One reason....

[Doug Snyder]

That is the one thing I like about ICoach. He is consumed by building a repeatable process. Whether he is capable is another thing. His window for success is closing and we have yet to see signs that his plan is working. Truthfully though...I never expected us to win the first 3 games. So for me...the true evaluation period starts this week. We need to win 5 games and start to be competitive even against better teams.

I work quite a bit with ISO processes. ISO Certification is absolutely necessary if we are to sell product to anyone. QS Certification is required if we are to sell to the Automotive industry. These processes are all a bunch of crap.

The certifications assure nothing but that we follow a consistent process. The process could be horribly flawed, but as long as we follow it, and document that we follow it, then the Auditors are happy and our certification is renewed.

I believe Ianello has a process. And there is no doubt that he will stick to that process come hell or high water. My only hope that he can adapt came last week when he pulled several red shirts. It was the first time he's shown he was tired of getting absolutely waxed. Until that point, he has shown that he's favored his process over scoreboard.

ISO, QS and Six Sigma are more for marketing. It is the marketing people clamoring for those certifications. They want IPods, large expense accounts and work from home 32 hours per week. Like you, I think they are all waste of time. Process includes hiring, firing, promotion, setting performance standards, loss prevention, motivational issue like pay, work place and more. It includes how manufacturing flows and how things are ordered, purchased, delivered and made available to customers. In includes a lot of things. You are taking a small slice of the picture and making conclusions from that.

I know you don't believe in it...I do. I have worked for a fortune 500 from its beginning, was part of 2 failed start-ups and systems and process were crucial in all. I have started 3 successful small companies (Bali, California & Florida) with my own money...none require for me to be there because of the systems and processes put in place. Mock it if you want...but it will be with your chest out instead of your wallet open.

The Ianello process I refer to has little to do with game day play calling. It includes everything else. Recruiting, conditioning, academics, expectations and much much more. Dave is correct...it will be hard to know immediately and if you find out that it is not working...you probably wasted 3 years. FIU, Temple and others were rewarded for their patience. If Ianello finishes with 5 wins…I will argue his plan appears to be working. Each year the team should be improving. I don’t believe in 5 year plans…by the end of year 3 we should be competing at the top level within our conference

[Dave in Green]

It's really easy to criticize and poke holes in things because nothing's perfect. I'm pretty good at doing that myself when I want to. Everything is flawed, and sometimes the flaws are especially obvious. But there are also success stories related to systems and processes. I worked for two Fortune 500 companies for about 30 years. About half of that was under an executive with an engineering background. He was totally dedicated to process. Anyone in the department who didn't buy into it was replaced. I remember sitting in on the first executive staff meetings that would go on and on. He wouldn't turn anyone loose to do their jobs until they convinced him that what they were doing was within the process. His favorite line was: If you don't have a plan, you may end up somewhere else. This was my first exposure to this type of thinking, and at first I thought we were just wasting time in meetings as so many coroporate types are criticized for doing.Then I started seeing the results. Our department was producing some of the greatest successes and most consistent results in the corporation. I started becoming a believer. He wasn't just married to the process. He also emphasized quick response within the process. If something about the process slowed down the response to a time-critical situation, he got the staff together and we found a way to speed the process without compromising it. As our department continued to produce results, we were recognized within the corporation. Other departments came in and studied the way we operated, and adopted our best practices.This executive appeared to many to be an autocrat who ruled with an iron fist. In reality, he was a consensus guy. He assembled an executive staff of people who were all different from him. No "yes" men were allowed. On every major decision he always went around the table and demanded that everyone on his staff speak their minds no matter how their opinions differed from his. Then he'd go lock himself in his office, put a program together, and send us off to execute the plan.I was the only person on his executive staff without an engineering background. I always felt a little out of place. One day when I was alone with him in his office, he told me, Dave, I really value your input. You see things differently from the engineers. You think out of the box. Your input helps give me a more complete perspective.When he retired, one of his assistants who had totally bought into the system and process took over, and the department didn't miss a beat. Everyone carried on with what they were doing, and the superior results kept coming in.I don't know enough about Ianello to understand how he thinks and operates. No one on this forum does, though some may think they do from trying to read the tea leaves. I think in some ways Ianello may be at least similar to the executive I worked for. If so, I hope he has the whole package. I hope his assistant coaches are all smart in different ways and don't all think like him. I hope they are all encouraged to speak their minds, and that Ianello listens and uses all that input to develop a sound system and process. I hope he's flexible enough to modify the process to respond to time-critical issues without compromising the process.If Ianello does all this, I would be pretty confident about eventually seeing successful results. Since we haven't seen obvious, significant results yet, there are either flaws in the process or personnel, or it just hasn't had enough time yet to produce obvious, significant results in the context of a college football team with no history of consistent success.If Ianello fails, UA will have to go to plan B, and we'll all be miserable until that starts producing positive results, if it ever does. If Ianello succeeds the way my ex-boss succeeded, everyone on this forum is going to become a lot more pleased with the results of Zips football.

