|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 14:17:12 GMT -6
Yes, but you on that second possession have several advantages. Isn't the ONLY advantage that if the first team scores a TD, that you know you have to score a TD? Or if they kick a FG, then you have to at least kick a FG? So the advantage is that you know what you have to do to match. And all that does is give the ball to the other team to win in sudden death. Now knowledge is an advantage, but not an overwhelming advantage when all that advantage does is to know what you have to match. It isn't like hs or college. Matching is fine there. Matching is not fine in the NFL. Meaning, if everything is the same, but the 49ers kick first, the the only advantage they would have is to know that they had to go for it on 4th instead of kicking. Now that is an advantage. Not arguing it is not. But if they don't score there, they lose. And if they do score there, Mahomes gets the ball and only has to kick a FG to win. Of course that is better than what happened last night. But that is 20/20 hindsight at it's finest. You also have the advantage of knowing its 4 down territory. That is definitely an advantage to know Ok, 1st and 10 on our 20, got 4 downs here. Ok 1st and 10 on our 33 got 4 downs here. 3rd and 4th to get 7 is much different than 3rd to get 7. All the way until FG range, in which case you are now prepared to either win or tie the game. I do think something not being talked about much on this board is that the 49ers defense had just been on the field for an 11 play drive. I can easily see that factoring in with taking the ball and giving them a rest.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 12:46:47 GMT -6
I likely would have chosen to kick as well, but I do not think it is a slam dunk decision, and I think the math works out that taking the ball was not in anyway crazy. Surprising. If you kick first, you HAVE to win on the second possession or you lose or put yourself in situation where the other team has has sudden death advantage. Yes, but you on that second possession have several advantages. I really think the more interesting question (with regards to game theory) and likely the more controversially charged one would have been the 49ers not kicking the FG.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 12:39:12 GMT -6
OT for last night: Both got a possession. So it is like a HS rule type (not exactly). It was not sudden death or even the if first possession is a TD then game is over. Again I thought it was absolutely crazy not going on defense first. Hold on. You thought it was absolutely crazy? You do realize that if 1) they hold the Chiefs to a FG, that a FG now wins the game for the 49ers. 2) if the 49ers scored a TD on the first possession, then a FG now wins the game for the 49ers. 3) If you play defense first, and the Chiefs score a TD on their 1st possession (which they did), then the 49ers have to score a TD, and then the Chiefs only have to now kick a FG to win. Fine if you thought they should kick first. I disagree, but somewhat understand the logic (actually I don't), but to think taking the ball first is "absolutely crazy" makes no sense. The "logic" of going second is that by going second, you avail yourself of more information. For example, by KC going second, Mahommes and Reid had the information that until they reached FG range, it was always 4 down territory. I don't know if that actually came into play or not, but it still has to be considered an advantage. Obviously had SF scored a TD, then KC would have had the added information that EVERY set of downs would be 4 downs until they scored. That doesn't make it a clearly better choice, and I agree thinking taking the ball first under NFL playoff OT rules is absolutely not "crazy" at all. veerman I think you are struggling to reconcile the difference of 1 guaranteed possession then sudden death with the HS version of sets of possessions.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 12:33:53 GMT -6
OT for last night: Both got a possession. So it is like a HS rule type (not exactly). It was not sudden death or even the if first possession is a TD then game is over. Again I thought it was absolutely crazy not going on defense first. No, it is very much different than the HS rule in that there is no guarantee of equal possessions after the first change. This is quite different than what HS and (more recently) college coaches are used to. Also, the NFL OT is just regular football- not short field football. A google search came up with a study from "Sharp football analysis .com " stating that in 2022- NFL offenses scored on 37.9% of their possessions, and a TD on only 21.9% (although that same search showed that from 2018-2022 Mahomes led chiefs scored on at least 48% of their drives). Put into words, more often than not, an NFL team is not going to score on a possession. Heck as someone posted earlier, the Chiefs went 16 possessions in a row without scoring a TD. This makes the decision quite different than in HS, when you are getting the ball on the 10, or even college when it is on the 25. The rules of the NFL allowed for the 49ers to hold a sizeable advantage in that by going first, they had the opportunity to have 2 possessions with KC only having one. It just didn't work out like that. I likely would have chosen to kick as well, but I do not think it is a slam dunk decision, and I think the math works out that taking the ball was not in anyway crazy.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 11:29:21 GMT -6
I believe this is a growing phenomenon in many fields, not just coaching. There was actually an article in either the WSJ or Businessweek or some other commerce oriented publication citing that younger and lower level employees now feel that "they shouldn't have to work to make shareholders [owners] richer". This isn't new but social media magnifies it. Low level employees have always griped but they used to do it to each other over a beer. Now they broadcast it to the world. The difference is that in some cases, they are now also griping with "actions" (as in not working)
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 10:50:14 GMT -6
I could care less how much football knowledge a young coach has. I want someone willing to do grunt work. I believe this is a growing phenomenon in many fields, not just coaching. There was actually an article in either the WSJ or Businessweek or some other commerce oriented publication citing that younger and lower level employees now feel that "they shouldn't have to work to make shareholders [owners] richer".
