Bumped to bury hockey thread

MoragaBear;842282665 said:

---

Seriously. Frost's tweet is perfect. Should he stfu, too?

It's not about excuse-making. It's about bringing to light how silly and self-serving the proposal is that's being pushed forward by coaches like Saban who want the game played their way and their way alone.

---

PHIL KNIGHT ... wake up .... sue the NCAA ... you've got the cash.
Get stories published that show Saban is worse than Sandusky.
Don't have to be true ....

GoBearsBert;842282544 said:

---

Sorry guys, this worries me. Are the excuses for offensive failure starting ALREADY?

We scored 10 against UCLA and 13 against Stanfurd WITH the hurry-up offense.

Seems to me Sonny should worry more about fundamentals, avoiding stupid penalties and play calling than rule changes he has no control over.

Oh, yeah...WINNING A FOOTBALL GAME (FBS) would be good as well.

---

I don't think it's an excuse at all, just a generic comment about the rule.

To another post - the fact we didn't have that many plays faster than 10 seconds was part of our problem. The offense is designed to go faster than we played it.

I am not a fan of our offense. But it is part of a movement to innovate and counter more talented team's physical advantage. I hate virtually all rules designed to halt innovation, be it sports or otherwise, even more.

Both tweets are meaningless analogies (fast break in basketball? Injuries in golf?) and strike me as petty.

The rule as proposed is pretty ridiculous but, in general, I have no problem with allowing a defensive substitution. Whether injuries are proven or not, I think it comes down more to the fundamental principles of football (people can make their own subjective opinion).

To some degree, going fast is an exploit in the rules in the sense that it's used to prevent substitutions (minus low clock situations). I'm ok with this. But if these offenses absolutely falls apart without that exploit, then that offensive system is pretty weak imo. You've gotta have more going for you than going fast.

tequila4kapp;842282745 said:

---

I am not a fan of our offense. But it is part of a movement to innovate and counter more talented team's physical advantage. I hate virtually all rules designed to halt innovation, be it sports or otherwise, even more.

---

i hope i like it more with more capable OL and QB play..

KoreAmBear;842282534 said:

---

---

:bravo:bravo:bravo
'nuf said

freshfunk;842282766 said:

---

Both tweets are meaningless analogies (fast break in basketball? Injuries in golf?) and strike me as petty.

The rule as proposed is pretty ridiculous but, in general, I have no problem with allowing a defensive substitution. Whether injuries are proven or not, I think it comes down more to the fundamental principles of football (people can make their own subjective opinion).

To some degree, going fast is an exploit in the rules in the sense that it's used to prevent substitutions (minus low clock situations). I'm ok with this. But if these offenses absolutely falls apart without that exploit, then that offensive system is pretty weak imo. You've gotta have more going for you than going fast.

---

I like the comment from one of the posters:
The Offense has the advantage of knowing when the ball will be snapped and knowing where the play will be going.

The defense has the advantage of not having to "set" its players; all kinds of motion are allowed.

This rule change takes away one of the advantages of the Offense without corresponding penalty on the Defense.

Although Cal rarely snapped the ball in the first 10 seconds, I still would want it to have the option to do so otherwise why line up for the snap quickly.

The rule is silly and backwards and yes, it does seem self-serving to the traditional powers in the SEC.

What really needs to happen is instituting a standard and fair player sub method, sorta like line changes in ice hockey. Players going in need to be ready and assembled in a designated place/area and the team has 10 seconds to do the switch or there's a real delay of game penalty.

Of course in ice hockey a line change only happens when play stops. So maybe the solution is each team gets an X number of "line changes" per quarter, 10 seconds to pull it off.

re: Sonny Dykes, I'd prefer winning to talking, especially given his record and his recruiting prediction. Look if your team is losing (historically at that), concentrate on winning.

Hockey changes happen 'on the fly' during play all the time. A bad change can easily lead to a scoring chance the other way.

MoragaBear;842282665 said:

---

Seriously. Frost's tweet is perfect. Should he stfu, too?

It's not about excuse-making. It's about bringing to light how silly and self-serving the proposal is that's being pushed forward by coaches like Saban who want the game played their way and their way alone.

