Montana High School Players

[grizpack]

As a second part to the question, Missoula high schools have lagged Great Falls, Billings, & Helena in the number of FCS players produced. Why is that?[/quote

There are still some pretty damn good players that come out of Missoula.....

but it may have to do with the pansy liberal attitude it has compared to the other cities....a lot more kids choose soccer and lacross and ribbon dancing rather than football in missoula.

Also...waaaaaaay more things to do in the summer around missoula than the others...have you ever been to great falls???? What better do you have to do during the summer other than eat steaks and lift weights???

This has been brought up a bunch of times but missoula's junior high football system sucks because they dont have one! For a long time they had to rely on little grizzly football where all of the teams have to run the same plays on offense and defense but recently missoula youth football program has stepped up and allowed teams to expand the playbooks and let the kids learn more about how the game should be played.. just my two cents.

The kids who have played the MYF football (rather than Little Grizzly) are now starting to get to high school We will see if that makes a difference. In my opinion, it should make a big difference.

 

[SACCAT66]

Missoula should really go back to 2 high schools, but it will never happen.

Bingo.....

The other problem is that Missoula has open enrollment. So kids can "Pick" what school they want to go to.

 

[mcg]

I think participation in all (or most) high school sports is down. You rarely see the kid who plays three sports and many kids seem to choose not to play any sports. When I went to high school in the Chicago suburbs our high school had 6 boys FB and BB teams (freshman A and B, sophomore A and B, JV and varsity) Today I live in suburban town with a similar sized school that has just 3 boys FB and BB teams (freshman, JV and varsity).

I think there's sort of an attitude that it's not enough to play and have fun, you've got to excel to make the experience worthwhile. Thus many kids don't play.

 

[tgreseth]

I think participation in all (or most) high school sports is down. You rarely see the kid who plays three sports and many kids seem to choose not to play any sports. When I went to high school in the Chicago suburbs our high school had 6 boys FB and BB teams (freshman A and B, sophomore A and B, JV and varsity) Today I live in suburban town with a similar sized school that has just 3 boys FB and BB teams (freshman, JV and varsity).

I think there's sort of an attitude that it's not enough to play and have fun, you've got to excel to make the experience worthwhile. Thus many kids don't play.

I agree with the above. Many of these high school kids started playing "their sport" on organized teams very early - 3rd/4th grade and continued to do so up and through middle school...if you're not one of those, chances are you're either 1) not going to make the team (in cut sports) or 2) you won't see a lot of playing time. Playing "for fun" doesn't exist in the way it used to...

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

You asked so here goes.. I think it's more about socio-economic reasons. Yes CTE may contribute, but the main reason I believe is simple. Jobs, or the lack of them. Especially in smaller town MT. You only have to look at towns like Anaconda and Libby to see what has happened . Libby was at one time AA. Now they are down to B. So now you don't have the working class families any more. Instead you have a lot of low income families. A lot of these kids are in split households and they just don't have the resources or support to succeed. These kids struggle in the classroom as well so quite often aren't eligible to play. On a larger scale look at the Midwest. Once the auto industry abandoned the Midwest the big 10 began to suffer. Conversely it coincided with the dominance of the SEC. Foreign auto makers opened plants in the south and working class families flourished. Add in this generation's lack of interest in "traditional" things and there you go.

Interesting observation that I had not considered, but has merit.

 

[Pin2Win]

As a second part to the question, Missoula high schools have lagged Great Falls, Billings, & Helena in the number of FCS players produced. Why is that?[/quote

There are still some pretty damn good players that come out of Missoula.....

but it may have to do with the pansy liberal attitude it has compared to the other cities....a lot more kids choose soccer and lacross and ribbon dancing rather than football in missoula.

Also...waaaaaaay more things to do in the summer around missoula than the others...have you ever been to great falls???? What better do you have to do during the summer other than eat steaks and lift weights???

This has been brought up a bunch of times but missoula's junior high football system sucks because they dont have one! For a long time they had to rely on little grizzly football where all of the teams have to run the same plays on offense and defense but recently missoula youth football program has stepped up and allowed teams to expand the playbooks and let the kids learn more about how the game should be played.. just my two cents.

The kids who have played the MYF football (rather than Little Grizzly) are now starting to get to high school We will see if that makes a difference. In my opinion, it should make a big difference.

The only major benefit to MYF over Little Griz was that MYF teams were put together more around school affiliation so there will be the team camaraderie which should translate over to kids wanting to stay in the schools within their geography. Teaching kids 'plays' that work at younger ages does not make them better football players in high school. A youth football program is about teaching kids the right way to block, tackle, throw, catch, run routes, etc. The fundamentals. That's the part that scares me about the sustaining future of MYF. The coaches will have the freedom to teach scheme and how to win over fundamentals and laying a good foundation. I'm fine with the playbook freedom in the 7th/8th grade kids, but not younger.

