What steps would it take to make 1A football more competitive?

I don’t see anything wrong with 6-man as it is now, except for the cut off enrollment numbers are way too high. Any school that can field 25 or more players can play 11-man with no problems. Period. Excuse#1, we are getting 45’d because we are a very young team! Answer: Stick around, they’ll grow and mature and then you’ll have a senior heavy team and get your revenge. That’s in both 6-man and 11-man. Every school goes through this cycle.
If the top number was set at around 80, we could go back to the way it was originally. With this 105 number, there has to be a division.
And Leman was referencing Novice, that was sad when they closed down. A neat little school and they always had a scrappy little team. Like he said, they didn’t have the numbers to compete, but I admired the way they always seemed to give 100% and gave it their all.
 
Epler's suggested or opinion for the cut off for 6man schools was 100...I dont know if he changed his opinion on it over time but it was orginally invented with 100 in his mind. I like a higher 6man cut off and honestly think it should be 110 or 115 because I like the game and think more schools should be able to play it (however that is only thinking about football and not all other UIL sports)...C. La you might be right, it could help to an extent, but numbers does not equal success...Fruitvale and Campbell usually have had some of the higher enrollments for example.

One thing other states do and I wouldnt mind seeing for the smallest schools is Co-Opting two schools for sports....example...Marathon and Valentine could Co-Op to field sports teams...dont know what the rules or parameters would be for doing that kind of thing but could model it after what other states do. I dont know if schools would even want to do this
 
There is nothing wrong with the sport of 6man.. It is growing year by year.. We have kids getting to the higher levels of collegiate athletics now.... I am so happy to see this sport continue to grow as I knew long ago that the sport would start getting the attention it deserves. 8man wouldn't last 1 realignment cycle in this state.. Let it be in the past.. Oklahoma has 8 man on lock and Texas has the 6man game on lock.
 
2 divisions with 8 team districts and highest enrollment goes to d1 playoffs and lower enrollments go to d2 playoffs. I like that idea. Some poster brought that up and I think it would be a good idea. Blowouts in district happen
In the playoffs it shouldn't be this bad.
 
Epler's suggested or opinion for the cut off for 6man schools was 100...I dont know if he changed his opinion on it over time but it was orginally invented with 100 in his mind. I like a higher 6man cut off and honestly think it should be 110 or 115 because I like the game and think more schools should be able to play it (however that is only thinking about football and not all other UIL sports)...C. La you might be right, it could help to an extent, but numbers does not equal success...Fruitvale and Campbell usually have had some of the higher enrollments for example.

One thing other states do and I wouldnt mind seeing for the smallest schools is Co-Opting two schools for sports....example...Marathon and Valentine could Co-Op to field sports teams...dont know what the rules or parameters would be for doing that kind of thing but could model it after what other states do. I dont know if schools would even want to do this
Co-Opting is a great suggestion given that sports participation is about providing athletic opportunities for the children and not meeting whatever the standards are currently in place. The UIL should consider allowing homeschool students' participation in UIL school sport programs when numbers are low in such areas as Marathon, Valentine, Dell City, Walnut Springs, etc.
 
Epler's suggested or opinion for the cut off for 6man schools was 100...I dont know if he changed his opinion on it over time but it was orginally invented with 100 in his mind. I like a higher 6man cut off and honestly think it should be 110 or 115 because I like the game and think more schools should be able to play it (however that is only thinking about football and not all other UIL sports)...C. La you might be right, it could help to an extent, but numbers does not equal success...Fruitvale and Campbell usually have had some of the higher enrollments for example.

One thing other states do and I wouldnt mind seeing for the smallest schools is Co-Opting two schools for sports....example...Marathon and Valentine could Co-Op to field sports teams...dont know what the rules or parameters would be for doing that kind of thing but could model it after what other states do. I dont know if schools would even want to do this
Thanks for the reply. I like the idea of co-opting would be very beneficial for the smaller schools. New mexico does this.
 
There is nothing wrong with the sport of 6man.. It is growing year by year.. We have kids getting to the higher levels of collegiate athletics now.... I am so happy to see this sport continue to grow as I knew long ago that the sport would start getting the attention it deserves. 8man wouldn't last 1 realignment cycle in this state.. Let it be in the past.. Oklahoma has 8 man on lock and Texas has the 6man game on lock.
NM has 6, 8, and 11man... not a lot of teams in 6 or 8man though
 
If a school does not want to play football, why make them? Cost alone for a field and stadium now would be a major obstacle for most small rural schools. Forcing people to do something they dont want to do isnt really a good solution to anything.

8man will not come back, there was a very small push a few years ago by 1A schools refusing to play 6man to maybe get 8man back and it died a quick death. Of the 100+ 6man coaches (and schools) probably less than 20 would want to do that. I have said this before and some maybe new and not aware of it...The main reason Texas chose 6man over 8man is because the purpose of having an alternative to 11man is so small schools that struggle with numbers (or participation) would have a style of football to play and 6man is better for that by the simple fact it requires less players to field a team...it was better for schools who had around 20 players to develop and play other players and some to possibly even have a JV, where they wouldnt in 8man. It was the better option and still is. The coaches' association knows this and I seriously doubt they would ever want 8man back.

