2014 NCAA Football

[Golfingdad]

I don't think we'll ever get 16, though I'd love it.  I'm holding out for at least 8 though......there's gotta be some element of a Cinderella possibility in there.

I agree on all counts.

16 would be horrible.

I call bullshit.  No way you actually mean that.  I agree that it's possibly not necessary , but no way on earth I'd call it "horrible."  On the first weekend of the postseason, instead of 4 or 5 bowl games between the likes of Temple and La-Lafayette or Utah State and UTEP, you'd be watching 8 games spaced over 2 or 3 days for the National Title.  Among those, perhaps a couple of stinkers like Mississippi State vs. Memphis or Oregon vs. Georgia Southern, but also that same weekend, we're watching OSU vs. Auburn and Ole Miss vs. Baylor.

And, keep in mind, that that is only if you require inclusion of all of the lower division champions.  If you leave them out, then you're talking about 8 marquee matchups among just the top 16 teams in the country.  Nothing horrible about that. ;)

Thats some fishbait right there!

You noticed?

---

During the game last night, a call came up that makes no sense to me.  "Kick Catch Interference" is when you touch (or stand too close to, I think) a punt returner who is trying to catch the ball, potentially causing him to fumble.  It is a 15-yard penalty from that spot.  I think that 15 yards is entirely unnecessary.  5 yards is more than enough.  And the reason why it stood out to me as so ridiculous, is that the receiver had called for a fair catch.  Punishment should fit the crime and the opportunity that they took away.  Pass Interference has to be very punitive because you're potentially denying them of several yards or even points by committing that foul.  Personal Fouls need to be 15 because they are dangerous and reckless plays.

But bumping into a punt returner (which is oftentimes caused by him coming forward into the defender just as much as its the defender coming to him) who has called for a fair catch, is denying him absolutely NOTHING.  By all means it should be a penalty, such that they can nullify any fumble caused by the infraction, but it doesn't need to be anything more than that.

[saevel25]

I call bullshit.  No way you actually mean that.  I agree that it's possibly not necessary, but no way on earth I'd call it "horrible."  On the first weekend of the postseason, instead of 4 or 5 bowl games between the likes of Temple and La-Lafayette or Utah State and UTEP, you'd be watching 8 games spaced over 2 or 3 days for the National Title.  Among those, perhaps a couple of stinkers like Mississippi State vs. Memphis or Oregon vs. Georgia Southern, but also that same weekend, we're watching OSU vs. Auburn and Ole Miss vs. Baylor.

I really don't care about the amount of good games to watch. I care more about that play off systems tend to make the regular season less meaningful.

Also if you have automatic qualifiers from the conference championship games, which is likely. A lot of the conferences want to make that final game mean something. You get scenarios were spots are taken up by weaker teams because the better team might sit their starters if they know they wont drop out of the top 16.

Look at the SEC West. Miss. State makes it undefeated to the conference championship. No way a one loss against Missouri would bump them out of the top 16. They rest their players, lose the game and Missouri takes a spot away from maybe a more deserving 1-loss or 2-loss team. Not only did the playoff just make the SEC title game a non-factor, but it also could give a Missouri team a spot when they normally wouldn't. Now that spot is taken away from a more deserving team.

You would need 4 more games to crown a champion. That would bring the games up to 17 total because you usually have 12 regular season games + 1 conference championship game + 4 playoff games. I don't think the schools would want their teams to play more games than the NFL.

Really I think they might go to 15 at the most. Right now you are looking at 14 games, 15 games for the National Champion. So you would be down to 10 regular season games, including the conference championship game. A lot of the conferences are going to 9 conference game schedules. That leaves 1 out of conference opponent.

If you have 8 teams, then you have 3 games to crown a champion. You'd have 3 games + 9 conference games + 1 conference championship game + 2 non-conference games. I think that just fits better and allows still for some good in-season match ups.

[iacas]

But bumping into a punt returner (which is oftentimes caused by him coming forward into the defender just as much as its the defender coming to him) who has called for a fair catch, is denying him absolutely NOTHING.  By all means it should be a penalty, such that they can nullify any fumble caused by the infraction, but it doesn't need to be anything more than that.

You seem to forget the fact that the receiving player could fumble the ball, giving possession to the other team. If it was five yards, the teams might try to do that all the time and hope it's not noticed or called every time. How many five-yard penalties is a turnover (after a punt, so likely pretty deep in the territory) worth? If it's 15, they'll be less likely to try to get away with something.

Plus, you could probably do quite a bit to a defenseless guy looking skyward that might not meet the definition of "roughing" or "unsportsmanlike" or whatever, and you might be inclined to punish a guy a little bit if again the penalty was a measly five yards.

