These proposed rule changes were officially approved today by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel: https://t.co/X2OJs7v8CU pic.twitter.com/DALe49bpwm— Nicole Auerbach (@NicoleAuerbach) April 21, 2020
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/football-players-f...
Rule number 3 should be unofficially considered the "Lynn Bowden Jr Rule".
I also can't wait to see a fat guy touchdown wearing #0.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Kerfuffle? That was straight up A&B, homie!
Funny how many rules are unofficially the __ Bowden Rule.
NCAA: Congratulations, we officially avoided approving anything meaningful.
What? #0?
How is that not meaningful?!? That's fantastic.
💯 💯 💯
(via hokiesports and yahoo sports)
IDK that third rule is very obviously meant to prevent what happened to us in the bowl game. I don't know if it will work but I appreciate the attempt.
The third rule just means you now need to get all your punches in 91 minutes before kickoff.
And logo swipes.
I always hated that when a kid got ejected for targeting that they made him go back to the locker room. It just seemed unnecessary. What was the reason for that any way? Just to be more punitive?
Walk of shame...that'll learn 'em
Because before targeting any player ejected was for personal foul type activity thus getting them off the field was a necessary action.
They might want to be where coaches can't yell at them.
Maybe a bit of introspection would do the kid some good.
The rule was because of you were ejected you had to leave the field. That way you could not sneak back in the playing field (or fight with the other team). Guessing the new rule is they would require the player to change into street clothes.
I really wish to see the 0 being used as an honorary number given to the largest DT on the team at a pregame weigh in.
Consider it the Jeff Allen Cross Sport Memorial Honor
The only thing better than reducing the replay time to 2:00 would be to get rid of it altogether. It has officially ruined CFB by making all officials lazy.
I would be ok with what the XFL did and have the replay conversation mic'd.
I would love to listen into Ron Cherry making a replay call, "uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I dont know fuck it lets flip a coin." -Ron Cherry
You forgot the part where he looks at the Duke bench reaction during the replay to help decide what the call should be.
We talking football or basketball?
Football. In basketball, Coach K walks over to the table and tells them what the call should be.
What I want to know is can we have a player wear double aught...ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the one and only Jim Otto.
Now THAT will be a special jersey at anOSU...
So, if there's a two-minute time limit now for instant replay decisions being made, who throws the yellow flag at the officials for taking too long?
Me? Can that be my job?
Negative. Mascot with a t-shirt cannon loaded with flags.
Plaid this man
Does it bother anyone else that the up arrows are being thrown down?
I like to think of them as being loaded for firing.
+1 for the Factorio gif
I believe the NFL has or had a time limit on instant replay. Still doesn't make any difference.
But if we are getting someone to throw something at the officials to speed up instant replay, I vote for the red shirt guy. It might increase his popularity.
It's probably something like they get a good old slap on the wrist.
Not a fan of duplicate numbers in general. Can anybody think of another sport that allows it?
No but football has.,,,,check my math on this.....like a few more players than basketball and baseball.
Obviously, but football teams don't have more than 100 players. NFL teams don't allow it. Some high schools may or may not allow it, but ours didn't, nor did any we competed against. I always thought of your number as something you own, something to make you stand out amongst your teammates.
I'm sure there are college football teams with more than 15+ walk-ons? 85 scholarship players plus walk-ons might get you really close
You're right and for home teams specifically, there doesn't seem to be a limit as to what percentage of your roster you dress. I'm not arguing against the necessity of the rule, just not a fan of its widespread practice in general. I personally wouldn't want a teammate wearing the same number I'm wearing.
Conferences have different rules so the number actually is not set across the NCAA, though has set a max number at 105 by the first day of fall semester. However, once school is in session you can add however many you want.
The ACC has a travel limit of 72 players.
At home games, over 100 kids could dress for a game. Either way, at the beginning of the year, there are typically 115 or so on the roster. Given injuries, academics, dog houses, some of them will make the dress squad for a game during the year. I think Bama had 4 duplicates last year that saw substantial playing time. Typically single digit numbers.
Nope. 100 kids aren't dressing ever. Even for a home game it's around 60, tops.
This is just one example, but Clemson played 84 in a home game just two years ago, and 91 the year before that. There is no limit on how many players you can dress for a home game; granted most teams never play as many as Clemson does, but 60 is definitely not "tops."
Here's a source for the 84 Clemson players in one game.
Most of the time it is in fact 60 tops, if you want to run the numbers. For a conference/tough home game, VT's number is probably right around 60. Regardless, it is not rocket science to figure out how to limit the game day uniforms to 99 unique numbers. They did it for well over 100 years.
