Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:57 am[user=1355]GRIDIRON GURU[/user] wrote
I think that track is important for building a good overall athletic program, but so is baseball. The key is to keep the kids in a sport all year long, no matter which sport it is. In the successful programs, the same kids seem to reappear in every sports season. By being on a team year-round, it forces them to be active and improves their overall athletic ability. I have known a lot of kids that "take a sport off to focus on another one", but what usually seems to happen is that they end up sitting around more and would have been better off playing year-round.
Dickinson has done well in all sports because they have athletes and numbers vs their competition,
They are good at track because the have athletes.
Velva is a baseball town you could say Velva is good at football and wrestling because of their baseball program. No way, it's because they have athletes and numbers.
If you are good in football you have speed at the skilled positions, if you are good in track you need athletes to place in a lot of events.
Some people make the track connection to football because their best athletes are good at both.
Take a look at Enderlin in their glory days they were a playoff contender in football every year and were in the state tourney in baseball every year with the same kids. Those same kids would have been good if they had a track program instead of baseball.
It's more about the total commitment, ability and desire of the athletes along with the coach that makes a school successful, not track and field.
I think if anything track gets more credit than it deserves