The NCAA Rules Committee is at it again....

[butchna]

Saban has three losses the last two seasons...all to hurry up spread offenses...how many significant injuries were a result?...don't remember any :dunno:...why's I's axing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[HuntsVol_AL]

That was my point. It is lost, though.

"More opportunities to get injured" does not mean that the probability of getting injured is higher.

There is some ignorance regarding this point. I will expand. I thought that people were capable of carefully parsing words.

More opportunities to get injured will result in a higher probability of being injured *IF all other things are constant.*

My point, though, is that uptempo offenses and non-uptempo offenses are not the same. So... "all other things" are NOT constant.

 

[livefaith]

It leads to more opportunities to get injured, though. That's irrefutable.

True. But, so does adding another game to the season, or adding a conference championship game. Shorten the season if inries are a real issue and you want less injury potential. Better yet, cancel the season altogether and nobody gets hurt, ever.

I am 99.5% certain that "reducing injury" is nothing more here than a red herring to cover those who don't like the new creative offenses. As John McCain once eloquently said "NOTHING in politics is EVER as it seems." He would know from watching AND doing it.

 

[HuntsVol_AL]

lol:

Do you really not understand? Or are you simply trying to downplay my argument by feigning as if I said something stupid?

I have provided amplifying comments in another post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply didn't take my first comment to its logical conclusion.

 

[VolFan4Life87]

My argument is that recruiting, strength & conditioning purposed for defending against up-tempo offenses might result in fewer injuries.

Just reread your post :good!:

 

[HuntsVol_AL]

So you're saying that the exact same amount of injuries or fewer happen in a game when an offense runs 90 plays per game instead of 70?

I am saying that a team that runs 75 plays per game may result in lower injury averages than teams that run 55 plays per game. My point is that the uptempo style of play may be less harsh, less pounding, more finesse. One must also consider the defense of the uptempo team. They may have fewer injuries than the average defense, which could drive the total injuries down further.

As for designing against it, the only thing coaches can do is call in fake injuries in order to forcefully substitute fresh legs in.

Not true. Definitely faking injuries is a tactic. But coaches could recruit and condition against uptempo.

 

[crusse10]

Do you really not understand? Or are you simply trying to downplay my argument by feigning as if I said something stupid?

I have provided amplifying comments in another post. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply didn't take my first comment to its logical conclusion.

No, you are saying that the probability of an injury occurring doesn't go up by adding more plays to a game. That is laughable at best.

 

[AndyMizunogolfer]

To me the "up tempo" offense can indeed give the offense a solid advantage once they get into the redzone. Do I find it as a safety hazard? No. I do think that an offense who can stay with the same basic players and run 1-2 sets and 8-10 plays off those sets holds and advantage in the redzone. Although at the end of the day its the defenses job to stop them before they ever make it to the redzone. Most of the "up tempo" teams dont really get going into a blistering pace until they hit the redzone or if they hit two or 3 big gainer first downs. Then they look to put you away by blowing your doors off. The only thing I would like to see is for both sides of the ball to be able to get set. I know multiple times this season you would see an " up tempo" team run for a short gain and then boom they are snapping the ball before the defense is even up on the line.

 

[HuntsVol_AL]

No, you are saying that the probability of an injury occurring doesn't go up by adding more plays to a game. That is laughable at best.

I agree that it does if ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL. But uptempo offenses are not equal to non-uptempo offenses.

I have seen no proof. You have offered no proof. You continue to conjecture. Calling my argument laughable rather than actually attacking the premise is a weak form of debate.

 

[orangeluvr]

Sounds like we have someone from the Obama Administration running the NCAA. Awesome logic!

opcorn: opcorn: opcorn:

 

[crusse10]

I agree that it does if ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL. But uptempo offenses are not equal to non-uptempo offenses.

I have seen no proof. You have offered no proof. You continue to conjecture. Calling my argument laughable rather than actually attacking the premise is a weak form of debate.

In uptempo offenses, 11 men compete against 11 men in every offensive play. The defensive goal is to tackle the person with the ball, while the offensive goal is to not get tackled.

In pro-style offenses, 11 men compete against 11 men in every offensive play. The defensive goal is to tackle the person with the ball, while the offensive goal is to not get tackled.

There is a higher probability of players getting hurt if EITHER of these offenses added more plays to a game.

 

[GrowVol]

Yes. But should the D have the right to sub even if the O does not.

