Desired NCAA changes

[Leroy Lizard]

I've been mulling changes I would like to see the NCAA implement. Not sure how practice these are. I am sure if they impractical there will be no shortage of people telling me so.

1. Increased financial requirements that would provide additional guarantees that a bowl game will be able to garner sufficient revenue to pay its participating teams a respectable fee. This would likely lower the number of bowl games by a handful, which is all that is needed. (I think there are too many games, but I don't think it is a huge problem.

Another way to stop this problem is to simply place a hard cap on the requirement that a team possess a winning record to play, with the penalty for breaking the rule the loss of a bowl game the following year.

2. Players cannot receive any gifts for participating in bowls other than inexpensive memorabilia (such as rings). Giving out video game play stations is essentially paying players for their performance.

3. End all bowl games before the first Monday in January, and only BCS bowls played in the new year. (This may be beyond the NCAA's jurisdiction.)

4. University administrators cannot take part in excursions (other than meals) related to the playing of college football games.

5. Limit practice days for bowl games to 6.

BTW, can we not argue playoffs versus no playoffs for a change?

[salth2o]

One rule change I would LOVE to see is to make pass interference a spot foul.

Your #2 suggestion, is well...#2. First off, rings are not inexpensive. The $300-$500 gifts the players receive are a great reward for earning an opportunity to play in a given bowl.

I would like to have all non BCS bowl games completed by Dec. 30. and play the big 4 on New Years Day. Then play the MNC a day or two later. This would help limit the number of practice and lag time between the end of the year and the bowl game.

[CowboyMRW]

Yes, bowl season drags on too long. I don't necessarily agree that there are two many bowls but it's how they're strung out til the 10th that I don't like

[Leroy Lizard]

One rule change I would LOVE to see is to make pass interference a spot foul.

Your #2 suggestion, is well...#2. First off, rings are not inexpensive. [Think Josten's] The $300-$500 gifts the players receive are a great reward for earning an opportunity to play in a given bowl. [That's the problem. They're supposed to be amateur athletes]

I would like to have all non BCS bowl games completed by Dec. 30. and play the big 4 on New Years Day. Then play the MNC a day or two later. This would help limit the number of practice and lag time between the end of the year and the bowl game.

Agreed.

I also forgot one: A fumble through the end zone allows the fumbling team to retain possession at the spot of the fumble.

[salth2o]

Balfour created our (my school's) championship rings from last season and they were not huge, but 14K w/ cz's cost nearly a $1000.

[TopDawg]

1. Increased financial requirements that would provide additional guarantees that a bowl game will be able to garner sufficient revenue to pay its participating teams a respectable fee.

Some bowl teams actually LOSE money by going to a bowl game. Sure, they get the bowl payout, but even in bowls where it's a "respectable fee" if they aren't able to sell their ticket allotment, they might blow right through their payout and end up in the red.

I think it was the Michigan AD a year or two ago who said something to the effect of "We're going to make money by not going to a bowl game this year."

[StoopTroup]

I've been mulling changes I would like to see the NCAA implement. Not sure how practice these are. I am sure if they impractical there will be no shortage of people telling me so.

1. Increased financial requirements that would provide additional guarantees that a bowl game will be able to garner sufficient revenue to pay its participating teams a respectable fee. This would likely lower the number of bowl games by a handful, which is all that is needed. (I think there are too many games, but I don't think it is a huge problem.

Another way to stop this problem is to simply place a hard cap on the requirement that a team possess a winning record to play, with the penalty for breaking the rule the loss of a bowl game the following year.

2. Players cannot receive any gifts for participating in bowls other than inexpensive memorabilia (such as rings). Giving out video game play stations is essentially paying players for their performance.

3. End all bowl games before the first Monday in January, and only BCS bowls played in the new year. (This may be beyond the NCAA's jurisdiction.)

4. University administrators cannot take part in excursions (other than meals) related to the playing of college football games.

5. Limit practice days for bowl games to 6.

BTW, can we not argue playoffs versus no playoffs for a change?

Who at the NCAA have you contacted regarding the changes?

How long was the phone call?

Did they ask you to fax or email all your ideas?

Did you get a job offer?

Is Geico gonna put you in a commercial?

This is all really exciting I bet.

[TopDawg]

I also forgot one: A fumble through the end zone allows the fumbling team to retain possession at the spot of the fumble.

Mhmm. The current rule is one of the most stupid rules in all of sports.

[salth2o]

How long was the phone call? Leroy ain't got no phone.

Did they ask you to fax or email all your ideas? He's prolly gonna snail mail it or send it via pony express.

Is Geico gonna put you in a commercial? I think Geico commercials already have a lizard.


This is all really exciting I bet. I imagine he is aroused.




...

[StoopTroup]

I hope Dawg didn't just call one of LeRoid's ideas stupid. This will go on for 40 pages....

[rekamrettuB]

Less bowls...a lot less bowls.

