|
Post by Coach Huey on May 11, 2008 19:29:25 GMT -6
We're starting to use video projectors and large screens a little differently. Imagine a projector hung from the ceiling - above your players. Empty room. The video that is playing are your offensive linemen blocking your defensive scheme. Your LB's are watching - actually practicing their key reads. Put it on DVD/VHS and let them practice it at home. Loop your plays. Do the same with QB drops, sprints and rolls on the offensive side. Lots of reps, nobody gets hurt. Now - you don't get a lot of "knowledge of results" unless a coach is standing there. But ... you could add some correction/feedback at the end of each play by pointing out the correct movement, receiver choice etc. Talk about increasing important reps! Jack Rarick Holt Football O Line Coach Braintree Athletic Systems expound on the specifics of your film study ... what angles are filmed and what is shown to the players. we film a sideline wide and an endzone tight during practice and watch/dissect during player meetings. what innovations are you doing?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 11, 2008 18:54:33 GMT -6
I sent them an email as well ... figure, what the heck .. cost is right so I'll check them out. not gonna pass up a chance to see/hear other people's ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 11, 2008 17:36:46 GMT -6
...how many guys here have "Drive-Thru's" in their state. Clarification: A "drive thru" is a garage with doors on each end where a person can drive through and buy pop, candy or beer without having to get out of their car. got 'em all over the place in texas ... but, don't think they sell "pop" or candy... ;D you know the saying ... "everything's bigger in texas"
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 11, 2008 17:23:01 GMT -6
we've had our run of this little "game". keep it in the pm's.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 11, 2008 17:16:18 GMT -6
i like the arguement that the championship will all of a sudden bring in substantially more viewers ... uh, why? the bcs championship is still just that, a game where the winner is crowned the national champion. i'm so sure more people will watch now that this new fangled championship game will crown the winner the champion ... how is that different again?
what proponents HOPE a playoff will do (money wise/ratings wise) is make the other games more "viewable" .. i.e. their ratings increase. when looking at these other bowls and their ratings (bowls such as all the other bcs bowls and some of the "larger" non-bcs bowls) it averages out to just between 7 and 9 percent ... (while championship games net 17 to 20 percent). 7 to 9 is pretty much what the nfl playoffs net ... and, the super bowl goes way above that at nearly 40 on average. so, THIS is where playoff proponents stake the bulk of their case ... WE CAN BE LIKE THE SUPER BOWL .... and bring in tons from 1 game. well, where is the data that says more people will now watch the ncaa championship game than already watches?
will regular season games see the dropoff that nfl or ncaa basketball sees compared to their respective postseasons? will this decrease in viewership have an affect on sponsorship as a whole --- and, would think this arguement of "we'll watch a championship if it MEANS something" holds true to the same type of fan so he'll likely turn off during the regular season because "the game doesn't MEAN anything"
ah, crap .. i can't believe i'm still reading this thread ... lol
no more "i think" or "my opinion", please ... try to look at NUMBERS
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 10, 2008 10:55:26 GMT -6
hold 'em back all you want in texas ... won't do much good ... there is an age limit anyway ... so, holding a kid back just means he can't play when he's a senior ... lol so, to answer the question ... NO, it doesn't happen much here. can't be 19 before sept. 1 ... if you are, then can't play. rarely, rarely, will someone be held back and be still be 18 on sept. 1 of his senior year.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 9, 2008 13:48:11 GMT -6
get enough blockers there to either a) create movement, b) body up enough to create crease, or c) bog up enough so that a runner NOW has space on perimeter/cutback.
