or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2014 NCAA Football
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2014 NCAA Football

post #1 of 280
Thread Starter 

Well since my Buckeyes currently SUCK at basketball. I thought I start something a bit more uplifting. NCAA FOOTBALL!!! Never too early to start discussing it. 

 

Well as of right now the current big thing is the new proposed rule change. Basically a "FALL START" penalty for offenses that snap the ball with in the first 10 seconds of the play clock. Here is why I think it is total BS. Another reason why I am glad that Bret "The Crybaby" Bielema is out of the Big Ten. 

 

 

 

All though they wave the rule for the last 2 minutes. Some teams need to hurry up for as much as the whole fourth quarter for a comeback. So this will actually inhibit the excitement of a comeback. Unlike what has been said, fast pace offenses DO NOT cause more injuries. In actuality injury reports say they cause LESS injuries. Probably more to do with scheme then fast pace, it still is a blow. 

 

Bret cited death certificates, basically throwing CAL University under the bus because one of their players died during a training run. Hence this was not in a scrimmage, not in a game, it was during training.  What Bret should have advocated is for better physical screenings to make sure players who might have some sort of heart defect or other physical problem that could arise are ineligible to play. They can also review the practice methods as well. Claiming just because CAL runs high pace offense and a player died has nothing to do with fast pace offense is horrible twist of a tragic situation for that university. 

 

Those advocating the change are NOT those who run high pace offenses. It would be different if a coach who use to run fast pace came forward claiming he saw negative impacts on athletes from his offense and wanted to make sure that they are protected. If you look at the two teams that like to control the clock, run it down, slow the game down it is Nick Saban and Bret Bielema. Makes me wonder what agenda they have. 

 

 

I know he use to be a coach for that team up north. I give Rich Rod props for standing up for his philosophy on football and producing this, 

 

post #2 of 280

@saevel25 ,

 

It's March and there is a foot of snow on the ground.  I don't start thinking about football until I can smell fall in the air!

 

Agreed on the false start penalty.  It is exciting to watch fast pace teams.  Peyton Manning would have a stroke if this happened in the NFL.

post #3 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

@saevel25 ,


It's March and there is a foot of snow on the ground.  I don't start thinking about football until I can smell fall in the air!


Agreed on the false start penalty.  It is exciting to watch fast pace teams.  Peyton Manning would have a stroke if this happened in the NFL.


 



It's never too early or too late to talk about football in this state. There's football season and getting ready for football season and no time in between. a2_wink.gif

Of couse Saban wants a rule change to slow the game down. It's pretty obvious that a fast paced offense is his Achiles heel...And he is WAY too stuborn to use it to his advantage on offense (so far and I figure forever).

When he threatened to walk if he didn't get a new contract I would have told him it's been really fun, we really enjoyed it, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
post #4 of 280
post #5 of 280
Thread Starter 

I hope they were some good crab legs!!! 

post #6 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

I hope they were some good crab legs!!! 

 

Ha ha!

 

BTW. How did the Buckeyes look in spring training?

 

Alabama looked like crap!

 

Of course playing against yourselves it's always hard to tell for sure.

post #7 of 280
Go Irish!
post #8 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

 

Ha ha!

 

BTW. How did the Buckeyes look in spring training?

 

Alabama looked like crap!

 

Of course playing against yourselves it's always hard to tell for sure.

 

 

A lot of guys sat out, so there were a lot of 2nd and 3rd string guys in there. I think it did well to show the depth. I know the score was low, but Meyer knows he has Braxton back. He has a stable of talented running backs. Some serious speed on the edge, and a few guys with a year under their belts. If the offensive line can solidify then that offense will score on anyone. So really I was more concerned with the defense.

 

The D-line is just stacked. They got 8-10 guys who could flat out start for any team in the country. They already talked about how they are getting away from 1st and 2nd team for the D-line, and move them into pods or platoons. This is Larry Johnson's idea to curb the fast offenses. They have 4 guys who can switch in and out FAST. They don't switch out one or two guys, but the whole line. So they got 8-10 guys who can flat out terrorize an offense. Think of it this way. They return all starting D-lineman from last year. This D-line was ranked 9th in rushing defense. They ranked tied for 7th with 42 sacks last year. Want to guess how many of those were coverage sacks. Probably about 5 of them. If the secondary plays better, this D-line will cause some havoc next year. 