See, you are arguing "game day." The problem is that guys don't switch numbers throughout the year. The 25 is a HUGE DEAL and took approval. Just like the #12 at aTm. Otherwise, the number assigned is the number assigned, for the year. And there are more than 100 kids associated with the program in a year. Take a look at VT's roster, and see how many are listed as "0".
While you are doing that, see how many times- the past 100 years or so- that VT has suited up more than 99 players for a game. I know its hard for you to imagine a kid wear #54 in practice, and 56 in the game on Saturday, but that can in fact be done. What if a hot shot recruit told Fuente he wanted #25 or #78? Meaning the 25 could not be worn on that same side of the ball by anyone else for 5 years or telling Bruce to pound sand- just to stroke a kids ego? No other logical or valid reason? Cool.
Practice does not equal game day...programs being printed, announcers calling the game, fans watching for #xx because they are from the same home town, scouts watching for a kid.
The 25 and 78 arguments are a strawman. You're arguing an entirely different point. There aren't going to be 3 #25's on the field at the same time. But #4? Or #8. Possible.
I wonder how they did the whole program thing from 1900-2015 or so? We should ask someone at VT. It's interesting how they pulled that off for 100 years.
Psst.
Retired Numbers
We also didn't have a playoff. Or an NCAA basketball tournament...it was the NIT. Then it was 32 in the NCAA. We didn't have the forward pass in football either. Or fair catches. And the goal posts were on the goal line. Helmets???? Well, you get my point. Things change and evolve.........
Yes, and each of those had a purpose beyond. "I want my high school number brah".. Next ridiculous argument?
The more than 100 kids has the purpose. Cause, effect. Has nothing to do with "I want my number." It's about giving numbers to over 100 kids, because the team has expanded beyond 30 kids playing varsity. Thus some of them then need to double up.
How do you give numbers out to 125 players? You have to have several kids with the same number.
Not to mention requiring certain numbers for certain position groups.
(edit: someone beat me to it)
100 PLAYERS DON'T PLAY IN ACTUAL GAMES. EVER. Jesus you can't be this obtuse. EVER. Has literally never happened at VT. And if you don't understand how a college practice works and how the whole 105 different kids thing could work in terms of practice, and how it's not a "problem" I honestly can't help you. I can't. This rule is not about that at all. It's about college coaches not wanting to tell a kid they can't wear their favorite number in a game- nothing more.
Ok, I'll respond here for you, instead of each one. They don't play one game in a year. EVER. There are multiple games. There are multiple injuries. The kid that's stepping in in the 7th game of the year maybe was 4th on the depth chart at the beginning of the season...who was one of the 105, and who was given a number to be recorded in the Media Guide and within the rules of numbering. (Don't believe me, check VT last season, or MD a few years ago when they went to the 5th and 6th string QB's that weren't even QB's.)
I understand how a practice works. You don't understand how a SEASON works. You are looking at one single game for the entire year.
Ok, so we get to the 7th game of the year. A kids been wearing 8 all year. They roll him out in a game wearing 11 all of a sudden. Nope. That's not how it works. He's still wearing 8. Maybe there's a starter on the other side of the ball that has started every game of the 6 leading up to that one. Welp, they both are now wearing it during the game, on opposite sides of the ball, and cannot be in during the same down.
As far as how VT has avoided this for a century. Um, I hope you realize this, but VT is not a blue blood. It's not a hotbed destination. We maybe had 105 players on a roster, but had plans for redshirting them, or working them as a back up for some time. Frank was a great manager of this. And he didn't need 153 kids to do it. That's how it was done. You keep asking what's changed, well there it is. Frank is no longer at the helm. And YOU want us to be in the arms race...so here we are with an expanded roster. Different coach, different approach, different result. There's your answer.
As for the first sentence, no, 100 don't play in a game. It's against the rules. But yes, 100 CAN DRESS for the game, as I posted the rule.
As for the "problem"...What exactly is your issue with it? How do 105 kids wearing numbers make you short circuit? Take #8. One is on defense. One is on offense. Maybe one is a starter, and the other is a starter/3rd sting/water boy...actually...it doesn't make a bit of nothing. They are on opposite sides of the ball. Different meetings. (And do you think they are just wearing numbers in meetings? That coaches might get the DL kid and the SE kid mixed up??????) They aren't the same kid, and the coaches get to know them. What is your hang up with practice to games?
