And on this board, my opinion means just as much, I guess that "fact", as you like to put it, escapes that large paper weight that rests upon your neck.  Yea, I have no idea what I'm talking about, and you are all-knowing.  Sorry to disagree and argue with such a unique intellect such as yours.

I will now begin responding in a manner suitable to an al fan, the always classic, “Not, not”, or “Too, too”, depending on the point you are trying to make.

As for the post above, Not, not.  Not, not.  Not, not.  That's not a slam, it's the honest truth.   

OK, whatever you say.


BG

Yeah that's his great uncle,he majored at Bama in Taxidermy..  

OK I'll buy it but as you can see, I've haven't forgotten 'ol Jim Bob Cooter


BG

My favorite is the post where the al fan shows his inability to read another's post.  Making comments like, "...and their effects..." shows a lack of reading comprehension that can only be obtained from an al education. It is also very enlightening that it has to be pointed out to that same simpleton that the comment regarding this all knowing rules committee member's opinion was in the context of a discussion on a Vol message board, not as they related to the implementation of another in a long line of bad rules. This clown must have also missed this poster's sarcastic response recently that showed how sound his original post was (it has to do with three coaches discussing the new rule proposal).  Anyway, I'm sure that I will get called out for name calling, but if the shoe fits...

Yes, you're the one who said your opinion and it's importance on rules and their impact is just as valid as Rogers Redding. As for your understanding of that former topic  on rules and their impact, I didn't want to go further with you, as clearly you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. That's not a slam, it's the honest truth.


BG

Yeah..He was on the recruiting trail in lower Ala last week and stopped by Jim Bob Cooter's Taxidermy near Mobile to sign a few pig skins and buck nuts for the local Sports Authority outlet to be auctioned off to raise money for a few local high school Home Economics classes..They also had a teen pregnancy bake sale....

Interesting you picked that name Jim Bob Cooter. Yes, former Tennessee QB himself...Jim Bob Cooter.


BG

Yeah I'm sorry about that...I do have a warm n fuzzy pic of the great coach Saban I'd like to share even if this is a TENNESSEE fan site.... Just for you....Roll Turd!!!

BTW, I do get Bama will be slammed here. Geez, this is a UT site as you said. I get it and have got it for years since I first viewed and posted on a UT site in 1994. It's just the sheer number of Crimson Tide and Saban related posts and threads is what I am questioning. I'm serious when I say Butch Jones is a forgotten man on this board.

BG

Yeah I'm sorry about that...I do have a warm n fuzzy pic of the great coach Saban I'd like to share even if this is a TENNESSEE fan site.... Just for you....Roll Turd!!!

Yeah, that's him. 

BG

They can't afford to pay to be on here..They are too busy at Walmart buying boxes of Tide and rolls of toilet paper decorating their double wides...They need to be spending it at the dentist office..

Predictable, but certainly not original. Attack the fan base, accuse them of cheating, spread misinformation, accuse of steroid use and lying, and when the score at the end of just one half is 35-0, bury your heads in the sand yet come up with posts that state Saban should watch and learn from Jones on defensive ideas on the HUNH because it's "COACHING" and" PREPARATION"


BG

"They're"??? lol..There are more threads about Roll Turd because of all the stupid crap coming from their coach recently.
First hiring Kiffin,which still amazes me and now this boo hoo slow the game cry baby stuff

Yep, you need to charge Bama fans for a subscription here. The thread where two posters disagreed vehemently on rules interpretation and their effects with what was to be the NCAA's head of officials and rules committee secretary-editor Rogers Redding's words was classic. Not to be outdone was the post by another that their opinion on rules  and their effects were just as important as Redding himself-never mind that when officials from conferences want a rules interpretation they go directly to Redding for the final word  :Heck, there's more Crimson Tide posts here than what's on Bama Online.


BG

Sorry couldn't embed it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNPdi5hRLy8

BTW, I want to thank the board. They're more Alabama Crimson Tide and Saban threads on this site than even Tennessee or Butch Jones threads.



BG

Sorry couldn't embed it..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNPdi5hRLy8

Coming from the iconic, legendary, and greatest coach of our time-Rich Rod- I'm sure Saban is mightily impressed.


BG

[Whatever, man.]

Whatever, man.  For argument's sake, I'll concede.  But the point of Nut's original post remains: physically, there is a gulf of difference between bama and everyone else.  It's very...peculiar, to say the least.  Maybe your S/C guy is just that good, I don't know.