a clogged up "pile" (got no movement) serves no purpose if their isn't a "turning" of at least one defender (crease) or the defense has overhang players (guys free from the pile) that can run down the bounce or cutback
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 9, 2008 9:57:14 GMT -6
Not to mention in a 16 team playoff you still have more games than the bowls with more opportunities for sponsorship. You can break sponsorship up in so many ways. You could have multiple sponsors per game. Also, any team not in the playoffs will still be playing in Bowl games and they would still be sponsored. I like the idea, in theory ... no doubt. Tries to get the best of both worlds. Currently there will be 32 games. In a 16 team playoff format there will be 15 playoff games ... so there would then need to be 17 more bowl games. Which ones? Which sponsor to you tell, "hey, give us the same amount of money but you now have to split time with this sponsor"? From a sponsor exposure standpoint -- how does TV and exposure during the game relate to what it is now? I'm not naive enough to think that Myles Brand and some of the conference commissioners haven't at least floated some of these ideas with various sponsors, cities, bowls, etc. I'm sure the data they received from some of these small meetings play a part in them delaying any type of plan. Why? Because fans don't really drive the market ... it is driven by sponsors puring money into the bowls/games and their willingness to achieve great return on their investment. If an insignificant amount of viewers would be added - then paying MORE money for their ads to be seen makes little financial sense for them. Will ratings go up on ALL games simply because at the end there is a true championship? Maybe, maybe not ... they have surely done some type of analysis on this using various data (while not for college football, at least models that may be similar). Will the increase in ratings for the "playoff" games decrease the ratings for the other bowl games? Who is to say, again, they probably look at some type of model for this. But, overall ... ratings for ALL games will be considered. If the cotton bowl never gets to host the championship game, what do they care if THOSE ratings go from 14 to 18? Especially if their ratings may now drop. Even if they stay the same would they care to pony up more money? Actually, this whole thing is making my head hurt. I try not to solve problems in which I only have questions and no answers ... so i'll leave it alone
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 9, 2008 8:51:18 GMT -6
So open question to all high school coaches. Would it be fine with you if instead of having your state’s playoff system, the media in your state selected two teams at their discrection to play for the title? That is what happens in the NCAA and I am shocked that high school coaches would be in favor of it. Bring home to your level and then tell me you would like it that way. I am not sure how many people with a straight face can say that. It's not that I am in favor of the current system, against a playoff, or for a playoff. All I'm trying to point out (as is coachd) is that coming up with a system now is a lot more complicated than what many across the country think. I think what people are saying here (who are not 'gung-ho' in saying "this is all you gotta' do") is that the formula has so many variables to consider that a plan can not easily be drawn up. If it is ever possible to develop a playoff system that keeps the distribution of money the same (similar to what all parties are getting now) then it very well could be passed. If that system can still generate the same amount of revenue for the sponsors/advertisers, for the individual schools, for the conferences (and don't discount the host cities, they have 'lobbyists', too) without drastically increasing the amount of expenses for those parties then we may very well be on our way to a playoff system. Now, I never really thought about if the high school system went to that ... aka a "bowl season" like D1. But, if the money were such like a bowl and the experience was such like a bowl, then it is concievable that many high schools may say, "hey, we like this 'cus we get more money" ... especially those that really aren't gonna win the whole thing anyway ... I dunno. But, bringing up points regarding the difficulty in a playoff or questioning the simplicity of a plan on this thread doesn't constitute one being in favor or against a particular plan. Merely trying to educate myself by exploring all the factors involved and the possibilities each obstacle presents.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 22:32:38 GMT -6
Not really an age restriction on the low end ... to participate in any UIL (our governing body) sanctioned athletic event the student must be in the 7th grade. There are rules for being too old and, thus, not allowed to participate. 7th grade as an age limit - and if one is over, then they must play 8th grade. Likewise, if one is over the age limit for 8th grade then they must play freshmen or higher. There is no restriction at the high school either. Freshmen can be on varsity. In fact, an 8th grader who is too old to play 8th grade ball is eligible to play varsity. It is not uncommon for a freshmen to play varsity football ... I've coached a few, most freshmen don't turn 15 until after the season anyway. Below is small sample of the rules:
