I have heard from multiple people that IHSA and the state of IL is considering only having the Varsity team play this season and Frosh, Soph, and JV cancelling their games. I am not a huge fan of that but I can see where that makes a lot of sense. First of all you will reduce the number of kids playing high school football by 65% and reduce the number of total games by 75%, that will significantly reduce the overall risk of kids getting Covid. This will still allow mainly juniors and seniors to play and still have a season and possibly earn scholarships. This will also help out with any referee shortage as well, as that was expected, if you reduce total high school games by 75% there should not be a referee shortage. I have a kid who is going to be a senior and another one who will be a sophomore. My sophomore is way more into football then my senior but I would rather have one of my kids playing then none at all. Thoughts and has anyone else heard similar things?
Varsity only football in IL for 2020
- Thread starter LovetheDrake2
- Start date
Haven't heard that. A lot of it makes sense. I also think it would be detrimental to the game and go against the principles IHSA stand for.
The loudest contingent of playing is now okay with lower levels not playing? Seems hypocritical. Aren't the youth leagues playing? You guys are all over the place.
As long as their kids are playing...
Youth leagues are beginning to cancel. The proposal I am familiar with would have only varsity games Friday night with under levels on Saturday Thursday or Monday depending. I’d be ok with that offering
I agree it sounds hypocritical, but I also understand coming to an agreement and meeting half way. It’s much better than nothing at all, too many kids exposed and not having enough healthy refs.
Not having lower levels does as much damage to a program as not playing at all. A lot of those kids are never coming back.
This will do very little to help that situation as Friday night varsity games would have the largest numbers of bodies on the field = greatest exposure. The more experienced (read older) officials are working varsity games, and are the group most likely to stay away from even a Friday night-only schedule.
I would agree w/ you mc140, however the kids that would be most impacted by cancelling the season would be the Varsity players (juniors and seniors). The Frosh and Sophs still have time and will play their Varsity years. This would substantially minimize the risk by reducing the amount of kids playing, games, and referees. We all want football to be played at every level, youth football thru the NFL. However if there is a way to have any High School football this year then we will take it, and this does make a lot of sense the more I think about it.
What about the mental health of freshmen and sophomores? I've seen the doctors here state that not playing football this season would be worse than actually getting COVID. Why is it important that our Juniors and Seniors don't get the 'worse than COVID' but it's okay for our freshmen and sophomores to suffer the devastating effects of football being cancelled for a season?
Furthermore we really need to look at a lot of our disciplinary methods. For example not having the grades, should that stop kids from playing since the ramifications from not playing are potentially fatal? Punishment for throwing a punch is currently ejection from the current game and disqualification from the next game. Should we be ejecting and disqualifying kids from playing since the results of not playing are so catastrophic?
It looks like we have a lot to consider.
Zebra, you still can only have 50 people on the sidelines. You roster 42 players, 6 coaches on the field (others in the box), and 2 trainers. They are socially distancing and wearing masks when not on the field. By not having an earlier Sophomore game it will limit the numbers in the stands and people leaving the same time as others coming in. Only immediate family allowed in the stands plus a set amount of students until you get to 20% capacity. IT CAN BE DONE AND DONE SAFELY! I heard that kids are now playing lacrosse and hockey, that to me poses just as much risk. Again, let's find a way and make this happen!
We do have a lot to consider and no one has the answers, but I’ve been asking for a plan from the IHSA for a while. This is the best argument I’ve seen.
I hope we can make it work but I have not yet heard a definitive answer from IHSA as to whether the 50 number applies to each sideline or the entire field (and yes I have asked them directly). And where/how do you include the 5 officials and 3 chain crew members in that 50? The Umpire on a high school crew is within 6 feet of multiple players for the entire 2.5 hours of a varsity game and touches the ball around 100 times. I know of many who are going to make it work and many who will not step foot on the field this fall.
Last edited:
I agree in principle to what you are saying. I am not sure either why it would be OK for some kids to play and not for others in fear of them getting the virus. And, what's to stop the varsity players from not spreading the virus to lower classmen anyway, whether they play or not?
As far as poor grades go, it's a different subject altogether. I am thinking you posted that tongue-in-cheek? In reality, keeping grades to a certain level to remain eligible in high school really isn't hard. If a kid can't keep him or herself eligible because of poor grades, he or she is likely to have more problems later on than not being allowed to play sports. I won't even address the "punch" issue.
There are a lot of kids who will never come back or will not come out in the first place if they do not play this year. Then you have the ref issue. There is a shortage as it is, do you know give all the lower level refs varsity games to keep them around?
