Recent Comments
Title of this thread needs to be changed to warn of how hot the takes are in here.
edit: Eh, didn't really consider the use of spoilers. Most of these threads tend to be based on everyone having seen it, such as the GOT thread. Either way I'll delete all that stuff, as this thread does not explicitly have *spoiler* tags on it. Don't want to ruin a great show for anyone.
Maybe he was referring to Crab Soccer.
Of course, Crab Soccer is mentally devastating, so it should probably be banned as well. I am living proof that Crab Soccer Post-Traumatic Syndrome is real and is reeking havoc on our society.
So at home games do we wear orange or maroon flags? I say that around 50% in jest. Football is football, it has and always will be a collision sport. You line up your biggest and quickest and we shall do the same and see who wins. I realize they are talking about this out of player safety, but at some point it comes down to the players. Concussions are terrible (had one myself) but it wasn't due to football. If the players made tackles the correct way it would cut down on a lot of head injuries. We've all seen the running back, backer or safety fly up crown of the helmet first, getting rid of a single play isn't going to stop concussions.
My dad jokes I ruined his hopes for a women's bball starting lineup. Jokes on him, I have four older sisters who be like:
I think it merits some discussion (read: I like it better than your kickoff moratorium before the 2 minute mark). Would you get the same opportunity after a field goal? Cause that would totally change the strategy of the game. Normally being down 4 points means TD or bust. Now you could put in a 40 yard field goal and have a hope of a 5 point play WITH possession.
|
10 years 6 days
# | Finding the H-Back, The Versatile Centerpiece of Justin Fuente's Memphis Offense "ThrockmortonhearsaHoo"
This makes me laugh. Welcome to TKP.
for some reason this seems appropriate here:
Speed and Danger
WHAT IS THIS?
|
10 years 6 days
# | Elimination of the kickoff on the table by college football rules committee Future of football.... 'The way he pulled that flag after the 3 yard run was incredible!'
We are working on our own starting basketball squad. Just have to hope they grow out of their cant walk on flat surface phase.
|
10 years 6 days
# | Finding the H-Back, The Versatile Centerpiece of Justin Fuente's Memphis Offense Man, can't help but think Malleck would've been awesome in this role based on French's breakdown. Great as always!
#RUBBERBANDBANKS
|
10 years 6 days
# | Elimination of the kickoff on the table by college football rules committee It's also very possible that another type of play becomes the next on the chopping block.
Well there you go. I guess those 85 football scholarships absorb a couple women's team's worth of scholarships. I do know I'm gonna push my daughters into sports from an early age cause it's a whole lot more likely they'll get a scholarship than my son even if none of them are phenoms.
*clears schedule for rest of evening*
How about this?
When a team scores a TD they have three options. A) kick the PAT. No change. B) Go for two as per the current rules. or... C) Go for two from 25 to 30 yds out. If they score, they get the two points and the ball back at their own 25. If they miss, the other team gets the ball at their own 40 yd line.
Feel free to shred this idea, as I did not think it through whatsoever. Because... the internet.
'_'
|
10 years 6 days
# | Elimination of the kickoff on the table by college football rules committee I'm not arguing that these revelations about concussions and how they can lead to CTE are a bad thing. In fact, I think they are a great thing.
The "pussification of America" line isn't about men being macho and doing things that put their health at risk. I'm not advocating for coaches to make high school players play hurt to "toughen them up." I actually think that should be punished severely.
I'm arguing that by coddling the general public and wooing them into playing a sport under the false pretense that it is safer than it used to be is damaging to the social fabric that makes us wonderful.
There is a fine line between education and enablement. I think people need to be educated appropriately and then allowed to make their own choices, not coaxed into dangerous choices under a guise of safety and security. We should have to think for ourselves, evaluate what we need/want, and work hard to achieve goals we set for ourselves. Instead the general public is spoon fed this garbage that we're going to change the game to make it safer and get rid of concussions and then you can play it and it'll be okay and you won't have to worry about CTE and all the dangers that come with traditional football. No. I just don't agree with it. Don't insult the intelligence of the people by pretending to change the game and trying to sell it as safer to keep people engaged. You can change the rules but football is still going to be a dangerous game and people are still going to get hurt. Changing this rule does nothing but attempt to quell the general public in an attempt to keep a dangerous pastime alive and well.
I agree with "there will always be a most dangerous type of play", but if that most dangerous type of play is WAY more dangerous then measures should be taken to reduce the danger. For instance if the data says the kickoff is 300% more dangerous than plays from scrimmage, then shouldn't we get rid of it?
I can see your point, to a degree... most of the time a ball that is kicked by a scholarship kicker will end up in the endzone. BUT, I can't believe that, under the current rules, that a coach is going to tell his return unit to not touch a kickoff. That's a live ball. Anything can happen with a bounce, the wind, etc.
