|
Post by hemlock on Jul 20, 2019 10:35:54 GMT -6
A couple more things.
As far as participation goes. One way the H.S. model hurts is that there is only one team that is fielded. That's just not enough. The idea, and I went through this, of developing and riding the pine in games and developing in practice and playing some JV games and whatnot, well, that's nice, but who really wants to do that.
You get better by playing in competitive games. My daughter's age group for competitive field four teams, A, B, C, D. All of those kids will play at least 30 meaningful games this year between the fall and spring seasons, plus three practices / week.
Football needs to field more teams at more levels so that more kids can play and not just practice.
Phantom's response to my comments about the field, well, yes . . . . that's a problem, but again, does a community want to do things that will make the game safer, and also perhaps more exciting. NFL and college people routinely cite that as a problem - they would lose about 15,000 seats. But here's the thing. The field they play is the same one that Thorpe and Heisman played on, but those guys were a quarter the size and speed of today's players. The field is a bandbox. This should not be a problem. My daughter's club has 6 full size soccer fields, along with numerous smaller ones for 9v9, 7vs7, and down. This is an easy fix....
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 20, 2019 10:23:58 GMT -6
Coach5085,
I see your point, yes, club players do play for their high school, but most kids, if there is a conflict between the two, will pick the club. And there are a lot of reasons for that. Playing for you high school is important, but because the season is so restricted it's less important. You get far more touches playing for your club and that's were your real development happens.
All the points above are, I think, valid. We can parse things as much as we want, but the fact is that perception is reality. Honestly, I think my daughter suffers more routine injuries playing soccer than most guys do playing football. By routine, I mean cuts from cleats, bruises from tackles, etc. The problem we have with football is with the severe injuries, obviously. Until we fix that we will continue to lose the war of perception, especially among more educated and affluent people. Football will be increasingly played by kids that "have" to play it in order to climb out of their situation. Don't get me wrong, by the way, I was one of those kids - I would never have gone to college without football....
One thing too, and I've started to think about it myself more: Over the years, I've heard people say, if football is so great, why do we need all this equipment to play? It's a fare question. I mean, really, shouldn't you just be able to show up on field with a ball and play? I mean, I'm 44, I play on a competitive adult club in my town. I only started playing soccer four years ago. I'm no all-star, but I'm not bad either. Can't play football anymore . . .
All of these are issues that we need to address. This is a good discussion.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 20, 2019 10:10:39 GMT -6
coach-according to the census bureau, high school Enrollment numbers have not changed significantly in the last 15 years. Since the data being discussed here is on a national level those decreased numbers from Michigan are represented as increased numbers somewhere else. Basically, the kids from Michigan had to go somewhere And they would be represented in this data set if they chose to play
Actually not. Birth rates in Michigan have declined significantly this century as well.
The decrease in enrollment is not solely or perhaps even primarily attributable to people leaving the state, especially those with school-aged children.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 19, 2019 20:04:18 GMT -6
The other thing that is off here, especially if we want to use it as a measure for determining overall sport popularity is that soccer, by and large, does not care about high school too much. Far more important to soccer is the local club, and more often than not its the club coaches who college coaches, especially for girls, are more interested in talking too. I don't think that high school participation is a good measure of where a given sport is going in the country. Far more important is overall participation nationwide, which means that you have to factor in clubs in every sport, including things like AAU basketball, baseball, etc. If that system is used, football will be way down, which is problematic. Some coaches may say, well, you have to be "special" to play football. That's a load, and we all know it. You have to be special to excel in any sport. My daughter's spring season for her club ended 6 weeks ago and this week she just started her first practices for the fall season. Then there is the - well, special here means that you are tough, tougher because football, well, is football. The effectiveness of that trope is waining. Some people would say that tackling and hitting on another is not necessarily tough but dumb, and they may have a point. My daughter's team practiced for 2 hours last night in 94 degree heat and they don't stop - constant running - hmm....that sounds pretty tough and exceptional to me... So, what is football to do? How is football going to fix in the medium term its declining numbers. Some people who work in insurance believe the game might not even be insurable in the future based on where you are. That does not mean that the game would not be played, but it would be even more than it is today a spectator sport that most people watch but don't play, sort of like Rome and gladiators in the coliseum. So, how does football jack up participation, without resorting to the same tropes (they're not working anymore either, especially with more educated kids and parents)? I think one thing we can do is look north - to Canada. Their field is a no brainer - better disperser of force across the field. The added space on the LOS, that too is smart.... What else?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 17, 2019 16:57:30 GMT -6
I don't want anyone to take offense at what I"m putting out there. The commitment that coaches like Deuce and Phantom display is evident to all, and I share it with them.
