The End of the 10 Second Debate is Near

[jkstock04]

Your campaign to whine about how you're in the minority by being called out as having nothing but negative things to say about the program is hilarious in my mind.  It actually bothers you when people stand up for the team doesn't it? 

Then after you get your blasts in, you post your token "I hope BB can get it done."  Your posts don't reflect that AT ALL.

Don't sit there and tell me I'm grasping at straws for believing that we saw some good things at the end of last season, recruiting is improving steadily, and there's nothing to hope for when the FACT IS BP didn't fare much better at all in his first season as the HC here.  Did that indicate imminent failure? 

It's OK if you see imminent failure, but rest assured that if you're going to spew that tripe, then there are those that are going to point to the obvious history and refute what you have to say.  Why?  Because objectivity goes BOTH WAYS.  It doesn't reside strictly on the negative side that you occupy, and then insinuating that everyone else that doesn't see it as gloom and doom isn't objective.  One can be objective, and still be positive...even though you seem incapable of understanding that. 

Campaign? Lol I have no campaign. Believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. I honestly try and respect everybody on here. I don't expect everyone to believe the same exact way I do. I'll say this, take a look at the handful of folks that absolutely HAVE to post in most every thread multiple times, screaming the loudest. Ya you are one of them. You are extremely combative to anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'd say you have much more of a campaign then me.

I'm not gonna respond to everything you said of me because most of it is ridiculous, short sighted, and moreover not what I said/think....as you twisted most of it around. But I will address one thing...I absolutely do want Bielema to succeed here. I have my doubts but him not succeeding here=continued suckage for the program which I promise you I don't want.

I have said on here repeatedly #1 thing I care about concerning the football program is winning...and I don't care who the coach is or what he does/says if we are winning. So yes, I want the Hogs to do well. I walked out of RRS most every home game during the Nutt dark days without my voice fully intact from cheering the team on....and I couldn't stand that guy. So it's safe to say regardless of the coach I will want the team to do well.

[EulessHog]

No, you are all over the place with your posts and opinions. If you get caught in the middle of one opinion for which you have no rational response, you deny and shift, get caught in the middle of another one, you deny and shift again. You are like the proverbial moving target that changes what you say as others contend with you. You have a future in Congress, not that this is a compliment.

Still not sure where you are coming from or if it even matters what you or I are saying.
Maybe we should all take a poll before every post so others can see what is in our minds.  I stated that CBB is our best chance in my original post.  I think all the fury over what I said can be muted by winning- five wins to be exact.   

[Vantage 8 dude]

Still not sure where you are coming from or if it even matters what you or I are saying.
Maybe we should all take a poll before every post so others can see what is in our minds.  I stated that CBB is our best chance in my original post.  I think all the fury over what I said can be muted by winning- five wins to be exact.   

Nope, 'fraid YOU don't get the point. "All the fury over what I said" as you put it has nothing necessarily to do with the # wins next season. It goes much deeper than that: as in the totality of moronic statements. Therein lies the main disgust.

[urkillnmesmalls]

Campaign? Lol I have no campaign. Believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. I honestly try and respect everybody on here. I don't expect everyone to believe the same exact way I do. I'll say this, take a look at the handful of folks that absolutely HAVE to post in most every thread multiple times, screaming the loudest. Ya you are one of them. You are extremely combative to anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'd say you have much more of a campaign then me.

I'm not gonna respond to everything you said of me because most of it is ridiculous, short sighted, and moreover not what I said/think....as you twisted most of it around. But I will address one thing...I absolutely do want Bielema to succeed here. I have my doubts but him not succeeding here=continued suckage for the program which I promise you I don't want.

I have said on here repeatedly #1 thing I care about concerning the football program is winning...and I don't care who the coach is or what he does/says if we are winning. So yes, I want the Hogs to do well. I walked out of RRS most every home game during the Nutt dark days without my voice fully intact from cheering the team on....and I couldn't stand that guy. So it's safe to say regardless of the coach I will want the team to do well.

Combative?  That's a good one.  This was the quote from the post I replied to: 

"I have no problem with any one persons opinion but the lack of objectivity has grown to an all time high over the past couple of years. Grasping straws would be an understatement."

Did you want to explain what you meant by that?   Is EVERYONE who wants to look for the positive "grasping at straws?" 

