Texas HS lax

[Rice University Coach]

Amen Uzisuicide!
I experienced the "football mentality" first hand at Clear Lake. The football coach wouldn't give us the time of day. He felt that his football players would get hurt playing Lacrosse. I had three boys play lax at lake and also played on the football team. All were good athletes and one - Jeff Wheeler just got a full ride to play football at Kansas. It's a shame we have to battle that mentality. I would hope that there are other coaches and programs that are far more objective. I know that Bellaire had a good relationship with the H.S. coaches there. The funny thing was that my lax players were in better condition than the football team. My lax boys that came to spring practice would complain that we did more running and conditioning in Lacrosse versus football.

[Brent Burns]

Mike,

There is one person that sprang to my mind, and that was Glenn "Pop" Warner. Correct me if I have this wrong, but I know this is actually related to college; however, Glenn was one of the few who recognized the value of allowing his football players to play lacrosse because of its outstanding conditioning and footwork.

[Texas Logger]

This topic made me get an account.

I graduated from Saint Mary's Hall. Recruiting had very little to do with the success of those '98-'00 teams. The core of the last two teams at least was local boys, I should I know I went to middle school with 'em. What has happened is a new administration that has been expelling kids left and right. One of them (Covey from St. Anthony's) has signed with D1 Denver.
The other central division schools are just catching up, plain and simple. Last year was suppossed to be another down year for SMH and they were state runners-up. The best I can say is that it is a talent down-swing. I looked at the SMH roster this year and my jaw dropped, no way could these kids start in the SMH hey day. From the underclassmen that I left that school with, I wouldn't expect much for the next couple years. Lacrosse just isn't as important as it used to be at SMH. That and the talent coming out of San Antonio Academy has gone way down.

[Ryan Turnbow]

UIL LAX:

I think the league should approach UIL status with extreme caution with coaches being the number one worry. The Woodlands is a good exampe of the best possible coaching situation. Coach Seale is now a teacher at the school and I believe gets money from the team for coaching, worked for many years and now can teach and coach. Once more teams have a set up like this the UIL transition will be much easier.

As far as spreading the game to more areas goes:

I am a big supporter of is teams that comprise of more than one school to get started. Once upon a time the north houston teams were all one team, klien, and schools slowly broke off forming new teams. Central Catholic is a good modern day example. Soon they will have enough players to split into seperate teams and grow.

On the note of football coaches as AD's and down playing lacrosse:

I heard from one of the more successful football program's coach is actually encouraging lacrosse as a cross over sport. I want to say that it was Southlake and it would be hard to argue anything the football coach @ Southlake does. My senior year I got a buddy of mine, Travis Lietko (HS AA Football, Notre Dame) to come out and play. Before he came out he had to clear it w/Ty Willingham and he was happy about him playing. As Coach Orsby said, Travis was about the most winded guy at practice for the first month.

The point is that teams struggling with the football coaches should use examples like this (and others provided) and be patient. Eventually the coach will work with the program or at least not do everything in his power to hinder its growth.

Texas Logger:

Didn't mean to down play what SMH did those years. Played with the seniors(Jon, Chris, Ian, and Reeves were all SA locals i believe) from the 01' team and have seen covey play, all great.

Sorry if this jumps around alot, just a post in between classes to waste time. Also apologize for all the woodlands references but they gonna take state this year any ways so why not?

[LaxC21]

Since we are now talking about HS football, I thought I would chime in. I always thought it was stupid that a coach thought so much about the conditioning athletes did in the spring. You can do all the hard work you want for 3 months in the spring, but if you sat around May-Aug. it didn't do you any good anyways...so just let football players play lacrosse and let them focus on the weighlifting and conditioning during the summer when it really mattered. I did both and it worked for me.

[Gary Robinson]

I heard from one of the more successful football program's coach is actually encouraging lacrosse as a cross over sport. I want to say that it was Southlake and it would be hard to argue anything the football coach @ Southlake does.

That is correct. Although you can't draw a direct correlation between the success of their football program and the fact that they encourage (or allow) their footballers to play lacrosse, it is still a compelling piece of evidence.

