I'm torn on LEO...
Blocking, tackling, being fast, throwing accurate balls, taking care of the ball, making good decisions, being in the right spot, reading and reacting well...these are the things that actually win football games, or don't.
I worry that when the above things aren't being done at a high level, that LEO can act somewhat like a pacifier or blanket, lessening the scrutiny or pain that should come from not doing those core football things well.
Tom Allen has clapped, and hugged, and manically cheered on his guys to having a 3-22 B10 record the last three seasons. No one should ever question his passion for the game, and his love for his players and IU. But he obviously hasn't had the right combination of expectations, coaching, demanding of those fundamental things I mentioned above. How many different "Worst in FBS" graphics did they show in Saturday's game?
I think some of the basic core aspects of LEO, have softened the reactions by the coaches and players towards the play that has led to "worst in FBS" type performances.
But then we have to consider what positive impact LEO had to amplify the good play that we saw there for a few years. Do we battle and hang around against PSU, and then does Penix make that spectacular game winning play, without the emotions of LEO? Did LEO allow us to navigate Covid better than other programs? We had a damn good football team there for a few years. What role did LEO play in that?
I think my best summary would be that LEO is an amplifier. When you've got a good group of players, and coaches that are effectively teaching good, solid, things...LEO can raise the level of play. But when you have a group that is more undisciplined, and have coaches that aren't as good at coaching them up, then LEO can be a band aid and keep some from improving and growing.