More and more quarterback controversies are creeping up. Alabama has one, Texas has one and Florida always seems to have two quarterbacks shuffling in and out of the game.

So we asked our panel of coaches if a two quarterback system can work and here's what they said:

Mike Gottfried You always want one established quarterback because the negatives of a two quarterback system if the team doesn't buy into it are twofold: it causes dissension among the team and staff and in the locker room, and the first team quarterback needs to get 75 percent of the work in practice, the second team quarterback should get 25 percent of the work and he should watch everything else. If an injury occurs, the second team kid has some playing time in, and has spent even more time watching and studying. (The third quarterback has to watch everything and should get a little work in practice too, but I've already given out 100%, so I can't give him any.) The 75-25 playing time breakdown is key and if you have two QBs splitting the work and the watching 50-50, no one is getting what they need. Also, psychologically, someone needs to know they are the quarterback in good times and bad; they all need to know Sparky Anderson isn't going to pull the hook on them as soon they do something wrong. Quarterbacking is a game of confidence, poise and leadership; those erode when you worried about getting yanked from the ball game. The two quarterback system can sometimes work, but only if the players and staff buy into it. Unfortunately, there is nothing coaches can do to ensure players will buy into it. It all depends on what kind of kids you have. If they are truly team oriented guys, then you could be okay. But if you have the type of guys who say they are team oriented, but in reality individual goals are more important than team goals, you've got problems. I always liked the player who didn't care who did it, he just always wanted to win. In this day and age, the media adds to the problem because it places so much emphasis on individual statistics. If the kid is interested in how many plays he'll be in on or how many passes he'll throw, a two quarterback system will never work.

John Mackovic No position in sports gets more attention and speculation than quarterback and no one gets more support for playing time than the backup quarterback. It takes only an errant pass or two and the fans are calling for a change. Even more interesting is the concept of the two-quarterback system employed by coaches over the years. Coach Tom Landry tried it with Eddie LeBaron and Don Meredith in the 60's so why such the fuss this year? Most coaches, players, and fans have come to the conclusion that having one leader of the team playing quarterback is superior to rotating the two. There are two significant issues to consider. Today football coaches have run into the same stumbling block that basketball coaches have faced for about a decade. Players want their PT -- playing time. Basketball players have almost become vagabonds and football is not far away with quarterbacks. When coaches recruit highly regarded players and promise to give them an equal opportunity to play, the players interpret that promise to mean actual game time. Coaches would rather settle the issue in practice and be able to redshirt someone who is not ready to play. Players threaten to leave and have the ability to attend a Division I-AA program and play immediately without sitting out one year. The other issue is less visible and more difficult to orchestrate. When a coach is trying to move one player ahead of the other and does not want to lose either one, he will invariably play them both to settle the issue during games. This, of course, can have detrimental effects on the outcome of the game and likely will divide the team at some point in time. Rarely are the two players alike in their abilities, and the coach must decide who best fits the offensive system and give the team the best chance of winning. Occasionally, two quarterbacks come along and complement each other in such a way that the team truly benefits by each contributing with his style of play. Keith Smith and Ortege Jenkins from Arizona did this for the Wildcats for two years, and the team was stronger for it. Each of these two young men had a genuine appreciation for the other, and that alone made it work. The two quarterback situations that have not worked out are too numerous to mention.

Bill Curry Two quarterback situations are like most other leadership scenarios. They work best when there is a clear leader, a clear follower and a coach who understands both. In all cases the coach must be the obvious decision maker, so as to reduce the chance of factions on a team. I have seen everything from Tom Landry of the Cowboys shuttling Don Meredith and Craig Morton every other play (1965), to Vince Lombardi preparing Zeke Bratkowski to relieve Bart Starr on an "as needed" basis; the Packer coach believed in relieving the starter if there was any loss of effectiveness by injury. I do not recall the Packers ever losing when Zeke was called upon, which was a couple of times a year. Bart had very few poor games, and I do not recall his being pulled when he was healthy and the game close. I think the bottom line is that almost all coaches would prefer to go with one quarterback, but that in today's battle of wits and rapid fire decisions a prepared backup who can win is indispensable to any hope of a championship!