Always respect those that can concede when they're wrong, many times I am, too. It goes with the territory when wanting to debate issues. No one hates Bama more than Bandit, but one reason I like him is he can admit to being wrong  and he can laugh when he is wrong. Some can't.


BG

I remember a comment along those lines, because I recalled it when BDV posted that, but it may have been a statement that bammer had 8 players over 500, not 600.  But BG doesn't recall a comment of any sort.

Well I am not going to rewatch the game either, but it might give BG an excuse to do so.   

Bandit, I didn't say I didn't recall any comment on those lines, just that there was never anything said about 8 players benching anything close to 600. I don't remember how many players were mentioned, but yes, they gave a specific number that could bench 500.


Got through watching it early this morning at 4:00 so as to be specific in my answer.  Yes, I'm joking but I do need to watch it again....and again....and again.



BG

I'm not jumping in, but I do remember that post! Just sayin'.


G

What's up Greg!?! I remember you from Knoxville. I'm sure he did post what he thought he heard.  However, there is no team in college football history that has even close to having 8 players bench six hundred each. Those numbers are absurdly high. It was not 8 players at 600 each, I promise.



BG

And obviously I don't have a copy of it, and I don't care to comb through footage of two of the teams I hate the most in the world to find it.  I can't tell you when it was said, as obviously that game got out of hand pretty quickly, and the announcers had to dig deep into the press guides and start ad-libbing pretty early on.  But I know what I heard.  In fact, I made a post about it on here the moment it was said.  Maybe it's still in the archives, but I wouldn't know where to begin looking for it.

I will be nice. I'm sure you think you heard that, but you are just simply mistaken. Hey, I was mistaken too about the Saban timeline leading up to his appearance before the rules committee. Unless you're a closet Crimson Tide fan, I think even you would agree I probably have watched that game many more times than you, and would be the better prospect between the two to say what was said during the telecast. At no point did they say eight players could bench 600 pounds,  


BG

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating.  During the NC game last year, they mentioned that bammer had 8 guys on that team that bench pressed 600 or better.  Eight.  On one team.  In all my years of watching UT football, I don't know of a single guy we've had who benched 600.  I can only name two who benched 500 (Walker and Weary).  So...draw your own conclusions.  I realize that if you were to test everyone, just about every roster in America is going to have some individuals who are using PEDs.  But for some programs it seems a bit more, for lack of a better word, systemic than others.

I was going th stay out of the Crimson Tide  bashing threads, but this is a matter of fact. (Yes, I'll soon be banned and that's Ok). BDV, I don't where you heard that, but that's not true. There was one player-Jessie Williams-that could bench six hundred but that's it. Williams had earlier been a JUCO transfer, and was already benching a huge amount upon his arrival two years ago. You said you heard that claim during the national championship game. BTW, I've watched it several times as you can probably imagine, and have never heard that claim. I've got a copy of it, and would love to hear you tell me at what point you heard that eight players bench six hundred.


BG

[opinion]

His opinion on the matter holds no more weight than mine – it’s an opinion, not fact.  MANY supposed experts that have opposite opinions about matters of which they are both supposedly experts (even on the matter being discussed here).  

One “fact” that you cite is that the only time the defense can freely substitute is during a change of possession, penalty, or time out.  This is just wrong.  When the offense subs, the ref holds up the game to give the defense enough time to freely sub (I have booed many times during the stoppage of play when my team has the ball).  If we can’t agree on that one obvious issue, why are we even having this discussion.

By the way, trying to argue against easily verifiable statistical facts using someone else’s opinion on an issue is really not the best way to win an argument.  Again, just my $.02.

I imagine that you will respond with another silly argument (so as to get the last word), please do us all a favor and don’t.    

Let's get this straight now: His "opinion" has FAR more weight of importance than yours. In fact, all of college football rules interpretations rely on his opinion  He is the expert on college football rules, and neither you, me, or TRO are. Of course the D can sub when the O does, but as I pointed out in a later post, after the answers to the questions, Redding is speaking directly of the HUNH and the forty second clock and it's effects on the game. He is not talking about when an offense subs, it goes without saying that of course the D can sub if they do first. We've already covered that in previous threads. Heck, a D can sub virtually all the time as long as the offense huddles, but that's not what we're talking about. We're speaking of the effects of the the the HUNH offense and the forty second clock. That is what the rule proposal is about.

