|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 17:17:49 GMT -6
I will agree that the academies as an organization can’t really claim doing more with less because they choose to have less. However, they also choose to have a football team and that team has to have coaches. So someone has to coach those teams with the restrictions placed on them. So I don’t see how you can argue that the coaches don’t do less with more. A job needs to be done and they do that job really well It’s not that the coaches that can’t coach. Or that they are bad coaches. It’s both sides choice. To me a better choice would be a liberty u, cc, a Nevada, A Boise state, a Georgia southern... All of those schools have budgets greater than what the teams in the 2020 CFP spend for their total athletic programs. Those schools just choose not to spend that money on athletics. They should not get any credit for that.... That is what your argument sounds like.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 16:30:01 GMT -6
I’m actually trying to understand you here. Are you saying that the coaches choose to be at the academies therefore negating the fact that they do more with less? Both the institutions and the coaches. You don’t credit for doing more with less when you have resources and refuse to use them. You don’t credit as a coach when you take that job. You don’t get credit when you are responsible for the self imposed shortcomings. Resources at power 5 and the academies are not the issue. So coaches who go to an academy or a Vanderbilt, or a Minnesota? You don’t get credit for doing more with less. It’s like taking a hc job in high school where there are very few if any teaching dedicated to those who coach. What do you expect? Same thing with taking a job where you have no facilities. Dude... just....wow.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 15:28:58 GMT -6
No. There's is absolutely no need for an off-season with youth football. This kind of crap is ruining sports in the U.S. I could take that in either of two, opposite meanings: - Trying to occupy the whole year with activity related to the sport is ruining sports.
- There should be no off-season, the sport should always be "on".
Which one do you mean? And then why do you think it? You will find very quickly as you continue in this any profession that the vast majority of the time, people don't care about it as much as you. Fixed that for you. 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? As for your "correction" on my post, now THAT comment can be taken 1 of two ways: 1) Most people who are also in any profession do not care about said profession as much as the person making the comment (I would argue this is not a true statement) 2) Most people don't care about a profession as much as someone who is actually in that profession. (That would seem to be objectively an obvious point). The key reason why I don't agree with your correction is that in this case the topic would be FOOTBALL, which is not the same as the profession of coaching.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 27, 2020 15:17:06 GMT -6
we are not robots. Or at least most of us are not. I’m actually trying to understand you here. Word of advice. Don't try. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt several years (and multiple screen names for pithy ) ago. While I do now realize that often the broken language and syntax is caused by using a cell phone, it is still not advisable to try to understand most of his aptly named "pithy" replies.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 26, 2020 20:47:01 GMT -6
Hello everyone I’m new to the board, just wanted to get an opinion on offseason activities. I will be going into my 3rd yr as a head coach (coaching the 10 yr olds this season). I don’t know if it’s just the area we live in or parents not thinking about football in the offseason or pure laziness, but I’ve tried to get the majority of my team to do offseason training, even just once a week ( here in Utah Mtn West Elite) does really good trainings on Sat. mornings & it’s really inexpensive, & I’ve offered all the rides to and from & can’t get more than 2 kids to do it ( besides my own two). I’ve put stuff on team snap when we go to our local high school to do workouts & still can’t even get a response. I’m very frustrated, I know some kids play other sports but not all of them & it just makes me feel like nobody appreciates the fact that I’m willing to work with/mentor their sons for free to help them individually & to help our football program. Any thoughts, ideas, advice?? A few thoughts: 1) You will find very quickly as you continue in this profession that the vast majority of the time, people don't care about it as much as you. Not the parents, not the players. Key point that is often missed by the coaching fraternity-That doesn't make the parents or kids wrong. 