|
Post by younggun10 on Jul 23, 2018 22:20:46 GMT -6
There's a lot to be said for the publicity that is being generated currently. I imagine most of that recognition, no matter positive or negative, is really helping ICC right now. That said, this thing has to blow up. I didn't watch the other program in previous seasons, but this is a train wreck. Coaching through fear and intimidation can get you places, but it'll always end very abruptly and before you even realize it's happened. I understand it's JC ball and there are several methods to reach kids and coach, but this guy represents nothing positive through his words/actions. He redeems himself only when he talks about grades and getting them scholarships. Keep in mind that IS his job though. But... Entertaining! And for that reason he's bought himself more recruits and resources for time being.
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Jul 24, 2018 3:52:50 GMT -6
I am just wondering a couple things: 1. How much "film" is laying the editing room floor that involves actual coaching or Brown talking to the guys in a respectful manner? Maybe there is a ton but it doesn't fit the narrative of the show? I don't know.
2. Did Adidas already have a contract with them or did they call up Adidas and say hey we are going to be on Netflix how about some uniforms and some swag?
I watched the whole thing. I have seen the EMCC team from Season 1-2. I don't get upset about this. I have bigger things to get pissed off over. It's entertainment. Was I entertained watching it? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Jul 24, 2018 5:01:15 GMT -6
Who would everyone rather have their son play for Buddy Stephens or Jason Brown?
Who would everyone rather coach for Buddy Stephens or Jason Brown?
I would go for Jason Brown. He seemed more genuine to me.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 24, 2018 6:19:50 GMT -6
Preach self-esteem and recognize your identity Wear 13 different wigs in 4 months
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Jul 24, 2018 11:50:17 GMT -6
Preach self-esteem and recognize your identity Wear 13 different wigs in 4 months I really didn't like her. She came off as a racist to me in that she basically played into every sterotype there is about blacks in education in the way that she viewed and treated those players. The other side of that is that I'm white and can't pretend to understand how the system is set up to be harmful to black people. I don't have a problem with her acknowledging systemic problems, but that is ALL that she would ever talk about.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jul 24, 2018 12:16:42 GMT -6
Preach self-esteem and recognize your identity Wear 13 different wigs in 4 months I really didn't like her. She came off as a racist to me in that she basically played into every sterotype there is about blacks in education in the way that she viewed and treated those players. The other side of that is that I'm white and can't pretend to understand how the system is set up to be harmful to black people. I don't have a problem with her acknowledging systemic problems, but that is ALL that she would ever talk about. My wife said the same thing
|
|
|
Post by newcoryell on Jul 24, 2018 12:17:03 GMT -6
Preach self-esteem and recognize your identity Wear 13 different wigs in 4 months Exactly. The words concerning self-esteem and identity kind of fall hollow if you don't follow through. Not my cup of tea how she explained not using the "n-word" and tying it into the death of Emmett Till. Two totally different subjects. His death had NOTHING to do with the "word" and everything to do with hatred. The word should be stripped of its power by knowledge. As I've said in another thread calling me that word makes me look at you like an idiot. Nothing more. Nothing less. She tries to explain their lack of success in education with the same old tired rhetoric of White people holding us down. "You don't see it on television and in your neighborhood." BULL. You lack in education because your parents and others around you don't find it to be a worthwhile endeavor to buckle down and focus on the world outside of the ghetto. However, I bet that everyone one of them can recite at least 50 different rap songs. The details of 10-20 different shoe lines. It's the emphasis of parents and teachers that don't want to take a hard look at our culture and realize that it isn't a "winning" formula. All of us here on this forum try to study and relate to coaches that have winning formulas. This is the same information that should be WIDESPREAD in the black community. I've had heads explode when I point out the success of the Asian community to educators in high school. Stop making excuses and find answers. Implement a system to get results. Strip out the inevitable flaws/errors that will pop up. Repeat the cycle. I just hate the pat answers from fellow black educators of "blaming" someone else for your flaws. Back to football guys.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith627 on Jul 24, 2018 12:18:31 GMT -6
I really didn't like her. She came off as a racist to me in that she basically played into every sterotype there is about blacks in education in the way that she viewed and treated those players. The other side of that is that I'm white and can't pretend to understand how the system is set up to be harmful to black people. I don't have a problem with her acknowledging systemic problems, but that is ALL that she would ever talk about. My wife said the same thing Thank God man. I had a heck of a time trying to tactfully write this while thinking about being tactful to others and not sounding like a yokel.