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 12, 2024 10:46:29 GMT -6
If I understand the rule correctly, then it's a little different than the college/HS choice. Because in the new NFL rule both teams are guaranteed ONE possession, but not equal possessions. I think if it's tied after each team has had their possession, then it becomes sudden death. So if you take the ball first, and the game ends up tied after each team has one possession, you can go win the game on your second possession without having to defend again. Yes, this is correct. Unlike HS/college, there isn't a guarantee for equal possessions- and also unlike HS and college, you are playing the full game of football- not just offensive vs defense on a truncated field where one is very likely to score. I think it is a much more complex decision than most will realize, with lots of factors. On one hand, NFL teams generally score on less than 50% of their possessions- which then means the "most likely" outcome is that the niners hold the ball on the 3rd possession of the OT period needing only to score to win. I believe that is that math that most likely swayed the "analytics group"'s opinion. But I am not sure how one factors in the advantages of potentially giving the chiefs 4 downs instead of 3 downs, as well as knowing if they can kick, or have to score a touchdown. From a math and game theory perspective, I would not be surprised if the more influential (and controversial) decision was the 49ers kicking the FG as opposed to the 49ers taking the ball first.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 11, 2024 16:04:55 GMT -6
I feel like this "room" stuff is a byproduct of people watching too much of that HBO drivel. You could be right! Maybe football "hipspeak"? Yep..up there with "arm talent"
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 11, 2024 9:12:51 GMT -6
I think there’s some nuance to this. If you are saying hey these are my guys like you have a connection with them. That’s fine. If you are in a meeting and someone else wants to use a kid in your group for a role that you don’t coach and you say those are my guys as a possessive then that’s a bad deal. I’ve been at two schools where coaches did the latter regularly and it’s pretty shittty. One of the schools was two platooned and the offensive side would always say guys were there’s and we’d just roll with whoever was available after their guys had been selected. Then we’d take a kid who they didn’t think could play and get him coached up and he’d have a great game on defense and special teams and he’d end one of their guys before long. That experience made me really despise coaches who hoard players. It’s all ego to make their side or their group perform better without any concern for the overall success of the program at large. I think this is one of the benefits of teaching each player an offensive and defensive position- and having each coach coach an offensive and defensive position. That benefit may not outweigh some of the advantages of two platoon sets up though:(
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 30, 2024 7:40:33 GMT -6
The issue is fairly obvious on the surface- a group of athletic programs at various colleges have evolved into professional sports organIzations. Look at the websites of some of these programs and you will see Football staffs of 60-70 employees NOT COUNTING the onfield coaching staffs. Athletic program directories of 150-175 people. All on the backs of un paid (not necessarily uncompensated, but definitely compensated under market value)
Some may argure this has “always” been the case, but clearly the vast increases in TV money have just created a system that can not be ignored.