[Leroy Lizard]

Some bowl teams actually LOSE money by going to a bowl game. Sure, they get the bowl payout, but even in bowls where it's a "respectable fee" if they aren't able to sell their ticket allotment, they might blow right through their payout and end up in the red.

I'm aware of that. I never said they would be guaranteed a profit -- only that they would earn a "reasonable" fee (however you define it).

[Leroy Lizard]

Who at the NCAA have you contacted regarding the changes?

How long was the phone call?

Did they ask you to fax or email all your ideas?

Did you get a job offer?

Is Geico gonna put you in a commercial?

This is all really exciting I bet.

Drugs. It must be drugs.

[Leroy Lizard]

I hope Dawg didn't just call one of LeRoid's ideas stupid. This will go on for 40 pages....

He agreed with me. So this earns a

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6Ec-3pWxm28/TA5DULwuilI/AAAAAAAAHPs/P0kczN_AZA0/s400/men-obsession+for+men.jpg

[Leroy Lizard]

Excessive celebration should be a 5-yard penalty, not 15-yard.

[Jacie]

I've been mulling changes I would like to see the NCAA implement. Not sure how practice these are. I am sure if they impractical there will be no shortage of people telling me so.

1. Increased financial requirements that would provide additional guarantees that a bowl game will be able to garner sufficient revenue to pay its participating teams a respectable fee. This would likely lower the number of bowl games by a handful, which is all that is needed. (I think there are too many games, but I don't think it is a huge problem.

Another way to stop this problem is to simply place a hard cap on the requirement that a team possess a winning record to play, with the penalty for breaking the rule the loss of a bowl game the following year.

2. Players cannot receive any gifts for participating in bowls other than inexpensive memorabilia (such as rings). Giving out video game play stations is essentially paying players for their performance.

3. End all bowl games before the first Monday in January, and only BCS bowls played in the new year. (This may be beyond the NCAA's jurisdiction.)

4. University administrators cannot take part in excursions (other than meals) related to the playing of college football games.

5. Limit practice days for bowl games to 6.

BTW, can we not argue playoffs versus no playoffs for a change?

1. This is actually two in one. You want the bowls to have a sponsor with deep pockets. From the names of the bowls, I am guessing they have this one covered and those that don't have a short lifespan as evidenced by the appearance and disappearance of bowl games (not the biggies but plenty of lesser one come and go all the time).

The other part, the respectable fee, in dissing an idea I floated a few weeks ago about bowls picking up the travel expenses, room and board of the participating teams, you stated that the bowls already pay the schools enough money. Why the change of position?

2. You'd have them give the kids a box of CrackerJack and tell em they can keep the prize inside? The dollar amount for the goodie bags is the same for all bowls, though some give gifts worth much less than that and others might use creative accounting when calculating the value of them (figuring everything at the highest retail value rather than discounted). It isn't like the players are being cut a check. The gifts are a small potatoes in the scheme of things and I can't understand how you think this is paying the kids.

3. Would be nice but the cat's out of the bagel already on this one.

4. The surprise is the IRS hasn't stepped in to claim their part of these. That would end junkets, cruises, seminars and what have you real quick.

5. The three weeks of practice may be what is keeping the bowl system intact as that is the real reward, not the goodies, not the payout, not the trip nor the game. Cut out two weeks of it and you'd see most of the December bowls go belly up due to lack of participation. There is a way to limit teams to a week of practice but you don't want to talk about it . . .

[Leroy Lizard]

1. This is actually two in one. You want the bowls to have a sponsor with deep pockets. From the names of the bowls, I am guessing they have this one covered and those that don't have a short lifespan as evidenced by the appearance and disappearance of bowl games (not the biggies but plenty of lesser one come and go all the time).

The other part, the respectable fee, in dissing an idea I floated a few weeks ago about bowls picking up the travel expenses, room and board of the participating teams, you stated that the bowls already pay the schools enough money. Why the change of position?

I think I said that the teams could turn down the deal if they felt that the payout was too small. I am advocating the change to reduce the number of bowls, not out of any concern for the schools' finances.


2. You'd have them give the kids a box of CrackerJack and tell em they can keep the prize inside? The dollar amount for the goodie bags is the same for all bowls, though some give gifts worth much less than that and others might use creative accounting when calculating the value of them (figuring everything at the highest retail value rather than discounted). It isn't like the players are being cut a check. The gifts are a small potatoes in the scheme of things and I can't understand how you think this is paying the kids.

If the players are given gifts, that is payment. A hair dryer is not memorabilia, even if the company plants the bowl name on the side.


3. Would be nice but the cat's out of the bagel already on this one.

The cat can be put back in the bagel relatively easily. You just simply pass the rule.


5. The three weeks of practice may be what is keeping the bowl system intact as that is the real reward, not the goodies, not the payout, not the trip nor the game. Cut out two weeks of it and you'd see most of the December bowls go belly up due to lack of participation. There is a way to limit teams to a week of practice but you don't want to talk about it . . .

