Anyone hear what Gary Pinkel said about AR?

[Inhogswetrust]

I know, let's go back to leather helmets and fewer pads being allowed. That will correct those dangerous concussive and sub-concussive hits.

As for your second point, what do you think the HUNH coaches are trying to achieve?

I'm betting trying to gain a competitive advantage! What the person you quoted doesn't understand is ALL coaches are trying to gain a competitive advantage in some way shape or form that suits them and their philosophy in all aspects of the sport. Case in point coach Bielema and the kickoff rule when he was at Wisconsin. I think it was against Ped State and Joe Pa got furious!

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Within the existing rules, yes. Not altering rules to favor yourself. Even you should be able to see the distinction there, right? Nah, probably not.

You do realize that the advantage that HUNH coaches realized for their particular brand of offense was through a rule change in their favor, right? Nah, probably not.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

They altered the existing rules to favor themselves? Provide some sources then. Definitely won't.

The change in timeclock rules. Can't blame them for taking advantage of it, that is just being smart. But the change favored HUNH offenses and penalized defenses. It has been discussed at length in this thread. Go back and check it out.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

They wanted and instituted a change in the time clock rule to gain an advantage? Which coaches were those again?

I'm sorry, apparently you didn't read this.

The change in timeclock rules. Can't blame them for taking advantage of it, that is just being smart. But the change favored HUNH offenses and penalized defenses. It has been discussed at length in this thread. Go back and check it out.

[ChitownHawg]

Bigger health risks come from the accumulation of concussive and subconcussive hits which aresustained virtually every single play. If you truly give two craps about their health, you should be in favor of altering the game toward something more closely resembling flag football. Trying to limit the plays per game is a joke and a platform for hack coaches that are looking for a competitive advantage.

You mean hack coaches like the ones who are taking advantage of a rule for which its intention was not intended to allow the offense to freeze the play? Just because coaches take advantage of a rule doesn't make them hacks. Nor does it make them a hack if they are trying to remove an advantage.

[Big Poppa Z]

It does make the move questionable if you're claiming player safety to do it.

[Deep Shoat]

It does make the move questionable if you're claiming player safety to do it.

So, it's not possible to be concerned about players safety unless we have conclusive proof that players are injured or killed by the situation?

Do you realize how fricking STUPID that position is?

Anyone with half a mind can understand that the purpose of the prairie dog O is to keep defenders from subbing in and out.  The reason for this is equally obvious.  Defense takes more effort, therefore it is more fatiguing.  Fatigued defenders are less likely to make plays.  That, along with exploiting personnel groupings is the whole purpose and the reasons behind it. 

We also know, from logic, common sense, actual evidence, and studies, that fatigue leads to an increase in injuries and death.  In all players, but particularly a specific subset. 

Now, when we couple the purpose of the prairie dog O with the knowledge we already possess about the effects of fatigue on athletes, particularly the subset with sickle cell trait, it is perfectly reasonable to come to the conclusion that player safety is at risk.  No further studies need be run, particularly since further studies would only endanger MORE players.

And before you come back with the typical, "well, why aren't you against tackling" response, it's simple.  Tackling is and always has been a necessary part of the game.  The rules are steadily being adjusted to change the culture of football in order to remove the most dangerous practices in tackling, namely helmet to helmet contact and horse collars. 

And this isn't about "less plays" or "slower pace".  The research already proves that almost no one in college football snaps the ball during the first 10 seconds after the ball is set.  One team in FBS last season is all.  So adding the 10 second sub window wouldn't change the pace or number of plays AT ALL.

The issue is twofold.  Logical steps to ensure a higher level of player safety AND equity for O and D with regards to substitution patterns.  Neither of those issues are even debatable unless you attempt to twist logic and reason into something it isn't.

[Fatty McGee]

Outlaw fatigue!

[IntegrityHog]

So, it's not possible to be concerned about players safety unless we have conclusive proof that players are injured or killed by the situation?

Do you realize how fricking STUPID that position is?

Anyone with half a mind can understand that the purpose of the prairie dog O is to keep defenders from subbing in and out.  The reason for this is equally obvious.  Defense takes more effort, therefore it is more fatiguing.  Fatigued defenders are less likely to make plays.  That, along with exploiting personnel groupings is the whole purpose and the reasons behind it. 

We also know, from logic, common sense, actual evidence, and studies, that fatigue leads to an increase in injuries and death.  In all players, but particularly a specific subset. 

Now, when we couple the purpose of the prairie dog O with the knowledge we already possess about the effects of fatigue on athletes, particularly the subset with sickle cell trait, it is perfectly reasonable to come to the conclusion that player safety is at risk.  No further studies need be run, particularly since further studies would only endanger MORE players.

