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

#102
#102
crusse10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I need to find it and post it but Dave Bartoo of CFBmatrix.com shared a study that showed that the games with teams who got off the fewest offensive plays had the highest injury rate.

Found it. Interesting read. http://cfbmatrix.com/speed-may-kill-but-slow-gets-you-hurt/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#103
#103
daj2576 said:
I need to find it and post it but Dave Bartoo of CFBmatrix.com shared a study that showed that the games with teams who got off the fewest offensive plays had the highest injury rate. His statement was something to the effect of if" you want to make the game safer put a height/weight limit on the players, speed has no correlation to injury."
Click to expand...

I'm not endorsing this study, but if true, it gives credibility to my premise.
 
#104
#104
HuntsVol_AL said:
I'm not endorsing this study, but if true, it gives credibility to my premise.
Click to expand...

I was off a little on my summary (I read it months ago) but the conclusion is still about the same. Teams with slower offenses hurt more of their players than teams with fast offenses. He didn't track defensive injuries against up tempo teams as he said that would require watching every play of every game and tracking when every play goes up tempo. All he can do is divide the numbers of plays by injuries per team. There are some flaws in his logic but it at least proves that this isn't as black and white as the magic midget down at Bama wants you to believe. In fact, what Saban is really asking for, in my view, is to have the NCAA legislate away his deficiency as a defensive play caller. Why not just go ahead and ask that every team use the same play book instead? In fact, why not just decide the game on a coin toss so no one gets hurt?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#105
#105
crusse10 said:
I added the difference of all teams than ran over 76 plays per game, the average of the highest and lowest plays per game in FBS. If a team ran 76.6 plays per game, then they ran .6 over the median number of plays per game, thus .6 was added to the number of plays/game. The 40 teams that ran more plays than 76 per game totaled to 177.9 plays per game.
Click to expand...

Anyone with much experience in statistics would attack your methods. And the math simply does not make sense. Averaging the highest and lowest is a poor way of finding a central tendency. There are other more acceptable methods for obtaining a central tendency.

1) A geometric average of all teams (not just the highest and lowest).
2.) A median which is meant to be resistant to outliers.

Your method of obtaining a central number is biased by outlying measurements by definition.

Also, your definition and calculation of "177.9 plays per game" is misleading and wrong. Do you mean 177.9 plays per team? or 177.9 plays per season?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#106
#106
From the referenced article:
For all of FBS football in 2012, the ‘fast’ teams averaged over 17 plays per game more than the bottom 20 ‘slow’ teams. This is 26% more plays run per game than a ‘slow’ teams. Even though this adds up to over 340 more plays run in a season, the ‘slow’ teams still lost 8 more starts to injury than the ‘fast teams.
Click to expand...

This is real evidence that demonstrates my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#108
#108
The real question is not about injuries or number of plays. It should be about whether or not you think the offense should dictate when/if the defense can substitute.

No team averages less than 10 seconds between plays. None. The closest Texas Tech, which averages almost 13 seconds between plays. Even Auburn takes 18 seconds between plays. They don't really hurry, they just run no huddle to prevent the defense from substituting. If you like that, you don't like the proposed rule. If you don't like that, you are for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#109
#109
rocktopper16 said:
I've also see uptempo offenses snap the ball before the defense even gets set.
Click to expand...

Does the defense have to be set for the offense to snap the ball? Isn't that one of the advantages for the offense, and a major reason why teams have become so fast paced these days?
 
#110
#110
sanefan said:
The real question is not about injuries or number of plays. It should be about whether or not you think the offense should dictate when/if the defense can substitute.

No team averages less than 10 seconds between plays. None. The closest Texas Tech, which averages almost 13 seconds between plays. Even Auburn takes 18 seconds between plays. They don't really hurry, they just run no huddle to prevent the defense from substituting. If you like that, you don't like the proposed rule. If you don't like that, you are for it.
Click to expand...
This:lolabove:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#111
#111
gunner said:
Does the defense have to be set for the offense to snap the ball? Isn't that one of the advantages for the offense, and a major reason why teams have become so fast paced these days?
Click to expand...

Does the offense have to be set for them to snap the ball?
 
#112
#112
GrowVol said:
Well, if rule goes into affect....won't defenses be able to substitute regardless of if the offense chooses to...hence slowing down the offense.
And catching the defense off guard before D gets set is a great strategy like many other calls.
Should the NCAA take out the Reverse? The Flea Flicker?
Are QB's more likely to get hurt in the shotgun position?
Click to expand...
As written the O can snap the ball at 30 on the play clock. They don't have to wait on the D to get set.
The D has 10 sec to sub period.
 
#113
#113
bamawriter said:
Even the quickest offenses don't run plays every ten seconds. Oregon may be the fastest offense in the game and their stated goal is to snap the ball every 18 seconds.

This will not slow anyone down. It will simple prevent the offense from keeping the defense in a bad package.
Click to expand...

Damn I hate when we are on the same side. I must be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#116
#116
crusse10 said:
Dense people making the same illogical come back abound in this thread.
Click to expand...

crusse10 said:
I'm still right and you're still a moron hiding behind the guise of manliness.
Click to expand...

crusse10 said:
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.
Click to expand...

crusse10 said:
I'm just commenting on the idiocy of people not knowing that more plays equates to more opportunities...
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that you had an opportunity to review the article that was referenced: Speed May Kill, but Slow Can Get You Hurt? -

I have compiled a short list of you calling people dense, morons, and generally attempting to denigrate people who oppose your assumption. I don't need you to come full circle, but can we at least entertain the idea that you might be wrong?

