FB: Empire 8

[D3MAFAN]

Who cares, that's 25,000 odd kids playing solely at the D3 level.  Probably 10% is little more than glorified club sports to bring students into the school with a false sense that its competitive with the rest and will never be supported by the institutions. 

Hobart would've been in that bottom 10% 25yrs ago, but at least they had a history of playing it the predates the 20th century.  I seriously question the motives of any institution that attempts to add football at this point.  It's not like the growth rate and younger ages supports it and the current trajectory with greater science around head trauma is probably going to reduce the supply even more.   If its just a marketing tool for these institutions, fine, but give up all federal fundig includinng subsidized student sebt if your going to push costs far in excess of inflation and so cravenly market to underage kids.

Everyone I work with is ok with their kids playing pee wee level FB and love watching it, but will do everything in their power to keep their kids from playing at HS-and that includes a few who played college FB.

D3viewer:  Interesting...in my town everyone has their kid play pee wee because they think their kid will be the next HS superstar.

Likewise, I can go a bit further and say that most believe their kid will be the next All-Pro in the N.F.L. However, they must not have looked at the percentages for that.

[kate]

For Pete's sake, the real world can be crumby enough, let's just let the kids,the parents and the schools enjoy four years (or more  ) of fun and possibly glory.   Heck the Mets have a catcher, Recker, i think was his name, who played catcher for Alvernia.   Different sport, i know, but heck ya NEVER know!!!

[Jonny Utah]

Mt. Ida was in a similar situation as Elmira is now.  They added football at a school which is mostly female (66/33).  There are now 5 men's sports, and 8 women's sports (I'm not sure if cheerleading and equestrain counts).

Elmira adding football probably has some pros and cons for the other upstate teams.

Pros
- Might generate more interest/attendence for programs that are short drives for fans (Alfred, Ithaca, Hobart).
- Might generate more interest at the local high school level if there are more colleges playing.
- Saves some E8 schools money on road trips.

Cons
- Can't really argue the fact that Elmira will steal some players from other local schools like Ithaca, Hobart, Alfred or SJF.
- There may be some dilution of talent in the Southern Tier (which I now have a better grasp on
-  Another team to take away a playoff spot from someone else
-  Elmira may have advantages for recruiting that other local schools might not have (Financial aid, admissions, etc)

[fisheralum91]

Mt. Ida was in a similar situation as Elmira is now.  They added football at a school which is mostly female (66/33).  There are now 5 men's sports, and 8 women's sports (I'm not sure if cheerleading and equestrain counts).

Elmira adding football probably has some pros and cons for the other upstate teams.

Pros
- Might generate more interest/attendence for programs that are short drives for fans (Alfred, Ithaca, Hobart).
- Might generate more interest at the local high school level if there are more colleges playing.
- Saves some E8 schools money on road trips.

Cons
- Can't really argue the fact that Elmira will steal some players from other local schools like Ithaca, Hobart, Alfred or SJF.
- There may be some dilution of talent in the Southern Tier (which I now have a better grasp on
-  Another team to take away a playoff spot from someone else
-  Elmira may have advantages for recruiting that other local schools might not have (Financial aid, admissions, etc)

Dare I ask what the 1 is?

[MooseKnuckles]

One point worth noting here, although it wouldn't totally offset the budget-balancing, is that adding football probably would increase male enrollment to some extent, possibly adding 50-100 more males than would otherwise attend school at Elmira.  I'm no expert on the ins and outs of Title IX, so take this with a grain of salt.

*Edited: I see that Bombers essentially already made this point.

   Misericordia (who added football last fall down in the MAC) calculated that football will increase each incoming class with about 100-125 males.  Prior to adding football the male/female ratio was around 30% boys and 70% girls.  First season was pretty rough (as you'd expect) but at least the players had plenty of sympathetic ladies to console them.

[Bombers798891]

Nationwide, here are the number of teams, male participants, and average team sizes in 11-man football at the high-school level:

2007-08: 13,987/1,108,286/79.2
2008-09: 14,105/1,112,203/78.8
2009-10: 14,226/1,109,278/78.1
2010-11: 14,279/1,108,441/77.6
2011-12: 14,241/1,095,993/76.9

In terms of overall participation, this is a drop of 1.1%. And that comes at a time when the number of schools offering the sport rose.