In response to duece's "apples and oranges" comment, I see what you are saying. Soccer coaching staffs, even at the highest levels, are smaller than most football staffs. The average soccer staff has five or six field coaches. That said, I think football has too many coaches. Even the highest levels do not need separate coaches along the d-line, with the linebackers etc. It helps at the highest levels, of course, but really you don't need all those coaches.
And of course, I don't believe that sports should be something that only the privileged play.
I think that there are lots of different funding models out there that football can and will need to explore at some point in the future. In Europe, the clubs generally sponsor the youth clubs. This is something that football should look into. It makes sense. This is your future labor pool. Rarely do kids who play soccer in Europe pay to do so; fees are paid for by the community and the clubs. I could see something like that being pursued here, kind of a three legged stool model where football programs are funded by the community, college football programs, and the NFL. Again, I'm just thinking aloud here.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 15, 2019 8:39:16 GMT -6
In regards to Phantom's point about the cost, I totally hear that. It's a big problem in soccer. My wife is a PTA and I teach at OU, together we do alright, especially in Oklahoma, but I feel that we are probably on the lower end of the income scale.
Cost is a huge problem in soccer. Yes, there are scholarships that cover tuition and coaching, but that does not address the other issues, such as getting to practice, getting to games, and of course, traveling to tournaments, which require usually a two night stay at a hotel plus figuring out how to get there. If you're a poor kid who needs a scholarship, chances are that you are going to have problems getting to and fro practices, games, and tournies because you lack the logistics at home. All of us here who have coached football know the kinds of kids and their families that I'm talking about here.
I've commented a lot at club meetings that we are leaving a lot of talent off the field, as well as about how our club looks like the Aryan nation, and have advocated that the club adopt a means testing program in order to fund logistics and support. Unfortunately, what I've noticed is that most parents care only about number 1, even at the expense of winning. Better that my kid starts and we loose than we recruit talented but raw kids from the rec leagues who will put your kid on the bench for more minutes but will lead to better competition in practice and more wins later.
So, there 's the nut . . . isn't it. I really don't know what to do. The quality of coaching is exponentially better, which leads to retention. Most kids play club soccer through high school because of their skill development.
The cost is a problem. . . . clearly, but as coaches we should be treated like professionals, accept the expectations that come with it, and get paid like it. I know that sounds materialistic, but really . . .
Do football players deserve less than soccer players?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 14, 2019 21:55:28 GMT -6
In response to Phantom, I would stress quality. We all know what the average high school coaching staff is like. There is the header and hopefully two coaches, usually his coordinators, who are real coaches. The rest of the guys, while well meaning, are maybe a step or two ahead of the kids they are coaching, and it gets worse the lower you go, which is dangerous.
That is not the case with youth soccer. Because you need to have your credentials in order to coach academy and competitive, you need to know your stuff. The process weeds out people who do not want to invest in time and resources into the craft of coaching.
I do not have to confront this issue because I have a daughter, but if I had a son I'm not sure that I'd want him to play football over soccer, in large part because of the coaching.
One image remains burned on my memory. My daughter's team once had to move their practice from the complex to a local middle school where the youth football team was practicing. I watched both practices and from a coaching perspective the difference between the two practices was night and day. The soccer practice was crisp, had a clear focus, and the girls were moving all the time. Moreover, the girls all looked professional and sharp. The football practice, well, the less said the better. The coaches just seemed like a bunch of former players or Madden wannabes. They screamed and hollered, made pointless comments, and just ran plays. The soccer practice, the coach never once raised her voice, but she had complete command of the field.
This is one of the reasons why I believe that the AFCA should become a credentializing board that certifies coaches. You can't coach unless you've been certified and been through the process. One of my daughter's coaches played professionally in Europe, clearly knows the game, but he had to go through the certification process, which took two years for him to earn his "A" status.
Such a process would weed out a lot of people at all levels and create a demand for qualified individuals. I can tell you now , and I am not chummy with any of these people, but the parents of my daughter's soccer team value these things. And to be honest, the proof is in the pudding. I routinely see kids whose teams in August looks like crap-shows making it to the finals in the Oklahoma State Cup in June.