 

As for the linebackers, finally some players are stepping up. Looks like the depth is finally developing. 

 

Now the secondary is what will make or break this team next year. With the addition of Ash as the co-defensive coordinator. He switched to a coverage scheme similar to Narduzzi at Michigan State. A lot of press coverage. Simplify things down, solidify the secondary with what the linebackers and d-line is doing. Really allowing the the DB's to play more athletically. So, we'll see how that goes. There is hope, the Ash guy looks to be a very good young, smart defensive minded coach. 

post #9 of 280

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10868843/pac-12-coaches-critical-sec-decision-maintain-8-game-conference-schedule

 

The big, bad SEC is apparently afraid to play games against the big, bad SEC.  Methinks that if you choose to schedule one less game against a solid conference opponent and replace it with one more game against Northeast South Dakota A&M, then you put a big ding in your argument about how tough your conference is.

 

I agree with the coaches in the article ... that all of the conferences should play the same amount of conference games.  Of course, I also think that they should all play solid non-conference opponents as well.

post #10 of 280
Thread Starter 

I don't mind an 8 game schedule. I know the Big Ten is going away with scheduling non-FBS schools opponents. If things are heading towards the 5 super conferences. It would be interesting to see how that effects scheduling. 

post #11 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10868843/pac-12-coaches-critical-sec-decision-maintain-8-game-conference-schedule

 

The big, bad SEC is apparently afraid to play games against the big, bad SEC.  Methinks that if you choose to schedule one less game against a solid conference opponent and replace it with one more game against Northeast South Dakota A&M, then you put a big ding in your argument about how tough your conference is.

 

I agree with the coaches in the article ... that all of the conferences should play the same amount of conference games.  Of course, I also think that they should all play solid non-conference opponents as well.


They should have gone to 9 conference games just to pacify the Pac 12. Would have made very little difference in strength of schedule anyway. Even Nick Saban wanted to go to 9 games.

 

After all we've heard for years that the bottom half of the SEC isn't any good!

 

Does seem a bit ironic that another conference would talk out of one side of it's mouth and say that the bottom half of the SEC is weak and out of the other side of it's mouth complain that another conference game wasn't added, thus weakening the schedule.

 

I really couldn't care less because a team in a conference with a weak bottom half might actually be toughening their schedule by playing less conference games.

 

What I do hate (and always have) is the scheduling of "rent a victim" directional schools no matter who does it.

 

If I could have my way all major conferences would play 8 conference games but be required to schedule teams from the other major conferences for at least 2 (preferably 3) of the non-conference games. That would be better for college football and would give us many more regular season matchups between schools from the major conferences. It would also give the playoff selection committee a much better cross reference of the strength of conferences every year. Over time it would level the playing field quite a bit.

 

I would love to see the equivalent of Alabama/Ohio State or Alabama/USC twice a year every year on everybody's regular season schedule.

post #12 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 


They should have gone to 9 conference games just to pacify the Pac 12. Would have made very little difference in strength of schedule anyway. Even Nick Saban wanted to go to 9 games.

 

After all we've heard for years that the bottom half of the SEC isn't any good!

 

Does seem a bit ironic that another conference would talk out of one side of it's mouth and say that the bottom half of the SEC is weak and out of the other side of it's mouth complain that another conference game wasn't added, thus weakening the schedule.

 

I really couldn't care less because a team in a conference with a weak bottom half might actually be toughening their schedule by playing less conference games.

 

What I do hate (and always have) is the scheduling of "rent a victim" directional schools no matter who does it.

 

If I could have my way all major conferences would play 8 conference games but be required to schedule teams from the other major conferences for at least 2 (preferably 3) of the non-conference games. That would be better for college football and would give us many more regular season matchups between schools from the major conferences. It would also give the playoff selection committee a much better cross reference of the strength of conferences every year. Over time it would level the playing field quite a bit.

 

I would love to see the equivalent of Alabama/Ohio State or Alabama/USC twice a year every year on everybody's regular season schedule.

