Sonny Dykes: Everybody texts at Califonria high school games

6,322 Views | 52 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Golden One
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Cal8285 said:


My son is entering his senior year of college, and he has really enjoyed his 4 years of high school football and his 3 years, soon to be 4, of Division III football. But I think it is way better for him that he went to a high school and a college where football didn't rule. We can never know the road not taken, but knowing him like I do, I think he will come out of college better for those 8 years of HS and college football. I'm not sure, however, that he would be able to come out better if he had been at a high school or a college where football ruled.

And what I'm saying isn't the same as "Don't like Beyonce as much and support the local choir as much as you support Beyonce." I do think it is better to balanced in life, and not be too obsessed with Beyonce. As a singer in a local choir, however, while I appreciate people who come to our concerts and enjoy them, I don't want anyone to cut back on Beyonce to go to more local concerts they will enjoy less. But I think people overly obsessed with Beyonce would be healthier if they would go out for more hikes or bike rides or spend more time in community service. Or spend more time with their kids or parents. And certainly don't cut back on Beyonce just in order to spend too much time posting on Bear Insider, which I say as someone who certainly spends too much time posting on Bear Insider.

But it is even more important for a community, for the culture, to be balanced than for individuals. In the community, in the culture, it is OK if some people are obsessed with Beyonce, like most of us here are probably too obsessed with Cal football. It would be bad if it felt like the entire community was overly obsessed with Beyonce. Just like it is bad if it feels like the entire community is obsessed with high school football, or if it feels like an entire college campus community is obsessed with its football team (and in some respects, that is worse than being obsessed with Beyonce, because she is an adult wanting a career where some people are obsessed with her, as opposed to being a high school football player who just wants to have fun). Where the community is balanced, then the individuals have more options and are more free to follow their passions.

In the places where football rules, football will rule until it doesn't, but I believe it is healthier, I believe life is better, in the places where football doesn't rule, but exists with a more appropriate role in the community. I think that in most places in California, football doesn't rule and has an appropriate role in the community, and I think that is frequently not true in the south.
The assertion was "an advantage in football is a disadvantage in life", for which I have read no good argument for in this thread.

I think dedication to an activity (sports) and supported culturally by the community and region is a positive thing, particularly compared to the alternative (a community that isn't passionate about anything, with time left idle). Team sports help build all sorts of life skills. Not all of them will take advantage of those aspects but that's not really an argument in support of the original assertion.
Perhaps you misunderstood the assertion. "Yeah, the south has the 'advantage' in culture if we think it is a good think for larger numbers of young athletes to be playing football. The 'advantage' for football is a disadvantage in life, but it does lead to more quality football players in the south."

In context, this is saying that having a culture that is overly obsessed with football is an advantage for football, not an advantage in life.

I don't think it is an advantage in life for there to be dedication to one activity (football) and supported culturally by the community and region far too much to the exclusion of other activities, and the arguments for that have been made. And it isn't an advantage in life for kids who just want to have fun and build life skills to have too many people being too obsessed with what they are doing.

Team sports build all sorts of life skills, but intense community focus on one particular sport over other sports and other activities isn't so healthy for the kids who play that sport, the kids who want to play other sports, or the kids who want to play both that sport and other sports.

I'm not talking about passion for football versus passion for nothing. I'm talking about reasonable life balance, and if the community is too passionate about football, then it is harmful to both individuals whose opportunities to be passionate about other things are more limited, and to those who want to participate in football without the community obsession that kids shouldn't have to deal with.

I truly appreciate the life skills my son has built in his many years as a member of a football team. I believe it has been a great benefit to him, and when he graduates college next May, assuming he doesn't sustain any injuries he can't recover from, he will come out a better person for the past 8 years of football. But I truly believe he would be worse off if he was in a place where the passion for football was incredibly high as it is at many SEC schools and at way too many high schools in the south. Yes, the "advantage" in culture that makes the quality of football be better in the south is a disadvantage in life.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think you project too much of your own value system here. You aren't fond of the football culture of the south, and therefore you make the mistake of extrapolating some broad (and unscientific) statement about its inferiority to a "balanced culture" (whatever that means).
BearlyClad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal8285 said:



