Thinking Out of the Box

The  discussion a couple of weeks ago here about parity in women’s football garnered quite a bit of attention – I had more than twice as many page views in one day as I had on any other, and that particular blog post has already become the most viewed post on my site. So thanks, I think!

One of the discussions that week was about strategy related to special teams. I see many coaches new to women’s football (and some that aren’t so new) look at special teams solely in the traditional manner, i.e., they punt when they think they’re supposed to punt, they kick off deep when they think they’re supposed to kick off deep and they kick an extra point when they think they’re supposed to.

Now, there are valid reasons for doing all of those actions, but I think that each team should probably reevaluate the rote nature of those playcalls. For example: We played one team twice last year, and were pretty familiar with them. They had a coach new to the women’s game, having come from the collegiate ranks. He did some good things, but his punting decisions weren’t one of them. Why? Because his long snapper had more hang time on her snaps than their punter did! Every one of their punts was either done under extreme pressure or resulted in a snap over the punter’s head. In many of their situations they would have been much better served just trying to go for it on 4^th down. I mean, he had to know his long snapper was erratic at best, right?

Even if a long snapper is good, that doesn’t necessarily mean you should punt. Why? Because in the women’s game you’re very lucky if you can get a gross yardage of 20-25 with any consistency. Subtract out the return and very many times the other team ends up with the ball near where your yard to make was. You could’ve gone for it, and even if you came up short been in the same position you find yourself after the return.

Let me point out that going for it on 4^th down is not limited to the women’s game at all, nor is it a new concept. Coach Don Markham (http://www.coachmarkham.com/)  and Coach Myron Miller (http://www.ocvarsity.com/ocvarsity/miller-66059-tustin-coach.html) both high school coaches of note in the Inland Empire and Orange County for many years, decided to forego punting and kicking extra points. Coincidentally, both of them ran the Double Wing offense.

Coach Markham once described his practice plans this way: “We do offense for 90 minutes, defense for 30 minutes, and special teams during pregame.”

Coach Miller told me about his philosophy while we were both scouting a common opponent: “I go for two every time, and only punt if I’m backed up inside my 30.”

One coach who has gotten a lot of attention recently is Kevin Kelley of the Pulaski Academy in Little Rock, Arkansas. He runs a no-huddle spread offense, rarely kicks deep, never punts and doesn’t field punts. There is an excellent link here that talks about the math and a video about his philosophy: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/11/15/5105958/fourth-down-pulaski-academy-kevin-kelley

For us, we’re in sort of a unique situation – we have relatively talented offenses and defenses, and we have a decent long snapper. For some reason we’ve always been blessed with a good long snapper – for many years I think we had the best in the country in Cilena Mosley. However, we’ve never had a punter quite at that level. We’ve always had decent kickers, but our punting has never been more than the 25 yard gross I mentioned earlier. So choosing not to punt became sort of our thing starting in 2011. For the most part, it worked out well, but the two times it didn’t it was in front of the whole country (relatively speaking): In the 2011 WFA Championship game against Boston, we chose not to punt twice while backed up in our own territory and both times we ended up giving up touchdowns. While those points weren’t the deciding ones, they did contribute to what would have been a very close game appearing to be much more one-sided.

We tend to take the same approach on kickoffs, kicking squibs or onsides in some form much more often than most teams do. When your “deep” kicks generally only reach the 25, and you add in a modest 10 yard return, we feel that you might as well trade one less first down that needs to be made for a chance at getting the ball back.

The going for two part is more of an evolving thought process for us. As I mentioned, we have always had good kickers, and currently have an All American in Melissa Strother. So unlike many teams, we can make extra points fairly consistently. The question then becomes, “do we want to”? There is something to be said for being able to get two points on a consistent basis and really putting pressure on another team. My men’s team lost a game last year 24-21 when our opponent went for and got two points each of their three TD’s. We went up 7-0, but then was down 8-7, then 16-7. We came back to 16-15, then missed our final two point try and lost by three. Their success on going for two was instrumental in that victory.

These strategies spill over to our practice time as well. We prioritize according to what we tend to do the most. So we practice kickoff quite a bit. We work the heck out of punt return. We work on onside kick return quite a bit. As the playoffs come, we traditionally then start focusing on the possibility that we’ll need to punt and return more kicks. In the WFA championship game of 2012, we punted a few times, and returned a kick for a TD, so that extra practice leading up to that game came in handy. The point is that special teams should be just like your offense in deciding practice time allocation. Would you practice an offensive play over and over again if you were only going to run it once or twice a game, on average?

