|
|
Loading...
Odds and ends of Wyoming high school sports.
Six-mania
Posted by:
Patrick Schmiedt on
April 23, 2008 at
9:27PM EST
Six-player football is here.
Write it down.
April 22, 2008: The re-birth of six-player in Wyoming.
Right now, the baby is only one day old. And plenty of growing remains between the time the baby grows up to be a center that's also an eligible receiver.
But for now, we can revel in the fact that this six-player idea might actually become a reality.
The eight schools that have committed (Guernsey, Hanna, Midwest, Meeteetse, Ten Sleep, Fort Washakie, Kaycee and Rock River) are tiptoeing into what's more or less uncharted territory for Wyoming football.
The state hasn't sponsored six-player football since 1956 (and by that I mean REAL six-player, the kind that has conferences, playoff systems and a real state champion at the end of it all). And the state hasn't sponsored anything less than 11-player since 1994.
But on Tuesday, the Wyoming High School Activities Association gave its first-reading approval to state-sponsored six-player to start in the 2009 season. The WHSAA still has to pass it again in September, but the unanimous decision by the board to keep this proposal moving was encouraging.
It was also encouraging to see the WHSAA set up the system to succeed, rather than to fail. Rather than by mandating that certain schools play either 11- or six-player, the WHSAA wisely gave small schools the choice of what they wanted to play. Those 21 current programs (plus any new ones, like Fort Washakie, Kaycee and Rock River) can choose whether they want to play in a six-player league or in an 11-player league. Giving schools the choice like that is the right way to set up a new system -- those with the enthusiasm can start the "pilot program," those who still have a bit of trepidation can wait it out a couple years to see how it flies.
No matter what, six-player football is here, and I think it's here for good.
Although only seven or eight schools may sponsor the sport in its inaugural season, I think by 2013, six-player football could have as many as 13 or 14 schools participating -- a figure that includes several start-up programs.
This six-man thing is gonna get big.
And Tuesday was the unofficial berth of something great.
Posted by patrick.schmiedt@trib.com
(24) Comments
|
Posted by: Fred Thomas on April 24, 2008 7:49AM EST
We've played six man football in Montana for several years now. If coaches want a leg up they need to go watch Hysham play this year. If one has the time a trip to Highwood is warranted also. Those two coaches have it figured out and can get it done with various levels of talent and speed!! By all means if you can take in the 6-man Championship at Montana (usually mid November) you will learn more than you can teach yourself in many years!
|
|
|
Posted by: SportsLlama on April 24, 2008 12:06PM EST
Hey Patrick-
Obviously you and a lot of other teams seem excited about this, but have you spoken with any representatives of 1A schools who want to continue to play 11-man and feel like this is going to hurt them being able to make a schedule? I guess what I'm saying is: Are there any 1A schools who think this is a bad thing?
|
|
Llama -- I haven't talked to any 1A schools that think this is a bad thing. Then again, when you look at it, it's not like six-player will be pulling away a ton of 11-player teams, at least to start. Of the eight teams that have committed, only three (Midwest, Guernsey and Hanna) have 11-player programs right now. Pulling those schools out of the mix won't put a huge dent in 11-player scheduling. In actuality, the only one that might be tough to overcome is Hanna, since the Miners fill the gap for a couple far-flung schools (i.e. Saratoga and Cokeville). Because so few 11-man programs are going to be switching to start, I don't think scheduling will be an issue. But it also forces the state into a position where the success of six-player will depend a lot on those start-up programs.
--patrick
|
|
|
Posted by: Kene on April 24, 2008 8:59PM EST
I think this is great news, having played 11 and 8 man in school I thought 8 man was more fun, I haved coached 9 man and had a ball, and having watched Ten Sleep and Meeteetse it also looks to be a lot of fun, and lets face it, any football is better than none.
Here is one thing I think should be considered, if say a Ten Sleep team needed to play Hanna, why couldn't they meet in Riverton and play on their new field, or the same with Snake River playing Kaycee in Casper at Natrona. The same could be done with 1a 11 man or 2a 11man. Everyone would like to play on those new surface fields. This would be a way to keep the east--west conferences which to me seemed pretty good.
Anyway, I hope all those schools that haven't played before join up. their kids will have a great time.
|
|
|
Posted by: 1a fan on April 25, 2008 12:12AM EST
I think that 6-man is a joke. Going from 11-man to 6 is not a good idea. It'll be a complete change for everyone. If anything go smaller schools should go to 9-man....8-man at least
|
|
|
Posted by: Bulldog Fan on April 25, 2008 1:24AM EST
I don't know anything about 6 man football. In fact, I had never heard of it until a couple days ago. I hope for the small schools it will be great. I hope I get to see a game sometime. What a great way to let our state's small schools compete.