Glacier has been on a tremendous run over the past several years, Flathead is improving quickly, CFalls has been good, Bigfork has been good, Whitefish and Polson have been good. All of those kids have grown up in Flathead Valley Football that is extremely regimented in their playbook on offense and defense. But granted, they only play that through 6th grade and then 2 years in middle school where there is more freedom of how things are done. It works very, very well in the Flathead Valley. A lot of D1 caliber athletes have come from this area in the recent past.

 

[grizcountry420]

As a second part to the question, Missoula high schools have lagged Great Falls, Billings, & Helena in the number of FCS players produced. Why is that?[/quote

There are still some pretty damn good players that come out of Missoula.....

but it may have to do with the pansy liberal attitude it has compared to the other cities....a lot more kids choose soccer and lacross and ribbon dancing rather than football in missoula.

Also...waaaaaaay more things to do in the summer around missoula than the others...have you ever been to great falls???? What better do you have to do during the summer other than eat steaks and lift weights???

This has been brought up a bunch of times but missoula's junior high football system sucks because they dont have one! For a long time they had to rely on little grizzly football where all of the teams have to run the same plays on offense and defense but recently missoula youth football program has stepped up and allowed teams to expand the playbooks and let the kids learn more about how the game should be played.. just my two cents.

The kids who have played the MYF football (rather than Little Grizzly) are now starting to get to high school We will see if that makes a difference. In my opinion, it should make a big difference.

The only major benefit to MYF over Little Griz was that MYF teams were put together more around school affiliation so there will be the team camaraderie which should translate over to kids wanting to stay in the schools within their geography. Teaching kids 'plays' that work at younger ages does not make them better football players in high school. A youth football program is about teaching kids the right way to block, tackle, throw, catch, run routes, etc. The fundamentals. That's the part that scares me about the sustaining future of MYF. The coaches will have the freedom to teach scheme and how to win over fundamentals and laying a good foundation. I'm fine with the playbook freedom in the 7th/8th grade kids, but not younger.

Glacier has been on a tremendous run over the past several years, Flathead is improving quickly, CFalls has been good, Bigfork has been good, Whitefish and Polson have been good. All of those kids have grown up in Flathead Valley Football that is extremely regimented in their playbook on offense and defense. But granted, they only play that through 6th grade and then 2 years in middle school where there is more freedom of how things are done. It works very, very well in the Flathead Valley. A lot of D1 caliber athletes have come from this area in the recent past.

I agree with you about the younger kids. Its all about fundamentals but it really hurts not having a football program at the junior high level.

 

[rail43boy]

Also consider this, Bozeman which has won many championships lately has 2000 students and only 1 high school.
Missoula has 5 high schools - 4 of which play football and the none of the 3 AA schools (as I understand it) have
over 1100 students. Numbers kind of say Missoula schools should be less dominant. I really doubt the alleged
pansy liberal attitude has much to do with it.

 

[astutegriz]

Missoula should really go back to 2 high schools, but it will never happen.

Bingo.....

The other problem is that Missoula has open enrollment. So kids can "Pick" what school they want to go to.

I understand why you are saying this and I've heard this from smart people, but I respectfully disagree. If we concentrate on the institute of Missoula football beating other AA teams, sure. But is this best for the kids? For academics? Both my kids transferred for personal reasons. It was great for them as students and personal growth. They thrived. It didn't hurt the schools one iota. I cringe at the thought of taking this away from the kids simply so "our" teams can beat "their" teams.

Another way to think about it, if we combined into two, then Helena should combine into one to be more competitive, then Billings into two to answer, then us into one, then Billings into one, then all Missoula County schools into one, and so on. An absurd example, but trying to make a point. Size of schools and open enrollment should be looked at from the point of view of what is best for the kid and not the institute of sports being a winner. It would be nice to have schools big enough to provide a variety of academic opportunities, and small enough for athletic opportunities of being able to play a sport but not have to specialize or be a star.

I know I'm in the minority. Just my opinion.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Missoula should really go back to 2 high schools, but it will never happen.

Bingo.....

The other problem is that Missoula has open enrollment. So kids can "Pick" what school they want to go to.

I understand why you are saying this and I've heard this from smart people, but I respectfully disagree. If we concentrate on the institute of Missoula football beating other AA teams, sure. But is this best for the kids? For academics? Both my kids transferred for personal reasons. It was great for them as students and personal growth. They thrived. It didn't hurt the schools one iota. I cringe at the thought of taking this away from the kids simply so "our" teams can beat "their" teams.

