A-11: R.I.P. or alive and well?

Coach
You have to remember the Federation is merely a membership organization comprised of state high school associations. It is some not divine body lording over high school athletics. The membership seems to be quite vocal on this matter

It sounds like Coach Bryan and the A-11 backers have a contingency planned if the NFHS closes the loophole.

Anyone have any ideas what recourse teams that want to use this offense will have?

So for me to understand this the FED is some kinda Hugh "Booster Club"?

Phantom I like that, play football. I guess if they really close the Loophole then they will still use the offense just numbered with 50 - 79 which makes it easier for the defense to recognize who is eligable and who not but it still makes you defend the whole field horizontal and vertical - some kinda hyper spread!

My problem with this offense is threefold

1. First and most importantly, and also the reason it will probably be banned, it takes advantage of a loophole in the scrimmage kick rule which was designed to make it easier for a team to find a longsnapper. That is the only reason the scrimmage kick exception exists, granted teams have used it to load punt teams with speed kids, but its intention was to be an exception for long snappers. The offenss does try to create a travesty of that rule and we will probably all suffer for it, because the fed will probably take away the exception.

2. There is nothing terribly original about Coach Bryan's offense or the concept other than taking advantage of that loophole no matter how much time he and his buddies spend patting themselves on the back. That leads to....

3. He has been such a shameless self promoter that it seems like he cares a lot more about "speaking at a great clinic" than actually coaching football.

That's simple the numbering exception on the scrimmage kick formation.

a11offense.com/

According to this article posted on the first page of Humprey and Bryan's website, if the NFHS closes the loophole that currently makes the A-11 legal, the contingency plan seems to be twofold:

1) Have schools that utilize the A-11 lobby their state associations to simply ignore any NFHS rule changes that would eliminate the A-11 as an every-down offense

2) Create a new high school federation in which the A-11 is legal

I don't think #1 is a real possibility but the second option is pretty interesting. The biggest problem with an "A-11 Federation" would be finding enough schools close enough to each oither to warrant travel expenses.

I don't want to offend anyone here, but the idea of banning the offense simply because it takes advantage of the rules is lame. Whether you like them or not, Humphries and Bryant are bright guys who recognized a possibility and ran with it. Should we hold it against people for being smart, outside the box thinkers who understand the potential of language. What they exploited was not a loophole, but rather a lack. Just because they recognized that something was not forbidden in the rule book and took advantage of it does that mean that they have changed the rules of the game or that they are not playing by the rules? Please. They are indeed playing by the rules. When we yap and scream for the rules to be changed we sound increasingly medieval. When we scream for a rule change it sounds as if we are against anybody who builds a better mousetrap. We are in essence saying that you have to play the way we do in order to be a member of our club. Not only does that sound exclusionist, but down right tribal. The A-11 is based upon an interpretation of the rules; in this regard it is similar to how justices interpret the constituion. What they A-11 creators identified was portion of the text that was open to interpretation. That's actually pretty smart and should not be ridiculed and condemned, but actually celebrated. Rulebooks are like any other text - they are subject to interpretation.

Many of the other complaints against the offense are equally problematic. Many posters seem to have a problem with the offense because it challenges players, coaches, and officials to work extra hard to distinguish elligible receivers from inelligible ones. What I find interesting about this argument is that it seems to run against one of the major claims that coaches love to make about football - that it is like chess on grass or that it is "war." Well, war is premised to a large extent on subterfuge. If a force can conceal his intentions and mask his tactics it has a decided advantage. Remember, there are no "rules" to war. What the A-11 does is it enables a "force" that is outmatched to compete and possibly win against superior opponents. Think of it this way: Why does Hamas in Gaza wage war against Israel using what the western media has duped as "terrorist" tactics? (BTW - the British called us terrorists too during the Revolution; in particular, they found the American use of snipers to be especially vile) Clearly, the reason is that they do not have the means to fight a conventional war with traditional forces. Why did the VietCong employ guerilla tactics against us in Vietnam? Because it offered them the best chance to win. When we complain about the A-11 we sound like Westmoreland who to his death resented the VietCong for its tactics and claimed had they fought him like a "man" that he would have whipped them. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I think that there are a number of good things that can come out of the A-11. One is that it should bring about a higher level of officiating. Banning the offense simply because officials are too ignorant and incompetent to call a game correctly in which it is played is silly. Also, its a challenge to coaches. The remark above that it forces a coach to change his defense for one opponent underscores the one of offense's primary advantages. In this way its not any different from the triple option that Navy and GTech run. Should the ACC ban the option because Bill Young griped about how difficult it was to prepare his players for it in one week? Absolutely not.