Section 1478: SEVENTH AND EIGHTH GRADE ATHLETIC PLAN
(b) ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SEVENTH AND EIGHTH GRADE PARTICIPANTS. An individual may participate in League athletic competition or contests as a representative of a participant school if he/she: _(1) Has met the requirements of Section 1400 (a) regarding general eligibility: _(2) For seventh grade athletic competition, has not reached his/her 14th birthday on or before September 1, and has not enrolled in the ninth grade. _(3) For eighth grade athletic competition, has not reached his/her 15th birthday on or before September 1, and has not enrolled in the ninth grade. _(4) A student who initially entered the seventh or eighth grade the current school year and is too old for seventh or eighth grade participation may participate according to age, that is, seventh graders on the eighth grade, ninth grade, high school junior varsity or high school varsity team, and eighth graders on the ninth grade, high school junior varsity, or high school varsity team. ___(A) Four Consecutive Years. A student has only four consecutive calendar years to complete high school varsity eligibility. Exception: See Section 463. ___(B) Athletic Class. Overage junior high school students who have reached their 15th birthday on or before September 1 of that school year may be assigned to high school athletic periods if they are participating with the high school sub-varsity or varsity. Otherwise seventh and eighth grade students remain in their junior high school athletic class throughout the school year. ___(C) Full Participation Allowed. Only seventh and eighth grade students who are too old to represent the eighth grade team may participate on the high school’s athletic team. Overage junior high school students who participate with a high school ninth grade, sub-varsity or varsity team, may participate fully under the rules for high school athletes in that sport, including, but not limited to, rules governing number of games, post-season games, etc.
won't bore you with the high school age limit ... again, nothing about being too young, only too old.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 22:05:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 10:36:46 GMT -6
i'm not on either side of this ... playoff or current ... all i was trying to say is that the issue is so complex, so many different factors and people involved ... and none of us really knows the inner workings of it ... that to quickly slap together a proposal and say "this is all you gotta' do" is ludicrous. it really is complex because, while you can't satisfy everyone, you do need to try to satisfy the greater majority. there are no doubt issues and concerns that exist we haven't even uncovered. i, for one, want no part of being on any committee that would have to try to piece something like this together ... lol. other formats may very well work, not disputing that ... but, getting it set up in as favorable a fashion for the greater majority of people involved (schools, conferences, sponsors, tv, ncaa, fans, host cities, etc.) may be such a big burden that it could take a mammoth amount of planning to even approach a proposal that could be approved.
all i have are questions - no answers -- because, seems like once you answer one, 5 more popup as a result. there is going to be a domino affect and finding out which dominoes to keep, which ones to pull, which ones to let fall, etc. is extremely complicated and complex. so much so that a group of coaches here aren't going to be able to solve it ... just continue to talk in cirlces because 1) we don't know all the ins-outs and 2) it is just that complex
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 9:23:49 GMT -6
got it ... great solution ... get the supreme court involved ... case solved.
just another question... how many sponsors are involved currently? with fewer games will there be the same number of sponsors involved? at the same prices? only so many minutes of commercials, ya know ... will fedex pay the same money they pay now but have to show time with outback? will fedex now pay more money so that outback doesn't have commercials being run ... i.e. basically pay more for same return in essence?
even with the courts getting involved in saying "you must have a playoff" ... we can't answer everything simply ... it is complicated, and not just by those who truly want it ... but by everyone because sponsors are businessmen and want good return. schools need to understand bottom line of expenses vs revenue.
again, one solution, 3 more questions.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 8:55:03 GMT -6
i'm not proposing a plan ... all i'm saying is it is silly to say "here is all you got to do ......" without having a little more thought than "people will watch" or "everyone gets a fair shot" ...
all i wish to see from those with these grand schemes is specifically ..... SPECIFICALLY ... how the money is generated and specifically .... SPECIFICALLY ... how the money is distributed.
