Apparently you want to opine on the idea that I think it's the most important decision of all time in taking the football first. It is YOU that is making it out that my point of contention is somehow my overall belief of how NDs games are being won or lost. You asked for my reasoning, I gave you a good one about crowd noise. I gave some benefits of getting the ball to start the second half. I pointed out the vast majority of coaches agree with me and I with them.
You call it an arbitrary sticking point (which seems more a sticking point for you as you want to keep going on it) and I call it a pet peeve. You want to point out OF COURSE the possible things that can or did happen in a specific game that IYO makes my pet peeve null and void. I get it. You're trying to make little of it. I think it's bigger. I think it's a flaw in his football acumen. 95% of coaches agree with my POV.
We differ on this opinion. Should we kick this can down the road some more?
Yes, because you've posed an issue which I've questioned, while asking you for evidence of the harm you've claimed it's doing. Does it not matter to try to be fact-based? Did I not send you what data I could find on the question you asked me, even though it was incomplete and wasn't exactly the right response to your question? But I tried. In order to back up what I was saying, thereby giving the exchange and you the necessary respect.
So,
respectfully, I'll ask again . . .
What concrete harm has Kelly's taking the ball first accounted for? How many games can you point to that ND has lost over it? If it's a flaw, what EXACTLY has it cost ND? Is it just a flaw IN PRINICPLE --
some sort of perceived bad form -- or is it actually affecting the outcome of games?
As to the question itself, I didn't only not bring it up, I never considered it. And when I did, I saw no proof that it is IN ANY WAY a DEMONSTRABLE LIABILITY. So, it's definitely not MY fixation. But since you threw out the topic and I engaged in discussing it, I'm trying to keep it FACTUAL by asking you for evidence of what you're at the very least implying.
And it's this straightforward: Please substantiate/quantify WHY you think Kelly is doing the team harm by not deferring.
And that, to you, he definitely is SEEMS TO BE what you're implying as he's not among the 95% of coaches who do.
So what?
Before Mike Leach, no one used the spread. Then with some exceptions, almost everyone started using some version of it. In fact, it put Lou Holtz type football out of business. Yet, before the spread, many would have called spreading out the offensive line idiotic. Why? Because they hadn't SEEN what Leach saw. Perhaps, Kelly sees or knows something, too. Who knows?
By the way, these things occur in cycles or come and go, period. At one time, each of these formations was innovative: the ND box/shift, single wing, T-formation, wishbone option, veer, I-formation and wildcat. Deferring is all the rage now, but then one day, sentiment may shift to
TAKE THE BALL FIRST. Who knows?
Regardless, there's nothing that says there's some RECEIVED WISDOM involved in deferring, nor any quantitative proof to back up such a claim. And, as that's the case, no reasonable argument that I've seen that Kelly is WRONG in not doing it.
So, I'm asking -- WHERE'S THE HARM other than that Kelly's not deferring may be disconcerting to you. That it's an ongoing CRITICAL ERROR on his part I don't see evidence of. Perhaps because there isn't any, and it's just something you don't like.
As for me, I don't see it as seminal. But if I'm wrong and there's a concrete negative correlation out there, bring it on, and I'll be the first to recalibrate.