1a....why should this be a joke? It has obviously been thought out and supported by quite a few schools. I say: Go for it and have a blast.
|
|
|
Posted by: Cory on April 25, 2008 11:42AM EST
1A, i kind of agree, they should have gone with 8 or 9 man. there's gonna be scores like arena football (which is like watching football in a pinball machine).
I think it's a great idea to incorporate a smaller division to get more small schools involved, but why does Guernsey feel the need to drop down?? they compete pretty well in 11 man football already. is their enrollment really going down that much? or are they just looking to not play Lusk and Southeast anymore? just looking at the schools committed so far they will have a huge advantage for the first few years.
|
|
|
Posted by: Wolverine73 on April 25, 2008 11:48AM EST
I officiated 6 man football in Eastern Colorado in the 1980's and it's definately an interesting game. I think the kids and schools that played it had a blast and I don't see how it is a joke that Wyoming would go to it. If it means more schools/kids get the opportunity to play football and be competitive it's a great thing. Eight or nine man football is probably a little bit better in that it's more like traditional 11-man, but for some of these programs, maybe that's the difference between maintaining a program or not offering it.
And I agree with Kene that using central, neutral, game sites would really ease the travel problems for some of these games. Unfortunately, the voters of School District 25, Riverton, didn't see that as one of the benefits and alternative uses; so now we sit with the nicest field in the state (including Jonah), but have no lights, stands, scoreboard, or pressbox. If some of these schools want to stop on a long trip and practice on a $2 million practice field, we would welcome you.
|
|
|
Posted by: Boyd on April 25, 2008 11:59AM EST
This is to answer Cory's question. Guernsey's enrollment after the 2008 season is not going to be enough for 11-man football. Believe me if we had enough kids out, we will still continue to play 11-man and take on SE and Lusk any day.
|
|
|
Posted by: Tyson on April 25, 2008 12:35PM EST
Cory, after the 2008 season, Guernsey is looking at only 13-15 boys that will be out for football. Kind of sad to see enrollment decline so rapidly when only two years ago they had 35 boys on the team. As far as the comment on them not playing Lusk and Southeast anymore I have to take offense to that considering Guernsey has made four straight appearances in the 1A State Championship game and won two of them.
|
|
|
Posted by: Cory on April 25, 2008 1:29PM EST
I wasn't trying to start a fight with the good people of Guernsey, just had no idea enrollment/participation was going to be so low. Here in Lusk we have a similar problem-enrollment continues to go down. Southeast-now when you can recruit from Torrington-that's another story.
after 25 years-it would be hard to not see G-S on the Tigers schedule
|
|
|
Posted by: Fred Thomas on April 25, 2008 3:18PM EST
Our original coach believed the same as 1A fan-thinking he could take our 11 man team and KICK Montana backside. He used the excuse less injuries ect. however 6-man play is a harder hitting with the need for better fundementals than 11 man as there are not any backups for blown tackles. I played 8-man and Meeteetse won a 9 man State championship but if Schools are limited in numbers then 6 will have to do. My son made MSU Northerns' team and others playing 6-man are at Carol so there is college potential for maybe some Wyoming boys that would not get any reconigion without a team at thier School!! Football is Football-lets support all the young Men!!
|
|
|
I wanted to add this thought, as well. This is a quote from Morgan at the Small Town High School Football blog (http://six-eight-eleven.blogspot.com/), and I think he makes a great point:
"When I attended a Wyoming 1A class game back in 2003 between Hulett and Ten Sleep. The two teams fielded less than 30 players—combined! I believe Ten Sleep never had more than two players on the bench during the game. These kind of conditions lead to a game of lesser quality—a product of smaller, underclassmen players starting in a game they typically have no business playing while the better part of their activity on the field is running around and staying out of the way of the larger and older players. In the end what you have is basically an eight-man or six-man game anyway with a handful of inert players on the same field. That being the case, why not play the actual game that is more representative and spare the unnecessary injuries incurred by any smaller/underclassmen players on the field?"
Just for what it's worth.
--patrick
|
|
|
Posted by: HS Sports Fan on April 25, 2008 7:53PM EST
First of all, I think small schools like Ten Sleep & Kaycee getting to continue or restart their programs is great. I would agree that 6-man will be a much faster game and require a greater concentration on the fundamentals of tackling or the scores will be arena-like. Part of me wishes the change would have been to 9-man. Playing 9-man allows for schools to schedule 11 man teams by simply dropping the guards or tackles. The offenses work pretty much the same. This would help if scheduling gets tough. However, I am not sure if Kaycee would be adding football if the change was to 9-man.
