Courtesy Toronto Argonauts
I was intrigued by Mike Mitchell's reporting that the Toronto Argonauts would go with two, co-defensive coordinators this season.
It's unorthodox, and in my experience, I cannot recall this being done at the professional level. This doesn't mean it can't work but it's very uncommon. I thought I would have a little fun with it and asked Chat GPT why the Argos might appoint co- defensive coordinators. It came back with the following:
"While there are reasons why a team might opt for a single defensive coordinator, there are also potential advantages to appointing co-defensive coordinators, such as:
Diverse Expertise: Coordinators with different backgrounds and areas of expertise can bring a wider range of ideas and strategies to the table. This diversity can enhance the overall defensive scheme and adaptability to different opponents.
Collaborative Decision-Making: Coordinators working together can engage in more collaborative decision-making processes. They can bounce ideas off each other, analyze opponents' strengths and weaknesses more thoroughly, and come up with innovative game plans.
Division of Responsibilities: Dividing responsibilities between co-coordinators can allow each to focus on specific aspects of the defense, such as run defense versus pass defense, or managing different position groups. This specialization can lead to more comprehensive coaching and development.
Enhanced Player Development: With two coordinators, there may be more
individualized attention for players, leading to better development and skill refinement. Coordinators can work closely with different position groups to tailor coaching techniques to each player's needs.
Depth and Succession Planning: Having two coordinators can provide depth in coaching leadership and facilitate smoother transitions in case of one coordinator leaving for another opportunity or facing health issues. It also allows for grooming potential successors within the coaching staff.
Adaptability and Flexibility: Coordinators can collaborate to quickly adjust defensive strategies during games based on in-game situations or opponent adjustments. This flexibility can be a valuable asset in responding to the dynamic nature of football.
Conflict Resolution: If conflicts arise within the coaching staff or between players and coaches, having co-coordinators can provide a built-in mechanism for resolving disputes or differing opinions. They can work together to find compromises or solutions that benefit the team.
Scouting and Networking: Two coordinators can cover more ground in scouting efforts, building relationships with university coaches, and networking with potential recruits. This broader reach can strengthen the team's talent pipeline.
Ultimately, the decision to appoint co-defensive coordinators depends on the specific needs, goals, and culture of the team. For the Toronto Argonauts or any other team, weighing the potential benefits of a collaborative coaching approach against the challenges and complexities involved is crucial in determining the most effective coaching structure."
I was surprised that Chat GPT did not mention efficiency. It's entirely possible that this would be less costly than hiring a new defensive coordinator at the top. Just for comparative purposes, I also asked Chat GPT why the Argos should not appoint co-defensive coordinators. It returned:
"1. Clarity in Leadership: Having a single defensive coordinator can provide clearer leadership and direction for the defensive unit. With one person in charge, there's less potential for confusion or conflicting strategies.
2.Accountability: A single defensive coordinator can be held accountable for the performance of the defense. If there are issues or successes, it's easier to attribute them to one person rather than splitting responsibilities.
3.Consistency and Stability: Having a singular vision and strategy can promote consistency within the defensive unit. Constantly changing or negotiating between co-coordinators might lead to instability or mixed messages.
4. Efficiency: One coordinator might be more efficient in decision-making and game planning compared to a collaborative effort. It can streamline communication and implementation of strategies.
5.Player Development: Working closely with one coordinator allows players to build stronger relationships and understanding of the defensive schemes. This can facilitate better player development and execution on the field.
6. Avoiding Internal Conflict: Coordinating a defense requires unity of purpose and vision. Introducing co-coordinators might lead to internal conflicts over strategy, playing time, or responsibilities.
7. Resource Allocation: Allocating resources such as time, attention, and coaching staff may be more straightforward with a single coordinator, rather than dividing resources between multiple individuals.
8. Alignment with Organizational Structure: The decision may align with the broader organizational structure or coaching philosophy of the team. Some teams prefer a more hierarchical coaching structure, while others may be more open to shared leadership roles."
