GP1

I must confess this did not take place. It's a sad story of a guy in Charleston, on a carriage tour, with his wife and 10 tourists. I'm sure nobody wants to hear about it.

Just light a match. That's all it takes....

I see this quote a lot and I respectfully disagree. I'm sure that in many ways, Coach I is a very good professional at what he does. For instance, I'm pretty sure he knows how to coach the offense he wants to run. I'm philosophically against what he is trying to do with the offense but that doesn't make him in over his head. When people say, "in over his head", it is the type of general statement that can cover a lot of area. It's sort of like when fans say, "the QB doesn't see the field"...how the Hell do they know what the QB sees unless they are sharing his eyes...

Nice!!!!

As much as I make fun of "the building plan", I really shouldn't do it. In fact, I shouldn't make fun of something that doesn't actually exist.

Schedule FIU is having some trouble of late. They beat NTSU by 25 early and Louisville early. Lost to a team they shouldn't have lost to. Zips are at home.......Weather not great. I can't go against Vegas and FIU does cover. FIU 35 Zips 14

Because play calling is a rhythm. To change the rhythm changes the flow of the offense in a way that probably isn't good for the offense. It's the same reason the Wildcat really isn't working...it isn't fooling anyone and has become a series of wasted plays. Before the Zips try anything more, they need to get good at what they are supposed to be good at, which is a pro style offense. Until then, anything else is a waste of plays.

It's much more complicated than a successful offense being called a spread. Please see my description above. It could also be that spread offenses make teams successful. Your strongest piece of evidence isn't really that strong. Coach I is going to have an OC run whatever offense he wants him to run. This can hurt a program if the OC is not skilled at calling plays for that offense. Most coaches Latina's age have coached many styles of play in their careers.

Both wrong. Miami uses a pro-style (or did) and OU runs a variation of the Veer/Option. They RUN the ball. Look up Solich's history. You are starting to post like Zach. You're starting to get out of control. Let me help. The modern day spread offense is not what a lot of people think the spread "run and gun" offenses of the past were when teams threw on every down. I hated those offenses because a team couldn't run the ball when they needed to. Modern offenses spread the field out and running is an important part of that offense. The zone read running play is a base component in the spread offense. Shotgun, single back and single TE when needed defines the modern spread. The old spread offenses had zero back and zero TE. One of the best versions of the modern spread we have seen in recent years is the Brian Kelly spread offenses he ran at CMU and Cincinnati. This offense is similar to those offenses run at places like WVU and Northwestern. This offense takes a limited number of talented players, which is why teams like Northwestern and WVU use them, and place them at points on the field where they can isolate them against weak points on the defense. The offensive line blocking is heavy zone to the initial point of attack with backside blocking allowing for a cutback. Sometimes, the cutback is designed into a play creating a misdirection without pulling a guard on a trap. Like old option offenses, some players are left unaccounted for and it is up to the RB to decide on his running direction...a perfect offense of an offensive line that might be subpar. The QB in the modern spread needs to be able to run, but not a lot. One might say, "just enough". The old spread, the QB was a totem pole waiting to get sacked and would get sacked in the modern game. A pro offense still presents the defense with the totem pole. Sorry CK, but Dan L. at CMU was the best spread QB this league has ever seen and he has the rings to prove it. He could pass and run well. They spread the field and nobody knew where the ball was going to go. We have a QB on our team who excelled in this type of offense in high school. Too bad we won't get to see how he does with it now. In addition, I understand what Solich does at OU. It isn't the same offense he ran at Nebraska. These new types of option offenses are much more exciting and dynamic than they were 20 years ago when I was in school. They are a type of spread option. Navy is probably a better example. 20 years ago, teams who ran tripple option used two TEs and three backs in the backfield. Navy now uses one with flankers. The flankers widen the defense spreading it out and opening the options for the QB. Navy also has a very elaborate line scheme that a team can use when they have an offensive line, all of whom probably scored in the top 2% of the country on the SAT. I don't care for this type of option because if a team falls behind, the passing game just isn't there to come back....In that respect, it is little different than it was 20 years ago. Mike Haywood ran a spread offense at Miami. I don't care where he coached before he was at Miami, he ran the modern spread at Miami. He used the offense to take a loser and quickly turn it into a winner with froshs and sophs. Pitt hired him to coach the spread at their school because they had seen enough with Wanny and his pro offense. I saw Miami play last year and I know what they run. In fact, they run the same thing this year. I absolutely love the modern day spread offenses. Football is a much better game today than it was 20 years ago when I was in school. People who claim otherwise are the type of people who believe the 1950s were a great period in the world. This offense creates an excitement by creating a balance between running and passing that wasn't there 20 years ago. It allows for players to showcase their athletic ability instead of coaches squashing athletic ability by running the ball into the line every play because they believed that is how a team was physical. There are a lot of ways to be tough other than bashing your head against a wall. The spread is more than just run first or pass first. It is an entire offensive philosophy different than pro style in the sets, blocking schemes and play calling rhythm. It allows bad teams to get good with lesser talent than other teams. It is truely a team philosophy that can allow even average players to reach their maximum potential. That's why, to this day, I just can't believe we are running a pro style offense. It goes back to the question I asked over the weekend. Am I the only person with a television set? Everyone runs it for a reason.