.
That said, was there any thought or discussion to putting limits on who could participate in 6-man? I would hate to see a school show up for a 6-man game and have 24 kids on the team. If you have X number of boys in high school, you can't play 6-man.
|
|
|
Posted by: Tyson on April 25, 2008 9:55PM EST
Cory I knew you weren't trying to start anything, i was just trying to show that Guernsey was able to compete so it does make it even more sad that they have to play 6 man rather than 11 man. I'm not that big of a fan of 6 man yet but with declining enrollment in most small schools in Wyo it seems inevitable. I agree it will be sad to not see all those great SEWAC games that we have been fortunate enough to be apart of the last quarter decade. Hopefully this will work out well for all schools involved. Has anybody heard any complaints about having to change field size? I cant imagine that any of the schools already have a field that is regulation size for 6 man.
|
|
|
Posted by: tmillerwyo on April 25, 2008 10:20PM EST
I think 6-man FB is great. It will allow smaller schools to be bring back FB or start a program, and schools with declining enrollment to continue playing. Playing at nuetral sites may be difficult, since the field is narrower (minor problem) and the goal posts are closer together (major problem). Also, I don't understand how making twice as many people drive half the distance will ease travel problems. I think the state needs at least 8 HSs to participate to make this work. I also agree with HS Sports Fan, I don't want to see a 6-man team with 20+ kids.
|
|
|
Posted by: Coach G on April 25, 2008 10:22PM EST
1 afan and Cory why is it a joke to give kids an opportunity to play football, don't you think that if the schools could field enough players to have an 8 or 9 they would. .
|
|
|
Posted by: Shawn Coggins on April 26, 2008 10:03AM EST
Wyoming has done the right thing and it will boost the smaller 1A schools spirit as well...But you have to keep in mind that it is a different game and VERY exciting to watch and be involved with.. HS Sports Fan has a very good point as far as the larger 1A schools showing up with a ton of players... This should be regulated some how.. Don't forget the field is only 80 yards long so the meeting in Riverton idea would have to have some adjustments....Come watch Meeteetse play this fall and see what you think...
|
|
|
Posted by: 1a fan on April 29, 2008 11:15PM EST
i think 6 man is not a good idea cause there are coaches who have to relearn a new style...ya kids always want to play but why does Guernsey (who had 30 kids out last season) need drop to six man. I strongly agree a school with 20 kids out can't play 6 man...if there's drop at all go back to the 9-man that was in the 90's, just like HS sports fan said.
|
|
|
Posted by: retired coach on April 30, 2008 1:30AM EST
!a fan,
Did you read Tyson's reply concerning GS, I think that explains it pretty well.
Any coach worth his "salt" won't have a problem learning six man or he'll leave the program and move to somewhere that has eleven man.
There may be an increase in participation with six player and perhaps even some JV games. Isn't the whole idea to give kids the opportunity to participate?
|
|
|
Posted by: 1a fan on April 30, 2008 1:24PM EST
Yes I do believe EVERY kid needs the chance to play...but what if you have a big kid? 6 man involves a lot of speed and agility. Bigger kids won't be needed as much because they don't have to speed to run down a ball carrier or block for a sweep.
So why drop straight to six man? It has already been proven that 9 man will work perfect. And as you may or may not know that in small schools the coach may also teach classes. You just can't get rid of a coach. It maybe a struggle. All I’m saying is that people need to think about the sudden idea of 6 man. We need a system that we know will work and won't be changed in a year of two after 6 man is put in. So I think, start with nine man and if a majority of 1a teams want to move to 6 man because the number of kids is way down go for it.
|
|
|
Posted by: retired coach on April 30, 2008 4:09PM EST
I coached in small schools for 29 of my 33 years of teaching. I coached three or four sports and had six classroom preparations, so I don't understand your argument. Also the argument for the big kid and six man is moot.
Say you play nine man and have eleven kids out where are you going to play that 5'2" 95 pound freshman........you'll have big kids, small kids, fast kids, slow kids, smart kids..........as I said it's moot.
If nine man worked why isn't the state still using it?
|
|
|
Posted by: 1a fan on April 30, 2008 9:18PM EST
There are positives and negatives for whatever happens. and as for size, never say the little guy can't play.
|
|
|
Posted by: Fred Thomas on May 1, 2008 10:00AM EST
I believed as 1A Fan did against going to Six man football as we had a whole 11 man line that would average 250 pounds! However we could have used them to win a Montana State Championship in 2006.It is in the coaching as the power running game with decent athletes can do VERY well!!!
|
|
|
