OT: High School Football Camps

[RiverDog]

I'm addressing this question to those of you that are a little closer to high school sports than me. It's been a good 10-15 years since I've been even remotely aware of the state of high school sports.

10-15 years ago, I heard multiple complaints from parents of kids involved in high school football about the local high school's near insistence that players on their football team attend a week long football camp, usually held by a college or university looking to advance their own recruiting efforts...the camp my HS attended was Boise State's...prior to the start of practices in mid August. The cost of those camps, in most cases born exclusively by the parents, was $1500-2500. Some parents obviously had difficulty finding that kind of money, but if they wanted their kid to have a chance of starting, they'd damn well better find a way to get the money. Plus many, like myself back in the day, had summer jobs that was needed if they were going to finance going to college in another year or two. It seemed to me to be an outrageous practice. I know damn well that if camps had existed back when I was in high school that many on my team would not have been able to attend, perhaps including myself, although I know that if I really wanted to go, my parents would have taken out a 2nd mortgage on the house if that's what it took to send me, they were that kind of parents.

So my question is do high schools still send their teams to summer camps, and if so, is it being fair to those that can't afford to attend?

[NorthHawk]

I read the following from PFT that might give you some insight as to what the NCAA is trying to do.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -ncaa-too/

[burrrton]

We're in a weird era with regard to HS sports, especially around here.

I'm not sure about camps specifically (I only attended one in HS, it wasn't that expensive, and it wasn't mandatory- only a few of us even attended), but there exists a similar situation with youth baseball in TC. Our teams are so good and so competitive, that if you want your kid to be able to compete, you're almost literally forced to keep them playing nearly year-round by both paying to be on all-star and 'club' teams and committing a *serious* amount of time to driving them around to games, tournaments, and practices.

If you don't have a stay at home Mom (virtually all the kids in my neighborhood are lucky enough to have them) it's almost impossible to accommodate.

[mykc14]

Many schools still go to football camp. For us it isn't mandatory but we get almost every kid who is going to start for us or compete for a starting position, plus many underclass who won't see a meaningful varsity snap. Overall we get about 80% of our team out. We go to Camp Rilea, an Armed Forces training center in Warrington, Oregon. It's a nice camp because it is cheap for the kids (it cost the kids about $250) for the 4 day camp, but we fundraiser all of it so most kids don't have to pay anything. The negative is that the kids aren't getting positional instruction from elite college coaches but the benefit is that we get to have a lot of time working with our kids. The do have college coaches there as well.

When I was in HS we went to Linfield football camp and it cost is about $400-$500. It wasn't mandatory, but most varsity players went.

[FolkCrusader]

I'm sure most understand this, but just in case. The "camp" discussion in this thread includes two different types of camps. Skills camps might be several days to a week long and are intended for H.S. students that are generally sophomores and juniors (will be juniors and seniors in the fall.) These camps focus on fundamental instruction and depending on who does the teaching can cost all over the map.

A satellite camp is generally a single portion of a day that a player pays a small amount of money to run through drills and generally be assessed for their potential to play different levels of college ball. Most of these guys have started one or two years of HS ball but have not been highly recruited up until then. Up until recently coaches from different schools would attend these camps allowing exposure to many school with attendance to one camp.

[RiverDog]

Many schools still go to football camp. For us it isn't mandatory but we get almost every kid who is going to start for us or compete for a starting position, plus many underclass who won't see a meaningful varsity snap. Overall we get about 80% of our team out. We go to Camp Rilea, an Armed Forces training center in Warrington, Oregon. It's a nice camp because it is cheap for the kids (it cost the kids about $250) for the 4 day camp, but we fundraiser all of it so most kids don't have to pay anything. The negative is that the kids aren't getting positional instruction from elite college coaches but the benefit is that we get to have a lot of time working with our kids. The do have college coaches there as well.

When I was in HS we went to Linfield football camp and it cost is about $400-$500. It wasn't mandatory, but most varsity players went.

Maybe I'm overstating the costs. It was 15 years ago, and I'm quite sure that it was a 4 figure number for a 5 day camp. And I suppose that Boise State, being that it's arguably a top 25 program, was a bit higher than most, at least more than Linfield.... nothing against Linfield as they have... or did have...a fine small college football program, but they aren't Boise State, so they were getting instruction from the top college coaches.

