• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

NCAA - slowly ruining football (rules changes - merged)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
I see very little chance this gets passed. The pushback has been fairly substantial. Also, the funny thing is that one of the arguments for them was stated to be "well when reviewing the tape, up-tempo teams rarely snapped the ball inside of 10seconds, so it won't have much of an impact." Well.....then.....why even make the rule?
 
Upvote 0
UpNorth_Buckeye said:
I see very little chance this gets passed. The pushback has been fairly substantial. Also, the funny thing is that one of the arguments for them was stated to be "well when reviewing the tape, up-tempo teams rarely snapped the ball inside of 10seconds, so it won't have much of an impact." Well.....then.....why even make the rule?
Click to expand...
Because they're scurred.

As for little chance, they intentionally shortened the game with a running clock to protect commercials and time slots. They'll do the same with this if they can. Advertising reigns supreme.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow said:
As for little chance, they intentionally shortened the game with a running clock to protect commercials and time slots. They'll do the same with this if they can. Advertising reigns supreme.
Click to expand...
Then it would seem that this rule would be snuffed out if advertising had any say. The faster the offense can either (1) score, or (2) be forced to punt, the better since that usually leads to a commercial break. Making an uptempo offense (say, like Oregon's) wait 10 seconds to snap could cost them one or two posessions' worth of time over the course of a game, which means one or two likely commercial breaks.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Then it would seem that this rule would be snuffed out if advertising had any say. The faster the offense can either (1) score, or (2) be forced to punt, the better since that usually leads to a commercial break. Making an uptempo offense (say, like Oregon's) wait 10 seconds to snap could cost them one or two posessions' worth of time over the course of a game, which means one or two likely commercial breaks.
Click to expand...
not when the games run too long and disrupt start and end times. That's why they installed the running clock on out of bounds plays
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
So, making the offense wait longer to snap the ball with shorten the game and avoid having the games run too long?
Click to expand...

I have nothing to back it up, but I would think so. Fewer plays = fewer incompletions, fewer first downs, fewer scoring plays - all things that stop the clock.
 
Upvote 0
Oh Bret...

Bret Bielema cites player's death to support defensive sub rule - College Football Talk

Arkansas head coach Bret Bielema has finally had his chance to address the proposed rule that has sparked plenty of controversy since it was first reported. Odds are some of Bielema’s comments will not go over too well.

The NCAA’s Football Rules Committee is proposing a rule that would prevent an offense from snapping the football for ten seconds, to allow defensive substitutions. The initial stated intention for the rule was to focus on player safety, but many have been quick to suggest it is more about slowing down up-tempo offenses. Bielema was in the room when the rule proposal was discussed, although he was on hand as a representative of the American Football Coaches Association of America and not as a committee member. His being in the room though has been perceived to have some say on what was going on. On Thursday night Bielema was asked publicly to comment on the proposal.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Proposed change to targeting rule passes

Some common sense will return to the college football field next season.

CBSSports.com's Jeremy Fowler confirmed that the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel voted on Thursday to approve a proposal that will change the way targeting is called during a game. Last year, in the first year of the new targeting rules, when a team was called for targeting it was penalized 15 yards and the offending player was ejected. Officials could then review the play to determine whether or not the player deserved the ejection, but even if they overturned the targeting call, the 15-yard penalty remained.

That will no longer be the case. Should officials overturn a targeting call in 2014, not only will the player be allowed to remain in the game, but the 15-yard penalty will be nullified as well.

Which just makes so much sense that it's a wonder that wasn't the case from the very beginning, but hey, we'll take what we can get.

Entire article: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...port-proposed-change-to-targeting-rule-passes
 
Upvote 0
ScriptOhio said:
Proposed change to targeting rule passes

Some common sense will return to the college football field next season.

CBSSports.com's Jeremy Fowler confirmed that the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel voted on Thursday to approve a proposal that will change the way targeting is called during a game. Last year, in the first year of the new targeting rules, when a team was called for targeting it was penalized 15 yards and the offending player was ejected. Officials could then review the play to determine whether or not the player deserved the ejection, but even if they overturned the targeting call, the 15-yard penalty remained.

That will no longer be the case. Should officials overturn a targeting call in 2014, not only will the player be allowed to remain in the game, but the 15-yard penalty will be nullified as well.

Which just makes so much sense that it's a wonder that wasn't the case from the very beginning, but hey, we'll take what we can get.

Entire article: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...port-proposed-change-to-targeting-rule-passes
Click to expand...

Bleh. It's a step in the right direction, but I think the ejection part needs to be revised. I think that many hits deserve ejections, but many don't. (5'6" Roby hitting 6'9" Iowa tight end in the shoulder is one that doesn't.) In my opinion, maybe it should be a 15-yard penalty, with the officials getting a chance to eject the player if it meets certain criteria. But the penalty shouldn't be an automatic ejection, regardless of whether the replay is viewed. The ejection should also stand for the remainder of that game. Let the league (NCAA or conference) decide whether an additional half, 1 game, 2 games, etc. is warranted, instead of the "remainder of this half plus the next half" thing.
 
Upvote 0
All proposed rule changes that will be voted on this year:

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...mmittee-explore-future-technological-advances

Some of my favorites ...

The ineligible downfield rule adjusted from three yards to one yard past the line of scrimmage. To be legal, a lineman who is more than one yard past the line of scrimmage must be engaged with a defensive player when a pass is released.
Click to expand...

This could wreck some schools' offensive systems, such as Auburn and Navy.

Officials are to treat illegal equipment issues – such as jerseys tucked under the shoulder pads and writing on eye black – by making the player leave the field for one play. The player may remain in the game if his team takes a timeout to correct the equipment.
Click to expand...

The NCAA has determined that the mere sight of Ezekiel Elliot's abs presents an unfair competitive advantage.

Based on research findings of the National Football League, non-standard/overbuilt facemasks will be prohibited.
Click to expand...

The NCAA had better get moving on standardized face mask configurations before Oregon gets out of control.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top