Another way to think about it, if we combined into two, then Helena should combine into one to be more competitive, then Billings into two to answer, then us into one, then Billings into one, then all Missoula County schools into one, and so on. An absurd example, but trying to make a point. Size of schools and open enrollment should be looked at from the point of view of what is best for the kid and not the institute of sports being a winner. It would be nice to have schools big enough to provide a variety of academic opportunities, and small enough for athletic opportunities of being able to play a sport but not have to specialize or be a star.

I know I'm in the minority. Just my opinion.

My opinion that Missoula should consolidate from 3 to 2 high schools is definitely not based solely on athletics. As a matter of fact is has very little to do with athletics, but it couldn't hurt with the football situation currently at Hellgate.

 

[Sam A. Blitz]

Missoula deserves 3 public high schools. It would not make any sense to consolidate schools in a growing city. Bozeman is going to be opening another HS within the next couple years. There are talks of Billings doing the same. Missoula's lack of football success is more about the programs than anything. Powerhouses such as Capital, CMR, West and Skyview have had long tenured and very good head coaches that have built winning cultures. Glacier has been a fast riser and has been able to do the same. Missoula on the other hand seems to have a lot of turnover and the programs don't seem to have the same foundation.

As far as football participation is concerned, I know that when I was in Colorado and Oregon that a lot of kids are opting for other sports, including some of the better athletes. Kids also seem to focus on one sport now and AAU provides the opportunity to compete in those sports year-round. When I was in HS you played football in the fall, basketball in the winter, and ran track in the spring. I think it is still that way in a lot of MT high schools, but in Colorado and Oregon it has become more rare and I've seen a lot of kids give up football to focus on other sports. I have strong opinions on why I feel this is actually anti-productive to an athlete's development, but that is a long rant that I will save for another day. Not sure if it has become that way in MT or not yet? Does not seem like it yet...

 

[Bear Axed]

You asked so here goes.. I think it's more about socio-economic reasons. Yes CTE may contribute, but the main reason I believe is simple. Jobs, or the lack of them. Especially in smaller town MT. You only have to look at towns like Anaconda and Libby to see what has happened . Libby was at one time AA. Now they are down to B. So now you don't have the working class families any more. Instead you have a lot of low income families. A lot of these kids are in split households and they just don't have the resources or support to succeed. These kids struggle in the classroom as well so quite often aren't eligible to play. On a larger scale look at the Midwest. Once the auto industry abandoned the Midwest the big 10 began to suffer. Conversely it coincided with the dominance of the SEC. Foreign auto makers opened plants in the south and working class families flourished. Add in this generation's lack of interest in "traditional" things and there you go.

Both Libby and Anaconda were AA up to at least the late 70's.....
Industry and Environmentalist shut both down....the towns died off, lots of people moved out the schools took the big hit....

 

[SACCAT66]

Missoula should really go back to 2 high schools, but it will never happen.

Bingo.....

The other problem is that Missoula has open enrollment. So kids can "Pick" what school they want to go to.

I understand why you are saying this and I've heard this from smart people, but I respectfully disagree. If we concentrate on the institute of Missoula football beating other AA teams, sure. But is this best for the kids? For academics? Both my kids transferred for personal reasons. It was great for them as students and personal growth. They thrived. It didn't hurt the schools one iota. I cringe at the thought of taking this away from the kids simply so "our" teams can beat "their" teams.

Another way to think about it, if we combined into two, then Helena should combine into one to be more competitive, then Billings into two to answer, then us into one, then Billings into one, then all Missoula County schools into one, and so on. An absurd example, but trying to make a point. Size of schools and open enrollment should be looked at from the point of view of what is best for the kid and not the institute of sports being a winner. It would be nice to have schools big enough to provide a variety of academic opportunities, and small enough for athletic opportunities of being able to play a sport but not have to specialize or be a star.

I know I'm in the minority. Just my opinion.

I was purely taking about sports. I agree with what you are saying when it comes to academics, but I have talked to a few parents of kids that play Basketball, and they say there kids go to that school because of athletics.

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Here we go again.....................

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Growler, am I wrong. You posted that very thing on MB. And besides, I answered the question, there are indeed FCS caliber players in Montana.

Oh, I posted that every FCS caliber player goes to MSU??? WRONG! Never said it. Will give you $1000 if you find a post saying such. You give me $100 if you can't provide one. And, no deals with Alpha re-constructing posts either. Deal?