"But every California HS football coach I know of would be very unkind to any kid caught on a cell phone during any football activities, whether a game, practice, scrimmage, team meal, awards ceremony, or anything else. And plenty of them would punish the whole team."
Definitely true.
BearlyClad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As far as the football versus life situation, what about those who see enough of the football vibe to decide to go elsewhere in life? It's not like everyone who gets into football has been sucked in for life, with no corresponding benefit.
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearlyClad said:

As far as the football versus life situation, what about those who see enough of the football vibe to decide to go elsewhere in life? It's not like everyone who gets into football has been sucked in for life, with no corresponding benefit.
Ignoring the potential physical harms of football, I think that being involved in football is for many a good thing. As I've said in this thread, I think my son will be better off for having been in football, assuming no injuries he can't recover from in his final year.

The problem comes in a culture that is overly obsessed with football. Even that doesn't mean people are sucked in for life. A lot of people who play football in the overly obsessed football culture end up wanting nothing to do with football ever again (in part as a response to the overly obsessed culture). Todd Marinovich had an overly obsessed father from birth, and he'll tell you it was a bad thing. Not quite the same as the culture being overly obsessed, but the overly obsessed culture can present some of the same problems as the overly obsessed father.

If the culture is too obsessed with anything, it is a problem. When the culture is too obsessed with getting every kid into a four year college, that is a bad thing. Doesn't mean that college doesn't do a whole lot of people a whole lot of good, doesn't mean the world isn't better off for having college. Doesn't mean it is bad if a particular kid is focused on getting into college, just as it isn't bad if a particular kid is focused on football. The problem is when the culture gets off an even keel.



Yogi011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear19 said:

What in The Funnies is up with this obsession with Sonny F'ing Dykes? Okaydo, time to move on.
https://vimeo.com/61079940
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNakedLadies said:

Bear19 said:

What in The Funnies is up with this obsession with Sonny F'ing Dykes? Okaydo, time to move on.
https://vimeo.com/61079940
Pretty funny clip. S.D. is the football equivalent of SPAM for sure. Hahahaa!
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

what kind of HS athlete picks a college based on their HS coach's recommendation????

"Coach, I really like Cal."

Don't go to Cal, I don't like them.

"Okay coach. L.A. schools it is!"
Well, Coach Rollo has more gravitas then you think. Of course he can't prevent from kids going somewhere but he sure as heck can help evaluate alternatives....
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

LunchTime said:


It MAY be that the Wests low population density (including LA) is to blame: ie is the sport able to find the best players in the recruiting process when the distance between recruits is so vast. There seems to be an imbalance there.
I don't know about that. Texas is a very large state, and other than Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, the population density in Texas is very low. Same for the other Southern states.
I dont think you are correct, specifically about the South. https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Population#figure/region

Aside from west Texas, Texas is also VERY dense compared to the region the Pac12 recruits. Including West Texas, the region (West South Central) has double the density of the Pacific. Really the only part of "the south" that compares to the vast area and low population that Pac12 schools face is West Texas.

Outside of the major metro areas in California (and maybe Seattle) the distances you have to travel to see one or two players in nuts.
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sketchy9 said:

LunchTime said:

Another Bear said:

A lot of this is cultural. FB is religion in the South. HS and town social life centers around it. That's simply not the case any longer in most of California with all the hippies, "elites" and atheists.

The mobile phone bit is overstated. Calling it regional is a bit ignorant or just baloney.

While SoCal has population, talent and competition...NorCal isn't chopped liver. Brady, Rodgers and Goff say so.
The fact that you point to Rodgers as an example is interesting, given he had no offers and was found through happenstance because he was playing with a tight end Tedford liked.

It MAY be that the Wests low population density (including LA) is to blame: ie is the sport able to find the best players in the recruiting process when the distance between recruits is so vast. There seems to be an imbalance there.

Actually, the West is very dense (including LA):

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html

"The nation's most densely populated urbanized area is Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif., with nearly 7,000 people per square mile. The San Francisco-Oakland, Calif., area is the second most densely populated at 6,266 people per square mile, followed by San Jose, Calif. (5,820 people per square mile) and Delano, Calif. (5,483 people per square mile). The New York-Newark, N.J., area is fifth, with an overall density of 5,319 people per square mile. (See sortable lists.)

Of the 10 most densely populated urbanized areas, nine are in the West, with seven of those in California."


