Recent Comments
anyone have stats for transfers over the last two decades? Is there really an alarming number of transfers from our program or is this just a case of off season chicken-little-itis?
Then there's the controversial matter of consent...
Could not disagree more.
This is right in line with the pussification of America. If kids don't want to get hurt, don't play. It's that simple.
There's a big difference between getting hurt (example: breaking a bone) and having issues that change the way you think for the second half of your life. You can recover from broken bones. If you have to live the last thirty years of your life walking with cane, it's a major inconvenience, but you can still live a largely normal life. But battling depression and dementia (and other CTE symptoms) starting in your late 30's/early 40's, and continuing to do so for another 40-50 years is really scary to me. This isn't an example of the 'pussification' of America. If players in the 60's and 70's new that every concussion increased the chances of CTE and mental illness, they would have reconsidered their decisions just as people are now.
doesn't specify...I guess as long as the lights are off, you're in missionary, and you're not tickling the mug, it is okay
My boys were not allowed to run in elementary school recess whenever it was moved inside to the gym for rain, cold, heat, teacher not wanting to go outside, etc. And then they wonder why the kids seem hyper. Probably why the oldest took up boxing as a club sport in college, and the younger one tackle football as soon as he was old enough. As a side note, our high school averaged more concussions in girls soccer than boys football over the past several years, despite having less than half the participants.
Is it also illegal to have sex with a coffee mug?
to be more fair, it's illegal to have sexual intercourse in Virginia with the lights on so it's not all that surprising that men struggle to find it
I guess you could say they didn't have tremendous offers but we kept them and that's a pretty big deal. Otherwise we would be left with the same issue as last year 0 depth. Hopefully he will be able to get 1 or 2 of those WR's to produce some stats this year because Ford and Phillips could definitely use the help.
No, I agree... I think this is step 1 of molding american football into something that will survive over the next few generations by those in charge of the game. Eliminating the kickoff isn't going to be the moment that brings youth football back, but its a good starting point.
I really do think the game of football has about a 10-15 year window right now where it either needs to seriously adjust its style to be less violent and safer for the participants, or reach a tipping point where its inevitable the game will eventually lose so much popularity it essentially withers away over the long haul. And they have to be especially careful nowadays with the rising popularity in soccer in the US, because there's a boatload of potential money to be made in that sport in the US, and if the NFL takes a step back, that's a sport setting itself up to be a prime candidate to take its spot.
Somewhat related article on playgrounds becoming too safe. Excerpt:
Even if children do suffer fewer physical injuries — and the evidence for that is debatable — the critics say that these playgrounds may stunt emotional development, leaving children with anxieties and fears that are ultimately worse than a broken bone.
At some point we have to realize that the sport will never be entirely safe and these kids will have to choose whether or not to play it.
I don't think we are trying to make the sport 'entirely safe,' but the concussion research coming out is eye opening and startling to say the least. If it's found that this can eliminate 200 concussions per season (not that ridiculous seeing as there are 128 FBS teams, playing 12 games each), is it worth it?
I appreciate the opinion, but I think an argument could be made that you can learn all of those relevant life lessons with or without the game of tackle football.
sure. like other sports.
Its one thing to say trying to implement rules to protect people from the reality of everyday life and everything that could go wrong or possible adversity. It can't be done, for starters, and it shouldn't be done for the reasons you mentioned.
My point is that we're going about this the wrong way. When the NCAA changes the rules to protect people in a game it, by itself, isn't as damaging as I'm implying. However, it's the principal of the action that worries me. You're setting a precedent that when something is identified that could negatively affect an individual we rely on a governing entity to make rules changes to mitigate or eliminate whatever it is that was identified as a potential danger to said individual.
By making rules changes in the name of player safety we are inadvertently cultivating a culture of changing rules to protect people instead of letting/forcing people to find ways to protect themselves. We can realistically only take that so far. By changing the rules to protect people instead of educating people on the dangers and letting them make the decision for themselves you send the message that if something is adverse we'll eliminate it from your life. In football that's fine, but when you build that expectation people get to real life and aren't prepared to deal with the fact that they no longer have an overwatching entity that will protect them from things that are dangerous to them. We're building a reliance on some governing body to protect us from every possible thing that could harm us. We need to figure that out on our own.
I think making significant rules changes like this is a slippery slope. I also don't think we're dealing with the problem properly. If the game of football is dangerous (it is) and you think it is necessary to protect children from the game (I won't argue that point) then you should get rid of the game or properly educate people on the risks and leave it the way it is. Changing the rules is putting a band-aid on a gushing wound. It's a short-sighted way to fix the bigger problem. But there is way too much financial interest in the sport to get rid of it altogether so the only other option is to tell people, "Hey, this game is dangerous, and you're probably going to get hurt. Make your choice" and let the game go on as it should. If people decide they don't want to play then, fine, they'll find something else. I don't have a problem with people not wanting to play (or let their children play) but leave the game alone and just educate people on the risks. Don't change the game just to try enticing more people to let their kids play because you're afraid your revenue stream is going to suffer. For hundreds of years to come people will want to play football. I don't know what percentage of American citizens are professional football players but I'm certain it's a tiny number. There are thousands (probably millions) of people out there who will want to play the game. If someone doesn't want to because they think it's too dangerous somebody else will take their place.
TL;DR - leave the game alone or get rid of it. Don't change it just to try keeping people interested in playing. There will continue to be people who will want to play the game even knowing the risks.
To be fair, most men can't even find it in the daylight
WatchESPN had something like that for the national championship game. The Home Town Radio stream had the radio announcers and also had some stats and alternate angles in three boxes at the bottom.
I wonder if they'll make a glow in the dark version, so you can find it in the dark.
Given the recent state of our kick return game, it would seem we stand to gain about 15 yards in average starting field position. So I won't be too upset about it.
Or that all the linebackers we play are short.
|
10 years 6 days
# | Where the Hokies come from: Virginia Tech's old recruiting approach appealing to new coach None of them had tremendous offer lists though just to be fair. Hoping he's able to land some difference makers soon, but don't think he's landed anyone of the caliber we already have on offense at the skill positions yet.
Diablo was my favorite WR from either last class or this class thus far fwiw.
In an alternate dimension that may have been listed as a spoiler alert.
Just award everyone a participation badge, sing kumbayah, then go home.
So the NCAA is becoming UVA?
Participation badge: Participation Commonwealth Cup
Sing Kumbayah: Sing the New Year's Song
then go home: UVA pre-game ritual
and against Virginia to end the year.
This reminds me of the whole alternate dimension thing from Stranger Things.
I feel like if you eliminate kicking, you also need to eliminate some of the other plays that allow for draining the clock late in the halves. I would be alright with something along the lines of "when there are less than X minutes left in the half, the clock stops after every play." That would come with its own issues, but there needs to be something to prevent the situations where you're down by 14, score to bring it within 7, but you've only left 1:50 on the clock so it's game over since you already used your timeouts.
In reality, knowing Sam's implicit work ethic, I'd tend to agree.

This was my question exactly -- it may be that Fuente ran everything through Cross, simply because of Cross's skill. It may or may not be his fundamental preferred offensive game plan.
I say this knowing I don't have the Xs and Os prowess of many here.