I don't follow. Why would players look forward to practice, but not the trip or game?

I remember when Pete Carroll gave his team five extra days of vacation because he felt the players needed the longer vacation time. He caught a lot of flak from the fans, of course.

[StoopTroup]

He agreed with me. So this earns a

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6Ec-3pWxm28/TA5DULwuilI/AAAAAAAAHPs/P0kczN_AZA0/s400/men-obsession+for+men.jpg

At least you got me a new bottle. I was almost out. Now I can continue to just respond to your posts exclusively. :rolleyes:

BTW....if i'm obsessing as you say...I guess I'm dominating your thoughts/comments because of my persistant thought that you are a mis-educated consistant boar that posts opinions about things you think might not fit into your Peter Pan Dreams. Mike Leach isn't a Pirate nor is he Captain Hook. I have him at 100:1 in getting the NCAA to make one change vs any idea you might have thought of while you were processing your shake n bake go juice.

I've gotten you some Hai Karate....

http://www.basenotes.net/photos/st/26120738.jpg

It comes with instructions that will possibly help you to better defend yourself....

http://www.alliednetservices.com/clipart/haikarate_instructions.jpg

Once you can stop Women from Pwning you on here....you can try grabbing a pebble from my hand Grasshumper.....

http://www.lrgiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Snatch-the-pebble-150x109.jpg

[TopDawg]

I'm aware of that. I never said they would be guaranteed a profit -- only that they would earn a "reasonable" fee (however you define it).

Heh...you just misquoted yourself.

[Leroy Lizard]

At least you got me a new bottle. I was almost out. Now I can continue to just respond to your posts exclusively. :rolleyes:

BTW....if i'm obsessing as you say...I guess I'm dominating your thoughts/comments because of my persistant thought that you are a mis-educated consistant boar ...

Consistant boar?

Once again:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6Ec-3pWxm28/TA5DULwuilI/AAAAAAAAHPs/P0kczN_AZA0/s400/men-obsession+for+men.jpg


Heh...you just misquoted yourself.

Different use of quotation marks.

[SteelClip49]

Bowls to be played on New Year's Day:

Outback, Alamo, Gator, Cap One, Chick-Fil-A, Rose (keeps its same spot always and should always be the last game of the day)

January 2- Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl

January 3- Sugar Bowl

January 6- BCSNCG

[soonergirlNeugene]

When play is stopped for an injury, the player must stay on the sidelines until the next change of possession.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When play is stopped for an injury, the player must stay on the sidelines until the next change of possession.Oh I really like that one. Fat chance of it happening, though.

[Leroy Lizard]

Oh I really like that one. Fat chance of it happening, though.

Why? I would think the NCAA would love this fast-paced action. (Although they could argue that advertising revenue drops because of the shorter games and fewer injury timeouts.)

[Leroy Lizard]

Bowls to be played on New Year's Day:

Outback, Alamo, Gator, Cap One, Chick-Fil-A, Rose (keeps its same spot always and should always be the last game of the day)

January 2- Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl

January 3- Sugar Bowl

January 6- BCSNCG

I would put the Sugar Bowl on January 2 and have the national title game on January 3.

[MamaMia]

Make coaches votes public. Ease up on the excessive celebration rule.

[soonergirlNeugene]

Why? I would think the NCAA would love this fast-paced action. (Although they could argue that advertising revenue drops because of the shorter games and fewer injury timeouts.)

You would think they would want to implement this one in the name of player safety!

;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You would think they would want to implement this one in the name of player safety!

;)Some anti-football group's lawyers could go nuts on this one, in the name of safety, of course..

[Leroy Lizard]

Make coaches votes public.

I think they do at the end of the season. That seems like a good system.


You would think they would want to implement this one in the name of player safety!

Yep. You would think that any injury that would cause a player to have to come out of the game is serious enough to check out thoroughly before sending him back. Sure he say's its a cramp, but what is really wrong with him?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think they do at the end of the season. That seems like a good system.



Yep. You would think that any injury that would cause a player to have to come out of the game is serious enough to check out thoroughly before sending him back. Sure he say's its a cramp, but what is really wrong with him?Once taken out, a necessary hospital trip before coming back to the game(if cleared by the hospital)?

[Leroy Lizard]

Once taken out, a necessary hospital trip before coming back to the game(if cleared by the hospital)?

Naaaah, but you could make them go into the locker room and undergo certain tests. That would take up a series at least.

[Spray]

I think #3 could be accomplished- the NCAA has to sanction these things, so it could be a part of the initial approval. Now, for existing bowls, I'm not sure how that works- if the NCAA reviews them on a regular basis, then they could start putting them in a date window. I completely agree this should be done somehow.

[royalfan5]

I'd like to see the NCAA disband.

[jkjsooner]

Excessive celebration should be a 5-yard penalty, not 15-yard.


In addition, get rid of that horrible rule that starts next year that wipes out the play when a team has an excessive celebration.

