#TakeASide: Should you adapt your scheme to your players, or should players adapt to your scheme?
Some guys consider themselves spread guys, while others are referred to as Air Raid coaches, or Wing-T guys, or any other offensive system you can imagine. The same can be said on the defensive side of the ball; you have your even front guys, your odd front guys, your 4-2-5 guys, your 3-3 stack coaches, and your 4-3 guys – the list goes on and on.
But what happens when you take over a program where your athletes don’t match up ideally with your offensive or defensive scheme? For example, if you don’t have three running backs, your quarterback has a cannon, and you’re offensive line is big and athletic are you still going to commit to running the full house Wing-T?
Today’s #TakeASide asks: Do you adapt your scheme to your players, or do you expect your players to adapt to your scheme?
Again, because there are so many variables in play here, let’s say you’re interviewing for a head coaching job at the high school level where you inherit a roster and aren’t able to recruit to your liking like the college level.
Side 1: You adapt your scheme to your players
In this scenario, you evaluate your roster and the strengths and weaknesses of your players and each position group, and then decide what scheme you’re going to run on offense and defense.
Pros: By being flexible, you’re putting your players in the best positions to succeed. Nearly every player fits at a position and is given an opportunity to succeed there. Getting players to buy in is easy because everyone has a specific role.
Cons: You end up running a scheme that may fit your players well, but it’s not something that you’re well versed in, so adjustments are difficult.
Side 2: You believe that players should adapt to your scheme
In this situation, you go into your interview proclaiming that you’re committed to a specific scheme, regardless of what the roster you inherit looks like.
Pros: You have a tremendous amount of confidence in the scheme and are able to make the necessary adjustments as the game wears on.
Cons: You don’t have the ideal personnel to maximize your potential. Are you putting your kids in the best position to be successful? Getting guys to buy in to your philosophy may be a bit harder.
There is no right or wrong answer here, I simply want to hear where you stand and how it stacks up with the rest of the coaching profession. You can reach me on Twitter @CoachSamz.
Just like we did with yesterday’s #TakeASide article, the best comments will be posted below for everyone to keep track of where people stand on the issue.
11 observations from this “United States of College Football” graphic
A few moments ago, @CloydRivers tweeted out this interesting graphic depicting The United States of College Football.
Looks pretty cool at first glance right? I thought the same things, so I retweeted it, and nearly 1,700 other people have done the same. But then I started to notice a few things that don’t seem quite right.
Here are my 10 initial observations from the graphic:
- The geography of the Michigan programs is all wrong. Michigan and Michigan State should trade places on the map and so should Central Michigan and Western.
- Really clever use of the Florida State and Texas logos on the map.
- No love for Colorado State? They did win 10 games last year…
- Of the eight FBS programs in the Buckeye State, Ohio State is a no brainer, but why Ohio U over Cincinnati, or Toledo, or any of the others?
- Could Vanderbilt’s logo be any smaller?
- Why not include the absolutely dominant small college programs like Wisconsin-Whitewater (D-III), or Mount Union (D-III)?
- Why are the logos for Minnesota, Arizona, Nebraska, Illinois, Texas and Washington so much bigger than everyone elses?
- Houston got the shaft too! But hey, UTEP is included..and don’t try to tell me geography was part of the selection process because UNI is basically in Canada.
- Who is the Indian head logo in between Minnesota and North Dakota State? That spot could easily belong to Utah..another program that got snubbed.
- Instead of some of those FCS programs in the great plains area, the Bison logo from NDSU should be disproportionately larger to properly illustrate their dominance of the FCS ranks.
- Hey Hawaii, since you’re not part of the continental US, I guess you can’t be a part of this graphic. Tough luck.
Reports: The Texans will be featured on Hard Knocks. Here’s what you can look forward to
The Houston Texans have reportedly been selected as the featured NFL franchise for this season of HBOs Hard Knocks. Believe it or not, Hard Knocks is entering it’s tenth season. The first episode with the Texans will air in August.
If the reports are accurate, the Texans were chosen over the Buffalo Bills and Washington Redskins, who were the other two rumored finalists.
Not only can we look forward to having cameras in the coaching offices of Bill O’Brien and his staff, but, of course, Houston is also home to defending NFL Defensive Player of the Year (and quote / workout machine) JJ Watt. Since Watt is the unquestioned NFL king of this past off season, viewers will be sure to enjoy this season of the show.
Since it’s been nearly a year since the last episode of Hard Knocks aired, let’s take a look back at some of the show’s more memorable moments.
