|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 28, 2021 15:24:00 GMT -6
It takes two to tango, and in the case of football programs, it takes many more than two. I'm sure that there is more than one guilty party here. When the long hand of money is offered, very few will turn it down. It is easy to look at things from 20,000 feet above and say one thing or another in judgement of other's actions. It is also very easy for the big turd of guilt to roll downhill once wrong doing has been discovered. I'm sure many administrators were more than willing to look away as long as winning was happening and the school looked good in the papers. I'm sure the boosters were more than willing to give out money, as long as nobody asked questions. And I'm sure the coach was more than willing to take as much as could be given, as long as it would help win more games. But when people start digging, somebody has to go to jail, and the most famous name is usually the one that goes down. 95% of coaches on this board will never be able to relate to this situation because schools with these resources are far and few between. But just like in politics, once you take that first handful of cash under the table, the next time is much easier, and much bigger. Not saying I approve of the wrong doing here. But we are not the judge, jury, or executioner. Best thing to do is learn from others mistakes and not repeat them. But even the most honest coaches have used some cash from a fundraiser for a "Slush Fund". Maybe not $15,000, but I know almost every coach I have worked for has had some cash on hand for things. While your sentiments fit things that would fall under "criminal" activity, with regards to sports the attempt to pay for housing for transferring athletes is quite different.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 28, 2021 13:15:52 GMT -6
Utah just went to that the last 2 years... it was basically setup so the areas with more money don't end up getting a team left out of the playoffs because they took 5th place in a really good league. EVERYONE makes playoffs here now... which means the association gets to keep the $$$ for another entire round of playoffs. Schools don't keep any of it and many of them have to pay for transportation to get the kids/cheerleaders to the game. So it costs a bunch of schools who shouldn't be in the playoffs a couple thousand dollars to go get their ass kicked. There were several teams that went 0-11 this year because they "made the playoffs" and got to go on the road to face a juggernaut in the "1st round". Most games were running-clock by half in the 1st round. They have a point system that (last time we were told about it) is broken down like this: 40% is your record 40% is your opponents record 20% is your opponents-opponents record I'd have to sit down and REALLY crunch some numbers, but for me at first-glance, if I were at a powerhouse and just wanted the best seed possible, I would schedule the worst teams I could... You are guaranteed to win so you get your 40% and you know everyone else is gonna beat them too... so you get that 20% guaranteed. If you schedule a tough team, you have to beat them or you lose that part of your record, gain the same number in the opponents record (wash), but now as they kick the crap out of everyone else they play, your last 20% is going down... It has made league/conference/region/district or whatever you call it in you state completely meaningless. You used to develop league rivalry with teams in your area that if you beat them, your kids could celebrate "conference champs", but now, being a "conference champ" could mean you go on the road in the 1st playoff game and have to play a team that got a higher "score" than you. I think your analysis is a little bit off. There is no real guarantee that you would receive a solid number for that 20% portion from scheduling bottom dwellers, as it is quite likely that terrible teams (0-2 wins) will be playing (and losing to) bad to mediocre teams (3-5 wins). This year, the all SEC game format gives a good example. Vanderbilt goes 0-9, with loses to 2 win South Carolina, 3-win Tennessee and Mississippi State, 4 win Ole Miss and Kentucky, and 5 win LSU and Missouri. 7 out of 9 losses to teams .500 or below. I absolutely agree with you that the pursuit of a "perfectly power point seeded" state tournament has cut off district/conference/league (whatever the lower level of groupings are called) achievements. Louisiana did that too, and I feel it is foolish.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 28, 2021 6:40:12 GMT -6
When I was in HS Southern California had it perfect. We were in a league of 6 nearby teams; our league was grouped together with other, five other roughly same sized leagues comprised a division. The top three teams from each league, plus one at large, made the playoffs for that division and in the end winner was the champion. It was roughly the same for every other school, give or take some numbers. Then you got all these schools who started recruiting, poaching, and dominating. So instead of realigning and keeping things roughly the same we came up with these asinine ideas of point systems, and wanting to make things equitable so traditionally bad teams didnt always lose. That plus they wanted big schools in the playoffs more so they could make more $$. But can anyone tell me a problem with just taking the best few teams from the roughly equal sized leagues (or whatever you want to call them) and having them in a playoff. Even if you end up with a dozen or so divisions (thus champions) why not just do that? Because in the sports world- people have been convinced that unless something has bracket lines that end with one winner, it is somehow a lesser endeavor. Essentially, sports fans need to be "told" who the champ is. I often point at the 2007-2008 New England Patriots. Quite possibly the greatest American football team ever- but the "champion" was the 10-6 NYG (who lost to the aforementioned Patriot team) I believe these feelings started as an offshoot of the increased drama/entertainment value of such a tournament. The NCAA basketball tournament has absolutely cannibalized the sport. Does college basketball exist before March now? The CFP is in danger of doing the same, yet many people want it expanded. More lines on the bracket!! Almost no one would agree with me that maybe the kids should play 10 games and then go study for finals... even the ivy leagues are discussing change on that. For whatever reason, people clamor for a "true" (whatever the heck that means) champion, and apparently that can only be decided with an abundance of bracket lines.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 27, 2021 7:32:16 GMT -6
Gents- Is any HS coach here content with his state's playoff point system? If you are familiar with the system (as far as point distribution/bonus pts etc) please comment. Our state recently realigned our football teams and is exploring adjustments to our current system. I have a voice in the matter and would like to hear some pros and cons from across the country. I think the most important aspect of any such playoff point system isn't necessarily the calculation, BUT how it is utilized and how how it fits relative to other parts of the state set up. In its best iteration, I thought Louisiana's was pretty solid. The formula was relatively simple : 10 pts for a win 0 for a loss, PLus 2 points for every class differential if you played a larger school, plus one point for every win of the opponent. For example: Jefferson High is a 2A school and plays and beats Franklin High (a 4A school). At the end of the season Jefferson finishes 7-3, Franklin 5-5. The power points for that game would have been : Jefferson: 10 (win) + 4 (2pts * playing up 2 classes)+5 (Franklin total wins) = 19 points for that week. Franklin 0 (loss) + 0 (no play up points) +7 (Jefferson total wins) = 7 points. I thought this formula worked just fine for what it was originally intended to do- SELECT WILD CARDS. Previously, Louisiana had much larger districts (most were 7/8/9 team districts), and District champs and runner ups were automatically placed in the playoffs. The process was simple. Compile the power points, list them in order, scratch out district champs and runner ups from that list as you placed them in the bracket, and then start at the top of the remaining teams and fill in the rest the bracket. So if you had 8 districts, there were 16 wild cards. I felt the formula was completely acceptable to pick 16 teams that did not place 1st or 2nd in their district into the playoffs. As things changed a bit, and districts started to get smaller for various reasons -geography and travel being primary leaving 6,5 and even some 4 team districts-the pure math model becomes MUCH more easily manipulated because of the greater freedom in scheduling. That combined with the idea of now seeding teams by power points, assigning home games by seeds etc probably requires a different formula. And now on top of it all, Louisiana has split playoff brackets for schools with "select" enrollment (private schools and a few public schools with open enrollment) and "non select" (public schools) adds to the chaos.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 20, 2021 8:41:19 GMT -6
We have an older gentleman on staff who rolls his eyes about having a written practice plan and a written list of coaching duties. He says that his generation didn’t need written lists, they just did it. Am I crazy? I’m not a young coach, I have coached for 20 years at 4 different schools and have always had HC’s with written practice plans with well organized practices. One of the most successful coaches in my state doesn’t use one. I was his DC and I used one but he said he didn’t like the time restrictions. He never scoffed at me using one though. Bottom line is if you can coach ball who cares how you do it As with most things, people can overcome shortcomings or poor planning through talent and skill. Some people do not require a thought out or written budget to handle their personal finances, yet 40% of the United States workforce replied that they could not handle an unexpected $400 expense.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 1, 2021 12:01:13 GMT -6
Meaning it may have been decided that it was in the best interest of the district to build one new physical plant to house HS age students, and then move Jr. High age students into two different buildings? Maybe the district divested itself of some buildings. Maybe it moved some lower school age children around. Who knows. But what I'm saying is, it looks like as far as football is concerned, nothing changed, so why the question? Bob, I think you mean to say "why is that included in the information". The question was simply about the concept of stand alone youth/jr high programs whose kids happen to go to a certain high school vs. the concept of "feeder schools" who mimic the high school and are a defacto part of the program.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 31, 2021 21:55:15 GMT -6