what makes a sponsor wish to drop significantly more money into a game when they will now be sharing that timeslot with possibly up to 4 other games? can they still get the same return? get specific on WHEN the games are played... what does a sponsor get exactly? broadcast on all the games that day? for the same fee as before? will their exposure be any more than they get now? and, by exposure i mean number of ads relative to the other ads ALSO needing to be run that day.
the ncaa has sponsors, too ... and don't think for a minute the economic impact a sponsor has on that decision ... i.e. those bowl weeks generate serious cash for cities ... cities in which sponsors are located .... which means that the bowl system may be (may be, now ... haven't seen all the suggestions on how the playoff system can be but won't dispute logical data) better for a sponsor ... so, said sponsor leans on ncaa to keep the current system.
you see, with each "idea" or "point" we discuss, 3 more get discovered. this is truly the most complex thing in all of sports at this time. with the longstanding "tradition" of it ... and by tradition i mean .... "hey, i'm the big 10 and i get lots of money from our traditional ways" ... lol
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 8:26:56 GMT -6
before anyone else has a 'solution' ... think about ALL the factors. all i see are oneside things like schedule, # of teams, how teams are chosen .... we're focusing on the games themselves and not including incentives for sponsors, procedures for sponsors, incentives for schools, payouts for each round, each game, how much money does a conference get .... HOW IS MONEY NOW GENERATED AND (more importantly) HOW IS IT NOW DISTRIBUTED ..
shortsighted 'proposals' leave us right here... arguing over "no, the top 8 should go.... NO, the top 16 should go .... NO, conference champs plus the bowls" .... it's comical
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 8:22:02 GMT -6
so, you want to dissolve the major conferences? i'm not following ... if you are georgia, florida, lsu, tennessee ... you probably need to leave the SEC because i'm pretty sure they are already doing all they can to compete for a national title in the recruiting, game planning, overall decision making process of their program. so, all 4 not likely to get in every year so where is the incentive to stay in the SEC now? if i'm lsu why don't i just try to join the sun belt? schedule some sec teams for non-conference then cakewalk through to the playoffs... over time, all the big conferences dissolve, spread out over the country into the other conferences and we get the true 16 best teams in the country ...
is that the goal of the courts? dissolve the major conferences? is that your goal?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 7:46:18 GMT -6
so in your system, the big 12 gets the same amount of teams playing postseason play (roughly every year) and gets the same amount of money (at least)? all this while essentially losing 24 games for the conference?
OR
is it only 16 teams, period for postseason play? so you propose to take away postseason payouts and opportunities for schools?
SO
the sunbelt winner and the mac winner should ALWAYS be included even though it will never workout that the 2nd best team from the Pac-10, SEC, Big 12, ACC, Big East, Big 10 can? with only 4 wildcards then coming in 2nd in the Big 12 can very well mean nothing but winning the sun belt gets you in .... justify THAT to the BCS conferences ...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 7:22:01 GMT -6
Please tell me "coach boy" how you being a coach makes you qualified to comment more intelligently on the economic or social impact of bowls vs. a playoff system that's never been tried? it is tried, d2, d3, d1aa (fcs) ... none of those schools get near the money as the others. in fact, the only money received is that for expenses - and they limit the number of things which can be included (players, personnel, travel, etc.). good strawman tactic. when nothing factual can be argued, one questions the validity of the other party. divert attention from validating your own points by simply questioning the background of the other side. FYI ... unless you take ONLY conference champions, then there will ALWAYS be an arbitrary computer ranking system of some sort to determine who actually makes the playoffs. And, if you ONLY take the conference champions to your "playoff bracket" (and rest go to the 'bowls') , well tell me how someone like North Texas winning the Sun Belt Conference deserves to be in the playoffs more than Auburn which may come in 2nd in the SEC? oops, too bad Auburn, going to the Citrus Bowl while North Texas reaps the benefits (because there HAS to be a monetary benefit to playoff system or we would have one) of getting blasted in first round by Oklahoma (while Missouri plays Auburn for 'citrus' money). elaborate here on exactly how this sponsorship will be ponied up? how will it increase again? how will a school be compensated if they play 1 playoff game? what if they play 2 playoff games? what if they 'only' make the bowl portion of the postseason? brass tacks here. spitting out statements and i'm not following. not disputing, but make us see it? divulge more of the plan...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 8, 2008 7:07:50 GMT -6
so, auburn ... can you answer any of my questions? haven't seen you really elaborate on your point other than to divert attention from it by asking someone else to "prove it" or to engage in an arguement of sorts with them while not fully disclosing any details. i'm totally unconcerned with the opinion that fans want this, colleges want that. want in one hand and ... well...