BG

 

[made up.]

Once again you use opinion is the guise of fact when faced with actual data and statistics (e.g., average number of plays per game, time between snaps, etc.) that are counter to your stance.  It's not that your argument is not understood; it is simply artificial/made up.  It's a typical method of argument when there is nothing of substance to support an assertion.  You can have the last word now, since that seems to be your sole intent at this point, and since your position has been shown to be spurious both here and by the media outlets that have researched the issue.  Have fun continuing to try to convince yourself that your position has even an iota of substance.  It doesn't.  And no matter how many time you chant "The Forty Second Clock Rule," it won't somehow give that rule an effect it has never actually had, as you seem to believe.

My argument is "made up" and even "spurious", too?   Well, that's a bit much, don't you think, especially when it's a fact according to Rogers Redding. I described your argument as a "misunderstanding" of the effect of the 40 second clock, and will continue to do so.


In case anyone wants to hear the direct quotes I used from Redding (in case you think it was "made up") go to about the 14 or 15 minute mark of the Maisel interview, as it starts there and ends around the 20 or 21 minute mark. When he mentions regarding the allegation that Saban was manipulating the committee and says "it's just not so" is somewhere I believe around the 30 to 35 minute mark. Link below.

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=10482610


BG

[Therefore, the answers to your questions are NOT my words. They are direct quotes on the subject of the forty second clock and HUNH offenses by the very foremost authority on rules in college football, who holds the title of both national coordinator of officiating and secretary-rules editor of the NCAA football rules committee]

Once again you use opinion is the guise of fact when faced with actual data and statistics (e.g., average number of plays per game, time between snaps, etc.) that are counter to your stance.  It's not that your argument is not understood; it is simply artificial/made up.  It's a typical method of argument when there is nothing of substance to support an assertion.  You can have the last word now, since that seems to be your sole intent at this point, and since your position has been shown to be spurious both here and by the media outlets that have researched the issue.  Have fun continuing to try to convince yourself that your position has even an iota of substance.  It doesn't.  And no matter how many time you chant "The Forty Second Clock Rule," it won't somehow give that rule an effect it has never actually had, as you seem to believe.

So you are saying my answers are not fact. Yes, they are fact.  At this point, it's been clear to me both you and Pirate would tell me I'm wrong if I mentioned the sky is often a blue color. Therefore, the answers to your questions are NOT my words. They are direct quotes on the subject of the forty second clock and HUNH offenses by the very foremost authority on rules in college football, who holds the title of both national coordinator of officiating and secretary-rules editor of the NCAA football rules committee. Now you both might win a an argument/debate on rules interpretation with BGHarper, but I promise you both lose hands down in a debate on rules with Rogers Redding, which you both have now accomplished.

BG

First rule of holes ...

So I take it you think those answers are not facts pertaining the clock?  Please feel free to expound.


BG

[facts.]

No need.  There are no "facts" that will change anyone's mind, and they are already known anyway.  There is a reason that none of the rule change proponents cited useful statistics or studies to support their arguments/justifications.  None exist.  This dead horse has been beaten more than enough.  
 

BTW, those answers above are "facts." Your contention that that the 40 second rule resulted in no other factors involving the game other than it's intended result is simple not true. Offenses have been given an advantage that in the past did not exit. Defenses can no longer substitute at will when the forty second clock is in play, as the offense can simply snap the ball after the ref makes it ready for play to prevent defensive substitutions from entering the game as they are at now at risk for a too many men on the field penalty, and even if you got them on the field in time, the offense has the ability to snap it before those players are set. I don't expect UT fans to support the proposal, but I did expect some to at least understand the argument that the offense now has an upper hand and that is wrong if you are a fan of great defense and a purist of the game, as no two teams in the SEC hangs their hat on great defenses in their history, and great defensive games, than the Crimson Tide and the Volunteers.



As mentioned earlier by Emeril (probably not the intent of his post ) an example he brought up that favored offenses was eventually ruled out of the game. This was the tear away jerseys. BTW, Alabama was not the first to use them since Oklahoma used tear-aways before the Crimson Tide.