2) Define "Really inexpensive". Regarding the type of things you mention, consistency is by far the most important ingredient to improvement. 3) You use the term "our football program". As a neutral 3rd party here, is that really an accurate term? Is it an "our". Or is it your program? Regardless of any responses typed here, only you can truly answer that deep down. coachdb I would normally agree with your sentiments, HOWEVER, with regards to kids who don't play other sports, I actually may be changing my thoughts somewhat. With the proliferation of travel ball and other adult led/adult living out their frustration through kids activities, kids really aren't given opportunities to create their own play. So for those that don't play basketball or baseball or soccer-many really won't have options or opportunities to do anything physical unless it is a formalized activity. coachhawk0811 I think the biggest thing is to not have "football offseason" but rather just have fitness based activities for youth regardless of football or not. Once you few it as "football offseason" I think it gets more complex.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2020 11:56:40 GMT -6
I think what coachcb was trying to state though is that they "can't" do that because of their operations as a federal military academy. If we want to say that they "could" do such things, then one could argue that other schools "could" pay off their players and cover it up. Yeah but I think that pithy's taking crap here because he's pithy and he almost always deserves it. Yes, but in this case, the "could" isn't really a possibility, and I also doubt he has a solid grasp of the financial processes of West Point/Annapolis/Colorado Springs/Kings Point/or New London.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2020 11:50:05 GMT -6
Appreciate this. Been offered a job in a field that is about the complete opposite of mine. That’s the only box that is a nagative as far as moving my family. Nervous for sure but lots of positives to taking the gig. Can you be happy teaching in that field? If the problem is that you don't know much about it don't worry. You just need to stay one chapter ahead of the kids. If it's a field that you actively dislike and have no interest in I'd think long and hard about it. I echo these sentiments. I often see coaches here talk about getting certified in Math, Sciences, or SPED to "make themselves more marketable". I always reply "If you don't want to teach those things, education is a terrible way to make a living".
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2020 11:45:21 GMT -6
No they can't make themselves "more appealing". These are the MILITARY academies and not public institutions. If you don't understand what that entails, then you shouldn't be posting about the topic. If you do understand (which I'm certain you do) then you're only posting to p-ss people off and not actually contribute to the discussion. Here's your reality on this board, pithy. I don't dislike you because of a difference of opinion. I dislike you because you don't contribute much to the board other than discourse. Your posts typically have no foundation in fact, reality or experience which just muddies this site up with bullchit. Wait a minute. I have a hard time believing that I'm saying this but pithy's right. The academies have the material resources to compete (They already recruit nationwide) if they wanted to lower their standards. They shouldn't and they don't. I think what coachcb was trying to state though is that they "can't" do that because of their operations as a federal military academy. If we want to say that they "could" do such things, then one could argue that other schools "could" pay off their players and cover it up.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 23, 2020 11:09:58 GMT -6
Put me on the "make everybody feel like a part of it" side of the discussion. A few weeks ago, as our freshmen were getting ready for their last practice of the season, I walked over with two of our upperclassmen who were going to talk to the younger kids about what they'd to miss if they thought about sitting out their sophomore year of football. The first thing out of the first kid's mouth was ... "Every time I hear the band playing, and get to run out through the cheerleaders ..." Because of Covid, we played several games without them this year, so we know the difference. Bottom line, we're grateful to have them. Probably should express that more than we do. This is such a great point. To be honest, While I understand the OPs point of view, and I agree with hiim that I think it is bizarre (and If i were a band or cheer person I probably would be saying "Why do I get a patch? I don't want this" is it THAT tremendously different than hearing people refer to their favorite teams as "we" or buying championship gear when your alma mater (that you didn't play for) wins? A little different, yes, but not THAT different. Ultimately, the patch will say "football championship" right? So a band person, if ever asked about it, will say "the football team won the championship" correct?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 22, 2020 11:47:05 GMT -6