I don't disagree with you, here. My only point was that if the effects of not playing football were as bad as some people were claiming then they shouldn't agree with not having lower levels and it shouldn't matter the cause of not playing.
Maybe they can have a hand sanitizer bottle on their belt to quickly kill germs in between plays. I see it working like at a Portillo's drive thru when they pump the change out of that contraption
Unfortunately, you wasted your time addressing Solid Snake Pliskin's post at all. He is not a serious thinker nor poster. I've read his posts over the months. They are always full of criticism and sarcasm, but I don't recall him ever making a constructive comment. He complains and complains about those who disagree with him on this topic, but when they offer a compromise in order to hopefully salvage some portion of football this fall his response is to call them hypocrites. They have not abandoned their views. They are offering a concession in order to try to come to an accommodation. His response was neither serious nor constructive.
Oh, I got your point. We agree.
As far as hypocrisy goes, here is a larger situation and point. My main concern is getting the kids in school first. Whatever happens from there will work itself out. There is documentation out there that says kids are falling behind with eLearning only. I believe that documentation. I don't think anything can replace the in-school learning and we have seen that.
So, with that said, you know there are a lot of people who rip into teachers, saying they have summers off, holiday weeks off, etc., etc. They blame teachers solely when kids aren't learning in schools. I wonder how those people feel about teachers now that their kids have had to stay home and can't go to schools. Do you think they have had a change of heart? Or will they go back to blaming teachers because little Johnny isn't learning?
I have always felt two things. First, learning must start at home. Kids must be ready for school when it starts. If they are not, they will have lots of trouble catching up, if they ever do. Second, when the child does start school the parents' job doesn't end. They should have an interest in their kid's learning and progress and form a co-op and trust with the teachers and school. That does not mean they need to be helicopter parents.That is detrimental to the development of the child.
Being a parent is a very hard job. And being a teacher isn't as easy as some people think. I can't quote and studies. But I am certain, when parents do what I outlined above, the chances of their kid being successful goes way up. And those kids are more able to adjust to unforeseen events.
It just doesn’t make any sense to not have the lower levels play....they don’t practice together and the games can be easily spread out through the weekend....I just don’t see the point of eliminating the lower levels, I think a lot of crap being thrown at the wall with hopes something will stick
Agreed. More so for CPS teams. That will kill CPS programs. Suburb area schools should be able to make it work. Least that's the case at my school. Hope they let the freshman play.
The number of varsity players dressed out on the sidelines could be limited to a certain % of school enrollment. With lower levels shut down, a coach or two could be kept on the payroll to exclusively supervise compliance with the health and safety protocol documentation, guidelines and cleaning steps to keep administrators plus parents more assured.
It is impossible to eliminate the risk of Covid w/ kids no matter if it is school, socially, etc. At least this proposal provides a blueprint to significantly reduce the risk of playing high school football and will especially allow seniors to play their final year of high school. Cancelling freshman, sophomore, and JV games is not ideal, however you are reducing the risk for spreading (at least at football games) by 75%. The Varsity families sign a waiver, limit the roster sizes as discusses, wear masks when they are not playing, etc. Provide a better path forward to get these kids to play football in the fall, this could definitely work! This plan much safer (in my opinion) than a bunch of kids hanging out together, going to a restaurant, working out at a gym, going to a grocery store, etc.
Everybody thinks of big schools with these ideas. Your average small town 1A team will have fewer than 50 players freshman through varsity, potentially a quarter of the school in pads. They often practice as a whole team, only breaking up for the soph game on Monday night. These communities will also be the ones in counties with less than 20 total cases...Again, a blanket rule will not work across the state very well.
And killing the frosh/sophs at small schools might as well just kill football. Those kids will likely fill their time with getting jobs so they can buy cars. Once they buy the car, they have to keep the job to pay for insurance. Then they decide the car is more important than sports and don't go back out...Right now it is the kids buried on the depth chart that do that - but cancel the lower levels for a year and there might not be a second string left next fall...
But isn’t that exactly what those kids not allowed to play will be doing? Freshman, Sophomore & JV players will be going to parks, gyms, restaurants and hanging out with each other even more.
Until the liability issues are resolved I don’t think we see any progress.
That would be a shame as those kids need to be correctly taught the fundamentals at this age.
Would be like skipping Algebra and having to take Calculus and not a good idea setting them up to fail.
Would be like skipping Algebra and having to take Calculus and not a good idea setting them up to fail.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Option Football LOVERS.... and haters- Latest: Kevin JCHS 81