No, the defense should only be able to sub when the offense does. The defense needs to defend regardless of what particular scheme the offense is running. I know it sounds "offensive", buts its the offense. Saban will get his way.....rules will change
Teams that struggle against Hurry Up(bama), need to adapt their defense.....not change rules.
LOSE WEIGHT....Get in shape bama D
JMO

 

[volboy81]

People need to quit messing with football. It's by far the most popular sport in America. why are they trying to change it? If it ain't broke don't fix it!
All this fast-play stuff is 100% nicci satin's doings. The quick teams can beat him and he knows it so he's trying to change the rules to suit himself

 

[UNAVol89]

Does someone actually have proof that more plays being run leads to more injury or is this typical Internet argument trash?

 

[supersmo18]

All these coaches saying "where's the proof?!?"

The proof is in the amount of plays run, therefore more chances to get injured on both sides.

Playing football is an assumable risk. Injury risk part of what you sign up for when you play.

This proposal is dumb. It's like congress sitting down in session and trying to create a new law prohibiting zebras from being poached in the streets of Bismarck, ND, when there are much more pressing and important issues to be concerned about.

They need to be concerned about tweaking and modifying rules that are already in place to improve the game, not adding crap rules to it.

 

[supersmo18]

Does someone actually have proof that more plays being run leads to more injury or is this typical Internet argument trash?

It's just an argument of logic; but, at the same time, one could logically argue that there's just as equal of a chance one won't get injured as well.

Either you're injured or you're not. 50/50.

Internet argument, IMO.

 

[crusse10]

For what it's worth, idgaf about the rule. There may be 1 play run in less than 10 seconds per week across all of FBS. I'm just commenting on the idiocy of people not knowing that more plays equates to more opportunities for injuries, especially when they're tacked on to the end of a 3+ hour game in which bodies get weaker and weaker, thus becoming more and more prone to an injury.

 

[jmpearso]

How about they set a rule or limit to the amount of "power" plays Saban can call.

 

[UNAVol89]

It's just an argument of logic; but, at the same time, one could logically argue that there's just as equal of a chance one won't get injured as well.

Either you're injured or you're not. 50/50.

Internet argument, IMO.

Correlation =/= causation. Gotcha.

 

[Orangeslice13]

No, the defense should only be able to sub when the offense does. The defense needs to defend regardless of what particular scheme the offense is running. I know it sounds "offensive", buts its the offense. Saban will get his way.....rules will change
Teams that struggle against Hurry Up(bama), need to adapt their defense.....not change rules.
LOSE WEIGHT....Get in shape bama D
JMO

I don't see this rule change slowing down the hurry up O. If the O still lines up in hurry up mode they're taking more than 10 sec most of the time. The only thing this rule seems to change is the O's ability to quick snap and catch the D offsides when they themselves are not ready to run a play.

 

[supersmo18]

For what it's worth, idgaf about the rule. There may be 1 play run in less than 10 seconds per week across all of FBS. I'm just commenting on the idiocy of people not knowing that more plays equates to more opportunities for injuries, especially when they're tacked on to the end of a 3+ hour game in which bodies get weaker and weaker, thus becoming more and more prone to an injury.

I get what you're saying, I'm just throwing out the opposite side of the argument. That's all.

 

[AirVol]

How about every other play, a team must alternate quarterbacks on offense

 

[GrowVol]

Does someone actually have proof that more plays being run leads to more injury or is this typical Internet argument trash?

No actual proof. Just proof that dominate programs struggle to defend Hurry Up/control tempo offenses....plain and simple......(and that's "not fair")

 

[HuntsVol_AL]

In uptempo offenses, 11 men compete against 11 men in every offensive play. The defensive goal is to tackle the person with the ball, while the offensive goal is to not get tackled.

In pro-style offenses, 11 men compete against 11 men in every offensive play. The defensive goal is to tackle the person with the ball, while the offensive goal is to not get tackled.

There is a higher probability of players getting hurt if EITHER of these offenses added more plays to a game.

Still missing the point. If uptempo is officiated against, teams will have more incentive to not run uptempo. Much of the advantage of uptempo offenses is running plays quickly. If teams can no longer run plays quickly, they will cease to be an uptempo offense. At which point, they will return to a more traditional (and perhaps more injury-inducing) offensive style, which in general favors heavier bodies. More mass, more energy.

 

[roddo518]

This thread exhausts me. I need a sub texter. I just injured a finger. I know, let's have each side have 20 players on the field at the same time, but you only get 1 helmet per team.