We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Until I see the tuba player practicing in 99 degrees in August or the cheer coach lining the football field in December - I don’t see how they deserve State Championship patches... Why should everyone get awards? ‘Merica... They are usually practicing on the cement so as not to ruin the grass- but good bands are absolutely practicing in 99 degree heat in August Doesn’t mean they should get a patch , but I also wouldnt worry much about it.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 20, 2020 14:11:11 GMT -6
Schools in the big conferences have the same access to those top high school recruits as the teams they compete against. They win games, create a "culture" and they'll pull more studs..So, I wouldn't include them in the discussion unless they have tighter academic requirements (like Wake Forrest). When you look at the academies on paper, its incredible that they can hang in with anyone if the FBS. I don't know if that is necessarily 100% true. Even though I objected to Wisconsin and Iowa being crowned as kings of "doing most with the least", they certainly are working with with "less" than OSU and Michigan. Texas Tech and TCU are working with "less" than OU or UT. The Mississippi schools are working with "less" than the rest of the SEC West. So I agree that they should not be considered "doing most with the least", but I would not say that they are on equal footing. Charlie Strong with a .444 Big 12 winning percentage is still getting the top tier kids over Patterson and his .670 conference winning percentage. I wonder how this will affect football moving forward the next 2 decades or so. There seems to have been a cultural shift (I blame travel baseball with the kids getting "rings" every weekend...gag" to where if you arent the champ, why bother. I wonder if that will filter up to college football. We already see it on an individual level (opting out, not playing bowl games etc) and it is spreading a great deal. I wonder if it gets to the point where schools who compete for their conference title once every 15 -20 years or hang it up.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 19, 2020 11:58:32 GMT -6
And nobody insinuated that was what happens. Sorry, not letting you derail the thread further by having to explain recruiting to you so that you then change to your 5th (or is it 6th) screen name here. yes YOU did insinuate such. Sorry the fact hurt your untouchable perch. No. It seems fairly obvious that in the context of this discussion, my comments reflect exactly what I am alluding to. That the recruiting "gurus" go to camps, games etc and create their lists, BUT then when some schools are introduced into the recruiting, those ratings often change. Coaches don't "leak" recruiting to these people. They don't create lists and then give them to recruiting media sources. They just go about their recruiting. The services report on said recruiting for the fans. When certain schools recruit certain athletes, those athletes are often subjectively considered "better" and thus some schools sign more "high value (as assessed by a third party) recruits" because certain school's interest in those kids creates that "high value" (again, as assed by a third party). Put more plainly, Bama, LSU, Florida, etc sign a bunch of 4/5 star recruits because the people who give the stars decide that if aan athlete is being recruited by those schools, that athlete must be 4/5 start recruits. I don't see how anyone who is involved in coaching HS football could take my comments to mean that Nick Saban sits around and basis his recruiting on what Tom Luginbill says.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 19, 2020 11:45:21 GMT -6
Yeah..sorry..no. Coaches don't give stars or rank Jimmy J from Bumbledum Texas as the #1 player in the country. um sorry, saban isn’t getting his players from ESPN. And nobody insinuated that was what happens. Sorry, not letting you derail the thread further by having to explain recruiting to you so that you then change to your 5th (or is it 6th) screen name here.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 19, 2020 11:37:36 GMT -6
Ummm.. it is stated in the title. The ESPN 300. That comes from the so called "recruiting gurus" who have created a new industry the last 30 35 years or so as recruiting has become a separate sports season. uum... no. Those list are compiled by coaches... and ( cough, cough) obtained by leaked to services... Yeah..sorry..no. Coaches don't give stars or rank Jimmy J from Bumbledum Texas as the #1 player in the country.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 19, 2020 11:26:53 GMT -6