[Sonny]

I think the league should approach UIL status with extreme caution with coaches being the number one worry. The Woodlands is a good exampe of the best possible coaching situation. Coach Seale is now a teacher at the school and I believe gets money from the team for coaching, worked for many years and now can teach and coach. Once more teams have a set up like this the UIL transition will be much easier.

As far as spreading the game to more areas goes:

I am a big supporter of is teams that comprise of more than one school to get started.

If one truly wants the game to grow, then sanctioning by the state organization is the way to go. It will allow the game to grow faster. It opens doors to further legitimize the sport and eliminates one excuse that schools and school boards use to prevent new school lax programs from competiting. The local press is also reluctant to cover club sports programs, but they will report on sanctioned sports programs/state championships.

Here in Georgia, we have attracted more coaches & more referees (from non-lacrosse backgrounds) due to the sanctioning. Some of the club players that were coaching had to become assistant coaches, but they still help out with the programs. The head coach for one of the top lacrosse H.S. teams in GA comes from a baseball background.

If you allow "mixed roster" teams to exist long term, then there is no incentive for kids/parents to attempt to start new teams at their respective school.

In my opinion, those are very short-sighted opinions Ryan. Both are short term problems which will be dealt with as the game grows and attracts more & better qualified coaches, referees, & players.

[CATLAX MAN]

I can echo Sonny's point as we have witnessed the same thing in California. The CIF (California Interscholastic Federation) sanctioned lacrosse as a varsity sport for high schools in 2002, I believe, after many years as a club sport. The people who were instrumental in getting the sport sanctioned knew that initially it was going to a step backwards in order to build a new infrastructure. However, it is plain to see that it has paid dividends for the sport taking the long term view for many of the same reasons that Sonny listed in his post.

[LaxC21]

I know it would be a set back in some regards, but UIL is the way to go. You would have legitimate access to facilities, coaching, funding, etc. With all of that, then teams will have more of an opportunity to recruit more athletes.

I would also bet that there are more coaches than you think that are teachers at schools. I know Kingwood had success early in their program because the coach was also a football coach at the high school. It was huge to have someone in the football circle recruiting kids to play.

Another thought is, there are probably a few guys who are willing to change careers if they new they were going to be paid to coach lacrosse.

[Ryan Turnbow]

Guess my post was a little short sighted and not completly clear. I came across as a little anti-UIL. I was replying mostly to the fact that TX need the number of teams to more than double before it will go UIL. No doubt once we have 100+ teams in TX lax is ready for UIL. I'll have take your word on people from non-lacrosse backgrounds becoming successful coaches, just havent experienced it. Coaches are really my only major concern going UIL. Like CATLAX said, it would be a step backward at first and I just dont think most of the programs in TX can afford a step back.

As far as STARTING UP teams consisting of more than one school, I still think that it is a good thing. For someone not linked to the school, starting up a team @ one school from scratch in an area where lacrosse is not prevalent is very difficult. Sonny, I do not mean these teams should stay that way for more than one or two years but there are alot of pro's to doing so. One is the ease of starting a team in the area and once the team is ready to split you have started mutiple teams. I maybe wrong on that one but until lax is played outside the major 4 cities in Texas I don't know a better way to start lax in an area.

Just my thoughts, could be wrong.

[Campbell]

Since we are now talking about HS football, I thought I would chime in. I always thought it was stupid that a coach thought so much about the conditioning athletes did in the spring. You can do all the hard work you want for 3 months in the spring, but if you sat around May-Aug. it didn't do you any good anyways...so just let football players play lacrosse and let them focus on the weighlifting and conditioning during the summer when it really mattered. I did both and it worked for me.

That is a good point although I did carry some of my spring training into the fall when I played football in TX, but I usually played lacrosse all summer in Austin. I think the problem with HS football coaches is, in their eyes, they don't need a spring sport for training. When I played sports in Maryland you didn't get PE credit, you just went after school to practice. So the AD would bug you all year to pick up other sports, every season. So I went from football to wrestling to lacrosse. When I came to TX I was going to football during my last period of the day and getting credit/grade. I was surprised to find out that I had to take "football" all year. I was even more surprised that AD never bugged me about other sports, in fact at my school it was generally looked down upon to pick up any other sport that might conflict with your period of football. As a result many of the football players would go to football period and then to their respective sports.

