FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Just Bill]

Probably not as much in Division III, but many coaches in FBS and FCS absolutely consider the entertainment value of their team. Those schools have attendance minimums to meet and many times their job performance/security is partially tied to attendance, fundraising and the support of boosters. They absolutely construct teams and game plans with an thought toward entertainment.

In D-III few coaches are going to be fired or given bonuses over attendance figures so it's not as likely. D-III coaches have other (and IMO more important) priorities.

[hazzben]

Bleed,
I know this will sound crazy especially to you because you are a football purest (after all, you bleed purple).  I wonder if coaches take into account the entertainment and resulting marketing impact of their game plans.  I wonder if administrations would convey to a coaching staff the same.     

I think coaches care about marketing their programs a lot. They'll be creative with uniforms, use social media, etc.

But successful coaches, at the end of the day, know that nothing is more entertaining and marketable than winning. Any coach worth his salt builds him game plan with one priority, what's going to give us the greatest opportunity to win. Gus Malzahn is running his stuff at Auburn because he believes in it. Same with Saban doing it a totally different way. Same with Ferenz, same with Urban.

I don't remember where I read it, but in a recent article about spread offenses, it touched on why Meyer started doing it that way. It went back to a loss at ND when he was coaching there. Their best player on offense had single digit touches. Urban looked at that and said, we'll win more games if we figure out how to prioritize getting the ball to our best players, more often, and in situations where they're likely to score. That became his guiding philosophy at Bowling Green, Utah, Florida and OSU.

Interestingly though, at OSU he's not running pure spread stuff anymore. He's adapted again, for the purpose of winning.

[bleedpurple]

I know this will sound crazy especially to you because you are a football purest (after all, you bleed purple).  I wonder if coaches take into account the entertainment and resulting marketing impact of their game plans.  I wonder if administrations would convey to a coaching staff the same.     

Let's do this. I'll introduce you to Kevin and the rest of the coaching staff. You can ask your question.  When we all get done laughing, we can have a beer together.   

If you want me to answer this seriously I will. But you've been in a locker room. You know better.

[emma17]

I think it's agreed that winning is the priority.
I didn't intend to ask the question as a "what's more important" discussion.
Just Bill had good insight on this.
D3 isn't D1, yet some rules apply. An enthusiastic parent, student and general fan base enhances the school experience, which becomes a marketing plus.

[Pat Coleman]

I could see something like this in a fairly limited way -- perhaps a coach at a struggling might make a change to a more exciting/more trendy offensive scheme in order to market his program better to incoming recruits. It's not the same marketing in the way it's being discussed here because the audience is different, but I have heard coaches talk about changing schemes in this way in the past.

[Just Bill]

We could look at Grinnell men's basketball for a D-III example. Had a school where he knew he likely couldn't recruit top talent, so he put it in a wild, high tempo, entertaining (for some) style of basketball to bring attention and eventually recruits and success.

[Brian R. Carroll]

I would like to express my best wishes to Trent Cummings, who has played well for UWL these past two seasons. It is certainly difficult for a tough and competitive athlete to go out in this manner, but we must remember that his well- being is of utmost importance. I understand that he will continue to assist the team, and I hope he has a long, healthy and successful life. I should mention that coach Dettwiler addressed the issue of his QB's desire to be on the field after the St. Thomas game and demonstrated excellent judgment and perspective in indicating his concern for the young man's future. It was obvious that he cares about his players.

[bleedpurple]

I think it's agreed that winning is the priority.
I didn't intend to ask the question as a "what's more important" discussion.
Just Bill had good insight on this.
D3 isn't D1, yet some rules apply. An enthusiastic parent, student and general fan base enhances the school experience, which becomes a marketing plus.

JustBill made some interesting points about program issues and priorities you didn't ask about.

What you addressed me about was very specific: "I wonder if coaches take into account the entertainment and resulting marketing impact of their game plans."

A game plan is a very specific thing.

You were at the Whitewater game. Did the game plan strike you as one that  "took into account the entertainment and resulting marketing impact"?

Should it have? Of course not. Not one millisecond.

I would contend that even 5 minutes spent on "entertainment value" in preparing to defeat an opponent would show a lack of focus. Entertainment value has nothing to do with winning so it has nothing to do with a game plan.

[emma17]

I think it's agreed that winning is the priority.
I didn't intend to ask the question as a "what's more important" discussion.
Just Bill had good insight on this.
D3 isn't D1, yet some rules apply. An enthusiastic parent, student and general fan base enhances the school experience, which becomes a marketing plus.

JustBill made some interesting points about program issues and priorities you didn't ask about.

What you addressed me about was very specific: "I wonder if coaches take into account the entertainment and resulting marketing impact of their game plans."

A game plan is a very specific thing.

You were at the Whitewater game. Did the game plan strike you as one that  "took into account the entertainment and resulting marketing impact"?

Should it have? Of course not. Not one millisecond.

I would contend that even 5 minutes spent on "entertainment value" in preparing to defeat an opponent would show a lack of focus. Entertainment value has nothing to do with winning so it has nothing to do with a game plan.

You're so edgy. So I'll put your name in the column of No! -a coach should never consider the entertainment/marketing value when putting together a game plan.

As you can imagine, I'm not as convinced about that. I can envision degrees to this concept.
One possibly unacceptable example is full utilization of a player's abilities. In the 2011 Stagg Bowl, Matt Blanchard made a bad decision in the red zone and threw a pick. The UWW offense went into a shell after that. This is slightly different than a full game plan for a home crowd, but I see strong similarities as well.

[Bombers798891]

I could see something like this in a fairly limited way -- perhaps a coach at a struggling might make a change to a more exciting/more trendy offensive scheme in order to market his program better to incoming recruits. It's not the same marketing in the way it's being discussed here because the audience is different, but I have heard coaches talk about changing schemes in this way in the past.

I've interviewed high school/college coaches (not just in football) who've said something similar. Usually, it's an up-tempo offensive style—because that's what kids seem to love the most. But those coaches all also universally believe that this is a way to get the most out of their roster. I don't know any that have stuck with it if they still couldn't win using it.

[Just Bill]

This made me giggle...

https://twitter.com/UWOshkoshTitans/status/652485051570122752

[WarhawkDad]

This made me giggle...

https://twitter.com/UWOshkoshTitans/status/652485051570122752

kind of a pro-wrestling style of marketing...but fun nonetheless.   

[Pat Coleman]

I could see something like this in a fairly limited way -- perhaps a coach at a struggling might make a change to a more exciting/more trendy offensive scheme in order to market his program better to incoming recruits. It's not the same marketing in the way it's being discussed here because the audience is different, but I have heard coaches talk about changing schemes in this way in the past.

I've interviewed high school/college coaches (not just in football) who've said something similar. Usually, it's an up-tempo offensive style—because that's what kids seem to love the most. But those coaches all also universally believe that this is a way to get the most out of their roster. I don't know any that have stuck with it if they still couldn't win using it.

Yes, or to fit the kids that they are able to recruit ... as in more kids are coming from programs running the spread so who wants to come run the option or the Wing-T or an I formation-based offense?

[emma17]

This made me giggle...

https://twitter.com/UWOshkoshTitans/status/652485051570122752

It worked, God willing I'll be there in full purple!

[MasterJedi]

This made me giggle...

https://twitter.com/UWOshkoshTitans/status/652485051570122752

It worked, God willing I'll be there in full purple!

Any way you can sneak the cannon in? 


As for Oshkosh their offense doesn't really scare me per se because it hasn't been against the best competition where they posted those numbers. While they don't scare me they can definitely beat UWW so I respect them. I just think UWW well play better offense and grind out another win.