shakermaker
| Favorite team: | Mississippi St.  |
| Location: | Memphis |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 15 |
| Registered on: | 11/20/2012 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: HUNH Rule change
Posted by shakermaker on 2/16/14 at 2:36 pm
quote:
That's a 10 sec delay. You're telling a HUNH offense to wait even though they're ready to snap the ball.
Yep. Waiting on the refs to do their job the right way is an inherent part of every sport. 10 seconds is still pretty quick. It just takes out the possibility of it being quicker. Standards and shite.
quote:
Only problem is its never taken this long so you're still left with the officials delaying the game by 10 seconds on every play which is wrong.
Happens quite a bit. The rule just takes out the possibility that it takes extraordinarily fast or slow. I could also benefit the offense when there is a slow crew. If the crew is consistently spotting at 25, they point to the clock and tell them they need to go faster.
0
re: HUNH Rule change
Posted by shakermaker on 2/16/14 at 1:48 pm
quote:
I don't support the refs delaying the game by 10 seconds on every play.
When a play is finished the ref should spot the ball as quickly as possible so the offense can run whatever style of offense they wish.
If the defense doesn't like it they can stop play with one of their three timeouts and regroup.
It's not really a 10 second delay. The play clock restarts to 40 after tackle. The refs get ball and set it. Snap can't happen until 29 on the clock. The NCAA is now saying this process should take 10 ticks for the crew to get it set and take care of their other pre snap responsibilities to get in position to check motioning players and that the offense is set before snapping. That's pretty brisk and still allows you to play uptempo if that's your strategy. They will get bitched at if they aren't setting it by 29. It also provides a known time for the defense to work with as well should they feel the need to quickly sub a guy. This is a happy medium IMO and addresses pre snap tempo issues the refs did a bad job regulating themselves.
re: HUNH Rule change
Posted by shakermaker on 2/16/14 at 12:54 pm
quote:
The offense. They have the ball they should set the pace. Some teams like a fast pace, some prefer a slow pace. It's strategery.
The defense has every bit the opportunity to snap the football before it is set for play as the offense does - which is 0 chance. The time between a tackle and the set is ref time. Refs are there to be objective, not cater to either teams strategy. Strategy should be based on what a team is capable of when the ball is live, not dead. When your strategy involves influencing dead time, it's unfair.
quote:
I'm OK with giving each team 3 timeouts per half to use as they wish to impact game play.
As am I. I'd just prefer those be used when you are getting whipped during live time instead of dead time.
re: HUNH Rule change
Posted by shakermaker on 2/16/14 at 12:42 pm
This player safety angle really was the wrong way to go about this. Getting the rule adopted really is a simple argument.
HUNH bread and butter is speeding up the pace of the game between tackle and the point when the ball is placed in play. It is NOT the actual speed in which they do snap the ball, but it is the speed in which the snap can happen. This is the substitution advantage. They will then find a matchup advantage and exploit it over and over. It's smart football under the framework when refs are complicit.
However, just bc it's smart does not mean it's fair. If you are on the "it's fair" side, answer these questions:
1). Who controls the ball after a tackle and before the ball is placed and set?
2) Which team should be able to influence the pace in which the refs do their jobs?
3) If you think the offense can make the pace faster by handing the ball to the ref and running quickly to the line, are you okay with giving the defense a chance to counter by sitting on the ball or a tackled player in a effort to slow down ref pace?
Answering those questions honestly will make you realize that the offense is impacting game pace during a period that neither should he able to. I'd prefer the NCAA make this a point of emphasis for the officiating crews and have them control the pace through consistent pace bt tackle and set, but if it takes a rule for this process to be objective and fair, so be it. Offenses will just have to adapt.
HUNH bread and butter is speeding up the pace of the game between tackle and the point when the ball is placed in play. It is NOT the actual speed in which they do snap the ball, but it is the speed in which the snap can happen. This is the substitution advantage. They will then find a matchup advantage and exploit it over and over. It's smart football under the framework when refs are complicit.
However, just bc it's smart does not mean it's fair. If you are on the "it's fair" side, answer these questions:
1). Who controls the ball after a tackle and before the ball is placed and set?
2) Which team should be able to influence the pace in which the refs do their jobs?
3) If you think the offense can make the pace faster by handing the ball to the ref and running quickly to the line, are you okay with giving the defense a chance to counter by sitting on the ball or a tackled player in a effort to slow down ref pace?
Answering those questions honestly will make you realize that the offense is impacting game pace during a period that neither should he able to. I'd prefer the NCAA make this a point of emphasis for the officiating crews and have them control the pace through consistent pace bt tackle and set, but if it takes a rule for this process to be objective and fair, so be it. Offenses will just have to adapt.
re: has CFB crested?
Posted by shakermaker on 8/27/13 at 12:44 pm
No. Attendance is not the only indicator. TV networks would not be locking in to multi-billion dollar contracts if CFB is on a decline.
Vandy/OM is a poor indicator. Nashville never has given a damn about Vandy football. Bama will sell all their tickets. UT, like nearly all down programs, has trouble selling all of their tickets because there has been little to get excited about other than coaching changes. At the moment, it's a 60k seat program trying to fill a 100k seat stadium.
Vandy/OM is a poor indicator. Nashville never has given a damn about Vandy football. Bama will sell all their tickets. UT, like nearly all down programs, has trouble selling all of their tickets because there has been little to get excited about other than coaching changes. At the moment, it's a 60k seat program trying to fill a 100k seat stadium.
re: Congrats to the Miss State Bull Dawgs!