Played better in the last three games.  Check
Showing consistent improvement in recruiting.  Check
Getting buy in from the current players.  Check
Not seeing our players getting in off the field trouble.  Check  (Knocking on wood)

I see some reasons to be hopeful beyond "grasping at straws."  Maybe you don't...not sure.  He deserves a chance, and I'm glad you want to see us succeed.  We're in Arkansas...we ALL have some doubts, which could stem solely from our state's population and the basic statistics that result.  6'7" 300 lb kids don't grow on trees. 

[LZH]

You guys need to slow down, I'm having trouble keeping up with all the individual arguments...........

Btw, I am keeping score and will let you know later how everything turned out.  I might even start one and just sit back and watch the carnage.

[ChitownHawg]

Yeah, except those 128 coaches don't vote on the proposal.  Some on that committee have no football experience what-so-ever.

Beat me to the point. Some guys on here read ONE article then get all menstruated over it. 

[urkillnmesmalls]

You guys need to slow down, I'm having trouble keeping up with all the individual arguments...........

Btw, I am keeping score and will let you know later how everything turned out.  I might even start one and just sit back and watch the carnage.

This coming from someone who doesn't support the rule change.   

[grayhawg]

You guys need to slow down, I'm having trouble keeping up with all the individual arguments...........

Btw, I am keeping score and will let you know later how everything turned out.  I might even start one and just sit back and watch the carnage.

[LZH]

This coming from someone who doesn't support the rule change.   

Ha.  Nice catch.

[LZH]

I think I'm gonna just follow smalls around from thread to thread and pick fights with him.  I would do it to wang but apparently he's used up all his cuss words.

[jkstock04]

Combative?  That's a good one.  This was the quote from the post I replied to: 

"I have no problem with any one persons opinion but the lack of objectivity has grown to an all time high over the past couple of years. Grasping straws would be an understatement."

Did you want to explain what you meant by that?   Is EVERYONE who wants to look for the positive "grasping at straws?" 

Played better in the last three games.  Check
Showing consistent improvement in recruiting.  Check
Getting buy in from the current players.  Check
Not seeing our players getting in off the field trouble.  Check  (Knocking on wood)

I see some reasons to be hopeful beyond "grasping at straws."  Maybe you don't...not sure.  He deserves a chance, and I'm glad you want to see us succeed.  We're in Arkansas...we ALL have some doubts, which could stem solely from our state's population and the basic statistics that result.  6'7" 300 lb kids don't grow on trees. 

You do come off as combative to me!! Lol honestly what's funny is I would bet u, at least in some instances...if the people who seem to disagree or even folks that seem to hate each other on here....if they were to actually meet in person at a tailgate or whatever...hell they may just hit it off and be friends. Probably happened before.

Point being there, maybe sometimes how people "come off" on here isn't always 100% accurate as to what their personality really is. Just cause you come off as combative and loud to me doesn't mean that's the reality. If you tell me otherwise I would buy it.

And no...absolutely not everyone/everything that is positive is grasping straws. Why would you automatically think I'm calling you out with what I said? Hell, I see stuff on here all the time that I consider legit info and it's positive. Our start for 2014-2015 recruiting is an absolute positive. But what I'm talking about when I say objective is evolving opinions....especially the ones at the time deemed as fact. There is some grasping straws on here...

Just one example off the top of my head, the defensive coaching staff....all year we heard how it was 100% on the players or lack of player talent. Well NOW, that Bielema cleaned some house on defense...the narrative has changed. The coaches were inept all along & Bielema did a heck of a job getting rid of these guys (btw I do like what the new DC has to say philophosy wise).  All this HUNH stuff....what do you think people here would be saying about all that if Bielema wasn't our coach? Coaches are awesome while they are here....then when they are gone they are trash. I could go on and on but what's the point?

All this goes away if we can start winning some conference games. And yes I do believe he deserves a chance...for sure more than one year. I think he has a big mouth...but once again...if he can win here I really don't care what he says and who he says it to.

[EulessHog]

Nope, 'fraid YOU don't get the point. "All the fury over what I said" as you put it has nothing necessarily to do with the # wins next season. It goes much deeper than that: as in the totality of moronic statements. Therein lies the main disgust.

Glad you cleared that up. 

Five wins. 

[zumhog]

I like Coach B but hope he doesn't get his way with this 10 second rule. Nuff said.

[urkillnmesmalls]

I like Coach B but hope he doesn't get his way with this 10 second rule. Nuff said.