Sometimes, your strategies are dictated by your personnel. You may not have a kicker, so will always go for two by default. Maybe you run a Double Wing offense and are never in 4^th and long situations, so maybe you’ll feel more comfortable in going for it on 4^th down. All I’m saying is to consider these seemingly unorthodox strategies, and have a reason for either doing them or not. 

Finding Ways in the Run Game to Get Over Your "Hump"

One of the first things you probably want to do as an offensive coordinator is figure out what run play will be your “go to” for the year. Of course that can change as time goes by and you see what you have and what is truly working, but you generally want to go in with a plan.

Here’s mine:
What can my OL do?
What can’t they do well (at least right now)?
How does my OL match up against the DL we face?
What is the philosophical attitude of the OC (or HC if I’m the OC)?
How does what I come up with fit into the offense as a whole?
Will what I have in mind get us further than we did last year?

For several seasons when I was at Fountain Valley High, our go-to play was the inside zone. We wanted to establish the physical toughness that came from getting that vertical push off the LOS. Generally speaking, we had a pretty good-sized OL for the high school level and that style of play suited us.

One year though, we had a smaller OL (about 20-30 pounds lighter all the way across). Our base philosophy was one of a pro-style, West Coast type of offense. We weren’t going to be a Wing-T or Double Wing team under any circumstances. The Fly Sweep was only run in two places in SoCal at that time (late 90’s), so that wasn’t really an option yet. So for that year, we installed the outside zone first. Our thinking was to use our smaller, quicker OL to generate lateral defensive movement and then come back with the inside zone after the linebackers really started flowing over the top. It worked well for us that year, and we didn’t have to make any changes to our offense – only the order in which plays were installed and the frequency between inside zone and outside calls were reversed.

When I started coaching in the women’s game, the prevailing idea there was a base man-blocked scheme that relied heavily on iso/lead principles. This was fine, as long as our offensive line stacked up physically against opposing defensive lines. Generally speaking, they did – until we got into the playoffs, or until we played in Texas, whichever came first.

After being beat in Dallas in 2005 with an Iso/Lead type of offense, and then again in 2006 with an inside zone based offense, I became the OC in 2007. I’d heard coach Mack Brown say that “if all else is equal, build your team to beat your Week 10 opponent.” Many times at the high school level (and in college too) your main rivalry game is scheduled later in the season. Sometimes, if you go 1-9, but that “1” is against your Week 10 opponent, you’ll still have a job the following year.

So it was my job to figure out who our main rival was and how to beat them. At that time, it was definitely Dallas. We’d won our division twice in a row and lost in the conference championship twice in a row. We had to beat Dallas to get over our “hump”. As a HC or coordinator, one of your jobs is to figure out which team is your personal hump, and how to get past it.

Dallas was built to beat their main rival at the time, Houston. Both teams were big, tough and nasty. They would bludgeon you to death. Without a doubt they had skill as well, but their trademark was Texas toughness.

Dallas had a pair of ILB’s that hit like Mack trucks and were faster than they looked – as long as they were coming downhill. Their DL wasn’t particularly mobile, but were very strong two-gap types of players. My OL was (and still is) relatively undersized but pretty mobile.

My epiphany came while watching LaDanian Tomlinson run wild for the Chargers in 2006. San Diego ran the snot out of the power/counter gap schemes that year. I’d always liked the counter play, but had always looked at it as a third option behind the inside and outside zones. So I thought, “If the counter is good enough for the Chargers to be a #1 play, then it’s good enough for us.”

And that’s what we went into the 2007 season thinking: the one-back counter was going to be our #1 run play and we were going to see what those big Dallas ILB’s could do in space. Our head coach was Dan Tovar (back with us again this year – I’m beyond excited) who was a huge proponent of the passing game. We mixed in his passing game with my run game ideas and ended up beating Dallas in Dallas 34-14, and then again at our place 21-19, knocking them out of the playoffs – we’d cleared our hump!

We went on to beat LA 7-6 on the road, then New York 47-7 in New York, setting up a final showdown against Houston in San Diego, which we managed to win on a double reverse pass (Tovar’s idea) 14-8. Our RB ended up being the league MVP, due to the counter play and swing passes! So for us in 2007, it was all about figuring out how to beat your Week 10 opponent.

Interestingly enough, Dallas is now one of the fastest teams in the league – they’ve completely retooled themselves. Their coaches are sharp – maybe they saw us as their hump, since we’ve returned the favor of beating them in 2011 and 2012 in the conference championships.