It could have just been a physical plant change for the Jr. Highs. Meaning they closed 2 other facilities? If that's the case, then what's the import of the question? They feed the same way they did previously, just from another location, and they're feeding into 1 HS instead of 3. Meaning it may have been decided that it was in the best interest of the district to build one new physical plant to house HS age students, and then move Jr. High age students into two different buildings? Maybe the district divested itself of some buildings. Maybe it moved some lower school age children around. Who knows.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 31, 2021 15:28:03 GMT -6
Not necessarily, the demographics have never really changed. I think the reason for consolation of the two schools was just a wildly popular thing in that era. I would be willing to say there has been close to zero demo changes in 40 years. Town of about 45k people in a rural setting. But this is not just consolidation. In addition to there being 1 senior high school where there used to be 3, there are now 2 additional junior high schools. So grades 9-12 more lumped together, but grades 7-8 more spread apart. If I understood you right. It could have just been a physical plant change for the Jr. Highs.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 30, 2021 7:19:05 GMT -6
A little background here, two feeder programs 5 miles apart that feed one main high school. High school has had decent success the last decade. One feeder program mimics the high school as far as terminology down to the weight room, and has been fairly successful. The other feeder doesn’t do much as far as getting kids prepared, and hasn’t had much success. The two feeders used to be high schools and is a fairly decent small town rival. I guess some of the questions/ comments I’m looking for is, do you guys have any experience and combing the feeders under one umbrella and what are your pros and cons. The key issue here is how things are set up in this particular district. Is it a "feeder program" or is it simply a jr high football program at a school whose students will matriculate to a high school. What is the expectation of this from the top down? How are the politics in the school system set up? If there isn't a top down expectation, than that would have to come from the school leadership itself. It sounds like one jr high currently has a better program than the other. I don't think mimicking a HS program is necessarily the reason for that, but rather they simply have a plan or system (which happens to be the HS's plan and system). Any plan or system would be good. Keep in mind that there are two sides here. There are countless posts on Huey here about a new coach looking to take over a HS program and talking about buy in from the Jr High/Youth programs etc. Then the post describes how he is the 4th HC in the last 7 years. If you were a Jr. High Coach, how would you feel if you had to adapt YOUR program 4 times in 7 years? Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 23, 2021 14:29:43 GMT -6
I dont know how dividing Private from Public for the playoffs out here in southern California would play out. For every 'big time recruiting powerhouse' private school out here, there are about a dozen more small time just scraping by private schools, or small private schools who arent trying to be an athletic power. And to be fair, the top line public schools 'bend the rules' out here as much as most privates in regards to recruiting, poaching, etc. You just described Louisiana...which split the playoffs several years ago.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 19, 2021 19:04:58 GMT -6
Not sure i'm 100% following your questions, but sensing some skepticism. The facts. All schools in Wisconsin had some level of inperson learning that ALSO had a football season, in general. Milwaukee, Madison, and surrounding large suburbs were 100% virtual....and also delayed their football season till Spring. That said, any player testing positive was held out for two weeks. Additionally, any teams and teammates playing with or against this player were notified of the positive test. We can not force families to test their children of course. This with no fans at games (or 1 or 2 adults per athlete in some areas), requirement of temp checks at games for all players....pretty obvious COVID doesn't spread as easily outdoors....especially outdoors and kids. Hell, look at the NFL. Positive tests here and there, and you'd think that playing and practicing against individuals with COVID would result in widespread outbreaks among athletes. It just didn't happen....COVID does not spread outdoors. Clearly close, confided space indoors is a major issue....but I believe masks have helped here tremendously in spaces (like school) that absolutely require them. I'd also invite you to read here. www.tmj4.com/news/coronavirus/fall-sports-have-their-challenges-but-franklin-schools-are-overcoming-themPositive test here and there? Denver went into a game with a practice squad WR playing QB. They had to postpone games and play them on a Tuesday and Wednesday. Cleveland played without their HC. Let's not act like everything went off without a hitch. It is the quarantining policies, not positive tests, that are the issue for sports, schools, etc. That is probably a good thing from a public health perspective. In my school district, over 1/3 of the entire population has been quarantined for at least 2 weeks since the start of the school year (and the jr high and high schools didn't start 5 day a week face to face until November).