|
|
|
Post by MICoach on Jul 24, 2018 12:25:48 GMT -6
I am just wondering a couple things: 1. How much "film" is laying the editing room floor that involves actual coaching or Brown talking to the guys in a respectful manner? Maybe there is a ton but it doesn't fit the narrative of the show? I don't know. This is what I keep saying to a friend when we talk about it. Sure they shat their first game and had another loss, but they also won a bunch of games. I have to think there's some real coaching going on too. Also in the last couple episodes they show a bit more of him and Malik having calm, professional discussions during games. Same with I think the linebacker in his office talking about conduct and classes and stuff. I mean they have to edit it to make it entertaining, and it would be far less entertaining with a balanced portrayal of the coach, so either he absolutely sucks at coaching and interacting with players or they edit it out.
|
|
|
Post by coachbdud on Jul 24, 2018 12:51:28 GMT -6
Preach self-esteem and recognize your identity Wear 13 different wigs in 4 months LOL my gf watched a couple episodes with me right in the middle of this season... i would try to give little 10 second summaries of the characters when they came on screen to kinda catch her up "thats the english teacher, really nice, helps the boys... her hair is completely different in each scene"
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jul 24, 2018 12:54:45 GMT -6
What I enjoy about Last Chance U seasons is how it provides a mirror to what (I assume most of us) deal with for our players. Dealing with the player immaturity / drama / childishness on a daily basis I would routinely ignore or make excuses for. Seeing that very thing played back to me as a detached audience viewer, it becomes hard to ignore.
The QB coach and English teacher seemingly keep enabling the poor decisions/behavior that got the kids in the mess they currently in by delaying the inevitable. Hounding the kids to do their work/assignment isn't bad, but their projection of desperate neediness to the kids by constantly moving their boundaries and expectations thinking they will "save" them is where I believe we could learn a lesson. We were all young and needed experience to see this doesn't help and leads you down a path of undermining your authority and that of the program.
I'm sure the producers are pros at this and are on auto-pilot, but each season is exactly the same as the last when it comes to the "plot". Amazing you can create an 8-9 hour series about a dozen kids struggling to earn 12 credits in 12 weeks.
I have to think the English teacher believed this would be her 'big break' once Netflix signed the deal to become the new Britney Whatshername. A lot of her appearances came off as try-hard, over-the-top scenes replete with costume changes.
|
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Jul 26, 2018 9:04:48 GMT -6
2 episodes into All or Nothing Michigan football and haven't seen anything like this crap. Watched all of the Florida State and Navy shows on showtime and saw none of this crap. Do you hear the f word, yes, but you don't see anything like this. So the "how much film is on the floor" that dog just wont hunt....this isn't editing, this I how the guy is.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2018 11:48:05 GMT -6
2 episodes into All or Nothing Michigan football and haven't seen anything like this crap. Watched all of the Florida State and Navy shows on showtime and saw none of this crap. Do you hear the f word, yes, but you don't see anything like this. So the "how much film is on the floor" that dog just wont hunt....this isn't editing, this I how the guy is. I do think part of that is its a different show, with different producers, trying to produce a show staring a bunch of nobodies at a nowhere location. Caveat- I haven't watched the show, and I won't based on principal. I really think (from what I have read here) that the AFCA should be making strong statements against such behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Jul 26, 2018 12:21:59 GMT -6
2 episodes into All or Nothing Michigan football and haven't seen anything like this crap. Watched all of the Florida State and Navy shows on showtime and saw none of this crap. Do you hear the f word, yes, but you don't see anything like this. So the "how much film is on the floor" that dog just wont hunt....this isn't editing, this I how the guy is. I do think part of that is its a different show, with different producers, trying to produce a show staring a bunch of nobodies at a nowhere location. Caveat- I haven't watched the show, and I won't based on principal. I really think (from what I have read here) that the AFCA should be making strong statements against such behavior. Isn’t this is a similar mindset to the one you have been battling with grad17 over. To make claims of opposition without interaction or evidence is a slippery slope. To ignore the show on a personal level is valid but to insinuate the lobby of the AFCA should condemn creativity and free will of those involved with the show without actually having participated, at least minimally as a viewer, doesn’t seem fair to anyone involved. You are a smart and logical poster. From your perspective how does making a such a strong claim ( the AFCA comment) about the show without full context differ from making claims about concussions without evidence?
