|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 10, 2015 17:34:52 GMT -6
Why not see if the local power company can get you a truck with one of those elevated buckets. Someone could drive it on the track and just follow the ball, getting free advertising in the process. They could elevate you during the series of the side of the ball you call and lower you down during timeouts and when you're not calling the game.
You're welcome
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 10, 2015 16:42:46 GMT -6
Please do this, take video of it, and post it on here.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 9, 2015 19:55:28 GMT -6
John Wristen at CSU Pueblo. Former CU, UCLA assistant coach, got the HC job at CSU in 2007. Had no program, no stadium, no nothing, first game was 2008, and just won the DII national championship. Got to have some ideas on organization, building from nothing to champs, player evaluation, how to plan for success and then execute. I had no idea CSU-P came from nothing. Incredible.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 3, 2015 18:24:54 GMT -6
Yes, but that's something that is independent of being a football coach. I stated "if you can't have a hobby BECAUSE you coach high school football." I assume you don't have time for a hobby because of your family responsibilities, not because of your job. I'm not sure it would be any different if you were a computer programmer or an auto mechanic. You are correct. I was pretty much done at the second ultrasound I can't imagine man. I have one two year old and fight to keep my head above water. Does your wife work?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 3, 2015 15:07:35 GMT -6
If you can't have a hobby because you coach high school football then you: A) blow at time management and aren't very efficient B) do way too much stuff in the offseason (seriously, what do you do that's so time consuming from December-August?) Hell, head college coaches find time to get away for a round of golf a few times a month in the summer. Or C) have two sets of twins ages 6 and 4. Yes, but that's something that is independent of being a football coach. I stated "if you can't have a hobby BECAUSE you coach high school football." I assume you don't have time for a hobby because of your family responsibilities, not because of your job. I'm not sure it would be any different if you were a computer programmer or an auto mechanic.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 3, 2015 14:41:59 GMT -6
If you can't have a hobby because you coach high school football then you: A) blow at time management and aren't very efficient B) do way too much stuff in the offseason (seriously, what do you do that's so time consuming from December-August?) Hell, head college coaches find time to get away for a round of golf a few times a month in the summer. That's true for the offseason but what about inseason? August to November (December if you're lucky), that's a third of the year/ I've skipped practice to go play golf before. I need to get away from it sometimes. signed, Steve Spurrier
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 3, 2015 7:43:28 GMT -6
If you can't have a hobby because you coach high school football then you:
A) blow at time management and aren't very efficient B) do way too much stuff in the offseason (seriously, what do you do that's so time consuming from December-August?)
Hell, head college coaches find time to get away for a round of golf a few times a month in the summer.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Jan 1, 2015 10:07:04 GMT -6
Amen brophy.
Love this place.
Thanks Chris and the other fellas that put in the time and effort to make this place what it is.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 25, 2014 13:31:51 GMT -6
Colleges should be forced to take all that alternative uniform money and give it to their home state high schools that can barely afford to buy one set of jerseys. Just sayin'. Our president agrees
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 24, 2014 8:23:49 GMT -6
Holy buried thread
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 23, 2014 8:15:25 GMT -6
Whoever's buying I hear @dcohio is buying!!!! Duece Nope, it's the softball coach he had to split the weights stipend with.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 20, 2014 18:33:46 GMT -6
Serious answer: Bill Walsh- what was different about the way practiced and taught the game, which led to such great execution?
Somewhat serious answer: Mike Price- do you wish you'd have used a personal credit card instead of a university issued credit card for that hooker?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 20, 2014 8:06:00 GMT -6
Also, not a coach but I can't imagine more fun that beers with Art Donovan. Those guys in the '50's and '60's really enjoyed playing the game. On that note, a night out with Paul Hornung would have ended in some "highlight reel" material
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 19, 2014 15:29:01 GMT -6
living or deceased, who would it be and what is the first question you would ask him?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 17, 2014 18:06:30 GMT -6
Any particular region?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 13, 2014 8:42:57 GMT -6
I dont. Our head coach does. Sent from my VS980 4G using proboards You never laugh and joke with your players?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 12, 2014 10:29:42 GMT -6
Brophy- part of my issue with it is that it does not reward to making the post-season. It only rewards for making the quarterfinals. I think if it was based on making the post-season, I'd be a lot better with it. Like I've mentioned, you can have a really good season, do a really good job, and not make the quarterfinals for a myriad of reasons. Making the post-season would be a solid benchmark, because that generally means you're running a competitive program. Ram- sure, if you look at is as "free money" then I guess you're right. However, as I mentioned, this a county this is way behind in terms of facilities and coaching stipends. Part of my frustration with this is that I feel this money would be much better allocated in a different way such as upgrading facilities and increasing overall coaching stipends. If you're an assistant coach busting your balls for $1700 a year, then the volleyball coach across the county makes more in a bonus than you do in an entire year, it's maddening. So are you saying that none of your players receive outside help? Camps? Training etc? You seem to be arguing its a dumb policy because other coaches have offseason help from leagues AAU etc. Perhaps you should see if you can run your strength training program through school or summer school and get paid for that. Of course I'm not saying that, but since you brought it up, every coach on this board knows that the outside help that most get as a football coach is minimal. Outside of QB or kicker training, these "camps" are pretty much showcases and moneymakers. I seem to be arguing it's dumb for multiple reasons, you just chose to pick that one out and focus on it.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 12, 2014 8:04:28 GMT -6
If you can't laugh and joke in this profession, you won't make it very long.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 12, 2014 7:44:10 GMT -6
Brophy- part of my issue with it is that it does not reward to making the post-season. It only rewards for making the quarterfinals. I think if it was based on making the post-season, I'd be a lot better with it. Like I've mentioned, you can have a really good season, do a really good job, and not make the quarterfinals for a myriad of reasons. Making the post-season would be a solid benchmark, because that generally means you're running a competitive program.