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 19, 2021 18:46:58 GMT -6
It is about testing and symptoms. I would bet that far fewer elementary age kids show symptoms (and thus lead to testing). Also, I would be interested in seeing how "strict" those Covid protocols were. Is Wisconsin currently utilizing full time in school learning? Not sure i'm 100% following your questions, but sensing some skepticism. The facts. All schools in Wisconsin had some level of inperson learning that ALSO had a football season, in general. Milwaukee, Madison, and surrounding large suburbs were 100% virtual....and also delayed their football season till Spring. That said, any player testing positive was held out for two weeks. Additionally, any teams and teammates playing with or against this player were notified of the positive test. We can not force families to test their children of course. This with no fans at games (or 1 or 2 adults per athlete in some areas), requirement of temp checks at games for all players....pretty obvious COVID doesn't spread as easily outdoors....especially outdoors and kids. Hell, look at the NFL. Positive tests here and there, and you'd think that playing and practicing against individuals with COVID would result in widespread outbreaks among athletes. It just didn't happen....COVID does not spread outdoors. Clearly close, confided space indoors is a major issue....but I believe masks have helped here tremendously in spaces (like school) that absolutely require them. I'd also invite you to read here. www.tmj4.com/news/coronavirus/fall-sports-have-their-challenges-but-franklin-schools-are-overcoming-themNot skepticism but the point about the 96% of games played was facilitated by the protocols (or lack of ) that you stated. My point was that the virus could have spread, but resulting in asymptomatic cases. You stated that players testing positive were held out for 2 weeks. My point was that in other places, not only would a positive player be held out, but those in close contact would then be quarantined regardless of test. That doesn't sound like it happened in this case. Quarantine policies, not positive tests, is what leads to most game cancellations.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 17, 2021 13:25:24 GMT -6
Could be offense, could be defense, could be special teams. Curious what you guys are wanting to learn about? For me it's slow screens. We run a filthy little middle screen and have for years, but everyone in the stadium knows that thing is coming on 3rd and long. I am looking to find some new ones to implement just to mix things up a bit. There are also a few passing concepts that we run that I'd like to get better at teaching. Obviously ______'s offense / defense (Insert winner of CFP and Potentially SuperBowl.) Also some of what _______ is doing with program development as well as x's and o's (Insert name of coach of hot non traditionally successful team of the season) Rinse and repeat each year.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 14, 2021 6:19:38 GMT -6
Was that the same dude that would used to post on the smart football blog as "Mr. Murder", and post like 5-10 comments on every blog post...? I doubt it- murdr stood for mount union raider
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 13, 2021 17:19:13 GMT -6
AAYFL in SE Wisconsin, Wisconsin's largest youth football league, cites 96%+ of games played this Fall despite strict COVID rules. Looking at about 25 programs with with program having 2 to 8 teams 5th grade to 8th grade. (Smaller programs have 1 mixed 5/6 team and a mixed 7/8....larger programs have two teams at each grade level 5-8) Amazing to be honest. It is about testing and symptoms. I would bet that far fewer elementary age kids show symptoms (and thus lead to testing). Also, I would be interested in seeing how "strict" those Covid protocols were. Is Wisconsin currently utilizing full time in school learning?
|
|
|
UGA-Cincy
Jan 5, 2021 7:24:19 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 5, 2021 7:24:19 GMT -6
What "games" is one playing from the -5 to score in one play that are a superior option than an already broken field situation such as a kick off return where the opposing team is starting 30+ yards away from the ball carrier? I believe there have been more scoring plays from the -5 on KOR or PR than offensive plays from scrimmage. who has better athletes when Georgia put in ko safe return. team? And they have 11. They are better than you across the board. 8 defensive backs who were 4 star recruits is better than 11. I am not saying it would work. Not a even a little. I am not saying it’s the right choice, but it does make sense. The physics and geometry of a kick return play compared to a play from scrimmage are different. As I said I believe if someone sifted through all the data there have been more 90 yard kick returns then there have been 90 yard touchdowns on a play from scrimmage I also don’t simply except your premise that one side was superior athletically than the other side because they were “Georgia“. The difference between the top tier football programs and other good football programs is in the quality and depth of the lineman, not the smaller positions
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 5, 2021 6:43:16 GMT -6
Definitely. Rather take our chances with an athletic return team vs 10 coverage guys and a kicker instead of trying to score on their prevent D. if you had the better athletes? Definitely. But since you don’t , you have to play games... What "games" is one playing from the -5 to score in one play that are a superior option than an already broken field situation such as a kick off return where the opposing team is starting 30+ yards away from the ball carrier? I believe there have been more scoring plays from the -5 on KOR or PR than offensive plays from scrimmage.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 2, 2021 7:41:45 GMT -6
