Is national TV good for prep football?
As we sit in the Times' plush downtown Tampa bureau assessing the Armwood-Plant postmortem, one question keeps nagging at us.
Should high school games be broadcast on national TV?
That's one of the thought-provoking inquiries we raise on Episode 1 of Friday Night Rewind (to be posted shortly on FridayNightRewind.com). Fact: The two local games broadcast live by ESPNU -- Jefferson-Armwood in 2006 and, of course, Plant-Armwood '08 -- produced 30 total points.
Here's what else they've produced: kids who are clearly nervous, a litany of false-start and delay-of-game penalties, and a succession of lengthy TV time-outs. Even if kids do find their poise, it seems to us they struggle to find their rhythm with the excessive stoppages in play.
But that's just our take. Now you tell us: Are high school kids ready to be thrust upon such a stage?
JOEY KNIGHT, Times Staff Writer


Same happens in other sports - but high school kids still manage to hit homeruns on tv. It's a good prep for college ball.
Posted by: | September 06, 2008 at 08:09 AM
I don't think the TV cameras had much to do with all those penalties. Try playing against both those defenses and tell me your not nervous. That D line from Armwood is phenomenal!
Posted by: Jeff R Son | September 06, 2008 at 09:14 AM
No.....it puts too much emphasis on playing on television, and not on the school spirit and community that should be the reason for high school sports.
Posted by: | September 06, 2008 at 09:27 AM
Who cares? These teams are only at the top because they are dishonest--recruiting is rampant. Some lesson ...
Posted by: cobra | September 06, 2008 at 07:25 PM
Absolutely not, nor should ESPN be broadcasting every little league game in Williamsport. It puts too much pressure on kids, they're too young. Sports on TV should be college/pro only.
Posted by: fan | September 07, 2008 at 03:00 PM
When you put prep games on TV, they end up getting an internet betting line. History proves that when a betting line is involved at a level of play that is not highly policed and regulated, there is the potential for corruption both at the referee and player level.
Posted by: | September 08, 2008 at 10:57 AM
People need to realize that the times are changing and everyone wants to see other high schools play. If these schools are as good as advertised then why not put them on t.v. If my team was ranked 15th nationally and someone else was ranked 10th I would want to see what makes them so much better than my team. What's the difference with these kids appearing on local t.v. and not on ESPN or some other big network?
The person who speaks about recruiting must be upset because those teams have beaten their team. Stop crying about recruiting. It happens everywhere you go and there is nothing we can do about it.
Posted by: | September 08, 2008 at 12:54 PM
I think like anything else some things are good and some could be not so good. But I think the good out weighs the bad. It also gives players that are not known a chance to earn a scholarship,national,state or city reconition and more. Kids are much more advance then I'd say 15 or 20 years ago. Most people thought they would not do be texting when it first got here, now most of the nation is texting. change is good wether we like it or not.
Posted by: Undre Smith | September 08, 2008 at 02:43 PM
Yeah, recruitting is rampant - particularly in the private school sector where it can be more easily disguised. But this has nothing to do with televised high school sports.
Posted by: | September 08, 2008 at 05:06 PM
No, I'm not upset about recruiting because "some team beat my team." I don't have a team, nor do I have a son playing football. And, your personal attack, crying about recruiting, is not only unfounded but also childish, uninformed and uneducated. It is illegal, criminal, to recruit a high school teenager to change schools for athletic purposes. I do agree it often happens, and when those who have misplaced, moronic values concerning kids on this issue, they become part of the problem, not the solution. It's not about you, it's about teaching kids right from wrong. Coaches should run a complete program, not devastate another school's program through illegal recruiting. If you have a son playing football, how would you feel if a player was recruited to take his position? Too many fathers live through their sons in athletics...
Posted by: cobra | September 08, 2008 at 08:54 PM
Cobra , get a life. Who cares about so called recruiting. As long as the kids is of proper age and has the required grades to compete who cares. It's only a game and most of all it's not youth league you don't get to play because your mom or dad signed you up.
Posted by: Hammertime | September 08, 2008 at 10:25 PM
they should start a new rule. your team can be on TV if your coach is in shape. 80% of the HS coaches around here are fat slobs. they look about to explode. Get the coaches in shape before you get on TV. disgusting!
Posted by: jose | September 09, 2008 at 09:21 AM
"It's only a game," and "who cares about recruiting" refute your own ill-structured argument. Nice try.
Posted by: cobra | September 20, 2008 at 08:14 PM