Well, getting "his way" would have meant being able to substitute after first downs only.  That was his recommendation so that fatigued players could get off the field.  The 10 second suggestion was born from the committee in lieu of 20 and 15 seconds as other options. 

Subbing only after first downs goes a LOT less distance toward bringing back balance to the defense than a 10 second rule that would allow substitutions following every play, making it much easier to send in packages based on down and distance.  But by all means...carry on and echo what other people are saying rather than the fact that he's one of at least 15 coaches that are in favor of the rule. 

[urkillnmesmalls]

You do come off as combative to me!! Lol honestly what's funny is I would bet u, at least in some instances...if the people who seem to disagree or even folks that seem to hate each other on here....if they were to actually meet in person at a tailgate or whatever...hell they may just hit it off and be friends. Probably happened before.

Point being there, maybe sometimes how people "come off" on here isn't always 100% accurate as to what their personality really is. Just cause you come off as combative and loud to me doesn't mean that's the reality. If you tell me otherwise I would buy it.

And no...absolutely not everyone/everything that is positive is grasping straws. Why would you automatically think I'm calling you out with what I said? Hell, I see stuff on here all the time that I consider legit info and it's positive. Our start for 2014-2015 recruiting is an absolute positive. But what I'm talking about when I say objective is evolving opinions....especially the ones at the time deemed as fact. There is some grasping straws on here...

Just one example off the top of my head, the defensive coaching staff....all year we heard how it was 100% on the players or lack of player talent. Well NOW, that Bielema cleaned some house on defense...the narrative has changed. The coaches were inept all along & Bielema did a heck of a job getting rid of these guys (btw I do like what the new DC has to say philophosy wise).  All this HUNH stuff....what do you think people here would be saying about all that if Bielema wasn't our coach? Coaches are awesome while they are here....then when they are gone they are trash. I could go on and on but what's the point?

All this goes away if we can start winning some conference games. And yes I do believe he deserves a chance...for sure more than one year. I think he has a big mouth...but once again...if he can win here I really don't care what he says and who he says it to.

I have no idea if the assistants were fired, left, or what.  I have no idea if the coaches hired in their places are better, worse, or the same.  I have the same concerns about our defense this season, as I did the last two.  Hopefully they will develop physically and mentally, and those coupled with some depth and some different schemes, will allow us to play at least moderately better this season.  My stance has not changed at all...you can't field a defense full of Fr., Soph.'s, and upper classmen who had played on special teams only, before being thrust into starting roles. 

Some people may be changing their narrative.  I'm not.  I think we're headed in the right direction, but we won't know for sure until 2015 IMO.  If we're improving, and he lands a recruiting class that is in the top 15-20, then that's headed in the right direction to me.  We won't maximize our potential until we start winning games, because kids want to play for winners.  If we aren't in a bowl game in 2015, then he'll probably be coaching 2016 under a pretty clear cut ultimatum.   





 

[three hog night]

I have no idea if the assistants were fired, left, or what.  I have no idea if the coaches hired in their places are better, worse, or the same.  I have the same concerns about our defense this season, as I did the last two.  Hopefully they will develop physically and mentally, and those coupled with some depth and some different schemes, will allow us to play at least moderately better this season.  My stance has not changed at all...you can't field a defense full of Fr., Soph.'s, and upper classmen who had played on special teams only, before being thrust into starting roles. 

Some people may be changing their narrative.  I'm not.  I think we're headed in the right direction, but we won't know for sure until 2015 IMO.  If we're improving, and he lands a recruiting class that is in the top 15-20, then that's headed in the right direction to me.  We won't maximize our potential until we start winning games, because kids want to play for winners.  If we aren't in a bowl game in 2015, then he'll probably be coaching 2016 under a pretty clear cut ultimatum.   

You may have boiled it down better than anyone.  You hit the issue of talent and how it hurt us last year.  You nailed the issue of progress and when.  Good post.

[LR54]

Inevitable? Goodness that's some hyperbole.

In this case, a little prevention would be a whole lot better than the cure. There are few times when the best choice is continuing to play Russian Roulette, rather than using a modicum of common sense.

[SPAL]

Another member of the JGHT crowd.  Wow.

The only thing I demand is quality coaching.  That is something we did not get last year.

He DEMANDS it y'all. Somebody better give in and meet these demands or else wal mart may lose a customer in the 5 dollar tshirt section.

