Does Little League/Middle School success translate to varsity results?

[tornado99]

I was curious about this topic based upon other’s opinions and years of observation.  One of the other posts has me curious as to what will transpire with a couple of programs with recent little and/or middle school success. 
I concede that some holdbacks offers advantages, particularly in middle school, but does that hold up for the long haul and/or do other factors like coaching, training, interest, etc have a greater effect canceling out the earlier success? I’m aware that Graham has been very successful in middle school and high school, but very little knowledge of what’s happening at many other places at the younger stages.

Thank you all for your responses.

[Observer]

Central......that's all I'm going to say.

[NotJustin23]

I think youth leagues show the direct talent within a certain area prior to outside influences such as off-season weight lifting programs, culture, etc as they develop through the high-school ranks. Youth leagues directly correspond with the amount of speed and talent and will likely translate to success if it's continued to be harnessed. A couple examples I can think of right now, Pembroke won NRV 6-7 grade championship several years ago and it translated to 3 wins for Giles as that class became seniors. This years Narrows team won the 4-5th championship that same year and stills looks like it could be fairly dominant this upcoming season. The rosters of most youth teams will likely change quiet a bit too as teams will add/subtract several players over the years. One thing I can say for certain is having a strong youth program should be a base for every program. Another example is Auburn which generally has a very competitive youth program annually and can hardly field a varsity football team. 

[Smitty]

Sure does. That is if they don’t transfer. 

[tornado99]

2 hours ago, NotJustin23 said:

I think youth leagues show the direct talent within a certain area prior to outside influences such as off-season weight lifting programs, culture, etc as they develop through the high-school ranks. Youth leagues directly correspond with the amount of speed and talent and will likely translate to success if it's continued to be harnessed. A couple examples I can think of right now, Pembroke won NRV 6-7 grade championship several years ago and it translated to 3 wins for Giles as that class became seniors. This years Narrows team won the 4-5th championship that same year and stills looks like it could be fairly dominant this upcoming season. The rosters of most youth teams will likely change quiet a bit too as teams will add/subtract several players over the years. One thing I can say for certain is having a strong youth program should be a base for every program. Another example is Auburn which generally has a very competitive youth program annually and can hardly field a varsity football team. 

Thank you for the examples. Some of those above will be something to keep an eye on.

[tornado99]

16 hours ago, Observer said:

Central......that's all I'm going to say.

I’m too far removed from this to know what happened in the beginning to understand the dynamics, other than a particular stacked class.

That leads me to a follow-up question.  Is stacking a particular class a necessary measure at a small school in an all-or-nothing strategy?

My outside perception is either the whole class holds back for a particular year, creating an absence of talent in the class above OR more or less strategically joining around a particular kid, typically a quarterback. 

[tornado99]

2 hours ago, Smitty said:

Sure does. That is if they don’t transfer. 

I see this from a beginning talent standpoint. 
I know it takes both talent and coaching, but which do you think has the bigger effect?

I’m also more familiar with the transfer factor when they get to high school, as it is more visible. 
I have a theory that some of the changes similar to the effect of when a kid transfers in high school to fill a specific position; is during the little league to middle school change when a kid is “recruited” from the class above to do the same. 
Again, I know all is effective in the short-term.

[Hokiebird7]

When did narrows become dominant? Honest question

[tornado99]

14 minutes ago, Hokiebird7 said:

When did narrows become dominant? Honest question

In all fairness, I should probably concede and define success with all the examples. If state title or bust, then almost all are disappointing results. But if regional titles or similar results are considered successful, then the answer to my question is obviously yes 90-95 percent of the time.

[Smitty]

4 hours ago, tornado99 said:

I see this from a beginning talent standpoint. 
I know it takes both talent and coaching, but which do you think has the bigger effect?

I’m also more familiar with the transfer factor when they get to high school, as it is more visible. 
I have a theory that some of the changes similar to the effect of when a kid transfers in high school to fill a specific position; is during the little league to middle school change when a kid is “recruited” from the class above to do the same. 
Again, I know all is effective in the short-term.

It’s been my experience that transfers are usually due to school politics and/or parent drama. Sometimes parents think their little Johnny isn’t being utilized to their full potential,so they transfer. Sometimes little Johnny really isn’t being utilized to his full potential when a weaker player plays over them, which most of the time the weaker player has a some kind of parent/school employee/donor connection, so little Johnny transfers. Sometimes little Johnny is just a pure athlete with a true gift at a school with a weak program, so they transfer. 
That is the ole man’s take. 

