|
Post by hemlock on Dec 4, 2008 7:19:43 GMT -6
Frankly, if I were Leach I would stay the heck away from Auburn. I'm not sure whether it would be a good fit from a cultural perspective. Leach truly is a different type of guy; he is more like a professor than a coach in the traditional sense of the term. Moreover, we've seen that the minute something new and innovative does not work right away what happens.
Stay at Tech.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Dec 3, 2008 19:18:05 GMT -6
This is not surprising. While I think Tubberville deserved to be fired, I don't think that the Bobby Louder crowd did it for the right reasons. They fired him simply because Auburn did poorly this year; moreover, as one person noted, they seem to have been influenced by the success that Saban is having in Tuscaloosa. He should have been fired for administering his program poorly. When he hired Tony Franklin it needed to be understood, either implicitly or explicitly that the offense would not take flight for approximately two years, that to work the kinks out entirely in that conference with its talent on the defensive side of the ball, and that it would take time before the right pieces were in the right places.
For those Auburn fans who are paying attention, Auburn should not worry about what is going on at 'Bama. It is immaterial to their success as a program in both the long and short terms. Focus on righting your ship from within.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 23, 2008 8:54:22 GMT -6
I think we should be careful about heaping this loss on the offense. In reality, they were out-athleted, pure and simple. This was particularly apparent on defense. I saw most of the first half from the airport and to tell you the truth I thought that their protection was not bad and that they had people open. Harrell was pressing. Case in pont: Tech was driving in the 2nd quarter and they ran the Mesh. The "H" was wide open and had throttled down in the void, yet Harrell went to Crabtree on the Corner which had already been hopped. Musberger, the fricking moron with his slap d--k pal Herby erroneously called the "Crabtree" Texas play (absolutely unexcusable for people who cover football for a living). The point of this is that in the first half alone I counted a number of these instances where the scheme was right, the receiver was open, but they just did not execute.
In response to spread, I would simply say that OU should be able to do whatever they want given the talent they have. Regardless of scheme, they have the horses to simply just line up and have their way with anybody they face.
Also, I did not think the windows were that much tighter than they were against Texas. The problem is that the game snowballed from the beginning. Remember, Leach has beaten OU twice, so its not like they have the book on how to defend his system. What they did last night was schematically very similar to what they did last year.
The shame is that Tech should go to a BCS bowl and not Texas; however, I fear that simply won't happen.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 21, 2008 7:01:41 GMT -6
The extensive game coverage is great, but the content of what they say continues to decline. The goal of their broadcasts should be to educate while entertaining. Unfortunately, the quality of their content gets weaker and weaker every year. This is especially so with football. Even on their college football shows the analysts they bring in are fundamentally horrible. Consider Todd McShay, for example. What are his credentials? He made a comment the other day comparing Graham Harrell to Sam Bradford and the offenses they run that was fundamentally at its core incorrect. He speaks from this position of authority, yet it is evident that he, the talking head who is paid to know this stuff, does not understand the differences between what OU and TTech do on offense. The guy actually said that Tech runs no-back stuff and that OU is more of a pro style offense. This is what frames public opinion. Tech never runs out of empty; Franklin does at times, but not Leach. OU's current offense, which is an athleticized version of what Kevin Wilson ran at Northwestern a number of years ago, runs more empty than Tech.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 13, 2008 16:34:46 GMT -6
Warrior, you may have been quoting me. I never claimed to be 100% correct on the history; I was simply framing the package within the contexts of what Leach did when he was at OU.
One thing to remember is that when Stoops hired Leach he wanted him to run EXACTLY what he did at UK. While Leach indeed did what he was instructed to do, he began to tinker at OU; it was at OU that Leach began to distinguish his "version" of the offense from Mumme's.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 6, 2008 20:52:42 GMT -6
The one problem with Shakes out of ACE or DART is protection. Post-Corner routes take a while to develop; nonetheless, Leach runs it out of his one back stuff.