[superior_wang]

I think I'm gonna just follow smalls around from thread to thread and pick fights with him.  I would do it to wang but apparently he's used up all his cuss words.

almost have!

[LR54]

Then you must be in favor of banning hitting from the game too. After all, the Russian roulette of paralysis from a tackle gone bad is greater than death by HUNH. Better switch the game to flag football, right?

Speaking of hyperbole.

The resistance to simply returning the equal opportunity to substitute to defenses is just mind boggling.

[grim_sleeper]

You're not allowed to do both on this board.  In 3-4 years I think they will then allow you to do both.

you are allowed to doubt and be critical of CBB after one year.  You can do that.  It just makes you stupid,  but you can do it.

[LR54]

It's not a resistance to allowing the D to sub. It's a resistance to saying the HUNH will kill a player when we have no solid evidence it results in so much as more sprained ankles per game.

Change it, don't change it. But don't try to sell it as a player safety issue without some data to back it up.

Show me the rule that was passed with the stated intent to take away the equal opportunity to substitute. That would have constituted a major change in the competitive balance between offense and defense that had been in place for the entire era of modern football.

Where were the studies done and data collected that showed such a major change wouldn't pose an additional risk of injury to defensive players if such a rule were passed?

[three hog night]

It's not a resistance to allowing the D to sub. It's a resistance to saying the HUNH will kill a player when we have no solid evidence it results in so much as more sprained ankles per game.

Change it, don't change it. But don't try to sell it as a player safety issue without some data to back it up.

Being a journalist and all, you should recognize there are multiple story lines in every situation.  Safety is an easy position to take because the fans of the HUNH are passionate.  You obviously like the HUNH and it's advantage that keeps defenses from substituting players.  Sadly....It is an issue of fairness.  It is an issue of equal ability to sub or get in the proper alignment after the offense makes a change.  I like competition that is based on scheme versus scheme, but the Quick snap HUNH is nothing more than fishing downstream from the stocker truck.   Is the HUNH successful because of the scheme or is it successful because it creates an unfair advantage for the offense?   

[three hog night]

If you want to change the rule due to competitive balance, that's great. More power to you.

But quit selling it as a player safety issue until you can show data to back it up.

I think common sense isn't so common anymore.  ANYbody that has played football at the HS level knows that fatigue kicks in during 2 minute offenses.  Nowadays the HUNH is even worse than a 2 min offense, so many of us can recognize the fatigue without some data.  There is NO data saying the HUNH does NOT cause fatigue/safety issues.

This is not hard to recognize with common sense.

[hawg66]

  CBP is a great offensive coach but for a  genius, he apparently lacks the wisdom and intelligence to know how to do anything else.

Idiot savant

[hawg66]

Then you must be in favor of banning hitting from the game too. After all, the Russian roulette of paralysis from a tackle gone bad is greater than death by HUNH. Better switch the game to flag football, right?

The only scientific study in any of this says the more often tackles go bad, the greater the risk for permanent serious injury.  Is it some great stretch to figure out that more plays equals more opportunity for things to go bad?

[LR54]

If you want to change the rule due to competitive balance, that's great. More power to you.

But quit selling it as a player safety issue until you can show data to back it up.

Still not sure why they have to be mutually exclusive. It can be a fairness issue AND a player safety issue. How much of each might be debatable, but it doesn't have to be one or the other.

It seems to me that the time to collect data would have been before the 2008 timing clock rule was manipulated to take away the equal opportunity to substitute.

Shouldn't a study have been done before that was allowed to happen? Shouldn't some thought have been given to whether or not such a major change could carry the potential for additional risk to defensive players?

[TOM "tbw1"]

Then finding the data to support the safety angle shouldn't be difficult.

Scott, you know most qualitative studies take 5-7 years.

[Fatty McGee]

In this case, a little prevention would be a whole lot better than the cure. There are few times when the best choice is continuing to play Russian Roulette, rather than using a modicum of common sense.

If one were using the kind of "common sense" you advocate here, the only football that would be played would be flag football.  Plus, the coaches would be allowed to supervise conditioning year round so they could ensure the players remained in shape.  And, the coaches wouldn't be allowed to add so much weight to players' frames just for football knowing that once they quit playing they would be hard pressed not to let it go to fat and create numerous other health problems.

Using "common sense", you wouldn't keep adding games to the schedule. 

