Football’s New Offense?

I’m not sure if this has been talked about and I’m just asleep, but a California high school football team is trying out a new type of offense, they call it the A-11 (it looks like they’re trying to promote it, they even have a web site with instructional videos and so on). Here’s their description of the offense:

The A-11 features up to all eleven players wearing an eligible receiver jersey number, either 1-49 or 80-99, with two quarterbacks in the shotgun formation, and with nobody under center – thereby meeting the criteria for a scrimmage kick formation. In their base sets, Piedmont has a center, and a tight end on each side, and three wide receivers to the right, and left respectively. By spreading the potentially eligible receivers across the entire field, it forces the defense to account for every possible receiver on each play. Of course, on any given play, only 5 of those players can go downfield to catch a pass, and the rest remain ineligible to catch a downfield pass on that particular play.

There is video of games at both of the links above if you want to see the offense in action. I think it looks interesting and it makes me wonder how it would work in the NFL. What would the defense do if the offense came out with two quarterbacks, two tight ends, a center, and six running backs/wide receivers? They couldn’t have the usual defense with linemen, because at least one of the receivers or running backs would be open right away (think about a defensive lineman lining up against a running back). I’m not sure it would work, but it would be interesting to see what happens.

Update: Hello, Scientific American people. You’ll note that I don’t really say anything about the math involved, so I’m not sure why I got a call from them but that’s ok. The reason I didn’t say much about the math is that I don’t know enough of the rules of football. I know that in this formation all 11 players are eligible to receive a pass before they line up, at least 7 have to be on the line, and that only 5 of them are once they do line up, but I don’t know even if it would be legal in the NFL (I’ve seen some people say that it would be outright illegal, while others say it would be ok at times–it seems that it would be illegal except for a few plays in college, since the rules state that a kick must be intended in this type of formation). I also don’t know which five are eligible (or how/when they would have to be designated).

Still, I do have some thoughts about it (non-math though). I do think this will be interesting in high school where it might confuse the defense and help smaller schools (they are less likely to have many of the big and athletic players, but this offense doesn’t need them as much). I also think this wouldn’t work well as a primary offense in the NFL because the players are too fast and too disciplined (imagine a linebacker, many of whom can run almost as fast as a wide receiver, with an open lane to the quarterback–they might be able to get to the QB almost as fast as the ball). Still, I think it could work for occasional plays in the NFL with the right players (I would imagine a QB in this system acting as an outlet passer–they would take the hike, almost immediately move, and then quickly lateral it to a back or the other QB for a pass). And it could make for an exciting play. What do you think?

The New Fenway Neighborhood

I lived in the Fenway area of Boston for 18 out of 20 years from 1981 through 2001, but eventually moved out because it (along with most of the city) became too expensive. Except for the expense, I thought the west Fenway region especially was a very good urban neighborhood:

• it has a compact residential section
• the roads inside the residential part are narrow so it’s easy to walk
• it’s surrounded by parks on two sides (the Fens which has victory gardens, sport fields, a rose garden, a walking path along a river (the Muddy river))
• it’s close to entertainment (museums, clubs, movies, and the Red Sox)
• it has a nice variety of small restaurants, as well as a good variety of shops
• it has a good mix of people
• it’s close to public transit;
• it has it’s share of NIMBYism but less than other neighborhoods–the neighborhood actually fought to keep an early release center; has a building for people with AIDs; …

It does have its problems (the Red Sox are, at best, a mixed blessing–like any large sports stadium, there are fans who are loud at all times of the day and do not care about the neighborhood) including the stretch on Boylston Street which looks too much like a strip with one story businesses and lots of open parking.

I, being a good citizen, took part in a series of meetings (I went to more than 20 over 2 years) to work with the BRA to update zoning in the Fenway. The final version can be found here. There were two main sources of disagreement:

• the Red Sox were trying to get a new larger park directly on Boylston–most people at the meetings were ok with the Red Sox staying in the neighborhood but most did not want them any closer to the residential part of the neighborhood
• the existence of PDAs and Gateway Parcels that would allow larger scale development.

Otherwise the rest was fairly much universally agreed on. We wanted:

• the residential section to stay about as it was
• less open parking (we didn’t like being the Longwood and Red Sox parking lot)
• more city type buildings along Boylston (as in taller with mixed use but mostly with a maximum of 6-8 stories depending on the section of the neighborhood)
• traffic calming for Boylston and Park Drive.

In some ways it was pretty obvious that the BRA wouldn’t really follow our guidelines right from the beginning. A couple short buildings were torn down on Boylston to make way for some new buildings (by Harvard Community Health if I remember correctly) but finances fell through and open lots were left. The BRA promised that parking lots were not going to be allowed there. Then in 1999 the All-Star game was to be held at Fenway Park and they wanted more parking and almost overnight there were parking lots there. Not to worry said the BRA, they wouldn’t be there long. It was only several years later that they were finally replaced by the Trilogy development (more about that later).

It was easy to see that the Red Sox were more important to Mayor Menino than the residents of the area. When the Red Sox were looking to build a new stadium, they looked in a few areas in the city. The mayor said that it would not be built in South Boston because most of the residents were against having it there, but he was fine with having it built directly on Boylston even though most of the Fenway was against it. It’s one of the reasons I don’t like Menino.

I have this long rambling post because I got an email for an affordable housing opportunity in the Fenway (I would still like to live in the area) and it was for the new buildings on Boylston. Our recommendation was for a maximum height of six stories on that side of the street with a possible two story bonus (which would have to be set back further) for on-site affordable housing or other community amenities. The new building (1330 Boylston) is 14+ stories with no set back. To make it even worse, the ‘affordable’ units are $1620 for a one bedroom–ha ha, yeah I can afford that.

1330 follows on the heels of the Trilogy development. It’s located at one of the ‘gateway’ locations. At these locations the consensus was to allow up to 12 stories with an additional three possible (this extra allowance was one of the pieces that were argued about), Trilogy is up to 17.

It seems the BRA really wants to make the Boylston section in the Fenway an extension of the Back Bay and actual zoning rules don’t seem to bother them. That’s a shame.

Terror Watch List

Via Majikthise, here’s a report about being on the TSA no-fly watch list. It’s personal, because the reporter is himself on the list. He notes (see here also):

“Coincidentally, this all began in May, shortly after I began a series of investigative reports critical of the TSA. Eleven flights now since May 19. On different airlines, my name pops up forcing me to go to the counter, show my identification, sometimes the agent has to make a call before I get my ticket,” Griffin reported. “What does the TSA say? Nothing, at least nothing on camera. Over the phone a public affairs worker told me again I’m not on the watch list, and don’t even think that someone in the TSA or anyone else is trying to get even.”

It’s all just a coincidence. It certainly seems like it’s political but it’s hard to tell because:

Steinhardt says the list is so secretive yet so shoddily put together, it’s hard to tell if how it is being used — or abused.

And this bit shows how efficient this is:

The TSA, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, said Griffin’s name wasn’t even on the watch list, and the agency blamed the airlines for the delays the reporter experienced. The airlines, on the other hand, said they were simply following a list provided by TSA.

Well, at least there’s a process to get off the list (he is a lawyer that has worked for the government and actually has security clearance):

“On May 2, 2005, I filled out all their forms, made a copy of my passport, my driver’s license, my voters registration card, put it in a package and sent it off to [the federal Transportation Security Administration] and never heard back,” he said. “It certainly doesn’t seem to have done me any good at all.”

Well these things do take time. There is now going to be a congressional investigation. Of course the fact that Congressman John Lewis has been on the list for years and can’t seem to get himself off doesn’t bode well.