Rex Ryan’s legendary swagger speech (NSFW)
Cincinnati’s Oklahoma drill
Jay Gruden goes off after a bad practice (NSFW)
Behind the scenes of a trade in Miami
Behind the scenes of the 2010 Jets Rookie show
The 2001 Ravens rookie skit
Over/Under on Power Five win totals have been released
The 2015 college football season is inching ever closer. We crossed the double-digit countdown barrier last week, preseason magazines are headed to newsstands, and on Tuesday 5Dimes released its list of over/under win totals for most Power Five and independent programs.
We’ll count them down from most to least:
11 wins: Ohio State
10 wins: Baylor, TCU, Wisconsin
9.5 wins: Alabama, Michigan State, Oregon, UCLA
9 wins: Georgia, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Stanford
8.5 wins: Arizona State, Arkansas, Auburn, BYU, Clemson, Ole Miss
8 wins: LSU, Nebraska, North Carolina, USC, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
7.5 wins: Georgia Tech, Louisville, Michigan, Texas A&M
7 wins: Arizona, Duke, Kansas State, Mississippi State, Oklahoma State, South Carolina
6.5 wins: Northwestern, Texas
6 wins: Indiana, Kentucky, Pittsburgh, Texas Tech
5.5 wins: Boston College, Miami, Minnesota
5 wins: California, Rutgers, Washington State
4.5 wins: Colorado, Maryland, Syracuse, Virginia
4 wins: Oregon State, Purdue, Washington
3.5 wins: Army, Illinois, Wake Forest
3 wins: Iowa State, Vanderbilt
1.5 wins: Kansas
OVER bets I’d take: California (5), Arizona (7), Clemson (8.5), Baylor (10), Washington (4), Georgia Tech (7.5), Minnesota (5.5), Northwestern (6.5)
UNDER bets I’d take: Wisconsin (10), Texas Tech (6), West Virginia (8), Michigan State (9.5), TCU (10), Texas (6.5)
Bet that had better hit the over: Miami (5.5)
What athletic departments made the most money in 2013-14?
The estimable folks at USA Today have done it again. The same group behind the head coach and assistant coach salary databases have unveiled a new list, this time looking at the total revenue and expenses during the 2013-14 academic year.
Schools count their beans in a number of different ways, making it hard to draw too many hard conclusions from a bottom-line number. But here’s one thing we do know: all 50 of the public Power Five athletics departments were self-sustaining at the time of the study. This is a good thing.
1. Oregon – $196 million*
2. Texas – $161 million
3. Michigan – $157.8 million
4. Alabama – $153.2 million
5. Ohio State – $145.2 million
6. LSU – $133.6 million
7. Oklahoma – $129.2 million
8. Wisconsin – $127.9 million
9. Florida – $124.6 million
10. Texas A&M – $119.4 million
11. Oklahoma State – $117.8 million
12. Penn State – $117.5 million
13. Auburn – $113.7 million
14. Tennessee – $107.4 million
15. Minnesota – $106.1 million
16. Iowa – $105.9 million
17. Florida State – $104.7 million
18. Michigan State – $104.6 million
19. Georgia – $103.4 million
20. Washington – $100.2 million
21. Arizona – $99.9 million
22. South Carolina – $98.6 million
23. Kansas – $97.6 million
24. Arkansas – $96.7 million
25. Kentucky – $96.6 million
* – includes $95 million in-kind facility gift
1. Texas – $154.1 million
2. Michigan – 142.5 million
3. Auburn – $126.4 million
4. Wisconsin – $125 million
5. LSU – $122.9 million
Group of Five Revenues:
1. Louisville – $88.7 million*
2. Rutgers – $76.6 million*
3. Connecticut – $71.5 million
4. Cincinnati – $59.1 million
5. Memphis – $50.2 million
6. Central Florida – $49.7 million
7. South Florida – $48.3 million
8. New Mexico – $47.1 million
9. San Diego State – $46.9 million
10. Air Force – $46.5 million
* – AAC member in 2013-14
1. James Madison – $43.7 million
2. Old Dominion – $41 million
3. Massachusetts – $33.8 million*
4. Delaware – $32.1 million
5. UC Davis – $31 million
6. Stony Brook – $27.5 million
7. New Hampshire – $26.7 million
8. Rhode Island – $25.5 million
9. Towson – $24.9 million
10. North Dakota – $23.8 million
* – FCS member in 2013-14