Using "common sense", risking CTE for the possibility (not even the guarantee) of a degree in whatever fits around football practice isn't a wise decision.  You'd be better off to get student loans and have your brain intact for a long long time. 

So stop with the hyperbolic safety arguments about this particular rule.  They're unsupported by actual evidence and are dwarfed by other concerns that have the evidence behind them.

[Fatty McGee]

The only scientific study in any of this says the more often tackles go bad, the greater the risk for permanent serious injury.  Is it some great stretch to figure out that more plays equals more opportunity for things to go bad?

So you're against conference championship games and the playoff?

[Fatty McGee]

Speaking of hyperbole.

The resistance to simply returning the equal opportunity to substitute to defenses is just mind boggling.

They can substitute.  But then, make the argument on a "style of the game you like to watch" angle all day long.  That's aesthetics, and everyone likes different things and that's cool.  The Nielsen ratings will ultimately dictate. 

It's the "we care about players' safety so we must do this" angle that's pure BS.

[hawgsalot]

May not hear it as this is an off year and only rule changes applying to player safety will be heard.  This rule has no data, other than an off season death that CBB so in-eloquently brought up to support it.

Good lord Aubby troll try to bring something, anything that hasn't been discussed to death.  You don't have to agree but saying zero data is about ignorant at best.  Let me know when you become a sickle cell expert until then go back to bowing at the feet of Gus and ask him which card he uses for the fake injury, it works pretty well and we need to get one of those.

[LR54]

Except I don't think anybody foresaw the way HUNH offenses could exploit it. So they couldn't do the study then as you suggest.

Exactly! Because there never was a rule passed with the intent to take away the equal opportunity to substitute.

As I said, if people want the rule changed for competitive balance that's great. But don't try to sell it as being a major player safety issue without something to back it other than "common sense." 

What good reason would there be not to immediately suspend a practice that was the unintended consequence of an unrelated rule change? Especially if there was any possibility of additional risk of injury.

If the NCAA proposed to do away with kickoffs entirely - after a score the opposing team got the ball at their own 20 automatically - due to safety issues, would anybody be OK with a "common sense says ... " explanation from the NCAA? I wouldn't. I'd want the NCAA to show the data on injuries on kickoffs as they made the case.

That might be what you want, but as the concussion related issues have shown, the NCAA sometimes has to consider possible liability issues. In court, the Reasonable Person Doctrine is a valid application of "common sense". They have to consider how defensible their decisions might be in liability issues. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just the reality of today's environment.

In the case of the rule proposal, why take a chance? Restore the equal opportunity to substitute, and at least potential for liability from that issue goes away. What's to be gained from taking a huge chance of added exposure to liability, only to allow HUNH offenses to continue doing something they never should have been doing in the first place?

[Means-well]

If #plays = #injuries. And there was no agenda beyond that, then we should lower # games as well. No conf championship games and no playoffs. If the focus was purely player safety then there are probably 50 rule changes that would accomplish that. The issue is the impact to the sport itself. The problem Cbb has it that without compeling data, it looks self serving, poorly thought out, and inconsistent. 

[LR54]

If one were using the kind of "common sense" you advocate here, the only football that would be played would be flag football.  Plus, the coaches would be allowed to supervise conditioning year round so they could ensure the players remained in shape.  And, the coaches wouldn't be allowed to add so much weight to players' frames just for football knowing that once they quit playing they would be hard pressed not to let it go to fat and create numerous other health problems.

Using "common sense", you wouldn't keep adding games to the schedule. 

Using "common sense", risking CTE for the possibility (not even the guarantee) of a degree in whatever fits around football practice isn't a wise decision.  You'd be better off to get student loans and have your brain intact for a long long time. 

So stop with the hyperbolic safety arguments about this particular rule.  They're unsupported by actual evidence and are dwarfed by other concerns that have the evidence behind them.

All that rambling has nothing to do with THIS rule proposal.

[LR54]

They can substitute.  But then, make the argument on a "style of the game you like to watch" angle all day long.  That's aesthetics, and everyone likes different things and that's cool.  The Nielsen ratings will ultimately dictate. 

It's the "we care about players' safety so we must do this" angle that's pure BS.

They don't have the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to substitute. HUNH teams were playing football before 2008. Now they can't play if the defense has an equal opportunity to substitute?