Why would anyone expect an organization (NCAA) designed to handle amateur athletic policy and procedures with regards to academic institutions
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 28, 2024 9:12:20 GMT -6
We are talking about high school football right?? I coached in one community for 14 years, we were ranked in the State's top ten in each of those years...we had great kids ( only 1 was a walk-on at a D-I school, 6 were D-III recruits, and one was a JC recruit). Not great players, but great kids, from great homes...very church oriented community where the adults were always ready to go anywhere to assist in tornado clean-ups, etc. It was a rural community, the kids grew up working, either on their family farm or on other local farms that needed help. Most of the town kids would go work on farms with their friends Those kids learned the importance of doing things the right way...and they valued team work. The Culture was magnificent. In football they understood that their role was important and they valued their role because they knew that the teams success depended on everyone. We did not use the same schemes every year...we adjusted our schemes yearly based on the physical talents that were available. I know, I was very fortunate being in that community. But my point is, we did not have that success every year because of any particular system...it was primarily because of the Culture. Personally, I do not believe that "re-branding" your schemes is the answer. I believe that if we can figure out how to get the kids to trust us, and feel connected socially with their teammates, and establish some shared beliefs and values, it would be a great start. Yes HS. As a data point, a poster above (believe it was JG78) posted that a factor in his leaving coaching was that he “wanted to coach in a run oriented offense”. I am simply wondering a player’s desire to play in a certain offense is often considered less valid. I am not suggesting that it is a good idea to have the players decide what to do- I am simply saying that it seems reasonable that if kids don’t find the blocking aspect of football enjoyable or attractive- they probably shouldn’t play. The dilemma is, that seems to be a growing opinion among high school kids in places.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2024 18:55:05 GMT -6
I don’t think I could count the number of former/future D1 players in my 5 years coaching D2/D3 ball. In just 5 years coaching D2/D3 college football you had that many players either drop down or move up? In my years of coaching Div 1AA ( prior to the name change) I don't think we had anyone drop down to D2/D3. Had several come from D1 down to 1AA, and 1 that I can remember that slipped through the cracks to us at 1AA but after his Frosh year, some backchanneling between his old HS coach and some D1 schools resulted in him sitting out a year to join a Div 1 program.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2024 16:58:17 GMT -6
The situation that senatorblutarsky is facing isn't just happening to him and his program...it is happening in some shape or form in nearly every section of our country. I have been studying this problem for the last 2 years. Trying to figure out why this happens in some schools, and not in others. I may be wrong, but in many instances there seems to be one or more missing links in Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs...two of the big ones are: a genuine sense of "Connection"...and "Self-Confidence/Self-Efficacy" And both of these things are being effected by social media and devices, which leads me to hypothesis that yes, "these kids are different" Regarding rebranding, one thing coaches may have to recognize is that yes, FUN is a factor. While we as middle (or more experienced than middle) aged coaches may feel that associating schemes with fun is silly- it 100% is a thing for some. I guess one has to ask themselves, are you in it to coach kids or to coach the _______ (dbl wing, sbv, flexbone, singlewing, west coast offense, airraid etc) Something I have been wrestling with internally.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2024 16:51:49 GMT -6
Just curious, how many FBS or FCS players have the coaches here on Huey coached. The poll is just a rough estimate, pick the one that you feel best describes your experience
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2024 15:45:04 GMT -6
This would be the definition of a pause clean. Why would anyone reading this sentence think otherwise? Except they aren't doing pause cleans. They were maxing out on power cleans and his teacher tried to tell him he was doing them wrong. Stop digging. This isn't an argument you can win. You don't know the teacher, you don't know the circumstances, you don't know anything about it. But that sure hasn't stopped you from giving your two cents worth. You obviously know more about the situation than I do. Hell, you obviously know more about lifting than all of us. See the little delta thread. You know a lot about powerlifting too. See your way out. No.. all we knew was what you typed-- which were not the circumstances. You simply stated that his coach was instructing them to do something that based on your words is a pause clean. Then you get butt hurt when someone (me) pointed that out, as if everyone should have just assumed since you posted it that the other guy was somehow stupid or doing it wrong. Not trying to argue anything.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2024 12:36:15 GMT -6
