Recent Comments
I feel like if they only reserve this for really flagrant, obviously intentional hits to knock out opposing skill position players, it's ok. For instance, in the NFL, you sometimes see defenders hit a qb, knowing that they will draw a 15 yard penalty, but figuring the chance to knock that player out of the game is worth the penalty.
For instance, here's Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie literally attempting to decapitate RGIII last season:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/18/dominique-rodgers-cromartie-rg3...
Cromartie leads with his helmet, and launches himself at RGIIIs head. Had this hit not missed, it could have seriously injured the offensive player, and was clearly intentional. I would have no problem with this type of hit warrenting an ejection.
Now, a bang-bang play, in which a reciever streaking across the middle catches a pass and lowers his head, I think it'd be criminal to start ejecting players. This rule is a fine idea if it's used in moderation. If we see it used as much as once per game, it would be a disaster.
You're forgetting that geography might not be that important. Big 12 makes way more money than the ACC right now, because their marquee teams havent been slumping for the past decade. Plus, no way Texas leaves the Big 12 unless the conference is completely collapsing. They get too sweet of a deal there and rule the roost.
I'd say the ACC falling apart is just as likely as the Big 12 getting cannibalized, unfortunately.
Part of me believes that this will actually lead to less penalties. It seems like you see 1 or 2 of these penalties in every game - however, I highly doubt that we will see that many ejections. No one really wants to eject people from the game unless it's really egregious.
Yeah, I think the whole "opposite side of the ball" thing is more of a convention because it reduces the possibility of both players being on the same field at the same time. The rule change would prevent players at the same position from having the same number.
If our top two QBs had the same number in 2010, the TD pass from Tyrod to Thomas could never happen.
However, one of the examples of it being used in the article posted was South Carolina:
"South Carolina may have used this jersey paradox to the best possible advantage back in 2009 and 2010. During that time, starting QB Stephen Garcia and CB Stephon Gilmore both wore #5 on their uniform. Gilmore was used as a wildcat quarterback for multiple games over that two year stretch. Can you imagine the confusion when thereās a different player taking the snap but heās wearing the same number as the previous playās QB? Confusing, yes. Legal, yes, since at no time were both players on the field together for the same play."
Though you'd think the dreads would give it away...
You can't have an epidemic of former players with quantifiable brain injuries. Get used to it, it's coming. We must figure out how to maintain the fabric of the sport while making it safer.
I've got two sons under 8 and a wife who loves football. And I can tell you this with all most 100% certainty: Those boys will never play football. It's just not worth it and I can't make the case to my wife that our sons brains are worth bruising so they can play a sport. My oldest plays soccer now and I know that there is a significant head trauma concern with that sport as well. We will have to monitor it.
doesn't matter on special teams play.
Basically the wording of the rule allows JCC and Ekanem to both wear #4, but they can't be on the field at the same time. There is, obviously, no definition of "offensive" and "defensive" players per se. That would preclude the DeAngelo Hall's of the world.
Either way, it's stupid that's its allowed. It just seems so vain to me, that you are saying your number is more important than the team in some way. It's disappointing that we have given in to this.
(From a tactical advantage, would it help to have your #1 and #2 QB's be both the same number? The opposition may not know who is in the game at any given time, and the wording seems to support "no two players on the field at one time" thing. Your top 2 QB's are never on the field at the same time....)
I don't really like how expansion has panned out for the ACC. UL is good enough to join, but not the 'Neers--a team located in the neighborhood, with a long history against many current ACC teams? Both are about the same academically, though UL has the edge in athletics. Wouldn't surprise me to see Cincy and/or UConn join next, which would suck.
How about Notre Dame getting preferential treatment? A school should either be a full member, or not at all.
if anything, this shows a bit more solidarity on the ACC front.
I truly think the next conference to go down after the big east is the big 12. They have 10 members, and in order for the Pac 12 to get to 16, they have to pluck from there. I could easily see Texas, OU, OK State, heading to the Pac 12, then add in Boise State. Then the other 7 left in the big 12 will be divided up by the b1g and Sec, and the acc brings in cinncy and notre dame. And there is the 16 team conferences for the playoffs nicely set up.
