Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HoustonCuse, post: 1882464, member: 87"]
Either way it is a big change. By ripping the bandaid you will get to your desired final results faster but with a possibly rockier transition. With gradual, you will get to your end result in a slower way but have a possibly slightly smoother transition. I think the end state is the important thing and so getting there faster is generally better. In reality, winning 4 or 5 games instead of 3 or 4 isn't a substantial difference in any real way. It's not like the quick change here is costing us a bowl or anything. But it could lead to the team being credible enough next year or the year after to make a bowl instead of still mediocre but not horrible in 2 years.

Secondly, I would think there is just not enough practice time to try to teach two schemes, which is what you have to do to slowly transition. It would be time consuming and potentially confusing for the players. Especially as new players come in and are intermixed with veteran players from the old scheme.

Thirdly, there is buy-in. Change management is all about buy-in and football coaches are probably the buy-in focused of all managers on the planet. It would be pretty wishy washy to ask the players to completely buy in to a new scheme and then hedge bets all over the place with legacy schemes.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?