The key with the offense and how you formation packages is understanding the stretch points of the defense. Start with BLUE and then tinker with everything from ACE, DART, EARLY, etc; the critical thing is that from these different environments that you still create the same stretches as were originally created in BLUE. Sorry to be so opaque, but I'm tired and a bit bleary tonight.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 3, 2008 19:15:14 GMT -6
I agree, Airman. Why leave Tech?
I think Leach stays put.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 3, 2008 18:22:55 GMT -6
Sure Leach is the favorite now, but he is a peculiar interview. I'm not sure that a guy like him would work in the South. He's just too different.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 3, 2008 16:54:00 GMT -6
Fulmer is a victim of his own medicine. 19 years ago some said Johnny Majors was getting stale and an assistant who was full of himself did everything he could to get the guy who gave him his first big time gig shown the door. Well, what comes around goes around.
That said, it was time. UT is stale and regardless of what one thinks of Fulmer as a person, the program needs a breath of fresh air.
I doubt Coach Cutt will even get an interview. In some ways I would say that Cut is too pure of a coach for that job. One of the reasons he got canned at Ole Miss was the perception that he was not a good recruiter, that he was not a salesman, and was not especially good with the alums, which, unfortunately, matter a lot. For the same reasons even a proven winner, such as Mike Leach, for example, will never be considered for that job. Frankly, if I were Leach I would not even want it.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 2, 2008 21:14:03 GMT -6
The Shakes conversion actually goes back to his days with Heupel at OU. If they got any type of a two-shell look the QB made like he was shaking a martini and that signaled that they were converting to Shakes. Now, it's a simple sight adjustment. The problem, obviously, is when teams rotate post snap to some type of 1 high look. That's what they got caught in last night the first time the ran the play; I suspect, that afterwards they just killed the conversion rule for the game.
This year they have run a lot of Shakes or Shallow in general. The lone excepton being K-State, which in the beginning played a lot of 2. Earlier I stated that the Big 12 was a big quarters conference. While this is still true, most teams fire-zone packages are run from a 1 high look. I think this explains why we have been seeing more All Curl, Y Over, etc than in previous years. Remember, a couple years ago they ran very little Y Over because of the amount of 2 shell they got - particularly Tampa 2 which effectively walls the over route off - sort of a picket fence for the route when you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Nov 2, 2008 19:23:37 GMT -6
I just want to add a little to what spreadattack said. First, as always, he is correct in stating that Leach ran his base offense last night. What I found particularl interesting was how many times they ran All Curl. Leach likes this concept more than Franklin. But what's interesting is how he runs All Curl. The first time they ran it they converted to Shakes because Texas their safeties sitting on the rails high. Texas dropped their safety down and got into primarily a one high look. After this, Tech stayed with the All Curl. By my count they ran it 5 times last night.
Besides what spreadattack said, another reason why they look like they are not running as much of their base is because they do a lot more packaging to either side of the formation than they did before. For example, they run a lot of Double Dig on the backside of Ace and Dart.
Another thing is that they do more dig/post (same side and opposite) than in the past. This is primarily because of the amount of quarters that is played throughout the Big 12.
It's still the same offense, but they continue to throw in more wrinkles.
One reason why they did not run a lot of Shallow last night was because Texas pretty much played most of the game in a one high look. They started out with two, but rolled and robbed to three or one and its variations most of the night. Tech's version of the Shallow is best versus a 2 type coverage; conversely, Richt's shallow is better versus three, because of how they run their choice route and because its a single side flood.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 31, 2008 18:39:55 GMT -6
Leach is a bird of a different fowl, but that is a good thing. I think the rap of him being not media/fan friendly is off the mark. He is actually one of the most engaging guys in the game. I've visited Lubbock on a number of occasions and he has been an open host. The trick is that he won't talk just to talk. You actually have to engage him on something that is interesting, whether it be politics, philosophy, law, history, or literature. He really is quite a refreshing character.