---

I have no problem with Dykes' tweet. He should lobby for what he thinks is right for his team. But let's not pretend both sides aren't being self serving. IMO, and I've been saying this for a few years, the prairie dog offense is BS. It is absolutely disingenuous for some teams to run up to the line for the sole purpose of standing there while they get their play call so the defense can't sub, knowing guys who are gassed can't sub out, knowing guys with minor injuries can't sub out, then scream like stuck pigs when those guys drop to the ground to get out of the game, and now claim it doesn't increase the chance of injury. No, Frost's tweet isn't perfect. Nor is Dykes'. It is being deliberately thick in order to create a false analogy. In basketball, teams have lots of timeouts, you are never more than a few minutes from an official timeout, and teams switch possession constantly. I happen to think the rule change is excellent and long overdue and I have no stake in it.

I don't see it hurting Cal at all. If Cal fans are upset, Saban is not to blame. They should blame Oregon whose gamesmanship is necessitating the rule change.

OaktownBear;842282917 said:

---

I have no problem with Dykes' tweet. He should lobby for what he thinks is right for his team. But let's not pretend both sides aren't being self serving. IMO, and I've been saying this for a few years, the prairie dog offense is BS. It is absolutely disingenuous for some teams to run up to the line for the sole purpose of standing there while they get their play call so the defense can't sub, knowing guys who are gassed can't sub out, knowing guys with minor injuries can't sub out, then scream like stuck pigs when those guys drop to the ground to get out of the game, and now claim it doesn't increase the chance of injury. No, Frost's tweet isn't perfect. Nor is Dykes'. It is being deliberately thick in order to create a false analogy. In basketball, teams have lots of timeouts, you are never more than a few minutes from an official timeout, and teams switch possession constantly. I happen to think the rule change is excellent and long overdue and I have no stake in it.

I don't see it hurting Cal at all. If Cal fans are upset, Saban is not to blame. They should blame Oregon whose gamesmanship is necessitating the rule change.

---

Can you provide any evidence that it increases the chance of injury? You provided a potential cause that could lead to more injury, but no evidence that it does.

ecb;842282919 said:

---

Can you provide any evidence that it increases the chance of injury? You provided a potential cause that could lead to more injury, but no evidence that it does.

---

1. The logic for the rule change does not depend on injury. Creating a competitive advantage by standing at the line so that you can sub when you decide you want to and you can send plays from the sidelines, but the moment the defense tries to, you quick snap them is an unfair advantage to the offense. I had proposed previously that offenses could snap as fast as they want, but that it be a penalty to look to the sideline once they approach the line.

2. It would be almost impossible to show increased injuries are caused by prairie dogging. You can't isolate all factors and opponents of the rule could always blame it on something else. However, there is a good logical argument that guys who are gassed or who have twisted an ankle are more likely to be injured. They aren't pulling a drug off the market. It is a simple (and minor) rules change. These types of changes are made all the time without a longitudinal study proving the reasons for it. In fact, the whole issue has come about because they changed the rules on timing a few years ago. Going back to the old rule that was in place for decades would have a much bigger impact on the hurry up. Nothing was proven to make that change. Maybe people would like it better if we went back to the traditional rule.

Giving the defense 10 second to get guys off the field is not unreasonable and barely impacts the hurry up.

OaktownBear;842282917 said:

---

I have no problem with Dykes' tweet. He should lobby for what he thinks is right for his team. But let's not pretend both sides aren't being self serving. IMO, and I've been saying this for a few years, the prairie dog offense is BS. It is absolutely disingenuous for some teams to run up to the line for the sole purpose of standing there while they get their play call so the defense can't sub, knowing guys who are gassed can't sub out, knowing guys with minor injuries can't sub out, then scream like stuck pigs when those guys drop to the ground to get out of the game, and now claim it doesn't increase the chance of injury. No, Frost's tweet isn't perfect. Nor is Dykes'. It is being deliberately thick in order to create a false analogy. In basketball, teams have lots of timeouts, you are never more than a few minutes from an official timeout, and teams switch possession constantly. I happen to think the rule change is excellent and long overdue and I have no stake in it.

I don't see it hurting Cal at all. If Cal fans are upset, Saban is not to blame. They should blame Oregon whose gamesmanship is necessitating the rule change.