Your conclusion seems a logical conclusion, but the numbers simply don't bear it out. And it's plain to see that there are some really good reasons why your conclusion might be wrong.

I know that I shouldn't be butthurt over some internet stranger bullying me because I don't agree, but it bothers me...
 
#117
#117
orangeslice13 said:
As written the O can snap the ball at 30 on the play clock. They don't have to wait on the D to get set.
The D has 10 sec to sub period.
Click to expand...

thought we where talking about between the play clock starting....the time from end of play to next snap of the ball and offense controlling that time.
 
#118
#118
GrowVol said:
thought we where talking about between the play clock starting....the time from end of play to next snap of the ball and offense controlling that time.
Click to expand...

The play clock starts as the wistle blows to end a previous play except on 1st downs if I'm not mistaken. The fastest teams want to snap the ball with 22-20 sec left on the play clock. This is a non issue except for coaches who don't want the D to adjust to what they're doing.

Imo the rule needs to change and as written will not slow the O at all. It will allow the D to preform better against the up tempo though.
 
#119
#119
Just go to flag football and end it already, only committe's who screw more up is the federal government or maybe Nascar rules committee. Just leave it alone. Less commercials will speed up the game. Let's start with that. :hi:
 
#120
#120
gunner said:
Does the defense have to be set for the offense to snap the ball? Isn't that one of the advantages for the offense, and a major reason why teams have become so fast paced these days?
Click to expand...

No, but even with HUNH defenses do get set 'most' of the time; but it my not be the correct set. What HUNH also does, especially for offenses running multiple plays from the same set is to increase confusion of the defensive players on the field, and decrease the time DC's have to get the correct set called in. In effect you get the defense setting up as fast as possible, then checking the sideline, an THEN shifting per DC's call, which often catches them unprepared.

So, ...HUNH attempts to catch the defense unprepared. Instill confusion. On top of that ... defense is more physically demanding. The offense knows where it's going, defense has to chase the ball, often reversing direction when they get faked out, so the defense absolutely does get gassed faster than the offense. HUNH, under current rules, prevents defensive substitution unless the offense does.

So the HUNH offense gets to attack an increasingly exhausted defense, which feeds into an increasingly confused defense, so scoring opportunity is increased.

That is the purpose of HUNH, and it takes advantage of the substitution rule, forcing the opponent to play gassed defensemen, which are more easily blocked and confused.

All that.. and an exhausted an confused player IS more likely to get injured.

Injury increases are obviously a bone of contention. The others ... why even run the HUNH otherwise. I don't mind confusing the opposition and faking their jocks off. I see forcing your opponent to play gassed and therefore (here's a good turn of phrase) increasingly confusable football players, as taking unfair advantage according to common sportsmanship. Beat them because you execute a better game. Not because you found a way to play within existing rules that gets your opponent so tired they can't think, much less execute.
 
#122
#122
Orangedogsrule said:
No, but even with HUNH defenses do get set 'most' of the time; but it my not be the correct set. What HUNH also does, especially for offenses running multiple plays from the same set is to increase confusion of the defensive players on the field, and decrease the time DC's have to get the correct set called in. In effect you get the defense setting up as fast as possible, then checking the sideline, an THEN shifting per DC's call, which often catches them unprepared.

So, ...HUNH attempts to catch the defense unprepared. Instill confusion. On top of that ... defense is more physically demanding. The offense knows where it's going, defense has to chase the ball, often reversing direction when they get faked out, so the defense absolutely does get gassed faster than the offense. HUNH, under current rules, prevents defensive substitution unless the offense does.

So the HUNH offense gets to attack an increasingly exhausted defense, which feeds into an increasingly confused defense, so scoring opportunity is increased.

That is the purpose of HUNH, and it takes advantage of the substitution rule, forcing the opponent to play gassed defensemen, which are more easily blocked and confused.

All that.. and an exhausted an confused player IS more likely to get injured.

Injury increases are obviously a bone of contention. The others ... why even run the HUNH otherwise. I don't mind confusing the opposition and faking their jocks off. I see forcing your opponent to play gassed and therefore (here's a good turn of phrase) increasingly confusable football players, as taking unfair advantage according to common sportsmanship. Beat them because you execute a better game. Not because you found a way to play within existing rules that gets your opponent so tired they can't think, much less execute.
Click to expand...

Yeah...coaching and strength/conditioning is overrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#123
#123
crusse10 said:
Basically, if every offense ran 76 plays or fewer, there would be 2100 fewer opportunities for an injury in a football season.
Click to expand...

If the teams run more plays then teams will need smaller and more fit players on the field. That should cause less injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#125
#125
If the ncaa wants to change a rule how bout if a player fumbles a ball on quarter inch line and it roles out of bounds in the endzone he gets the ball on the damn quarter inch line.
Also if the offense does not sub out players and the defense is allowed to is that not unfair to the offense? I know they control the ball and can sub if they want to but that is the whole point of up tempo so that you can run plays against certain personnel and wear down the d. Instead of new rules how bout teams just condition more. If the offensive line can keep up why can't the defensive lines?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top