the other issue is people like that one ridiculous post about wakeforest arguing that we HAVE to run a “scheme” to be competitive and that’s just incorrect. we don’t need a gimmick to close the gap and if that was what it took to close the gap every school would be trying weird things on offense. far too many “scheme” advocates think it’s a silver bullet. also the use of the word scheme has basically been bastardized into “running an offense that’s not what the big schools run”. scheme also includes stuff like kiffin’s offense, but people here that want “scheme” would not call their offense a scheme.I think the biggest problem is that people hear what they want to from people with opposing views:
If someone is pushing for a scheme, the other people think they don't want to recruit at all. If someone is pushing to increase recruiting, the other people think they don't want to do anything other than line up man-to-man and compete solely on athletic ability.
Pushing each others opinions to the extremes makes it so that no reasonable discussion can be had.
we need a good coach. period. whether that’s a guy with a “scheme” or not, we just need a guy that can recruit well, develop well, and get our guys to execute on gameday. scheme alone will never overcome deficits/make you an amazing team. if so paul johnson would have been undefeated against schools like duke, uva, and vt because we had equal or better talent for the most part but those weren’t always guaranteed wins.