|
Post by s73 on Nov 25, 2016 18:22:20 GMT -6
No need for change. If their was a better way to do it I'm sure they would've have thought of it by now. I'm sure they've already identified all the pitfalls to overturning a games outcome that we haven't even thought of & have solid reasons for not doing so. Leave the game alone. First, loved your must resist post. As a stated before, I think coachd5085 way is the fairest, but not convinced it is the "best" idea. But I would not have a problem with it. I do respect your position and your views on it. But the above highlighted I do have a problem with. Are you completely against change? Do you honestly think "they" have thought of everything? That seems either closed minded or too trusting to me. And then you contradict yourself later with the RPO post. I agree with you on RPO's (and GPO's - haha - inside joke on me). Enforce the rule or fix it or figure out how to enforce it. But I do disagree that just because one issue is bigger means that we can't try and fix another issue. "Just when you think you're out they pull you back in". No Silky, I am not totally opposed to change. However, I truly believe that if we extend the current set boundary it will only lead to pushing more boundaries. For example, some team gets screwed at half time and that becomes the point differential in the game. Now they want to appeal the game. It's just human nature. We cannot help ourselves. We just can't. Someone will always want to make another change. Also, as I explained above, I think that 1 play/call NEVER decides a game. Hence, I think its's best to leave well enough alone. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 25, 2016 13:32:54 GMT -6
Alright dude, agree to disagree. This will be my last post on this b/c it's getting very "who gets the last word" kind of thing. So I will go another direction & give another reason why I think this should not be a concern, at least presently. I'm now going to most likely pi$$ off 75% of the board but here goes. This whole thing we keep talking about is by both of our concessions extremely rare. Let's talk about something that is extremely common - RPO's. You want to talk about a misapplication, non application or flat out disregard for the rules, there you go. I've seen hundreds of posts on here about guys saying, don't worry about it, man downfield never gets called. And you know what? They're right. Lost a game last year that almost cost us our play off berth b/c my DB saw the guard come downfield & block our backer so he came up and gave up a TD on a post right behind him. My point in all of this? Let's take care of the common issues before we worry about he extremely uncommon ones. I'm an UC running guy whose at a disadvantage (b/c running an RPO UC is almost impossible) b/c other guys are willing to take advantage of the inability to enforce an EXTREMELY enforceable rule. This non application has unfairly I would argue, determined hundreds of outcomes of games annually all across the country at multiple levels of football. While the issue that has taken 3 pages of discussion now almost never happens. That's it. I'm out. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I believe we have WAY BIGGER fish to fry than the game in question & clearly they can't fix both right now b/c they can't even seem to fix one of these issues. In fact, in regards to RPO's I haven't even heard anybody say any fixing is needed. It's almost like, yeah they can't keep up with it so do it. Who cares about the rules? Let's see the forest first before we worry about one tree. A sapling at that. As always, JMO. Coach, the only reason it is "last word" is because with each successive post you bring up things that are not part of the discussion.I am obviously failing to convey the difference between a misapplication of the rule and a judgement made by the official. Here again, you are talking about RPOs. A ref not calling an RPO is not a misapplication of the rule. That is the official either not seeing the penalty or seeing the play and making a judgement that it is not a penalty. Those are judgements. Not calling illegal man downfield is the same as complete/incomplete, inbounds out of bounds, spotting the ball, holding, not holding, made/missed kick etc. The type of situation being discussed here would be akin to your opponent scoring a touchdown, being awarded 12 points instead of 6. As ridiculous as it sounds, that is more closely related to what happened in this case than someone missing lineman downfield on an RPO. I can respect anyone's opinion to say the idea is a good one or a poor one. Nothing wrong with that. I just think you have done a poor job explaining why, since in every example you have provided you have supported your points with things that don't apply. As for the forest/trees I think that is precisely why it could be easily written into various state association and NCAA by laws. It is very specific, it is not overarching , and very simple to enforce. fighting........urge.........to.......reply.........must .......step......away.......from......key......board.......d@mn you......5085.......must....fight urge to.......get........last.....word.........closing.......computer.......now.....