Whew. Frank Beamer is why we were able to give a kid 56 in practice and 76 in the game to avoid duplicates. Frank. Old School. Thank you for clearing that up. When Urban Meyer at Florida was winning nattys and signing whoever he wanted, and managed not to use duplicate numbers until the rule change, he was a unicorn blueblood coach. I also didn't realize they couldn't or don't actually provide updated rosters with numbers each game to the media. Wow. Nope, they don't/can't do this. LOL. They DO THIS EVERY GAME. They also print programs each week- in the event that - in your scenario- we need player #103 to play in a game he has not yet played in yet and can actually wear a number other than 103 and the world doesn't end. This is absurd. When Miami won 5 championships in 8 years, the definition of blueblood, the definition of hip, the definition of a bunch of NFL talent pre-madonna's, Jimmy Johnson and Erickson managed to channel their inner Frank Beamer and practice more than 100 guys but not use duplicate numbers. It's wild. It really is. I'm done with this. There is no logical way to argue that duplicate numbers MUST be used in games. None. There was no logic literally for 100 years, and nothing has changed in terms of practice rosters. Nothing. Nebraska had 200 kids in the 80's and didn't use duplicates in games.
To the "years ago" scenario, they also played with concussions, and broken bones, and dislocated shoulders back then. Not any longer. They COULD get away with dressing 70 kids for a game because they played hurt/broken. And the offenses and defenses weren't as "sophisticated" as they are now. You sent 11 guys out there to stop the ball. Now, there's run defense, pass defense, nickel, dime, cover 2, etc. All with different personnel. Offense, you always see substitutions after every play. Not the way it was. The game, the rosters, the uses, the player pool, the money, the approach, the entire thing has expanded. That's why it's not 1993 any longer. And you still want the arms race, but can't get past numbers on a jersey in practice.
This would be a fantastic point.... If VT did not typically play 50-60 guys in games not against Furman. Seriously. You would have a point if 90 different guys consistently participated now more than ever, but they don't.
So, I'll take this in a different direction. This is not soccer, where in days past, a jersey was given to a player before the game with a number on it that was associated with their position. #1 was the goalie, every game, no matter the person wearing it. They didn't print media guides with players and dedicated numbers, although they may have had a paper insert for gameday info. But for each game, they didn't know who was going to wear what number (loosely, I mean the goalie was the goalie, so there weren't surprises there...) until the coach handed them out prior to the game. There's a reason why #9 and #10 were coveted, because they were seen the dangerous scorers. That is not the case in football. And again, football doesn't play ONE GAME a year.
Looked up the roster for 2001 Miami. There are two number 54's listed. OL Alex Garcia & LB Alejandro Colon.
And the 1989 Miami roster, two players listed for #'s 17, 53, 55, 75, 91.
And it's not easy to find complete rosters with numbers going back beyond 6 years or so.
Imma let you slide on the 5 in 8 years, with Johnson and Erickson...
That was after the rule was allowed, obviously.
the only reason you're earning these community downvotes is because there is a whole lot of noise here. why do you care so much?
Not to mention untrue statements. There's a lot of seeing from a distance, such as the Miami rosters comment that I showed was incorrect. Take a sec, look it up, respond with facts, not feelings.
(I'm not throwing dv's though. Just responding with facts.)
that happens in every DC Rumble, plus the classic "move the goalposts" -- start by saying "60s tops" and then when that's disproven by a commenter say "well 94 is still not 100"
all of that to say -- why even care???????????? oh no, josh jackson and divine diablo both wore #17 and we got to laugh at that one announcer who said Josh Jackson broke up a hail mary going into halftime. big deal.
He is also being attacked. Everyone acting like it is impossible when it has in fact been done in the past
and will in fact be done now that the rule has changed. (I guess ig I am reading it right there will be 2 allowable duplicates, so we have 102 allowable jersey numbers minus those retired.Edit: I was misreading the rule. I thought they were saying only two duplicate numbers allowed when in fact the restriction is that no more than 2 players can have the same duplicate number.
He's got a point, and frankly he always has a point. But i'm not sure he's the one "being attacked" when it was a surprisingly strong opinion out of left field that was only ever presented in a sarcastic and biting tone. of course it invites replies, and from there it's just double down and continue.
Attacked? Who is attacking him? Who else is acting like it's impossible to have duplicate numbers?
Marshall regularly dresses their entire roster for home games, even guys that are redshirting, so their family has the opportunity to see them in uniform.
Tech does too especially for final home or senior day games.
And it's never 100. It's never 85... but I guess Clemson doing close to it once justifies it.