Someone drilling into this data might argue that what it really shows is that recruiting rating services skew the ratings of kids being recruited and signing with SEC clubs? Not that Iowa, Utah etc are doing more with less, but rather that once a kid is approached by some schools, he is subjectively considered "more". Stated another way, perhaps this list is more of an indictment on those compiling the ESPN 300 list than it is a commendation on certain schools? where do you think those list are coming from? Ummm.. it is stated in the title. The ESPN 300. That comes from the so called "recruiting gurus" who have created a new industry the last 30 35 years or so as recruiting has become a separate sports season.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 19, 2020 11:06:53 GMT -6
For this category, we looked at the past four years of NFL draft picks from the first five rounds. Programs that had a non-ESPN 300 player drafted were rewarded. This includes some four-star players who weren't in the top 300, but for the most part, the list is made up of former three-star and unranked prospects. Here are the numbers first: Iowa: 13 Utah: 12 Wisconsin: 11 Washington: 11 Ohio State: 10 Michigan: 10 North Carolina: 9 NC State: 9 Boston College: 8 Clemson: 7 Notre Dame: 7 Penn State: 7 Oklahoma: 7 Someone drilling into this data might argue that what it really shows is that recruiting rating services skew the ratings of kids being recruited and signing with SEC clubs? Not that Iowa, Utah etc are doing more with less, but rather that once a kid is approached by some schools, he is subjectively considered "more". Stated another way, perhaps this list is more of an indictment on those compiling the ESPN 300 list than it is a commendation on certain schools?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 19, 2020 10:37:19 GMT -6
Wow, I would’ve guessed the relative expenditures for those programs would’ve been higher. Your point makes perfect sense with these numbers. Had the elite programs spent significantly more I would’ve thought the stance of Wisconsin and Iowa would’ve have still held quite strong when considering financial factors. My favorite part of your post is that Coach Schembechler’s full name isn’t even needed. Also crazy fo think that in today’s climate Coach Saban probably would’ve never gotten a fifth year at Michigan State. A few things: 1) The figures given were for entire athletic programs, not just football programs. They information came from the Knight commission website. Of interest to me was that OSU and Michigan reported figures representing an athletic program of 35 teams and over 1000 and 29 teams, 910 athletes respectively. Wisconsin's expenses represented a program of 24 teams and 788 athletes. Iowa 24 teams and 669 athletes. LSU's athletic expenditures of $145 million in 2019 represented expenses for an athletic program consisting of 21 teams and 462 athletes. A&M's expenses of $165 million represented a program of 20 teams and 580 athletes. Bama spent $166 million to fund a program of 21 teams and 652 athletes. 2) I didn't want to risk misspelling the name 3) I disagree with the Saban comment, based on MSU's history. Going above .500 in the Big Ten seems acceptable to MSU with regards to retaining employment as a HFC. 4) I guess my point in posting the figures, and including that the Median FBS athletic expenses being about 40% (or less) than Wisconsin and Iowa and those schools spending roughly 70%-75% of what OSU and Michigan and more or the same as their league members are spending yet loosing just a little less as they are winning in the Big Ten might not be considered doing "most with the least". It is basically just as expected, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 19, 2020 1:57:01 GMT -6
Wisconsin spent over $154 million on athletics in the 2018-2019 year. Iowa spent over $146 million. The median FBS expenditure was about $62 million. Iowa and Wisconsin are hardly working with "the least". La Tech spent $23 million. What did Michigan State, Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State spend? Spartans-$137million Nittan Lions- $155 million Wolverines- $192 million Buckeyes- $206 million. Ferentz's Big ten winning percentage is .572 Hayden Fry's was .592 Mark Dantonio's was .639 John L Smith and Bobby williams were below .500 Nick Saban was .585 George Perels was just above .500 Joe Pa was .638 Bill O'Brien was .625 James Franklin's is .654 Bo's was .855 at Michigan Gary Moeller's was .775 Lloyd Carr's was .779 Rich Rod was .250 Hoke's was .563 and Harbaugh sits at .694 Paul Chrysts is .734 Alvarez was .507 Brett Bielma's was .660 Gary Anderson's was .812
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 17, 2020 20:39:35 GMT -6