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 25, 2016 13:01:10 GMT -6
I'm not saying you don't make good points. What I am saying is I'm very skeptical about making that concession not leading to more push for more concessions and then you have a circus on your hands. The game in question for example, yes the rule was misapplied. However, as I always tell my players, it's our job as players and coaches to not allow the refs to decide the game b/c you never know which way that goes. I have seen a replay of the game & it has convinced me not to set up a situation to over turn calls. First, PN scored w/ about 3 minutes left before all of this stuff happened & that was called back. Hard to tell if it was a good call or not, I'm sure that could've become a HUGE point of contention had the judge overturned the game. Everybody always remembers "the call" but nobody remembers "the call before the call". Yes, I understand you don't want it to be about a call only when the game is decided by a call. MY POINT is none of that happens in a vacuum. Certain chains of events lead to other chains of events, etc. Secondly, & I HATE 2nd guessing coaches but the facts are the facts, the Fenwick coach started kneeing the ball too early & could not effectively run out the clock. NOBODY is talking about this. All he had to do was run 1 play, the time differential of getting off the pile and spotting the ball would've made up for the 3 second discrepancy and the game would've been over. He has responsibility in this. MY point in all of this is that a FB game is NEVER about 1 play and it's never about 1 call ever. No matter the appearance it just isn't. Like you said above this is a rare circumstance, I rebut that with IT IS a rare occurrence. No need for change. If their was a better way to do it I'm sure they would've have thought of it by now. I'm sure they've already identified all the pitfalls to overturning a games outcome that we haven't even thought of & have solid reasons for not doing so. Leave the game alone. We will have to disagree about the ensuing circus. From my perspective, it seems just as cut and dry. 1) Was it a misapplication of a rule and not a discrepancy in judgement? 2) Did this misapplication of the rule continue a game that should have been ended, and during that continuation a change in the outcome? I don't see how that creates a circus. I agree with some aspects of your comments about things not happening in a vacuum. Anyone who has read any of my posts on helmet stickers can see that, but that does not mean that the results of one play does not change the outcome. Because things don't happen in a vacuum, you can't logically point to a single play and say "that cost us the game" or "that won us the game". However, the results of a play certainly can change the result. Saying that "they" (whoever "they" is) would have thought of something does not seem like a reason for inaction. Alright dude, agree to disagree. This will be my last post on this b/c it's getting very "who gets the last word" kind of thing. So I will go another direction & give another reason why I think this should not be a concern, at least presently. I'm now going to most likely pi$$ off 75% of the board but here goes. This whole thing we keep talking about is by both of our concessions extremely rare. Let's talk about something that is extremely common - RPO's. You want to talk about a misapplication, non application or flat out disregard for the rules, there you go. I've seen hundreds of posts on here about guys saying, don't worry about it, man downfield never gets called. And you know what? They're right. Lost a game last year that almost cost us our play off berth b/c my DB saw the guard come downfield & block our backer so he came up and gave up a TD on a post right behind him. My point in all of this? Let's take care of the common issues before we worry about he extremely uncommon ones. I'm an UC running guy whose at a disadvantage (b/c running an RPO UC is almost impossible) b/c other guys are willing to take advantage of the inability to enforce an EXTREMELY enforceable rule. This non application has unfairly I would argue, determined hundreds of outcomes of games annually all across the country at multiple levels of football. While the issue that has taken 3 pages of discussion now almost never happens. That's it. I'm out. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. I believe we have WAY BIGGER fish to fry than the game in question & clearly they can't fix both right now b/c they can't even seem to fix one of these issues. In fact, in regards to RPO's I haven't even heard anybody say any fixing is needed. It's almost like, yeah they can't keep up with it so do it. Who cares about the rules? Let's see the forest first before we worry about one tree. A sapling at that. As always, JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 25, 2016 10:56:26 GMT -6
Whoa, Easy big guy. Your reaction is a little aggressive. We have a difference of opinion. Deal with it. No, I don't think changing calls is a good idea. Yes, YOUR "provision" was specific. But... like anything else, boundaries will be pushed. Challenges will be made, etc. Right now the line has been drawn by the associations and frankly I think it should stay that way. As for officiating being too thin, did YOU read MY post? I said an overseer for post season games only. Half as many games in 1st round and significantly less games each round. In this particular case only 16 games even remained at the time of the occurrence. Easily doable. I think it's a slippery slope to change calls when it's open to interpretations as to what call really caused a loss & which did not. This game had a field goal and an overtime in it. Other team got it done and Fenwick did not. What if a call that happened earlier in the game gave Fenwick a break that put them in the position to be up in the first place? That's the silliness that will occur when they start overturning calls. It will never be black and white. But it is now and should stay that way IMO. I think some of that "aggression" just comes from having to endure a plethora of discussions that turn into echo chamber arguments during this recent election cycle. Unfortunately, your post kind of followed the same track-- as I clearly outlined the ONLY situation I was proposing for review, and you kind of went "Straw man" and listed a bunch of instances where it wouldn't apply, and then said "I don't think this is a good idea". You say : I agree. But (and this is where that possible aggression comes in) that is categorically not what I was suggesting. I made no suggestion about "calls" yet you referenced changed calls and overturning calls 3 times. I made a suggestion about a situation where a rule was misapplied. No human judgement. Not only that, the suggestion was that such a board review and outcome change