[LR54]

If #plays = #injuries. And there was no agenda beyond that, then we should lower # games as well. No conf championship games and no playoffs. If the focus was purely player safety then there are probably 50 rule changes that would accomplish that. The issue is the impact to the sport itself. The problem Cbb has it that without compeling data, it looks self serving, poorly thought out, and inconsistent.

It looks like the equal opportunity to substitute was taken away by the manipulation of an unrelated rule change in 2008.

At the height of outside pressure to make the game safer, why take a chance on this strictly to benefit one style of offense? A style that was working just fine before the 2008 rule change.

[Fatty McGee]

All that rambling has nothing to do with THIS rule proposal.

It is merely illustrating the weakness of your logic in support of the safety justification for THIS rule proposal.  I could have made it shorter, but I was having fun with it.

[NaturalStateReb]

They don't have the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to substitute. HUNH teams were playing football before 2008. Now they can't play if the defense has an equal opportunity to substitute?

The game is all about exploiting mismatches.  This whole debate has never been much more than sophisticated whining--that's why the proposal is practically DOA.

[Fatty McGee]

They don't have the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to substitute. HUNH teams were playing football before 2008. Now they can't play if the defense has an equal opportunity to substitute?

Again, great argument from an aesthetic point of view.  I don't see it as the crisis you do but again, that's aesthetics.  And as I said, at the end of the day money via TV dollars will make this decision.  Like 99.9% of all the rest of the decisions in college football.

[LR54]

You keep adding the player safety angle when it isn't needed.

Focus on the unintended competitive imbalance. Ignore the player safety issue - unless/until some data shows the HUNH impacts it.

The safety angle was added when the rules committee passed the proposal as a player safety issue. I'm just pointing out WHY it COULD be a safety issue.

The safety question is whether or not you allow something that was never intended to happen to continue without knowing if it's a safety issue or not. Or do you wait until players are injured to prove it was a safety risk?

[LR54]

It is merely illustrating the weakness of your logic in support of the safety justification for THIS rule proposal.  I could have made it shorter, but I was having fun with it.

It's probably more of a refusal to see the logic.

No rule was ever passed for the purpose of ending the equal opportunity to substitute.

Now you're demanding studies and data to prove that something that was never authorized or intended is a problem? And that's logical?

[menehune]

I love the Hogs.  I'm beginning to have my doubts about the football coach though. 

I love the Hogs.  I'm beginning to have my doubts about our so-called fans!  Give the man a chance!  We fans have already shown how fickle we can be!

[BorderPatrol]

I love the Hogs.  I'm beginning to have my doubts about our so-called fans!  Give the man a chance!  We fans have already shown how fickle we can be!

Be careful, he will make up an acronym to label in a certain "group" to fit his ever changing agenda.

bp

[BorderPatrol]

Innovative offense? Offenses have to be innovative to work?

bp

[Fatty McGee]

It's probably more of a refusal to see the logic.

No rule was ever passed for the purpose of ending the equal opportunity to substitute.

Now you're demanding studies and data to prove that something that was never authorized or intended is a problem? And that's logical?

Again you're missing the point. If you're for it for "fairness" purposes ok. Fairness seems a silly term here but ok. I don't see the need but we can disagree. It's when you get off into other justifications that your logic falls apart.

[Vantage 8 dude]

Along those same lines how about taking your own advice and quit blowing it out your rear? All would certainly benefit by raising everyone's IQ.

[grayhawg]

There is a debate? I thought it was just Bert blowing his big fat trap like usual. Hey Brett take a page and be uncommon not try to bend rules to avoid any hard work like having a good defense or innovative offense.

After one season we have a poster who signed up 2 days ago by name of FireBert. Wonder if he is from Alabama, a former poster who was banned or just very impatient?

[Vantage 8 dude]

After one season we have a poster who signed up 2 days ago by name of FireBert. Wonder if he is from Alabama, a former poster who was banned or just very impatient?

Who really gives a damn?! All we need know is that he's already a prime member of the troll patrol.

[LR54]

If you're going to change rules because something could be a risk, without knowing if it actually is, then we're back to wondering how far do you carry it? What other rules should be changed because something could, maybe, possibly be a risk - even though we aren't sure if they are?

Again, competitive imbalance is the key, not unsubstantiated claims of player safety.

And how long do you continue to just "let things happen" that were never part of any rule change? Can you say for certain that there's absolutely no possibility of any additional risk of injury from allowing it to continue? Where's the data? Because those are the questions that WILL be asked of the NCAA.