What's interesting is that for a guy is loves scheming, he tries incredibly hard to take the scheme out of everything. Seriously, when you breakdown their protections you find out that there really is very little scheme - its all technique and matchups.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 28, 2008 21:06:18 GMT -6
For auburn, I think that the comments regarding Franklin are a bit off. Franklin did not fail. Tuberville failed, because he did not do things necessary for the system to succeed. Six games is hardly sufficient. Two years is what Franklin needed in order to determine whether the system could work. Again, look at what Jones is doing at SMU. Right, wins and losses are immaterial; its about laying the foundation, same thing at Michigan. This is why they both will succeed in the long haul and Auburn will fail.
Personally, I am a system guy. Now, that system is adaptable based upon what you have; that does not mean that it changes radically, but certain things in a given year are emphasized and other deemphasized based on the nature of what you got. Meyer at Florida is arguably the best at this; he is a spread option coach, but what he is doing with Tebow is not what he did with Leak, let alone Alex Smith when he was at Utah. Florida is more of single-wing power team; when he had Smith, they were more of an option team out of the spread environment than a true zone/power running team.
What I like about "systems" is that you always have something to come home to. Look at TTech, for example. A couple weeks ago they ripped up K-State. In the first quarter, however, State was doing some things with the their coverages that were obviously throwing Harrell off. What did Tech do? They went back to the Mesh and ran it along with the basic Shallow exclusively for one drive. The goal was to figure out based on hash and alignment what State was rotating to and how they configured their fire-schemes based on formation and hash. It gave Harrell a security blanket until he knew what was going on. This is essentially inside veer for option guys. Again, its having a signature concept that you can do versus anything.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 23, 2008 5:58:00 GMT -6
I tend to take TF at his word. Some people may not like him, but he is a straight shooter, at least that's what I have sensed during my interactions with him.
You can't blame TF for making a go of it; it's your one big chance to bring your offense into the Show. Moreover, its a challenge to convert non-believers into believers.
That said, Tubbs knows what he has in his assistance. First off all, they are loyal to him and only him. He probably views a lot of them as family. He told Noel Mazzone when he brought him from Ole Miss that he should think twice about accepting the offer, because when the heat comes, he said, Noel would be the first to go. And so he was. He probably knows that none of the guys on his current staff are coordinator material. He gave Esminger and Nall a chance and they failed miserably. Note, however, that both willingly accepted demotions back to their old positions. How often does that happen; that tells you something about them.
I think TF will be fine. He's too smart not to get another shot.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 14, 2008 17:10:39 GMT -6
Terry Bowden's comments are genuine and sober. Hats off to him. To be able to say that your brother fell just a bit short takes a quite a bit of courage.
I think Tommy's decision was the right one. As the above post suggests, he knew it was time to move on for both parties. He had a very good run at Clemson; brought them a great deal of success both on and off the field. It was time.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 13, 2008 6:25:00 GMT -6
I don't think TF would have been forced to market the system had he not been black-balled after the UK mess. Remember, because he refused to be smeared, he paid a terrible price that forced him to sustain himself via other means.
The "System," as we all know, is nothing all that original; however, how he packages it is incredible. It's akin to what Ray Kroc did for the McDonalds brothers. There is a certain amount of genius there.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 11, 2008 7:17:52 GMT -6
Hi guys. This message is for everybody, including the gentleman with whom I was polemicizing and perhaps for a moment lost my cool. Unc31, you are clearly passionate about your profession and the kids you coach. Coaches should always have their kids' back. I know I always did, even when I would go home and ask myself whether the kid had a chance to succeed in school. The bottom line for me was that WE recruited the kid and we owed to him and his folks to do everything we could to help get him through.
Now, my Sarah Palin comment was, as Phantom noted, perhaps a bit much. However, nothing I said before was directed personally at any one individual's student-athletes. As spreadattack has so wisely stated, as he so frequently does, football as it is has a leveling effect in that it affords many kids the opportunity to move up that otherwise would does not exist. This is indeed very true. The problem, however, is that the industry that has developed around football and has institutionalized it in its present form is hardly that idealistic; it's decidedly more cynical.