could be made when rules were misapplied such that the game should have ended. In such an instance, there is no example of human judgement to be made. Would such a bylaw be used often? Probably not, because the it is a very specific situation and as such I don't foresee a litany of unintended consequences. I am sure there are some (there always are), but they don't seem obvious or intrusive. Heck, prior to the two occasions this year, when was the last time this situation (misapplication of a rule extending the game and that extension creating a change in result) occurred? Contrast that to your idea about an official. You are suggesting that we take (presumably) qualified and experienced officials OFF of the field where their experience would presumably lead to a better officiated 48 minutes and put them in a booth with a rule book? I don't understand how that makes this better, when in theory the white hat should have 1) known the rule or 2) been able to look up the rule all on his own, without having to consult someone who then consulted someone else. I'm not saying you don't make good points. What I am saying is I'm very skeptical about making that concession not leading to more push for more concessions and then you have a circus on your hands. The game in question for example, yes the rule was misapplied. However, as I always tell my players, it's our job as players and coaches to not allow the refs to decide the game b/c you never know which way that goes. I have seen a replay of the game & it has convinced me not to set up a situation to over turn calls. First, PN scored w/ about 3 minutes left before all of this stuff happened & that was called back. Hard to tell if it was a good call or not, I'm sure that could've become a HUGE point of contention had the judge overturned the game. Everybody always remembers "the call" but nobody remembers "the call before the call". Yes, I understand you don't want it to be about a call only when the game is decided by a call. MY POINT is none of that happens in a vacuum. Certain chains of events lead to other chains of events, etc. Secondly, & I HATE 2nd guessing coaches but the facts are the facts, the Fenwick coach started kneeing the ball too early & could not effectively run out the clock. NOBODY is talking about this. All he had to do was run 1 play, the time differential of getting off the pile and spotting the ball would've made up for the 3 second discrepancy and the game would've been over. He has responsibility in this. MY point in all of this is that a FB game is NEVER about 1 play and it's never about 1 call ever. No matter the appearance it just isn't. Like you said above this is a rare circumstance, I rebut that with IT IS a rare occurrence. No need for change. If their was a better way to do it I'm sure they would've have thought of it by now. I'm sure they've already identified all the pitfalls to overturning a games outcome that we haven't even thought of & have solid reasons for not doing so. Leave the game alone.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 21:40:24 GMT -6
Personally, I don't feel that would be a good idea. Yes, in an ideal world getting the results of every game correct is what we all want. But, since many mistakes are made all the time, I see a log jam of appeals filling state association offices week in and week out. Our state has over 600 member schools. Furthermore, what about a grievous error that occurred in the 1st quarter but a team is still making the case that it cost them the win? I just think it would become an entangled nightmare. Who knows how the game would've played out? IMO, the best course of action is to improve the product as best they can while trying to avoid a million appeals. I mean we're talking about rational appeals. God knows every state has several knuckle head coaches who would file an appeal every time they lose a game and many of them would not even be legit. No, I think you over see officials that field officials can confer with during post season play and hopefully this avoids tainted results moving forward. IMO, that would be the most constructive path moving forward, as well as the most manageable and realistic. My provision was EXTREMELY SPECIFIC--and not intended to right all wrongs. Did you even read it? Just very specific wrongs such as this one. Not an attempt to get the result of every game correct. Not an provision allowing appeals for differences in opinions. The provision was simply allowing for review in the very specific circumstance where the misapplication of a rule occured, and the proper application would have ended the game (with a different outcome obviously). So nothing about protesting a bad call in the 1st quarter. Not even anything about protesting a clearly bad judgement call (like a missed/made fieldgoal) Officiating is already stretched too thin, and you think the answer is an additional official being at the game, but not managing it? Simply holding a rule book? The White Hat could handle this without anyone extra. Whoa, Easy big guy. Your reaction is a little aggressive. We have a difference of opinion. Deal with it. No, I don't think changing calls is a good idea. Yes, YOUR "provision" was specific. But... like anything else, boundaries will be pushed. Challenges will be made, etc. Right now the line has been drawn by the associations and frankly I think it should stay that way. As for officiating being too thin, did YOU read MY post? I said an overseer for post season games only. Half as many games in 1st round and significantly less games each round. In this particular case only 16 games even remained at the time of the occurrence. Easily doable. I think it's a slippery slope to change calls when it's open to interpretations as to what call really caused a loss & which did not. This game had a field goal and an overtime in it. Other team got it done and Fenwick did not. What if a call that happened earlier in the game gave Fenwick a break that put them in the position to be up in the first place? That's the silliness that will occur when they start overturning calls. It will never be black and white. But it is now and should stay that way IMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 20:58:01 GMT -6
Actually I don't think the situation calls for a rule change at all. The rules are fine. The rule is a game cannot end on a defensive penalty but it can end on an offensive penalty. This rule is in place so that if the offense turned over the ball mid play or something like that, the offense can't purposely commit a penalty to try and extend the game for another shot at a possession. That rule is fine. What happened was that the officials did not know that rule. What I think needs to happen in situations like this state associations need to set up an overseer of sorts much like higher level football does to make sure they get it right.
