The last article in this space suggested that a return to one-platoon football might be an option for some colleges and universities (acting in concert) looking for a creative way to comply with Title IX while preserving non-revenue men's sports and without breaking the bank. Among the posited additional benefits accruing to participant colleges and universities were: fewer injuries, a niche for 'tweener sized football players, less social distance between student bodies and football teams, and, for the players, potentially higher football IQ's.
This article expands on that last point and suggests that if folks were to establish such a one-platoon football conference, they might want to go an extra step and adopt rules discouraging direction of the game from coaches on the sideline and instead encouraging that players themselves manage the game and call a majority of the plays.
DISCOURAGING GAME MANAGEMENT BY COACHES
The adoption of imited subsitution rules, such as allowing substitution - in the absence of injury - only on change of possession and stipulating that all substitutions remain in place for some number of series, would prevent coaches from sending plays into the game by shuttling players in and out as messengers. A concurrent reduction of the time allowed between plays from the current 40 or 25 seconds in the college game to say 30 or 15 seconds would likely be sufficient to prevent coaches from trying to signal in a play to the quarterback, have the quarterback then repeat theplay to the team in a huddle, and then line up and execute the play; and, while a coach signalling to the entire team, without a huddle, would remain a possibility, it is likely that most coaches would find it easier, given the time constraints, to let the quarterback call the plays as most teams do while in their hurry-up offense.
(Of course, under the above scenario, defensive coaches could continue to signal defenses in from the sideline; but whereas defensive tempo - and alignment and stunt, gap and coverage responsibilities - are often dictated by the pace and alignment of the offense; it is reasonable to predict that some, if not most, defensive coaches would choose under a continuous 'hurry-up scenario' to signal in only a base defense, thereby leaving checks and adjustments to players.)
BENEFITS OF PLAYERS CALLING THE PLAYS
In addition to being an interesting wrinkle for our imaginary one-platoon conference, the advent (or return, if you like) of having players call the plays would likely have some additional benefits for players, coaches and participant institutions alike:
For the players, the pace and strain of playing both ways (offense and defense) in a continous hurry-up mode would likely dictate substitution en-masse by quarter or after multiple possessions, as the rules would allow. The result would be a high percentage of participation by the relatively small one-platoon roster. (See my previous article for more information regarding roster size in our imaginary one-platoon conference.) Also, players called upon to decide what plays to run, or to accept without question the decisions of their peers, would need to be exposed to, and most likely involved in, game-plan formation. The result would be a team whose members gain a broader understanding of football than that garnered by their non-play-calling counterparts.
For coaches, a uniquely rewarding aspect of coaching in our imaginary conference would be the challenge of imbuing teams with appropriate elements of leadership, follower-ship (itself a key component of leadership) and an understanding of both strategic and tactical thinking. Coaches would be called upon not so much to win a chess match on Saturday; but to teach the game, and game management, during the week of practice.
For participant colleges and universies, the benefits of having players call the plays, manage their own game, and therefore learn how to apply critical thinking and to function as a group in periods of stress, elation and routine, should be obvious. The mission of extra-curricular activities is, after all, to prepare participants for life after college and to impart learning not suited to classroom instruction.
So, anyhow, now there are two thoughts on this site. I would love to hear any and all comments on either or both.
Comments