If you don't think that this would go a long way towards increasing participation and assuaging safety concerns then do you think that "football" parents are different from "soccer" parents?
And for what its worth, soccer is a violent game, even at the youth level. My daughters legs and face are banged and cut up from numerous collisions and tackles. So soccer has its health issues too.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 14, 2019 21:35:18 GMT -6
Okay, I admit that I have not read all of the posts here, so if I touch on things others have, please forgive me. I think football faces a number of serious challenges in the near future; and I'm not sure how the sport will fare in the medium to far future. Over the past few years I've had the opportunity to go through the youth soccer experience with my daughter. She will be playing her first year of competitive next year after three years of academy. From the perspective of a coach, the produce youth soccer offers players is exponentially better than the one offered at the high school level on down. It is especially notable at the youth levels. The quality of coaching is better because all of the coaches are certified and many of them go and get their "A" level certifications in Europe. This shows all the time on the practice field. Most of the coaches only coach. Most make enough coaching soccer with their club and doing camps in the summer that they do not need to do other things. Put differently, they are not coaching for a stipend. Obviously, this comes at a cost. Soccer, which should be an incredibly cheap sport to play, is very expensive. This year we spent well over $3.000 on tuition, coaching fees, travel, tournies, uniforms, etc . . . and we are not crazies like some of the parents that I see at practice and at games. That's the huge downside of it, and I have huge problems with it. That said, the quality of coaching on the field is stellar. My daughter never played soccer until three years ago and now she's an incredibly capable player that plays Forward, Center Mid, and Center Back. What I'm trying to get at is this: the idea that you coach because you love the game is great, I'm done it for manyy years, but football needs to create a certification process with levels and commensurate pay grades associated with it to ensure that football players are being coached by real coaches who are technicians on the field. And this has to start from youth all the way up. I sometimes wonder whether out model has become antiquated and that it's served its purpose. By this, I mean that we are the only major country where sports are tethered to schools. This has clearly has done a lot of good - please do not get me wrong. I came out of this system and coached in it for many years. But this year when we were in Russia and my daughter was playing for her Club I saw the difference, and it was even greater than the club experience. Her coaches there were all professionals who coached not 5 teams a season but 1 and usually would coach the same team for 2 years. This is par for the course throughout most of Europe. When I hung out with the coaches they all wanted to now why we do it the way we do in the US. I gave all the reasons that we usually give - community, family, etc - but as they pointed out, the club there provides all of those things too, but with one difference: consistent coaching from youth to the national level. Anyway, I'm just trying to think outside the box here. I think football has some serious structural and instructional issues that need to be confronted. First and foremost, the standard for coaching has to go up. If the goal is to increase participation how does this model help?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 14, 2019 16:42:42 GMT -6
Okay, I admit that I have not read all of the posts here, so if I touch on things others have, please forgive me.
I think football faces a number of serious challenges in the near future; and I'm not sure how the sport will fare in the medium to far future.
Over the past few years I've had the opportunity to go through the youth soccer experience with my daughter. She will be playing her first year of competitive next year after three years of academy.
From the perspective of a coach, the produce youth soccer offers players is exponentially better than the one offered at the high school level on down. It is especially notable at the youth levels. The quality of coaching is better because all of the coaches are certified and many of them go and get their "A" level certifications in Europe. This shows all the time on the practice field. Most of the coaches only coach. Most make enough coaching soccer with their club and doing camps in the summer that they do not need to do other things. Put differently, they are not coaching for a stipend.
Obviously, this comes at a cost. Soccer, which should be an incredibly cheap sport to play, is very expensive. This year we spent well over $3.000 on tuition, coaching fees, travel, tournies, uniforms, etc . . . and we are not crazies like some of the parents that I see at practice and at games. That's the huge downside of it, and I have huge problems with it.
That said, the quality of coaching on the field is stellar. My daughter never played soccer until three years ago and now she's an incredibly capable player that plays Forward, Center Mid, and Center Back.
What I'm trying to get at is this: the idea that you coach because you love the game is great, I'm done it for manyy years, but football needs to create a certification process with levels and commensurate pay grades associated with it to ensure that football players are being coached by real coaches who are technicians on the field. And this has to start from youth all the way up.