[CATLAX MAN]

Like CATLAX said, it would be a step backward at first and I just dont think most of the programs in TX can afford a step back.

I think the more important question is can they afford not to take that initial step backward. From experience I can tell you that it was the best thing that could have happened to high school lacrosse in California. We are seeing more & more high school teams being formed each season. As a spring sport, it provides an alternative to baseball & track and spring practice for football for athletes.

If you look at the long thread about what has happened to the quality of play in the LSA and where are the players going, no one really pointed to this as part of the problem, but this has got to be a contributing factor. Growth of the sport at the high school level is essential in order to proivide the players to feed the universities.

[Sonny]

Guess my post was a little short sighted and not completly clear. I came across as a little anti-UIL. I was replying mostly to the fact that TX need the number of teams to more than double before it will go UIL. No doubt once we have 100+ teams in TX lax is ready for UIL. I'll have take your word on people from non-lacrosse backgrounds becoming successful coaches, just havent experienced it. Coaches are really my only major concern going UIL. Like CATLAX said, it would be a step backward at first and I just dont think most of the programs in TX can afford a step back.

As far as STARTING UP teams consisting of more than one school, I still think that it is a good thing. For someone not linked to the school, starting up a team @ one school from scratch in an area where lacrosse is not prevalent is very difficult. Sonny, I do not mean these teams should stay that way for more than one or two years but there are alot of pro's to doing so. One is the ease of starting a team in the area and once the team is ready to split you have started mutiple teams. I maybe wrong on that one but until lax is played outside the major 4 cities in Texas I don't know a better way to start lax in an area.

Just my thoughts, could be wrong.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I don't know the specific UIL rules, but here in Georgia they sanctioned the sport of boys lacrosse with only ~30 varsity programs 3 years ago. Clearly, the sport had not grown past a specific # of teams statewide or certain specified percentage. But they classified as an "emerging sport" and sanctioned it anyway. (Ditto for girls lacrosse too.)

The coaching issue is a non-issue really. All of the current coaches (non teachers) can remain working with their programs. Maybe the coach on paper shifts to someone else's name. (That is for the program and the school in question to decide. Not you or I.) But if the coaches are that selfish that that they don't want to see the sport get sanctioned because they might lose their title, then they don't have the interest of the sport at heart anyway.

Many of the club players continue to coach GA H.S. teams to this very day. They are a community (asst.) coach and become the "speaking" coach on game day. It's a side step, not necessarily a step backward in my book.

As far as the start-up team issue, I've seen club teams remain club teams for 3 - 4 years now here in Atlanta. Because they have an avenue to play on a club team in a club H.S. league, players are NOT putting any pressure on their own home school to start a new team. It's kinda of a Catch-22. I see what you are saying, but it promotes compliancy and retards growth of new programs/leagues. Parents (i.e. taxpayers) are the key to starting new H.S. teams at the grassrooots level.

[Ryan Turnbow]

Points are well taken. I have been told multiple times that the number is somewhere around 120 teams needed before the sport can go UIL. I've never heard this from anyone "official" but have heard it numberous times so I assume there is some truth in it. If this is the case, it is a long ways coming any ways. I'm standing on the other side of the fence on this issue than you two so you definately provide me with a new prospective. I see both your points on coaching and growth.

[shrekjr]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The coaching issue is a non-issue really. All of the current coaches (non teachers) can remain working with their programs. Maybe the coach on paper shifts to someone else's name. (That is for the program and the school in question to decide. Not you or I.)

Not necessarily true. In Texas, all coaches must be school employees. The current club coaches would have to get teaching certificates and actually teach classes, if they could even get a job with the school district. So many of the coaching positions are based on football coaching needs at the school and teaching positions needed within the district. It could be very difficult for a current club team coach to make the move to continue working with the same team.