Started By
Message
re: NCAA Rules Committee Proposes to Eliminate HUNH
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:16 pm to Teague
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:16 pm to Teague
quote:
lol" all you want, but that's the whole point of the HUNH - not allow the defense to adjust and catch them off guard. In MY opinion, football is meant to see which team can line up and beat the other team. The HUNH, changes the way the game is played. It's like adding a 10 second clock to a chess match - it becomes a different game.
So, you are against speed chess?
You're one of those who cries if I don't check the ball on the blacktop aren't you?
0
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:16 pm to Teague
quote:This is a fair debate to have. I just wish they would stop hiding behind the guise of player safety.
not allow the defense to adjust and catch them off guard. In MY opinion, football is meant to see which team can line up and beat the other team. The HUNH, changes the way the game is played. It's like adding a 10 second clock to a chess match - it becomes a different game.
This is what Saban meant a couple of years ago when he said we have to decide if this is what we want football to become. I understand a lot of people like it, especially those people whose teams are using it. I, personally, don't like it. I like the old way of football - the chess match within the game is interesting to me.
You're all welcome to disagree with me. Just because Saban and I are purists, and a little bit better than you, doesn't mean we can't all get along.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:16 pm to tider04
quote:
You do realize the rule committee is comprised of more than just a couple of coaches, right?
oh boy. And you say he has a problem with reading comprehension?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:18 pm to WDE24
quote:
I thought we covered this. Reduced rounds analogize closer to quarters or even number of games rather than number of plays.
You can accomplish the same thing either way. The rules committee is choosing to go about it with the second option instead of the first like boxing and MMA did. Sorry you don't like it.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:19 pm to tider04
quote:I didn't say it would cause it to go away. I said changing rules with no data by simply using the argument that "our sport is dangerous so we need less of it" is dangerous and could back fire.
Your hypothesis that admitting something is dangerous will cause that thing to go away(or close to it) is just silliness.
quote:Yes. I also know coaches are an integral part of it and are aware of these types of proposed changes and typically discuss them at the AFCA. I also know that other coaches have pointed out that they didn't do so this time around.
You do realize the rule committee is comprised of more than just a couple of coaches, right?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:19 pm to Teague
quote:
The HUNH, changes the way the game is played
the HUNH didn't change anything... it used established rules of college football. this 10 second rule is going to change the way the game is played.
IMO, I don't think this rule will have the benefit most are thinking... and could end up bighting saban down the road. It will overall reduce the number of plays a team runs... fewer plays = tighter games...
it has the potential to increase parody, IMO.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:20 pm to tider04
quote:No they aren't. They are simply trying to change a rule to help defensive coaches. It doesn't go to player safety at all. You and I both know that. Why continue the farce?
The rules committee is choosing to go about it with the second option instead of the first like boxing and MMA did.
If they were worried about number of plays, they wouldn't stop the clock after incomplete passes or first downs.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:21 pm to lowspark12
quote:
fewer plays = tighter games...
So........you are saying more use for late game field goals.....
Intradesting...
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:24 pm to WDE24
quote:Nobody is saying we need less of it in terms of games or quarters. The fact that this rule would give defenses time to sub and get lined up would happen to reduce the number of plays, which is a fair change IMO. Nobody is saying let's change the season to 6 games, or to 2 quarters. You are using a bit of a red herring IMO to bolster your argument which isn't necessary. This is strictly an opinion issue, there is no right or wrong.
I didn't say it would cause it to go away. I said changing rules with no data by simply using the argument that "our sport is dangerous so we need less of it" is dangerous and could back fire.
quote:
Yes. I also know coaches are an integral part of it and are aware of these types of proposed changes and typically discuss them at the AFCA. I also know that other coaches have pointed out that they didn't do so this time around
You may be right about that, no idea. Do you have a link to substantiate this claim of rules committee members usually taking things to the AFCA first?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:24 pm to Teague
quote:
that's the whole point of the HUNH - not allow the defense to adjust and catch them off guard. In MY opinion, football is meant to see which team can line up and beat the other team. The HUNH, changes the way the game is played. It's like adding a 10 second clock to a chess match - it becomes a different game.
This is what Saban meant a couple of years ago when he said we have to decide if this is what we want football to become.
It is clear from the rules that football is not meant to be a continuous play game in the same fashion as some other sports. The idea that the official is required to spot the ball and signal ready for play after every play as well as the requirement that the offensive formation be set for a period of time before each play are examples of how football is not a continuous play game.
The debate is where to draw the line (should the offense be set for one second or two? how long should the official stand over the ball once a new offensive player comes on to the field?, etc.). It's an interesting debate in my opinion, despite all the flaming on this issue.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:25 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
I definitely think we'll see lower scoring games if this rule is adopted (odds seem pretty high that it will go into affect... has the NCAA ever not adopted a rule the committee recommended?)... there's not way around it. There will be less oportunity for teams to separate over the course of a game.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:28 pm to WDE24
quote:
No they aren't. They are simply trying to change a rule to help defensive coaches. It doesn't go to player safety at all. You and I both know that. Why continue the farce?
I'm making the argument from that position(player safety), I thought you said you understood that when I clarified a moment ago. It is possible to make an argument from a position even though you know(or think) that isn't the primary motive of the rules committee.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:29 pm to tider04
quote:But if you make rules changes based on the concept that less = safer, you start down that slope. How do you avoid seeing that?
Nobody is saying we need less of it in terms of games or quarters.
quote:My only argument has been that this isn't about player safety. You have agreed with me while trying to hold on to the notion that we can still pretend that it is.
You are using a bit of a red herring IMO to bolster your argument which isn't necessary.
quote:
Do you have a link to substantiate this claim of rules committee members usually taking things to the AFCA first?
LINK
LINK
quote:
The AFCA discusses possible rules changes at its annual convention in January and makes recommendations. The NCAA rules committee uses that input in its deliberations.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:29 pm to tider04
quote:
I'm making the argument from that position(player safety), I thought you said you understood that when I clarified a moment ago. It is possible to make an argument from a position even though you know(or think) that isn't the primary motive of the rules committee.
So why try and make the argument? Using bullshite, to try and cover up more bullshite just leads to a lot of bullshite.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:29 pm to lowspark12
Oh my. Proof read my man, proof read.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:30 pm to tider04
quote:
Nobody is saying we need less of it in terms of games or quarters.
Well, that is not true. There have already been discussion in the NFL and NCAA about shortening seasons (especially NFL).
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:31 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
NFL is talking about adding postseason games.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 1:32 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:31 pm to graves1
I remember the good old days of 3-2.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:32 pm to graves1
MLB is considering permitting the quick pitch. No they aren't.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 1:33 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
So why try and make the argument? Using bullshite, to try and cover up more bullshite just leads to a lot of bullshite.
Let the adults talk here please, go play with your trains and trucks little Johnny.
Page 37 of 44
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News