It's like you don't understand that certain positions have to use certain numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_number_(American_football)
I got ya.
Honest question for you. How did the VT coaches and equipment staff manage to not use duplicate numbers in games from let's say 1980- 2014? I'm interested in how they did this?
You die on the most arbitrary hills sometimes. I have to respect it.
This is noise...we don't need repetitive gifs over and over that is essentially attacking a specific poster.
I agree that it's noise
From the 2014-15 NCAA Manual:
Q: How many players are allowed on the roster?
A: NCAA rules allow for 105 players to be rostered before the first day of class or the first game, whichever comes first. When school is in session, there is no limit to the number of players on the roster, but BYU maintains a maximum of 123 (17.9.2.1.2).
From the SEC Rules page:
The home team may dress all eligible student-athletes in uniform, but only 80 student-athletes may participate in a Conference contest. (The non-participating student-athletes shall dress out at no additional cost to the institution. Non- participating student-athletes shall not receive pre-game meals, overnight lodging or additional game tickets, but may receive a post-game meal provided the post-game meal is served at the stadium. No cash stipend may be provided to non-participating student-athletes for post-game meals away from the stadium.)
The visiting team is limited to a travel squad size of 70 eligible student-athletes.
The squad size limit for neutral site games (no more than one game annually) is 70 eligible student-athletes for both participating teams.
The squad size for junior varsity teams is 55 eligible student-athletes.
Practice Limitations—NCAA Bylaw 17.9.1 Minimum Contest Requirement—NCAA Bylaw 20.9.6.3 Maximum Contest Limit—NCAA Bylaw 17.9.5
So, before the first day of class, there can be 105, but it can grow with walk-on try-outs after classes start. With over 100 kids, there have to be duplicate numbers.
80 and 70... both less than 100 for actual games. Now of course there is no way a school can figure out that Johnny player 100-105... can wear 28 in practice as duplicate, but if we need him in a game we can give him 29 since nobody else has that one. It's really an impossible sceanrio. You need a stats guy to figure that out.
That 80 is in an SEC game, no rules for at home OOC games. So with the #0 a team can play 200 players in a home OOC game if they wanted. It might be a bit hard to find 115 walk ons though.
New 3 second rule added as well, Gus Malzahn has thoughts:
I'm sorry but this rule is dumb as fuck
When we played Tennessee in the 2009 Chick Fil A Bowl, we had the ball before the half. We took a shot down field rather than running the clock out (very odd for our tendencies at the time), and Jarrett Boykin caught it inside field goal range. The clock ran out, but instant replay determined that Boykin's knee had hit the ground with two seconds left. This meant that the clock should have remained at two seconds until the ball was set and the chains were moved, unless we called a timeout before that happened. We called the timeout, obviously, and got a field right before the half, giving us the momentum, which we rode to a second half blowout.
If this rule had been in place back then, we would not have gotten to kick that field goal despite it being our right to do so given the situation.
This is a horrible rule change, and I don't understand it. It is an easy review for the officials, probably the easiest of all reviews. Changing it will cost someone in the future, and it will probably be changed back in the future.
Are we sure this even applies if the team has a timeout remaining?
Good point. Not sure. I read it as "if we determine that anything less than three seconds will be put on the clock, it doesn't matter."
We would have never gotten to use that timeout had they not put two seconds back on the clock for us.
What is the rule or decision then, if the referees cannot make the call in 2 minutes?
Go with the call on the field, unless the other option would benefit VT or the opponent of any team we don't like.
Or at least that's how it should be.
Yes!!!!! If it isnt blatantly obvious you messed up, then go with the call on the field.
EDIT: Except for targeting, that should have to be proven.
And.... " The Catch" would have stood.
Personally, I don't like the 2:00 limit on replays. If we're going to have replay at all, I want them to get it right, even if that takes longer than 2 minutes.
Yeah, but if it takes longer than two minutes, then you're probably not going to come to a consensus.
It's like one time I was on an interview panel at work, and we were debating whether or not to recommend a candidate. After 30 minutes of discussion, I finally said, "We've been going back-and-forth this long and haven't gotten any closer to an answer. Let's just say no and move on."
Unfortunately, I could see this having the opposite effect. Get to 10 seconds left on the 2 minute countdown and suddenly they feel pressured to make a decision based on what they think happened, rather than acknowledging they just don't know. This very well could lead to even worse decisions being made than what we have now.
And the TV crew will be more than happy to point out the mistake with a camera angle they discover at the 2:05 mark.