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 26, 2018 12:34:01 GMT -6
I do think part of that is its a different show, with different producers, trying to produce a show staring a bunch of nobodies at a nowhere location. Caveat- I haven't watched the show, and I won't based on principal. I really think (from what I have read here) that the AFCA should be making strong statements against such behavior. Isn’t this is a similar mindset to the one you have been battling with grad17 over. To make claims of opposition without interaction or evidence is a slippery slope. To ignore the show on a personal level is valid but to insinuate the lobby of the AFCA should condemn creativity and free will of those involved with the show without actually having participated, at least minimally as a viewer, doesn’t seem fair to anyone involved. You are a smart and logical poster. From your perspective how does making a such a strong claim ( the AFCA comment) about the show without full context differ from making claims about concussions without evidence? I disagree. If a dozen people have told me that $hit sandwich tastes bad, I shouldn't have to take a bite to see for myself.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2018 12:37:53 GMT -6
I do think part of that is its a different show, with different producers, trying to produce a show staring a bunch of nobodies at a nowhere location. Caveat- I haven't watched the show, and I won't based on principal. I really think (from what I have read here) that the AFCA should be making strong statements against such behavior. Isn’t this is a similar mindset to the one you have been battling with grad17 over. To make claims of opposition without interaction or evidence is a slippery slope. To ignore the show on a personal level is valid but to insinuate the lobby of the AFCA should condemn creativity and free will of those involved with the show without actually having participated, at least minimally as a viewer, doesn’t seem fair to anyone involved. You are a smart and logical poster. From your perspective how does making a such a strong claim ( the AFCA comment) about the show without full context differ from making claims about concussions without evidence? I was speaking more in regards to Friday Night Tykes than the show about the JC. But I would argue that I don't need to watch a show and see excessive vulgarity, player degradation, and poor coaching practices that makes other coaches mock or cringe when I can read about it here. I am sorry but I don't see the connection between thinking a coaching organization should condemn poor coaching practices that are made public for a drama filled TV show/ shows and arguing against someone who thinks the best tactic for coaches/the football community is to cry "fake news" and dismiss the growing body of evidence that suggests unseen injuries (brain) stemming from repeated jarring blows involving the head may hold a larger risk than we once thought.
|
|
klaby
Junior Member
Posts: 389
|
Post by klaby on Jul 26, 2018 13:08:25 GMT -6
While I disagree with 5058 regarding the head injury thing (like I said less than 1% statistically doesn't make it a serious problem). I will agree that coach's organizations need to speak out when the actions of a select few are harmful to the whole. But I don't see them doing that. Fact is we as a group condone bad behavior if a guy is successful. And while we as a group preach about "Its about the kids", its clearly not its about us. The rules show that, our conduct shows that and the money some of us make shows that. That is why coaches cheat, recruit when they aren't supposed to. look the other way when a kid who couldnt buy a big mac one day is driving a 50K car the next... ect. Win, keep your job, make your house payments, feed your family. Lose, get fired. Football doesn't pay my bills. So I have a luxury most don't, I can walk away anytime and still feed my family. So shows and coaches like these will continue, and the low information mom/dad will think we are all like this and good athletes will play soccer instead....and we will all sit around and wonder why our numbers are down. We will have panels on it, discussions, seminars ect. But we wont talk about condemning bad behavior for fear that the offender will get all butt hurt and we will look bad. I will bet most coaches on this site think Pete Carroll is a great coach, great man, motivator blah, blah blah....look what he did to USC....so here we are, a total nut job on tv looking like the idiot he is and he represents us, but hey its about the kids....even when he talks about grades he doesn't talk about studying or putting in the work. No he tells his guys to "play the game"....sit in front, stay awake, be on time, and you will get a C....as for Friday night tykes, I got nothing for ya there...I mean the parents are just as nutty as the coaches so.....