[GP1]

Since we haven't seen obvious, significant results yet, there are either flaws in the process or personnel, or it just hasn't had enough time yet to produce obvious, significant results in the context of a college football team with no history of consistent success.

What if it is neither the process or personnel and all about philosophy? Can't the process of implementing a pro style offense and good personnel fall short if what you are asking people to do in 2011 won't work or at least isn't in the world of reality?

[Zipmeister]

Like several of you I also have valuable real world experience. I have worked for several fairly reputable machine shops in my time and from my vast experience at these firms I can tell you that it would help our "company" become more successful if all the other companies would be good enough to abandon the process they already have in place. In addition, it would be beneficial if we could start getting line workers who have both thumbs. It is discouraging to go up against other companies whose line workers have both thumbs.

[Doug Snyder]

Since we haven't seen obvious, significant results yet, there are either flaws in the process or personnel, or it just hasn't had enough time yet to produce obvious, significant results in the context of a college football team with no history of consistent success.

What if it is neither the process or personnel and all about philosophy? Can't the process of implementing a pro style offense and good personnel fall short if what you are asking people to do in 2011 won't work or at least isn't in the world of reality?

Why did the pro-style work so well at Temple??Did the "veer", "option" work well ay Ohio in year one?? I like the spread. But if I was going to build a system from scratch...I would use the "west coast" offence of the 49er's when they had powerful running backs and used the run often. Today's WC offense is to pass oriented. The big issue, IMO, is the talent available at smaller schools for the O-line. We definitely need a moving pocket and 3 step drop with the current state of the O-line. Hopefully they can develop and improve...because that is the weakest part of the team.

[Doug Snyder]

Like several of you I also have valuable real world experience. I have worked for several fairly reputable machine shops in my time and from my vast experience at these firms I can tell you that it would help our "company" become more successful if all the other companies would be good enough to abandon the process they already have in place. In addition, it would be beneficial if we could start getting line workers who have both thumbs. It is discouraging to go up against other companies whose line workers have both thumbs.

Now....your company did not have both thumbs or they we strategically placed up their arse?? In either case…it would make them useless.

[Dave in Green]

What if it is neither the process or personnel and all about philosophy? Can't the process of implementing a pro style offense and good personnel fall short if what you are asking people to do in 2011 won't work or at least isn't in the world of reality?