Coaches are by an large excellent people; however, the institution of college football puts pressures on them that force them to do what is practically necessary in order to survive. The fact is, for some reason or another, most, not all, athletes at DIA schools are borderline students; on the flipside, the student athletes who play for the academies or in the Ivies lack the explosiveness, speed, and raw athleticism that the industry and the fan today now craves. Because of the football complex that has developed within institutions, coaches have to win no matter what and do whatever they need to do in order to keep their kids eligible. That means pushing them into majors that they know are not too demanding and suggesting courses that will boost the GPAs of those questionable students above the infamous thin red line required in order to play. I'm fully aware of the challenges that coaches face; I was on one staff that did whatever it needed in order to win, including signing up kids for meaningless classes such as tennis, bowling, and water polo. I"m not kidding, these classes exist. All of them for one or two credits, but that was all that was needed to get the kid above a 2.0. I was also on a staff that in my opinion today did things the right way; our head coach played by the rules, demanded that his boys take the right classes, and did try to hide them in anyway. Well, as I'm sure you know, we got fired because just did not have the kids to compete for a full four quarters everyday. Such is life. That's why I respect what Vandy is doing so much. The administration is fully aware of the fact that they will not compete succesffuly every season. While there is certainly pressure on Bobby Johnson and his staff to compete, the administration understands what is priorities are. T
Student athletes are great and I hale their accomplishments. I'm sorry if I became a bit too persnickety before in my reply to unc31. I also appreciate the support of many of the people who have posted backing my views, but they are just that, views and nothing more.
Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 9, 2008 15:04:30 GMT -6
Tye2021 makes a good point: why not hire from within? The problem is that Tubs has a nasty track record of crapping on his own people as well. Take the case of Noel Mazzone. Mazzone was his OC at Ole Miss and followed him in the same capacity to the Plains. Most coaches agree that Mazzone is a forward thinking, progressive offensive mind. When he was at Auburn he used to host "private" clinic in which guys would get together and skull on the board for a few days. Mazzone was essentially a one-back guy. Tubs fired him, despite the fact that their "production" then was better than what they have had since. He also appoint Hugh Nall and Steve Esminger as his co-coordinators for a year and that did not pan; however, they both stayed on staff after Borges became OC.
He may have handpicked TF, but I suspect, after talking to people from Alabama, that there was external pressure being applied. As one poster suggested from anecdotal evidence, it seems as if the last straw for Franklin was on Tuesday when he apparently took over practice and did it his way; by all accounts, it was one of the best practices they have had all year. However, it seems that showed up the assisstants, who all have long histories with Tubs.
This situation, albeit in a slightly different way, bears all the traces of the Arkansas trainwreck that Houston Nutt orchestrated with Gus Malzahn. That's when I began to believe Nutt is indeed a particularly oily individual. From what I have heard, Malzahn was undermined by coaches that were subordinate to him - that they referred to him as "high-school." I suspect that this good ol'boy system also exists at Auburn where you have an entrenched group of coaches, who while they may be very good at what they know, are first and foremost loyal to Tubs personally. As we have noted earlier, when he hired Franklin he should have allowed him to gut the entire offensive staff and bring in people from Valdosta State and Troy.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 9, 2008 13:08:13 GMT -6
You know, I can either let this slide, or respond. There was nothing personal in anything that I posted. I'm happy that you have managed to send 22 kids to play DIA. That's great. I may have recruited a couple of them, who knows. But your comments reveal what you think about education in general. The comment, "who in their right mind would be enthusiastic about learning Russian lit" says a great deal about what you think college is for. This has nothing to do with my own discipline. Your comments suggest a disdain for the humanities in general, as well as for a liberal arts education.
I have coached in my career a number of fine student athletes; unfortunately, they were the exception, not the rule.
From the tone of your posting, I suspect that college is more about "credentialization" rather than education. That is, students should simply attend so that they may get their little piece of paper that certifies them to get a job. You are entitled to that opinion, but that is all that it is, an opinion and nothing more.