Ram- sure, if you look at is as "free money" then I guess you're right. However, as I mentioned, this a county this is way behind in terms of facilities and coaching stipends. Part of my frustration with this is that I feel this money would be much better allocated in a different way such as upgrading facilities and increasing overall coaching stipends.
If you're an assistant coach busting your balls for $1700 a year, then the volleyball coach across the county makes more in a bonus than you do in an entire year, it's maddening.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 12, 2014 6:15:12 GMT -6
This is dumb on so many levels. you keep saying this, but I must be missing how you're actually supporting why its so dumb. You're against the overall intent of this, but you're not against stipend increases. Rage on, I guess I just assumed that everyone could understand why it is a dumb setup for football coaches. I'll try to explain it though. The bonuses are not always reflective of a job well done, but solely based on an end result in which many variables are out of your control. I think it would be much more appropriate to allocate these funds in other ways to keep coaches content. I do not think this model is going to accomplish the objective of keeping coaches from leaving the district. It also treats other sports equal to football, which they are clearly not in terms of time commitment and how much money they make for the school. These are the reasons why it is dumb. It's basically paying teacher bonuses for high student test scores and treating all classrooms equally. There are many reasons, good reasons, why those have always been shot down. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 11, 2014 22:15:54 GMT -6
brophy and spos
If you go back and read my original post, you'll notice I said the district is doing this as a way to KEEP coaches. That's why I think it's stupid, not that bonuses are stupid. Yes, it is a bonus. Yes, it is better than nothing. However, my original point was that it's going to possibly run more coaches off than it will keep around.
Let's say you're the HC at a program in the county that has historically struggled. You've got a demographic of kids that gives you low numbers and not a lot of talent. You coach your balls off and get to 8-2 one year, get to the playoffs, and get beat in the 2nd round. This is the best season in school history, but you don't get a dime of bonus money for it because you didn't reach the quarterfinals.
Meanwhile, across the county, golf "coach" Larry Whistledick has 3 country clubbers that are scratch golfers on his team. He doesn't even come up to the school all summer, sees the kids for 2 months out of the year, does no offseason development with them, and his "coaching" is entering scores into a spreadsheet so he can rank the players. His three country clubbers lead his team to a state championship and he walks away with a $2500 check.
If you're that coach I mentioned first, why would this keep your around? It's going to keep some coaches around, but not the ones that were going to leave anyways.
If you want to keep coaches around, use these financial resources bump up all coaching salaries and improve facilities, not some {censored} bonus system that is based on so many variables outside of the head coaches control. This is dumb on so many levels.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 11, 2014 14:09:08 GMT -6
As far as #2 goes, you're not paying based on a "winning or losing record." You're treating the a possible 11-1 team that loses in the second round (a round before the quarterfinals) the same as an 0-10 team. With as jacked up as our playoff system is down here, you can be a damn good team but matchup with a beast in the 2nd round of the playoffs because of nothing more than geography. Then your issue is really with your playoff system, then, not the money. This is bonus money, not guaranteed, so any advancement in the playoffs is over-and-above what your base pay is. If your team is lucky enough to advance past the semis, then your coaching staff deserves a reward above regular season performance....whoopie! So you're against rewarding performing coaching staffs? or are you just upset with how the bracket is tiered? If the playoff brackets were bracket favorably, would you be for coaches receiving bonuses? The argument you've presented thus far has been difficult to follow The playoff system is far from perfect, but that's a completely different issue. My issues/arguments with the system were outlined in the original post. You brought up the idea of differentiating between winning and losing teams, not me. I simply brought up the fact that you can have a great season, do a damn good job coaching, and not make a dime with this incentive system. In order to do that, I had to mention the playoff system. Also, this doesn't reward "staffs", which is another issue with it. It goes on the head coaches check, and our HC just happens to think it's pretty damn stupid and is going to use this bonus to give back to his coaches a little bit. If all coaches on staff got a little bonus money, it'd be much more tolerable. And yes, I'd still be upset with the system is we happened to get a favorable draw because it goes a lot deeper than just the "quarterfinal or bust" issue (again, which is outlined in the original post).
