Lima Perry or Ada ?

JOSP

New member
I may have used this on someone else in a prior "argument" BUT the guys I went to school with at Lima Senior who were on the soccer team were not going to make us necessarily better on Friday nights (not that we needed their help in 96 or 97). Outside of kicker / punter it's not like the team striker or goalie was going to be the make or break running back we needed. Was, still am friends with a lot of those guys but god bless em all they didn't play football for a reason.

Now I get it, Lima Senior versus CR is apples to oranges athletically but I tire of this assumption (and it is an assumption IMO) that if we got rid of soccer we'd reach the promise land in football. Like some how hiding away on your soccer team is secretly a D1 QB or D1 free safety. In CR's case maybe there is. But then you have to ask yourself why are they CHOOSING soccer over football at that school. No one is forcing communist kickball on them. Or maybe they are? idk, don't live in the CR district.

Lastly in my professional opinion as a coach of 17 years now, if your lack of success is the result of another sport at your school then shame on you as a coach. Case in point. Couple years ago I had a XC coach who badgered me daily as to whether or not some of my female swimmers could also do XC at the same time as swimming (swimming in South Carolina is in the fall). I in so many words told him if you need my girls to score points for you at XC meets then brother we got bigger problems inside the XC program. If your team is so bad that you need athletes who swim rather than run and those athletes would be better than the athletes you see and coach every day then something else is at play in your program.

If I'm the soccer coach at CR it's not my fault the football team is bad or at any other school for that matter.
IMO this is the wrong line of thinking. Sometimes, better athletes are just better. I don't care if they train a minimal amount in terms of running xc, top notch athletes are going to excel, so they may have been more capable of scoring points for the XC team, even though they're "swimmers." You see this all the time with track/baseball in the spring, with athletes who play dual sports (at the small school level). Obviously, if they're swimmers and meets are conflicting with XC meets, then by all means, tell the coach to leave. However, if the XC meet didn't interfere with a swim meet I'd see no reason why the swimmer couldn't also run in a XC meet. You act as if the coach is responsible for the athlete choosing swimming over cross country or soccer over football, etc. There are numerous factors that go into an athlete's decision to play one sport over another. Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, in which case, I'll gladly let it go.

Edit: I should clarify, XC they'd be more capable of placing higher, thus scoring less points (placing the team higher). I stated they'd score more points, which in XC, much like golf, would be a worse score ;)
 

*67

Well-known member
You also have to remember that if there is no soccer team, maybe those kids play football their whole life and lift more seriously. Do that for 4 years and you are a whole different kid physically.
You also have to remember if there's no soccer team, maybe those kids do nothing in the fall. Do that for 4 years, and you are a whole different kid physically.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
"no D7 teams should have football and soccer, not enough kids to spread around. Choose one. "

Unless where talking state level teams or top of the conferences maybe, D7 or D1 doesn't take any particular physical body type or skill set to play a game. It's just kids playing a game but with guidance and training to make them better at it. I'm not sure if it is being implied a school should limit their sports offerings to make another stronger but I'm getting that vibe. You play as many sports as you can find participants I would think. Many schools, that's the coach's first job is to encourage kids into extra-curriculars for the life-long benefit. If two teams are slightly weaker because of it, the higher goal has still been achieved, hasn't it?
 

Weiskittle

Active member
I
"no D7 teams should have football and soccer, not enough kids to spread around. Choose one. "

Unless where talking state level teams or top of the conferences maybe, D7 or D1 doesn't take any particular physical body type or skill set to play a game. It's just kids playing a game but with guidance and training to make them better at it. I'm not sure if it is being implied a school should limit their sports offerings to make another stronger but I'm getting that vibe. You play as many sports as you can find participants I would think. Many schools, that's the coach's first job is to encourage kids into extra-curriculars for the life-long benefit. If two teams are slightly weaker because of it, the higher goal has still been achieved, hasn't it?
Until a team fold halfway through the season, or kids get hurt because they have to be on the field the whole game.

Also sports teaches more than just the game, but at the end of the day, the point is to max out potential and win.

We shouldn’t be at the point that we are talking about canceling a sport to help another, the problem was adding soccer to a school that is so small and already has football.
 