Also, somehow become more consistent on calling excessive celebrations. (That's especially true if you don't get rid of the above rule).

[jkjsooner]

I'd like to see the NCAA disband.

You do realize that it will just be replaced by another organization who would essentially have the same goals as the NCAA's goals, right?

If you started over from scratch, what would you change? Selective enforcement? Sorry but any organization will suffer some bias (and even corruption) at times. Less and more simple rules? If you do that we'll have coaches/administrations/boosters using loopholes all of the time.

[jkjsooner]

My biggest changes would be on instant replay.

1. Officials should be able to make a call "without bias" when they're unsure of what transpired on the field. They would be able to call for a replay on their own. In these cases the replay judge makes his best determinition instead of being restricted to consclusive evidence.

An example of where we need this would be the TT game a few years ago. We all know it was virtually impossible for the runner to bounce in mid air and carry defenders while floating six inches from the ground, yet the officials and cameras didn't have the right angle to see the players knees or elbows hit the ground.

2. Turnovers that are called "without bias" would require conclusive evidence to call it a turnover. (If the official saw it conclusively then it wouldn't be called without bias.) I'd rather officials miss a turnover than call one that didn't really happen.


For years there was a strong bias towards fumbles as the officials didn't want to blow the play dead so they called each possible fumble a fumble so the play could continue. Unfortunately this put the burden on the replay official to prove that it was in fact not a fumble. They corrected this by allowing immediate recoveries after the whistle / ruling of a non-fumble. Unfortunately this is problematic as you're allowing hitting after a whistle and has caused some issues.

A better result would be the application of my rule #1 and #2. Allow the play to continue w/o a whistle, call the play without bias (unless an official saw it conclusively), and let the replay official determine if there was a fumble.

[royalfan5]

You do realize that it will just be replaced by another organization who would essentially have the same goals as the NCAA's goals, right?

If you started over from scratch, what would you change? Selective enforcement? Sorry but any organization will suffer some bias (and even corruption) at times. Less and more simple rules? If you do that we'll have coaches/administrations/boosters using loopholes all of the time.

No governing body. Pure anarchy. You want 300 scholarships, go for it. Want to pay players, go for it. Get hookers for recruits knock your self out.

[bigfatjerk]

I would like to see a change in the bowl system. At least make it to where BCS games are in January. All these lesser Bowls can be done by Dec 31st easily. I'm for fewer Bowl games also because the regular season means less in college football than any other sport because so many teams get in. NFL has the same problem sometimes. They have a few too many teams get in the post season as well. But college football has a bigger problem with this.

Cut the Bowl games to 20 games. Have only from New Years on. I don't understand why we need 9 days between the first BCS and the NC game. That needs to be cut to at least a weeks difference if not a few days.

[Leroy Lizard]

In addition, get rid of that horrible rule that starts next year that wipes out the play when a team has an excessive celebration.

Also, somehow become more consistent on calling excessive celebrations. (That's especially true if you don't get rid of the above rule).

Better yet, go ahead and credit the team with a score, don't penalize them, and make the player sit out a complete series.

The excessive celebrations will end pronto. You will get a lot of "Mr Umpire, here is the game ball I just used to score. I need to walk over to my sideline now."

[Leroy Lizard]

My biggest changes would be on instant replay.

1. Officials should be able to make a call "without bias" when they're unsure of what transpired on the field. They would be able to call for a replay on their own. In these cases the replay judge makes his best determinition instead of being restricted to consclusive evidence.

An example of where we need this would be the TT game a few years ago. We all know it was virtually impossible for the runner to bounce in mid air and carry defenders while floating six inches from the ground, yet the officials and cameras didn't have the right angle to see the players knees or elbows hit the ground.

2. Turnovers that are called "without bias" would require conclusive evidence to call it a turnover. (If the official saw it conclusively then it wouldn't be called without bias.) I'd rather officials miss a turnover than call one that didn't really happen.


For years there was a strong bias towards fumbles as the officials didn't want to blow the play dead so they called each possible fumble a fumble so the play could continue. Unfortunately this put the burden on the replay official to prove that it was in fact not a fumble. They corrected this by allowing immediate recoveries after the whistle / ruling of a non-fumble. Unfortunately this is problematic as you're allowing hitting after a whistle and has caused some issues.

A better result would be the application of my rule #1 and #2. Allow the play to continue w/o a whistle, call the play without bias (unless an official saw it conclusively), and let the replay official determine if there was a fumble.

You could give the refs a blue flag that they could throw that indicates a potential end of play, but which would allow the play to continue.

[Leroy Lizard]

Cut the Bowl games to 20 games. Have only from New Years on. I don't understand why we need 9 days between the first BCS and the NC game. That needs to be cut to at least a weeks difference if not a few days.

Hold an auction for the top 20 spots. Host cities would bid on how much they would guarantee to the participating teams.

[rekamrettuB]

Hold an auction for the top 20 spots. Host cities would bid on how much they would guarantee to the participating teams.

