Illinois Hokie's Recent Comments
Case in point, didn't Logan Byrd commit during his visit?
Oh dear God don't let him go to Northwestern. Even people in Chicago don't give a shit about Northwestern. And not in the way people in Boston don't give a shit about Boston College. Chicagoans like college football. (Not as much as Da Bears, but still, they like the sport.) They're just all U of I or Notre Dame fans. Northwestern is an afterthought.
If I'm understanding him correctly, I think he wants to apply the same rules of maintaining possession through the act of falling to the ground/being tackled that are applied to receivers to establish possession. If the ground jars the ball loose from a receiver's hands, it wasn't a catch. Under his proposed rule change, the same thing happening to a ball carrier would be a fumble.
The whole idea is, the goal line is...well...a line. It's not the entire width of the white stripe that represents the "0 yard line" but instead the two-dimensional very beginning of that line. So really, the entire width of the white stripe that represents the goal line is actually a part of the endzone. Having a ten yard endzone really is more for passing plays than running plays, giving receivers more space to run routes. If the forward pass were eliminated from the game, there wouldn't even need to be an "endzone." The field could just end at the goal line.
if the ball crosses the goal line and pops out, it's a fumble, not a touchdown
Woah.
The only problem I have with your suggestions is, I'm having a really hard time figuring out exactly when you want a play to end. I don't think there's anything wrong with what you are wanting to happen to the game. I'm looking at it from a rule enforcement/interpretation standpoint. The refs need a definitive end to a play. I don't know where that is in the rules you're proposing.
If I'm following you, you're saying a play does not end the moment a ball is in the endzone (regardless of whether we're talking about the front end or the hind end of the ball). So a ball can be live in the endzone, in the possession of a ball carrier, and it isn't a touchdown. So when does the play end? Does he have to be tackled? What if the opposing team simply refuses to tackle him? Does he have to take a knee in the endzone to end the play?
I don't think anything you're suggesting is out of line, and I don't think it has to do with you being an older football fan. I just want to know how you want the rules to work.
I would LOVE to see Lambert seize the starting job by the throat and then set the world on fire at UGA. Just to watch one more thing blow up in Mike London's face.
So are you saying you want the entire body of the ball carrier to break the plane, or the entire football, or what? I'm just having trouble visualizing what you mean.
And the whole ground can't cause a fumble thing is because the player is down at that point. You could revise the rule that says a ball carrier has to maintain control of the ball all the way through the act of being tackled, but you have to have a way to decide when the tackle is over and the ball carrier is safely down with possession.
LT's as well.
The QB is credited with throwing a TD pass, but then scoring is credited to the receiver.
You'd still have defensive holding, so there kind of already is a category I/II already in place. You could rewrite the rules to make the spot foul PI occur only when the contact obviously prevented a catch that would have otherwise been made. Anything short of that would be the ten yard defensive holding.
This would actually reduce the impact of the ticky-tack PI calls, as they'd now be 10 yards instead of 15, while blatantly tackling a receiver to prevent a catch would place the ball where it would have been without interference.
Also, what are the specifics on the med school guidelines? Nebraska got kicked out over it, but some AAU members don't even have a med school. Is being in a partnership with Carilion actually worse for us than if we didn't have any sort of medical program at all?
There has to be some sort of gameplan for that behind the scenes. Steger was too open about making AAU membership a goal. He knew the requirements and he wouldn't make public statements about it if he didn't have some strategy to get us there.
We've actually been working on it for a while now. We made huge strides under President Steger as a research university, and I'd put money on us being an AAU member by the time President Sands retires.
Not sure if it's a good thing he's announcing so soon after the visit or a bad thing he didn't commit during his visit...
In general, everything you say is well reasoned and articulate, and I appreciate the sentiment that you believe we should be conference mates, but VT has a much stronger SEC profile than a B1G profile.
I have never understood PI being fifteen at the college level. It simply doesn't make sense. TBH, I'm shocked we don't see more blatant tackles on deep balls because of that rule.
UVA, Miami, Georgia, Penn State, Vanderbilt, Georgia Tech, Texas, Boston College, Michigan, Illinois, Rutgers, Florida
UVA- Rivalry
Georgia and Georgia Tech- Stagger so we have one at home and the other away every year. That way we always get a trip to the state of Georgia for recruiting. Also, building a rivalry with Georgia Tech.
Miami and Florida- Same as above but for recruiting Florida.
Boston College and Rutgers- Same as above but for recruiting the northeast.
Vanderbilt- A relatively close to home manageable game against a P5 school. Also to piss off Vol fans that we pick up Vandy instead of them.
Illinois and Michigan- Trips into Lefty's old stomping grounds. I guarantee he'd love to pick up a series with Michigan. I'm selfish and want Illinois.
Penn State and Texas- Two storied programs I've always wanted us to play. Also in fertile recruiting hotbeds.
Especially when he's banning people for talking smack on Twitter.
Wait...
It's up to the play caller to mitigate the shortcomings of his QB. Until the pocket awareness issue was corrected (alas, it never would be), Stiney should have stayed away from slow developing pass plays and stuck with quick throws over the middle. You're quite right that Glennon's O lines were suspect, but then we asked those lines to hold for pass plays that took 5-7 seconds to develop. We didn't play call to put him in a position to win.
When we fell into the two QB rotation with Glennon and Tyrod, I remember every sideline reporter in every game talking about how Stiney said he didn't change his play calling at all regardless of which QB was in. To be blunt, that's assinine. It's an OC's job to cater the calls to the personnel. An offensive scheme isn't one size fits all.
TL;DR. The entire offense was a mess from top to bottom. After the 2006 coaching changes, with the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing, and Sean Glennon among others got hung out to dry because of it.
I blame Mike O'Cain for Glennon's lack of production and development. Glennon had the measureables, but he never took the next step in four years of college. Some absolutely great games mixed in with some absolutely boneheaded mistakes. When you see fits and spurts of potential all through college, that's a sign off inadequate coaching..
It'd be one thing if Sean had been consistently terrible. But Sean wasn't consistently anything. He had some absolutely fantastic games but it seemed like he could never string two together. Would have been interesting to see what Kevin Rodgers could have done with him.
I'd wager it's an oddity to find a team at the FBS level that doesn't have a converted D lineman somewhere on the roster along the OL. It's a pretty standard practice. It just requires having an OL coach that knows shit from Shinola.
"He's on pace to hit 324 home runs this season." - Scott Van Pelt, after a guy hit two homers on opening day
Brings up a good topic for conversation. What would this list look like if the most dominating plays had the restriction that it had to be a game we ultimately won, and the most devastating plays had to be a game we actually lost?
There's no wrong way to do this list, and I love that Joel thought outside the box by looking at win probability as opposed to basing it purely on feels. One thing I'm gleaning from this series, though, is there are a LOT of games we lost where at some point in the game we had a 90%+ chance of winning.