If you want to talk facts, let's talk facts.Joe Novak was an old guy who never won a MAC Championship with all of that great talent he had because of his offense. I remember a little 6-6 Zips team spreading it out against his team and winning the league. I also remember his offense not being able to move the ball effectively against an average Zips team late in the game. They had an NFL running back and were so predictable we were able to stop them.Miami runs a type of spread offense. They ran one last season as well. Miami wasn't overflowing with talent last year. They had some talent and used it wisely. There is a fine line between good and average in the MAC. Miami is finding themselves on the average side this season.Al Golden...Please use this site and tell me the number of conference championships he won. Golden used his pro offense to lay an egg in the final two games last season against OU and Miami (both of whom run a type of spread). Maybe we can get this offense to take us 5-3 in the MAC and not win the league. I'm interested in being the best team in the worst league in the country. It can be done. Getting good in the MAC isn't the hardest thing in the world to do. The Zips make it hard and almost everyone else finds it pretty easy to have some good years.One would have to go all the way back to 2003 to find a league champion that didn't run some form of spread offense.One would have to be a complete idiot to ignore facts to say you can win the MAC with a pro style base offense.

It is about one on one, but it takes more studs to be good at the offense than it does with the spread. Schools like Alabama have a line of studs waiting to get in their school and on the field...They can run a pro offense because they have 11 studs...they have 11 more studs as back-up players. MAC schools don't get that volume of good players on any team so they have to be more creative and utilize what talent they have as best as they can. That is why the spread is so valuable at the MAC level. That's what made coaches like Urban Meyer and Brian Kelly so good in the MAC.

Good points. Positions in need of really good players are: 1. QB 2. One good WR 3. Left tackle on offense 4. A guy like Chisholm 5. Stud defensive end 6. One really good LB 7. One really good corner I know you guys hate when I bring up Wake Forest, but here it goes again. They are a low level ACC team that won a lot and went to a BCS game with a group similar to this. The rest of the talent on the team was average at best, but they won. 1. Riley Skinner at QB (Skinner rhymes with winner). He was a very good college QB who could run and pass AND pass on the run. 2. NFL WR Kenny Moore 3. I don't remember who their left tackle was so they were missing a little here but they had a solid front five. 4. They had 3 guys like Chisholm and they all played and were always fresh when they went in the game. 5. Don't remember the DE, but they had solid defenses because of #6 and #7 below. 6. NFL DB A. Smith (was also a great kick returner). 7. NFL stud Aaron Curry at LB It doesn't take 11 good guys in a spread offense. They had a small number of good guys and spent every Saturday trying to find ways to get that small number the ball as much as possible. The spread allows a team to be creative. A pro offense offers little creativity. On defense. They had two studs who could take out the other teams best WR and Curry could cover half the field by himself on running plays. I don't expect the Zips to have seven guys as good as Wake did, but I do expect them to have seven guys who are good enough to win in the MAC. Right now, we have 1.5 of the guys we need in Chisholm and Wagner (I'm not so sold on Wagner). The rest are I-AA players. It's a long way between 1.5 and 7.

I'd like to think he feels the heat regardless of what the fans think. When leadership of a sports organization listens to the fans, they turn into the Browns. We don't need that.

Are they full scholarships, or are they partial? I'm looking at the dollar amount, not the total unit number. Football scholarships costs just over $900k. But none of that included room and board, meal plans, or book purchases. Without calculating room and board, meals and books, the real costs aren't being calculated. Please go back and rework the numbers. I'd like this project completed by close of business today.

Are they full scholarships, or are they partial? I'm looking at the dollar amount, not the total unit number.

This was a better win than any other mac school had last weekend. The week before, Toledo had a win stolen from them. Big East officials have always been corrupt, but it was never as blatant as it was against Toledo. The Rockets could have easily felt sorry for themselves and laid an egg Saturday, but they didn't.

I am with you 100%. Wistercill was brought to UA for one reason - to get the football program on track. His hand-selected coach is losing around 90% of his football games after 1.5 seasons. If he continues to lose, and the football stadium remains empty, TW has failed. And there are varying degrees of failure. A 65% is almost a D-. TW is no where near a D- right now. I'm glad I'm not alone. Looking back, it was a pretty damn good post for a guy closing out a night in Charleston.

Does anyone know, of the dollar amount the University gives out in athletic scholarships, what percent of that money goes to football? My guess is it is well over 50%. When we know that, it may add some clarity to this debate and then we can have a real debate.

I gotta agree with Zach. TW's body of work is good and getting better. Every program is on the rise or about to be made-over to get it there. Good grief. Can anyone other than me look at the state of college athletics and realize TW has horribly missed at hiring a new football coach...the most important sport in college athletics. Am I the only one with a television? He just didn't swing and miss, he was standing in the batters box and swung at a pitch thrown into right field.

Isn't he the guy hanging on the cross every week when I go to church.....what?...........That isn't him?..........................Oh, I see, he just thinks it's him..........Never mind.

We CAN have an extremely bright future. Just not the way we thought it would be 5 years ago. Our football world is changing and we just have to be open to making the best out of our situation.

I agree. I just want him to kill himself I guess.

Article

In ancient times, people who did things like this would do the right thing and kill themselves in a last ditch effort to save their honor.

Good observation. He is fast in the right way. BTW, a chisel is used to pound a rock....we need to do a better job of pounding the rock.