[Golfingdad]

I really don't care about the amount of good games to watch. I care more about that play off systems tend to make the regular season less meaningful.

Also if you have automatic qualifiers from the conference championship games, which is likely. A lot of the conferences want to make that final game mean something. You get scenarios were spots are taken up by weaker teams because the better team might sit their starters if they know they wont drop out of the top 16.

Look at the SEC West. Miss. State makes it undefeated to the conference championship. No way a one loss against Missouri would bump them out of the top 16. They rest their players, lose the game and Missouri takes a spot away from maybe a more deserving 1-loss or 2-loss team. Not only did the playoff just make the SEC title game a non-factor, but it also could give a Missouri team a spot when they normally wouldn't. Now that spot is taken away from a more deserving team.

You would need 4 more games to crown a champion. That would bring the games up to 17 total because you usually have 12 regular season games + 1 conference championship game + 4 playoff games. I don't think the schools would want their teams to play more games than the NFL.

Really I think they might go to 15 at the most. Right now you are looking at 14 games, 15 games for the National Champion. So you would be down to 10 regular season games, including the conference championship game. A lot of the conferences are going to 9 conference game schedules. That leaves 1 out of conference opponent.

If you have 8 teams, then you have 3 games to crown a champion. You'd have 3 games + 9 conference games + 1 conference championship game + 2 non-conference games. I think that just fits better and allows still for some good in-season match ups.

You had me at "regular season less meaningful." (Seriously ... good points.  I had never thought of anything like your Missouri scenario either.)

I love hockey, but I don't watch a lot of regular season hockey.  Partially because there is so much else going on that I like more (baseball playoffs at the beginning of the season, college and NFL end of season, then bowl and playoff games through the middle, then March Madness at the end) and partially because it just doesn't mean a whole lot.  (Mr. I Stay Out Of The Stupid NCAA Football Thread - he knows who he is - is going to have something to say about that, and I know I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but it's certainly less important than the regular season for some other sports.  I wouldn't want to change that too much for college football.

[saevel25]

You had me at "regular season less meaningful."   (Seriously ... good points.  I had never thought of anything like your Missouri scenario either.)

I love hockey, but I don't watch a lot of regular season hockey.  Partially because there is so much else going on that I like more (baseball playoffs at the beginning of the season, college and NFL end of season, then bowl and playoff games through the middle, then March Madness at the end) and partially because it just doesn't mean a whole lot.  (Mr. I Stay Out Of The Stupid NCAA Football Thread - he knows who he is  - is going to have something to say about that, and I know I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but it's certainly less important than the regular season for some other sports.  I wouldn't want to change that too much for college football.

I think that is what drives College Football a lot is the importance that every game in the regular season.

The sports that are surviving are the ones that are fast paced and have weekly talking points. The primary reason the MLB is dying off is because it just isn't exciting week in and week out. NBA is kinda the same, but they have better branding than the MLB. What helps the NFL get away with this is Fantasy Football. That makes all the weekly games mean something.

Really, you see an 8-8 team make the playoffs in the NFL. To me that is a joke really. I know that is tougher to see in the NCAA because of the amount of teams their are.

[Golfingdad]

You seem to forget the fact that the receiving player could fumble the ball, giving possession to the other team. If it was five yards, the teams might try to do that all the time and hope it's not noticed or called every time. How many five-yard penalties is a turnover (after a punt, so likely pretty deep in the territory) worth? If it's 15, they'll be less likely to try to get away with something.

Plus, you could probably do quite a bit to a defenseless guy looking skyward that might not meet the definition of "roughing" or "unsportsmanlike" or whatever, and you might be inclined to punish a guy a little bit if again the penalty was a measly five yards.

I didn't forget that.  I just don't think that there would be many cases where guys would be able to "get away with anything."  There is a referee (or 2 or 3) standing right there, and the rule is that you cannot touch the guy.  No amount of bumping is acceptable.  And there is even a bit of a halo, I believe, that you cannot invade.  So brush the guy even a little bit and it's a penalty.  Not hard to see, IMO.  Guys may try and get away with a few more things, but a ref would have to make a pretty egregious error for them to succeed.  And, also remember, they have automatic instant replay on all plays - especially turnovers.  They're certainly going to be able to look and see if he was touched prior to catching the ball.

I just think it's a bit unfair because the majority of the time where this occurs is when the punt is short and the receiver misjudges the ball and comes running towards the defenders.  They could certainly add something to the rule that if the receiver isn't moving then it's 15, but if the receiver is moving forward it's only 5, or something.  I don't know.  As it's called, though, it's usually not punishment worthy of the crime.