Contact Grizfan10 he is the one that changes PMs and then deletes them and his account to avoid hotwater

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Missoula deserves 3 public high schools. It would not make any sense to consolidate schools in a growing city. Bozeman is going to be opening another HS within the next couple years. There are talks of Billings doing the same. Missoula's lack of football success is more about the programs than anything. Powerhouses such as Capital, CMR, West and Skyview have had long tenured and very good head coaches that have built winning cultures. Glacier has been a fast riser and has been able to do the same. Missoula on the other hand seems to have a lot of turnover and the programs don't seem to have the same foundation.

As far as football participation is concerned, I know that when I was in Colorado and Oregon that a lot of kids are opting for other sports, including some of the better athletes. Kids also seem to focus on one sport now and AAU provides the opportunity to compete in those sports year-round. When I was in HS you played football in the fall, basketball in the winter, and ran track in the spring. I think it is still that way in a lot of MT high schools, but in Colorado and Oregon it has become more rare and I've seen a lot of kids give up football to focus on other sports. I have strong opinions on why I feel this is actually anti-productive to an athlete's development, but that is a long rant that I will save for another day. Not sure if it has become that way in MT or not yet? Does not seem like it yet...

You should probably check enrollment trends and forecasts.

 

[grizpack]

Missoula should really go back to 2 high schools, but it will never happen.

Bingo.....

The other problem is that Missoula has open enrollment. So kids can "Pick" what school they want to go to.

Yep. It is complete bullshit.

Don't work to make it better when you have a problem. Just take your ball and go to the next school.

 

[grizpack]

Missoula deserves 3 public high schools. It would not make any sense to consolidate schools in a growing city. Bozeman is going to be opening another HS within the next couple years. There are talks of Billings doing the same. Missoula's lack of football success is more about the programs than anything. Powerhouses such as Capital, CMR, West and Skyview have had long tenured and very good head coaches that have built winning cultures. Glacier has been a fast riser and has been able to do the same. Missoula on the other hand seems to have a lot of turnover and the programs don't seem to have the same foundation.

As far as football participation is concerned, I know that when I was in Colorado and Oregon that a lot of kids are opting for other sports, including some of the better athletes. Kids also seem to focus on one sport now and AAU provides the opportunity to compete in those sports year-round. When I was in HS you played football in the fall, basketball in the winter, and ran track in the spring. I think it is still that way in a lot of MT high schools, but in Colorado and Oregon it has become more rare and I've seen a lot of kids give up football to focus on other sports. I have strong opinions on why I feel this is actually anti-productive to an athlete's development, but that is a long rant that I will save for another day. Not sure if it has become that way in MT or not yet? Does not seem like it yet...

You should probably check enrollment trends and forecasts.

Should probably check to see what enrollment Sentinel and Big Sky are built to handle. The only one that doesn't have room to grow (or room to put other students) is Hellgate. Even if Missoula closed Hellgate (or Big Sky or Sentinel), the remaining 2 would still be 2 of the smaller class AA schools.

 

[Grizbeer]

Should probably check to see what enrollment Sentinel and Big Sky are built to handle. The only one that doesn't have room to grow (or room to put other students) is Hellgate. Even if Missoula closed Hellgate (or Big Sky or Sentinel), the remaining 2 would still be 2 of the smaller class AA schools.

https://k12.nichebeta.com/rankings/public-high-schools/largest-enrollment/s/montana/

Not really true - according to this site the 3 Missoula High Schools have combined enrollment of 3468, so divided in 1/2 is 1734 each. Only Bozeman at 1951 (which will itself be split in 2020) and Billings West at 1883 would be larger.

On the other hand, I think it would be much easier to argue that we should eliminate high school athletics completely than to make which school you go to mandatory based on where you live. Basketball, volleyball, softball, tennis, soccer and track are far more competitive and heavily recruited outside of the school structure. Montana doesn't even have high school baseball and more kids have gone pro playing baseball from Montana than any other sport. Swimming, hockey, and gymnastics are not school run programs but award letter based on achievements. For sports other than football (and possibly wrestling?) high school sports are a gap filler while waiting for the real competitive season to begin.

If Montana got rid of school sponsored sports and developed a AAU football program where teams could form like they do for ASA and AAU without regard for where you live, the talent pool, coaching levels, and number of D-I athletes from Montana would increase, and it most likely would be cheaper for the athletes than paying the school fees plus fund raising that is required for school sponsored sports.

 

[ilovethecats]

many high school players who went to msu and um in the 80's and 90's wouldn't sniff the field today. whether you old folks like to admit it or not, football has evolved a lot over the years and guys are just bigger, faster and stronger. montana kids aren't suddenly getting worse. teams are just getting better and can't bring in the "athletes" they did 20 years ago.

obviously there are exceptions to this rule...