Fast forward to last year, 2013. We came in with the idea that the outside zone was going to be our #1 play, along with a heavy play-action pass component based on the personnel we had. Now, this is going to refer back to my very first paragraph, about things changing as time goes by.

Due to relative inexperience at QB and WR, we were completing about 40% of our passes in preseason….on air. We could see that the vertical attack wasn’t going to work well for us. We did have some speed from multiple sources. We had to figure out a way to make the defense “play with doubt” (regular readers will remember hearing that phrase multiple times).

So for us last year, it was the Fly offense, out of the ‘gun. An awful lot of it was trial and error – although I’d attended coaching clinics on that offense, I’d never attempted to install or coach it. But something had to be done – we’d scrimmaged a local team, one that we’d handled easily the previous year, and they beat us 21-7. So we went “all in” on the Fly and the attendant counter plays, and made our play action game all off of the fly motion package.

In Week 2 we faced that local team again, and won 51-0. We rode that horse until the wheels fell off against a talented Fresno team in round 2 of the playoffs, ending our season at 9-2. So now, maybe we have a new “Week 10” opponent – as it happens, we do play Fresno, in Fresno the last week of the season.

My point throughout this article, is that if you want to get better, it may not be by doing what you’ve always done. I can look at more than a few women’s teams across the country and see where they come up short year after year. You’ve got to be willing to adapt to get yourself over whatever your own teams’ hump is. It’s time to figure out what will work in 2014.

Parity in Women's Football?

NOTE: This topic recently came up in a Twitter exchange. Please remember that these opinions are mine alone, and may not (probably don’t in fact) reflect those of the San Diego Surge, the WFA or any other WFA team.

In the women’s game (and also in the men’s semipro level) sometimes there are a lot of blow out games. No one likes those – certainly not the team getting beat up and normally not the team that is doing the blowing out (I say normally because sometimes there is bad blood between two teams, but that’s another story). Yes, your backups get more playing time than normal, but in the end it doesn’t really prepare you for the tests that come later in the year –your “Week 10” opponent.

The question then is what to do about the lack of parity? For me, and I would hope any competitor, the answer is clear – pull the lesser teams up. Help them get better. Heck, that’s the main reason why I’m writing this blog, to give ideas and resources to those who might need them.

There are others who say the way to increase parity is to dumb the game down – eliminate special teams for instance, so that teams can spend more time practicing just offense and defense. Also, they want to eliminate blitzing, so that teams can simplify their pass protection.

Basically, they want to play by Pro Bowl types of rules.

Let me say this: The way to make something better is not to mold it to the lowest common denominator, but to the highest. When businesses in an association discuss practices, they take the “best practices” not the worst. That’s how they get better.

Teams that are good put in the work. They don’t look for rules crutches to equal the playing field. Teams that want to be good put in the work and are willing to take their lumps as long as they are getting better. See for example the Central Cal War Angels who have been getting better each year of their existence and beating us in the playoffs last year. They didn’t start off very well. Heck, we (as the SoCal Scorpions) didn’t post a winning record until 2005 (3-7 in ’03, 1-9 in ’04), but ended up winning the WPFL national championship in 2007).

In 2011 and 2012, we were pretty good, reaching the national championship both years. In 2011, we lost to a very-well coached Boston team in the finals. It forced us to re-look at what we did, and we vowed that if everything else was equal, we’d install thing that would beat Boston. We ended up not playing them, but it gave us a focus and a sense of urgency in 2012 that paid off.

In 2012, many people said that the best women’s game of all time was played in Heinz Field in front of an ESPN3 audience, with us beating Chicago 40-36 on the strength of special teams – a kickoff return for a TD, a punt return for a TD, and then pinning them on the 5 on the ensuing kickoff. The Chicago coach (John Konecki, I’ve mentioned him previously as well) told me later that they changed their approach to coaching ST because of that game. Chicago went on to win the national championship in 2013.

That is what champions and those who aspire to be champions do. They find a way to improve themselves.

In 2013, we had a roster of 28 players, 12 of which were complete, never-played-the-game-before rookies. We had to go both ways, we had to limit our practice time, we had to simplify things. We had to be better teachers. We went 9-2, losing in the second round of the playoffs. We didn’t make excuses, we didn’t look for shortcuts, we just went out and competed. At some point, just like in 2011, we ran into a team that was better than us, period. That’s football; that’s life. Not everyone wins or gets a medal.