I sometimes wonder whether out model has become antiquated and that it's served its purpose. By this, I mean that we are the only major country where sports are tethered to schools. This has clearly has done a lot of good - please do not get me wrong. I came out of this system and coached in it for many years. But this year when we were in Russia and my daughter was playing for her Club I saw the difference, and it was even greater than the club experience. Her coaches there were all professionals who coached not 5 teams a season but 1 and usually would coach the same team for 2 years. This is par for the course throughout most of Europe. When I hung out with the coaches they all wanted to now why we do it the way we do in the US. I gave all the reasons that we usually give - community, family, etc - but as they pointed out, the club there provides all of those things too, but with one difference: consistent coaching from youth to the national level.
Anyway, I'm just trying to think outside the box here. I think football has some serious structural and instructional issues that need to be confronted. First and foremost, the standard for coaching has to go up.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 26, 2018 20:52:04 GMT -6
I got ripped a couple of times over the years. It's part of the business. I've been on both sides. I got my a$$ chewed a number of times in college, in practice, and in games. And I've also chewed crappy assistants out for not doing their jobs. The worst was a couple of years ago. I was the OC at a high school. We were playing in a 7 on 7 tourny. One of our coaches, a true Madden genius, had done a really crappy job from March on and it showed up in a game. He coached running backs and his kid botched a route and it led to a six the other way. I had tried to work with him privately, then in meetings, and then over beers. He insisted that he knew everything - the highest he'd ever coached was youth football. Anyway, during the tourny, he's sitting there big-timing with parents and what not. His kid is clueless, blows the route and I turn around and call him out in-front of everyone and rip him hard and raw.
The guy yapped and yapped about having his dignity assaulted and all. I told him what would happen if he did not get his act together and he did not listen. I even showed him a clip of me getting ripped by my header and he just laughed when I told that I would hold him accountable for his kid's screw up. Well, I did.
I see ripping as unpleasant, but it goes with the territory. When I got ripped I recognized how privileged I was to be where I was and that we only have 12 chances a year to justify what we do. Every minute counts. Act like it and you won't get your A$$ chewed.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Mar 30, 2018 9:48:03 GMT -6
Chris Clement: I like Kafka...Kafka reads nicely alongside Dostoevsky's NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND. My interests in 20th century Russian literature range from the poetry of Osip Mandelstam and Boris Pasternak to Soviet postmodern prose from the 1960s on....Outside of Russian literature, I like Kafka, but I really love Joseph Conrad, in particular NOSTROMO and LORD JIM, although the SECRET AGENT is fascinating too. I also love 19th century western European Realism - Stendhal's RED AND BLACK, Flaubert's A SENTIMENTAL EDUCATION and MADAM BOVARY, and Manzoni's Italian epic, THE BETROTHED.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Mar 20, 2018 22:04:47 GMT -6
Spreadattack, true indeed. My life is defined by irony and paradox. When I'm teaching I want to coach football; when I'm writing on Tolstoy, narrative, or lit theory and criticism, I want to be coaching football and studying football. When I'm coaching football I want to to read Tolstoy and write on literature. Go figure....
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Mar 19, 2018 8:19:31 GMT -6
Hah, hah, silkyice!!!! I'd bet on Tolstoy!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Mar 18, 2018 20:44:39 GMT -6
I've taught classes on Chekhov and Tolstoy. I've taught Dostoevsky many times in surveys of 19th century Russian lit. My work is on Tolstoy and the ethics and practice of History, so, I'm more of Tolstoy person by nature. That said, I've come to love Chekhov. The plays are great, but I especially like his mature prose. Dostoevsky is fabulous. My favorite Dostoevsky text is THE DEVILS. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT is great, but its basically a super-charged detective novel. THE DEVILS is a narrative mess which makes it a blast to read and teach. It's also very germane to our world today.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Mar 17, 2018 8:08:21 GMT -6
I'm still here!! I just lurk more and follow others more than I used to. When I feel that I can make a positive contribution or lend some insight, I do. Otherwise, I just follow and read what others are posting, in part so as to not get sucked in and too distracted from other things that i need to do. That said, up until three years ago I coached high school football in Wisconsin. I teach now at the University of Oklahoma. I still love coaching and will coach if the situation is right.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Feb 8, 2018 19:08:01 GMT -6
I would just say this: I coached at three places in college ball. I have a number of friends in the League. I'm not big timing or anything like that. There is a serious price you pay when you try to coach at that level which few ever have to pay at the high school level. There is no security whatsoever. You trust your people, PERIOD. That means your friends, and definitely, unless you happen to be in a special situation, not the administration or the club. They will turn on you, as we've seen, without a second thought if its convenient for them. I've been fired when we were told that we would be kept if we hit a certain benchmark. Did not matter. So, McDaniels owes the Colts nothing. He has the opportunity to have something that most people at that level, but nearly all HS coaches have: the ability to stay put, watch his kids grow up in a community they obviously love.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 8, 2017 21:45:48 GMT -6
Coachcb,
I agree with your point....I was never in favor of scrapping competitive high school athletics...if you read my opening post, I am actually disturbed by club sports and see them as a gross negative. My point, is that something has to be done at the high school level draw better coaches and keep them...something that is not tied to the teaching in the school district per se and that makes it possible for people to justify the 12 month time commitment that coaching takes.