Posted by shakermaker on 6/21/13 at 4:51 pm
:cheers:
re: Missouri is a partially Southern state
Posted by shakermaker on 6/6/13 at 11:24 am
quote:
I'm CoMo born and raised, don't got no hoodies. I'm so hood, but don't got no hoodies.
Look, my best buddy in law school was from near Starkville MS so I know full well there are major cultural differences starting with blatant difference in accent and all the way down. To pretend otherwise would be bullshite. The funny part though for me is the "verdict: yankee" stuff. Cuz if you asked any true Yankee (and I mean this, not just the Northeast, but ask someone from a place as close to us as Illinois or kansas or Nebraska) what Missouri is and they will say we are Southern hillbilly all the way. Like clockwork.
Again I say, the truth is this: NOBODY knows what Missouri is, but it's provocative. It gets the people going!
Updated verdict: No identity.
To those of the South: Yankee.
re: Missouri is a partially Southern state
Posted by shakermaker on 6/6/13 at 10:00 am
I'll grant SE Missouri cousin f'er points. Those folks could feel comfortable in a MS or AL trailer park with ease.
Columbia? Scan the crowd at a football game. Hoodies. Everywhere.
Verdict: yankee.
Columbia? Scan the crowd at a football game. Hoodies. Everywhere.
Verdict: yankee.
re: Even more evidence that Missouri is not a southern state....
Posted by shakermaker on 6/6/13 at 9:33 am
I eat crawfish. I fish with a crawdad. It was probably on the label. Otherwise, it's a damn crawfish.
re: Ole Miss vs. Wisconsin thoughts?
Posted by shakermaker on 3/20/13 at 9:49 am
OM is playing well at the right time. They have a legit shot to make noise in this tournament. Physical post play and a guard that can take over a game. That's a good recipe for NCAAT success.
re: Hugh Freeze Quote Ayn Rand????
Posted by shakermaker on 2/5/13 at 6:10 pm
quote:
I can be an Objectivist pursuing my own self-interest and happiness and be running a home for abused women or orphaned children, can I not? Or do YOU think there is a finite way to define happiness or self-interest. Happiness has endless manifestations in Rand's philosophy as long as they're self-defined.
Yeah you could, but you would be a really bad Objectivist. Man exists for his own sake, remember? Now if charity makes you happy, we're exiting Objectivism, because a true objectivist would see not value in wasting time on trifle things such helping those in need. It's wasted energy not supporting your existence.
I don't have the finite way to define happiness, but do I think that a framework which defaults to just pleasing yourself and yourself only is a fancy way of rationalizing being as arse.
re: Hugh Freeze Quote Ayn Rand????
Posted by shakermaker on 2/5/13 at 2:49 pm
The POTUS generally is.
re: Hugh Freeze Quote Ayn Rand????
Posted by shakermaker on 2/5/13 at 12:46 pm
quote:
You whiffed again.
First post on the topic
quote:
Rand didn't think there was a thing wrong with compassion or empathy but that forced compassion and empathy(i.e. confiscation of wealth under threat of fine or imprisonment from those who earned it) is neither just or moral. It's no different than a garden variety armed robber holding up a liquor store demanding the money in the register. It's just theft on a grander scale and given to the moochers among us and called 'their fair share'.
From the Any Rand Institute, "Introducing Objectivism":
LINK
quote:
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Where does compassion and empathy fit in objectivism? If the pursuit of your own happiness is the highest moral purpose in life, where does that leave the pursuit of happiness for others?
re: Hugh Freeze Quote Ayn Rand????
Posted by shakermaker on 2/5/13 at 11:31 am
Ayn Rand had it so figured out that she ended up a wretched woman who died alone. That's what happen when you spend your life rationalizing a system that is designed to increase your own happiness and treats empathy and compassion as immoral. You end up a selfish miserable hag that nobody wanted to be around.
Sure, she said you were free to be empathetic and compassionate if that was your thing, but you were essentially wasting your time in her world. I suppose she's right in a vaccum where your mission in existence is to simply keep breathing, but reality proves different. We are social creatures and depend on our interactions and leveraging off each other for survival and happiness. If it's all about me, you are going to run into problems.
Disagreeing her doesn't make you a commie simply because she opposed communism. What kind of logic is that? Her extreme of individualism can be just as dangerous as the other extreme of communism. The common denominator between both is man - who can be a selfish greedy bastard and make life terrible for the masses by colluding with other selfish greedy bastards under the guise of "liberty" or by colluding with selfish greedy bastards and call it "government".
Sure, she said you were free to be empathetic and compassionate if that was your thing, but you were essentially wasting your time in her world. I suppose she's right in a vaccum where your mission in existence is to simply keep breathing, but reality proves different. We are social creatures and depend on our interactions and leveraging off each other for survival and happiness. If it's all about me, you are going to run into problems.
Disagreeing her doesn't make you a commie simply because she opposed communism. What kind of logic is that? Her extreme of individualism can be just as dangerous as the other extreme of communism. The common denominator between both is man - who can be a selfish greedy bastard and make life terrible for the masses by colluding with other selfish greedy bastards under the guise of "liberty" or by colluding with selfish greedy bastards and call it "government".
re: Kliff Kingsbury, why isn't his name getting mentioned much?
Posted by shakermaker on 11/26/12 at 8:25 pm
Everybody in the Mumme / Leach coaching tree shits offensive excellence. Somebody needs to get Kingsbury early on.
Popular
19