There are teams out there that are not good right now. Whether it is coaching or a lack of players, they just aren’t good. If it is coaching, then sooner or later either those coaches will improve themselves, or they’ll get fired. If it is players, then at some point the owner will step up marketing efforts and attract more players. The players will buy in to the coaches’ scheme and program and they’ll turn it around. There are several parts to a successful team. 

But again, let me be clear: Good teams will remain good teams with or without special teams, with or without blitzing and with or without any other silly rule modification you want to make.

If you tell us that we can’t run ST, so the lesser teams can devote more time to offense and defense, but guess what? So can we. If you tell us we can’t blitz, fine. Our DL technique will be top notch and we’ll lead the league in interceptions. That would be our attitude. Meanwhile, the same people that are complaining about how lame the Pro Bowl rules are would be complaining about our games.

Dumbing down the game because someone feels the women can’t handle the full gamut of rules (and yes, I’ve only heard men saying this) would not decrease the amount of blowouts. A talent deficiency is still a talent deficiency and a good coach will find a way to excel within the rules, while a poor coach won’t. Simple as that.

We’re getting more and more good coaches at the women’s level. Heck, Boston’s coaches have won games in the NFL. Dallas and Chicago’s have both won state high school championships. I’ve seen plenty of others (Central Cal, Seattle, Fresno, Las Vegas, Kansas City and Pittsburgh to name a few) that really tweak things to work in their favor – they do a great job with what they have.

Sorry if this has been sort of a rant, but I just don’t get those who would hold the game back – whether it be from a lack of effort or an assumption that the game itself has to be changed. 

Pass Protection Scheme 101 - Part 2

Last week I talked about two forms of pass protection, man and scat. This week I want to go into the two variants of slide protections.

Full Slide
What it is: Full slide is a six-man protection where the entire offensive line “slides” in one direction or another. Normally, a RB/FB will fill on the side away from the slide (OL slides right, RB fills on the left). When utilizing this, I teach my OL that they are responsible for the space “from their nose to the nose of their partner”.

Pros: I think the plusses are many for a full slide – it is easy to teach as it doesn’t matter what the defensive alignment is, the OL doesn’t have to think. They only have to protect their area. As always, there are technique issues that come into play, but they are minimal. A full slide protects well against teams that like to blitz inside, as you have true OL filling those A gaps.

Cons: You have to commit 6 blockers. For that reason alone, I rarely use it unless a team insists on blitzing inside and we have no other way to counter that. Also, it tends to work better for 3-step drops because although the interior is solidified, depending on the matchup between your back and the edge rusher s/he is assigned to, you may not have time for the QB to take a full 5-step drop and look around. While a tailback may be OK against a 3-4 OLB (again, check your scouting reports), I highly doubt they’d stack up well against a 4-3 DE.

Half Slide
What it is: A combination of man on one side, and slide on the other. Generally speaking, the slide would start with the first uncovered OL. For example, versus a standard 3-4 alignment, let’s say the line is sliding right (the direction of the slide can be determined by play call, scouting report, center/QB communication, etc.). The LT would be manned up against the DE. The LG would be the first uncovered OL, so would start the slide. Therefore, you would have the LG, C, RG and RT for the NG, Mike, DE and Sam. The RB would have a dual read to the left, from Plug to Will.

Let’s say you had a 4-3 look. The LT would have the DE, the LG would have the DT. The C is the first uncovered, so starts the slide – you have the C, RG and RT for the DT, DE and Sam. The RB would have the Mike to the Will inside out.

Some teams free release the RB and run a blitz beater package to a predetermined side, away from the slide.

Also, when first installing this, it may be helpful to have the OL call out “covered (LT), covered (LG), slide right (C)” in the 4-3 example. At the high school level, we ended up doing that in game as well. We just had to make sure we made the same calls when doing a play-action pass.

Pros: Overall, this is a very fundamentally sound protection. Assuming the direction of the slide is easily communicated, it is relatively easy for the players to determine who they have or are responsible for. I’ve used this protection very successfully at all levels – high school, women’s and men’s semi pro. You see it throughout the collegiate and pro ranks.

Cons: It can be a little weak against a 4-3 or 4-2 team that likes to blitz inside. In those cases, the RB must be a stud and forcefully step up to meet the inside blitz. In Pistol sets this can be problematic. However, the use of the RB and the backside receivers in a blitz beater package can alleviate this if the QB is well-drilled in blitz situations.