I also sense in your posting a certain hostility towards education as a whole, and in particular towards those you fear know more than you; your criteria for voting for a candidate, to quote Keith Olbermann, is whether or not you would like down a can of Schlitz in the backyard while tending to your ribs. Perhaps you are a Sarah Palin supporter, that is, somebody who relishes a lack of curiosity, celebrates ignorance, and disdains knowledge. Is this so? Please, be honest so that we may have a genuine discussion.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 9, 2008 8:47:58 GMT -6
I'm not too sure I agree with joelee on this one, with all do respect. I think that Franklin will be fine. Troy's success demonstrates beyond a doubt that the offense works, so long as commit to it entirely. Franklin, like other system guys, and by this I mean June Jones, Mike Leach, Hal Mumme, and even Paul Johnson, believes that you have to make an entire commitment to the system; it's not just series of plays, but a culture, mentality, and way of life for that matter.
I guess the question is, and maybe this is what joelee was getting at, is whether Franklin is till viewed by most of the guys in the profession as radioactive because of what happened at Kentucky. In all honesty, if I were still in the profession, I would want a guy like that with me. He's independent and will not simply take it up the a... just to be one of the good old boys.
In the end, the fact that the system works will prevail. What will probably happen is some team in Conference USA, the WAC, or the SunBelt will hire him, a place like Florida International, for example, that needs a jolt in order to get over the hump.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 9, 2008 7:11:22 GMT -6
Note that I was trying to be polemical, as I stated. Sure there are big differences between the two situations. SMU has been down for a long time and Auburn is a perennial power. However, that does not change how you do things. There are right ways and wrong ways (note the plural). When you make a wholesale change on offense, which is what Auburn did when they hired Franklin, implicit in that decision is an admission that what you were doing before was not getting it done. It also means that there are going to be struggles. When you radically change philosophies one needs to recognize that it may take a full year and a losing record to get everything down and working correctly. Regardless of whether Tubbs was pressured or not, he should have known this as an experienced football coach. In fact, I'm sure that he did, but seems to have lacked the moral courage to come out and say that in order to take a giant step forward you may have to take a moderately sized one back first. By hiring Franklin and adopting the spread, Tuberville was saying that we are overhauling and rebuilding our offensive approach to football.
What the Auburn situation has provided is textbook example of how not to orchestrate a transition. As morris and coachd have noticed, Tuberville did not allow Franklin to bring in his own people. That's problem one. But the argument that you cannot implement something innovative and progressive at an established program, I think, is suspect. Look at Michigan, the winningest program in the history college football. RichRod, like June Jones, is running his system; he will compromise and seems to be willing to flirt with a losing season in order to do things the right way and lay the foundation stones. Is that impossible at Auburn? Does Tuberville have such little sway that he cannot be okay with a 5-6 or 4-7 season in order to get the offense in. Nobody likes to lose, but its irrational to believe that when you make such a dramatic overhaul in both philosophy and culture that you are not going to sacrifice some immediate success.
In response to CoachD's point, which is entirely appropriate, I think that Tuberville's success would have given him the chintz he needs to buy time and get things going the right way. Does winning and a good track record not give you a stay of execution when things are going bad in order to right the ship?
On a more global leve, what think is interesting is that this confirms to me that innovative offenses, like Franklin's version of the spread, or Jones' Run-N-Shoot, will always be relegated to the margins and peripheries of the college football world. Certain types of spread, like RichRods and Urban Myers respective versions are more palatable to the mainstream because they are essentially old time football dressed up in a different way. As Kevin Wilson told me when I visited him when he was the OC at Northwestern, we run the same plays from the gun as we did under center. Although these guys spread you out, they play a style of football that is still to a degree recognizable and acceptable to the football establishment, both within and without the profession. Leach at TTech is probably the closest the spread will get to being truly mainstream, and that is a special situation. I have a feeling that Leach and his style would be too unorthodox for a program like Auburn or Alabama to hire if, just for the sake of argument, Tubs and Saban were not at their respective institutions.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 8, 2008 19:55:23 GMT -6
Recently we have been talking a lot about Tony Franklin, Tommy Tuberville, and Auburn's difficulties with the Spread. Well, another program is struggling as they make a transition - SMU. The difference is that SMU is doing it the right way under the calm and cool leadership of June Jones. It would behoove Tuberville to see how Jones is executing this transition - he would learn a lot.