Competition has always had a wide disparity at the smallest sports level, that will never change. As we all know schools go through cycles of having athletic kids or enough kids to be competitive. It was true in 1938 Texas 6man as it is true today, and it was true in 8man when we had it.

Also what competition are you talking about? Simply from top to bottom all season or is this a reflection of playoff game scores? If the wide divide in playoff game scores, especially the state games, is the catalyst for this topic then the solution would be get rid of the division split, that would create much better playoff matchups mainly in the State games. However, that would not help many of the small schools compete at the district level really....also worth adding is getting rid of the two divisions will not happen either.

In short the only real way is for school districts who want to be better or do better is to develop their kids by hiring coaches that are best for them to do that...and the towns to address their own factors that contribute to whatever their issue(s) are...be it an aging population with less and less kids, or a declining population with less and less people (thus less kids). Social and economic issues in rural towns are more to the issue for some. As an example I will use Novice who is no longer a school...they would always have a talented player or two...but only had 6-8 players...and even Harley Ethridge coached there once upon a time...and they were rarely competitive...division splits, 8man, hiring coaches...none of that would fix that.
I'm by no means a 6 man expert, but I was talking competitiveness across the entire season. Not just the playoffs, but I will admit that having state winning teams penciled in for the entire season multiple years in a row does take the wind out of your sails to watch as a neutral or as a new fan to the sport. I am also aware that this is not a 6-Man only issue. I do think the 12 Divisions are the root cause personally.

Like I said I know forcing schools to play isn't realistic. I just personally believe you're withholding things from the kids that they could be successful at or love doing. I do think at a certain enrollment point you shouldn't be able to hold out of sports. Wether that number is a 1A number or not is a debatable topic.
 
Getting coaching and administration that are bought in and support the program are a big step
In the right direction. Take a look at a few of the programs that recently had new coaches come in that have had success and those programs start winning sooner than later. I have had conversations with a couple of coaches who literally had zero experience and took the job as a first year coach. These guys never played six man and came out of college trying to coach it. It’s hard to overcome this lack of experience.
This brings back a broader question on coaching.

Is the difference between 6 Man and 11 Man experience to big of a gap for coaches to jump?

What are we not doing to get more 6 Man school Alums to the coaching/teaching ranks?
 
Are we talking about Marathon, Valentine, and Dell City co-opting with each other? Or just the closest town? It would be impossible for these schools to co-opt together (check a map). And I think the closest school to each of these are 11man anyway (Alpine and Van Horn), and those aren't short drives...will be very tough on families to get home after 9:00pm every night after practice.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with 6-man now. Some teams are extremely good, yes...but someone mentioned it earlier: the extra work these teams put in is the difference maker.

I also don't see the need to mess with the numbers (up or down). If we raise the number, I really don't see that drawing more schools to sixman. Some are under the number and aren't playing now. I doubt very many (prolly 2 or 3) schools will decide to change to sixman even if the number is 115. Dropping the number to 75 or 80 would hurt those schools above the number. Contrary to popular belief, teams with 25 players WILL NOT be able to handle 11-man "easily". I believe that their participation would drop significantly...there would be no way to play a JV schedule, either. Just my opinion on all this. Good conversation!
 
What I see locally, when comparing today to 30 years ago --

In the old days, almost EVERY boy played football. We were 11 man, and needed them all. We may have had a JV some years, others we didn't.
In recent years, I have seen quite a bit of kids NOT playing football and doing just basketball. There are some that don't for medical reasons, others because their parents don't like the physicality of the sport. We had several basketball boys that could have contributed a great deal to our team the last few years. We could certainly field an 11 man team if everyone participated like they did ages ago. Today, not so much.

How much of it is the "busy-ness" of youth sports? My summers as a kid were "real" summers.... doing non-sport things. Kids now are going to camps and off-season league games and ... and... Maybe they feel overwhelmed? Do other schools see the same trend, or is that a more local issue?

If we are looking for closer games, I would think one division playoffs would help a bit. You have great D1 teams and great D2 teams. When they are facing the weaker opponents we get blowouts. Throw them all together, you'll still have some blowouts, but as the bracket gets deeper, the cream will rise and games should get (generally) closer.
 
This brings back a broader question on coaching.

Is the difference between 6 Man and 11 Man experience to big of a gap for coaches to jump?

What are we not doing to get more 6 Man school Alums to the coaching/teaching ranks?
This is just me two cents on the coaching gap whether it be right or wrong. I think one big gripe I have with guys sometimes jumping to six man from 11 man is the refusal to run “six man offenses” per say. Take a look at all the good six man programs ie the Gordon, Strawn, Abbott, BC, Rankin, Aquilla, UH, Westbrook and other I know I didn’t mention. There’s a commonality among those in offenses they run. Yes they may have some differences in the way they run them, but they are not trying to reinvent the wheel. See a lot of T, j-bird, diamond sometimes. I think a lot of 11 man guys moving to six man want to run an “11am offense” and unless you have unreal athletes it doesn’t always work. Six man is just as real of football as 11 man but the style of play and coaching is different. I wish more people that come to coach six man would understand and study good teams to see what they do that makes them successful and stop trying to create something new and try and be different. Just my opinion on the matter of coaching based on observation.
 