In N.Y State however, the number of high school boys playing 11-man football in New York has fallen from 38,354 to 35,552 since 2008. That's a drop of 7.3%, despite the fact that six additional schools added 11-man. And remember, unlike many other states, New York does not allow schools to institute pay-to-play policies, which have become more common since the economic crisis hurt school budgets. So the fact that the numbers are worse for New York is actually more troubling.

While the overall NY numbers are actually better than they were in 2003, that was before the economy went south and a lot of this concussion research/information came out. I think these numbers from the last five years have to be concerning to any New York school looking to add football. If participation continues to decline, schools in the stare are going to find it very tough to compete for a shrinking pool of high school players in the state.

[D3MAFAN]

Nationwide, here are the number of teams, male participants, and average team sizes in 11-man football at the high-school level:

2007-08: 13,987/1,108,286/79.2
2008-09: 14,105/1,112,203/78.8
2009-10: 14,226/1,109,278/78.1
2010-11: 14,279/1,108,441/77.6
2011-12: 14,241/1,095,993/76.9

In terms of overall participation, this is a drop of 1.1%. And that comes at a time when the number of schools offering the sport rose.

In N.Y State however, the number of high school boys playing 11-man football in New York has fallen from 38,354 to 35,552 since 2008. That's a drop of 7.3%, despite the fact that six additional schools added 11-man. And remember, New York does not allow schools to institute pay-to-play policies, which have become more common since the economic crisis hurt school budgets.

While the NY numbers are actually better than they were in 2003, that was before the economy went south and a lot of this concussion research/information came out. I think these numbers from the last five years have to be concerning to any New York school looking to add football. If the numbers continue to decline, schools in the stare are going to find it very tough to compete for a shrinking pool of high school players in the state.

Does Lacrosse have anything to do with it? I know there are a lot of talented Lacrosse players that come from the State of New York.

[Jonny Utah]

Nationwide, here are the number of teams, male participants, and average team sizes in 11-man football at the high-school level:

2007-08: 13,987/1,108,286/79.2
2008-09: 14,105/1,112,203/78.8
2009-10: 14,226/1,109,278/78.1
2010-11: 14,279/1,108,441/77.6
2011-12: 14,241/1,095,993/76.9

In terms of overall participation, this is a drop of 1.1%. And that comes at a time when the number of schools offering the sport rose.

In N.Y State however, the number of high school boys playing 11-man football in New York has fallen from 38,354 to 35,552 since 2008. That's a drop of 7.3%, despite the fact that six additional schools added 11-man. And remember, New York does not allow schools to institute pay-to-play policies, which have become more common since the economic crisis hurt school budgets.

While the NY numbers are actually better than they were in 2003, that was before the economy went south and a lot of this concussion research/information came out. I think these numbers from the last five years have to be concerning to any New York school looking to add football. If the numbers continue to decline, schools in the stare are going to find it very tough to compete for a shrinking pool of high school players in the state.

Are you telling me that High Schools in NY do not have Athletic user fees?  In Massachusetts basically every HS has a "user fee", but if you can't afford it the school department usually puts up the tab.  In the Town I work in, the Booster club picks up the tab.

But those are interesting numbers.  I wonder how much the specialization of other sports have to do with the decline as well.  When I played HS sports back in the early 1990s, everyone played 3 sports no matter how good you were at one specific sport.  Now it seems that many kids play one sport only.  I see it more in Boston with Hockey, lacrosse, baseball, and basketball.  And the concussions no doubt have an impact on these numbers as well.

I also found it interesting that the average HS team in America has 76.9 players on it?  I assume that includes every level including freshman.  I assume the country is made up of mostly smaller High schools (under 1000K?)

[Bombers798891]

Nationwide, here are the number of teams, male participants, and average team sizes in 11-man football at the high-school level:

2007-08: 13,987/1,108,286/79.2
2008-09: 14,105/1,112,203/78.8
2009-10: 14,226/1,109,278/78.1
2010-11: 14,279/1,108,441/77.6
2011-12: 14,241/1,095,993/76.9

In terms of overall participation, this is a drop of 1.1%. And that comes at a time when the number of schools offering the sport rose.

In N.Y State however, the number of high school boys playing 11-man football in New York has fallen from 38,354 to 35,552 since 2008. That's a drop of 7.3%, despite the fact that six additional schools added 11-man. And remember, New York does not allow schools to institute pay-to-play policies, which have become more common since the economic crisis hurt school budgets.