For example, the IHSA has a supervisory official who is not on the field but rather in the booth with a rule book and access to other state officials that when something occurs on the field like this they can appeal to him and he can check the official rule book or contact the association and call down to the field officials to make sure all rules are applied properly. Obviously due to lack of man power, I would see this as a set up for post season games only. Again, the rules did not fail here, it was not knowing the rules that failed here. State associations have to do a better job in making sure something like that does not happen as best they can in huge games such as this. Ideally all games but that is probably not a possibility. JMO. I am not talking about the in game rules. I guess I should have said by-laws or statues or whatever. I am suggesting that it might not have horrible unintended consequences if a by-law was in place that allowed for association review and the changing of an outcome in the very specific situation where a misapplication of a rule by an official occured, and the proper application of that rule would have resulted in the end of game. Regarding the highlighted portion..NO level of football has this, as multiple incidences have occurred where governing bodies have issued statements saying "whoops, the officials were wrong..but sorry you still lose" Personally, I don't feel that would be a good idea. Yes, in an ideal world getting the results of every game correct is what we all want. But, since many mistakes are made all the time, I see a log jam of appeals filling state association offices week in and week out. Our state has over 600 member schools. Furthermore, what about a grievous error that occurred in the 1st quarter but a team is still making the case that it cost them the win? I just think it would become an entangled nightmare. Who knows how the game would've played out? IMO, the best course of action is to improve the product as best they can while trying to avoid a million appeals. I mean we're talking about rational appeals. God knows every state has several knuckle head coaches who would file an appeal every time they lose a game and many of them would not even be legit. No, I think you over see officials that field officials can confer with during post season play and hopefully this avoids tainted results moving forward. IMO, that would be the most constructive path moving forward, as well as the most manageable and realistic.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 20:30:02 GMT -6
I agree, but I think that change must occur after the season so as to avoid constant appeal and legal action. Again, JMO. For clarity, are you saying that there should be no rule written like that THIS year..but can be written after the season? Or are you saying that NO application of a rule like that should be done. I agree that you couldnt make a change now. But you could amend the rules so that if this happened NEXT year, you had a new plan in place. Actually I don't think the situation calls for a rule change at all. The rules are fine. The rule is a game cannot end on a defensive penalty but it can end on an offensive penalty. This rule is in place so that if the offense turned over the ball mid play or something like that, the offense can't purposely commit a penalty to try and extend the game for another shot at a possession. That rule is fine. What happened was that the officials did not know that rule. What I think needs to happen in situations like this state associations need to set up an overseer of sorts much like higher level football does to make sure they get it right. For example, the IHSA has a supervisory official who is not on the field but rather in the booth with a rule book and access to other state officials that when something occurs on the field like this they can appeal to him and he can check the official rule book or contact the association and call down to the field officials to make sure all rules are applied properly. Obviously due to lack of man power, I would see this as a set up for post season games only. Again, the rules did not fail here, it was not knowing the rules that failed here. State associations have to do a better job in making sure something like that does not happen as best they can in huge games such as this. Ideally all games but that is probably not a possibility. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 20:19:51 GMT -6
Did anyone just see the touchdown by LSU after the strip? The guy that stripped it clearly was down. And then he got up and ran in for a TD. These are seven NCAA SEC refs. They are paid a lot of money and have received a lot of training and have been evaluated and rated to call a game at this level. It was an abysmal call. The guy literally got up off the ground and ran in for a TD. It was overturned. The strip stood, but the guy was rules down - duh. This wasn't even close. But yet, there is no way 5 high school refs could ever make a mistake like this. Especially the ones who already messed up a playoff game and ended some hard working seniors careers. They would never mess up and get a judgement call wrong. Only an enforcement of penalty of a play that was already a highly publized mistake this year. silkyice I am not sure what you are ranting about here. The coach's decision to throw it out of bounds? That coaches need to take into consideration the potential of an official blowing a call when they make certain decisions? That refs are all horrible and should be deported? Actually the ball was not thrown out of bounds it was thrown downfield in play.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 19:58:56 GMT -6
If I were in the losing teams position I would want it overturned. With that said, I think not overturning was the right thing to do. Otherwise, you run the risk of an appeal everytime their is a bad call. JMO. I understand what you are saying, but as spos21ram points out above and has been pointed out by blb it wasn't a "bad call" it was a misapplication of a rule such that the proper application of the rule would have resulted in the end of the game. At first thought, that seems like it could be written into a rule without a bunch of unintended consequences. I agree, but I think that change must occur after the season so as to avoid constant appeal and legal action. Again, JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 24, 2016 19:44:01 GMT -6
If I were in the losing teams position I would want it overturned. With that said, I think not overturning was the right thing to do. Otherwise, you run the risk of an appeal everytime their is a bad call.
JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 17, 2016 6:58:10 GMT -6
We film practice all summer and watch it and correct it.
Once the season starts we TRY to film practice periodically but if I'm being honest it's not often enough due to time constraints. We don't have an athletic period and our school day ends later than most (3:15). Couple that with the fact that we have some coaches who are out of the building and traveling, we don't start practice until 345. I think it makes it hard to watch film regularly as we would be getting out of practice so late.
With that said, we correct game film on Friday nights, break down scout film on Saturdays and Mondays are late days for us as we watch game film (ours and scout) after practice on Mondays and get out about 7 or so.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 14, 2016 20:19:45 GMT -6
We're scratching our heads as a coaching staff because none of us have had as many ACL injuries (all are requiring surgery) as we've had this year. We had new turf installed in our stadium where 3 of them happened. The other 3 happened on away games where the teams had relatively new turf. Has anyone else had a problem with this? Does it have something to do with our cleats or is it the newer turf (I don't want to drop the brand name on here in the case it's not that)? Or, is it strength and conditioning related (the previous 2 years we had 1 ACL and last year we changed it up a little bit in the off-season)? I would guess bad luck. We have always been lucky with injuries & I feel we do a nice job in the weight room which helps. Then out of nowhere we broke 4 wrists this year. No rhyme or reason. It was crazy. many of the kids injured did a real nice job for us in the weight room. It was bizarre but I think in a game like this, with dudes flying around, the old saying $hit happens applies. I wouldn't over analyze. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 1, 2016 17:50:28 GMT -6
Haven't read all the responses here but I saw some of them ripping these kids for choosing not to play. I certainly can't fight that quitting is never the right approach. However.......to play Devil's advocate here......they did fulfill their regular season obligation, clearly they are not a very good team & have most likely been getting pounded all season.....and now they have to play most likely a top seed in an all inclusive play off system when they have no business being in a play off game in the first place? I will never advocate quitting but quite frankly I feel like the kids have more sense in some ways then the State association. Football is not a sport in which the play off system should be all inclusive b/c the mismatches cannot only be horrible to watch but also completely unsafe. Hate to say it, and I know I'll hear it from many of you, but not so sure I can blame the kids for a crappy play off system. JMO. But you knew the playoff system when you signed up to play football. True coach, but most HS teams and kids in general are also guilty of delusions of grandeur before the season kicks off. Not saying quitting is the right thing to do, but the adults here need to have some sense to. Getting kids destroyed is not going to help promote our game during this time of football scrutiny. Again, JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Nov 1, 2016 17:04:55 GMT -6
Haven't read all the responses here but I saw some of them ripping these kids for choosing not to play. I certainly can't fight that quitting is never the right approach. However.......to play Devil's advocate here......they did fulfill their regular season obligation, clearly they are not a very good team & have most likely been getting pounded all season.....and now they have to play most likely a top seed in an all inclusive play off system when they have no business being in a play off game in the first place? I will never advocate quitting but quite frankly I feel like the kids have more sense in some ways then the State association. Football is not a sport in which the play off system should be all inclusive b/c the mismatches cannot only be horrible to watch but also completely unsafe. Hate to say it, and I know I'll hear it from many of you, but not so sure I can blame the kids for a crappy play off system. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Aug 7, 2016 16:47:22 GMT -6
I must be different from most.
I have never played for or coached a team that had the kids stay all day on game day and have never had them stay ever myself as a HFC. Also, have never played or coached for a team that had a meal on game day. Always the night before.
We get out at 3:15 and home game schedule is be back for a final 530 film session. Once that concludes (about 6 or so) they have a half hour to get taped up if they didn't do so before hand & we are warming up from 630-640 then touching base about any offensive questions then we process to the field for a 715 game.
Personally I could NEVER keep them b/c I HAVE to get out of there myself for an hour or so or I will kill somebody.
I go home & take a long shower and try to erase my kind (back in my younger days I usually put a HUGE dip in while in the shower as well but I digress).
The point is, FOR ME, I feel like if it's Friday and I haven't covered it already, then covering it an hour or so before the game probably ain't gonna help much anyhow and may even panic or confuse kids who thought they were good to go.
So I go home take a shower, decompress, come back refreshed and watch a quarter or so of the soph game and then we go in, meet and get ready to roll.
