Attention BGHarper

[Clockwork Orange]

http://cfbmatrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf

What do you make of this? Do you care, or will you continue to let your approach be that "Saban is agin' it, so I am too"?

Big, fast, physical football players hitting each other causes injuries. Pace of offense does not. This is physics and biomechanics and should come as a surprise to nobody. When is Saban going to advocate limits on the size and speed of players? You on board with that?

[Volznut]

Saban would have to eliminate his steroid and HGH....uh.. pharmaceutical program, to do that.

[LouisVOL]

You forget the Alabama order of belief: 

1.  Saban
2.  Bible
3.  Myth
4.  Fact

[BGHarper]

http://cfbmatrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf

What do you make of this? Do you care, or will you continue to let your approach be that "Saban is agin' it, so I am too"?

 I have said before, and I'll have be redundant and say it again. I admit I'm for what is in Bama's best interest, but I've also tried to convey the truth in that I'm a fan of defense first, and taking the Tide's interest out of the equation, I would still want to see the game today that I grew up with. That game consists of a defensive team being able to substitute as needed on every play to counter the offensive strategy it was facing. Other than a dead ball situation, the defensive coaches can no longer run those substitutions in as needed unless the offense also substitutes first. It's taken the coaching strategy effectiveness away from defensive coaches. From an Orange standpoint, Neyland is rolling in his grave and his only salvation is that Bryant is as well. Offensive teams can now substitute at will while defensive teams can not. It gives the offense a big advantage, and destroys the balance of the game we've known.


Big, fast, physical football players hitting each other causes injuries. Pace of offense does not. This is physics and biomechanics and should come as a surprise to nobody. When is Saban going to advocate limits on the size and speed of players? You on board with that.


Yes, I admit my own personal selfishness here. I want the game to be similar to the one I've also known and loved. I guess SEC games will no longer be that much different that the Saturday night 11 PM ESPN game between Fresno State and BYU. May be your cup of tea, but it's not mine.

Also, note when the subject originally came up on the board, injuries were not what I first mentioned because I was less sure of that issue.  However, while I eventually did mention the many more plays being run with a HUNH offense causing many more plays per player per season, and thus increasing the chances for further injuries, note that my response was that others made good points when bringing up the argument that if were going to change this rule in order to decrease them, and why not change other aspects of the game first in order to achieve the same results, and besides football equals injuries per se, and where do we draw the line type of thinking. I had little or no argument for that type of thinking, and said they were valid points.


BG

[Clockwork Orange]

BG, if the history of football has taught us anything it's that there is no right way and no real traditional way for it to be played. Over and over, someone on offense (defense) has innovated and in response someone on defense (offense) has innovated to beat it. That's been the ebb and flow of the game since, well, always.

Do you want Alabama to return to the wishbone? Pass only a handful of times a game, vertical routes only, to stretch the defense and nothing more? Do you want them to avoid the forward pass entirely? Eschew the soccer-style placekick, the zone blitz, crossing routes, and the shotgun snap? No? Well then you're not so traditional as it turns out. You're somewhere on the gradient, and far closer to the 21st century HUNH than you are to old school football. It's not only selfish for you to say you want to see football stay like it was . . . it's disingenuous and short-sighted.

The answer has always been and should always be that if someone does something new, you figure out a way to slow it or exploit its weaknesses to your advantage. HUNH is the new thing now. It's within the rules and is only exploitative so long as you haven't figured out how to cope with it defensively. Bammer's D is just going to have to get smaller and faster up front and yeah, that'll hurt you against more "traditional" pro style offense. But this is football strategy, BG, and not even the mighty Saban and his army of loyal crimson followers should be exempt from having to adapt and devise new strategies like everyone else in the history of football has had to do.

Saban's reasoning is just false, as the article I linked shows. Yours is selfish and runs against the storied history of innovation in football. I'm still waiting for a good reason, from anyone, why the proposed rule change should be supported by any football fan.

[BGHarper]

That's understandable, but I'm no more selfish and no more wrong than Bob Neyland when he was vehemently against one platoon football, and wanted to refused to allow his own committee's majority opinion which opposed his personal view. I like Neyland, and his stance.


BG

[Clockwork Orange]

That's understandable, but I'm no more selfish and no more wrong than Bob Neyland when he was vehemently against one platoon football, and wanted to refused to allow his own committee's majority opinion which opposed his personal view. I like Neyland, and his stance.
BG

A rule was changed in 1941 to allow unlimited substitution. By 1945 some teams were using a two-platoon system, now (but not previously) legal. Neyland opposed the rule change, which happened while he was leading his countrymen overseas in WWII.

