Go Falcons;1660471 wrote:I do not see a reason to have a separate thread for Waynedale, this thread has only been a Waynedale whine fest for about a year and a half.
It has come and gone for well over a year. You're right. It's annoying, though, right? Inasmuch as that is the case, I'd rather it stay somewhere else.
Go Falcons;1660495 wrote:Over the past few years as teams like Hillsdale and Norwayne have risen to semi-dominance in the WCAL, I have marveled at the finger pointing that has taken place amongst the other teams. I can not believe that people actually believe there is that much difference between the students, parents or fans of any WCAL team. Kids every where have more distractions in their life. With a lot of attention placed on injuries many parents are not as excited about their kid playing. From what I have seen, the fan bases of most of the teams comes and goes every couple of years with graduation. From time to time,yes a class is exceptional, good or bad, but as an average they are pretty equal. That leaves one major variable- the coach. If anyone wants to argue that then please show me how Hillsdale kids were weaker, smaller, and slower than the rest of the kids in the league for forty years. Even great coaches, if they do not adapt fall behind. It has happened in the WCAL, I have watched great coaches that stuck with what worked for years get pushed into obscurity by a faster paced game. Don't get me wrong there are some things that a coach can not control enough to accomplish much, some times for even a couple years.But it is still the coach that sets the basis by which the kids, parents, and fans have to buy into.
There is little difference in the talent pool to be sure. However, I think there might be one thing left out: the popularity of the program among the talent pool.
It follows a pattern, to be sure. The more successful a team has been in recent history, it's likely that team will become more popular among the top athletes at the school.
On the other hand, the less success a program has had in recent history, it's likely that the team will be less popular among the top athletes, who might think other sports ought to take their attention (either preparing for sports in different seasons or playing different sports in that same season).
So I do think that there can, indeed, be a distinction between the talent of one team and another. The talent pools are probably pretty much the same, but the portion of it that goes out for football can be different. The number of self-starters and self-motivators can be different (leading to better off-season preparation, with or without good motivation from a coach).
I do agree that good coaching does make a HUGE difference, though. We saw it in Smithville in the '90s and 2000s. There were simply too many consecutive seasons of success for it to have been just a talented class. It was, to a large degree, coaching. But the program's success bred popularity, which drew most of the athletes and large participation numbers. And because of the success, the training and pre-season program was an easier sell to the athletes, as well (because it was proven to have led to success).
Coaching does play a big role, and it oughtn't be downplayed, but there are other factors.