http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=911196

Someone innovates w/in the rules, and some governing body has a committee that wants to shut it down. ('Downright un-American!')

Not to mention this is not only w/in the rules, it appears to be more exciting and dynamic, more in the spirit of athletic competition!

Pick your poison, this could be old guard Republicans protecting telecom or some other industry w/ an antiquated business, or old guard Labor Unions protecting their antiquated labor model.

Either way, it serves as a telling metaphor of selfishness and short-sightedness.

It's ironic that when someone breaks away from tradition a group of folks want to jump on them but when people try to protect tradition, such as defining marriage the way it's always been defined, tradition is tossed out the window.

I have no problem with the A11 offense. As a player on that team I would have a big problem because colleges wouldn't look at me as closely as they might if I played in a traditional offense. You can't gauge how a person might play in a traditional offense so the chances of a scholarship go down.

As for how this relates to politics, well, if they make rule changes banning the A11 offense then it will certainly stop. When they make rules in politics either they're ignored or tons o' cash is spent on exploiting percieved loopholes.

(02-11-2009 02:55 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It's ironic that when someone breaks away from tradition a group of folks want to jump on them but when people try to protect tradition, such as defining marriage the way it's always been defined, tradition is tossed out the window.

And perhaps you have me there. As someone who bristles at redefining marriage, maybe I'm just as guilty. I think there is a difference though, so permit me to elaborate.

Simply put, marriage has a rigid definition, not based solely on tradition, but rather on an inherent quality of a relationship. It is no coincidence that throught history, and throughout virtually all (if not all) cultures, one man and one woman can and do enter a specific relationship, a marriage. That relationship has certain attributes that transcend these various cultures, times and places. In some times and some places an individual may have multiple marriages...but note those are never combined and referred to as one marriage.

Thus there exists this unique institution called marriage. And you can try to re-define it or expand on the definition...but that only serves to water down your vocabulary. The unique institution still exists, even if your language no longer has a unique term for it. Redefine a circle to include ovals and squares if you will, but the unique properties of a circle will still exist, nor will they be transferred to those other shapes.

That isn't the case with man-made constructs like football...or the FCC or assembly lines. These institutions have been created, and modified to suit a given situation countless times. And when innovation comes along that maintains the inherent qualities of any of these, yet improves on their performance...those innovations shouldn't be opposed, they should be embraced!

(02-11-2009 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  And when innovation comes along that maintains the inherent qualities of any of these, yet improves on their performance...those innovations shouldn't be opposed, they should be embraced!

Agreed - totally. At the same time, the A11 offense, while within the rules, is outside the spirit of the game. It's sorta like when the Oakland A's had that midget who would pinch hit for some one and was told not to swing at anything with the hope of getting a walk. Other than that, I'm all for building a better mouse trap.

(02-11-2009 03:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-11-2009 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  And when innovation comes along that maintains the inherent qualities of any of these, yet improves on their performance...those innovations shouldn't be opposed, they should be embraced!

Agreed - totally. At the same time, the A11 offense, while within the rules, is outside the spirit of the game.

Do you really think so?

I guess I look at it as though it's another tool for a coach to consider using based on the make up of his team.

I'm a big fan of the option offense, so I'm happy seeing rules that allow for variety, rather than just the drop back and pass approach.

ESPN did a story on this. Some college coaches are studying the offense with designs on implementing it. I believe there have been some pro coaches at practices too, but they remarked that the rules won't allow it at their level.

As for your "metaphor".... thud.

I love the A-11 offense. Credit should be given to coach who saw what he had on the field and made it work, instead of copying what everyone else does.

(02-11-2009 03:52 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-11-2009 03:26 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-11-2009 03:12 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  And when innovation comes along that maintains the inherent qualities of any of these, yet improves on their performance...those innovations shouldn't be opposed, they should be embraced!

Agreed - totally. At the same time, the A11 offense, while within the rules, is outside the spirit of the game.

Do you really think so?

I guess I look at it as though it's another tool for a coach to consider using based on the make up of his team.

I'm a big fan of the option offense, so I'm happy seeing rules that allow for variety, rather than just the drop back and pass approach.

I see your point and it's a valid one. But isn't the whole purpose of the numbering system, other than player identification, to indicate who plays what position? On the flip side it's OK for the defense to line up 11 on the line with the offense not knowing who's coming. I guess an argument can be made either way.

I watched several of the videos of the A11 and I see no real problem with it. I totally applaud ANY and ALL innovation in any sector of society.
Let's be real....This offense does not assure any edge. Piedmont lost one of it's first game of 08... 61-35. You STILL have to play defense!!!

I'm totally pissed with the NCHSAA for banning this innovation. In NC this group of people are totally out of thier minds and only concerned with raising funds to support their paid staff. In NC teams can get in the playoffs with only 4 wins in the regular season. Member schools must turn over a large portion of the gate during playoff games to the NCHSAA..So you figure whats going on.... The NC playoff system is a damn joke and everyone knows the NCHSAA is also a joke.

(02-11-2009 08:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Piedmont lost one of it's first game of 08... 61-35.

Lost? You mean in today's school system young people are allowed to be humiliated by losing? I thought the idea of winning was ushered out when the idea of no one losing was ushered in during the 90's. I can't even begin to imagine the trauma suffered by the losing team. Are they receiving counseling?

(02-11-2009 08:26 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm totally pissed with the NCHSAA for banning this innovation. In NC this group of people are totally out of thier minds and only concerned with raising funds to support their paid staff. In NC teams can get in the playoffs with only 4 wins in the regular season. Member schools must turn over a large portion of the gate during playoff games to the NCHSAA..So you figure whats going on.... The NC playoff system is a damn joke and everyone knows the NCHSAA is also a joke.

So I go back to my original point...