Neyland didn't attempt to ban an innovation that happened within the existing rules-- it was a rules change he opposed. Quite an apple to your orange.

Secondly,

I detest two-platoon football, but we found we couldn't lick the two-platoon boys, so we decided to join them.

-- Gen. Bob Neyland, Dec. 4 1951, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal after leading UT to the 1951 AP national title

I suggest Saban take a hint from Neyland and figure shizzle out instead of trying to change longstanding rules.

[Stogie Vol]

[BGHarper]

A rule was changed in 1941 to allow unlimited substitution. By 1945 some teams were using a two-platoon system, now (but not previously) legal. Neyland opposed the rule change, which happened while he was leading his countrymen overseas in WWII.

Neyland didn't attempt to ban an innovation that happened within the existing rules-- it was a rules change he opposed. Quite an apple to your orange.

Secondly,

-- Gen. Bob Neyland, Dec. 4 1951, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal after leading UT to the 1951 AP national title

I suggest Saban take a hint from Neyland and figure shizzle out instead of trying to change longstanding rules.

The point of this is Neyland had his own prejudices and opinions about one-platoon football that were unpopular to the majority of other coaches. That doesn't mean he's wrong, or Saban is wrong, it means this is how they wish to see the game played, and both are willing to attempt, by either not letting a rule come up for vote, or by making a simple presentation to a committee on their viewpoint, to get what is best for them and their schools.


The whole issue for me personally is this: Now for the very first time, defensive coaches can not substitute freely on every play as they always have been able to do, while the offense can still substitute freely on every play it decides to do so.  It's created a huge advantage for the offense, so I like the rule as it gives us back what we always had until the present, and that's the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will as the offense can now only do.

There is no right or wrong answer, it's just what you wish the game to be.



BG

[Black Diamond Vol]

[TheRealOrange]

The whole issue for me personally is this: Now for the very first time, defensive coaches can not substitute freely on every play as they always have been able to do, while the offense can still substitute freely on every play it decides to do so.  It's created a huge advantage for the offense, so I like the rule as it gives us back what we always had until the present, and that's the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will as the offense can now only do.

You keep saying that but, as far as I can tell, you have yet to support that assertion with fact.  What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?  How will this proposed rule give "back what we always had until the present"?  How can something be given back when you cannot point to a rule change that took anything away?  Again, what past rule change prevents "the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will"?  What past rule change says that only the offense can substitute at will?  Or, are you saying that the offenses move too quickly for defenses to substitute at will?  That's untrue.  Be prepared and you can easily make substitutions before the ball is snapped.  Just prepare defenses to stop the offenses within the rules that have existed for quite a while.  A rule change didn't create the current offenses, so no rule change is needed to stop them.  Good defensive coaching combined with good defensive players is needed.  You say you like good defensive football, and are a fan of defense first, so demand it.  That doesn't require, or even implicate the need for, a rule change.  It requires coaches to actually earn their ridiculously high salaries.

[PirateVOL]

You keep saying that but, as far as I can tell, you have yet to support that assertion with fact.  What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?  How will this proposed rule give "back what we always had until the present"?  How can something be given back when you cannot point to a rule change that took anything away?  Again, what past rule change prevents "the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will"?  What past rule change says that only the offense can substitute at will?  Or, are you saying that the offenses move too quickly for defenses to substitute at will?  That's untrue.  Be prepared and you can easily make substitutions before the ball is snapped.  Just prepare defenses to stop the offenses within the rules that have existed for quite a while.  A rule change didn't create the current offenses, so no rule change is needed to stop them.  Good defensive coaching combined with good defensive players is needed.  You say you like good defensive football, and are a fan of defense first, so demand it.  That doesn't require, or even implicate the need for, a rule change.  It requires coaches to actually earn their ridiculously high salaries.

I guess BJ missed all those times the Umpire stood over the ball to allow the defense to substitute.
Of course this occurred when the offense substituted a player so ...

I would also point out that I know a team that used the offensive plays to enable substitution last year, against a team that was snapping the ball in 10-15 seconds.  How, glad you asked.  When a play was ran to the Tennessee sideline the defense was ready to run subs onto the field.  It's called COACHING and being PREPARED.  Something that the General was damn good at.

[EmerilVOL]

http://cfbmatrix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf

What do you make of this? Do you care, or will you continue to let your approach be that "Saban is agin' it, so I am too"?