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Jul 26, 2018 13:09:51 GMT -6
Isn’t this is a similar mindset to the one you have been battling with grad17 over. To make claims of opposition without interaction or evidence is a slippery slope. To ignore the show on a personal level is valid but to insinuate the lobby of the AFCA should condemn creativity and free will of those involved with the show without actually having participated, at least minimally as a viewer, doesn’t seem fair to anyone involved. You are a smart and logical poster. From your perspective how does making a such a strong claim ( the AFCA comment) about the show without full context differ from making claims about concussions without evidence? I disagree. If a dozen people have told me that $hit sandwich tastes bad, I shouldn't have to take a bite to see for myself. I agree with your statement. I said if he personally chose to ignore the show that is understandable and . If you have heard {censored} sandwiches taste bad, don’t eat them but in my opinion if you want go a step further and tell others not to eat shitt sandwiches then you probably should have taken a bite. Shitt sandwiches are an exaggerated example. As people read shitt sandwiches the thought is “yeah I am not eating a {censored} sandwich.” What if a dozen people told you not to eat brocolli because it tasted bad? Or on the flip side what if a dozen people told you to jump of a bridge, as the old anecdote goes.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Jul 26, 2018 13:16:33 GMT -6
Isn’t this is a similar mindset to the one you have been battling with grad17 over. To make claims of opposition without interaction or evidence is a slippery slope. To ignore the show on a personal level is valid but to insinuate the lobby of the AFCA should condemn creativity and free will of those involved with the show without actually having participated, at least minimally as a viewer, doesn’t seem fair to anyone involved. You are a smart and logical poster. From your perspective how does making a such a strong claim ( the AFCA comment) about the show without full context differ from making claims about concussions without evidence? I was speaking more in regards to Friday Night Tykes than the show about the JC. But I would argue that I don't need to watch a show and see excessive vulgarity, player degradation, and poor coaching practices that makes other coaches mock or cringe when I can read about it here. I am sorry but I don't see the connection between thinking a coaching organization should condemn poor coaching practices that are made public for a drama filled TV show/ shows and arguing against someone who thinks the best tactic for coaches/the football community is to cry "fake news" and dismiss the growing body of evidence that suggests unseen injuries (brain) stemming from repeated jarring blows involving the head may hold a larger risk than we once thought. I am 100% on board with speaking up against poor practices in coaching. I am more worried about using examples from shows you haven’t watched as a means to do that.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2018 13:19:41 GMT -6
I disagree. If a dozen people have told me that $hit sandwich tastes bad, I shouldn't have to take a bite to see for myself. I agree with your statement. I said if he personally chose to ignore the show that is understandable and . If you have heard {censored} sandwiches taste bad, don’t eat them but in my opinion if you want go a step further and tell others not to eat shitt sandwiches then you probably should have taken a bite. Shitt sandwiches are an exaggerated example. As people read shitt sandwiches the thought is “yeah I am not eating a {censored} sandwich.” What if a dozen people told you not to eat brocolli because it tasted bad? Or on the flip side what if a dozen people told you to jump of a bridge, as the old anecdote goes. The difference being coach, that I did not make my statement based on opinions (this show is bad, the coaches on little tykes are bad etc) but on the description of activities. To your point above, why does one need to watch a program to see an activity that was described?
