Attention BGHarper

[BGHarper]

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

[droner]

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.

[Be-the-Vol]

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

Yes, but would it be an evil, mwah-ha-ha laugh?   

[BGHarper]

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

[TheRealOrange]

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

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.   

[TheRealOrange]

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

Yes, you did, and I addressed that in a previous response in this thread.  That rule change has had no effect: "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."  Sorry, but that rule change has not changed/reduced the time between the end of one play and the beginning of the next or the average of the total plays per game.  It is a non-starter.  But, keep throwing it out there.   

[Be-the-Vol]

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.

I'm also a defensive purist.  I would like to see the offensive line have to hold their jerseys while blocking, allow the defensive line to head-slap, wear no, or leather helmets, no forward passes, and if passing is allowed, bump receivers at all times during their routes, etc., etc., etc.  I'm done with this thread, but it sure has been fun.  

[BGHarper]

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

[TheRealOrange]

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

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. 
   

[BanditVol]

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

I would side with TRO and say it didn't affect the game, once teams adjusted to it. Initially, it seems to have affected the D, if anything, because it led to less plays.  But then the stats evened out.

It would seem to have been neutral.  Can you remind me of how you view it?  If I am not mistaken, you think the 40-second rule change favored the offense?

Heck, there were older rule changes that did far more to open up the game.  As Hollerboy indirectly indicated, the liberalization of holding rules and tightening up of pass interference did far more to favor the offense.

My view is that offensive coaches have found a way to innovate, and lil Nicky doesn't like it so he wants to change the rules.  What kind of impresses me about that is that lil Nicky DOES know his stuff, so it must really matter.  Which of course means I am very opposed to the rule change!

A couple folks have alluded to the fact that of course bammer fans are going to defend lil Nicky and Vols would defend Butch if the situation were reversed, or would have if Fulmer had done something like this.   Well of course we would, but if my coach ever transparently campaigned for a rule change in the manner of lil Nicky, I would defend it, but only in the sense that I defended that SOB Kiffin when he ran his mouth.  Very reluctantly, and privately I would not like it.

Bottom line...IMO lil Nicky is acting like a punk and you know it.  And I suspect you kind of have to hold your nose defending him, but obviously only you know that.

But I do know one thing you don't like, no matter what you say.  Hint...what former Vol coach did I mention above that is now at bammer.   

[BGHarper]

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

[BGHarper]

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

[TheRealOrange]

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 defense teams 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

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.

[PirateVOL]

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

First rule of holes ...

[BGHarper]

First rule of holes ...

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


BG

[BGHarper]

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

[BGHarper]

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

[Be-the-Vol]

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

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.   

[BGHarper]

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

 

[Clockwork Orange]

I cannot express how much I regret starting this thread.

[Stogie Vol]

[Be-the-Vol]

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

 

Nope, wrong again.  Sorry Clocky and Stogie.   

[volsboy]

All I can say to all of this is this....give me a big, physical defense any day. You can stop the hurry-up finesse teams. Stanford has handled Oregon the last two years. You got to coach your defense on its assignments to stay home and not be fooled by the miss-directions of the offense. Coaches should learn from Stanford's example. Who is Stanford's DC? He does fine against HUNH offenses. The defense's will figure it out. No rule changes needed.