I've coached my entire adult life in college and high school. I'd love to keep coaching and I know many people just my own community that have similar backgrounds and are decidedly better teachers of football than many of the folks currently on staff but that cannot justify to their families the commitment for the stipend. None of do this for the money. I'm a college professor and I"m underpaid...but I still make enough to live and support my family. That is what coaching needs to do at the high school level.
My point of reference with youth soccer was simply an empirical observation: while I may despise private youth sports, when I watch my daughter practice with a coach's eye I can clearly say that she is getting better coaching than most kids in high school. I hate saying it, but its true. Her coaches are technicians who truly know their craft, and emphasize the last word. I went to football practice here a few days ago at one of our two schools and sadly I cannot say that all the coaches on the field past muster, in my opinion. One or two excellent teachers out there and a lot of gophers that I would not want coaching my daughter if she played football. Conversely, when I'm at soccer practice, I troll the whole complex and its clear that every coach at the Academy and Premier level knows their stuff. Coaching is a craft and should be treated as such, not as merely an add on that teachers do.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 6, 2017 8:41:17 GMT -6
To Coach Arnold and Coach5085
I appreciate your thoughtful remarks. Just to make one thing clear: I'm not trumpeting the youth model. The youth model disturbs me deeply...I too coached high school ball in three states. Personally, I find club sports to be deeply problematic. That said, what I was trying to get at was that there are aspects of the model that work.
Also, I'm very familiar with AAU, having battled with it over many summers. AAU, especially the basketball incarnation, I do not compare with most local club soccer organizations. AAU is really a SCAM and it preys on the most vulnerable of our society. Youth soccer is also predatory, but most of the people participating in it are people who have the means to pay for it...
I think both of your points are spot on. I'm just trying to think of ways to improve our game. I think the current HS model in its present form leaves a lot of coaching talent on the side lines. At the end of the day, this does not hurt the coaches as much, but the players.
What do both of you think can be done in HS sports to balance things out?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 4, 2017 9:39:07 GMT -6
As many of you know, I used to post regularly on the board. I still read posts here on a frequent basis, but have not posted as much for a variety of reasons, none of which are material to this discussion.
I have a concern. I used to coach college and high school ball. I now am a professor at the University of Oklahoma-Norman. Since coming to OU I have had many inquiries about getting back into high school ball. I'd very much like to, but the timing is not right. I mention this because since coming to Norman my daughter, who is 8, has started playing Academy soccer. This is not recreational or anything like that, but the developmental level that leads to competitive. By and large, I find club sports to be an obscenity that is ripping communities apart very much along class lines. If you have $200 per season (Fall and Spring) plus another $80 per month and have the means to travel and take your kids to practice then club soccer is fine. However, club soccer is "lily white" and a haven for the SUV crowd. So, it's basically pay to play. If you have the money, you can do it, if you don't have either the money or the logistical support, well, then you're sort of out of luck. As many of you know, this is definitely not the case with high school sports in general, and especially with football, where one trip to practice shows a wide range of racial groups and economic backgrounds.
I'm torn between the club model and high school sports, especially football. What bothers me is this: the club model clearly has its benefits. Coaches are paid very well. If you coach 5 teams per season, depending on the league you coach in, you can make a pretty good living. By and large, the coaches are all highly certified and good at what they do. Compare that with high school. If we are honest with ourselves we all know that the average high school staff, if its lucky, depending on the region, of course, has a header who is committed to football and hopefully two coordinators who really know the game as well. Everyone else, frequently, not always, falls into that guy who is more often than not just a practice or two ahead of the kids he's coaching and really does not know much about teaching fundies or the schemes to which the former relates. This is not the case with youth soccer. While I hate so many aspects of youth soccer I can see that my daughter has become exponentially better, in part because the coaching is a uniformly high level.