My son has a weights teacher right now (who is the head basketball coach) who tells him that to do power cleans you have to pause between the lifting it off the ground and the snapping it up phase. This would be the definition of a pause clean. Why would anyone reading this sentence think otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 27, 2024 9:05:44 GMT -6
I've only ever met 1 basketball coach in my life that knew anything about lifting, or had any desire for his kids to do it. Unfortunately, he was super CrossFit focused and everything was about getting a cardio type workout in. Which is better than the nothing that any other coach I was around knew, but it wasn't real conducive to producing power and size gains. Particularly for your line type kids. He's a very good basketball coach and is now flourishing at a school that doesn't have football. It was frustrating for me because one of the main reasons I took that job was they had weightlifting PE, but I still had to have after school PE because they weren't getting any stronger. My son has a weights teacher right now (who is the head basketball coach) who tells him that to do power cleans you have to pause between the lifting it off the ground and the snapping it up phase. You can look at the guy and tell he's never touched a weight in his life. But, he has that mythical PE major and teaching certification so that obviously makes him an expert. Pause cleans are quite common in training Olympic lifts, as they build strength in the “position” (meaning holding your body in the correct position to deliver the bar to the hips). To be honest, it is probably a fairly decent idea for younger lifters who tend to try and use the momentum from picking the bar off the ground as opposed to the glute contraction/ hip snap to move the bar. It could also be a misunderstanding of a hang clean.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 21, 2024 15:36:07 GMT -6
And you my friend, will be here instantly to comment on that, or tell us how much you hate football I just don't understand why you have to argue this same argument over and over and over and over and over... And yes, I don't like much of what HS football has become. Fair point. Likely for the same reason that others have to post the same "option as panacea" statements over and over and over and over and over, or complain about teams that don't run them over and over and over and over.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 21, 2024 15:08:11 GMT -6
I don't doubt it. I was typing a bit too fast, and was trying to say that he was a premier flexbone coach. So presumably he felt he understood the flexbone not just schematically, but how it fit (or rather, decreasing efficacy) with his college football environment at that time. And it may very well be the case that Ken is an "idiot" in that he misjudged his assumptions on that matter. As I suggested in those discussions, maybe he looked at places like Tulane or Coastal Carolina and said "Heck, we are recruiting the same type of kid, maybe we can branch out and get a few studs and beat USC. " Or maybe it was something else that i suggested, that he found many recruits telling him "sorry coach, I don't want to run that offense". It also could be that he got bored with the subject matter so to speak. I DON'T KNOW. What I do know is that when it comes to this particular topic, many presumably high quality HS football coaches start to sound like Uncle Rico in the stands. Not really the same as the “Uncle Rico’s” in the stands since we are speaking from experience and some insider knowledge Eh, those Uncle Rico's feel they are speaking from experience and have insider knowledge as well.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 21, 2024 13:00:02 GMT -6
What I do know is that when it comes to this particular topic, many presumably high quality HS football coaches start to sound like Uncle Rico in the stands. I don't know anything either, other than you will be here instantly to argue against them. And you my friend, will be here instantly to comment on that, or tell us how much you hate football
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 21, 2024 11:12:32 GMT -6
Got it. So Boo in general- not boo this man. That at least makes a little more sense. I I just get confused by the fact that when Uncle Rico in the stands is criticizing a HS guy for his offensive play calling- that guy is an idiot and the HS coach knows whats up. But when a HS guy is criticizing a premier college coach for not running a certain offense- the COLLEGE GUY is the idiot- and the HS coach still knows whats up. May I point out he was premier when he ran the flex. It’s when he lost his way he got fired I don't doubt it. I was typing a bit too fast, and was trying to say that he was a premier flexbone coach. So presumably he felt he understood the flexbone not just schematically, but how it fit (or rather, decreasing efficacy) with his college football environment at that time. And it may very well be the case that Ken is an "idiot" in that he misjudged his assumptions on that matter. As I suggested in those discussions, maybe he looked at places like Tulane or Coastal Carolina and said "Heck, we are recruiting the same type of kid, maybe we can branch out and get a few studs and beat USC. " Or maybe it was something else that i suggested, that he found many recruits telling him "sorry coach, I don't want to run that offense". It also could be that he got bored with the subject matter so to speak. I DON'T KNOW. What I do know is that when it comes to this particular topic, many presumably high quality HS football coaches start to sound like Uncle Rico in the stands.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 21, 2024 9:58:11 GMT -6