Iowa & the Academies. I think just life life and all people have problems but they are different, same thing goes for college programs. For example: Academies have a ton of potential drawbacks to success with time commitment and what those guys have to go through. I would argue there are a lot of benefits to those jobs too though. Who wouldn't want to be coaching those guys? I would imagine they have few issues with guys getting in trouble off of the field. I say Iowa because under Kirk Ferentz they have done it for over 20 years. They are never getting five stars. Doyle is gone now, but they were developing players, I would argue, better than anyone in BCS. Guys coming in there with potential and they were tapping that potential. Offensively they are "pro-style" but are so simple upfront they allow guys to play aggressively. Pretty much the same goes defensively. Super simple-gives them a chance. Urban Meyer commented on it last week, they are simple but it allows them to be so tuned into what you do offensively, and those guys are rarely if ever thinking about their own assignment. They might get pegged as being too conservative, but they are in every game. They rarely if ever get "blown out" they have pulled a lot of "upsets". They have 3 losing seasons the past 21 years. That is incredible. Iowa is always one I think of, adding Wisconsin, Kansas State and Northwestern. I would add Iowa State but they are more recent. I understand they may not have the prestige of the top schools football wise, but I am always surprised some of the prized recruits don't consider some of those schools more. They will develop anyone they get it seems. Wisconsin spent over $154 million on athletics in the 2018-2019 year. Iowa spent over $146 million. The median FBS expenditure was about $62 million. Iowa and Wisconsin are hardly working with "the least". La Tech spent $23 million.
|
|
|
NDSU
Dec 17, 2020 19:23:09 GMT -6
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 17, 2020 19:23:09 GMT -6
I don't doubt a lot of their success is coming off of tradition and believing/knowing they can win. However, they did make a transition from D-II to D-1AA in 2004. Bohl was at the head of that transition. Not that their D-II success didn't count for anything. I would also imagine (I have never been a part of something that successful) that it is more difficult than we give them credit for to maintain that kind of success. No different than say, Alabama, yes they have the best players, yes they are great year in and year out, but I think we are doing them a disservice if we imply that it is easy to maintain that kind of success. You're right, those guys have struggled away from NDSU. It takes awhile to build something though (time, something not given to pretty much any BCS coach). So maybe you are right, maybe it is just the tradition or situation up there that allows them to be successful. Just wondering if anyone has any insight! They do seem to give a great deal of credit to their S & C program. Not sure of any particulars.
|
|
|
NDSU
Dec 17, 2020 5:44:39 GMT -6
via mobile
CoachF likes this
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 17, 2020 5:44:39 GMT -6
Hello, I’m really looking for anything related NDSU anyone can share. They’ve been dominant. I’ve seen some things offensively; and I love their A gap power, but I’d be interested in their defensive structure or program notes; S&C stuff. Thanks in advance. I think being NDSU is the primary reason for their success. They have the 2nd highest winning percentage of any school in the country established after 1894 (oklahoma #1). Since 1964 they have a winning percentage of .788. More recently, since moving to Div 1 (Fcs) in 2004 they are 181-35 (.838) under 3 different coaches. The two coaches from that time who left (Bohl and Klieman) have not seen the same successes at other locations as of yet. Bohl is below .500 at Wyoming and Klieman a shade above it at Kansas State.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Dec 14, 2020 18:10:08 GMT -6
Louisiana Tech under Skip Holtz. In the last seasons (including this one) They have gone 61-39 overall, 41-21 in conference, won 6 consecutive bowl games and is playing in a 7th in a few weeks. This as one of 5 FBS schools in the state.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 14, 2020 6:15:29 GMT -6
Was there an initial thread to this thing that's missing now? Hard to follow. Yes- the original poster probably asked that his initial post be deleted
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 8, 2020 22:33:50 GMT -6
And asking the questions planck posted, or similar styled questions designed to improve the kid's football program prevent you from discussing the things you mention here how? it’s not black and white. Most of our post season discussions has nothing to do with football maybe two kids where fb will be part of post discussion. And that is probably average. Hence the anything and everything answer. And you, like plank, do not help. If the op or anybody wanted more, all they had to was ask. They did ask. You replied with nonsense. Who the hell would ask for more when that was the initial reply? I think it is about time for you to go and use your 5th screen name..