Jaws31

Well-known member
Even if you only get one kid from the soccer team it would help.

no D7 teams should have football and soccer, not enough kids to spread around. Choose one.
We have enough play both. The only soccer players that played football were our 2 kickers. 75 or so boys in the school, 40ish on the football roster, full soccer team. There are enough if the kids are motivated.
 

adog

Well-known member
We have enough play both. The only soccer players that played football were our 2 kickers. 75 or so boys in the school, 40ish on the football roster, full soccer team. There are enough if the kids are motivated.
That right there is the answer, too bad not enough schools realize this and get the right people in the right positions to do this
 

Weiskittle

Active member
Private school are also different. They inherently have a more involved student body, the parents and the kids want to be there. MOST Public schools never have the participation percentages that private schools do.
 

thurdown

New member
That right there is the answer, too bad not enough schools realize this and get the right people in the right positions to do this
So, people within the areas, does it appear that Perry and Ada have hired the right people to motivate your programs?
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
I

Until a team fold halfway through the season, or kids get hurt because they have to be on the field the whole game.

Also sports teaches more than just the game, but at the end of the day, the point is to max out potential and win.

We shouldn’t be at the point that we are talking about canceling a sport to help another, the problem was adding soccer to a school that is so small and already has football.
"the point is to max out potential and win."

Oddly enough, it isn't. The average win percentage no matter what anyone does is 50%. If you get rid of programs because they're not winning, not "making the point," then guess what the new average is? 50%. Winning is hopefully the by-product and hopefully a goal but not the point, not in school sponsored sports.

Adding soccer is not a "problem." Adding soccer apparently served the needs of the student population. How is that not perfectly clear? Are they only allowing 20 kids to play Fall sports then low jacking the kids onto the soccer team? Threatening their grades? Hey kid, join the soccer team or that B you got in Art is history.

If there's not enough interest to field a football team, that's not soccer's fault. Little different than any elective within the building. if they can't support it with population, it goes. Those teachers, hopefully with the help of their colleagues recruit and interest students or their course goes. Same school sponsored extra-curriculars. Someone needs to work harder and better to field a football team. If you want to feel I wouldn't mourn the loss of a football program, you'd be wasting time. I think the sport teaches things other sports do not, has the potential to involve students the others do not or even cannot.
 

adog

Well-known member
So, people within the areas, does it appear that Perry and Ada have hired the right people to motivate your programs?
Too early to tell but on Ada, I have heard the kids like him and has been overseeing the weight program. So they are getting to to know each other. On past history in itself, I feel Ada made a good hire as he has been a winner everywhere he was at plus had numbers out at the schools he coached at
 

54cheetah

New member
As long as Perry continues to have a major athlete advantage they will remain top half of a bad league. I don't think Perry will ever generate much interest in their football job. I doubt there was a lot of "selecting" involved.

Ada will be a decent program hovering around average to below average with good results every 15 or so years where they may get a run of talent. If they moved to the NWCC they could be consistently above average. I don't see that consistently in the NWC with fball and soccer.

The better questions for each program...

1. Can the HC at Perry recruit the school and keep athletes in the program? If so, the other areas of coaching aren't needed to succeed at Perry in that league.

2. What type of talent does Ada have coming up in their system? If they have talent coming I think the new hire will win. Simple as that.
 

BirdDog10

Well-known member
Ada will be a decent program hovering around average to below average with good results every 15 or so years where they may get a run of talent. If they moved to the NWCC they could be consistently above average. I don't see that consistently in the NWC with fball and soccer.
Ada is only 3 years removed from a 12 year run with 3 league championships and a top 3 finish in the NWC every year except 2014, when they still went 4-3 in league play, and that's under 2 different head coaches. I'm not familiar with the kids and families in Ada, but the talent in the district cannot have simply dropped off that much from 2017 to 2018. 12 years of consistently good football doesn't just come from talent, but from getting kids to be excited about the program and play hard. If Smith can get kids out and keep them out, they will be a top competitor again in the NWC
 

Weiskittle

Active member
"the point is to max out potential and win."