what i'm concerned with is the actual details involved in this playoff system. i've asked questions regarding this (and have a ton more). you seem passionate about this little topic so i would expect you to have thought it out quite a bit. your being involved in a rebuttal shows belief that it can work, which leads me to believe you have an understanding of what is currently involved and how (generally, of course) things could be distributed within your proposal.
what are some of the brass tacks here?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 18:43:35 GMT -6
Y'Allbonics (Southern Slang)
ALL - (noun) - A petroleum-based lubricant. Usage: "I sure hope my brother from Jawjuh puts all in my pickup truck."
ARE - (noun) - A colorless, odorless gas containing oxygen. Usage: "He cain't breathe ... give 'im some ARE!"
BAMMER - (noun) - The state west of Jawjuh. Capitol is Berminhayam. Usage: "A tornader jes went through Bammer an' left $20,000,000 in improvements."
BARD - (verb) - Past tense of the infinitive "to borrow." Usage: "My brother bard my pickup truck."
BARE - (noun) - An alcoholic beverage made of barley, hops, and yeast. Usage: "Ah thank ah'll have a bare."
BOB WAR - (noun) - A sharp, twisted cable. Usage: "Boy, stay away from that bob war fence."
CHEER - (adverb) In this place. Usage: "Just set that bare rat cheer".
DID - (adjective) - Not alive. Usage: "He's did, Jim."
FAR - (noun) - A conflagration. Usage: "If my brother from Jawjuh don't change the all in my pickup truck, that thing's gonna catch far."
FARN - (adjective) - Not domestic. Usage: "I cuddint unnerstand a wurd he sed ... must be from some farn country."
FAT - (noun), (verb) - A battle or combat; to engage in battle or combat. Usage: "You younguns keep fat'n, n' ah'm gonna whup y'uh."
GUBMINT - (noun) - A bureaucratic institution. Usage: "Them gubmint boys shore is ignert."
HAZE - A contraction. Usage: "Is Bubba smart?" "Nah ... haze ignert. He ain't thanked but a minnit'n 'is laf."
HEIDI - (noun) - Greeting.
HIRE YEW - Complete sentence. Remainder of greeting. Usage: "Heidi, Hire yew?"
IGNERT - (adjective) - Not smart. See "Arkansas native." Usage: "Them Bammer boys sure are ignert!"
JAWJUH - (noun) - The state north of Florida. Capitol is Lanner. Usage: "My brother from Jawjuh bard my pickup truck and took it to Lanner."
JEW HERE - (noun) and (verb) Contraction. Usage: "Jew here that my brother from Jawjuh got a job with that bob war fence cump'ny?"
MUNTS - (noun) - A calendar division. Usage: "My brother from Jawjuh bard my pickup truck, and I ain't herd from him in munts."
RANCH - (noun)- Tool used for tight'nin' bolts. Usage: "I thank I left my ranch in the back of that pickup truck my brother from Jawjuh bard a few munts ago."
RATS - (noun) - Entitled power or privilege. Usage: "We Southerners are willin' to fat for are rats."
RETARD - (verb) - To stop working. Usage: "My grampaw retard at age 65."
SEED -(verb) - Past tense of "to see". Usage: "I ain't never seed New York City".
TAR - (noun) - A rubber wheel. Usage: "Gee, I hope that brother of mine from Jawjuh don't git a flat tar in my pickup truck."