Hey...this ain't a bad idea. Would be next to impossible to administer but it would raise some serious funds.

[Leroy Lizard]

Hey...this ain't a bad idea. Would be next to impossible to administer but it would raise some serious funds.

It would be trivial to administer. It's like bidding on any other project.

You could open it up and make it like a proposal. Put everything in the proposal that discusses why your city's bowl should be chosen. You can go back to history, the quality of the city, accommodations, you name it.

Then have a committee choose the 20 best proposals.

[rekamrettuB]

It would be trivial to administer. It's like bidding on any other project.

You could open it up and make it like a proposal. Put everything in the proposal that discusses why your city's bowl should be chosen. You can go back to history, the quality of the city, accommodations, you name it.

Then have a committee choose the 20 best proposals.

All w/in how long tho? 20 different cities on 20 different schedules and you need to have these things out in about 48 hours. Or are you saying not bidding on in particular teams per se but a slot.

[Leroy Lizard]

All w/in how long tho? 20 different cities on 20 different schedules and you need to have these things out in about 48 hours. Or are you saying not bidding on in particular teams per se but a slot.

The slot. In fact, you don't want the cities to know which teams are eligible; they should stand on their own merits.

Bidding would happen at least a year in advance.

BTW, a city can always host a game between two teams. However, it wouldn't be an NCAA-sanctioned event if they weren't chosen by the committee. (It would be an exhibition game.) Few teams would dare participate and risk angering the NCAA.

[rekamrettuB]

The slot. In fact, you don't want the cities to know which teams are eligible; they should stand on their own merits.

Bidding would happen at least a year in advance.

BTW, a city can always host a game between two teams. However, it wouldn't be an NCAA-sanctioned event if they weren't chosen by the committee. (It would be an exhibition game.) Few teams would dare participate and risk angering the NCAA.

I got ya. A bit of a gamble to the city but they still would bring in some big time money.

[Leroy Lizard]

I got ya. A bit of a gamble to the city but they still would bring in some big time money.

Keep in mind that angering the NCAA could pose problems the next time you submit a proposal to host a bowl game. It's more than a mere gamble.

One requirement that could be imposed is that a proposal must include a corporate partner, and this corporate partner must be willing to purchase unsold tickets. This alone would reduce the number of bowl games and no other financial obligations would likely be needed.

[bigfatjerk]

I wouldn't mind having a committee do bowl determinations instead of one poll. Just like the NCAA Tournament in basketball is determined by a committee. That isn't a bad idea.

[Jason]

It would be trivial to administer. It's like bidding on any other project.

You could open it up and make it like a proposal. Put everything in the proposal that discusses why your city's bowl should be chosen. You can go back to history, the quality of the city, accommodations, you name it.

Then have a committee choose the 20 best proposals.
If there isn't enough financial corruption in football, this would certainly send it over the top.

[sperry]

Better yet, go ahead and credit the team with a score, don't penalize them, and make the player sit out a complete series.

The excessive celebrations will end pronto. You will get a lot of "Mr Umpire, here is the game ball I just used to score. I need to walk over to my sideline now."



You don't get a lot of excessive celebrations now. Instead, you get a lot of penalties for bogus crap.

[Leroy Lizard]

If there isn't enough financial corruption in football, this would certainly send it over the top.

These high-stakes proposal evaluations are done all the time for even bigger money. There are safeguards in place to curtail corruption.

If corruption concerns you, you could turn the proposal into a bid.

[Leroy Lizard]

You don't get a lot of excessive celebrations now. Instead, you get a lot of penalties for bogus crap.

So let's discuss solutions. I think I have one.

[TopDawg]

In addition, get rid of that horrible rule that starts next year that wipes out the play when a team has an excessive celebration.

Also, somehow become more consistent on calling excessive celebrations. (That's especially true if you don't get rid of the above rule).

The way I understand the rule is that it will only wipe out the score if the excessive celebration begins before the player scores (i.e. - flipping into the endzone or stopping at the 1 and falling in backwards). This makes it more like all other penalties where they are enforced from the spot of the foul. If the excessive celebration begins at the 1 (before the play is over), the penalty will be enforced from the 1. But if the excessive celebration begins in the endzone (after the play is over), the result of the play stands and the penalty is THEN marked off (like it is now).

I like the new interpretation.

[Leroy Lizard]

In the spirit of a recent discussion:

1. No school can sign more than 20 recruits during each school year. There are no exceptions.

2. There are no limits to the number of athletes that can be on scholarship at any one time.

3. No schollie can be removed from a player as long as he is in good academic standing and willingly participates in his sport to the most his physical condition can reasonably handle.

No. 3 used to be the rule in college football. With DKR in mind, we should put the following footnote: No school can sabotage the academics of a player or try to physically maim him to get him to quit the team.

[setem]

Besides no NCAA at all this is what I want!

FeeVwkLYD5g

[Leroy Lizard]

Besides no NCAA at all this is what I want!