[saevel25]

I didn't forget that.  I just don't think that there would be many cases where guys would be able to "get away with anything."  There is a referee (or 2 or 3) standing right there, and the rule is that you cannot touch the guy.  No amount of bumping is acceptable.  And there is even a bit of a halo, I believe, that you cannot invade.  So brush the guy even a little bit and it's a penalty.  Not hard to see, IMO.  Guys may try and get away with a few more things, but a ref would have to make a pretty egregious error for them to succeed.  And, also remember, they have automatic instant replay on all plays - especially turnovers.  They're certainly going to be able to look and see if he was touched prior to catching the ball.

I just think it's a bit unfair because the majority of the time where this occurs is when the punt is short and the receiver misjudges the ball and comes running towards the defenders.  They could certainly add something to the rule that if the receiver isn't moving then it's 15, but if the receiver is moving forward it's only 5, or something.  I don't know.  As it's called, though, it's usually not punishment worthy of the crime.

I would say it should be a no-penalty if the defender is engaged with another player at the time, as in being blocked. I think it should be similar to a facemask penalty. Was it just a glancing swipe that caused 5 yards, or a grab and yank which is a 15 yard penalty. If the defender just lays into the guy, 15 yards. If two guys converge and the defender tries to jump out of way but clips the return man, 5 yards.

[iacas]

I didn't forget that.  I just don't think that there would be many cases where guys would be able to "get away with anything."  There is a referee (or 2 or 3) standing right there, and the rule is that you cannot touch the guy.  No amount of bumping is acceptable.  And there is even a bit of a halo, I believe, that you cannot invade.  So brush the guy even a little bit and it's a penalty.  Not hard to see, IMO.  Guys may try and get away with a few more things, but a ref would have to make a pretty egregious error for them to succeed.  And, also remember, they have automatic instant replay on all plays - especially turnovers.  They're certainly going to be able to look and see if he was touched prior to catching the ball.

I just think it's a bit unfair because the majority of the time where this occurs is when the punt is short and the receiver misjudges the ball and comes running towards the defenders.  They could certainly add something to the rule that if the receiver isn't moving then it's 15, but if the receiver is moving forward it's only 5, or something.  I don't know.  As it's called, though, it's usually not punishment worthy of the crime.

Regardless, the 15-yard penalty has resulted in very, very few of these types of calls (and very few controversies, yes), while a 5-yard penalty may not be taken as seriously, and could result in more calls (and controversies).

[Golfingdad]

Regardless, the 15-yard penalty has resulted in very, very few of these types of calls (and very few controversies, yes), while a 5-yard penalty may not be taken as seriously, and could result in more calls (and controversies).

Fair enough.  I'm not exactly on a "crusade" or anything to get this rule changed, it's just something that happened last night and got "many brain things in my head" turning. Seems like there should be a better way.  ;)

Another example is holding on the offense downfield.  (Matt, if I have this wrong, please correct me, but I think this is how it works)  The 10 yards is marched off from the point of the foul and the down is repeated.  If the offense is on their own 20 and the running back runs for 30 yards but a holding foul occurs at the 41 to spring him, then the next play will be first and 10 from the 31 yard line (since they gained the original 10 yards).

However, if it happens exactly the same but the penalty occurs at the 29, then they get it at the 19 ... First and ONE, because they never technically got the 10 yards.  That seems a little goofy to me.  I'm not really sure that there is a better way, just that that is a particular goofy scenario that doesn't seem quite right to me.

[saevel25]

Another example is holding on the offense downfield.  (Matt, if I have this wrong, please correct me, but I think this is how it works)  The 10 yards is marched off from the point of the foul and the down is repeated.  If the offense is on their own 20 and the running back runs for 30 yards but a holding foul occurs at the 41 to spring him, then the next play will be first and 10 from the 31 yard line (since they gained the original 10 yards).

However, if it happens exactly the same but the penalty occurs at the 29, then they get it at the 19 ... First and ONE, because they never technically got the 10 yards.  That seems a little goofy to me.  I'm not really sure that there is a better way, just that that is a particular goofy scenario that doesn't seem quite right to me.

That is correct, holding is spot of the foul then march off 10 yards back.

If lets say the running back runs 50 yards, and the penalty is by a WR 25 yards down field. They would still gain the first down but they would lose 40 yards on that run.

[Golfingdad]

That is correct, holding is spot of the foul then march off 10 yards back.

If lets say the running back runs 50 yards, and the penalty is by a WR 25 yards down field. They would still gain the first down but they would lose 40 yards on that run.

Yeah, so it's just the scenario where a holding foul occurs between 11 and 20 yards beyond the line of scrimmage (when it's X and 10, at least.) that comes across as a bit "glitchy."