THANK - (verb) - Cognitive process. Usage: "Ah thank ah'll have a bare."
TIRE - (noun) - A tall monument. Usage: "Lord willin' and the creek don't rise, I sure do hope to see that Eiffel Tire in Paris sometime."
VIEW - Contraction (verb) and pronoun. Usage: "I ain't never seed New York City ... view?"
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 18:32:02 GMT -6
Money...I don't understand None us TRULY understands the money issue ... which is why I find it so laughable when I hear fans clamor, "All you have to do is take the top 8 teams and blah, blah, blah" .... really? That's all we have to do? Well, why didn't they think of that?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 15:44:05 GMT -6
good posts by both brophy and cq ... and, when cq says it's not set up for the fans he is referring to the TV fans ... those that don't travel anyway. so, sure, why would I care if they gotta play another game ... bring it on, right? haha.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 13:50:17 GMT -6
auburn, seriously ... telling someone to "prove it" on their viewpoint doesn't validate your viewpoint.
1> do you know how the money flows now? 2> if so, how can you lay out the structure for the 'new' system? 3> where is the investment opportunities for ALL sponsors? are they the same? will they have the same return? 4> along the lines of #3, how can a sponsor get all it's return when there is no longer the same "bowl week" atmosphere in which they make pitches, etc.? a team can't travel to a "bowl" 3 straight weeks for this. so, likely that if your system is run, then the bowl becomes a game ... not a week. will sponsors pump THE SAME AMOUNT of money into that game as they do for the bowl? 5> how do you pick the 64 teams for the 'tournament'? does qualifying for the playoffs mean the same amount of monetary gain for each school regardless if they are in the 8-team playoff or just in a 'bowl'? 6> Does a team get more money if they win a playoff game, and thus, get to play in another game? Here may lie a major sticking point ... because if i can't (as a school) get the same for 1 playoff game in this scenario as i can for a bowl game (in current scenario) where is the ultimate incentive? if i get same amount for 1 bowl game, what do i get if i play ANOTHER game after that? More money? will THAT much more money truly be generated to offset my costs?
I could go on. i'm not the guy with the answers ... THEREFORE ... i'm not the guy proposing any solution. But, these are legitimate questions that must be addressed and unless we understand the total workings of the NCAA, the sponsorships, the money intake, money distribution then we can't. just knowing how to put together a 16 team field or whatever, crap, that's nothing .... Just saying "there will be tons of money" ... isn't moving us anywhere? How is the money generated? How is the money dispersed? Incentive for sponsor? Incentive for school?
All schools want a playoff? really? really? what was hawaii's take this year? you think they get that with a playoff system? maybe they do, depending on how it is divided and laid out .... but that brings back to the same questions i've already mentioned that need to be thought through.... how?
can't think like a fan. need to think like a businessman. investment vs return? current vs new?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 10:51:57 GMT -6
for you fans ... ask yourself, really ...
does boise state REALLY want a playoff system? the recruiting benefits of going to a bowl are incredible, almost priceless. pull of a great year and the buzz about you being "snubbed" for the championship is the best thing that can happen to your recruiting efforts. now, if you had a playoff system and one year the make it 2 rounds deep but most years they get bounced early then where will the effect be on recruiting? take gonzaga in basketball ... have a few good years sprinkled here there, very solid program. but, never gonna win a national championship. what if, though, basketball had a bowl system? could they see increased benefits in recruiting because the always go to a bowl, usually win the peach bowl, and occassionally get thrown into the mix about being in a bcs bowl.
