1a: lineman; block.

6. Score every possession.

Weren't most or all the blocked punts last year caused by Venham taking an extra step? I'm betting that will never happen again.

I'm not here to debate whose "fault" it was. Any time a player does something wrong, that is also the coach's fault. You dodged the question though. Didn't he take an extra step on most or all of the blocked punts? If so, then correcting the blocked punt problem may not require a change in formation.

You might find this discussion of the shield formation interesting. The claimed advantages are:
1. Significantly reduced practice time. Note that blocking in the traditional scheme is very complex. Here is a discussion of traditional blocking. Here is a discussion of the simpler techniques in the shield formation.
2. Significantly improved coverage. Note that in the NFL, there are limits on men downfield, and since you can't send the men downfield, this benefit is eliminated, so the shield formation is not used in the NFL. Thus the coverage benefit is presumably the main reason for it.

Note that per NCAA Stats, Ohio gave up only 59 yards in punt returns, so from that aspect, the formation worked. By contrast, Ohio gained 287 yards on its own punt returns.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis LC. If you look at those stats you sent, we were #97 in net punting yards last year, even considering our improved coverage. And If you just consider yards/punt (37.97) we were in the bottom 10.

So was our improved coverage due to the formation or due to very short kicks? Probably a combination of the two. Was our bottom-10 yards/punt caused by a nervous, PTSD punter? I would say at least partially.

After looking at those stats, I would conclude that our punting game was a failure last season. Not only were we one of the worst punting teams in the country, but it cost us a game (BG). We did not sufficiently protect our young punter and he lost confidence, and it culminated in a complete meltdown on national TV.

Bottom line: if the trade-off is better coverage for shorter punts and some number of blocks...the trade-off was unsuccessful last season.

And lastly, I feel that I've been too harsh in condemning the formation itself. You guys are right that other teams run it pretty successfully with only minor issues. My issues are with *our* implementation, not the theory itself. Something is/was wrong with our version of this thing. We discussed it last year... splits were too wide, punter was too close to the shield, etc....

Perhaps the coaches were to blame to some extent. There were some bad snaps and some bobbled snaps, perhaps some extra snaps. When something goes as badly as punting did last year, there's usually more than one thing to blame. The positive is Ohio no longer has a first-year snapper and punter and is not in the first year of this formation, so hopefully, it will come around.

I thought it was interesting that in one of the videos Arkley posted (I think it was an Arkley video), Frank mentioned that Anthony Talbert can long-snap. That leads me to believe that the coaches have identified the problem as being the snapper and are taking steps to remedy the problem.

Paul, I am a proud "loyalist" though the coaches don't need defending.  See the HustleBelt ranking of coach Solich #1 in the MAC. The Independence Bowl was my last opportunity to look down on the field and I watched the punting very carefully.  I came away confident any issues we once had have been addressed. Oh, before that against Kent Grant punted nine times averaging 41 yards.  Not sure why anyone who watched the bowl would still be hauling baggage about punting.  Oh, and when the reporter asked the MAC's best coach about changing his formation, what did the MAC's best coach say?  Time to move on.  Nothing to see here.

Want to pony up?  I will bet large amounts of green that Louisville does no such thing.  Money to charity if you like.

Eight would be good, but might not be enough. Eleven blocked extra points would be better.

on a brighter note and to move this conversation forward......Amicone, Green and Yaszdani are in a dogfight to replace weller. At todays am set Amicon hit one from the hash for 51 and 55! Green and Yazdani muffed their attempt at 51 and Green made his from 55 as well. Amicone, late to camp, seems to have the proverbial"leg-up", so far and is surprisingly as long as the guy affectionately called Big Country by some. K/Offs were strong on Wed but not as deep as Weller yet but Amicone seemed to be the long guy along with Yaz and Green a little of the mark. All-in-all, what big shoes to fill for these guys in replacing the best Bobcat "K" of all time.

I never bet against the Bobcats to not succeed. I'm just saying I'm predicting there will be a special teams mishap. It could be a kickoff return. I really hope it doesnt happen but my gut tells me it will.