 I have said before, and I'll have be redundant and say it again. I admit I'm for what is in Bama's best interest, but I've also tried to convey the truth in that I'm a fan of defense first, and taking the Tide's interest out of the equation, I would still want to see the game today that I grew up with. That game consists of a defensive team being able to substitute as needed on every play to counter the offensive strategy it was facing. Other than a dead ball situation, the defensive coaches can no longer run those substitutions in as needed unless the offense also substitutes first. It's taken the coaching strategy effectiveness away from defensive coaches. From an Orange standpoint, Neyland is rolling in his grave and his only salvation is that Bryant is as well. Offensive teams can now substitute at will while defensive teams can not. It gives the offense a big advantage, and destroys the balance of the game we've known.


Big, fast, physical football players hitting each other causes injuries. Pace of offense does not. This is physics and biomechanics and should come as a surprise to nobody. When is Saban going to advocate limits on the size and speed of players? You on board with that.


Yes, I admit my own personal selfishness here. I want the game to be similar to the one I've also known and loved. I guess SEC games will no longer be that much different that the Saturday night 11 PM ESPN game between Fresno State and BYU. May be your cup of tea, but it's not mine.

Also, note when the subject originally came up on the board, injuries were not what I first mentioned because I was less sure of that issue.  However, while I eventually did mention the many more plays being run with a HUNH offense causing many more plays per player per season, and thus increasing the chances for further injuries, note that my response was that others made good points when bringing up the argument that if were going to change this rule in order to decrease them, and why not change other aspects of the game first in order to achieve the same results, and besides football equals injuries per se, and where do we draw the line type of thinking. I had little or no argument for that type of thinking, and said they were valid points.


BG

OMG Did you support tear away jerseys when the Bear was using them and only three or four other teams were using them as well......hmmmmmm?

[BGHarper]

You keep saying that but, as far as I can tell, you have yet to support that assertion with fact.  What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?  How will this proposed rule give "back what we always had until the present"?  How can something be given back when you cannot point to a rule change that took anything away?  Again, what past rule change prevents "the defensive coaches being able to substitute at will"?  What past rule change says that only the offense can substitute at will?  Or, are you saying that the offenses move too quickly for defenses to substitute at will?  That's untrue.  Be prepared and you can easily make substitutions before the ball is snapped.  Just prepare defenses to stop the offenses within the rules that have existed for quite a while.  A rule change didn't create the current offenses, so no rule change is needed to stop them.  Good defensive coaching combined with good defensive players is needed.  You say you like good defensive football, and are a fan of defense first, so demand it.  That doesn't require, or even implicate the need for, a rule change.  It requires coaches to actually earn their ridiculously high salaries.

TRO, are you familiar with the changes to the game the 40 second clock has made vs. the old 25 second clock? Let's start from there first before going to your questions. Please let me know your understanding of the changes made a few ago and their impact, and the I will be more than happy to answer your questions which are making me think we are not on same page at all. I assumed you and others knew of the rule changes, and the issues that have risen. If you are aware, let me know and I'll answer your questions. TIA


EDITED to add: Will be away today, so I'll respond back Thursday. Thanks



BG

[BGHarper]

Pirate, as you know, Nick Saban in no slouch of a defensive coach. I would guess we do the same in that situation, but that is only one example and doesn't do anything for the vast other situations, and no they can not get them in before the possible snap, nor can anybody else.


So is the implication that Neyland was always prepared, and Saban is not? You mention "coaching", and I doubt you will find many people in his profession that question his ability, especially on the defensive side of the ball. You know that.


BG

[BGHarper]

OMG Did you support tear away jerseys when the Bear was using them and only three or four other teams were using them as well......hmmmmmm?

Hated them, but loved them when someone grabbed Johnny Musso's jersey and it ripped, and he took off on a 25 yard run. Otherwise, hated them.


BG

[BGHarper]

OMG Did you support tear away jerseys when the Bear was using them and only three or four other teams were using them as well......hmmmmmm?

Emerald, got to thinking about those jerseys.  I hated the look of the tattered things-that is what I remember the most about them. Heck, i was what 14 years old or so when they came out and I was playing LB at school, but even with playing mostly D myself at the time I doubt I thought too much one way of the other about it helping the offense out over the D, but it did and it was eventually ruled out of the game.


BTW, you mention 4 teams or so that wore them. In the nation? No sir, many wore them even the Vols, at least I think they did. I know Auburn did.