quit thinking like john q. fan and think about EVERYTHING involved in this. there are so many factors in play that it is nearly impossible to dissect each one and then develop the best plan in the world ... but, feel free to keep telling people how the conference champs can play in this round and blah, blah, blah
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 7, 2008 10:44:34 GMT -6
quit coming up with "scheduling" scenarios or playoff "formats" ... it's NOT ABOUT THAT ... someone come up with how the money will be distributed that is not significantly less going in the pockets of the BCS conferences... THIS IS THE PROBLEM so, for all of you with the "answers" ... what are some ways to: a) continue to generate the same amount of money or continue to increase it --- how can we handle all the games being televised (and thus ensure a tv commercial spot for sponsor)... how can a title sponsor (like a bowl sponsor) still get as much "bang for their buck" when they no longer have that bowl? b) for those that want to have a playoff and still have the "lesser bowls" .. how do you convince fed ex that they don't get to be a title sponsor anymore because you are going to a playoff but chic-fil-a still gets to put on a bowl? how does sponsorship/advertising equate in the system you propose? ... i.e. i pay same amount in ad fees AND still get the top return on investment (like being a title sponsor) c) is money "earned" any differently (by the schools) ... i.e. you get so much per game? so much per appearance? how does the money from the "lesser" bowls figure into it (for those with that system). is it financially better to participate in a bowl or get beat in first round of playoffs? will fewer teams from each conference no longer get the "bigger" bowls (and, thus, paydays) due to the playoff system (and playoff with lesser bowls system)? the list can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on ...
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 6, 2008 23:19:00 GMT -6
change up the routine, like was mentioned...
try letting off the reins some ... then, try pulling on the bit more and going to the whip ( to use a horse racing analogy )
hardest thing is to identify why the slump exists ... are we working them too hard in practice and dampening the spirit? are we too loosey-goosey in practice and not focusing them enough? is there a problem in morale due to some conflict? have they lost interest or the passion for the game? are they placing too much stress on themselves?
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 4, 2008 18:39:42 GMT -6
i'm not trying to be 'revolutionary' ... i'm not looking for 'the next best thing' ... because, a play is just that one play. a scheme is just that, a mere scheme. playcalling, practice procedures, training methods, program policies, etc. these are things i'm talking about. don't be 'revolutionary' in them (i.e. how can I "change" the game) just be BETTER at them. that is what i'm saying. focus on getting better at calling the right play at the right time. focus on repping the properly needed plays more efficiently & effectively in practice. focus on establishing better locker room chemistry, etc. being a "revolutionary" not likely to win me any games... being "better", though, likely will. so, THAT is what one should probably focus on. and .. hey, guess what ... sometimes, in that focus on simply being more efficient/effective we stumble across something that someone else sees as "revolutionary" ... just worry that when you go looking for the revolutionary magic bullet, you lose sight of those things which really matter. i mean, if i gave you "the" play to run. well, you still gotta teach it right, you still gotta call it at the right time, etc., etc. so ... seems to me that we probably ought to focus on THAT rather than looking for that magic bullet.
what i'm trying to say is that "revolutionizing" the game isn't the goal. getting better at playing the game should be.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 4, 2008 16:02:10 GMT -6
ah ... so many coaches think it's about being "revolutionary" ...
we all got great plays, so why does one team win and the other lose? ...
maybe we should focus more on HOW we practice, WHAT we practice, WHAT drills we do, HOW we train, WHEN we call certain plays, and WHY we call certain plays... etc.
don't focus on your schemes -- focus on your methodology ... THAT is revolutionary ... haha
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 1, 2008 17:54:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on May 1, 2008 10:21:22 GMT -6
Seriously ... do we need to discuss the reason behind why there isn't a playoff?
When they figure out how to divide the money so that none of the BCS conferences LOSE money from what they are getting now, it will happen. Otherwise, all the "scenarios" and "formats" are meaningless... because it's not about that. It's about the distribution of money. Not the total amount of money, but the distribution. No ACC school or Big 12 schools is going to give up a % of their current intake just so the "fans" can have a playoff. Coaches may talk this way, but the presidents and administration and conference officials WILL NOT allow their school or conference to reduce it's post-season money so that other schools can be brought into the mix.
When they find a way to distribute the money (not 'fairly', mind you but such that the BCS guys aren't getting less) then a playoff may likely follow.
|
|