), so their enrollment would have basically stayed the same from 1990 - 2010. I just dont see how thats possible. Where did you get the # for 1990?  500 just seems too small to me.

 

Doesent matter if 9th graders didnt play Varsity, were comparing enrollment #s. I can minus 25% off of 2000s era enrollments if that works better? That would make PV in the 2000s around 375 10-12. Smaller than PV back in 1990

 

and I didnt think there was a "cutoff" # back then, just equal thirds? It would have had to of been higher than 500 because we know JJK was around 600 and they were A. Back in the 70s Clintwood was 725 and they were A(but that is counting 9th grade)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When the 1970 reclassification occurred they used hard numbers- 500 for A, 1000 for AA . These were based on 10-12 figures. It was possible to play up or down. Not counting the 9th grade helped a lot of schools stay in a lower class. Think things stayed this way until the '88 season and divisional play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How many times have you heard a guy say "Back when I played we were much better than this year's team" or "my senior year we could have won state if we were playing now".  People always seem to think "when they played" that football was at its best ever.  Well, ole Phil Robbins is the same way.  Back when he coached, football was at its pinnacle but now that he ain't coaching, well football around here sucks now.  What a flippin idiot!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually it stayed that way until the VHSL decided to make equal numbers of Division 1 and 2 teams at the Regional level.  That's where the mess started that ended up with the classification system we have now.  You would have a Division 1 team in Region B with close to 500 students playing a Division 1 team from Region D with 200 students.  But the 1970 reclassification numbers swvacsas2 posted are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PV was around 500 just before consolidation(2000s), so their enrollment would have basically stayed the same from 1990 - 2010. I just dont see how thats possible. Where did you get the # for 1990?  500 just seems too small to me.

 

Doesent matter if 9th graders didnt play Varsity, were comparing enrollment #s. I can minus 25% off of 2000s era enrollments if that works better? That would make PV in the 2000s around 375 10-12. Smaller than PV back in 1990

 

and I didnt think there was a "cutoff" # back then, just equal thirds? It would have had to of been higher than 500 because we know JJK was around 600 and they were A. Back in the 70s Clintwood was 725 and they were A(but that is counting 9th grade)

I was a Senior at the school in the fall of 1990...my graduating class and the classes after it hovered around 140 students.  PV saw a small size decrease from 2005-2008,..but then they saw an increase the last couple of years the school existed. So, really there was no huge descrepancy in the size of the school from 1990-2010. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If your class and others around it were around 140 then the 9-12 enrollment would have been around 550-575.

 

Using a very inexact form of calculating enrollment(my fiance'selementary school yearbook) the late 90s enrolment for Coeburn would have been in the 575-600 range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...