SMU has won one game this year, and that was against at IAA team. I have had the opportunity, thanks to CBSTV, to watch them four times this year. SMU is starting a freshman QB, Bo Levi Mitchell, and the results have been predictable. While they show flashes of potential, for the most part they have been pretty bad, albeit in recent weeks they are showing more signs of putting it together. Jones chose Mitchell over an established starter, Justin Willis, because he knew that in the long haul that this kid had the skills to run the offense. Despite Mitchell's erratic performance, Jones has been unflappable in his support for the kid. As a result, SMU's offens is starting to show signs of consistency. Although Mitchell is still inconsistent, he is lightyears ahead of where he was when the opened the season against Rice.
Jones is an experienced coach. When he arrived in Dallas he knew what he was getting. SMU is not a very good team, plain and simple. Jones, however, recognized that his program would not get any better in either the short or long terms if he chose to take the easy way out. He understands that his programs success is tied to his system, consequently he continues to teach his system. He knows that his offense is one that is QB driven and that for the team to eventually succeed the QB must be catalyst for any true offensive success. What I find so impressive about Jones is that he continues to work his system, regardless of the result. Two weeks ago, Mitchel threw a pick against Tulane while running the Switch route into the boundary. The ball was picked by the saftey off of Cover 4 robber type coverage. Neither Mitchell nor the receiver made the right read. Obviously, according to the most basic of R&S principles, once the Z read robber he should have taken him vertical up the hash; however, he sat down instead and Mitchell threw him the ball, foolishly. What is interesting is that Jones on the next series came back with the very same play; he knew, by that time, that Tulane was playing Quarters versus 2X2 sets so he used this as a teaching moment to make a point to his young quarterback and receiver. Rather that abandon the play, they ran it again and although they failed to connect because the ball was overthrown, Jones was evidently pleased that Mitchell and his receiver made the correct read. This is how you teach and practice your offense, even when you are in the midst of a bad season.
What I find interesting is that Tommy Tuberville, who is by all accounts an accomplished and capable coach, does not seem to understand this simple concept. Jones teaches his system, knows that it will work, and continues on; Tuberville, panics, underminds his coordinator's authority, and makes laughingstock of himself and his program.
Now, obviously, I'm being polemical, but there is some truth in all of this. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 6, 2008 12:30:38 GMT -6
I see that LiberalHater has yet to respond to my challenge. That is unfortunate, for I was truly hoping for enjoyable exchange of ideas.
Just one note. It is a fallacy that DIA programs financially benefit their institutions. They are more like the military industrial complex that Eisenhower spoke of shortly before he left office. Virtually all the profit they generate is pumped back into the Athletic Department in order to build and maintain their complexes. Yes, universities get a great deal of exposure and revenue from licensing fees and stuff; however, none of this money is injected directly into academic programs, etc. That is part of the problem. If the revenue that sports generate were used to actually support and benefit the academic programs that constitute the institution itself then you could make an argument for the current system as necessary evil.
It should be noted that I love football, as all you do; however, I always strive to remember what it is and what it is not.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 5, 2008 10:40:38 GMT -6
Liberalhater, with all do respect, your remarks do not make sense. Could you please clarify.
How are professors the problem. The faculty of a university is its heart. Perhaps a better question to pose is what is your understanding of the university; that is, what is the primary purpose of the university?
I have been on both sides of the equation. I've been a coach and am now a scholar. One of the reasons I chose to leave coaching was that I started to wonder what these kids were doing in college. I used to supervise our relations with our academic support staff and was thus privy to the results of diagnostics tests that our university administered our players in order to ascertain where they were academically. It was horrifying. The vast majority could not write coherently, nor could they read at a level above that which they were testing for in high school. Without serious help and support, both of which were not available to the student body in general, these "students" would never have been able to make it thru our program.
I teach Russian language and Russian literature now. In my literature in translation courses I get a number of players who are enrolled because it satisfies one of our university's composition requirements. I hate to say it, but its really sad; whereas the non-revenue athletes are generally solid students, the bretheren in football and basketball are, for the most part, remedial in their abilities; moreover, they frequently demonstrate little curiosity or even a desire to learn. Asides from football or basketball, they're world is a closed one.
