The NCAA Rules Committee is at it again....

#27
#27
crusse10 said:
It leads to more opportunities to get injured, though. That's irrefutable.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Maybe each team should only get one play per game to determine the outcome that would help reduce the number of injuries...

Sorry I tune in to see football plays during a football game. IMO more plays equals a better viewing experience for fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#28
#28
Swan Ronson said:
“My suggestion is rather than spending a bunch of time coming up with a bunch of really stupid rules, spend that time coaching harder.”

Mike Leach is throwing it down toward ole Nicky. I love it.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the NCAA already have a limit on how much coaching can be done??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
HuntsVol_AL said:
It does not necessarily follow that more opportunities for injury will cause more injuries.

A reasonable solution would be for coaches to use smaller, more fit defensive linemen. That *might* actually decrease injuries.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely sound logic that more plays increases the possibility injuries. Injuries don't happen on the sidelines or during the coin toss, they happen during the game on the field while the clock is running.

The logical fallacy is using this probably negligible increase in potential for injury as a basis for rules. By that logic, we should abandon overtime and end games in ties. Can't have those extra plays, no sireee someone might get injured!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#32
#32
Bring Back Ray Mears! Before the shot clock, he'd have the team hold the ball for 7 hours before they take a shot.
 
#33
#33
crusse10 said:
It leads to more opportunities to get injured, though. That's irrefutable.
Click to expand...

So does playing 4 quarters instead of 3 (thirds?), having 4 downs each possession instead of 3, kicking extra points, punts, pass plays, running plays...

Technically true but meaningless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
I love to see hurry up offense, but I also agree with a previous post that it has become a way to take advantage of the defensive replacement rule. Defense, by the very nature of not knowing the play, has to make a best judgement, then chase the play when you're wrong. So it is more exhausting than offense. Continuous hurry-up, under current rules, is taking advantage of the no replacement rule to create an offensive competitive advantage by getting the defense gassed.

I don't want to beat, or be beaten by a team because the defense was gassed. I want the best team executing football that day to win. Hopefully the VOLS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
Dense people making the same illogical come back abound in this thread.

First, the more plays, the more opportunities for injuries.
Second, the more plays without allowing substitutions, the more weaker players on the field, who are more likely to get injured.
Third, the more plays, the more likely players at the end of games will be even more weak, thus becoming even more liable to get injured.
 
#36
#36
VolFan4Life87 said:
It is absolutely sound logic that more plays increases the possibility injuries. Injuries don't happen on the sidelines or during the coin toss, they happen during the game on the field while the clock is running.

The logical fallacy is using this probably negligible increase in potential for injury as a basis for rules. By that logic, we should abandon overtime and end games in ties. Can't have those extra plays, no sireee someone might get injured!
Click to expand...

My argument is that recruiting, strength & conditioning purposed for defending against up-tempo offenses might result in fewer injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#37
#37
I think the NCAA should look at how exciting it was to watch Auburn last year verses other games.

UT is in a position to thrive with either the read option or pro style, mainly due to new WRs, RBs and TEs.

If this rule is implemented, teams with strong Defenses and great pounding RBs (bama, Stanford & LSU) will thrive as up tempo teams like Barn and OR will falter.
 
#38
#38
crusse10 said:
Dense people making the same illogical come back abound in this thread.

First, the more plays, the more opportunities for injuries.
Second, the more plays without allowing substitutions, the more weaker players on the field, who are more likely to get injured.
Third, the more plays, the more likely players at the end of games will be even more weak, thus becoming even more liable to get injured.
Click to expand...

This is a cry-baby argument. Defenses should train for this. They shouldn't train to be fit for few plays then cry about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#40
#40
This won't slow any teams down, assuming it even passes. No one is snapping the ball within eleven seconds anyway.

The best part is it would keep defenses from obviously faking injuries to slow the other team down.
 
#41
#41
appvol said:
At least kids want have to fake injuries to slow the game down.
Click to expand...

What's funny is that some might be inclined to point toward faked injuries as proof that more injuries happen later in the game or later in drives... It goes to show that any statistics gathered regarding these injuries has to be viewed with much skepticism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#42
#42
VolFan4Life87 said:
It is absolutely sound logic that more plays increases the possibility injuries. Injuries don't happen on the sidelines or during the coin toss, they happen during the game on the field while the clock is running.

The logical fallacy is using this probably negligible increase in potential for injury as a basis for rules. By that logic, we should abandon overtime and end games in ties. Can't have those extra plays, no sireee someone might get injured!
Click to expand...

True but I don't remember as many violent collisions in the games involving read-option offenses. Now teams with pounding RBs, such as bama, FL, GA, LSU and Stanford had plenty of big bruising hits and injuries.

Just looking at GA & FL injuires last season is enough to question whether read-option is actually safer in the long run...
 
#43
#43
A common theme among those defending this rule change are using terms such as "more opportunity for injury" and "more likely to get injured." My question is simply this. Is there any actual proof that the pace of play has increased injuries? I don't mean is it logical, there's more opportunity, or more likely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#44
#44
I never thought I would EVER say this, but I agree with Mike Leech. Never thought I would read an article that made him seem the smartest man quoted. But I will give him props, because he was straight to the point. Rules changes coming out of the NCAA get dumber by the minute. Little Nicky, and BS Bret just can't handle the hurry up schemes, and are throwing their little fits. Man up, you weenies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#46
#46
If it is all about safety. How about the rules committee mandate velcro belts with a pair of flags hanging from behind? It would cut the injuries by 80%. Give or take a few %.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#47
#47
90 Vol said:
A common theme among those defending this rule change are using terms such as "more opportunity for injury" and "more likely to get injured." My question is simply this. Is there any actual proof that the pace of play has increased injuries? I don't mean is it logical, there's more opportunity, or more likely.
Click to expand...

That was my point. It is lost, though.

"More opportunities to get injured" does not mean that the probability of getting injured is higher.
 
#48
#48
HuntsVol_AL said:
I have refuted your arguments on two levels.
1. Coaches can design against it rather than litigate against it.
2. I have seen no evidence that suggests that hurry-up offenses running more plays yields more injuries than other offenses.

You use ad hominem and name-calling to refute. There *might* be increased injuries, but I have seen no evidence that PROVES that up-tempo offenses will cause more injuries than non-up-tempo offenses.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the exact same amount of injuries or fewer happen in a game when an offense runs 90 plays per game instead of 70?

As for designing against it, the only thing coaches can do is call in fake injuries in order to forcefully substitute fresh legs in.
 
#50
#50
90 Vol said:
A common theme among those defending this rule change are using terms such as "more opportunity for injury" and "more likely to get injured." My question is simply this. Is there any actual proof that the pace of play has increased injuries? I don't mean is it logical, there's more opportunity, or more likely.
Click to expand...

My thoughts are to be the best you should beat the best. If the rules now prevent rotation giving one side a unfair advantage it should be changed. The questions I have ...

why was the original rule written the way it was?
Does changing the rule undo an unfair advantage to the O?
Does allowing the D 10 sec to rotate harm the O giving the D an unfair advantage?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top