While the NY numbers are actually better than they were in 2003, that was before the economy went south and a lot of this concussion research/information came out. I think these numbers from the last five years have to be concerning to any New York school looking to add football. If the numbers continue to decline, schools in the stare are going to find it very tough to compete for a shrinking pool of high school players in the state.

Does Lacrosse have anything to do with it as well. I know there is a lot of talented Lacrosse players that come from the State of New York.

There were two big jumps in boys' lacrosse participation in New York: One from 2007 to 2008 (1,500 players) and the other from 2004 to 2005 (1,200). I don't know if that fully explains it since one came well before the decline, and the other just at the start of it. It is a possible contributor, however.

Overall, here are the number of male participants in New York

2008: 217,556
2013: 215,447

That's less than a 1% decline. So it may be that players are shifting sports. Sport specialization is certainly becoming more common, even though there's growing concern of the injury risks associated with it. But this is something I think New York colleges would be wise to dig into before starting a football program.

[Bombers798891]

Are you telling me that High Schools in NY do not have Athletic user fees?  In Massachusetts basically every HS has a "user fee", but if you can't afford it the school department usually puts up the tab.  In the Town I work in, the Booster club picks up the tab.

But those are interesting numbers.  I wonder how much the specialization of other sports have to do with the decline as well.  When I played HS sports back in the early 1990s, everyone played 3 sports no matter how good you were at one specific sport.  Now it seems that many kids play one sport only.  I see it more in Boston with Hockey, lacrosse, baseball, and basketball.  And the concussions no doubt have an impact on these numbers as well.

I also found it interesting that the average HS team in America has 76.9 players on it?  I assume that includes every level including freshman.  I assume the country is made up of mostly smaller High schools (under 1000K?)

Johnny, to answer your questions:

1) New York has outlawed pay-to-play. This is a huge thing to me, because what happens if it IS instituted? That's only going to make the numbers worse for schools.

2) I do think sport specialization plays a role, though I can only speak anecdoteally based on things I've heard from coaches and AD's in my job.

3) I would assume you're right on the rosters including all levels. I simply got those numbers by dividing the number of players by the number of schools offering the sport.

[Jonny Utah]

Are you telling me that High Schools in NY do not have Athletic user fees?  In Massachusetts basically every HS has a "user fee", but if you can't afford it the school department usually puts up the tab.  In the Town I work in, the Booster club picks up the tab.

But those are interesting numbers.  I wonder how much the specialization of other sports have to do with the decline as well.  When I played HS sports back in the early 1990s, everyone played 3 sports no matter how good you were at one specific sport.  Now it seems that many kids play one sport only.  I see it more in Boston with Hockey, lacrosse, baseball, and basketball.  And the concussions no doubt have an impact on these numbers as well.

I also found it interesting that the average HS team in America has 76.9 players on it?  I assume that includes every level including freshman.  I assume the country is made up of mostly smaller High schools (under 1000K?)

Johnny, to answer your questions:

1) New York has outlawed pay-to-play. This is a huge thing to me, because what happens if it IS instituted? That's only going to make the numbers worse for schools.

2) I do think sport specialization plays a role, though I can only speak anecdoteally based on things I've heard from coaches and AD's in my job.

3) I would assume you're right on the rosters including all levels. I simply got those numbers by dividing the number of players by the number of schools offering the sport.

Well it depends (on the user fee).  Like I said, most schools have a fee, but won't let you not play if you can't afford it.  This in turn brings in more money for what could be more sports and more participation. 

I graduated high school in 1993 and it was $45 per sport.  At the HS I coach at now it is $120 per sport I believe.  If you have brothers and sisters in the same school, you get some sort of discount.

[Bombers798891]

Well it depends (on the user fee).  Like I said, most schools have a fee, but won't let you not play if you can't afford it.  This in turn brings in more money for what could be more sports and more participation. 

I graduated high school in 1993 and it was $45 per sport.  At the HS I coach at now it is $120 per sport I believe.  If you have brothers and sisters in the same school, you get some sort of discount.

I know booster clubs sometimes pick up the tab, but I can't imagine the schools all have policies that allow for someone else to pick up the tab. I don't doubt that it's the case in and around where you are, but I would be surprised it's universally applied.

Just from some quick searching, for example, here's a school that dropped P2P because of participation numbers:

http://www.macombdaily.com/article/20130701/NEWS01/130709947/warren-consolidated-drops-pay-to-play#full_story

"In news release, Mike Schulte, director of student activities, athletics and facility usage, said participation was on the decline because of the pay-to-play plan."