Oddly enough, it isn't. The average win percentage no matter what anyone does is 50%. If you get rid of programs because they're not winning, not "making the point," then guess what the new average is? 50%. Winning is hopefully the by-product and hopefully a goal but not the point, not in school sponsored sports.

Adding soccer is not a "problem." Adding soccer apparently served the needs of the student population. How is that not perfectly clear? Are they only allowing 20 kids to play Fall sports then low jacking the kids onto the soccer team? Threatening their grades? Hey kid, join the soccer team or that B you got in Art is history.

If there's not enough interest to field a football team, that's not soccer's fault. Little different than any elective within the building. if they can't support it with population, it goes. Those teachers, hopefully with the help of their colleagues recruit and interest students or their course goes. Same school sponsored extra-curriculars. Someone needs to work harder and better to field a football team. If you want to feel I wouldn't mourn the loss of a football program, you'd be wasting time. I think the sport teaches things other sports do not, has the potential to involve students the others do not or even cannot.
Yes, adding soccer was a problem. A school that can’t support both shouldn’t have both, end of story. And yes, at the end of the day the point is to win. You can have the greatest guy in the world as a coach, if he never wins any games he’s not going to be the coach very long.
 
Last edited:

Weiskittle

Active member
A
Ada is only 3 years removed from a 12 year run with 3 league championships and a top 3 finish in the NWC every year except 2014, when they still went 4-3 in league play, and that's under 2 different head coaches. I'm not familiar with the kids and families in Ada, but the talent in the district cannot have simply dropped off that much from 2017 to 2018. 12 years of consistently good football doesn't just come from talent, but from getting kids to be excited about the program and play hard. If Smith can get kids out and keep them out, they will be a top competitor again in the NWC
Ada will be fine, I don’t know much about the situation. But I’m assuming a coach the kids weren’t too excited about, mixed with all the COVID stuff lead to a perfect storm.

idk if Toby will build in Ada what h built in WLS, but I think he will do a good job.
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Yes, adding soccer was a problem. A school that can’t support both shouldn’t have both, end of story. And yes, at the end of the day the point is to win. You can have the greatest guy in the world as a coach, if he never wins any games he’s not going to be the coach very long.
Ooohhh end of story guy, lol. You just march out there and tell those parents their kids cannot play soccer for the school because ... well because. I have your back. Maybe the schools should drop football so as to not interfere with soccer?

So any school that is not winning in a sport should drop the sport? smh. If "winning" was the point for schools sponsoring sports half would have to drop the sport and then another half and another half. Competition, team building, social and leadership skills, these are the points behind school sponsored sports. Winning is a goal.

Adding soccer was not the problem. Not being able to recruit enough players for both sports was the problem.
 

Weiskittle

Active member
Ooohhh end of story guy, lol. You just march out there and tell those parents their kids cannot play soccer for the school because ... well because. I have your back. Maybe the schools should drop football so as to not interfere with soccer?
So any school that is not winning in a sport should drop the sport? smh. If "winning" was the point for schools sponsoring sports half would have to drop the sport and then another half and another half. Competition, team building, social and leadership skills, these are the points behind school sponsored sports. Winning is a goal.

Adding soccer was not the problem. Not being able to recruit enough players for both sports was the problem.
Cancel football, I don’t care, but one should go so both don’t suffer. It’s obvious that you just want to disagree. But you didn’t join a sports discussion bored because you didn’t believe that winning wasn’t important. If winning wasn’t important we would just practice and not play the game.

and I didn’t say cancel because they weren’t winning, I said cancel because they are going to get someone hurt or they are going to be forced to cancel when they don’t get enough kids.
 

adog

Well-known member
Ada is only 3 years removed from a 12 year run with 3 league championships and a top 3 finish in the NWC every year except 2014, when they still went 4-3 in league play, and that's under 2 different head coaches. I'm not familiar with the kids and families in Ada, but the talent in the district cannot have simply dropped off that much from 2017 to 2018. 12 years of consistently good football doesn't just come from talent, but from getting kids to be excited about the program and play hard. If Smith can get kids out and keep them out, they will be a top competitor again in the NWC
Its being reported that Ada has been seeing over 40 kids showing up for weight lifting which I think is more than in past couple of years
 
.
Top