Yes this is what has been said to a certain extent. but really what has been said is there is no evidence of it occurring. please try and keep up and not come to your own conclusions/assumptions

quote:
Some said you'd rotate more, but you aren't getting more players, you still only have the 85 guys so that makes no difference.

oh lord, please watch some football

quote:
As though this is just a hypothesis that when a team is exposed to more opportunity for injury, they accumulate more injuries

here in lies your fallacy, I hope you see it one day

quote:
I'm arguing with Aubies and as the saying goes

So you admit you dont have any?

quote:
attended more than a few Georgia Force games, I actually like Arena football. I am well aware it was an exaggeration, but CFB does not need to emulate "the tons of offense to be exciting" model and that is the point. Many of you seem to disagree with that.

so you are admitting that the two have no comparison?

Simple fact, more plays does not mean the rate increases. you were incorrect, yet still arguing the fact and making up your own assumptions and statements. More plays does give more opportunity, theoretically, but the rate does not increase. However, other factors come into play, such as a higher number of rotations as well, which can actually lessen the rate, which then lessens the probability of occurrences. Sorry for actually being logical rather than making stuff up

And all of this about more in game plays is ridiculous as well considering far more injuries occur, in practice, then game play. Far more injuries occur from blitzing, than just being in a play. etc..

This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 10:39 am