Now, some would counter by saying that our goal then as faculty should be to educate these students. True enough; however, they need to have certain skills and abilities; the job of the university is not to provide them with skills that they should have developed in high school.
Liberalhater, could you please explain in detail how university faculty are a part of the problem. Please refrain from stereotypes and emotive generalities. Specifiicty and reason are appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 5, 2008 9:55:21 GMT -6
Coachd5085 is absolutely correct on my view. I never said that college ball should simply go away. Liberalhater, if you think carefully about my remarks, what you will see is that Vandy is proving that college ball can really be college ball and not something else that exists solely within the liminal space that it is now. The point is that Vandy has the right idea. They recognize what football is, a sport, and that's it, nothing else. Moreover, they have demonstrated that by doing things the right way that can put a viable, entertaining, and inspiring product on the field. Liberalhater, remember, why does the university exist? Does it exist to sponsor athletic teams or conduct research, produce knowledge, and provide an education for its students? For most programs, unfortunately, the "education" in regards to student athletes is pure lip service, pure and simple. If you go on campus you can identify the football players immediately; its not just because of size or race, but mentality. Without the aide of football they would not be there. When they enter, most lack the basic skills to not only succeed academically without the help of assistance centers that essentially do their work for them, but many are unable to engage intellectually and socially with their fellow students on even the most basic levels. Vandy is showing, that even in a conference that has for a long time made a travesty of academic integrity and done more harm than good to the vast majority of those who play, that they can win with real student athletes.
If the college presidents of 'Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, etc had some courage they would follow suite; and if their respective alumni bases had any integrity they would in fact demand that their institutions follow Vandy's lead.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 5, 2008 6:37:01 GMT -6
Let's all pause for a second and hail Vanderbilt. Their victory the other night demonstrates that you can do things the right way in the most competitive conference in the country and win.
As coaches, I think we all know the calibre that Bobby Johnson is. In many ways, he's the best coach in the SEC and he has been, contrary to what hucksters like Pat Forde write, for a long time. Johnson and his staff have been taking chicken c...p and turning it into chicken salad for some time.
To whom I would like to give kudos now, however, is G. Gordon Gee and the Vanderbilt administration. In 2003 Gee collapsed the athletic department and placed under control of the dean of student affairs. This was a bold move and Gee and his cohort received a lot of criticism from not only the media, but coaches from around the country. I cannot tell you how many guys I spoke with who damned him to hell and said that Vandy would never become anything and that they would only become worse. Well, that has not happened; in fact, in all sports they have only gotten better.
Gee's move was not only bold, but it was right. With only a few academic exceptions every year, Vandy's athletes have the same intellectual acumen as the rest of the student body. They are real student athletes who attend real classes, have real majors, and don't have the tutorial "advantages" that other programs have instituted for their players via exclusive, atheletics only academic centers.
As an academic who was once a football coach, one of the great things that Gee's decision did was that it forced athletes to integrate with the regular student body. Vandy's athletes participate in study abroad programs and other enriching activities that others at other SEC programs not only never do, but never dream about, because, for the most part, they don't belong in college anyway. When I got out of football, one of the things I lamented was how players essentially lived in something akin to a hermetically sealed bell jar; they never interacted with the student body and when they did it was frequently with disasterous results. They were socially and intellectually ill equipped to interact with other people; they never grew as human being during their time in college. Quite sad when you think about. They were "advised" to take majors and classes that do not conflict with football and would require minimal effort. What is amazing about Vandy is that players are encouraged by academic advising, which is not affiliated with athletics, to pursue rigorous programs and enroll in classes regardless of whether they may conflict with the program. In fact, if a player wishes to enroll in a class that is in the afternoon, the program must accomodate his academic schedule. In other words, the player's education is truly his first priority.