There is one more protection that may still be floating around – the old “cup” protection, where everyone covers their inside gap and the RB’s fill in to the outside. I personally haven’t used or taught this one in several years as I hate what it means: you can’t protect your QB and need seven blockers to do it. Yes, it’s a pride thing.

Basically, you are blocking for a field goal. It does take 7 blockers, so you’re running a 3-man route at best. Make sure your RB’s are coming inside-out on the edge rushers. I suppose if you’re normally a running team and don’t have the time in practice to drill pass pro, this would be OK. But from a philosophical standpoint, this protection just makes my teeth itch.

That’s it….this has been a very high level overview of the various protections out there. There are certain schematic adjustments that may need to be made to some of them (especially in man and scat), and dual-reading by both an OL or RB’s take some drilling, but it can be done. There ARE ways to keep your QB upright, mobile and throwing with confidence.

Please note that I’ll be out on vacation next week, so look for the next update on January 29. Feel free to let me know about topics you’d like to see covered! See ya!

Pass Protection Scheme 101 - Part 1

OK, enough with the Christmas wishes and New Year’s Resolutions – back to some nuts and bolts of offense!

Many newer offensive line coaches (and perhaps some veteran ones) ask about different types of pass protection. I’ll go over the four main types on a rather high level and try to explain the base scheme and the pros and cons of each. This week I’ll cover man and scat schemes. Next week will be slide variants.

Man
What it is: Man protection is just that – “You have that guy, and you have that guy.” Generally speaking, the idea is to handle the “four big guys and Mike” (middle linebacker). Your tackles will be manned up against the DE’s, the guards will be manned up against the DT’s and the center would have the Mike if he blitzes. On some teams this is also called “BOB” protection – Big On Big.

Running backs would be responsible in some form or fashion for the OLBs, either by blocking them or by running their routes to draw the OLBs out in coverage.

Pros: This scheme is easy to implement as a coach and easy to understand as a player. Many players, in my experience, prefer this scheme as they don’t have to think very much and just need to handle their guy.

Cons: Although easy to implement on paper, I think it is tougher to execute on the field due to stunts, twists and possible alignment issues. For instance, let’s say you have a 3 technique outside your LG, the Mike is showing blitz head up/inside shade over the LG, and then you have a 1 technique inside your RG. Because the center is responsible for the blitzing Mike, he’s got to set towards him thereby leaving the RG on a serious island with the 1 technique threatening his inside. Are there adjustments you can make? Sure – but then you’re getting away from the simplicity of the scheme, and should just transition over to one of the other schemes I’m going to describe. Otherwise you’ll find yourself with endless adjustments being made and your players will become confused. In my opinion man schemes are best suited for All Star games where there is little practice and no blitzing allowed.

Scat
What it is: “Scat” protection (as far as I can tell, this name originated with Ernie Zampese, the OC for Air Coryell and the Chargers back in the day), mans up the tackles but has the guards and center working in combination with one another. In the book “The Blind Side” author Michael Lewis describes how Bill Walsh neutralized Lawrence Taylor by using a version of the Scat protection.

In a nutshell, versus a 4-3 look, the two guards and the center would take the 2 DT’s and MLB. The center would set towards either a 1-technique alignment or a dominant player, depending on game plan and scouting. If the Mike was showing outside one of the DT’s, then the center would set for the DT and the guard would take the Mike. So it is a 3-man zone. If there were 2 RB’s, then they would take the OLB’s. If there was only one, then the center would have to make a call and “dual read” Mike to Will or Mike to Sam and the RB would take the other OLB.

Versus a 3-4 look, the tackles are still manned up. There would be a 2-man zone between one of the guards and the center, working NG to the designated ILB. The other guard would have a dual read, Mike to Sam or Plug to Will. If one RB, he takes the unaccounted for (by the dual read) OLB. If two RB’s they work outside-in, knowing that one of them will overlap protection with the dual reading guard.

Pros: This is a pretty fundamentally sound protection. It can work with almost any kind of personnel package – 2 RB, 1 TE; 1 RB, 1 TE; 2 RB or 1 RB with no TE. You can account for up to 7 defenders, and throw hot if they all come.

Cons: It can be complex to install, with multiple calls and tags sometimes being necessary to make coordinate the TE and RB blocking responsibilities. There’s a reason that this came from the NFL! I’ve used it successfully at the high school level, and been able to simplify it down to one version in the women’s game, but we only used one personnel package with it.  I’ve never attempted to even install it in the men’s game. There are also some technique issues that need to be taught to the guards/centers in terms of drilling the dual read that are normally second nature for tackles, but more foreign to the interior linemen. But if installed and drilled properly, it is rock-solid schematically! 

