On College Football

In response to this piece by Matt Y, which cites this article in the New York Times Magazine on the Texas Tech Red Raiders' offense, it is true that Collegiate recruiting is fundamentally uneven.

That being said, that inequality is one of the reasons that Michael Lewis was interviewing Mike Leach. It's not just the underdog story, though those are always appealing. It's that the unequal nature of high school and collegiate athletics breeds innovation. If Coach Leach tries to compete against University of Texas with a power running game he's going to lose. Every. Time. He needed to develop a system that was innovative and dynamic enough that it could even the odds against teams stacked with highly recruited high school talent.

A very similar story from high school football can be found in the New York Times' story on the A-11 offense here.

High school and collegiate athletics are fundamentally inequitable. At least that inequality breeds creativity, creativity which affects all levels of play. Look at the Miami Dolphins adoption of the wildcat set. Or lowly Kansas City last week scoring on a wide receiver pass to the quarter back Tyler Thigpen.

UPDATE: I should probably say just a bit more about this. It's natural to think that very tight competition breeds innovation, since every competitor is close even a small edge can reap great benefits. One hit every twelve at bats (about 3-4 games) is the difference between a below average hitter and a very good one. But something happens in a system of close peer competition. If each competitor is closely matched at a particular contest, each seeks SMALL advantages. The risk of trying something very new and different is seen as great next to the rewards of doing so. After all, if you are very close to your peers and you make big new changes, those changes are as likely to make you worse as they are better. Making small changes in an attempt to move from JUST behind to JUST ahead are seen as much lower risk.

In systems with fundamental inequality among competitors, the dynamic is different. The top schools are in a peer competitive dynamic. They see the competition in recruiting as much as in coaching. But the mid-majors and the lower Div. 1-A schools can't compete on that level. The risks of them trying something VERY different are seen as small. They've been losing to the football factory schools for years, if they throw their playbook out and try something totally new, what do they have to lose?

You could make an argument that the same thing happens in business. The US car market comes to mind. When small fuel efficient Japanese imports first entered the US market they simply were seen as curiosities. Who would want one of those little things? The GM and Ford knew how to make cars that people wanted, after all, they were selling way more cars than Toyota. Even after it was clear they were headed down the wrong path, GM and Ford continued to lag Toyota and Honda in producing quality compact vehicles. By contrast, when they first started Japanese manufacturers had to innovate. They HAD to make something new. It would have been impossible for them to compete if they insisted on entering the market by competing in 4 door sedans.

Evolution in business, in coaching, and in nature is not about slow improvement. It's about slow, steady stasis punctuated by dramatic leaps and changes.