Jump to content

Question- hypothetical

bobbymcgee
 Share

Recommended Posts

bobbymcgee

bobbymcgee

Posted
Posted
I have noticed how college football teams are starting to hire a bunch of "football analysts" to help with film, scouting and player development but not to be on field coaches or recruiters. Here is one instance today, of Texas hiring Greg Robinson for one of those positions: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9486631/texas-longhorns-rehire-former-co-defensive-coordinator-greg-robinson-analyst . NCAA rules limit the number of on field coaches/recruiters.

My question is, what about at the high school level? Would any rules block teams booster clubs from raising money to hire football analysts with the blessing of the school's head coach/AD? Texas UIL mandates that all football coaches must be full time district employees. But I doubt there is anything about somebody providing a service to the football coaches and program- just like a team photographer or a film software vendor.

Let's say PN-G wanted to hire a retired coach like Dan Hooks as a "football analyst" the week of the Nederland game to look at tape and offer some insight into Neumann's tendencies? Would there be anything against that.

But lets take it a step further. What if a team wanted to hire a talented player's dad as a "football analyst?"

This won't apply to a lot of schools but some of the larger schools with some booster club money might be able to exploit this at the high school level and get help for their football teams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
North Shore Mike

North Shore Mike

Posted
Posted
My question is, what about at the high school level? Would any rules block teams booster clubs from raising money to hire football analysts with the blessing of the school's head coach/AD? Texas UIL mandates that all football coaches must be full time district employees. But I doubt there is anything about somebody providing a service to the football coaches and program- just like a team photographer or a film software vendor.

But let's take it a step further. What if a team wanted to hire a talented player's dad as a "football analyst?"

This won't apply to a lot of schools but some of the larger schools with some booster club money might be able to exploit this at the high school level and get help for their football teams.

[i][b]I think the last 2 statements are true and happen more than we know. There is no sit out period for transfers so getting parents the ability to work and house in a area happens especially if there kid is an athlete.
[/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smitty

smitty

Posted
Posted
I don't see a problem.  Because it could happen on or off the books.  I could sit in the stands and scout a team and then go to the the head coaches house and deliver what I saw.  Or I could have game films/DVD's sent to my house, dissect them and report back personally to the head coach.  Not a problem.  This is still America where freedom rings...

[quote name="bobbymcgee" post="1419773" timestamp="1374108508"]
I have noticed how college football teams are starting to hire a bunch of "football analysts" to help with film, scouting and player development but not to be on field coaches or recruiters. Here is one instance today, of Texas hiring Greg Robinson for one of those positions: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9486631/texas-longhorns-rehire-former-co-defensive-coordinator-greg-robinson-analyst . NCAA rules limit the number of on field coaches/recruiters.

My question is, what about at the high school level? Would any rules block teams booster clubs from raising money to hire football analysts with the blessing of the school's head coach/AD? Texas UIL mandates that all football coaches must be full time district employees. But I doubt there is anything about somebody providing a service to the football coaches and program- just like a team photographer or a film software vendor.

Let's say PN-G wanted to hire a retired coach like Dan Hooks as a "football analyst" the week of the Nederland game to look at tape and offer some insight into Neumann's tendencies? Would there be anything against that.

But lets take it a step further. What if a team wanted to hire a talented player's dad as a "football analyst?"

This won't apply to a lot of schools but some of the larger schools with some booster club money might be able to exploit this at the high school level and get help for their football teams.
[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DemDAWGS!

DemDAWGS!

Posted
Posted
Obviously college is not bound by districts like high school, so any "scouting" would really put a program in a precarious situation with the UiL. 

I love the football analyst job at the college level ...really think smaller schools could benefit a lot from this type of assistance.  I'm betting there are PLENTY of kids that end up walking on at smaller schools that could/should be recruited (probably some that got discouraged and never played again too).  They may not be top D1 talent during their senior year, but a good analyst might see the potential to develop a guy with the right basics.  I believe Prairie View recently had a walk-on defensive end that's now playing in the pros.  He started on the offensive side of the ball and was developed into defensive player.  With many/most high school taping & (online) broadcasting their games, the opportunity to been seen is much higher than it was years ago.

At the high school level, a Football analyst could really help a new program or a struggling one.  They might help with personnel moves too.  For instance moving [b]future 1st round playoff exit winner[/b], D. Chatman at SC, to RB during his freshman year instead of his junior year.  8)

I SEE MY POST WAS HI-JACKED.  MOST LIKELY BY LITTLE BUDDY GARRITY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bigdog

Bigdog

Posted
Posted
Maybe I'm missing the point, but most schools send coaches to scout teams anyway.  How would an outside "football analyst" help?  I would say the coaches are more than qualified and if there not, send a different coach or hire one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DemDAWGS!

DemDAWGS!

Posted
Posted
[quote name="bigdog" post="1419982" timestamp="1374176060"]
Maybe I'm missing the point, but most schools send coaches to scout teams anyway.  How would an outside "football analyst" help?  I would say the coaches are more than qualified and if there not, send a different coach or hire one.
[/quote]

I'd see the Analyst being someone with many years of experience and a proven track record of winning.  It would probably be a senior (code word for "old") person that might not want the daily commitment of coaching but has A LOT of football knowledge to share.  Sort of a mentor.  Even a guy like Belichick could gain something from having a guy like Lombardi around (if he were still alive).  In terms of high school, there's got to be more schools with younger/less experienced coaches than ones with hall of famers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Justafan72

Justafan72

Posted
Posted
Most of the scouting of upcoming foes is done by Freshmen and Jr.High coaches unless a bye week or Thursday night game comes into play.I don't think the idea of outside help will ever come into play on the high school level.The teams in the lower income districts would surely protest because they would not be able to use this resource,thus making a even greater unlevel playing field.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Mr. Buddy Garrity

Mr. Buddy Garrity

Posted
Posted
[quote name="Justafan72" post="1420252" timestamp="1374275880"]
Most of the scouting of upcoming foes is done by Freshmen and Jr.High coaches unless a bye week or Thursday night game comes into play.I don't think the idea of outside help will ever come into play on the high school level.[b]The teams in the lower income districts would surely protest because they would not be able to use this resource,thus making a even greater unlevel playing field.[/b]
[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Reagan
      America lost. The Kangaroo Court won.

      By Reagan · Posted

      BOOM!!
    • Mr. Buddy Garrity
      Road to Omaha

      By Mr. Buddy Garrity · Posted

      We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • PhatMack19
      Road to Omaha

      By PhatMack19 · Posted

      Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • tvc184
      West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin leaves Democratic Party, registers as independent

      By tvc184 · Posted

      Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • Separation Scientist
      Bridgeland vs Tomball

      By Separation Scientist · Posted

      MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...