Can't say if it has been any better or worse than any other way b/c it's the only way I know.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 19, 2016 6:35:37 GMT -6
For us this is always a work in progress. Have heard some that go 3h and some much less and seen both be successful.
For us we are generally at 2h35m.
Monday Warm up - 10 Offense 1h Defense 1h Film 25M
Tuesday warm up 10 Offense 75 M Punt 15 Defense 45M (15 Indy 30 team)
Wednesday is the reverse of Tuesday w/ larger time slot geared towards defense & PR
Thursday Walk through & the rest of ST's.
Friday as lochness said is pay day. Not Saturdays or Sundays for about 10 years now.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 10, 2016 21:29:34 GMT -6
I've always been the guy who feels they earn their autonomy. If they are coming to stuff in the off season, generally show some knowledge when we talk football, show some passion, take initiative, etc.
Then yes. But if they are being a slug and generally don't show an improvement in knowledge over time then no.
The thing is, the guys who WANT autonomy will generally do what they need to do to get it. Other guys IMO, the "check collectors", in general would rather be told what to do anyway.
JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 6, 2016 11:35:13 GMT -6
I think that is the problem. Once the parents and kids believe you don't know what you are doing and fully believe what they want (and what is being told to them by the recruiting service guy) you can't disprove anything because you are not trusted. I think that is the sticky situation here. You need a 3rd party to say "I know you want to believe what this guy is saying, but it simply isn't true) I think the problem here is that you CANNOT control what kids or parents think. No matter what, they will think what they want to & recruiting agencies PREY on that b/c they know it to be true. Unless they have experience in the recruiting/coaching realm themselves, they will always agree with the recruiting agencies b/c they are hearing what they WANT to be true regardless of whether it is or not. Hence, you cannot control the trust issue, nor should you try to outside of a rational sit down or two. With that said, I wholeheartedly agree on the 3rd party point. Our school arranged for a guest speaker (forget the name at this point, but he was very good) and he basically shot it straight. The whole "9". If you aren't getting invited to workout for free, if you aren't being hounded as an underclassmen, etc. the likelihood is you aren't getting seriously recruited. Then he went into how you have a better chance of earning money through academics COMBINED with athletics, etc. I think it was an eyeopener for those that chose to attend and reinforced what I have said all along to many of these kids. That was our best weapon to help kids see the truth. Furthermore, he said that PARENTS and the athlete himself are the ones most responsible for putting their kid in the best position of getting recruited by being realistic, not closing any doors and harping on your kids about their grades. JMO. Just looked it up, his name is Jack Renkens & he is worth the fee for the speaking engagement IMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 6, 2016 8:17:30 GMT -6
If it is as you say it is, then 2 things come to mind. One, where in the he!! is your AD? This is highly unethical and should be dealt with immediately. Any cash we receive goes through our district business office, period. Cannot, and SHOULD not be making any personal transactions. Secondly, he's literally hustling cash from these kids and in essence, since he's part of your program, the case could be made that your program hustles kids. Not saying that's your intent, but technically he's part of the program & he's hustling kids so.... Got to drop him. No other way around it. One of your guys is deceiving kids to line his own pockets. It's a simple decision. JMO. Would anyone's feelings towards this be different if he did ''training sessions'' for kids outside of the program say kids in another school or outside of the teams your school would play in the regular season? I guess it depends on what his qualifications are. If he is lying to kids to gain their trust as the OP originally stated, then is he lying about his qualifications to get them to work with him so he can get their money? In other words, if he is a worthy trainer than I have no problem with it. But if he is lying to drum up business about his training expertise (again, the OP said he lied about his connections, etc) then he's still a hustler & that would be a problem for me.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 5, 2016 13:16:07 GMT -6
Unfortunately we have a current coach on staff who professes himself to be a "D1" producer and trainer. He basically is abusing his privilege as a coach and getting kids to pay for training sessions with him. He claims that he got a kid who never played high school football a D1 scholarship, he claims that he will get any kid a D1 scholarship and he is filling our kids heads with the notion that they can go D1 despite never having started a game and also not being physically capable of even playing D3 ball. Not really sure how to handle it I've seen this somewhere else before. Only difference was the guy was a former college player who used his name recognition to entice kids & parents into paying him for the same sort of set up. He was asked once to end it, & when the HC saw another add for his "training sessions" he was fired. If it is as you say it is, then 2 things come to mind. One, where in the he!! is your AD? This is highly unethical and should be dealt with immediately. Any cash we receive goes through our district business office, period. Cannot, and SHOULD not be making any personal transactions. Secondly, he's literally hustling cash from these kids and in essence, since he's part of your program, the case could be made that your program hustles kids. Not saying that's your intent, but technically he's part of the program & he's hustling kids so.... Got to drop him. No other way around it. One of your guys is deceiving kids to line his own pockets. It's a simple decision. JMO.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 1, 2016 18:58:00 GMT -6
Haven't done 2 a days in over 10 years and have NEVER missed them.