Strength staff is not coaching staff with regards to blown coverages as you mentioned. There are many coaches and posts on this site talking about teams having "qb school" or "fb school" in the offseason, not to mention talk about actual REAL practice during the summer THEN "camp" (Never understood what the hell the need for camp is if you have been practicing all summer) THEN games. All of the other points are very valid. I just wanted to point out that the idea of college football coaches having all this unlimited time with their players is not really the case. If your strength staff isn't developing players visual-cognitive-motor skills what are they doing? Mental Toughness- being able to perform under duress = something the strength staff has a huge part in. If you are suggesting that a strength staff is responsible for blown coverages... I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 1, 2021 14:40:40 GMT -6
I find value in discussing things on twitter and have come across several good ideas I've tried to implement or tried to get our OC/HC to implement. I will say, however, I've been a little turned off the last few days. I read a tweet from someone that basically said that if you were playing a kid in a spot to help you win games as opposed to where he projected to play college ball, you were a selfish coach. The tweet plus how many responded agreeing with the tweet was a big turnoff and therefore my twitter time has been WAY down the last several days. It makes sense if you think about it though. The entire basis of TWITTER is people being self absorbed right? I think it follows logically that in a culture built on the concept of self, the idea of team bigger than individuals may be lost.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 1, 2021 12:19:18 GMT -6
Just one point of fact here- college coaches technically don’t have the chit load of time you mention here. Their contact time is limited by rules. From what I have read on this board, lots of HS coaches actually have more time with their players than college coaches I am not a Twitter person, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of the statements here. I can say however that other than the contact time the rest of what you say regarding the coach/player relationship in college ball holds true. Which is why I always wonder why high school coaches spent so much time and effort trying to emulate what college coaches do. The strength staff has plenty of time and its not as distracted as HS time. Some schools have 50 min periods, that's still 5 to change in and 5 to change out. You MIGHT have 40 min. The block sched guys have 80 min (so 70) but 2x a week one week and 3x another, and then there are Mon/Fri holidays, weekends are a mess and not worth it, plus you are one coach with 40 players vs GA's, interns, assistants, position coaches (who are at workouts at some schools) etc. I would say btwn that, film sessions, coaching, pre-practice, summers, one sport vs 3 + a travel team or two, etc- they get more time. Strength staff is not coaching staff with regards to blown coverages as you mentioned. There are many coaches and posts on this site talking about teams having "qb school" or "fb school" in the offseason, not to mention talk about actual REAL practice during the summer THEN "camp" (Never understood what the hell the need for camp is if you have been practicing all summer) THEN games. All of the other points are very valid. I just wanted to point out that the idea of college football coaches having all this unlimited time with their players is not really the case.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 1, 2021 8:03:21 GMT -6
Figures. Lol "So, how exactly does your spiller go about doing their job?" "Well, you know, he just crashes up in there and tries to spill the ball like a fuggin badass" "I mean what specifically does he do, like, does he wrong-arm?" "We like to run triple smash rip zip cover orange whiskey fire to the boundary djdjfndjfjfjdjfjfdjdjdjfudue!!!!!" "Thanks, coach." ISTG. I think sometimes people are TRYING to obfuscate and cloud the discussion to impede any real discussion and learning. So frustrating. The college guys love that chit. And the best part is when you ask them about blown coverage it's "well see, the player..." "well see, we dont have the talent..." Wait! You're calling a friggin coverage you don't have the TALENT to run? So why call it? Also- if your player doesn't understand the coverage, you're either a bad teacher, or bad at managing your depth chart. When the college fellers blame it on the players: 1) You recruited them, it ain't like HS where SOME of us are stuck with who we got. 2) You have a chit load of time to develop them, they don't play basketball in the winter and lacrosse or baseball in the spring. 3) If they choose their girl or job over training all summer, you just can them for a similar model. Just one point of fact here- college coaches technically don’t have the chit load of time you mention here. Their contact time is limited by rules. From what I have read on this board, lots of HS coaches actually have more time with their players than college coaches I am not a Twitter person, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of the statements here. I can say however that other than the contact time the rest of what you say regarding the coach/player relationship in college ball holds true. Which is why I always wonder why high school coaches spent so much time and effort trying to emulate what college coaches do.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 31, 2020 23:14:04 GMT -6