Finally Chat GPT said, "whether or not to appoint co-defensive coordinators depends on the specific circumstances, preferences of the head coach and management, and the dynamics of the team. There's no one-size-fits-all answer, and different teams may find success with different coaching structures."
This is a conclusion that makes sense to me. Time will tell as to whether it works for the Argos.
Around the League
After a hall of fame career, former Argo Chris Van Zeyl retired this past week at the remarkable football age of 40. While he had perhaps his best season in a TiCats uniform he had his best years in Toronto, winning two Grey Cups protecting the incomparable Ricky Ray. Van Zeyl will go down as one of the best Argos tackles, if not offensive linemen, in the team's long history.
The Argos have had some great tackles over the years including Danny Nykoluk, Mike Wilson, Kelvin Pruenster, Rob Murphy, Chris Schultz and many others, and now of course Dejon Allen looks to join their ranks after his award-winning season. With the benefit of hindsight, letting him go in 2019, presumably to keep Jamal Campbell, was quite clearly a mistake.
Out on the left coast, the BC Lions are going to play a home game in Victoria this summer. Tickets to this game were sold out in an hour. The elephant in this room is expansion. The league is wise to not have mentioned this word as they tend to get ahead of themselves in these hopeful communications. Expect them to play it down this time round, but you can be sure that this question will be asked by the time the game arrives.
Unlike the Maritimes, there will be no declarations that the chances of expansion are 11 out of 10. Greater Victoria has a population of about 400,000 and Vancouver Island almost 900,000. Victoria is also very wealthy in comparative terms to other potential expansion cities. Could Victoria support an expansion team? Absolutely. Can a suitable owner be found? I wouldn't bet against it. Would Omar Doman support this expansion? I think we may already know the answer to that question. While the University of Victoria does not have a football program, there is strong support for Andrew Harris' team, the Vancouver Island Raiders of the CJFL, based further up the island in Nanaimo.
Regarding league exposure, there was an insightful article from Simon Houpt this past week in the Globe & Mail on TV deals for sports. He pointed out that earlier this year, Roger Goodell reiterated that the Super Bowl would never become a streaming or cable only event while he was commissioner. Professional sports leagues are increasingly concerned about audience "reach" and ensuring that games remain on broadcast TV, where the greatest number of potential viewers are still found. The CFL should take note as they have a cable TV deal which serves as a de-facto blackout to millions of Canadians who have not subscribed to TSN. It's not a growth strategy. In this area, new MLSE president, Keith Pelley, should prove to be a great asset. Pelley was previously president of TSN and the Argos, and should be instrumental in crafting the league's broadcast strategy, if not negotiations, going forward. Between Pelley and Alouettes owner Pierre Karl Peladeau, the league should enter every Canadian media-related negotiation with an advantage.
USPORTS
The mess on the mountain has not been resolved, and sadly, it looks like the venerable SFU football program will not be returning to USPORTS, let alone the NCAA. After SFU leadership claimed for months that the decision to cancel the football program had nothing to do with money, their special rapporteur, Bob Copeland, revealed in his report last year that the athletic department had been carrying a large structural deficit for years.
Since the university fired Teresa Hanson last August, SFU has been operating without an athletic director. In the middle of this fiasco, the University's Board, which is heavily populated by BC government appointees, renewed the contract of its President, Joy Johnson, for another five years. The University is projecting another substantial budget deficit and has remarkably been asked by the government to start a medical school which will be focused on producing graduates in family medicine. SFU is a university known for its political science and sociology programs. You wouldn't be alone if you asked the question, how can a university that lied to its student athletes, alumni, and donors be trusted to train doctors?
For dreamers only
The UBC T-Birds really need an in-province football rival. It won't be found at SFU anytime soon. It's not impossible for another university, with more ambitious leadership, to step up, but it would probably require a model such as Laval's or Carleton's to do it. That is to say, driven by the alumni, donors, and private boosters more than just university bureaucrats. The BC university closest to UBC's academic stature is the University of Victoria, which, as Victoria College, was actually the first post secondary institution in BC. It has several professional programs including a law school that SFU doesn't have and can count on strong financial support from its alumni. It's a university more focused on the environment and wealth generation than re-distribution and ideology.