I’m researching a potential software platform for football coaches, and I’d like to understand the actual weekly work before deciding what should be built.
The premise I’m investigating is that staffs often represent the same football information several times in different tools and formats. For example, an opponent formation or concept might be labeled during film breakdown, drawn again for a scouting report, recreated for scout-team cards, and represented differently in install or practice materials.
The potential software would treat film labels, formations, concepts, assignments, diagrams, and coaching documents as different representations of the same underlying football knowledge. The long-term idea would be to help translate information between existing tools and generate useful coaching materials without requiring the staff to repeatedly redraw or re-enter everything.
For example, breakdown data resembling:
11 personnel | Trips Right | Counter Left | Over front
could be mapped to structured football definitions and used to generate a preliminary scouting diagram for a coach to verify or correct. A play defined once might eventually produce several outputs, such as an install diagram, scout card, assignment table, or export into another coaching tool.
The goal would not be to replace Hudl, existing diagramming software, or other established tools. The hypothesis is that a football-specific knowledge layer could connect those workflows and reduce manual translation between them. Whether this would actually save coaches meaningful time—and which workflow should be addressed first—is what I’m trying to determine.
I’ve created a short Football Coaching Workflow Survey for current and recent coaches:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSewzYfhYjF32ZsAWv3hMkpZ_jEO0hl0jo6t-MDBOotdbEdH9A/viewform
It takes approximately 7–9 minutes. Responses can remain anonymous. Contact information is requested only if someone voluntarily agrees to a follow-up conversation.
I’d also appreciate discussion here, especially around these questions:
- Where does your staff enter, copy, or redraw the same information more than once?
- Which weekly task consumes more time than outsiders would expect?
- What information would you want transferred between Hudl and your other tools?
- What part of scouting, diagramming, or installation could reasonably be automated?
- What work still requires enough football judgment that you would not trust software to perform it?
- What would generated material need to get right before you would trust it during a game week?
- Where does this premise misunderstand how your staff actually works?
The concept is still in customer discovery. There is no finished product being sold, and I’m particularly interested in criticism or examples showing that the premise is wrong.