And before you come back with the typical, "well, why aren't you against tackling" response, it's simple.  Tackling is and always has been a necessary part of the game.  The rules are steadily being adjusted to change the culture of football in order to remove the most dangerous practices in tackling, namely helmet to helmet contact and horse collars. 

And this isn't about "less plays" or "slower pace".  The research already proves that almost no one in college football snaps the ball during the first 10 seconds after the ball is set.  One team in FBS last season is all.  So adding the 10 second sub window wouldn't change the pace or number of plays AT ALL.

The issue is twofold.  Logical steps to ensure a higher level of player safety AND equity for O and D with regards to substitution patterns.  Neither of those issues are even debatable unless you attempt to twist logic and reason into something it isn't.

Preaching to the choir here.  I totally agree with Coach B on the dangers posed by HUNH "so-called" offenses.

[Fatty McGee]

If we have so many players so susceptible to "fatigue", why not have a plan to automatically substitute them at certain points?  If their safety is that at risk, why worry about what the other team is doing?  Just tell them they're to come out at predetermined times and have their replacement ready to go. Easy. Surely with all these players so near to death due to fatigue we already have this in place.

[Magic_Hogg]

I pesonally think they ought to have a 10-second rule.  If you want continuous play then go play soccer or basketball.  The game of football is broken down into plays; time between them has historically just been a part of the game.

This hurry-up and prevent substitutions on defense to tire 'em out is BS.  Fatigued players are more likely to get injured.  Just my .02

[Russ22]

You guys "might" want to look at stats. The SEC loses more players for the season each year while having the fewest plays per game:

http://cfbmatrix.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf

If you consider that F = ma, then you know that the SEC has the highest forces and impulses this side of the NFL.  If you were truly concerned about player safety, then you would have to come up with silly rules that limit either the mass or speed of a player in any given position (to limit the forces and impulses). Bielema and Saban make a ridiculous argument when they talk player safety.

I would be for going back to a 25 second clock with a ready for play whistle, but only if the RFP whistle was that. Meaning, you could snap as soon as the whistle signaled ready.

[BPsTheMan]

If you want continuous play then go play soccer or basketball.  The game of football is broken down into plays; time between them has historically just been a part of the game.

thank you

[Kenny Hawgins]

You guys "might" want to look at stats. The SEC loses more players for the season each year while having the fewest plays per game:

http://cfbmatrix.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-CFBMatrix-Pace-of-Play-Summary-Report.pdf

If you consider that F = ma, then you know that the SEC has the highest forces and impulses this side of the NFL.  If you were truly concerned about player safety, then you would have to come up with silly rules that limit either the mass or speed of a player in any given position (to limit the forces and impulses). Bielema and Saban make a ridiculous argument when they talk player safety.

I would be for going back to a 25 second clock with a ready for play whistle, but only if the RFP whistle was that. Meaning, you could snap as soon as the whistle signaled ready.

Hmm....you should pay attention to the first page of your link.

A non-scientific review....

This wouldn't pass a peer-review process.  The link is so riddled with methodological flaws, you should be embarrassed to even cite it.

[HoopS]

I will be curious to see if folks who are against this pace get upset when we are down by 17 in the 4th and hurry to the line in order to get more snaps in and maybe hit a home run or 2 and get back in the game.  Mind you, it is late in the game when fatigue is a factor.  Do we hope to go slow for safety sake and not worry about the outcome of the game (staying consistent with your stance) or put the petal to the metal for the sake of winning?

[Russ22]

I will be curious to see if folks who are against this pace get upset when we are down by 17 in the 4th and hurry to the line in order to get more snaps in and maybe hit a home run or 2 and get back in the game.  Mind you, it is late in the game when fatigue is a factor.  Do we hope to go slow for safety sake and not worry about the outcome of the game (staying consistent with your stance) or put the petal to the metal for the sake of winning?

As I recall, the 10-second wait period didn't apply in the last couple of minutes of the half. Of course, if fatigue was an issue, then it would most likely be during the last minutes of half/game.

[OTTER]

Wow!  This sucker's gone 7 pages.  Unnnnnn- real!  Farr outttt

[HoopS]

As I recall, the 10-second wait period didn't apply in the last couple of minutes of the half. Of course, if fatigue was an issue, then it would most likely be during the last minutes of half/game.

when the teams are the most fatigued, last 5 min of each half, they say that at that point of the game, they don't mind if teams go hunh. Safety is put on hold at winning time.

[Russ22]

Hmm....you should pay attention to the first page of your link.

A non-scientific review....