This brings back a broader question on coaching.

Is the difference between 6 Man and 11 Man experience to big of a gap for coaches to jump?

What are we not doing to get more 6 Man school Alums to the coaching/teaching ranks?
Coaches at our level are expected (at most places) to help/coach every sport. Our districts are smaller which typically means lesser pay for more responsibilities. It is tough to battle against the bigger schools who offer higher pay for less responsibilities, more time off and way more time with their families.

I don't think it is an experience or knowledge gap/difference. To me, football is football, coach 'em up! I think it is preference for most at this point. Given the choice I don't know if I go and coach 11 man. But again, higher pay, more family time and less to do....
 
Coaches at our level are expected (at most places) to help/coach every sport. Our districts are smaller which typically means lesser pay for more responsibilities. It is tough to battle against the bigger schools who offer higher pay for less responsibilities, more time off and way more time with their families.

I don't think it is an experience or knowledge gap/difference. To me, football is football, coach 'em up! I think it is preference for most at this point. Given the choice I don't know if I go and coach 11 man. But again, higher pay, more family time and less to do....
Would agree with this big time too
 
This is just me two cents on the coaching gap whether it be right or wrong. I think one big gripe I have with guys sometimes jumping to six man from 11 man is the refusal to run “six man offenses” per say. Take a look at all the good six man programs ie the Gordon, Strawn, Abbott, BC, Rankin, Aquilla, UH, Westbrook and other I know I didn’t mention. There’s a commonality among those in offenses they run. Yes they may have some differences in the way they run them, but they are not trying to reinvent the wheel. See a lot of T, j-bird, diamond sometimes. I think a lot of 11 man guys moving to six man want to run an “11am offense” and unless you have unreal athletes it doesn’t always work. Six man is just as real of football as 11 man but the style of play and coaching is different. I wish more people that come to coach six man would understand and study good teams to see what they do that makes them successful and stop trying to create something new and try and be different. Just my opinion on the matter of coaching based on observation.
Do you think that THSCA does a good enough job in helping prepare people for the 6 Man game specifically at clinics, Coaching School, and etc.? (I do not think they do as a coach who attended those events)

I know TSMCA hosts things, but would it be beneficial to connect with THSCA on things to help grow the coaching side of the game?
 
Coaches at our level are expected (at most places) to help/coach every sport. Our districts are smaller which typically means lesser pay for more responsibilities. It is tough to battle against the bigger schools who offer higher pay for less responsibilities, more time off and way more time with their families.

I don't think it is an experience or knowledge gap/difference. To me, football is football, coach 'em up! I think it is preference for most at this point. Given the choice I don't know if I go and coach 11 man. But again, higher pay, more family time and less to do....
Having coached at 1As and 2As for most of my career I agree that this is an issue as well. A lot of 1As are struggling to keep the doors open, much less having a full staff. I think that's why we desperately need the state to renew the Teacher pay raise in a year and a half to make smaller schools more appealing.

Not many people are willing to get paid 38k-44k a year to coach 3-4 sports JH and HS and have 4 or 5 teaching preps to prepare for everyday.
Teacher shortage doesn't help this problem either.
 
I do think the UIL would have to step in on the basketball only schools so I know that one is pretty unrealistic. Even though I think most of those schools would be just fine and competitive in 6 Man football as apposed to 11 man.

I am aware 8 Man died in Texas, but I think a lot of schools would now would take 8 Man over getting blown out in 6 Man every year. West Texas Schools would be able to schedule non district games against New Mexico. Panhandle and North Texas schools could play Oklahoma schools or Kansas Schools in the Panhandle's case. I think 8 Man would help transition these 11 Man schools dropping enrollment so quickly into 6 Man a lot better then going straight from 11 man to 6 man.

Recruiting can be cracked down on. UIL has proven that they can crack down on it. It needs to be more consistent.

We also need coaches in districts across the state to stop agreeing to not report each other about recruiting(District 11-6A cough cough).

We can all agree that the 2 division and 70ish schools each is not healthy for 6 Man.

Heck I am a fan of a 4A Division 2 team and only having 93 schools has hurt that division massively in competitive balance.
In 6-man some regions only have 15-18 teams!!!!!
 
This brings back a broader question on coaching.

Is the difference between 6 Man and 11 Man experience to big of a gap for coaches to jump?

What are we not doing to get more 6 Man school Alums to the coaching/teaching ranks?
Coaching/Teaching is a career I rarely see kids wanting to pursue. Even they seem to understand that its a ton of hours with little pay. Most don't even consider it for this reason. No kid wants to to school for 4 years and make half (or less) of what their peers are making. Not to mention all the other issues coaches deal with now. It's a tough sell for kids, especially in west Texas where they can go and make triple right out of HS. I wish there was a way to get more kids interested in it as it's been extremely rewarding for me, but it's a tough sell to others.
 
Back
Top