Wait, I think you misread what I said. It seems a lot of people did:

Including LA (the most dense metro area in the country), the population density of the Pacific region is very low. https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Population#figure/metro-area

The issue I am curious about is that it seems like it could be that if you DONT live in one of the major MSAs in the Pacific or Mountain region, it becomes insanely expensive to find and recruit you. In California that may not be a huge issue, because so much of the population is in a small area, but we also recruit Nevada, Oregon, Arizona, Washington, etc.

Compared to the south, where population density is relatively more uniform (again, including the densest MSA in the country - or as you point out, 7 of the highest density urbanized towns, the south region has roughly double the density), it seems like it would be easier to go out on a road trip and hit a bunch of recruits, compared to the Pac12 region, where leaving the super dense LA area leaves you driving for hours to see maybe one guy. How many of those "Rodgers" type guys are getting left out of the process because it is not economical to go find them?


Also, Delano listed as a top ten most densely populated urbanized areas in the country, with a population of 52k, is a great example of my point: Kern County density is 103/smile. Delano and Bakersfield are basically the towns with significant density, but half the population of the county lives outside that density. How do you economically recruit that half? They play football. If you are a school trying to maximize your resources, how many of that population gets seen?

In other words: what I am curious about is what percentage of the populations in the regions is cost effective to visit. I think California, because of LA Area, and the Bay Area, you can hit most of the population in two flights. But outside of that, how much of the population in the west is economically accessible. How accessible is Butte? Pretty damn inaccessible. Not not as inaccessible as bumfk Nevada...

I think it is much easier, in GA for example, for a team to have the resources to visit the remote schools vs the remote schools in the west.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:



Aside from west Texas, Texas is also VERY dense compared to the region the Pac12 recruits. Including West Texas, the region (West South Central) has double the density of the Pacific.
Have you ever been to Texas? It's a very large state (second to only Alaska in total geographcal area) and most of the state has a lot of nothing. Other than the large cities I mentioned, there is a lot of empty space in Texas.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is easier for people from the SEC to fly into L.A. and see a ton of high caliber recruits than it is for someone from L.A. to fly into the Southwest and see a ton of high caliber recruits.

Likewise, it is almost as easy for an SEC coach to fly into L.A. to see a ton of high caliber recruits as a Bay Area coach.

On the other hand, SEC coaches have most SEC recruits within driving distance. The exception may be West Texas.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Its not that hard to drive up 99 and see kids from Fresno to Placer and all in between. Nevada has two cities and Oregon and Washington have 3 total. Not a ton of kids from in between get a look (Aaron Rodgers, example). That is where Davis and Boise go.

Most of the kids in California who are ranked will get a look from the coaches. it is not that hard.

I would think the hardest place to recruit is Hawaii.
hanky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:



https://apnews.com/e7b5a23b76cb4083a286f563439de8ee



Does Sonny Dykes' obsession with Cal exceed Okaydo's obsession with Sonny Dykes?
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

what kind of HS athlete picks a college based on their HS coach's recommendation????

"Coach, I really like Cal."

Don't go to Cal, I don't like them.

"Okay coach. L.A. schools it is!"

Are you suggesting HS coaches don't hold sway over the choices their players make?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

GBear4Life said:

what kind of HS athlete picks a college based on their HS coach's recommendation????

"Coach, I really like Cal."

Don't go to Cal, I don't like them.

"Okay coach. L.A. schools it is!"

Are you suggesting HS coaches don't hold sway over the choices their players make?
It's certainly rare, I would argue. And I don't think very highly of your average 17 year old.
LunchTime
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

LunchTime said:



Aside from west Texas, Texas is also VERY dense compared to the region the Pac12 recruits. Including West Texas, the region (West South Central) has double the density of the Pacific.
Have you ever been to Texas? It's a very large state (second to only Alaska in total geographcal area) and most of the state has a lot of nothing. Other than the large cities I mentioned, there is a lot of empty space in Texas.
yes I have.

Texas is a large state, and it's density in West Texas is similar to most of the Pacific and Wester regions. It's density in the east is similar to the rest of the south.

I provided a good resource to look at it by region, county (though that's pretty misleading in places like San Bernardino county, where the entire county's population is squished). Have a look.

