anyone know why schools like Falls Church,Mount Vernon, suck at football? is because you have to pay in order to play when your a little kid? Like Mount vernon high school is good in Soccer (hispanics) and basktball (blacks) but why can't they win in football since everyone plays and watches football?

There are 4 things that determine the success of football teams in the northern region:
1) Total number of students – the law of averages
2) Demographics – some groups are better football players (on average) then others
3) Coaching
4) Key players – A super stud properly used can make a big difference
Low income has nothing to do with it – I would argue low income kids are generally tougher and make better football players – take Hayfield or Edison (when they had a good coach) for example.

low income schools used to be good because they tended to have more black athletes. it seems as though the better coaches are now gravitating to the upper income schools, and the lower income schools are getting more hispanics and asians, which aren't good football players.

The stellar athletes are frequently anointed before they reach high school. The super stellar are sometimes recruited by the private schools (particularly in basketball).

Evan Royster was pupil placed at Westfield. His mother had a job there. She wanted him to play for Verbanic who had been his brothers' coach at Fairfax. This was totally legal and ethical-but she is not the only parent of a star athlete who finds a job in a school with a good coach.

I know of others--I've heard that Madison does this with baseball. I don't know about the poor schools, but I do know that youth coaches will go for miles and provide transportation for some kids from other areas. (At least they used to--rules might have changed.)

I know of one kid that transferred as a sophomore (his mom said he had "social" issues--but he wanted to play for a school that had a better team--and told his friends that. He had lots of friends, made good grades, and lettered in a sport.

Stellar athletes is not a pre-requisite for a good team. Those are clearly the exceptional cases you mention. The question is about the more general case. I think the law of averages disadvantages low income schools, which tend to be smaller, more than anything else. Low income schools attract lesser quality coaches, and also, it's probably a matter of discipline and dedication. I wonder if the kids at TC Williams, Mt Vernon, etc., put in the same amount of off-season weight room time (and not just the current starters but the kids 2-3 years from starting), and participate in the passing leagues.

It all starts with a coach who can put together a good program, not just a good team. Vaughn Lewis at Edison was a great example of this. He took a team that was 1-9 and built a program that went to five straight regional finals despite being one of the smallest schools in the county and having one of the highest free/reduced lunch populations in the county. Parents of the best athletes in the area moved into Edison's boundries so they could be a part of this program, which brought some of the best athletes under one roof.

Look at Edison in the mid/late 00's and what they've become in just two short years and you can see the kind of influence a great coach (and a not-so-great coach) can have on a program

I disagree that low income means small - TC (7 less kids than Westfield), 2nd largest school and Annandale, 5th. They are certaily low income and very large schools.

I see some of the "low income" schools struggling because of the high number of kids new to the country who are also new to football. It certainly helps to have played in the youth leagues leading up to high school just to get a feel for the game. I see a school like Annandale, that has a good amount of African immigrants among the student body. Many of these kids are quite talented, but even with the best coaching it is a challenge to overcome the years lost playing against schools whose kids have been playing organized football since 1st grade. That is why I foresee very big days and a return to the glory days in the Atoms' future. They have an untapped and up and coming talent base when all the African immigrants with young children assimilate into the culture and get their kids playing and coming up through the youth leagues.

Schools with high income, such as Langley or Mclean, are not good at football though. It all boils down to having a good coach, who gets the best athletes in school to play for him. Some schools could be much better at certain sports, but some kids just decided to not play it. I've seen some really good basketball players not play for their school when they could have been all-district type players. Likewise, I've seen some people not play football because they did not like the coach, who could have been pretty good players.

"low income" may be one factor but it's low on the list of reasons that schools struggle to be competitive in football.

Size, Demographics, and Coaching have all been mentioned and the best schools have all three of these in their favor but the one thing not mentioned is strong youth leagues and the coaching that takes place at that level.

Centreville and Westfield have strong programs because they're feed by a strong youth league like SYA. Chantilly is feed by CYA. Robinson, Fairfax and Lake Braddock are all feed by BRYC, SYC and FPYC. Those go hand in hand with their students populations, demographics and coaching. It's at this level where income may come more into being a factor and why youth programs in those area are more successful.

Schools like a Falls Church and Stuart have those things going against them. Their size is maybe half of what most schools are. Then take into account their demographics with their Hispanic populations being around 43%, their Black population being between 9 and 11%, and their White population around 24%. Then factor in that they're all feed by the same youth league, ABGC and you're furthering the dilution of talent feeding these two schools. Throw in Annandale into the mix and you have a reason for why those schools struggle.

Same thing in the Alexandria part of Fairfax County. Mt. Vernon, West Potomac face the same hurdles as Falls Church and Stuart. Start by looking at the youth leagues and their success and there is one major component in a schools success.

Trend watcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> low income schools used to be good because they
> tended to have more black athletes. it seems as
> though the better coaches are now gravitating to
> the upper income schools, and the lower income
> schools are getting more hispanics and asians,
> which aren't good football players.


Bingo. This pretty much sums it up. 1st and 2nd generation Hispanics aren't good in football. By the 3rd generation, they often are (Texas schools are a good proving ground for this).

Asians households do not value sporting activities as much and usually stress academics. By the time they hit high school, a lot of Asian kids are expected to find jobs after school. Plus, Asians aren't naturally built for football.

So, it's the demographics of the school as blacks are being squeezed out by Hispanics.

bullshit. since when was TC Williams or Mt Vernon any good at football? I remember playing TC Williams over 10 years ago when there wasn't a non-black player on the team. the demographic transition towards hispanics and asians doesnt help any but it doesnt explain why all-black teams at low income schools were never able to compete

riley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bullshit. since when was TC Williams or Mt Vernon
> any good at football? I remember playing TC
> Williams over 10 years ago when there wasn't a
> non-black player on the team. the demographic
> transition towards hispanics and asians doesnt
> help any but it doesnt explain why all-black teams
> at low income schools were never able to compete

I guess you missed the movie remember the titians

You also have to consider the fact that school's like MV and TC Williams are being depleted by the private schools. I recently graduated from MV where I played football and the majority of my neighborhood went to schools like Gonzaga, BI, PVI, etc. Most of the kids I partied with throughout high school went to private schools. It's just the nature of the area. There are polar opposites of incomes in the MV area and frankly that hurts MV. I can almost guarantee that if every kid in the MV area actually went to Mount Vernon High School it would be a perennial powerhouse in Fairfax County athletically and academically.

mvalumn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You also have to consider the fact that school's
> like MV and TC Williams are being depleted by the
> private schools. I recently graduated from MV
> where I played football and the majority of my
> neighborhood went to schools like Gonzaga, BI,
> PVI, etc. Most of the kids I partied with
> throughout high school went to private schools.
> It's just the nature of the area. There are polar
> opposites of incomes in the MV area and frankly
> that hurts MV. I can almost guarantee that if
> every kid in the MV area actually went to Mount
> Vernon High School it would be a perennial
> powerhouse in Fairfax County athletically and
> academically.


So you must agree that it has to do with income, and income alone. There are so many confounding variables when you compare low income areas to other areas higher in income, but when the comparison between incomes vis-a-vis football talent is made in a single catchment area then it's pretty clear. The talented players belong to families that can afford to send them to private school, and the less talented players are left behind because their families can't afford private school. Which brings it back to the original question. What is it about income difference?

TC Williams was very good in the 80's. They started to go downhill around the early 90's.

Old timer man Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TC Williams was very good in the 80's. They
> started to go downhill around the early 90's.


And what do you think happened to the income differential in the area at the same time?

THe richer schools suck at football though...