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Jul 26, 2018 13:28:06 GMT -6
I agree with your statement. I said if he personally chose to ignore the show that is understandable and . If you have heard {censored} sandwiches taste bad, don’t eat them but in my opinion if you want go a step further and tell others not to eat shitt sandwiches then you probably should have taken a bite. Shitt sandwiches are an exaggerated example. As people read shitt sandwiches the thought is “yeah I am not eating a {censored} sandwich.” What if a dozen people told you not to eat brocolli because it tasted bad? Or on the flip side what if a dozen people told you to jump of a bridge, as the old anecdote goes. The difference being coach, that I did not make my statement based on opinions (this show is bad, the coaches on little tykes are bad etc) but on the description of activities. To your point above, why does one need to watch a program to see an activity that was described? I don’t think you have to watch the show to see the activities described. I think though that to condemn the activities in reference to the show viewing is important to get full context.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2018 13:35:23 GMT -6
The difference being coach, that I did not make my statement based on opinions (this show is bad, the coaches on little tykes are bad etc) but on the description of activities. To your point above, why does one need to watch a program to see an activity that was described? I don’t think you have to watch the show to see the activities described. I think though that to condemn the activities in reference to the show viewing is important to get full context. I have seen (in another thread I believe) activities such as "team runs laps, first 5 get water..next group runs another lap with no water" "Coach telling players how to hit an opponent in the head so that he will have to be removed from the game", numerous accounts of technique and coaching cues involving leading with the head etc. Why must I watch these activities to condemn them?
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Jul 26, 2018 13:48:35 GMT -6
I don’t think you have to watch the show to see the activities described. I think though that to condemn the activities in reference to the show viewing is important to get full context. I have seen (in another thread I believe) activities such as "team runs laps, first 5 get water..next group runs another lap with no water" "Coach telling players how to hit an opponent in the head so that he will have to be removed from the game", numerous accounts of technique and coaching cues involving leading with the head etc. Why must I watch these activities to condemn them? To condemn that activities you don't. However, to condemn the shows as an examples of those activities you should, in my opinion. Maybe that's where the disconnect in our discussion is rooted.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2018 14:02:16 GMT -6
I have seen (in another thread I believe) activities such as "team runs laps, first 5 get water..next group runs another lap with no water" "Coach telling players how to hit an opponent in the head so that he will have to be removed from the game", numerous accounts of technique and coaching cues involving leading with the head etc. Why must I watch these activities to condemn them? To condemn that activities you don't. However, to condemn the shows as an examples of those activities you should, in my opinion. Maybe that's where the disconnect in our discussion is rooted. Fair enough. Although you are splitting hairs a bit, because editing process likely is used to highlight those activities. Regardless, I would amend my statement to say that I would like to see the AFCA make a statement that condemns the poor coaching practices represented and that those shows do not portray what the AFCA considers quality coaching, or actions that a quality coach would use.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 26, 2018 14:09:56 GMT -6
I disagree. If a dozen people have told me that $hit sandwich tastes bad, I shouldn't have to take a bite to see for myself. I agree with your statement. I said if he personally chose to ignore the show that is understandable and . If you have heard {censored} sandwiches taste bad, don’t eat them but in my opinion if you want go a step further and tell others not to eat shitt sandwiches then you probably should have taken a bite. Shitt sandwiches are an exaggerated example. As people read shitt sandwiches the thought is “yeah I am not eating a {censored} sandwich.” What if a dozen people told you not to eat brocolli because it tasted bad? Or on the flip side what if a dozen people told you to jump of a bridge, as the old anecdote goes. Have you had over a dozen people tell you that broccoli tastes bad? I haven’t. And if twelve people can convince you to jump off a cliff, then you are a retard and are probably doing the gene pool a favor.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Jul 26, 2018 15:20:36 GMT -6