First 2 years as a HFC we did 2 days b/c "you're supposed to" & got SMOKED in season openers. Kids seemed flat (granted, small school with small numbers, so kids probably got over worked). Next 3 years at same school, no 2 a days & went 3-0 the next 3 seasons on openers.
Our schedule is pretty simple. Mondays split O/D 2h45 Tuesdays O/90 D/45 ST/15 Wednesdays D/90 O/45 ST/15 Alternate everyday like this until game week.
Then Monday is split T/W same & Thursday is O/D walkthrough & practice all ST.
Has been pretty good to us.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jul 1, 2016 18:35:51 GMT -6
It was so tough, I don't even like talking about it. That's how tough it was.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 23, 2016 20:42:28 GMT -6
Yeah, I think you're right coach. I think I saw it in Genesis. I believe it goes something like this: On the 1st day God said thou shalt practice well. On the 2nd day God said thou shalt practice well & thou youngest coach on thy staff shall proclaim, " this is the greatest team ever & nothing can stop us. We shall be bountiful beyond measure in the win column". On the 3rd day, God said practice shall sucketh......and practice did sucketh! And thy elder coaches silently fantasized giving thy youngest coach a blanket party while thy youngest coach quietly excused thyself from practice a tad early. Amen. Monty Python fan, right? Actually no. Just trying not to take myself & the situation too seriously. It is June after all.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 23, 2016 16:25:30 GMT -6
Its just the law of averages and mean regression. You stated that your first four practices were "very good" which I interpret to mean better than average (average being what you would normally expect); if this is the case, wouldn't it make sense that you would eventually have to have a practice that is bad (less than what you would expect)? Otherwise your expectations would have been higher coming into camp, and those "very good" practices would have just been practices that were what you expected, and you most likely wouldn't have noticed. I used to coach with a guy who felt that you couldn't compliment kids too much for good practices because they would then have bad practices. Moreover he felt that if he was verbally abusive after bad practices it would benefit the team and get them back on track; he used anecdotal evidence similar to your situation to support his claim. I told him I disagreed but he stuck to his guns; eventually I created a demonstation to show him how I felt he was wrong. I took out a six sided dice, and told him I wanted this dice to consistently roll a higher number (the higher the number the better). Every time I rolled a 1 or 2 I yelled at it for being bad, if I rolled a 5 or 6 I complimented it for being high. Obviously, the times I rolled low tended to mean regress and be higher the following roll; conversely that number went down following a high roll. Did that indicate my yelling or complimenting impacted the next roll? No of course not. So what was the point of that long winded recounting? That we have a good grasp of what our team will be, sometimes they are a little better than that, sometimes a little worse. As coaches, we try to coach them up to be the best they can be (I am in no way writing not to stop driving and coaching them); but in the end you have an expectation of where they should be (that 3 or 4 roll- and don't say you expect them to be a 6 every time because it is a relative statement, wherever you expect them to be is 3 or 4). Sometimes they will do better, sometimes worse. If they had a lot of "very good" practices then either your expectations were too low or they will mean regress. Coach, actually I said it was a total $hit show, not a bad practice. There is a difference (to me anyway). As for the dice demo? Stay off the drugs son. Sorry man, but that's just weird.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 23, 2016 16:21:06 GMT -6
Its guaranteed to happen. I think it's in the Bible somewhere...right after it says that God rested on the 7th day so he could watch the game. Yeah, I think you're right coach. I think I saw it in Genesis. I believe it goes something like this: On the 1st day God said thou shalt practice well. On the 2nd day God said thou shalt practice well & thou youngest coach on thy staff shall proclaim, " this is the greatest team ever & nothing can stop us. We shall be bountiful beyond measure in the win column". On the 3rd day, God said practice shall sucketh......and practice did sucketh! And thy elder coaches silently fantasized giving thy youngest coach a blanket party while thy youngest coach quietly excused thyself from practice a tad early. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 23, 2016 12:13:28 GMT -6
I'm writing this not b/c I'm angry, more or less I actually kind of find it humorous and just believing that I cannot be the only coach here that this happens to.
Here's what I'm talking about. We are in summer camp. Monday Tuesday we had very good practices. Looked sharp, buttoned up whatever you want to call it. Very few mistakes, kids were on top of things, etc.
We take Wednesdays off to break up the week and then we reconvene on Thursdays & Fridays. Well, again had very good days M/T then we come back today & it's like the biggest $hit show in FB history. Granted we put some new stuff in so I expected some struggle with it but today was exceptionally bad.
