New Colonel

Charting is great, but I think you should do it with the players during film session so they can see it play by play and understand why and how they are being graded. Keep it simple though. Lastly, I personally think that O-line play is overall extremely poor across the state and the country. And it's bad at every level, even the NFL. There are 2 big reasons for this IMO. 1. The over emphasis on size. Olineman are absolutely humongous now, and they can't move. Heck many Offensie linemen can't even get in a 3 point stance any more. And I mean can't. They can't block because they can't move fast enough to keep up with the faster defensive players anymore. It's really bad. Quit trying to make these linemen morbidly obese and allow them to move. The best Olinemen in high school don't have big bellies. They are leaner, move well, and just impose their will. If these lineman would be 20-30 pounds lighter, they'd be way better. And this goes for NFL too. These 350lb guys can't block someone like like Miles Garrett. If they were 310, they'd be more able to move to block these rushers. 2. The lack of contact during practice. I understand the need to not have the same physicality and banging your heads in all practice every practice, but I really think we swung the pendulum way too far for the sake of safety. I'm not saying we need to go back to the good old days, but we definitely need to bring more contact back into practices. Oline play is suffering greatly, which is impacting overall safety, especially for QBs and RBs. You can't block effectively constantly going against dummies, sleds, pads, or going "thud speed." You need to go full go so the OL can see and react to things in real speed. You are seeing the same thing with tackling. Tackling is also equally poor at all levels, including the NFL for the same reasons. Anyways, Oline play is pretty awful these days. But it can be fixed IMO with some common sense changes to how people prepare.

Thomas More is actually D2 now, and struggling to be competitive at that level to say the least.

In the building is definitely the best, for all sports. But getting coaches jobs in the building is the extremely difficult part.

Any college guys, even the 50/50 guys. Camps are exponentially more important than who you play for. There are plenty of D3 camps around to get exposure to those 50/50 guys.

This right here. You hit the nail on the head on this one. I've heard this story over and over again from high school and college coaches alike.

Your regular season numbers don't really impact much for recruiting. And playing for one school over another doesn't impact those numbers that much. Every year there are 4 and 5 star ranked guys that when you actually watch play in a game, you leave less than impressed. They still sign with big schools, because their measurables at camps were that much better than everyone esle's. It's about definitive measurables that you can produce at camps, getting yourself to said camps, not who you play for.

This is such an antiquated viewpoint. If you are good enough, colleges will find you. Period. Nobody is getting more college exposure for playing for Team A vs Team B.

In the building is definitey ideal.

Thanks, I figured there was some sort of standard. However, I have been to places that have numbers painted on the seats and they are nowhere close to this wide. Rupp Arena's bleacher seats come to mind, where I swear the numbers are about 10 inches apart.

I have no idea, but you would think there would be a standardized formula for calculating capacity. You would think fire departments would require it. I say this because some schools numbers are higher than other schools, and the "smaller stadium" is definitely bigger than the larger capacity one listed.

Thanks for the info. I had no idea the heir apparent had health issues. That makes much more sense. I for the life of me couldn't figure out why you would bring someone in for just one year.

Right, I meant before Rash took over. To me, it would have made more sense to have someone in house take over who wanted it for a longer term than just 1 year. To have 3 head coaches in 3 seasons is less than ideal to put it nicely. Why not have that coordinator take those lumps last year and learn on the job. Just my 2 cents.

If we do that, then we need to get rid of all conferences altogether.

I love the idea of 16 teams. What are the perameters of the algorithm? Does it include "good losses?" Because I absolutely HATE the idea of rewarding losing games, like Alabama. No way a 3 loss team should be in the playoff. If it were up to me, conference winner of every FBS conference (Except the Pac 12 since it only has 2 schools). That would be 9 automatic bids. Then, use the algorithm to find the next best 7 schools and put them in.

The question I have is Conner didn't have anyone on their staff that they felt could have taken the reigns?

You have to be able to run the ball in December, or you will almost certainly lose. Awesome season for Anderson.

Chris Norwell is the head coach. They just finished a rough 1 win season, winning their final game of the year. They couldn't score this year, and couldn't stop anyone from scoring. Other than that, I don't follow TMU much anymore either. I'm sure recruiting there has to be difficult with their facilities being worse than most of the area high schools.

Who determines what teams are 2nd rate? When we do things like this, it is back to the old BCS model where people's judgement decides who is good and who isn't. Win your conference, and you are in if you are a P4 team. No reason to get rid of conference championship games. College football now is essentially pro football with all the NIL money being thrown around. If you don't win enough to be in the 12 team playoff, you don't deserve to be in. Quit whining and go win more games.

I agree with this. I really think he'll redshirt. I see IU wanting to pack some weight on him to be a starting B1G LB.

I agree. I think Coach Trosper did this very well in NKY.

I don't follow them exclusively or closely, but I've always been impressed with how he adapts to the talent that he has. He doesn't have "1 offense" that he forces players into each year. And maybe some Cov Cath people can correct me if I'm way off base here. But if he has a mobile QB, he's going to utlize him in the run game quite a bit. If he has a pocket guy, he's going to adapt to his strengths. I also feel like I've seen times where they use more of a power run game when they have the right personnel to do so.

Great topic! I've been super impressed every time I see Eviston's teams play. Now, they typically have better players, but they are normally very sharp on both sides of the ball and I like how he schemes his offense.

It is definitely harder to rebuild programs these days. It's even harder to find a young coach that will stay for 20+ years. Coaching demands today, are exponentially higher than they were even 10 years ago. The same goes for teaching demands. It is nearly impossible for a young head coach with a young family to sustain those higher demands, while still being present for his family. There's not enough hours in the day to be a good head football coach, solid teacher, and the type of husband and father you want to be. Something always gets put on the backburner and neglected, and I don't think people realize how much sports have changed, especially the past few years.

It's just a mindset, play to win, not to tie. It shows your kids that you have faith in them to get 3 yards when the season is literally on the line. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but those little mental things mean a lot to teens IMO.

I get both ways going for 2 or not. I'd be more of risk taker, so I personally would've gone for 2, but it's easy to second guess after the fact.