|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2009 13:00:00 GMT -6
God bless Coach Bryann and Coach Humphries for your enthusiasm and contributions. I just have one silly question..... How is this inherently different from a guy, like tog (argument native to his offense), trying to convince his HS AD / school board to jump classifications/schedules simply because Federation rules would prohibit him from cutting downfield? It isn't. And I think a coach who suggested such a thing should be scrutinized by his administration. Of course, cutting down field is a much wider-ranging issue than the very specific scrimmage kick exception. what happens when you change coordinators or just change offenses? Now what? I am just a little confused on the 'economics' of making such a move simply for an 'offense'. I'm not trying to be argumentative, so any insight would be appreciated, I just am curious what is supposed to happen if; 1. I learn the A-11 2. I convince my AD to jump to the "brand new association" to run the A-11 3. I get an offer to be a HC in another school 4. What does my original school do now? Run A-11 for life? what is the rationale to make such a move?
|
|
|
Post by coachjoe3 on Feb 4, 2009 13:04:18 GMT -6
Wow.
Not you Brophy . . . the last page shocked me a little . . . that's all.
|
|
|
Post by kurtbryan on Feb 4, 2009 13:20:03 GMT -6
It isn't. And I think a coach who suggested such a thing should be scrutinized by his administration. Of course, cutting down field is a much wider-ranging issue than the very specific scrimmage kick exception. what happens when you change coordinators or just change offenses? Now what? I am just a little confused on the 'economics' of making such a move simply for an 'offense'. I'm not trying to be argumentative, so any insight would be appreciated, I just am curious what is supposed to happen if; 1. I learn the A-11 2. I convince my AD to jump to the "brand new association" to run the A-11 3. I get an offer to be a HC in another school 4. What does my original school do now? Run A-11 for life? what is the rationale to make such a move? Gotta go for the day, BUT, good questions Brophy, Think BIGGER and BROADER than that though. Many teams will want to Retain the Right to use the A-11 if they believe it will help their program. Lots of things in the hopper now if they are needed. There might not be a Mandate they have to run it. Will be reviewing two proposals this afternoon with from two smart groups. See some of you guys in Kansas City this weekend. KB
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2009 13:50:25 GMT -6
Many teams will want to Retain the Right to use the A-11 if they believe it will help their program. But I think the issue really becomes....can I do the same things just with a different approach (less risky investment)? The 'spread' became such a silver-bullet for many programs simply because folks never saw it, and really didn't know how to handle that animal. Now that everyone runs it, it isn't such an equalizer. That is the allure of the A-11, but if I have to INVEST so heavily (change associations just to run one specific offense), I think you would lose the sole point of switching. You could get the same effect by running something like single-wing or wild-bunch and get the same effect (without the liability of switching affiliations). I just don't see how the kids, the school, or the community benefits upon a decision made soley for one coach's desire to run a specific offense. I'm not arguing, I just don't see the logic behind investing ALL your money in cats.
There is no liquidity to return your capital You would have to change homes to accomodate the animals There is no guarantee that the cats will make you rich The cats may be worth $20k, but if you have no buyers, you're sunk If you leave, you stick the next staff with a $@#$load of cats, that they may not want
I don't see what makes these 'cats' such a sound investment
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 4, 2009 13:50:31 GMT -6
It's interesting it took a federation rule in order to make this an offense possibility. Use to be able to cut, use to be able to blow up the center. The federation thought it would be a good idea to be safer (though those particular rules making the game safer is debatable----especially the cutting rule). "Retain the Right" is an interesting mantra. The 'right' to use that offense was NOT even possible until rules were altered to allow school to get athletes on their punt team. Now, in order to retain the right, you'll need to make a new federation. So...... The fed allowed the creation of the A-11. Now the A-11, the bast ard son of the fed's rules, might be deemed illegal by it's creator. Now, the A-11 starts it's own league to continue the existence that wasn't even possible until the Fed allowed for the loophole. TWO SIDES OF MARTYRDOMI believe this is what the A-11 proponents think they are: And this is what they actually are:
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2009 13:55:31 GMT -6
I believe this is what the A-11 proponents think they are: And this is what they actually are: OUCH!!!
|
|
|
Post by windigo on Feb 4, 2009 15:41:04 GMT -6
Oh that hurt.
|
|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Feb 4, 2009 15:58:50 GMT -6
or this
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Feb 4, 2009 16:31:19 GMT -6
Blago does have a nice thick head of hair. He might be a piece of {censored}, but he has thick hair. If he were a coach he would put try and beat a school of special ed kids 100-0 and then wonder what we did wrong. Wait someone did that already. Now if you want my honest opinion: This thread should be locked and closed, just the loophole in the rules that allowed the A-11 to start in the first place.
|
|