its an internet meme....not booing Coach Ken Got it. So Boo in general- not boo this man. That at least makes a little more sense. I I just get confused by the fact that when Uncle Rico in the stands is criticizing a HS guy for his offensive play calling- that guy is an idiot and the HS coach knows whats up. But when a HS guy is criticizing a premier college coach for not running a certain offense- the COLLEGE GUY is the idiot- and the HS coach still knows whats up.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 21, 2024 9:45:58 GMT -6
speaking for the collective on that reply i think we all saw Niumatalolo and instantly thought.....so before we went down that road, adding that critical peice of the story was necessary Its great news for the ascension of a well-deserving coach that has earned every bit of it Its also a great testament to the effectiveness of that offense for the service academies Ok and.. why boo Ken for not running the flexbone if he chooses not to? Or did I misinterpret your GIf
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 21, 2024 9:25:40 GMT -6
Similar to the other thread- don’t boo the man. Boo the system in which the way some want things to happen would likely be detrimental to the desired end goal. Deeds- not words. These experts of the flexbone offense who are actively involved in DiV 1 FBS football are giving their opinions as to the efficacy of such an offensive WITH RESPECT TO OVERALL PROGRAM SUCCESS (not white board theory). So curious as to why Huey board members with their wealth of experience operating a flexbone system in DIV 1 FBS, particularly in the age of multiple transfers and NIL opportunities for the players feel their opinions are more supported than Coach Kens Not you in particular brophy- just the general attitude of several posters.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 20, 2024 18:49:21 GMT -6
I was simply pointing out that if wanted to start attacking the character of individuals, and saying that integrity means stuff, I am pretty sure that several if not many on the "Mount Rushmore" of college football coaching might have been a part of actions more questionable than excusing players (who happen to be sons) from a mid year introductory team meeting to attend a business opportunity given the current emphasis on personal branding in college athletics. I get that you have issues with Prime Prep. From what I have read on the subject, Sander's biggest blunder was lending his name to something he really had no clue about (somewhat similar to Lebron James and the school he sponsored's dismal academic performance). I am sure he was overzealous regarding pursuing athletic achievements- but that doesn't seem terribly unique. What was unique was his fame. when you have moms and kids tell you about how he did them and their education yeah I have a problem with him the way he did colorado players? just an extension of the same thing, the only thing he cares about is himself low integrity imho I understand. Being an impartial party to this, the stories I have read, none of them point to Sanders as the reason, including some in depth exposes providing detailed month to month timelines. As I mentioned, from those reports, it seems that Sander's failure was attaching himself to a project that he didn't understand and therefore could not manage his name. I am betting the truth of the situation was more along the lines of Sanders convincing people to go to the school (which was being run into the ground) and then because of his wealth, its failing didn’t really impact him much. I am pretty sure Sanders was not the cause for its financial issues, its misreporting of enrollment data, or being removed from the federal school lunches program. And despite my posts on the subject, I am not really a Sanders fan, or really pulling for him to succeed. I just seem to tolerate his decisions and the potential reasons why I believe he might be doing things the way he is at CU than most here.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 20, 2024 18:02:51 GMT -6
Coach, did integrity mean stuff "back then" when coaches such as Royal, Bryant etc. worked to keep their programs and other programs from being integrated until it became painfully obvious that it would benefit them? Or is that not considered the same? royal was a racist ahole I have friends dad's that played for him I don't know what this stuff has to do with integrity or "prime" I was simply pointing out that if wanted to start attacking the character of individuals, and saying that integrity means stuff, I am pretty sure that several if not many on the "Mount Rushmore" of college football coaching might have been a part of actions more questionable than excusing players (who happen to be sons) from a mid year introductory team meeting to attend a business opportunity given the current emphasis on personal branding in college athletics. I get that you have issues with Prime Prep. From what I have read on the subject, Sander's biggest blunder was lending his name to something he really had no clue about (somewhat similar to Lebron James and the school he sponsored's dismal academic performance). I am sure he was overzealous regarding pursuing athletic achievements- but that doesn't seem terribly unique. What was unique was his fame.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 20, 2024 17:27:41 GMT -6
