Sign up, and you'll be able to ignore users whose posts you don't want to see. Sign up
Dec 8, 2016
11:16:16am
Mark320 Walk-on
Comment made by Navy coach Ken Niumatalolo made me wonder.
In the Baltimore Sun, an article written to celebrate the Triple Option offense led to this comment by Ken Niumatalolo as well as some narrative from the author:

"He (Army coach) and Niumatalolo both believe the triple option would be an effective counterpunch for lesser teams in the Power 5 conferences.

"'If you're the other guys competing against Ohio State or Michigan, why would you do what they do?" Niumatalolo said. "That doesn't make sense because you don't have the same kind of personnel.'"

As it pertains to BYU, Ty Detmer has installed a pro-style offense which has received some grumbling from some fans because it's not pleasing to watch. Though the pro-style is not the triple option, it has similar principles to the triple option which is assignment sound football. BYU is not in the same category as the military academies in regards to its recruiting restrictions, but I do believe they are in the same boat as teams like Stanford and Notre Dame in regards to recruiting. Stanford runs a pro-style offense because they know they won't be able to recruit athletes at the same caliber due to culture as Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. who have recruits that can make plays against offenses similar to theirs. Stanford has been successful under this system. The point I'm trying to make is the system BYU is running would give us the best chance to win against upper P5 teams if we put the right pieces in place.
This message has been modified
Originally posted on Dec 8, 2016 at 11:16:16am
Message modified by Mark320 on Dec 8, 2016 at 11:17:48am
Message modified by Mark320 on Dec 8, 2016 at 1:48:56pm
Mark320
New username
Schrodizzy
Bio page
Mark320
Joined
Jul 25, 2016
Last login
Mar 25, 2019
Total posts
0 (0 FO)
Messages
Author
Time
ALC
12/8/16 5:40pm

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.