Clearly, pay has something to do with this. We tell ourselves that we coach for reasons other than money. I did it for many, many years, and would still do it. That said, I can't. And I know many, many great coaches, most who used to coach college ball, who work in different fields now who would love to coach, but cannot justify to their families the equivalent of another full time job for $2500 stipend. Now, many coaches, of course, are high school teachers, which is fine, who teach so that they can coach. That's fine, but there are not enough of them in any school and there are numerous coaches out there who, if you they made what youth soccer coaches make, would gladly jump back into it.
What can be done, you think, with our current model to make things better? Youth soccer players benefit across the board because of the quality of coaching that comes with youth sports. What can we take from the youth sport model that is appealing and apply to our game to improve the level of coaching by bringing more high quality coaches back into the game, while, at the same time, preserving all of the good things that our current model provides, equal access, community, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on May 18, 2013 7:10:48 GMT -6
I agree with fantom and to a lesser degree with pnoty. I had an opportunity to coach college ball because I had a connection who got me a GA gig. From there I networked, but it was still very, very hard. The reason for this, and anybody in the game now will tell you, is that you're friends need to be looking for people to work with them when you need a gig. In other words, either your friend is getting a job and is putting a staff together, or he's at place that is filling spots and he is in a position to whisper in someone's ear a bit.
Moving from HS to college is easier now then it was twenty years ago, but it depends on a lot of things. As a rule, I think the leap is easier if you're coaching HS in the South. Spring ball and culture of football goes a long way to helping coaches develop their craft as well as the players that colleges will recruit. Then, as fantom noted, you need to get the right gig at the right time. Malzahn was extremely lucky to land where he did. After that, he was smart enough to develop his system, market it, and then utilize the studs he had down there. But even with Gus, we can't forget HOW he landed his first gig at Arkansas - Nutt wanted his boys and bringing him in as the nominal OC was a way of greasing the skids so to say.
As others have said, recruiting is the key. If you coach in a place or in an area that's loaded with talent and you are wired into the area you will have a shot at moving up. I know lots of guys at the upper level, many of which will tell you themselves, that they are not there because they can coach, but because they can recruit.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 27, 2012 20:00:38 GMT -6
Fantom: that clarifies things a bit.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jun 27, 2012 19:44:19 GMT -6
Well, I guess what I would ask fantom is why would I change anything once the program became good if not great? Why? Keep doing what you're doing? If what you did worked with average kids then it will work magnificently with great kids.
For example, would what June Jones does and has done throughout his career not work at Alabama, Michigan, etc? Absolutely it would work and it would not simply work but thrive.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on May 8, 2012 8:52:39 GMT -6
Folks, let's understand something: Football is a year long vocation, for coaches and players. I have not problems with players playing other sports, so long as THEY understand that every choice has a consequence. If you CHOOSE to play baseball in the spring and cannot participate in spring drills then understand that you will most likely fall behind in the depthchart in more than one way. If you can make it up in the summer that's great, but if you can't and you don't play then don't be upset when I remind you about the choices you made before. I will layout for the kid that is with us all the time because he's the one I can trust.
Parents need to understand that the summer belongs to football. This is when we win in the fourth quarter and why we play in December. Very simple. Moms and dads have to buy into the program. I will schedule a week off in June and 10 days off in July. Plenty of time for vacation and what not. If Mom and Dad book a vacation and you go, that's fine, so long as you remember that when you get back you have to start at the bottom again.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 8, 2011 7:18:47 GMT -6
I don't think that anybody here intended to disrespect the US Game. (Canadians are Americans too, they inhabit North America)
The US game has undergone rule changes throughout its history. There are some things about the Canadian game that I do not like, but what I do like is the longer and wider field. I also like the hashes.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 2, 2011 8:17:16 GMT -6
What do you mean no running game? Hamilton ran the ball last night out of the pistol quite effectively.
I'm not a big fan of motion even in our game, but it's actually quite well choreographed in the Canadian game.
Three downs also forces you to be a much more aggressive play-caller. A friend of mine who called games in the Canadian league said its actually much harder than in the American game because you have less margin for error.
What I like the most about the Canadian game is the creativity it forces, both on defense and on offense.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jul 1, 2011 18:22:29 GMT -6
The Canadian Football season started last night and continues tonight on ESPN3.