Trying to translate from business to sports, I'd look at the style of offense as a tactic -- a strategy planned to achieve a specific goal. If the tactic is an important element of a cohesive system, then you wouldn't want to give up on it too quickly if you thought it would negatively impact other elements of the total system. If the tactic isn't working due to inadequate execution, you'd want to continue working on the execution as long as you believed the personnel could in time get it right and run it effectively.Ianello appears to be committed to the pro set as an integral component of his total system. But the pro set is not as confining as some may think. There are variations avalable out of the pro set that can add flexibility and unpredictability. But no offensive system is going to be effective if it's not properly executed. If you can't properly execute the basics, adding more complicated wrinkles may only produce less effective execution. So as long as Ianello believes his players can be successful if they properly execute, it's understandable why he'd want to continue to try to tweak the basic pro set without blowing it up and starting over from scratch.I think there's a general misunderstanding that Ianello is inflexible about changing the offense to fit the abilities of his players. If you go back and look at what he said about the offense prior to last season, he was pretty clear on that subject:"On offense, we're going to base out of a multiple pro set and, for a lack of a better term, the very same system we ran at Notre Dame, which for the last five years was very successful," said coach Ianello. "It's the same system the (New England) Patriots run and the (Kansas City) Chiefs run and the (Denver) Broncos run. It's a multiple system and one that I'll fit to our personnel as opposed to us having to fit personnel to our system. That gives us a lot of flexibility in that regard."Analyzing a system failure can be tricky because there are many elements that can be incorrectly diagnosed as the source of the problem. Obviously, Ianello does not believe the pro set is the source of the problem. He believes he can fit it to his players.Some college football analysts believe that what we'll see more of in the future is a hybrid offense combining pro set principles while spreading the field. That suggests that the pro set is not dead but just needs a little tweaking. I don't see anything to suggest that Ianello might not be open to that kind of tweaking as long as he believes it fits his players.In the end, though, proper execution has to be the top priority.

[Lee Adams]

What if it is neither the process or personnel and all about philosophy? Can't the process of implementing a pro style offense and good personnel fall short if what you are asking people to do in 2011 won't work or at least isn't in the world of reality?

Trying to translate from business to sports, I'd look at the style of offense as a tactic -- a strategy planned to achieve a specific goal. If the tactic is an important element of a cohesive system, then you wouldn't want to give up on it too quickly if you thought it would negatively impact other elements of the total system. If the tactic isn't working due to inadequate execution, you'd want to continue working on the execution as long as you believed the personnel could in time get it right and run it effectively.

Ianello appears to be committed to the pro set as an integral component of his total system. But the pro set is not as confining as some may think. There are variations avalable out of the pro set that can add flexibility and unpredictability. But no offensive system is going to be effective if it's not properly executed. If you can't properly execute the basics, adding more complicated wrinkles may only produce less effective execution. So as long as Ianello believes his players can be successful if they properly execute, it's understandable why he'd want to continue to try to tweak the basic pro set without blowing it up and starting over from scratch.

I think there's a general misunderstanding that Ianello is inflexible about changing the offense to fit the abilities of his players. If you go back and look at what he said about the offense prior to last season, he was pretty clear on that subject:

"On offense, we're going to base out of a multiple pro set and, for a lack of a better term, the very same system we ran at Notre Dame, which for the last five years was very successful," said coach Ianello. "It's the same system the (New England) Patriots run and the (Kansas City) Chiefs run and the (Denver) Broncos run. It's a multiple system and one that I'll fit to our personnel as opposed to us having to fit personnel to our system. That gives us a lot of flexibility in that regard."

Analyzing a system failure can be tricky because there are many elements that can be incorrectly diagnosed as the source of the problem. Obviously, Ianello does not believe the pro set is the source of the problem. He believes he can fit it to his players.

Some college football analysts believe that what we'll see more of in the future is a hybrid offense combining pro set principles while spreading the field. That suggests that the pro set is not dead but just needs a little tweaking. I don't see anything to suggest that Ianello might not be open to that kind of tweaking as long as he believes it fits his players.

In the end, though, proper execution has to be the top priority.

We will see Saturday what Ianello is 'open to'. But please tell me why the experienced players he has do not seem to be responding to what he is trying to do. I had a person close to the program tell me that the reason they look so bad is because they have been playing good competition(throw out the OSU game). DUH! By, inference that means this team can not compete with good competetion even in the MAC. What is the point?