I agree with your statement. I said if he personally chose to ignore the show that is understandable and . If you have heard {censored} sandwiches taste bad, don’t eat them but in my opinion if you want go a step further and tell others not to eat shitt sandwiches then you probably should have taken a bite. Shitt sandwiches are an exaggerated example. As people read shitt sandwiches the thought is “yeah I am not eating a {censored} sandwich.” What if a dozen people told you not to eat brocolli because it tasted bad? Or on the flip side what if a dozen people told you to jump of a bridge, as the old anecdote goes. Have you had over a dozen people tell you that broccoli tastes bad? I haven’t. And if twelve people can convince you to jump off a cliff, then you are a retard and are probably doing the gene pool a favor. That’s not the point. The point is perspective. The 12 people that tell you to jump of a bridge could be jumping of because they want to end it all. Or, they could be jumping off cause they are thrill seekers and know that there is safe landing in the calm and deep waters below them. I am not sure how many people have told me that broccoli tastes bad. But I have heard many people tell me that they think ghosts are real or that they have seen ghosts. Does that make it true? Or I have heard dozens of people tell me that George Jones’s music isn’t any good and I know that’s not true from my perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Defcord on Jul 26, 2018 15:28:19 GMT -6
To condemn that activities you don't. However, to condemn the shows as an examples of those activities you should, in my opinion. Maybe that's where the disconnect in our discussion is rooted. Fair enough. Although you are splitting hairs a bit, because editing process likely is used to highlight those activities. Regardless, I would amend my statement to say that I would like to see the AFCA make a statement that condemns the poor coaching practices represented and that those shows do not portray what the AFCA considers quality coaching, or actions that a quality coach would use. But how do you know those shows contain anything to ask that the AFCA makes statements in regards to those shows?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 26, 2018 15:39:01 GMT -6
Fair enough. Although you are splitting hairs a bit, because editing process likely is used to highlight those activities. Regardless, I would amend my statement to say that I would like to see the AFCA make a statement that condemns the poor coaching practices represented and that those shows do not portray what the AFCA considers quality coaching, or actions that a quality coach would use. But how do you know those shows contain anything to ask that the AFCA makes statements in regards to those shows? I just stated the comments I have read describing such actions. Now, if your argument is that "No, you have to actually watch the program and see a coach instruct a player to aim at another kids helmet to knock him out, or you have to watch the program to see a coach ban his athletes from getting water etc" as opposed to read about them on a comment board in order to feel that the AFCA should make a statement condemning those actions as not representative of quality coaching, we will have to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 26, 2018 15:47:36 GMT -6
Have you had over a dozen people tell you that broccoli tastes bad? I haven’t. And if twelve people can convince you to jump off a cliff, then you are a retard and are probably doing the gene pool a favor. That’s not the point. The point is perspective. The 12 people that tell you to jump of a bridge could be jumping of because they want to end it all. Or, they could be jumping off cause they are thrill seekers and know that there is safe landing in the calm and deep waters below them. I am not sure how many people have told me that broccoli tastes bad. But I have heard many people tell me that they think ghosts are real or that they have seen ghosts. Does that make it true? Or I have heard dozens of people tell me that George Jones’s music isn’t any good and I know that’s not true from my perspective. Who were these people who told you George Jones’ music isn’t any good? Music critics? Musicians? People in the music industry? You have an entire thread (in fact numerous threads about these shows), made up of football coaches, who have virtually nothing positive to say about how these shows depict football players and coaches. That is called an informed opinion and carries far more weight than these legions of anti-George Jones zealots who are besieging you.
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jul 26, 2018 15:52:23 GMT -6
Fair enough. Although you are splitting hairs a bit, because editing process likely is used to highlight those activities. Regardless, I would amend my statement to say that I would like to see the AFCA make a statement that condemns the poor coaching practices represented and that those shows do not portray what the AFCA considers quality coaching, or actions that a quality coach would use. But how do you know those shows contain anything to ask that the AFCA makes statements in regards to those shows? Because he has read the 3 or 4 threads on this site in which professional football coaches have almost unanimously condemned the behavior of the primary characters in the series.
|
|