I disagree, there is so much guessing/guestimation in football that it doesnt matter. Fix blantent bad calls and live with the other outcomes.
Do you want every single spot of the ball to be reviewed? I don't because figuring out where the tip of a ball in a pile is when a knee goes down is almost impossible. We've lived with the uncertainty for this long. Take care of the big things and dont sweat the small things, because they will always be there.
That is the one thing that bugs me the most about football. It is a game of inches except there is no way in hell anyone knows exactly where the ball is down within inches. Maybe if we had GPS trackable footballs® with a very quick I/O for the refs to see on the fly it will never be called correctly.
The technology is available. They use it in soccer.
100% agree,but football as is isnt accurate so if we are stil spotting the ball in such an inaccurate way then why should I care about spending 10 minutes on some call that is at best a coin flip in review.
Has replay ever cost anyone a game? /s
according to Michigan, no
For 145 years, college football teams figured out how to not have duplicate numbers on game day. Amazing how they did that.
I agree. I know there have been some retired numbers and another handful of small reasons, but it can be worked out without having duplicates.
So, how do you work out 105 kids, and have retired numbers, with only using one and two digit format, without having duplicates?
We should ask the folks at VT how they did this from 1873-2016. It's impossible apparently.
Expanding rosters. Player safety. Practice teams.
https://payperhead.com/ncaa-football-player-rosters/
2015 Bama
https://rolltide.com/sports/football/roster/2015
Right, and on game day, the 3rd long snapper at Bama and likely around 20 of their redshirts aren't dressing. Add 10 other walk ons that won't dress unless the opponent is middle mississippi valley, and the math is very simple. The 85 scholarship limit has been in place since the 80's. This was never an issue until this latest generation of kids wanted to keep their HS numbers or wanted to look cool wearing #9 as a DE. The coaches, instead of telling the kids that for the games, too bad you can't wear 9 because a senior QB has that number, folded and petitioned the NCAA to allow 6 kids to wear #8... why? recruiting/coddling/nonsense - and the rationale that having 4 people wearing a number "doesn't hurt anything" - its the easy way out. Like I said for 145 years, teams had more than 99 kids practicing but seemed to figure it out for the games. It's not a 5 hour calc level math problem, it's not having the guts to say no to kids/recruits problem.
Man, not sure why this irks you..."the easy way out." Haha.
Aren't you one that clamors for the arms race? Well, numbers assigned to players is part of that...
And I'd hate to see the reaction if we had a top tier offensive recruit come in, and Fuente told him to pound sand because he couldn't wear a certain number that a DB already has. Heads would explode, even though he had the guts to tell him no.
If a top recruit won't commit because his number is taken- and never for the full 5 years by definition, we don't need him.
Getting a top recruit a jersey number is a bridge too far for you?
https://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/946603#comment-946603
What jersey # did we refuse Grimes? He wanted 78?
I just thought this was a neat insight into your hierarchy of acceptable top recruit baggage. :^)
We did lose to Duke and BC after all.
You aint walking into that house and wearing 78 until it is 1000% earned. And even then, the Sack Man should be asked. There are some numbers that have that to them. And different teams treat them different ways. It's not a one-size fits all.
Open up the characters to non-arabic numerals. Who gets the coveted Ω?
Why stop there? Give me fractions, punctuation, and chemical nomenclature as well!
"False start, number .... er ... Jersey Pi, 10 yards penalty, replay the down."
That will be comical if refs don't know the Greek alphabet.
Here's one solution...
I guess we are about to find out the solution to this complicated riddle since it is in fact a rule now.#firstworldproblem
Honest question, how does this affect Luke Tenuta who sometimes is #69, but also wore #95 when he was lined up at tight end? I never really understood how this worked anyway - was it just for practice? Did he actually do that in game?
Interesting. He's listed as 95 on last year's roster, and 69 on this year's.
If he wears a number between 50-79 he's not eligible to receive a pass unless he reports. Thus the 95. But that is odd.
I find it more interesting that 10 years ago people wanted the lightest thinnest jerseys and we are back to velcroing names and numbers on them, seems a bit odd. It really makes our jerseys look bad too.
Pic?
Floyd's coverage the stripes while Hookers and McClease Cover a different amount of the stripes.
Think those are sewn, otherwise they'd be coming off during games. Meant the Velcro numbers.
Right. You have 2 options. Throw a jersey on over yours that is an eligible number or tell the ref that #69 is eligible, thus removing- some- element of surprise.
Really? No one else is going to say it? I'll say it.
Nice.