View Single Post
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 19, 2008, 08:06am
mbyron mbyron is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,620
I don't know what FED will do in the off-season, and neither does ESPN, notwithstanding obsequious rumors about what unnamed NFL sources might or might not desire. So few HS football players go on to the NFL, their desires can't matter much for FED.

You can't lobby me with your arguments, since I don't have a vote. And your lobbying efforts here are tiresome.

I think that FED will take your arguments seriously, but that at the end of the day they will close the loophole. Here's why I think so.

Your arguments are quite tendentious:

1. Safety: no evidence -- not even anecdotal -- supports the claim that the A-11 is safer. Safety IS a concern for FED, but they don't base their decisions on armchair arguments like yours.

2. Speed: the A-11 makes players no faster, and to the extent that it demands more fast players it will decrease participation among larger student athletes, a traditional population of football players.

3. Athleticism: the A-11 makes players no more athletic, and to the extent that it demands more athletic players it will decrease participation.

4. Varied spread formations: such formations are otherwise illegal, and have no intrinsic value that would warrant legitimizing the A-11.

5. Fans want excitement: fans might also like it if wild tigers were released onto the field, but that's not a good reason for FED to allow it. Again, no statistical evidence supports the claim that fans in general (as opposed to your fans) find the A-11 more exciting.


On the other hand, the arguments against the A-11 are compelling:

1. OOPS offense: The entire offense is a fluke, based on a loophole in the rules that is easily fixed and would make football at every level more consistent.

2. No rationale: No other level of football uses or could use the formation. FED has a different rule set, but the differences are based on player safety, increased participation, and uniformity of officiating, none of which supports allowing the A-11. Indeed, they probably require banning it.

3. Already banned: A significant number of states has already banned the A-11, and their representatives at FED will surely ask FED to disallow it.

So, as I say, it would be rash to renew the contract on that domain name...
__________________
Cheers,
mb

Last edited by mbyron; Sun Oct 19, 2008 at 08:08am.
Reply With Quote