BG

[there has been no such rule change]

Oh, Deere Lowered!  No one can answer that question with a direct/pertinent response because there has been no such rule change.  You have consistently asserted that you are in favor of keeping the integrity of the game, that you like defensive football, that you don't like high scoring (lesser conference) type games, etc., and you have said that you want things to go back to the way they were before.  The question was asked because there was a proposed rule that would slow down current offenses, and you seemed to be in favor of that rule.  If that rule change would make the game "the way it was before" and restore the integrity of the game, then surely there must have been some kind of earlier rule change that favored the offenses to the detriment of the defenses.  The fact is, no such rule change ever occurred, or at least neither you nor anyone else has been able to point to one.  Offensive-minded coaches changed their strategies within the existing rules.  Now it's time for defensive-minded coaches to do the same.  Besides, the proponents of the proposed rule never said its true intent was to slow down fast offenses.  No, they were much more creative than that.  It was for player safety.  They were obviously just thinking of the children.    I have never been asked by someone to answer a question I asked of them to help them formulate a response.  Interesting discussion concept.  

Since no one other than Bandit attempted to answer my question, that tells tells me the reason that not only Tro, but I would now assume almost everyone (exception being droner?) doesn’t understand my argument. I believe there is is misunderstanding of the consequences the Forty Second Clock Rule has brought to the game.  Yes, there has been a significant change to the game that has created an imbalance between the offense and defense in many situations. Also, I can think of several situations where Pirate’s example of substitutions (if for mostly schematic reasons) would not work.


TRO, below are your questions and my answers:




TRO Question 1: What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do

 Answer: The Forty Second Clock Rule.


 TRO Question 2:  How will this proposed rule give "back what we always had until the present"?  

Answer:  When we went to the forty second play clock several years ago, the game was put into the hands of the offense. Before that, the 25 second play clock operated so the ball couldn’t be snapped until the referee whistled it ready for play.



TRO Question 3: How can something be given back when you cannot point to a rule change that took anything away?

Answer: See answers above.

 TRO Question4: Again, what past rule change prevents "the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will"?

Answer: The Forty Second Clock Rule

TRO Question 5: What past rule change says that only the offense can substitute at will?

 Answer: The forty Second Rule has created a situation where the only real time they (defensive team during 40 second clock) can get substitutions in is on change of possession, penalty, time-out, etc.

 TRO Question 6: Or, are you saying that the offenses move too quickly for defenses to substitute at will? Answer: See answer above





BG

[there has been no such rule change]

Oh, Deere Lowered!  No one can answer that question with a direct/pertinent response because there has been no such rule change.  You have consistently asserted that you are in favor of keeping the integrity of the game, that you like defensive football, that you don't like high scoring (lesser conference) type games, etc., and you have said that you want things to go back to the way they were before.  The question was asked because there was a proposed rule that would slow down current offenses, and you seemed to be in favor of that rule.  If that rule change would make the game "the way it was before" and restore the integrity of the game, then surely there must have been some kind of earlier rule change that favored the offenses to the detriment of the defenses.  The fact is, no such rule change ever occurred, or at least neither you nor anyone else has been able to point to one.  Offensive-minded coaches changed their strategies within the existing rules.  Now it's time for defensive-minded coaches to do the same.  Besides, the proponents of the proposed rule never said its true intent was to slow down fast offenses.  No, they were much more creative than that.  It was for player safety.  They were obviously just thinking of the children.     I have never been asked by someone to answer a question I asked of them to help them formulate a response.  Interesting discussion concept.   

Thanks for your response, I think I'll leave my question up for others to answer. I'll give it a dayor so for others to have the time to hopefully read and respond to it, and then I'll answer your earlier questions to me. Thanks.

BG

[Does anyone here understand, other than it's original intent, how this rule change has impacted the game? TRO, Pirate, Emerald, Bandit, BDV...ANYBODY want to respond to that?]

I don't see what's so complicated about determining which position people take and why. Bama fans want to be able to substitute on defense because Bama consistently has great recruiting classes and has a lot of talented players, starters and backups (subs). Most other schools don't have this and have found that the only way to compete with a school like Bama is to keep the ball moving and keep the opponent's defensive substitutions to a minimum.

It doesn't take a brilliant lawyer such as myself to figure this out. And it isn't complicated to understand that Saban would try to influence the rules to his benefit. If I was a Bama fan (God forbid) I would praise Saban and argue incessantly against those with the opposing view. And if it were Butch Jones doing the manipulating, I would probably sing his praises.

The problem I have is that Saban (and Bama fans) should just admit why they have that viewpoint. It isn't in the interests of safety and everyone knows it. Why not just say, "we have more talent than you and we don't want to level the playing field"?

