Started By
Message
re: NCAA Rules Committee Proposes to Eliminate HUNH
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:51 am to tider04
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:51 am to tider04
quote:
I was simply pointing out that even though safety is a straw man in this debate, there is a legitimate argument from that angle.
No there is not. That is why it is ridiculous. There has been no quantitative, measurable data to support it.
1
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:52 am to tider04
quote:
Maybe instead of trying to dissect every analogy, you could just take the point from the analogy and discuss it, since you know, that's what analogies are for and all.
Maybe you shouldn't argue from analogy. Just because you make up what you think is an analogy doesn't mean it is valid, or makes a point, or is a worthy jumping-off point for discussion.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 11:53 am
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:52 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
Have you ever had a head injury? Real question. Fixing the sink raised up and hit your head? Hard. Did you just keep doing what you were doing, or did it take a minute or two to get adjusted?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:53 am to WDE24
quote:
Bad analogies get dissected. If the analogy breaks down too easily, it is no analogy at all and fails to make the point.
Anyway, like I said, making rules changes based on player safety that argues that less football is safer football is a dangerous path on which to travel and has huge potential to back fire on the sport or proponents of such thought.
Every analogy breaks down at some point. The point of an analogy is not to find every little difference, it's to see the point and discuss it. Your dissection of the analogies was actually pretty weak and didn't disprove them at all, except maybe in your biased orange and blue perspective. Like I said, agree to disagree but my side will win this debate within the next 2-3 years. So your opinion on the issue, and mine, is really irrelevant. The people that matter see the merits of my arguments and like the old saying goes....history is written by the victors. HUNH will be a footnote in college football history one day, much like the wishbone is today. It is what it is.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 11:56 am
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:54 am to parkjas2001
quote:
No there is not. That is why it is ridiculous. There has been no quantitative, measurable data to support it
More plays equals more opportunities for concussions. Fact, no study necessary. Next!
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:57 am to tider04
quote:
tider04
Thoughts on punts and kick offs? So you think they should be gone as well, right?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:58 am to tider04
quote:
More plays equals more opportunities for concussions. Fact, no study necessary. Next!
So have less games. That way, you don't have to change the rules of the game that have existed for decades.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:58 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Thoughts on punts and kick offs? So you think they should be gone as well, right?
Didn't they basically kill the kickoff already by moving the kick up?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:59 am to tider04
quote:
much like the wishbone is today
Did the wishbone stop working because the NCAA made rules against it? I think not. People just figured it out.
I don't really care if they implement this rule or not. The real concern should be do they at least suspend the rule with 2:00 to go in both halves? One would think so, but this is the NCAA we are talking about.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:59 am to tider04
quote:
history is written by the victors. HUNH will be a footnote in college football history one day
Maybe...maybe not. But if you believe that, why support a rule that would marginalize it?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:59 am to tider04
Nope, and its still a fact punts and kick offs are held responsible for more injuries then any other thing on the field.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:01 pm to tider04
quote:Seriously? Your analogy never got off the ground. You analogized football with boxing and then equated rounds to number of plays as it related to player safety. That is just a poor analogy. Again, number of plays is much more analogous to number of punches thrown.
Every analogy breaks down at some point. The point of an analogy is not to find every little difference, it's to see the point and discuss it. Your dissection of the analogies was actually pretty weak and didn't disprove them at all, except maybe in your biased orange and blue perspective.
quote:In what way? I don't think you understand what your side is in our discussion as you have already conceded that I was correct.
Like I said, agree to disagree but my side will win this debate within the next 2-3 years.
quote:Don't be so sure about that and the argument was about the true motives of those people.
The people that matter see the merits of my arguments
Thank you though for admitting I was right. That should have happened pages ago.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:01 pm to tider04
quote:
More plays equals more opportunities for concussions. Fact, no study necessary. Next!
Shorten the game then.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:01 pm to NbamaTiger90
quote:
I don't really care if they implement this rule or not. The real concern should be do they at least suspend the rule with 2:00 to go in both halves? One would think so, but this is the NCAA we are talking about.
That's already part of the suggested rule change, FYI.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:01 pm to tkane311
Let's just make the entire game golden point. First to score, wins. Just like the old NFL overtime. Statistically, this was one of the most injury free periods in football. It shortens games and limits injuries. Problem solved.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:02 pm to parkjas2001
quote:
Shorten the game then.
That's a legit argument. I'd rather keep the time and tweak rules to allow defense to sub whenever they want, just like the offense.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:03 pm to tider04
quote:
tweak rules to allow defense to sub whenever they want, just like the offense.
Why tweak it, it is already like that.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:03 pm to tider04
quote:yes. Allow HUNH during the point in each half when players are going to be most fatigued. Since this rule is about player safety, I hope they realize how disingenuous that part of the rule is.
The real concern should be do they at least suspend the rule with 2:00 to go in both halves?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:04 pm to tkane311
quote:
That way, you don't have to change the rules of the game that have existed for decades
...because football and the physical dynamics have not changed over 50 years. Amirite?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:04 pm to tider04
quote:
That's already part of the suggested rule change, FYI.
I think it's a dumb rule, the game already has too many dumb rules. But it is what it is.
Page 34 of 44
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News