I don't think that anybody would argue that the bottom half of the SEC is not as good as Florida Atlantic, Southern Miss and Western Carolina though.  So if you're going to play the patsies with all of your non conference games, then it does seem fair that they should all play the same amount of conference games.

 

Stanford (whose coach was the main one quoted in the article) plays two really weak non-conference opponents as well, so his argument does make a lot of sense.  They have 2 "guaranteed" wins (their other non-conference game is ND) against UC Davis and Army, whereas Alabama has 3, against the aforementioned schools.

 

Of course, if the one game you are taking off the schedule is from the bottom of the conference, then, yeah, it doesn't make much difference, but that isn't always the case.  The two teams Stanford is not playing this year are both from the bottom half of the league.

 

Two of the teams that Alabama is missing this year are Missouri and Georgia ... not exactly bottom half teams.  If you're able to play one extra game against a C-USA team instead of Georgia, you're going to have an easier time of it.

 

But I'm mostly arguing just to argue, because I pretty much agree with everything you said.

 


By the way, this is music to my ears:  http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10872678/fewer-bowl-games-set-new-year-eve-day-accommodate-college-football-playoff

 

I loved growing up and being able to watch most of every game on New Year's Day, and also knowing that the only games being played that day, were games that mattered.  Now it's back to that, apparently.:beer:

post #13 of 280
Thread Starter 

It all depends on how the 5 conference come out of their talks and wanting to break away from the NCAA. I am sure the Big Ten is fine with 8 games or 9 games. So really if it comes down to it, you have the SEC wanting 8, and the Pac-12 wanting 9 games. Well I would prefer 8 games myself because if the trend is to play more FBS schools and more quality opponents, I want to see as many as those as I can. I rather see Ohio State play 3 good quality non conference games than 2 game + a Big Ten opponent. Just my take on it. I like variety. 

 

To me it all depends on if expansion goes to 14 or 16 teams, and what bylaws they want on scheduling. I would hate for them to shun all non big-5 schools.

 

I would almost like to see a premiere soccer league style of play, were the worst team gets dropped from a conference, then you add someone who is on the list in a geographical similar area. 

 

For example. Lets say you have 14 teams in each of the top 5 conferences. That is 70 schools. Currently you have 126 FBS schools. I would personally like to see 6 divisions, which could happen with the remnants of the expansion. Lets say you have 70, then say each conference has 10 schools in the subdivision. Those schools would battle to get into the top 5 divisions. 

 

Just some ideas 

post #14 of 280

Somebody serious about naming the stadium after Johnny Manziel.

 

Really? :doh::doh::doh::doh:

 

C'mon. Sure he was a good player. Even won a big game one time, but seriously...Not like he was a one man show either (note the NFL draft picks he had around him).

 

I can think of absolutely no circumstances where a player that had just left (and without even winning a conference championship I might add) would make anybody think about renaming "Byant Denny", "Jordan Hare" or any other stadium that I can think of.

 

SMH!!!!

post #15 of 280

In most college football crazy areas, it is about getting as many home games as possible to generate revenue.  9 SEC games means having one less home game every other year which turns into millions of $$ for the university and the local economy.  Sure we all want to see Alabama, LSU, Auburn vs Ohio State, USC, FSU but the presidents and athletic directors want to see big bank accounts.

post #16 of 280
Thread Starter 

Ohio State just landed the top inside linebacker and the 6th ranked strong side defensive end!! They are good pace to maybe grab the top dual threat QB, and a top 10 running back as well!! 

 

Keep it up Meyer!! 

post #17 of 280
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Ohio State just landed the top inside linebacker and the 6th ranked strong side defensive end!! They are good pace to maybe grab the top dual threat QB, and a top 10 running back as well!! 

Keep it up Meyer!! 
Hes such a good recruiter he made Brett Bielema take his ball and go to Arkansas ha.
post #18 of 280
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester23 View Post


Hes such a good recruiter he made Brett Bielema take his ball and go to Arkansas ha.

 

 

I think Brett wanted to get out from under Alvarez's thumb at Wisconsin 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2014 NCAA Football