And, yes... I'm down by 2 scores with 3 minutes left, and I have my TOs, I feel like I have a better shot at pinning you deep, and my defense getting off the field, than I do at an onside kick. I'll take Blackjack odds over Roulette odds any day.
Also, to the third quarter scenario, The team could still spring an onside kick in the third quarter, if the return team in the lead doesn't opt out of the kickoff. Also, if a team is up big in the 3rd quarter and they're opting out of the kickoff, I would assume they are anticipating an onside kick anyway, so the element of surprise isn't there to begin with.
This is right in line with the pussification of America
Probably because of this mentality which leads to a stigma about players talking about their mental health issues stemming from CTE or just concussions in general. How many times have you heard about a high school coach dismissing a player with a head injury because he needs to "quit being a pussy" and get back on the field. These aren't broken bones that heal. Its good that there's a discussion about what can reasonably be done.
Also the line in general about America. I guess we should pine for days when men mined for coal 12 hours a day and child labor laws didn't exist. What a great time it was
Now, when are we getting a mens lacrosse program?
They've been talking about it since I was a student 20 years ago. Apparently we still need another women's sport or two before they can add men's lax.
VILLAGE IDIOT
|
10 years 6 days
# | Elimination of the kickoff on the table by college football rules committee I'll withhold judgement on this until seeing what they have in mind for a replacement. I get the concern over injuries, but simply awarding the ball to each team on the 25 after their opponents score takes away too much from the game. As others have mentioned above, a successful onside kick can keep a trailing team alive late in the game or completely change the momentum in a close game. Likewise, a big return can also keep the recieving team alive.
Whatever replaces the kickoff needs to have some drama and the potential for the kicking team to 'steal' a possession. I wonder if a punt situation from midfield, where the kicking team could retain possession if they gain 20 yards on a fake, would be a viable option? It keeps a lot of the spirit of the kickoff alive, where a touchback is possible, but not a given and the opportunity for a big momentum-swinging return is there. Because you have to defend the possibility of the fake, more players will be close to the line of scrimmage, which should reduce the number of head-on full speed collisions. On top of all that, you have the opportunity for a block, which always adds excitement to the game. The biggest problem I foresee is that this idea gives such a short field to the team that successfully executes the fake. I'm not real sure how you'd compensate for that without moving the kickoff punt farther back, which would likely reduce the number of touchbacks. Since the impetus for eliminating the kickoff is a reduction in major injuries, I assume that increasing the touchback rate would be a key goal.
congratulations for hitting on every spoiler I painstakingly tiptoed around in my post :-P
VILLAGE IDIOT
|
10 years 6 days
# | Elimination of the kickoff on the table by college football rules committee They can already do that, in essence. There's nothing stopping the coach from telling the return man, "No matter what you do, don't touch that damn football until it crosses the goal line." All your option really does is give the coach with the lead an opportunity to prevent an onside kick attempt, which would be a viable option in a lot of situations outside of the final 2 minutes. If you're down 2 scores with 3:00 left, are you telling me that kicking it away is actually a better strategy than trying for the onside kick right away? Or if you're down 3 TD's late in the 3rd quarter and think you can catch the other guys off guard? In my opinion, the ability for the team who just scored to steal a possession is too valuable to the game to discard. Whatever they come up with really should provide some analog for the onside kick.
On top of all that, Fox Sports is going through its own set of growing pains right now. Much was made of ESPN's layoffs earlier this year, but Fox Sports cut a bunch of behind the scenes staff as well as they seem to be searching for their identity. I also wonder whether their level of spending just to compete with ESPN is sustainable.
I know that it's not something tons of people are interested in, but there's been a lot of discussion in the sports media realm about Fox Sports hiring Jamie Horowitz - he's the architect behind creating the First Take juggernaut, and he's a big reason why guys like Cowherd, Whitlock & Bayless have been brought into the fold at Fox. They're getting paid a ton of money with very little to show for it in terms of ratings (although admittedly, it's early on in their run to be sure). Right now, ESPN's studio shows are still destroying anything that shows up on FS1 in the ratings department.
So while it's true that FS1 and (more recently) FS2 have obtained better carriage with major cable companies, they still lag behind ESPN in almost every facet.
Not really. You just see something vaguely like this idea in other parts of the culture and get upset about it, and now see it everywhere because you're looking for things to be upset about. It's confirmation bias that has more to do with you taking up a cause than what's actually being talked about.
Other people have spelled it out quite well here. Games have to change in order to survive, football has changed more than most over the generations. If you're against the kickoff being taken out, that's fine, but don't make up a phony culture war to justify it.