That concludes Part 1 of Pass Pro 101 – next week I’ll talk about slide protection and it’s variants. As always, hit me up with any questions!

New Year's Resolutions

For players:

I WILL carry the ball ALL THE WAY over the goal line before I start celebrating!

When I score a touchdown, I will recognize the other 10 people who made it possible.

I will NOT be caught smiling at any point after being called for a stupid personal foul that kills (or extends) a drive.

If I am a teammate of a person who gets called for a stupid personal foul, I will NOT go up to him/her and say anything along the lines of “it’s OK”. No, it’s not. Stop doing stupid things that hurt the team.

If I claim to “love the game” I will show it by having a true passion for the game, instead of only passion “for” games. That means taking seriously practices, workouts, film study and chalk talks.

If I’m getting coached, I will NOT say, “That’s what I did.” No, you didn’t. If you did I’d be patting you on the butt instead of chewing it out.

I will not talk to anyone else when a coach is talking to my group or the team. Basic respect and courtesy.

For coaches:

I will be organized in my practices and drills. Indecision and looks of confusion erode trust of the players.

When I coach to correct, I will give specifics. Telling a player to simply “hit someone” doesn’t help (unless the player really didn’t hit anyone, which does happen).

I will praise publicly and criticize privately whenever possible.

I will not discourage questions, and will gladly answer in detail. However, the players have to know there is a time and place for everything. Generally speaking, 0:20 left in the game, and down by 4 is not the time for lengthy discussions.

I will admit I whenever I was wrong.

I will listen to players’ suggestions. It may not be feasible to act on all (or any) of them, but if they’ve taken the effort to think them through, then you have the responsibility (and give them the courtesy) of listening. There is no faster way to have players tune you out than to have them think you don’t listen to their concerns and ideas.

I will not talk to anyone else when another coach is talking to my group or the team. Basic respect and courtesy. We demand it from the players, we should demonstrate it as coaches.

Happy New Year – may 2014 bring you and your team enormous personal and professional success!

A Christmas Wish

My intent is to keep this short…dunno how that’ll work! First of all, for everyone who celebrates Christmas, I hope you had an awesome one!

Here are my football-coaching related wishes for you and the sport:

For both players and coaches (especially at the men’s level), I hope you treat the game as your personal “big time”. I had the pleasure of sitting down with 3-4 other high school coaches to talk with Bob Cope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Cope) about 18 years ago. He talked a lot about the business of the profession, and the one thing that stuck with me is this, “The Big Time is wherever you’re at right now.” I hear a lot of players (almost always men and some coaches) say things like, “It’s only semi-pro.” That drives me crazy. Why do it if you’re not going to put 100% into it? Heck, I coached my son’s 9-year old winter baseball team one year. I brought a football coaches’ perspective to the practice. I had a plan, I assigned areas of responsibility for my coaches, I made sure the practices were upbeat, organized and fun. One of the parents said something about “a lot of effort for a Little League team” and my reply was, “Do they deserve any less than my best just because they’re 9?” It’s the same thing at whatever level you’re at – semi-pro, women’s, high school or youth. Those athletes who are busting their butt for you (or the coaches if you’re a player) deserve your best. I hope you bring it each and every practice.

For coaches, may you not run boring offenses. If you do, please win. Especially at the women’s level when we are trying to attract fans, there’s nothing worse than running a boring offense and losing. Winning cures everything, so if you can be dominant with boring, OK. Otherwise, remember that we’re in the entertainment business.

Along those lines, please don’t underestimate what your players are capable of doing and learning. Stretch their limits and you’ll be amazed.

Finally, may you never stop learning. I’ve been going to coaching clinics each year since 1991. But what impressed me was seeing Herb Meyer, who holds the San Diego Section record for wins, sitting in the front row and taking notes until the day he retired. Coach John Konecki of the Chicago Force (also two-time Team USA coach and Illinois high school state champion) and I bounce ideas off each other, despite the very real possibility that we’ll be opponents in 2014. Nick Saban recently invited Lane Kiffin down to Tuscaloosa to evaluate the Alabama offense.

There’s always either something new to learn, or a new and better way of getting something done, or teaching it to your players. When it comes to helping your program, it doesn’t matter where those ideas come from.

That’s it – it’s time to settle down for the Bowl Season, which is my favorite time of the year, where teams pull out all of the stops. I hope you enjoy it. Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you in 2014.