This wouldn't pass a peer-review process.  The link is so riddled with methodological flaws, you should be embarrassed to even cite it.

No, I saw the non-scientific review statement.  This presentation is better than a quarter of the papers/abstracts that I do peer review (I am the ASTM Program Chair for an international symposium [http://reactordosimetry.org/contacts.html]. So, I do a fair bit of it as part of my job).

However, I also see that there is relevant data from a lot of college football games - not "everybody KNOWS that if you go faster and play more plays, there are more injuries." You simply can't use anecdotal evidence to change the rule. You have to have some kind of data to back the claim of endangering players. - AND, it just isn't there.

[Kenny Hawgins]

No, I saw the non-scientific review statement.  This presentation is better than a quarter of the papers/abstracts that I do peer review (I am the ASTM Program Chair for an international symposium [http://reactordosimetry.org/contacts.html]. So, I do a fair bit of it as part of my job).

However, I also see that there is relevant data from a lot of college football games - not "everybody KNOWS that if you go faster and play more plays, there are more injuries." You simply can't use anecdotal evidence to change the rule. You have to have some kind of data to back the claim of endangering players. - AND, it just isn't there.

Sure, you have to have some kind of data.  This just doesn't really do much.

- No statistical analysis.

- Makes no sense to cluster teams into conferences.  There's no way to establish a causal relationship between injuries and the average # of plays run per game if we're using data for the conferences as a whole. 

- They don't eliminate the possibility of other causal variables.  Perhaps the SEC is just a more physical conference with bigger, faster players AND would still have more injuries running up-tempo offenses.

- They don't control for predominant types of offenses run in each conference.  How do you compare the Big 12 to the SEC without considering that the Big 12 is primarily spread, pass-heavy teams?  Maybe injuries are more strongly related to the pass-to-run ratio and they're examining the wrong injury factor.

- They don't report measures of variability within their averages.  How do we know that there aren't outliers skewing averages?

- They don't control for teams changing conferences. 

- They use a poor measure of injury.  "Starts lost due to injury" ignores the rate of non-starter injuries.  Major limitation.

- They are unable to examine types of injuries. 

[hellwonthaveme]

If we have so many players so susceptible to "fatigue", why not have a plan to automatically substitute them at certain points?  If their safety is that at risk, why worry about what the other team is doing?  Just tell them they're to come out at predetermined times and have their replacement ready to go. Easy. Surely with all these players so near to death due to fatigue we already have this in place.

Yes....like a mandatory competition caution after thirty laps.

That will calm them.

PRJ

[ChitownHawg]

Hmm....you should pay attention to the first page of your link.

A non-scientific review....

This wouldn't pass a peer-review process.  The link is so riddled with methodological flaws, you should be embarrassed to even cite it.

Oh snap!

[RoyInSpringdale/MizzouFan]

For the most part, teams are having at least 10 seconds to substitute anyways. The year Mizzou and Arkansas played in the Cotton Bowl, MU lead the nation in getting plays off in 9.?? seconds per play. But with Chase Daniel at QB they had a system that could pull it off. Not too many teams in HUNH can get below 12 on a consistent basis.

I still believe this comes down to Defensive Coordinators who are frustrated that they don't have time to look at offensive personnel to adjust their defenses. They CAN substitute, they just have to guess what the next play is and have replacements running on the field as soon as the play is over.

[ChitownHawg]

For the most part, teams are having at least 10 seconds to substitute anyways. The year Mizzou and Arkansas played in the Cotton Bowl, MU lead the nation in getting plays off in 9.?? seconds per play. But with Chase Daniel at QB they had a system that could pull it off. Not too many teams in HUNH can get below 12 on a consistent basis.

I still believe this comes down to Defensive Coordinators who are frustrated that they don't have time to look at offensive personnel to adjust their defenses. They CAN substitute, they just have to guess what the next play is and have replacements running on the field as soon as the play is over.

I, as others in this thread, will not argue the player safety aspect as data is still be collected.

However,  I will argue the offense has been given a significant advantage from a rule that was NOT intended to give an advantage over another. When an offense comes to the LOS what does a defense have to do? They have to line up and be prepared for a play. Meaning the OC gets a look at the defensive alignment and then he signals to the prairie dogs on the field the play.

A defense can disquise their alignment a bit, but not dramatically.

So why should the offense be given the opportunity to see how the defense is lining up and the defense not given the same?

For me I want to see your studs play my studs, and see how the OC vs DC matchups play out. Not this prairie dog crap that gives an advantage to a team.

[RoyInSpringdale/MizzouFan]

I, as others in this thread, will not argue the player safety aspect as data is still be collected.