---

Some information from the below article. Not the best source, but some interesting data about playing fast and injuries.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/24443630/proposed-rule-change-draws-line-in-the-sand-between-coaches

Rodriguez gladly referenced the site cfbmatrix.com, which has measured pace of play vs. injuries. The site is run by Dave Bartoo, a 42-year old who works in bank and credit union mergers.

According to his data:

The Big 12 is the lightest (combined players' weights) among the five BCS leagues (Pac-12, SEC, Big Ten, ACC are the others). Its players have participated in the most plays among BCS conferences from 2009-2012. Lightest teams running the most plays. Bartoo found the conference is last among those five leagues in starts lost to injury.

From 2010-2012, Alabama was in the bottom 10 among BCS conference teams in plays per game. Saban lost a total of 30 starts to injury, 21 of those came against the bottom five teams in pace of play.

Everyone agrees Oregon is one of the quickest-playing teams in the country. In four seasons from 2009-2012, the Ducks lost 18 total starts on offense.

In 2012, the 15 fastest teams (plays per game) ran 2,700 more plays overall than the slowest 15 teams. The combined starts lost to injury of the 15 fastest teams were eight fewer than the slowest 15.

OaktownBear;842282917 said:

---

I have no problem with Dykes' tweet. He should lobby for what he thinks is right for his team. But let's not pretend both sides aren't being self serving. IMO, and I've been saying this for a few years, the prairie dog offense is BS. It is absolutely disingenuous for some teams to run up to the line for the sole purpose of standing there while they get their play call so the defense can't sub, knowing guys who are gassed can't sub out, knowing guys with minor injuries can't sub out, then scream like stuck pigs when those guys drop to the ground to get out of the game, and now claim it doesn't increase the chance of injury. No, Frost's tweet isn't perfect. Nor is Dykes'. It is being deliberately thick in order to create a false analogy. In basketball, teams have lots of timeouts, you are never more than a few minutes from an official timeout, and teams switch possession constantly. I happen to think the rule change is excellent and long overdue and I have no stake in it.

I don't see it hurting Cal at all. If Cal fans are upset, Saban is not to blame. They should blame Oregon whose gamesmanship is necessitating the rule change.

---

Then the ncaa should call it what it is, a way to counter the competitive edge the offense has by lining up to the los right away.

OaktownBear;842282917 said:

---

I have no problem with Dykes' tweet. He should lobby for what he thinks is right for his team. But let's not pretend both sides aren't being self serving. IMO, and I've been saying this for a few years, the prairie dog offense is BS. It is absolutely disingenuous for some teams to run up to the line for the sole purpose of standing there while they get their play call so the defense can't sub, knowing guys who are gassed can't sub out, knowing guys with minor injuries can't sub out, then scream like stuck pigs when those guys drop to the ground to get out of the game, and now claim it doesn't increase the chance of injury.

---

Let's not act like these defenders are helpless victims. If a team's D is tired they can play second stringers for a series. If the players on the field are tired the so called prairie dog gives them more time to rest between plays. These offenses are about using tempo to create momentum and minimize the D's ability to change schemes via positional/situational substitutions. Those are perfectly legitimate objectives. Funny how teams with huge and fast DL that defeat theses offenses don't seem to have a problem with fatigue or injuries or substitutions.

freshfunk;842282766 said:

---

Both tweets are meaningless analogies (fast break in basketball? Injuries in golf?) and strike me as petty.

The rule as proposed is pretty ridiculous but, in general, I have no problem with allowing a defensive substitution. Whether injuries are proven or not, I think it comes down more to the fundamental principles of football (people can make their own subjective opinion).

To some degree, going fast is an exploit in the rules in the sense that it's used to prevent substitutions (minus low clock situations). I'm ok with this. But if these offenses absolutely falls apart without that exploit, then that offensive system is pretty weak imo. You've gotta have more going for you than going fast.

---

When it comes to substituting our defense, I'm all for it.

edit: A rule change that limits how quickly our offense goes 3 and out can only help us. But gag me with the obvious and continuous power play on the part of furd. It seems like everytime Cal is about to improve in some way, it gets exploded. I gotta think furd is at least partly behind this. IMO furd has way too much power in the NCAA as it is.

I'm not an Oregon fan. Could care less what their coaching staff tweets about.