If UT was the one with the advantage, I'd say it. And I'd laugh about it.

Excellent post, droner, I have admitted that I'm for what is in Bama's best interest, and said of course I am. But what apparently some disbelieve, and I don't know why, is that I'm pretty much a purist of the game, and like to see the game played as I always have with defenses on equal footing as the offense. We don't have that now. Often, defensive strategy has been taken out of the game.  Bryant and Neyland do not approve! TRO asked me what has changed it, and I mentioned the 40 seconds clock and it's impact, and asked did he understand the impact it has had. He gave me the purpose for the change being made and the intent, but did not give me the full impact it has had on the game other than it's original purpose.


I think there is misunderstanding here, and why some are not following my argument at all. TRO's questions tell that, and when I read in the original thread on the this issue a post that said defenses are able to substitute freely now. Well, that's just not the case.


Again, I was asked what rule was recently passed that changed the way game is now played. I'll answer that now: The change from the 25 second clock rule to the forty second clock rule. Does anyone here understand, other than it's original intent, how this rule change has impacted the game? TRO, Pirate, Emerald, Bandit, BDV...ANYBODY want to respond to that?

BG

BGH, you seem like a nice guy (yes, even for a saban loving bammer  ), but if what Clockwork and TRO posted didn't get the point across, I'm not sure supplying you with the answer to a question that was posed to you would help.  It all comes down to one set of fans wanting to win and backing their coach no matter what he does, and other fans who want to win but don't want another coach having undue influence to impact games in his favor. The two will never agree, no matter what fatcs are cited or sound arguments are put forth.  Again, just my $.02. 

First off, thanks for the kind words. I very much appreciate that! I understand your point, but I've got a whole list of questions proposed to me, and I'll be glad to answer them, but first I'm asking the entire board just one single question. You will see why I have to get the answer first, before responding to the series of questions that were asked me, as it will impact me answering those other questions. I hope this will help al least shed some light on my stance on the issue, whether in the end you agree or probably disagree on the rule change proposal, which will in all likelihood not be passed anyway. Thanks.

BG

BG, I was never saying Saban was the sole driving force behind the rule change.  Redding said that was not the case in the article I linked, in fact.  That was never my point.

My point is that if Saban is going to take the time to attend the committee meeting, then its obviously a HUGE DEAL to him.  That, and he has been whining about it for two years now.

What I was mostly reacting to is a friend of mine who always seems to just make shizzle up whenever something reflects poorly on bammer.   When Julio and Ingram got caught going on the fishing trip, he had a story about it (which I don't remember, but I do remember that his story was completey false).  When the textbook scandal happened, my friend went around saying "but they only got $10 for a pad of paper!" (ad naseum and at the top of his lungs) when in reality the average "get" for those athletes was on the order of $200-300 and a few athletes were making a few thousand per semester.   And so forth.

So when my friend told me that Saban was "invited" by the committee and that he was otherwise minding his business, I instantly knew it was bull shizzle soley based on the source.  

That Saban is not the sole source of the rule change I freely admit.  That he is the most highly visible and perhaps most passioinate advocate of it I don't think anyone can deny.  The OBC thinks so anyway.

So in short, this rule change is a big deal to Saban and he went well out of his way to represent it to the committee is my point.  What Redding says about the effect Saban had on the committee is almost beside the point, but no doubt he had an effect.  More important, he has been saying this very publically for two years now and I think he is DEFINITELY someone who is influential.  How could he not be?

Finally...and this is one reason I detest Finebaum (among many lol).  Last year when Saban was saying this stuff, Finebaum's radio show began consisting of a series of leading questions.   For instance, his conversation with Gary Daneilson went something like this..."I know you are a football traditionalist...do you also think the hurry up offense is bad for football as Saban does?"

In short, Finebaum spent entire segements of his show pimping Saban's POV on the hurry up.   Of course, that's exactly what the majority of his listeners want to hear.  The many has zero integrity.  

My compliments to you.   As you can see I will admit when I'm wrong (my wife would tell that is MOST of the time ), and I see where you'll even admit something also. You also can debate with some humor, while we both have opposing viewpoints and will both argue them passionately and tirelessly, you seem to be on the same page as I: That is if you really like to debate issues, you better be prepared to say your wrong at times. Arguing a debating point is very easy, but admitting you're wrong is when you often have to put your big boy pants on. Having a sense of humor also helps!


BG