However,  I will argue the offense has been given a significant advantage from a rule that was NOT intended to give an advantage over another. When an offense comes to the LOS what does a defense have to do? They have to line up and be prepared for a play. Meaning the OC gets a look at the defensive alignment and then he signals to the prairie dogs on the field the play.

A defense can disquise their alignment a bit, but not dramatically.

So why should the offense be given the opportunity to see how the defense is lining up and the defense not given the same?

For me I want to see your studs play my studs, and see how the OC vs DC matchups play out. Not this prairie dog crap that gives an advantage to a team.

I guess for me personally it comes down to my own vantage point. For 20 horrible, long years MU had a terrible football program. When I was in the Army, being from the Ozarks, I spent more time watching and rooting for Arkansas football while stationed abroad. Of course spending time at FT. Hood and getting plenty of SWAC games on TV played into that as well.

When Pinkel came in and started using the spread, we started winning games. I guess I like the chance it gives to the underdogs to pull an upset against bigger, more powerful teams. I like the parity, and hope it brings to each season.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

For the most part, teams are having at least 10 seconds to substitute anyways. The year Mizzou and Arkansas played in the Cotton Bowl, MU lead the nation in getting plays off in 9.?? seconds per play. But with Chase Daniel at QB they had a system that could pull it off. Not too many teams in HUNH can get below 12 on a consistent basis.

I still believe this comes down to Defensive Coordinators who are frustrated that they don't have time to look at offensive personnel to adjust their defenses. They CAN substitute, they just have to guess what the next play is and have replacements running on the field as soon as the play is over.

The team you had last year ran slightly more plays per game than that Cotton Bowl team. Last year, an average of 80.2. In 2007, 79.4. Texas Tech ran an average of 87.4 per game last season and may have been the team with the highest average per game. Just FYI.

[ChitownHawg]

I guess for me personally it comes down to my own vantage point. For 20 horrible, long years MU had a terrible football program. When I was in the Army, being from the Ozarks, I spent more time watching and rooting for Arkansas football while stationed abroad. Of course spending time at FT. Hood and getting plenty of SWAC games on TV played into that as well.

When Pinkel came in and started using the spread, we started winning games. I guess I like the chance it gives to the underdogs to pull an upset against bigger, more powerful teams. I like the parity, and hope it brings to each season.

I think part of your success may be tied to Pinkel recruiting better players. I have no problem with the spread as long as the defense is afforded the same opportunity to view the offensive formation. I think Pinkel, Gus, and Sumlin would do fine without this advantage. They know how to recruit and play offense, so they don't need this advantage.

[Russ22]

I think part of your success may be tied to Pinkel recruiting better players. I have no problem with the spread as long as the defense is afforded the same opportunity to view the offensive formation. I think Pinkel, Gus, and Sumlin would do fine without this advantage. They know how to recruit and play offense, so they don't need this advantage.

The offense, except for 1 player, is required to set for 1 count (second) before the snap while all 11 defenders are allowed to move. The defense has this advantage. The advantage of the offense is controlling the snap. The proposed rule of waiting 10 seconds eliminates that advantage.

Again, I could live with a return to the RFP whistle, but a halt for 10 seconds simply "cuz" sounds arbitrary and designed to aid situational substitution. If you want to sub, there is no problem with it. If you want to think about a package and then sub, you have problems.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The offense, except for 1 player, is required to set for 1 count (second) before the snap while all 11 defenders are allowed to move. The defense has this advantage. The advantage of the offense is controlling the snap. The proposed rule of waiting 10 seconds eliminates that advantage.

Again, I could live with a return to the RFP whistle, but a halt for 10 seconds simply "cuz" sounds arbitrary and designed to aid situational substitution. If you want to sub, there is no problem with it. If you want to think about a package and then sub, you have problems.

All offensive players are allowed to move until the offense is called to "set". O-Linemen cannot move once their hand touches the ground or "set" is called.

But any offense can go on an early count or even before "set" is called or assumed or even before O-Linemen touch their hand to the playing surface (which isn't required) as long as 10 of 11 are set in position for at least one count.

The problem is, once the Offense lines up at the LOS a play can be ran after a single count and therefore, a Defense isn't about to engage in substitution after the offense is at the LOS. So, the offense deprives the defense of the ability to sub because they could, theoretically, run a play within what is considered to be a single count.

The defense does not have the advantage, despite the fact that they can move around instead of having to come to a "set" position.

[RoyInSpringdale/MizzouFan]

The team you had last year ran slightly more plays per game than that Cotton Bowl team. Last year, an average of 80.2. In 2007, 79.4. Texas Tech ran an average of 87.4 per game last season and may have been the team with the highest average per game. Just FYI.