FeeVwkLYD5g

WTF? Why not just grease up a pig and have the players chase him down, like they do at the state fair?

[texaspokieokie]

In the spirit of a recent discussion:

1. No school can sign more than 20 recruits during each school year. There are no exceptions.

2. There are no limits to the number of athletes that can be on scholarship at any one time.

3. No schollie can be removed from a player as long as he is in good academic standing and willingly participates in his sport to the most his physical condition can reasonably handle.

No. 3 used to be the rule in college football. With DKR in mind, we should put the following footnote: No school can sabotage the academics of a player or try to physically maim him to get him to quit the team.

doncha think that sabo & maiming are already against the rules ??

look what happened to leach for putting pretty boy in a shed.

[Sooners78]

Agreed.

I also forgot one: A fumble through the end zone allows the fumbling team to retain possession at the spot of the fumble.

Totally agree on this one. I have NEVER understood the logic of giving possession to the other team in that situation. When a team fumbles out of bounds, they retain possession. What did the defense actually do to deserve possession?

Not only does it punish the fumbling team, the punishment is way too extreme. The offense has driven the ball down close to a TD, and then they have all that taken away just because of one fumble that the defense didn't even have to recover?!! :mad: :confused:

If someone can explain this logically, I'd love to hear it.

[SpankyNek]

Totally agree on this one. I have NEVER understood the logic of giving possession to the other team in that situation. When a team fumbles out of bounds, they retain possession. What did the defense actually do to deserve possession?

Not only does it punish the fumbling team, the punishment is way too extreme. The offense has driven the ball down close to a TD, and then they have all that taken away just because of one fumble that the defense didn't even have to recover?!! :mad: :confused:

If someone can explain this logically, I'd love to hear it.

It was installed, I believe, to discourage teams from fumbling on purpose for an advantage.

[Sooners78]

It was installed, I believe, to discourage teams from fumbling on purpose for an advantage.

Yes, that does make some sense, but they could just move the team that fumbled back to about the 20 yard line and let them keep posession. Surely, that would discourage a team from doing it on purpose. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. The way I see it, that is a much harsher punishment than what a team gets even when they make a helmet-to-helmet shot at an opposing player.

[Leroy Lizard]

No team is going to fumble on purpose into the end zone unless the situation is desperate, in which case giving possession to the other team wouldn't stop it anyway.

[OU_Sooners75]

I've been mulling changes I would like to see the NCAA implement. Not sure how practice these are. I am sure if they impractical there will be no shortage of people telling me so.

1. Increased financial requirements that would provide additional guarantees that a bowl game will be able to garner sufficient revenue to pay its participating teams a respectable fee. This would likely lower the number of bowl games by a handful, which is all that is needed. (I think there are too many games, but I don't think it is a huge problem.

Well, sounds good, but the NCAA doesn't regulate or legislate the bowl games.

2. Players cannot receive any gifts for participating in bowls other than inexpensive memorabilia (such as rings). Giving out video game play stations is essentially paying players for their performance.

I think the gift packages are a great idea. These kids generate Millions upon Millions in revenue for their schools and these bowl games, they should get at least a small reward for playing in a bowl game for a successful season.

3. End all bowl games before the first Monday in January, and only BCS bowls played in the new year. (This may be beyond the NCAA's jurisdiction.)

Actually it isn't beyond their jurisdiction. They regulate what they consider a sports season. And as it stands now, the rule states something to the affect that there cannot be any football games (bowls included but Senior all-star games are excluded) played past the 2nd Monday of January. (Hence the reason the BCS Title game is on the second monday of the new year.

4. University administrators cannot take part in excursions (other than meals) related to the playing of college football games.

If bowl executives want to invite administrators along for a good time...then so be it...just re-classify their bowl organisation away from Non-Profit.

5. Limit practice days for bowl games to 6.

So you only get 6 practice days for a bowl game, even if waiting for over a month?

Both teams already get the same amount of time to prepare for the game. No team has any true advantages because most teams do not know their opponent until after the regular season ended (all conf. Championships are played and/or all 12 games have been played). Not sure what just 6 days would do.

BTW, can we not argue playoffs versus no playoffs for a change?

My replies.

[SpankyNek]

No team is going to fumble on purpose into the end zone unless the situation is desperate, in which case giving possession to the other team wouldn't stop it anyway.

So what is your theory on the logic that lead to the rule being put in place?
I believe that I am correct here.


Another possibility:

The sideline boundary surrounding the field of play is regulated differently than the end zones....I can only explain it by saying the rule is different because if fumbling backward through your endzone results in a change of possession and two points awarded, then these "areas" bust be treated equally at both ends...possession is assumed.

[Leroy Lizard]

So what is your theory on the logic that lead to the rule being put in place?
I believe that I am correct here.

At one time that may have been the reason, but times have changed. Today we can use instant replay to determine where a ball was fumbled, so the ball can be put back to the point of the fumble. The chances of a team purposefully fumbling a ball and recovering it in the end zone for a TD that stands are pretty remote. And it would only occur within the last few seconds of a game, so this would be a rarity.