I guess that's good news for us, should push come to shove. I think I'm in the minority, but I still hope that doesn't happen. I like being in the ACC, I like whooping UVA every year, I like playing the Canes yearly, and I like being able to drive to get to a fair number of away games.
UF doesn't want fsu or the U to join. Just like UGA doesn't want GT. Same with South Carolina not wanting Clemson. These schools pull serious influence with their conference.
If the SEC goes after new teams, they'll want ones that bring in new television markets. VT would deliver Va & DC and NCSU would bring in the Tarheel state. That's why both are often mentioned for SEC expansion.
Apparently, the remaining teams in the Big East will now become the America 12 Conference. At least they already have a theme song.
I'm pretty sure that his twitter used to say that he committed to Virginia Tech on July 11, 1994 (his birthday) - so I guess he was a life long VT fan.
So Dadi Nicolas and Corey Marshall have some freakish ups for big men. Also, 4 of the 5 guys I want to see starting on the o-line are tops on the bench press.
According to his Rivals profile, Davis has offers from Georgia Tech, Wake, Colorado, Washington, Colorado, Indiana and a bunch of FCS schools, including ODU. 247 has pretty much the same offer list.
If true, one would think Tech has offered a scholarship, unless he just really loved VT (who wouldn't?).
Also, is it just me, or does my man look like Michael Irvin? Hopefully Davis is a playmaker, too.
BEAT BAMA
#youwasinthelibrary = You were quiet and/or We didn't hear much from you = Sammy didn't do too much that game = Exum shut him down
It's a pun on the whole be quiet in the library thing.
Oh okay gotcha. Makes more sense now.
They wager based on the category (in this case "Colleges & Universities"). Then they reveal the clue.
I'm not huge into Jeopardy so I don't know the wager rules, but why the hell would each of them wager so much if they didn't know the answer? The risk reward just doesn't make sense to me.
Between the ball deflating and the number changing I can see why Monte Kffin left for the Cowboys. His son is a pathetic coach. How the two could be so different is beyond me.
I agree with you, which is why I like the reviewable part. If there was no review clause then I'd think it's the dumbest rule ever, but the fact that the hits/ejections will be reviewed makes me want to give it a chance. The only thing is, these ejection reviews will have to be judged by common sense and not by the rule book, which is something we haven't seen since the inception of the review process in football. I'm interested to see how this will all play out.
Freshman year we did really well, made it to the quarterfinals or semis can't remember which. We won our game before that on a buzzer-beater and then lost that game by 50. 102-52. It was a little demoralizing.
Beastly lifting!
Thanks for the link. I hate trying to find anything on hokiesports.
A: Most of them.
I seriously dislike some of the rules that have been changed in the game in the past 10 years, both pro & college. I understand that the idea is to protect the players. But many of the rules dampen the spirit of the players (ex: celebration penalties), they penalize players for playing hard and fast (ex: this year's "targeting" rule), or they do something totally stupid. (ex: 10 second clock run-offs for penalties) Go back and look at BillDozerVT's highlight videos, or any other highlights from before the mid 2000's. And if you really want to see stuff that's banned, go watch NFL highlights from the 1960's or 70's (especially anything having to do with the Raiders). That was the football I grew up with, and unfortunately the game keeps moving toward flag football. I wonder how great players of the past must view the game today. Jack Tatum, Deacon Jones, Dick Butkus...they probably just shake their heads and think about how the game has deteriorated in so many ways. I remember a photo of Ray Nitschke (ok, if you don't know who he was Google it, youngsters) standing over a player he had just destroyed and it looks like he's daring him to get up. He'd probably get hit for a taunting penalty today, and that's not even counting the hit he must have made to get that result. Classic...just classic football. Oh, and Jim Otto, center for the Oakland Raiders wore number 00. Yeah, you heard me...center!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/01/16/the-most-valuable-conf...