FWIW, I also travel to Alaska pretty often. I have a brother who moved up there with the 509th infantry regiment, and then moved on to be and engineer and maintains the facilities that serve the native population in remote Alaska. My good friend (who I named my son for) is buried in Houston National and is from Manvel. I travel to Texas as often as I can to stay in touch with his family and visit him. I have also lived in northern Nevada and when I was traveling for races, I would drive almost the entirety of the west.

Alaska is not comparable with Texas. Texas is in second place for land mass but it is a distant second place. Similarly, West Texas is not comparable to the rest of Texas. And Alaska makes West Texas look crowded, and I am still guessing traveling West Texas is pretty damn hard for recruiting. But the rest of Texas, especially the "southern" part of Texas (ie eastern Texas) is still fat denser than the western and Pacific regions. Again, I gave a resource for you to go gather your own evidence from.

Yeah, I have been to desolate places. Population density in the west is low. Very low. I have no idea where the debate on this issue is. It is not remotely disputable. The population density in the west, outside of the extremely dense areas like LA and SF, is extremely low. Even areas like Delano is misleading because 50% of kern county (a massive county) lives outside of the major towns. It is not subjective. It is not related to Texas or Alaska land mass. Population density is measurable. And in the west it is MUCH lower than the west. How it got sidetracked to be a debate that the west doesn't have low population density is ridiculous.

The only debatable thing I posted is the magnitude of impact on recruiting vs the south. I have no evidence it matters at all, but the Rodgers find being so attached to happenstance and not having ANY looks from a D1 school made me think it's possible that we lose recruits to the distances and population densities involved.

The fact that the Pacific and West are low density isn't debatable.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LunchTime said:

Golden One said:

LunchTime said:



Aside from west Texas, Texas is also VERY dense compared to the region the Pac12 recruits. Including West Texas, the region (West South Central) has double the density of the Pacific.
Have you ever been to Texas? It's a very large state (second to only Alaska in total geographcal area) and most of the state has a lot of nothing. Other than the large cities I mentioned, there is a lot of empty space in Texas.
yes I have.

Texas is a large state, and it's density in West Texas is similar to most of the Pacific and Wester regions. It's density in the east is similar to the rest of the south.

I provided a good resource to look at it by region, county (though that's pretty misleading in places like San Bernardino county, where the entire county's population is squished). Have a look.

FWIW, I also travel to Alaska pretty often. I have a brother who moved up there with the 509th infantry regiment, and then moved on to be and engineer and maintains the facilities that serve the native population in remote Alaska. My good friend (who I named my son for) is buried in Houston National and is from Manvel. I travel to Texas as often as I can to stay in touch with his family and visit him. I have also lived in northern Nevada and when I was traveling for races, I would drive almost the entirety of the west.

Alaska is not comparable with Texas. Texas is in second place for land mass but it is a distant second place. Similarly, West Texas is not comparable to the rest of Texas. And Alaska makes West Texas look crowded, and I am still guessing traveling West Texas is pretty damn hard for recruiting. But the rest of Texas, especially the "southern" part of Texas (ie eastern Texas) is still fat denser than the western and Pacific regions. Again, I gave a resource for you to go gather your own evidence from.

Yeah, I have been to desolate places. Population density in the west is low. Very low. I have no idea where the debate on this issue is. It is not remotely disputable. The population density in the west, outside of the extremely dense areas like LA and SF, is extremely low. Even areas like Delano is misleading because 50% of kern county (a massive county) lives outside of the major towns. It is not subjective. It is not related to Texas or Alaska land mass. Population density is measurable. And in the west it is MUCH lower than the west. How it got sidetracked to be a debate that the west doesn't have low population density is ridiculous.

The only debatable thing I posted is the magnitude of impact on recruiting vs the south. I have no evidence it matters at all, but the Rodgers find being so attached to happenstance and not having ANY looks from a D1 school made me think it's possible that we lose recruits to the distances and population densities involved.

The fact that the Pacific and West are low density isn't debatable.
Sorry, but it's not debatable that you are completely wrong. Check out the tables in the following link to see the population density of each of the 50 states. Texas has only 42% of the population density of California.
https://state.1keydata.com/state-population-density.php

California is the 11th most dense state, and Texas is the 26th. California has 251 people per sq. mile and Texas has 105 people per square mile. And every southern state except Florida has a lower population density than California.

Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.