Keep in mind that a ball cannot be fumbled forward into the end zone for a TD. (Well, I think that is the rule in college.) The rule in question probably predates that rule, so is antiquated.



Another possibility:

The sideline boundary surrounding the field of play is regulated differently than the end zones....I can only explain it by saying the rule is different because if fumbling backward through your endzone results in a change of possession and two points awarded, then these "areas" bust be treated equally at both ends...possession is assumed.

But no points are awarded when a ball is fumbled through the end zone, so the end zone is still treated inconsistently. However I see your point.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think the gift packages are a great idea. These kids generate Millions upon Millions in revenue for their schools and these bowl games, they should get at least a small reward for playing in a bowl game for a successful season.

Then why should a freshman non-starter playing on a bowl team be given gifts but not an All-American senior playing on a losing team?

I can see your point if all players are given the gifts. But if only bowl team players are included, then it looks like they are being rewarded for their play, which is a no-no.


If bowl executives want to invite administrators along for a good time...then so be it...just re-classify their bowl organisation away from Non-Profit.

Having members of athletic departments receiving gifts for their team's participation in a bowl game probably lies within the jurisdiction of the NCAA. It can be looked upon as a bribe and, imo, should be legislated away. If the AD wants to go on a cruise, let him pay his own way.

[quoteSo you only get 6 practice days for a bowl game, even if waiting for over a month?

Both teams already get the same amount of time to prepare for the game. No team has any true advantages because most teams do not know their opponent until after the regular season ended (all conf. Championships are played and/or all 12 games have been played). Not sure what just 6 days would do.[/quote]

Fairness isn't the issue. My point was to provide a guarantee that student-athletes are provided reasonable family time each year. Since all teams are affected equally, then no one gains an advantage from such restrictions. And the coaches would probably be happy with it because they get more time off as well. (Although not as much as the players.) I see it as a win-win for everyone.

[TopDawg]

Keep in mind that a ball cannot be fumbled forward into the end zone for a TD. (Well, I think that is the rule in college.) The rule in question probably predates that rule, so is antiquated.

The ball can be fumbled forward into the endzone for a TD (happened in the Sugar Bowl) unless it's on 4th down. I think the rules for a forward fumble in college are as follows:

If a ball is fumbled and rolls forward and out of bounds, it is brought back to the point of the fumble. (This eliminates convenient out-of-bounds fumbles near the chains on 3rd down.)

If a ball is fumbled on 4th down, forward progress is only granted if the person who fumbled the ball is also the person who recovered it. This happened in the 2000 Big XII title game when KSU's punter ran with the ball on 4th down. He was tackled a couple of yards short of the first down marker, but he fumbled the ball and it rolled forward past the first down marker and was recovered by K-State. However, since he wasn't the person who recovered it, we got possession at the spot of the fumble.

[OU_Sooners75]

Then why should a freshman non-starter playing on a bowl team be given gifts but not an All-American senior playing on a losing team?

I can see your point if all players are given the gifts. But if only bowl team players are included, then it looks like they are being rewarded for their play, which is a no-no.

It is called the benefit of playing on a good team. Sucks for the AA in your scenario...at least he got a free education.

Having members of athletic departments receiving gifts for their team's participation in a bowl game probably lies within the jurisdiction of the NCAA. It can be looked upon as a bribe and, imo, should be legislated away. If the AD wants to go on a cruise, let him pay his own way.

Until it is changed, not a damn thing they can do about it. The NCAA is not there to regulate what school officials can and cannot do. They are there to protect the amateurism of sport.


So you only get 6 practice days for a bowl game, even if waiting for over a month?

Both teams already get the same amount of time to prepare for the game. No team has any true advantages because most teams do not know their opponent until after the regular season ended (all conf. Championships are played and/or all 12 games have been played). Not sure what just 6 days would do.

Fairness isn't the issue. My point was to provide a guarantee that student-athletes are provided reasonable family time each year. Since all teams are affected equally, then no one gains an advantage from such restrictions. And the coaches would probably be happy with it because they get more time off as well. (Although not as much as the players.) I see it as a win-win for everyone.

Reasonable family time each year?

LMFAO....spoken from a perspective of never witnessing the game from anywhere other than your couch or the stands.

Trust me...these kids get a few days off for Christmas and the holidays (if their bowl game is after Christmas). Most of these kids get to see their family whenever they wish or desire....and trust me when I say this...most of them are happy to be practicing for a bowl game around the holidays!

If the kid is griping and moaning about not being able to see their family enough...then they are what we end up calling a bust! They usually do not have their head in the right place to be successful in this sport.

The NCAA has rules set in place that tells each team how many hours a week they can practice (includes coach led film and weight lifting)...it does not change during the Bowl season.