I strongly advise that you watch as much as you can. Canadian football is dynamic, innovative, and entertaining. There is much to learn. Also, their game has some things that could really improve the American game.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Jan 17, 2010 21:35:02 GMT -6
I will try to set a few things straight here. I coached DIA football. I never played college football, nor did I start too many games in high school. I was very fortunate to have played for a high school coach who new the business, new people (John Jenkins, Mouse Davis, June Jones) and greased a few skids to get me a student coaching gig that quickly became a GAship, which after my undergrad became a full time position. I will be the first to admit - my opportunities were pure luck. Now, I stuck on because I worked hard and all....and then got out, probably because I had too much too soon. I don't know how many of you guys have actually coached real college ball but it is a very difficult life and tough road to hoe. It seems great from afar, and indeed, there are many fine things about coaching, but after a while you begin to realize that you make your living, support you family, etc by pimping 18 year olds. I know that sounds crass, but at that level that is what its all about.
What you need to realize is that even if you do get a coveted GAship that does not mean that all of the sudden you will get something later. Turning a GAship into a job is the tricky part and a lot of it depends on who you GA for - some guys will walk over hot coals for their GAs, others don't even think about them.
I've seen lots of fine coaches work as GAs, go no where and then feel that their life is in a shambles. Here's the deal: taking a shot at being a GA is worth it if you are single and don't have any restrictions. If you have a family, are not wealthy or connected, do not have much of a playing resume - stay away.
You have to realize also that in many instances just being a good coach is not good enough. A number years ago before I got out I interviewed with a PAC-10 program in the northwest with a coach with a farely big reputation. He still coaches in the PAC-10, albeit at a different insitution. The interview went great - it really did. He put me through my paces on the board, grilled me with questions as did his O-coordinator. After the interview was over, he took me out to dinner. He then told me that he was not going ot offer me the job and he had a very simple reason. He said: "Listen, you got a great football mind and can clearly teach; you'll get another job - don't worry, in fact, I'll be one of your references; however, I going to offer the job to this guy...the reason I'm hiring him and not you is simple: he has a Rose Bowl ring as a player, played two years in the show and one in NFL Europe; he does not know nearly as much as you do, nor will ever; however, I can send him to Los Angeles where he will talk there talk, talk the talk of their parents, and flash his bling. I can teach him to do his job; I can't give you what he has naturally." Well, there it is. Believe me, many jobs are decided this way, especially now. I appreciated his candor, used him as a reference, got a job that last two years and then walked away.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 27, 2009 8:25:01 GMT -6
Everything here is correct, but you cannot overlook the system he teaches. Like Johnson, he knows how to teach his system. That is where the confidence comes from. He understands everything about what it is that he does and nothing surprises him. That is the beauty running a system like the Run-N-Shoot, the AirRaid, or the Triple Option. You are more focused on what YOU do and less on what THEY do. This feeds down in practice. Players see that nothing during the week changes; there are no radical shifts in gameplans; in fact, there really never is a "game" plan that is presented to the players. Sure, the staff thinks things through, but the players will practice the same things everyday. Nothing new is really introduced over the course of the season. Sure, there are some tweaks and adjustments, but they all are part of the system. If you're a player that has to be very calming and reassuring.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 3, 2009 21:55:10 GMT -6
This economics of college football are similar to those of our national economy. It's sort of a Rube Goldberg scheme. There is this myth out there that we as football people frequently use to convince others that our sport actually justifies its enormous costs. There are very few programs that are profitable in terms of dollars and cents. Those that do make money generally inject their revenue back into the athletic department. What the university gets are collateral kickbacks and other scraps. It also depends on the economic model of the university. In many instances the athletic department is incorporated separately from the university; they are a distinct business entity that has a business relationship with the university. Too many details to delve into right now.
The bottom line is that even for many DIA schools football is moneypit. Do you think SunBelt teams really are profitable for their universities? What makes a program worthwhile is conference affliation with a TV contract. This is what floats the SunBelt, for example.
I think you will see more and more schools at the lower levels either jettison football or drop down to DIII.
|
|
|
Bowden
Dec 2, 2009 7:27:24 GMT -6
Post by hemlock on Dec 2, 2009 7:27:24 GMT -6
By the way, I would not say that Bobby Bowden is FSU. No football coach is his university. The university is the faculty, the student body, and critical body of research and scholarship it produces first and foremost. Athletics are an appendage.
|
|