Let the offense in. Let's see what it does. When we complain and call for its exclusion we in a sense sound like proponents of controlled economies who rail against allowing foreign competitors into our markets. If the A-11 is sound and it can win consitently, it will develop a market and change the game. If it can't, then it will quietly go the way of the dodo bird. Simple as that. Either way we have nothing to be afraid of.

Personally, I think the offense, maybe not in its exact form, represents the future in football. Football is no longer about lining up and knocking somebody's block off. That's a good thing. The game over the last 25 years has increasingly become more cerebral as more and more teams have begun to operate in spread environments. Oh, and BTW, with all respect to PHANTOM, I would disagree with your remarks about how nobody has ever dissed the spread. I've coached HS and major college ball and many coaches viewed, as recently as a decade ago, spread systems as something other than football. For proof of this, look at how traditional coaches view Mike Leach. While they accept his success, they still do not believe that he advocates a real style of football. Interestingly, and I know this for a fact because we spoke about last spring, but Leach is fascinated by the A-11.

Coaches:

I am picking the Cardinals to Win today, and on the way to a Super Bowl Bash.

But...regarding the possibilities on the table being presented to us by various groups about A-11:

The two possibilities you mentioned are out there, but there are also a few other items being discussed, and I will be able to say more if neccessary at a later date if needed.

Cardinals 29
Steelers 17

KB

If the entire country would just go to NCAA rules and play real football this wouldn't be an issue.

Now I do agree with that!!

Again...just speculating here...

If the Fed closes the loophole and the two options that were discussed (encouraging A-11 schools to lobby state associations to ignore the change OR creating an alternative national federation that allows the A-11) are not feasible, does anyone see a lawsuit?

Considering that the coaches who promote the A-11 have committed so thoroughly to the offense, is it a stretch to suggest that they will seek an injunction against the NFHS?

At the very least, an injunction might force the NFHS to hold off on any rules changes for next season and give Bryan & Co. one more year to strengthen their position and rally more converts to their cause.

I have tried hard to stay out of the fray, but this thread has finally caused me to snap. All of the arguments on both sides have been made ad nauseum. What it comes down to, plain and simple, is that by exploiting the Scrimmage Kick Exception, Kurt and others are going to force the Fed to change the Exception - it's only a matter of time - if not this year, soon. What has really bothered me the most is the constant repetition of phrases like "that's all I can say about that right now". It's all about secrecy and behind-closed-doors, constantly looking for someone within the Fed or State associations to validate what is clearly an attempt to go around the rules to, IMO, personally benefit from selling DVDs and books and making the rounds of Clinics. Let's put this crap behind us and get back to kids! OK, I'm dismounting from my high horse now.

I am not an attorney, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn last night. I do believe "auburn" is an attorney, so I would like to see what he says.

Just a lay mans opinion, but I don't see this chain of events as actionable. If ANY actions would be potentially law suit worthy, I could see someone file against the promoters if it could be shown that they knew of these events and continued to promote as if nothing was happening. "That's all I can say for now"

I find one of their options very interesting, as it goes along with what I have been saying the entire time. Setting up a separate A-11 league is basically saying "This is a different sport. Similar, but different", which is what I have said all along.

19Delta, as to your little blurb about being the most "obese" nation. That chyt pretty much goes out the window when you have 30 per cent Hispanic move into your school, when the cross down rival has zero percent.