Nevertheless, I recall a lot of parents grumbling about the costs and that even though they said it wasn't mandatory, it was implied as such if you wanted your kid to have a chance at some playing time. Plus it cuts into their summer, which for most kids means giving up a week's worth of wages earned in a summer job. With fewer and fewer college programs offering football, the chances of any given player being able to pursue his career beyond high school is pretty slim, so I'm not sure what practical benefits most kids are getting from it. It seems designed more in the interests of college football programs, to expand their influence and aid in their recruiting efforts.

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if high schools weren't taking their entire teams, which puts a lot of pressure on parents and kids to participate. But anyway, thanks for the replies. It's been one of those things that's been bugging me for awhile.

[mykc14]

Maybe I'm overstating the costs. It was 15 years ago, and I'm quite sure that it was a 4 figure number for a 5 day camp. And I suppose that Boise State, being that it's arguably a top 25 program, was a bit higher than most, at least more than Linfield.... nothing against Linfield as they have... or did have...a fine small college football program, but they aren't Boise State, so they were getting instruction from the top college coaches.

Nevertheless, I recall a lot of parents grumbling about the costs and that even though they said it wasn't mandatory, it was implied as such if you wanted your kid to have a chance at some playing time. Plus it cuts into their summer, which for most kids means giving up a week's worth of wages earned in a summer job. With fewer and fewer college programs offering football, the chances of any given player being able to pursue his career beyond high school is pretty slim, so I'm not sure what practical benefits most kids are getting from it. It seems designed more in the interests of college football programs, to expand their influence and aid in their recruiting efforts.

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if high schools weren't taking their entire teams, which puts a lot of pressure on parents and kids to participate. But anyway, thanks for the replies. It's been one of those things that's been bugging me for awhile.

Yeah, the money having to be shouldered by parents is increasing greatly overall. All teams have a summer camp and they all cost at least a few hundred dollars. Combine the fact that many schools are now pay-to-play and if you have 2 kids in HS playing 2-3 sports each your paying over $1000 just to play and get to camp. The even larger cost is the AAU, premier soccer, traveling baseball, select volleyball, select softball, etc... Most of those cost $2,000 a year and parents are willing to throw money at the supposed increased exposure and training. It is sad to see so much money getting thrown away.

[RiverDog]

Yeah, the money having to be shouldered by parents is increasing greatly overall. All teams have a summer camp and they all cost at least a few hundred dollars. Combine the fact that many schools are now pay-to-play and if you have 2 kids in HS playing 2-3 sports each your paying over $1000 just to play and get to camp. The even larger cost is the AAU, premier soccer, traveling baseball, select volleyball, select softball, etc... Most of those cost $2,000 a year and parents are willing to throw money at the supposed increased exposure and training. It is sad to see so much money getting thrown away.

Wow, that's insane! I can understand the pay-to-play principle, along with all other extra curricular activities, but the amount of money they're expecting families to pay is outrageous.

Thanks for the comments, guys. It's been so long since I've had a kid in school that I'm a bit out of touch with stuff like this.

[HumanCockroach]

I'm addressing this question to those of you that are a little closer to high school sports than me. It's been a good 10-15 years since I've been even remotely aware of the state of high school sports.

10-15 years ago, I heard multiple complaints from parents of kids involved in high school football about the local high school's near insistence that players on their football team attend a week long football camp, usually held by a college or university looking to advance their own recruiting efforts...the camp my HS attended was Boise State's...prior to the start of practices in mid August. The cost of those camps, in most cases born exclusively by the parents, was $1500-2500. Some parents obviously had difficulty finding that kind of money, but if they wanted their kid to have a chance of starting, they'd damn well better find a way to get the money. Plus many, like myself back in the day, had summer jobs that was needed if they were going to finance going to college in another year or two. It seemed to me to be an outrageous practice. I know damn well that if camps had existed back when I was in high school that many on my team would not have been able to attend, perhaps including myself, although I know that if I really wanted to go, my parents would have taken out a 2nd mortgage on the house if that's what it took to send me, they were that kind of parents.

So my question is do high schools still send their teams to summer camps, and if so, is it being fair to those that can't afford to attend?

Absolutely, some multiple camps... And yes, the cost is asinine. HS football, isn't about playing football, making friends, and learning how to work together anymore. It's D salt just another business, stronger booster patents kids get extra "push", playing time and attention, while poorer kids better be exceptional or fill a specific need if they want a realistic chance at play time. Gone are the days of competing for play time, no matter what name is on the back of your jersey.