[Leroy Lizard]

The ball can be fumbled forward into the endzone for a TD (happened in the Sugar Bowl) unless it's on 4th down. I think the rules for a forward fumble in college are as follows:

Okay. But no team is going to purposefully fumble through the end zone on anything but fourth down anyway.

So I still see no reason to reward the ball to the other team.

[Leroy Lizard]

Reasonable family time each year?

LMFAO....spoken from a perspective of never witnessing the game from anywhere other than your couch or the stands.

Trust me...these kids get a few days off for Christmas and the holidays (if their bowl game is after Christmas). Most of these kids get to see their family whenever they wish or desire....and trust me when I say this...most of them are happy to be practicing for a bowl game around the holidays!

Actually, Pete Carroll got in trouble with his own fans for providing additional time for his players to be home for the holidays. He cut back the number of practice days by 5. That would appear to counter your argument. After all, i Pete Carroll, who played and coached the game, thinks that providing time for players to be with their families is important, then there must be something to it.


If the kid is griping and moaning about not being able to see their family enough...then they are what we end up calling a bust! They usually do not have their head in the right place to be successful in this sport.

Let's apply the same reasoning to business. Any employee that claims he needs time off to be with his family during the holiday season is obviously not dedicated to his job and should be replaced. Any student who thinks they need time off from school to be with their families has no business being on campus.

It's easy to tell OTHER PEOPLE how dedicated they should be to their endeavors. Not so easy to apply it to ourselves.


The NCAA has rules set in place that tells each team how many hours a week they can practice (includes coach led film and weight lifting)...it does not change during the Bowl season.

Sorry, but the number of practice days provided to teams in preparation for a bowl game is not capped and is left to the individual coaches. I find that a farce. Why not limit it to six days. Who is hurt by such a change?

[TopDawg]

Okay. But no team is going to purposefully fumble through the end zone on anything but fourth down anyway.

No team is going to purposefully fumble through the end zone any time.

But, yeah. I'm with you. The rule is dumb...no matter what the other fumble rules are.

[OU_Sooners75]

Actually, Pete Carroll got in trouble with his own fans for providing additional time for his players to be home for the holidays. He cut back the number of practice days by 5. That would appear to counter your argument. After all, i Pete Carroll, who played and coached the game, thinks that providing time for players to be with their families is important, then there must be something to it.

How did he get into trouble? He get fined? He get sanctioned? No...he appeased the fan base...nothing more! It does not counter any argument at all. It just states that Carroll afforded his players more time off because people were bitching about not enough time.

Show me where I said it is not important for those kids to be around their family. I did say, however, all schools/coaches give their players a few days (varies from school to school) to see their families during the holidays.

Why you are trying to argue it is beyond me...other than knowing that you would argue with the wall if it bumped into you.

Let's apply the same reasoning to business. Any employee that claims he needs time off to be with his family during the holiday season is obviously not dedicated to his job and should be replaced. Any student who thinks they need time off from school to be with their families has no business being on campus.

100% of the jobs I have worked already had time off for your family during the holidays. They have it structured in their business plan and in their policy manuals. The people that bitch about it usually are the disgruntled employees or the ones that have their head elsewhere. They also tend to be the ones that are bouncing from job to job more ofthen than naught.

With that said though...where did I state that any player should be replaced? I did say that if they are bitching and griping about enough time with their family then it means their head is not in the game and they tend to be the ones we end up calling "busts."

It's easy to tell OTHER PEOPLE how dedicated they should be to their endeavors. Not so easy to apply it to ourselves.

You are assuming something I never said. But since you said it, I will comment on it:

It takes a deep dedication to do what these student athletes do. if their head is not in it clearly then yes, they will likely fail, or barely get by. But you wouldn't know this because you never tried to be that dedicated of a person on something other than arguing with a ****ing wall.

Sorry, but the number of practice days provided to teams in preparation for a bowl game is not capped and is left to the individual coaches. I find that a farce. Why not limit it to six days. Who is hurt by such a change?


Exactly...and name one coach that does not give ample time for their players to be with family for the holidays.

[Leroy Lizard]

How did he get into trouble? He get fined? He get sanctioned? No...he appeased the fan base...nothing more! It does not counter any argument at all. It just states that Carroll afforded his players more time off because people were bitching about not enough time.

No, the fans were complaining that the team wasn't as well-prepared because Carroll gave the players more free time than his opponent.

And it does counter your argument, because you stated that only a person with no football knowledge would think players need more time to be with their family. Petey certainly knows his football, though.


Show me where I said it is not important for those kids to be around their family. I did say, however, all schools/coaches give their players a few days (varies from school to school) to see their families during the holidays.

And I said that they could use even more time.

What is wrong with giving players more time to be home with their families. What bothers you about that?

Don't worry; they'll still play the game.


Why you are trying to argue it is beyond me...other than knowing that you would argue with the wall if it bumped into you.

I offered a rule change and you came back all sniffy about it. Then you have gall to complain that I'm arguing with you.

If you're really not into arguing, then stfu. But if you're going to come in here and argue, don't bitch about it.