Yes really? Again, if you tell me that Sanders excused these two players (his sons) and told other players "No way, your butt better be in the seat 5 minutes early" then I would say that's pretty screwed up. I haven't heard that was the case. They didn't miss a work out, they didn't miss a practice. AS was stated earlier, they had an opportunity to do something pretty unique and they did it. Keep in mind, your college days are 100% irrelevant coach. In the present day, 5 of the last 7 Heisman Trophy winners were transfers. It is a different time man. I am not going to prejudge and crap on a guy because he is steering INTO trends that ran Saban out. integrity means stuff even now Coach, did integrity mean stuff "back then" when coaches such as Royal, Bryant etc. worked to keep their programs and other programs from being integrated until it became painfully obvious that it would benefit them? Or is that not considered the same?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 20, 2024 10:29:24 GMT -6
To play Devils Advocate because I wasnt the one suggesting the motive, but there isnt much in the way of "objective thinking" going on as it pertains to Coach Sanders....and that is the point of the last half of this thread/topic. By all rights, the man is a megolmaniac. Most DI college foot all coaches intentionally rebrand traditional universities to their personal avatar. Most above board coaches go out of their way to not be accused of nepotism, Sanders swings hard in the opposite direction. He chooses to do all these unconventional at best, self-absorbed at worst (though consistent with his 40 year history) then turns around with a shocked, "why is everyone against poor little old me?" I don't disagree with this, other than the speculation on the objective and the nepotism charge. I don't think very many Div 1 coaches have children talented enough to get into that discussion as players. How many coaches have been in that situation to make a valid claim? SO lets look at where they CAN indulge in nepotistic acts. Ehem. Looking at you Kirk Ferentz. And, remind me again, which two coaches were just retained by the Patriots? Where did Terry Bowden get his career started? How about Tommy? I am certain the Ryan brothers were beneficiaries of their lineage. Moving up in the coaching world WITHOUT the benefit of family relations is almost the exception.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 20, 2024 10:07:40 GMT -6
For clarity's sake, I suggested that as a *possibility*, I wasn't making a hard statement that that is why he did it: This fashion show thing makes one wonder when the team meeting date was set, and when Shadeur and Shilo knew they wanted to go to that fashion show, and if perhaps Prime set this whole thing up with the meeting being during the fashion show so he could send a statement to the team that they are going to receive preferential treatment. My point through all of this has been "why?" Why make such a suggestion? Why does that even pop into ones head? Seriously? How does one get to the point where they think : "Hmm, music and fashion mogul Pharell has contacted two of my players who have some name branding already established to go be in the 2024 Paris Fashion Week show and represent Louis Vuitton- a company whose owner is worth roughly 180 BILLION dollars (enough to theoretically purchase all 32 NFL franchises with plenty to spare). The current landscape of college football is dominated by the ability to capitalize on providing players with opportunities to leverage their names, images, and likenesses. Paris Fashion week coincides with the start of the Spring Semester, which is when I (and every other Div 1 college football team in the country) will hold a team meeting, so the players can either take advantage of the opportunity, or they can come sit in the team meeting room and listen to talk. Is less likely than : "hmm, I am going to call a team meeting when my sons are in Paris just so that I can demonstrate right off the bat to the other players (necessary for my and my sons success) that I plan on treating my sons better than them" I don't understand how that even crosses an objective mind.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 19, 2024 18:38:57 GMT -6
Can anyone think of another P5 program that would allow two players - HC's sons or not - to miss Initial Team Meeting to do a Fashion Show? Or for any reasons besides illness or family emergency? In 2024??? I bet the answer would be almost everyone. “ Hey coach, i’ve got a chance to be involved in an international fashion show with top-of-the-line designers… and get paid while increasing my visibility and name recognition”. Almost all of them. Had Joe Burrow been an underclassmen when LSU won the national title in 2019, and the rules were the same as they are today regarding Name, Image, Likeness compensation I can assure you that if given the opportunity, whoever his coach was would have let him attend. Lots seems to be being made over the fact that it was his two sons. I have to ask, who the heck else is going? Louis Vuitton, Paris, Fashion show, networking with moguls. .. that encompasses a certain glitz and glamour element and name recognition. And more importantly, I will ask for the 3rd or 4th time, were other players denied a similar professional opportunity and told they had to attend the meeting?
|
|