My spiel here is clearly more of an editorial and I know that many will disagree with me. That's fine. However, I would like to see other institutions follow Vandy's lead, collapse their athletic department, and place their sports programs under the supervision of the university's academic administration and faculty. BTW, I have a friend who teaches in Vandy's prestigious German Department. He told me that the relations between coaches and faculty is incredible; it's not one of hostility and resentment, as it is, for example, at Alabama (where I have another friend who teaches in the English Department.) Coaches understand what the priority of the university is and the know where they stand within the university's caste system.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 5, 2008 6:13:41 GMT -6
First of all, no shame loosing to Vandy. They are an excellent TEAM and arguably have been the best COACHED team in the SEC for a number of years. Bobby Johnson is doing what Randy Walker did at Northwestern; in some ways, what he has been doing is even more impressive than the late Walker did, because of the nature of the SEC.
Now, regarding Franklin, Tubs, and the mess that it is Auburn. I think that this game demonstrates how badly Tubs needs to assert proper control of the situation and let Franklin do his job. He should let his offensive assistants know that if they do not buy into the system blindly, accept that this is how AU football will be played from here on out that they will be gone at the end of the season. In fact, I would fire them anyway and let Franklin bring in his own people. Also, the Kodi Burns experiment has to stop.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 3, 2008 4:49:20 GMT -6
Interesting comment, deaux68. It makes me kind of wonder whether Franklin was asking the right questions during the interview, or whether he really wanted simply to just get back into the SEC and was willing to take a chance. If I had been in his position, I would have insisted that I bring in my own guys to run the offense with me.
Another point to remember is that Tubs has fired some pretty good people in the past. Take Noel Mazzone, for example. He is widely regarded as a forward thinking, progressive mind and he was fired by Tubs after three years, despite having been with him at Ole Miss.
Franklin may be done, but I don't think he will get blacklisted. Most football people, not the press, obviously, know what's going on down on the Plains. He will be scooped up someone, but probably another school on the periphery of college football looking for somebody to jump-start their program.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Oct 2, 2008 14:01:57 GMT -6
Interesting observations. Since I'm not in the South I was aware that of the belief that Tubs was perhaps "pressured" into hiring Franklin. The way it was presented, and I obviously was stupid for believing it, was that Tubs made this move on his own, believing that in order to get over the hump that he had to take his offense in a different direction.
What I tend to wonder about though is what happened during the interview process. I have a hard time believing that Franklin did not spell out to Tubs in very discrete language what hiring him entailed; that to succeed with this offense that you needed to make a 100% commitment, that it was a way of life, a system of belief, and that you may stumble for a year before the system really begins to gell and become consistently productive.
Another thing that I find odd, especially since I think that Tubs is a very smart guy, is why he chose Franklin's version of the spread and not something more akin to what Meyer is doing at Florida or RichRod at Michigan. Very strange.
Frankly speaking, no pun intended, if I were Franklin I would walk away from it right now. I would pretty much tell Tubs you do this my way or I leave.
|
|
|
Post by hemlock on Sept 29, 2008 14:47:56 GMT -6
Although I agree with some of what Morris says, I think that spreadattack has a point. They seem as if they are a stage or two behind where they should be with the offense. I do not doubt Tony Franklin. Remember, he ran the offense in the SEC very effectively at UK. What I tend to think, and Morris alluded to this, is that something is not right down there in terms of how much Tuberville really has bought into the system. To do it right requires an absolute commitment and that means that you may take some lumps. Remember, when Mumme arrived at UK it was still a fairly novel concept. Not any more. People know the package and hence you have to be that much better with your execution.
For Auburn this is something really "new." Please tell me if I'm wrong, but what I sense is that the pressure there is so great that Tuberville cannot afford to have an average season in which you learn the nuances of the offense.
Spreadattack's point about them being "tentative" I think is correct. I've watched three games closely and they essentially are running three base plays - Shallow, Smash, and Verts. It suggests to me that they are just not very confident with what they are doing; also, and I'm just reading the tea leaves, but I suspect that there is division on the staff as to who should be the QB. It's clear that Franklin would much rather have Todd as the QB. He knows what he can do. However, Burns appears to be Tuberville's choice, probably for recruiting purposes. Burns, while he made a play the other day, does not seem to understand the nuances of the system sufficiently in order make the offense work for him.
|
|