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 8, 2020 15:35:53 GMT -6
smdh that is incredibly unhelpful. Look in the mirror. I don’t treat kids all the same. Everybody has different issues. We allow kids to speak about themselves. Some kids are sleeping in cars, other kids are distraught about boy or girl friend. Others are worried about there stuff being taken by siblings. Others don’t know where there next meal is coming from. In this area many times football is just a release. Academic are a symptom. The last thing they want or need is a questionnaire. Those conversations are all over the map. And asking the questions planck posted, or similar styled questions designed to improve the kid's football program prevent you from discussing the things you mention here how?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 4, 2020 6:53:40 GMT -6
Actually matt ryan was mic’d up and clearly tells Gurley “get the first, then fall down. Don’t score” For what it’s worth I think this clip was taken out of context, probably from the timeout a couple plays earlier, because the TD was & goal, there was no first down to be had. We lost a game because our holder/superstar receiver played too much Madden and he saw the game clock running down to zero and panicked so he called for the ball before the punter was set instead of letting the clock run to zero and snapping at our leisure. Rushed kick, no good. Missed a chance at a game winning FG because our receiver fought for extra yardage instead of going down and stopping the clock with two seconds left. You can try to cover every scenario but really you’re better off covering the more likely ones and making sure they stick. Didn’t watch the game, so I can’t comment on particulars. That said, if there was no opportunity to get the first down, I question the playcall. Why not either take a knee, or run a sweep (which uses up more time generally than something more north and south)?
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 3, 2020 13:56:00 GMT -6
There have been two games recently, the Penn State-Indiana and the Atlanta Falcons game- where, instead of running time off of the clock, a runner scored a TD, allowing the opponent enough time to go down the field, score, and win. Of course, the coaches got ripped for their "lack of situational awareness". As coaches, you also know that the coaches may well have told the players the right thing to do but you can't publicly blame the player, I was interested in hearing if others have similar stories. I do: We were in a close game that was expected to e close. With a few seconds left we were on the opponents 25. We had a good kicker but needed to be a little closer to be sure. We call our last time out and tell them exactly what to do. The defense is playing soft coverage so we call for a 10 yard out route. We tell the receiver- a smart, veteran kid who's not looking to pad his stats- to just catch it and step out of bounds. We remind him again as they're going out onto the field. Of course if that's what happened there wouldn't be a point to the story. Our savvy veteran receiver runs a crisp 10 yard route, catches the ball on the 15, and turns upfield to try to score. He's tackled inbounds, end of half, no score. We go on to lose a close game. Fortunately it was pre-internet so we didn't have to hear too much about what morons we coaches are. How about you? Actually matt ryan was mic’d up and clearly tells Gurley “get the first, then fall down. Don’t score”
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 30, 2020 7:34:54 GMT -6
blb In what setting are you asking the question? A new coach coming into a program? Or someone who has been at the helm for several years and is seeing things he/she doesn’t like.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 30, 2020 1:42:28 GMT -6
You can find some “heady” plays on youtube. Things such as a kickoff that dies in bounds near sideline,,,player gets out of bounds, then with feet out of bounds reaches into field and grabs ball. Kick off out of bounds.
Also, i dont have footage but years ago in a playoff game I saw a Player throw the ball up in the air at the final horn thinking game was over and they had won. Naturally, defense picks up the fumble and scores the winning TD
Edit— i posted this without watching the “how to run out the clock” video above. That depicts basically the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Oct 29, 2020 8:41:11 GMT -6
Ya, I think he's just looking for someone to justify it. The question is about allowing the players to vote. Thanks But that is a hard thing for a 15,16,17,18 year old to do. It doesn’t seem to have very many positive outcomes either. Hell, the “best case” scenario (they vote to play and the end up victorious) then communicates that you didn’t believe in them.
|
|