There's so much detail that you can get into with Huey, and back and forth discussion you don't get in a podcast or online clinic I agree but Twitter seems to be the trend among younger coaches. I think that one thing that's slowed things down has been that a lot of the guys who've been on here have retired. I know that since I've retired I still enjoy discussing general topics but not Xs and Os. This describes me as well. I still enjoy general football discussions, overall philosophical issues etc. I really don't have much of an appetite for indepth discussions of how to Play a Rip/liz version of Palms against mesh when you get a fast 3
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 28, 2020 11:30:16 GMT -6
Could they attract 5 stars? If the 5 star is x,y, z probably. But could they do things to make the enrollment at an academy more appealing to potential recruits? Absolutely. Could they set up things to get not so attractive academic students? Yup. Could they pay to recruit the country? Absolutely. Could they pay for the coaching? Just silly to say they couldn’t. Umm.. Yes you did. Right here. You just stated that they could suspend academic requirements, military service requirements, fitness requirements etc. right here. You just said that they could utilize Pentagon funding that goes elsewhere to pay to recruit the country (they already do by the way.. ) Just stop. Stick to just posting x's and o's because when you try to discuss deeper topics you drown.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 28, 2020 11:07:58 GMT -6
Regarding your first point directed at coachcb I have to ask "Really???" Really Bob? Do you REALLY have that great a disconnect and inability to read the room to ask for clarification on that? Really? Yes. #1 is not true. #2 I think is true whichever way you break it down. Most people don't care about football as much as coaches (probably even of other sports) would. You introduce an existing coach to a competitive sport they haven't even heard of before, and within 10 minutes they're analyzing it. Well bob. I will with 100% GUARANTEED CERTAINTY put words in coachcb 's mouth here and say he meant that trying to make sports year round and fill the year with specific sport activity, particularly for youth, is ruining sports. 100% guarantee that, and I would be absolutely shocked if ANY OTHER coach on this site even needed that to be clarified. But there is your clarification. With regards to the second point, in case you needed additional clarity, it was simply to highlight the fact that parents and kids aren't going to care as much about any football related activity, particularly non game activities, as the coach. The one exception to that may be banquets LOL.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 28, 2020 8:43:01 GMT -6
But do they have "lesser talent" than the teams they are beating? If the Cadets/Midshipmen/Zoomies were beating Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Wisconsin etc then yes I would say they are beating objectively better talent. But do Tulane, Temple, East Carolina, etc all have objectively better talent? San diego state, Wyoming, Nevada etc? The academies aren't playing with scrubs. They fast guys are fast, the strong guys are strong, they are all tough, many if not most were the best players on their teams in HS etc.
Yeah, Army's recruiting pitch is different, but not inherently worse that say East Carolina's
The big negative is the service requirement gets in the way of (but doesn't totally exclude) playing after college
Is the East Carolina to the NFL pipeline a big selling point for East Carolina? Idk, I suspect if your good enough to get recruited by East Carolina it's certainly something you dream of and don't want to totally cut off
Army can sell a West Point degree will be a ticket into a lot of non-football worlds in a way that an East Carolina degree won't be, that's not a selling point for everyone, but I'm sure it is for lots of people
(I suspect a couple of hours of research checking cross offers on the recruiting sites could answer this debate pretty reasonably, without actually doing that research, I suspect Army and Navy do ok with the recruits they offer relative to East Carolina [obviously they're more restricted in the guys they can offer])
I would imagine it is an interesting situation, as the academic requirements necessary for the Academies may very well indeed weed out those who refuse to acknowledge the statistical probabilities of making it to the NFL- PARTICULARLY if you are being recruited at an "ECU" level as opposed to an LSU, OSU,etc. level. Sidenote for emphasis and context- When I was coaching NCAA Div 1AA ball, we had upperclassmen who were BACK UPS whose life plan was still to "make it to the NFL". That is the mindset some of them have. It made me feel a bit like a failure as a mentor. I think the military service might be more of a deterrent for the sake of having to be in the military as opposed it keeping a player from the NFL.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 28, 2020 5:09:42 GMT -6