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 11, 2014 13:28:12 GMT -6
1) It treats all sports and coaching equally, which it clearly isn't valid point, considering the amount of hours worked. However, there is VALUE to schools to being playoff contenders (in any sport), so why not incentivize it. Its like asking if Nick Saban is worth $5M/ year. Well, if he can bring National Championships to Alabama, that exposure and prestige is invaluable. 2) Paying for wins and losses is a very shortsighted, particularly in the playoffs and in a sport where the ball bounces funny ways we do this in Louisiana. Coming from other states that do not do this....I found it a pleasant incentive. Why treat a winning record and a losing record the same, when they're not? As to your last point (shortage of money), this is all true IF IT CAN BE AFFORDED. If your point is simply to cut budgets for athletic salaries because we simply can't afford it. You have numbers to back that up, so there is really nothing to argue there. However, if the money IS there, then why not incentivize? As far as #2 goes, you're not paying based on a "winning or losing record." You're treating the a possible 11-1 team that loses in the second round (a round before the quarterfinals) the same as an 0-10 team. With as jacked up as our playoff system is down here, you can be a damn good team but matchup with a beast in the 2nd round of the playoffs because of nothing more than geography.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 11, 2014 11:33:51 GMT -6
Although I've never heard of bonus pay as an incentive for on field performance, I would definitely not be against it. Also, I don't think it's a stupid idea. Maybe not thought through all that well, but still not a bad gesture. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using proboards You're not against only head coaches getting bonuses and a girls volleyball or golf coach being treated the same as a football coach?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 11, 2014 10:53:32 GMT -6
I've never even heard of bonus pay like that I have, at the college level where you can actually control the players that you get.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 11, 2014 10:34:19 GMT -6
you're upset over the incentive pay or you're upset that other sports are included in it? I really do appreciate them "trying" but I'm upset for the following reasons: 1) It treats all sports and coaching equally, which it clearly isn't 2) Paying for wins and losses is a very shortsighted, particularly in the playoffs and in a sport where the ball bounces funny ways 3) Our county is way behind in terms of athletic facilities and the overall financial commitment to athletics, how about taking this money and increasing the overall coaching stipends and/or putting it to use to upgrade facilities? For the record, my stipend as a coordinator with 10 years of coaching experience is about $2800 and it is taxed as a bonus (damn near 40%). I make about $1700 coaching football after taxes are taken out. So, the girls volleyball coach at the school across the county makes in a bonus what I make in an entire year. Fvcking volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 11, 2014 7:47:26 GMT -6
Our county is a very good place to live and teach. The board and administration know this, so coaching pay and commitment to athletics sucks. Our county has been losing really good coaches to other districts because of this. In order to keep good coaches in the county, the new county AD has proposed and "passed" (not sure how in the hell it passed considering everyone I talked to thought it was the dumbest proposal they've ever heard of) a "performance based pay" system. It's pretty much structured like this:
State quarterfinals- $1000 bonus to the head coach State semifinals- $1500 bonus to the head coach State finals- $2000 bonus to the head coach State championship- $2500 bonus to the head coach
Of course, this money is taxed as a bonus at around 40%.
This applies to all fall sports. So, the volleyball coach that coaches rich white girls for two months a year and let's the club coaches develop them the rest of the year is going to get a $2500 bonus. The golf coach that has 6 country club members on his team is going to get $2000. He sees them for 2 months, punches some numbers in a calculator so he can rank his players and calls that "coaching." Meanwhile, football coaches are working their d!cks off year round in the weight room, summer conditioning, etc and don't get a f-ing dime unless you go to the state quarterfinals. We fortunately did go to the quarterfinals so we're not left out of this stupid a$$ deal and our HC is unselfish enough to throw a staff Christmas party with the money, but this is the most ignorant bonus policy I've ever seen.
I want to break things right now.
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 9, 2014 21:10:44 GMT -6
If you're using Hudl to create this highlight, how are you choosing your own songs?
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Dec 8, 2014 19:56:22 GMT -6
Congrats, you motorboatin sonofab!tch you
|
|
|
Post by emptybackfield on Nov 26, 2014 17:13:17 GMT -6
Any team without Andre Krimm (Sinbad, Necessary Roughness) on the DL is not worth the bandwidth it took to post it.
|
|