[tornado99]

4 minutes ago, Smitty said:

It’s been my experience that transfers are usually due to school politics and/or parent drama. Sometimes parents think their little Johnny isn’t being utilized to their full potential,so they transfer. Sometimes little Johnny really isn’t being utilized to his full potential when a weaker player plays over them, which most of the time the weaker player has a some kind of parent/school employee/donor connection, so little Johnny transfers. Sometimes little Johnny is just a pure athlete with a true gift at a school with a weak program, so they transfer. 
That is the ole man’s take. 

Thanks for the context. I definitely think this is the biggest factor that influences results in the end, whether canceling out little league/middle school results of bolstering them.

[Hokiebird7]

2 hours ago, tornado99 said:

In all fairness, I should probably concede and define success with all the examples. If state title or bust, then almost all are disappointing results. But if regional titles or similar results are considered successful, then the answer to my question is obviously yes 90-95 percent of the time.

But they don't win regional titles...and you didn't say they were 

[cityofRaven]

The problem with a few local Little League systems is that they cut teams and stack talent to win championships. It is sad that a few people value a title at the Pee Wee level like it actually means something. 

For example, when the Richlands program was in the middle of their most successful run, the league that fed into the HS program had 5-6 teams, spread fairly evenly with talent and 20-25 kids, allowing all kids to play and learn the game. 

Now, there are two teams, with 35-45 kids each, and many just watching from the sidelines. Not to mention that some of the poorer kids are not able to play because of the travel demands the current system has in place. 

Furthermore, I've seen firsthand some kids who may have hit a growth spurt early and dominate the lower levels only to find themselves peaking too early and leaving the game altogether once their dominating play has disappeared. 

As long as Pee Wee trophies are the goal, that's all you'll see on the shelves in the future. 

[tornado99]

6 hours ago, cityofRaven said:

The problem with a few local Little League systems is that they cut teams and stack talent to win championships. It is sad that a few people value a title at the Pee Wee level like it actually means something. 

For example, when the Richlands program was in the middle of their most successful run, the league that fed into the HS program had 5-6 teams, spread fairly evenly with talent and 20-25 kids, allowing all kids to play and learn the game. 

Now, there are two teams, with 35-45 kids each, and many just watching from the sidelines. Not to mention that some of the poorer kids are not able to play because of the travel demands the current system has in place. 

Furthermore, I've seen firsthand some kids who may have hit a growth spurt early and dominate the lower levels only to find themselves peaking too early and leaving the game altogether once their dominating play has disappeared. 

As long as Pee Wee trophies are the goal, that's all you'll see on the shelves in the future. 

I have observed the same and agree. What I’m wondering in today’s system is if the recent champions amongst those stacked teams will translate to varsity success. Those are basically one to two teams per town now. 
My personal preference would be a return to the former system, though.

[tornado99]

7 hours ago, Hokiebird7 said:

But they don't win regional titles...and you didn't say they were 

That’s the subjective part. I’m assuming in Narrows case, comparatively speaking, the recent seasons must be considered a success by the other poster describing them. I don’t know enough about them, other than being better than they used to be.

[Gridiron60]

7 hours ago, cityofRaven said:

The problem with a few local Little League systems is that they cut teams and stack talent to win championships. It is sad that a few people value a title at the Pee Wee level like it actually means something. 

For example, when the Richlands program was in the middle of their most successful run, the league that fed into the HS program had 5-6 teams, spread fairly evenly with talent and 20-25 kids, allowing all kids to play and learn the game. 

Now, there are two teams, with 35-45 kids each, and many just watching from the sidelines. Not to mention that some of the poorer kids are not able to play because of the travel demands the current system has in place. 

Furthermore, I've seen firsthand some kids who may have hit a growth spurt early and dominate the lower levels only to find themselves peaking too early and leaving the game altogether once their dominating play has disappeared. 

As long as Pee Wee trophies are the goal, that's all you'll see on the shelves in the future. 

Richlands Little League used to be the gold standard per se in our area. How many potentially decent players that could be developed into better players will never play in high school because they stood on the sidelines in little league? The entire purpose or intent of little league has gone sideways. I’m not sure when the shift occurred. Maybe it was inevitable or perhaps wrong folks in charge , either way, kids have been done a disservice. 

[NotJustin23]

22 hours ago, Hokiebird7 said:

When did narrows become dominant? Honest question

Nobody said Narrows was dominant? I said that little league team that won the championship should continue to be fairly dominant this upcoming season. But the stats would suggest Narrows does have a very solid program. In the last 8 years, they have 65 wins and only 23 losses and 8 playoff wins. With that being said, the playoffs classification changing and schools dropping down to 1A has certainly put the actual small schools at a disadvantage. There's probably only a handful of teams locally that's won more games over the past several years than Narrows. For example, the other team in the same county only has 37 wins and only 2 playoff wins during that same time frame. 