[saevel25]

Yeah, so it's just the scenario where a holding foul occurs between 11 and 20 yards beyond the line of scrimmage (when it's X and 10, at least.) that comes across as a bit "glitchy."

Not really

[Golfingdad]

Not really

Well, I'm a weirdo sooooo ...

[trickyputt]

[QUOTE name="Golfingdad" url="/t/72907/2014-ncaa-football/486#post_1075134"]   I didn't forget that.  I just don't think that there would be many cases where guys would be able to "get away with anything."  There is a referee (or 2 or 3) standing right there, and the rule is that you cannot touch the guy.  No amount of bumping is acceptable.  And there is even a bit of a halo, I believe, that you cannot invade.  So brush the guy even a little bit and it's a penalty.  Not hard to see, IMO.  Guys may try and get away with a few more things, but a ref would have to make a pretty egregious error for them to succeed.  And, also remember, they have automatic instant replay on all plays - especially turnovers.  They're certainly going to be able to look and see if he was touched prior to catching the ball. I just think it's a bit unfair because the majority of the time where this occurs is when the punt is short and the receiver misjudges the ball and comes running towards the defenders.  They could certainly add something to the rule that if the receiver isn't moving then it's 15, but if the receiver is moving forward it's only 5, or something.  I don't know.  As it's called, though, it's usually not punishment worthy of the crime. [/QUOTE] Regardless, the 15-yard penalty has resulted in very, very few of these types of calls (and very few controversies, yes), while a 5-yard penalty may not be taken as seriously, and could result in more calls (and controversies).

As my slightly dislocated vertabrae will attest, high speed impacts upon catchers of a football are to be avoided. This is a safety issue that supercedes the game imo and though I dont care how they get the message across it needs to stay in the game. The other team lost through downs, now the recieving team has earned the right to catch it.

[trickyputt]

[QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/72907/2014-ncaa-football/480_30#post_1075156"]   Regardless, the 15-yard penalty has resulted in very, very few of these types of calls (and very few controversies, yes), while a 5-yard penalty may not be taken as seriously, and could result in more calls (and controversies). [/QUOTE] Fair enough.  I'm not exactly on a "crusade" or anything to get this rule changed, it's just something that happened last night and got "many brain things in my head" turning. Seems like there should be a better way.  ;) Another example is holding on the offense downfield.  (Matt, if I have this wrong, please correct me, but I think this is how it works)  The 10 yards is marched off from the point of the foul and the down is repeated.  If the offense is on their own 20 and the running back runs for 30 yards but a holding foul occurs at the 41 to spring him, then the next play will be first and 10 from the 31 yard line (since they gained the original 10 yards). However, if it happens exactly the same but the penalty occurs at the 29, then they get it at the 19 ... First and ONE, because they never technically got the 10 yards.  That seems a little goofy to me.  I'm not really sure that there is a better way, just that that is a particular goofy scenario that doesn't seem quite right to me.

I kinda agree. What you described sounds like a tax form instruction. I never cared for spot of foul rules generally.

[Golfingdad]

I kinda agree. What you described sounds like a tax form instruction. I never cared for spot of foul rules generally.

Well, that's why I say it's just goofy and that I don't really have an alternative solution. I appreciate that they are making an effort to say "well, even without the penalty you would have at least gotten this far."

[trickyputt]

Ok this equipment rule if your gear comes off...sit out a down...has to go away.

[teamroper60]

I really don't care about the amount of good games to watch. I care more about that play off systems tend to make the regular season less meaningful.

Also if you have automatic qualifiers from the conference championship games, which is likely. A lot of the conferences want to make that final game mean something. You get scenarios were spots are taken up by weaker teams because the better team might sit their starters if they know they wont drop out of the top 16.

Look at the SEC West. Miss. State makes it undefeated to the conference championship. No way a one loss against Missouri would bump them out of the top 16. They rest their players, lose the game and Missouri takes a spot away from maybe a more deserving 1-loss or 2-loss team. Not only did the playoff just make the SEC title game a non-factor, but it also could give a Missouri team a spot when they normally wouldn't. Now that spot is taken away from a more deserving team.

Which is exactly why I propose that the playoff is limited to conference champions and require that every conference hold a championship game.   There would be a couple of teams with first round byes but I see no issue with that.   If you are the top two teams, you probably earned that bye, just as happens in other playoff/tournament setting.   Making it champions only, there is no way an undefeated Miss. St. rests their players if it could cost them their shot at the playoff.     It also ensures that EVERY conference game matters, since that will determine who is in the conference championship.

BTW, it looks like Miss St. won't be undefeated............