But it brings me to a bigger point, it seems like anytime we string together a couple of good days we almost always follow it up with a really bad one. For over 20 years now I have seen this happen.
Just curious how many of you experience this same kind of trend?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 21, 2016 15:07:22 GMT -6
I should emphasize that although my post above does show our fun side, we have many of the same troubles as everyone else. Numbers are slightly on the rise this year but our soph class has struggled for about 3 years now.
The biggest thing is in the summer we always start strong for about a week or so and then kids who are maybe not as good as others start to slack on attendance. I have taken as many pains as I can to make sure I;m getting everyone reps but it still happens regardless.
I really don't have any answers either other than we try to schedule our summer as player friendly as we can w/o giving up preparation. I have really tried to schedule as minimally as I can w/o hurting our chances for success.
But, when the rubber meets the road, I think it comes down to some kids just don't want to get up in the summer.
And for me personally, I think I have a personality that when a kid is not giving an honest effort I have to say something about it. Sometimes I do it gently, but I think we've all had "our moments" when you have to repeat yourself regularly about the same thing over and over to the same kid.
I think many of these kids don't get corrected at home like they should at times and hearing some tough critique can be more difficult for some than others, hence you lose some kids.
But I have always said that whatever I do on the football field will reflect the way I coach and discipline at home. I'm a stricter father than most and some just don't take to it but I feel while I make mistakes, in the long run I may not be giving kids what they always want, but I am trying to give them what I think they need.
Some grow into it and some don't. IMO, that's the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 21, 2016 14:48:30 GMT -6
Another thing that we do to "make it fun" is what we originally called the fumble recovery drill but now we call it "Boo Nick". I'll explain the name below.
Anyway, every coach gets a football (5 varsity for us). The coaches stand in the EZ and the team lines up on the GL facing the field with their backs to us. On the whistle, they'll run straight ahead and cannot turn their heads to look at us. We all throw a ball as far as we can. As they are running the balls land in front of them (all 5) and as soon as they see them it is their job to "recover the fumble". It's really fun and funny to see 30 kids scrambling to recover 5 footballs simultaneously.
The first 5 who recover a ball jog back and hand them to the coaches. Now we have 25 kids and we start all over. Once we get to 20 we remove 1 ball from the drill. Once we get to 15 another, then 10 another. Finally, once we get to 2 we only have 1 ball left. The last kid left who doesn't recover a ball gets obnoxiously booed by his teammates in a "I'm just busting your balls" fun kind of way. No animosity intended.
Has been pretty good to us, the kids like it and they do a lot of running b/c nobody wants to be last. Again, it's all in fun, no animosity on the booing part.
The reason its' called "Boo Nick" in b/c the original class that I did it with had a kid whose first name was Nick and he was last like the first 4 times we did it.
Not gonna lie, after about 4x or so he did kind of take it hard so we managed to throw the ball in a way that he would finally recover one which when he did, it was like him winning the super bowl. After that he didn't mind so much.
We only do it a a couple times a year and really have to emphasize people not taking out another dude when going for the ball, but once the safety of it gets established, guys really have fun and battle their a$$es off to recover the football.
To me it's a nice way to incorporate running, recovery skills, competition, fun and the booing part to me is humorous. It can be humbling but again we emphasize to the kids that it's not personal. usually they find it funny as well. Like I said before, if a kid is taking it hard then we make sure he recovers one the next time with "strategic throwing.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 21, 2016 6:57:33 GMT -6
I think it's the game itself, kids like football.
I also think it's the acknowledgement from their peers (FB games highly attended v. other sports)
And... I think we build camaraderie.
With thats said, we definitely....I as HFC need to do a better job of making it fun. It seems that the practice to play ratio of football is so different than any other sport that it's difficult to avoid (as BLB said) the drudgery.
That's something I have to do a better job of.
|
|
|
Post by s73 on Jun 19, 2016 19:07:27 GMT -6
Where we live summer cannot be made mandatory b/c it is not an official part of the season. With that said, I have only once had a kid miss the whole summer and be GOOD enough to start for us and that was b/c our team was 1-8 that year. Most teams he would've never seen the field. Maybe it's because I have always coached at small schools where the difference between a starter and backup is often substantial, but I have had a lot of players through the years who could have missed all summer and still easily started. Two months of weight lifting and conditioning isn't going to make up for a big difference in talent. I agree w/ you coach. I have kids that probably COULD HAVE missed also & still started for us. But.....the reason they could've missed a whole summer and started for us was b/c they put a ton of time in during the off season and are big, fast strong kids. I think most kids who commit to the off season rarely miss the summer. That would be a rare breed. FOR US, kids who don't show up in the summer, who show up in the fall are usually guys who want to wear a jersey on Fridays & are a warm body on the scout team.
|
|