[Hokiebird7]

7 minutes ago, NotJustin23 said:

Nobody said Narrows was dominant? I said that little league team that won the championship should continue to be fairly dominant this upcoming season. But the stats would suggest Narrows does have a very solid program. In the last 8 years, they have 65 wins and only 23 losses and 8 playoff wins. With that being said, the playoffs classification changing and schools dropping down to 1A has certainly put the actual small schools at a disadvantage. There's probably only a handful of teams locally that's won more games over the past several years than Narrows. For example, the other team in the same county only has 37 wins and only 2 playoff wins during that same time frame. 

I took the dominant wrong sorry...yes they have more wins but how many are in possibly the worst district in the state? Put them in our district with our out of district schedule (bburg, radford bluefield) and see how wins they have

[Unchained]

2 hours ago, NotJustin23 said:

Nobody said Narrows was dominant? I said that little league team that won the championship should continue to be fairly dominant this upcoming season. But the stats would suggest Narrows does have a very solid program. In the last 8 years, they have 65 wins and only 23 losses and 8 playoff wins. With that being said, the playoffs classification changing and schools dropping down to 1A has certainly put the actual small schools at a disadvantage. There's probably only a handful of teams locally that's won more games over the past several years than Narrows. For example, the other team in the same county only has 37 wins and only 2 playoff wins during that same time frame. 

You have to factor in how weak that district is though. The Wave have beaten up on some terrible teams. If they were in a district like 7, that record may be the other way around. They would struggle vs Union,Abingdon,GC,RV,and probably Lee.

[Hokiebird7]

3 hours ago, Unchained said:

You have to factor in how weak that district is though. The Wave have beaten up on some terrible teams. If they were in a district like 7, that record may be the other way around. They would struggle vs Union,Abingdon,GC,RV,and probably Lee.

Exactly...they would struggle against any district not named Pioneer

[NotJustin23]

45 minutes ago, Hokiebird7 said:

Exactly...they would struggle against any district not named Pioneer

Same could be said for a lot of other teams i would imagine....

[NotJustin23]

3 hours ago, Unchained said:

You have to factor in how weak that district is though. The Wave have beaten up on some terrible teams. If they were in a district like 7, that record may be the other way around. They would struggle vs Union,Abingdon,GC,RV,and probably Lee.

Against much much larger schools? I would say that's correct. 

[Unchained]

Ok so let's say that D1 Cumberland is also stronger than the Pioneer. Narz would STILL struggle with Rye Cove, Eastside and Twin Springs. TS had a bad year last year because I have never seen a team lose as many starters to injury. The Titans usually are a playoff squad. Thomas Walker under former Union QB Tanner Hall also is a postseason squad from last year.. I understand that Narz geographically is limited, but you have to admit playing in the Pioner is killing them. Every time they play a tough playoff squad, they get grubshucked.

[NotJustin23]

36 minutes ago, Unchained said:

Ok so let's say that D1 Cumberland is also stronger than the Pioneer. Narz would STILL struggle with Rye Cove, Eastside and Twin Springs. TS had a bad year last year because I have never seen a team lose as many starters to injury. The Titans usually are a playoff squad. Thomas Walker under former Union QB Tanner Hall also is a postseason squad from last year.. I understand that Narz geographically is limited, but you have to admit playing in the Pioner is killing them. Every time they play a tough playoff squad, they get grubshucked.

First of all, im not a Narrows advocate or anything of the sorts. I was just pointing out to another poster that he misread a comment (as he typically does) and yeah the pioneer is bad but Narrows don't really have many options geographically that would allow them a district of similar sized schools. Could switch to the MED and play teams a lot larger that wasn't even in the same playoff classification until recently. Not sure what would be the benefit in that honestly. Its hard to say what would happen if Narrows was in the Cumberland? We dont have a lot to go on other than the common opponents and based on that solely, Narrows would be competitive i think. They've played Holsten, Chilhowie, and Honaker in recent years and the scores to those games would suggest that Narrows would be around the same level as Rye Cove, Eastside,  and Twin Springs routinely. 

[Hokiebird7]

21 minutes ago, NotJustin23 said:

First of all, im not a Narrows advocate or anything of the sorts. I was just pointing out to another poster that he misread a comment (as he typically does) and yeah the pioneer is bad but Narrows don't really have many options geographically that would allow them a district of similar sized schools. Could switch to the MED and play teams a lot larger that wasn't even in the same playoff classification until recently. Not sure what would be the benefit in that honestly. Its hard to say what would happen if Narrows was in the Cumberland? We dont have a lot to go on other than the common opponents and based on that solely, Narrows would be competitive i think. They've played Holsten, Chilhowie, and Honaker in recent years and the scores to those games would suggest that Narrows would be around the same level as Rye Cove, Eastside,  and Twin Springs routinely. 

Hahaha