Last years team had a defense and provided more turnovers and stops compared to the 2007 team, thus more plays. They were much slower though getting the ball snapped. The 2007 team would score quicker as well.

The down side to running a fast paced spread is your own defense gets wore down from not getting the long, time eating offensive drives that gives them a chance to get rested.

[ChitownHawg]

All offensive players are allowed to move until the offense is called to "set". O-Linemen cannot move once their hand touches the ground or "set" is called.

But any offense can go on an early count or even before "set" is called or assumed or even before O-Linemen touch their hand to the playing surface (which isn't required) as long as 10 of 11 are set in position for at least one count.

The problem is, once the Offense lines up at the LOS a play can be ran after a single count and therefore, a Defense isn't about to engage in substitution after the offense is at the LOS. So, the offense deprives the defense of the ability to sub because they could, theoretically, run a play within what is considered to be a single count.

The defense does not have the advantage, despite the fact that they can move around instead of having to come to a "set" position.

Thanks Muskogee as your response saved me the time. I am not saying it has to be the 10 second rule - just remove the prairie dog crap that gives the offense an advantage. The rule they are exploiting needs to change. We just need to be sure the change doesn't swing the advantage to the defense.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Last years team had a defense and provided more turnovers and stops compared to the 2007 team, thus more plays. They were much slower though getting the ball snapped. The 2007 team would score quicker as well.

The down side to running a fast paced spread is your own defense gets wore down from not getting the long, time eating offensive drives that gives them a chance to get rested.

Yeah, the 2007 team scored one TD for every 14.2 offensive plays, the 2013 version scored one TD for every 14.7 plays. A marked difference.

[WashUhog6]

It's my personal opinion, shared by several others in the Hog media, that coaches like Pinkel, Les Miles, Steve Spurrier and Hugh Freeze don't care for Bielema. I think they consider him a yankee outsider who needs to go back to the Big 10.

I believe that there is much truth in this statement, though I disagree on that being the motive between all of those coaches. Les Miles is a Michigan man and Pinkel not only isn't from the south, he isn't even the head coach of a "southern" program.

Spurrier probably feels exactly the way you claimed, while Miles and Freeze probably dislike him from some anti-SEC comments when he was at Wisconsin.

Regardless, Bielema hasn't exactly been welcomed with open arms by the SEC which is even more reason for Arkansas fans to embrace the man. There is no more perfect situation for us than Arkansas winning in the SEC with a coach who is hated for these reasons by our conference foes.

[Mike Irwin]

Les Miles is a Michigan man and Pinkel not only isn't from the south, he isn't even the head coach of a "southern" program.

You don't have to be from the south to consider somebody "a yankee outsider."  It's a term people throw around without a lot of thought as to its true meaning.

When I was a kid our next door neighbor was from Pennsylvania but he'd lived in Texas long enough that he was quite comfortable calling anybody he didn't like (who was not from Texas) a damn yankee.

[BorderPatrol]

Again, I could live with a return to the RFP whistle, but a halt for 10 seconds simply "cuz" sounds arbitrary and designed to aid situational substitution. If you want to sub, there is no problem with it. If you want to think about a package and then sub, you have problems.

But, you only have problems if you are a defense doing that, right? The offense should be allowed to do this?

bp

[WashUhog6]

You don't have to be from the south to consider somebody "a yankee outsider."  It's a term people throw around without a lot of thought as to its true meaning.

When I was a kid our next door neighbor was from Pennsylvania but he'd lived in Texas long enough that he was quite comfortable calling anybody he didn't like (who was not from Texas) a damn yankee.

That's a fair point. Regardless, I agree with you completely that those coaches you listed, and potentially others, are certainly not fans of Bret Bielema. I think the only coach I can remember making a positive remark about Bielema is Dan Mullen.

[Mike Irwin]

That's a fair point. Regardless, I agree with you completely that those coaches you listed, and potentially others, are certainly not fans of Bret Bielema. I think the only coach I can remember making a positive remark about Bielema is Dan Mullen.

Interesting that Mullen was on the ESPN Car Wash tour with him today.

[Athog]

Was he sober??

[jbcarol]

AL.com sports @aldotcomSports  ·  Jul 24
Rich Rodriguez fires shot at Nick Saban's view on HUNH safety, calls it a farce' http://ow.ly/zyHbP

[Russ22]

But, you only have problems if you are a defense doing that, right? The offense should be allowed to do this?

bp

The current rule is that if the offense subs, then the defense is given the same opportunity. So, yes, offense should be allowed to situational sub because the rule currently handles that case.