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/student-pay-to-play-fees-rise-at-local-schools/nPShx/

"He cited what happened at Medina City Schools, which raised its fees from $150 per athlete to $660 per sport after its levy failed in 2009. In response, the district reported a 10 percent decline in athletic participation in the first year and a 21 percent decrease through this spring."

I mean, I'm not saying P2P would be a death knell for NY football. I just think it can only hurt participation, although we may not be able to quantify exactly what that impact would be.

[Jonny Utah]

Well it depends (on the user fee).  Like I said, most schools have a fee, but won't let you not play if you can't afford it.  This in turn brings in more money for what could be more sports and more participation. 

I graduated high school in 1993 and it was $45 per sport.  At the HS I coach at now it is $120 per sport I believe.  If you have brothers and sisters in the same school, you get some sort of discount.

I know booster clubs sometimes pick up the tab, but I can't imagine the schools all have policies that allow for someone else to pick up the tab. I don't doubt that it's the case in and around where you are, but I would be surprised it's universally applied.

Just from some quick searching, for example, here's a school that dropped P2P because of participation numbers:

http://www.macombdaily.com/article/20130701/NEWS01/130709947/warren-consolidated-drops-pay-to-play#full_story

"In news release, Mike Schulte, director of student activities, athletics and facility usage, said participation was on the decline because of the pay-to-play plan."

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local/student-pay-to-play-fees-rise-at-local-schools/nPShx/

"He cited what happened at Medina City Schools, which raised its fees from $150 per athlete to $660 per sport after its levy failed in 2009. In response, the district reported a 10 percent decline in athletic participation in the first year and a 21 percent decrease through this spring."

I mean, I'm not saying P2P would be a death knell for NY football. I just think it can only hurt participation, although we may not be able to quantify exactly what that impact would be.

Yea, we have had the cases here in MA where a Town/School Department says each kid has to pay $950 per sport or there will be no more sports in the Town.  What happens is the parents revolt, the school gives in and voters/politicians simply change the policy.  There was a funny (at least I thought it was) situation in a very wealthy town in MA where the voters turned down a tax hike, and the cheerleading squad was cut ($4,000 out of $684,000 cuts at the HS).  You then had these sad looking cheerleaders on the front page of the Boston Herald.  Of course the reactions were missed, in a town where no one had sympothy for 15 probably wealthy families whose world is now ending.  (and of course the school decided to then fund the sport because of negative publicity.)

But if you don't have a P2P, it means you have less money for other sports potentially don't you?  Again, in MA if the voters don't approve the fees, sports get cut, which leads to less participation as well.  I mean, the money has to come from somewhere, right?

[Jonny Utah]

Actually a good article here about both sides of what P2P can happen. 

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/articles/article.aspx?articleid=1684&zoneid=9

[sjfcards]

But those are interesting numbers.  I wonder how much the specialization of other sports have to do with the decline as well.  When I played HS sports back in the early 1990s, everyone played 3 sports no matter how good you were at one specific sport.  Now it seems that many kids play one sport only.  I see it more in Boston with Hockey, lacrosse, baseball, and basketball.  And the concussions no doubt have an impact on these numbers as well.

Specialization in sports at the high school level fascinates me. I was a three sport athlete in high school, like most of the other athletes in the school (I graduated in 2000), but there has been a significant decline in the number of three sport athletes at my high school since then. The football numbers are actually up for the football team, but those kids are no longer playing basketball, baseball, lacrosse, etc.

It is interesting you mention hockey, as USA Hockey has actually made a big push for playing multiple sports. The idea is to build athletes that play hockey, instead of hockey players who we hope are athletes. US Soccer on the other hand wants kids to be playing soccer 3/4 of the year, and to start specializing in soccer around age 12-13. Without any knowledge of what USA Basketball, or football coaches suggest I wonder if they take a stand one way or the other?

There was a really good article in ESPN the magazine about USA Hockey's new ADM model for player development recently, and the push back from parents about these types of decisions. Parents seem to want to specialize their kids when they see any shred of talent.

Specialization must have something to do with a drop in sports participation overall, but I wonder if it is better for a kids development to pick one sport to focus on? I think specialization is more of a parents way to feel like they are giving their son/daughter the best possible chance to succeed. As a coach for Soccer and Hockey at the youth level I would argue it is detrimental to not only the kid but the sport as well, but that is just me.