The Closed Scimmage versus Exhibition game

[BigTime]

I really am intrigued by the idea of playing these closed scrimmages. I think the guys get so much more out of playing against a quality team, then pounding some DII scrub. I also think that for teams with fanbases like Oklahoma has right now, the loss of the fans getting to see the team play an extra game, is outweighed by the fact that Coach Capel gets to match his guys up against competition that will reflect the regular season.

The question is this: If you could make the call, would you elect to have Coach Capel continue to play one exhibition game and one closed scrimmage? Yes or no, and why?

 

[Seymore Cox]

Close scrimmage is good for getting you guys up to that competitive nature and putting your guys in real game situations. The Exhibition is good for working on gameplans.

 

[BigTime]

Close scrimmage is good for getting you guys up to that competitive nature and putting your guys in real game situations. The Exhibition is good for working on gameplans.

Why is the closed scrimmage not good for working on gameplans? I bet they make those closed scrimmages exactly like a game (TOs, clock, refs, etc...).

 

[JDM Sooner]

Why not just play a quality opponent in an exhibition? Is there a rule that you must only play non D-1 teams?

 

[Seymore Cox]

Why is the closed scrimmage not good for working on gameplans? I bet they make those closed scrimmages exactly like a game (TOs, clock, refs, etc...).

It's harder to run your stuff against tougher teams. Especially early in the season. The defense is a little bit ahead of the offense early on, In my experiences.

 

[Cheno]

Why not just play a quality opponent in an exhibition? Is there a rule that you must only play non D-1 teams?

Exactly right. Or play some of the REALLY good small college Oklahoma teams. They are just going to roll over. Plus it's good for their programs with the guarantee money. I think this is much better than a scrimmage.

 

[JDM Sooner]

Exactly right. Or play some of the REALLY good small college Oklahoma teams. They are just going to roll over. Plus it's good for their programs with the guarantee money. I think this is much better than a scrimmage.

Hell play a U-20 national team from just about anywhere....

 

[AdaSooner]

A closed scrimmage is nothing more than a glorified practice. Everyone assumes the team will go up against a tough opponent, but that may not always be the case. Back up players on high major teams are generally better than some mid-majors or lower-echelon high majors.

The one advantage I can see is that it gives players a break from the monotony of banging heads with teammates in practice. I can also see how coaches would like the idea of working with a combination of lineups and giving instruction from the sidelines, without all of the distractions.

But, as for me, I prefer an exhibition game, regardless of the opponent. It's closer to a real game situation, and it can be especially helpful in preparing young players for performing in front of a typical (although smaller) college crowd.

I say that, of course, without knowing all of the ends and outs on these so-called closed scrimmages. If they mimic a real game, with quality officials and all of the rules being applied, including timing of halves, etc., I might bend a little on my position.

 

[BigTime]

Hell play a U-20 national team from just about anywhere....

I am fairly certain that there are rules against playing those types of teams. Maybe Henzo can shed some light on this for us....

 

[Seymore Cox]

The one thing I love about coaching in a scrimmage is that if I see something wrong, I can stop play and make adjustments immediately.

 

[Cheno]

A closed scrimmage is nothing more than a glorified practice. Everyone assumes the team will go up against a tough opponent, but that may not always be the case. Back up players on high major teams are generally better than some mid-majors or lower-echelon high majors.

The one advantage I can see is that it gives players a break from the monotony of banging heads with teammates in practice. I can also see how coaches would like the idea of working with a combination of lineups and giving instruction from the sidelines, without all of the distractions.

But, as for me, I prefer an exhibition game, regardless of the opponent. It's closer to a real game situation, and it can be especially helpful in preparing young players for performing in front of a typical (although smaller) college crowd.

I say that, of course, without knowing all of the ends and outs on these so-called closed scrimmages. If they mimic a real game, with quality officials and all of the rules being applied, including timing of halves, etc., I might bend a little on my position.

Well said. And great point about the competition level. I think your right...if you divide OU's team up evenly and give Coach Capel one team and Coach O the other you probably have a more competitive game than going up against a smaller D1 school. And you can do that any day of the week. Put uni's on, bring in officials, the whole nine yards. I say play the exhibition game. That's the only true way to prepare guys for game situations if that is what you are after.

 

[MsProudSooner]

The one thing I love about coaching in a scrimmage is that if I see something wrong, I can stop play and make adjustments immediately.

This was my thought, too. I think closed scrimmages against quality opponents would be more valuable to the team.