But do they have "lesser talent" than the teams they are beating? If the Cadets/Midshipmen/Zoomies were beating Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Wisconsin etc then yes I would say they are beating objectively better talent. But do Tulane, Temple, East Carolina, etc all have objectively better talent? San diego state, Wyoming, Nevada etc? The academies aren't playing with scrubs. They fast guys are fast, the strong guys are strong, they are all tough, many if not most were the best players on their teams in HS etc. In the case of talent it’s probably closer to the teams they play in conference. They do have to deal with a lack of athletic scholarships and size requirements that other schools don’t have to deal with. With regards to size requirements, I think that is more an individual's hardship than than an Academy one. Quoting a 2018 Philadelphia Inquirer article : "Navy’s O-line, for example, though one inch and 13 pounds below Division I norms, averages 6-3, 285 pounds." The difference between Navy and say Tulane is that a 6'3 Midshipmen has to be at 216 to (or 22% body fat) and still be able to pass the general fitness standards. Tulane's Lineman do not. My personal opinion is that one needs to remember that what separates the Top 20 and the rest of college football is the quality of "big boys". Absurdly large but mobile and athletic players are the most scarce recruits. When we are talking about Group of 5 schools, they aren't getting too many of those. So being undersized to less than stellar big men isn't necessarily as big a disadvantage as it first seems. Overall, I think the 3 pronged requirements for Military Academy admission/attendance (Academic, body size, military commitment) absolutely present an additional challenge to attracting the athletes. No doubts there. I am simply saying that I would not go as far as to automatically state that those athletes they attract are "the least" when compared to the teams they are competing with and beating regularly. I would say certainly that those athletes could be considered "the least" when compared to the top teams in country.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 22:01:57 GMT -6
But do they have "lesser talent" than the teams they are beating? If the Cadets/Midshipmen/Zoomies were beating Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Wisconsin etc then yes I would say they are beating objectively better talent. But do Tulane, Temple, East Carolina, etc all have objectively better talent? San diego state, Wyoming, Nevada etc? The academies aren't playing with scrubs. They fast guys are fast, the strong guys are strong, they are all tough, many if not most were the best players on their teams in HS etc. Yes IMO they are. Their fast guys are not the size of other teams fast guys. Their strong guys are not the same size of other strong guys. They are usually out weighted by an average of 30-40 lbs across the fronts and sometimes even more. They may be some HS best players but that doesn’t mean they are equal to other HS teams best players. You can still be less talented than most, while being by far the best talent on your team. But again this is my opinion. I know that is the story that is told. I am saying I don't know if it is accurate with regards to the wins those schools are getting. Again, we are not talking about Comparing West Point to Texas or Ohio State or Auburn. I would agree that those teams are playing with players who not only are objectively superior in the measurables, but are also going to be considered "better" players by those evaluating. I am not sure that necessarily holds true for many/most of the schools on the Academies schedules.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 21:14:02 GMT -6
The academies are the easy answer of doing more with less.... regardless of who chooses to do what.. They win against teams that have superior talent (is That not the OP question? who wins with lesser talent?) There are a lot of teams that have success with their talent, but not like the Academies. But do they have "lesser talent" than the teams they are beating? If the Cadets/Midshipmen/Zoomies were beating Florida, Oklahoma, USC, Wisconsin etc then yes I would say they are beating objectively better talent. But do Tulane, Temple, East Carolina, etc all have objectively better talent? San diego state, Wyoming, Nevada etc? The academies aren't playing with scrubs. They fast guys are fast, the strong guys are strong, they are all tough, many if not most were the best players on their teams in HS etc.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 19:38:32 GMT -6
So what they are lacking is membership in a Power 5 conference? If Liberty has the means to outspend Ohio State and Air Force academy has the means to outspend Ohio State, but both choose not to, I'm having a really hard time following the logic that one of those schools is doing more with less, and the other is not. maybe LU is a bad example, but anyways I am done. I think perhaps you stating that the military academics are NOT examples because they could spend the Pentagon's bank roll and suspend the other requirements for admittance simply to win football games... is the bad example.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 18:10:31 GMT -6
Liberty pays Hugh Freeze 3 mil a year. Monken at Army doesn’t even make 1 mil and libert is winning what recruiting battle? And monken stays at army why? How much more could army pay? Not should necessarily, but could? Whatever battle they want to. Liberty has nearly unlimited resources as the largest Christian school on the planet, and skyrocketing growth. Enrollment has grown upwards of 300% in the last decade and the Universities Operating revenue dwarfs the athletic budgets of the schools in the CFP. So, your argument is that Liberty could, if they wanted, easily outspend Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama etc...when it comes to athletics.
|
|