BG

[EmerilVOL]

Emerald, got to thinking about those jerseys.  I hated the look of the tattered things-that is what I remember the most about them. Heck, i was what 14 years old or so when they came out and I was playing LB at school, but even with playing mostly D myself at the time I doubt I thought too much one way of the other about it helping the offense out over the D, but it did and it was eventually ruled out of the game.


BTW, you mention 4 teams or so that wore them. In the nation? No sir, many wore them even the Vols, at least I think they did. I know Auburn did.


BG

Alabama and about four other teams led the way, but then the next year almost every school adopted them after the success of Alabama and their wishbone attack (oh yeah that was fair for the offense to employ two tailbacks at the same time just like Oregon is to run a hurry up offense all the time) , and yes UT was one of the teams that were in the vanguard of the second wave to adopt the tear away jerseys.

[TheRealOrange]

TRO, are you familiar with the changes to the game the 40 second clock has made vs. the old 25 second clock? Let's start from there first before going to your questions. Please let me know your understanding of the changes made a few ago and their impact, and the I will be more than happy to answer your questions which are making me think we are not on same page at all. I assumed you and others knew of the rule changes, and the issues that have risen. If you are aware, let me know and I'll answer your questions. TIA

EDITED to add: Will be away today, so I'll respond back Thursday. Thanks



BG

You mean the 2007 change, effective in the 2008 season, to the 40-second play clock?  Yep, I'm familiar with it.  What's your point?  The purpose of that change was to adopt consistency in how soon the ball is ready for play after it has become dead.  Prior to that, the play clock was set at 25 seconds and started on the referee’s signal on every play.  So what!  Now, and since 2008, the play clock sets to 40 seconds after the ball becomes dead (except when it is set to 25 seconds for various reasons and started on the referee’s signal).  Again, what's your point?  With the inception of that rule, the average number of plays in FBS games dropped from about 143 in 2007 to about 135 in 2008.  In 2013, the current NCAA stats show that the average was 143.8 plays per game.  That makes it almost identical to the 143 average in 2007 BEFORE the play clock rule change.  So, again, what's your point?  That earlier change to the play clock did nothing to speed up play on the field.  The officials still won't let the ball be marked ready for play until they are reasonably able to do so, and they often hold up play, slowing down particularly fast offenses.  Your reference to the earlier play clock change is just another red herring thrown out there so you can avoid addressing the actual issues.  Absolutely nothing has changed in the rules in the recent past, and even by your warped logic since 2008, that prevents defenses from being effective.  Again, coaches simply need to earn their pay and design defenses and substitution systems that work.  But, as a Saban sycophant, I guess you just can't bring yourself to admitting that.  So be it.

[PirateVOL]

Pirate, as you know, Nick Saban in no slouch of a defensive coach. I would guess we do the same in that situation, but that is only one example and doesn't do anything for the vast other situations, and no they can not get them in before the possible snap, nor can anybody else.


So is the implication that Neyland was always prepared, and Saban is not? You mention "coaching", and I doubt you will find many people in his profession that question his ability, especially on the defensive side of the ball. You know that.


BG

No the implication is that Saben is WHINING and NOT coaching!  Other coaches have figured out ways to work WITHIN THE RULES to slow down or beat the spread offenses.  The example I used was used by CBJ this year AGIANST Auburn and another team, even when the playe was being repeated. 

Once again you CHOSE to miss the point.

Firs rule of holes is ....

[BGHarper]

I've been asked, "What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?


Before we go further, does anyone here know the answer to that question? If so, please respond.  Will answer all your question TRO once we get this out of the way, because the answer to my question will directly affect how I answer to you.


BG

[Be-the-Vol]

I've been asked, "What rule change took effect recently that prevents defenses from freely substituting on every play "as they always have been able to do"?


Before we go further, does anyone here know the answer to that question? If so, please respond.  Will answer all your question TRO once we get this out of the way, because the answer to my question will directly affect how I answer to you.


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. 

[Clockwork Orange]

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. 

[Be-the-Vol]

Doing well, thanks. I hope you haven't changed a bit.   

I've decided that lurking isn't as fun as joing in.   

[Clockwork Orange]

Doing well, thanks. I hope you haven't changed a bit.   

I've decided that lurking isn't as fun as joing in.   

I'm younger and better looking than the last time you saw me. 

Hope to see you and Tony at a tailgate sometime soon. If the schedule works out we'll probably come to a game this year.