If we didn't go 1-11 it probably wouldn't have bothered me. From my perspective, after you fail terribly at something you just shut your mouth and work your tail off.

MoragaBear;842282665 said:

---

Seriously. Frost's tweet is perfect. Should he stfu, too?

It's not about excuse-making. It's about bringing to light how silly and self-serving the proposal is that's being pushed forward by coaches like Saban who want the game played their way and their way alone.

---

Is it surprising that the usual suspects are responding complaining about tweet

beelzebear;842282886 said:

---

re: Sonny Dykes, I'd prefer winning to talking, especially given his record and his recruiting prediction. Look if your team is losing (historically at that), concentrate on winning.

---

:bravo

The rule change is silly, especially "delay of game" for going too fast.
Let the officials hold the ball for eight seconds then another couple of seconds to put it down (and they can look to the sidelines to see if the f'ing TV commercials are finished).
Then play begins.
The rule makers and rule advisers are far from being the best and brightest.

rjgoode;842282630 said:

---

Not a big fan of the tweet.

My initial thought after reading it:

"STFU, walk over to your whiteboard, and go draw up a play that will actually fool a defense next year"

---

or this

Tyler ‏@SuperYoda08 Feb 15
@CALCoachDykes leave cal pls.

71Bear;842282577 said:

---

Any rule change that improves the safety of the game is a good one. This particular rule will not have an impact on teams because snapping the ball within ten seconds of the end of the previous play is rare.

IMO, it would be a good rule.

---

The only injuries this will prevent are the fake ones.

Guys, this is a rule change to help the slow, shitty offenses of the SEC. This screws a LOT of schools we should be in solidarity with, instead of finding idiotic reasons to justify yet another SEC power grab just because you don't like the current coach.

Think for yourselves once in a while. We used to go to Cal, did we forget everything?

The up tempo offense is great for preventing injuries as it forces offenses and defenses to be in better shape and carry less body fat. I'm not even a spread fan as I think it is far too trendy at the moment and not the secret sauce that many people make it out to be, but football has always been about innovations and the NCAA attempting to curb this one is a step towards ruining a great fucking sport. The spread will not go away, but if left alone, defenses will get lighter and faster, and then teams will start to go back to power and controlling the clock to beat those lighter defenses, and everything will continue in the same circle it has been in since the beginning of the game...

BeachyBear;842283592 said:

---

The only injuries this will prevent are the fake ones.

Guys, this is a rule change to help the slow, shitty offenses of the SEC. This screws a LOT of schools we should be in solidarity with, instead of finding idiotic reasons to justify yet another SEC power grab just because you don't like the current coach.

Think for yourselves once in a while. We used to go to Cal, did we forget everything?

---

Get over yourself. What makes you think supporters of the rule are more likely to be impacted by dislike for Sonny than people against the rule are impacted by their support of Sonny. Funny, when we got caught flopping, this board was universal in its belief that Oregon's tactics were BS.

I've wanted the rule changed since before Sonny was associated with Cal. Even in hurry up, the main reason to snap the ball under 10 seconds is not to increase the pace but to snap it when the defense tries to sub. This won't slow things down at all. It just gives the certainty to the defense that they can run a sub in if they are quick.

OaktownBear;842283600 said:

---

Funny, when we got caught flopping, this board was universal in its belief that Oregon's tactics were BS.

---

"Universal in its belief"? Hardly. I think the only thing close to "universal" was that most felt going to the ground made sense if a player was actually hurt and needed to be subbed out. Many were embarrassed when it turned out we did it for tactical reasons. Some felt faking injury for tactical reasons was OK. Some felt playing fast as Oregon and many other offenses do (us now) was BS, but I know that I and many others thought it was smart and wished we would do it some ourselves (Riley and Mansion were always more effective in our "hurry-up" offense).

rjgoode;842283027 said:

---

I'm not an Oregon fan. Could care less what their coaching staff tweets about.

If we didn't go 1-11 it probably wouldn't have bothered me. From my perspective, after you fail terribly at something you just shut your mouth and work your tail off.

---

I'm not an Oregon fan, in general I don't care about their tweets, but I have always had a certain amount of respect for Scott Frost. Anyone who realizes that going to Stanford was a mistake and transfers the heck out of there deserves some respect.

And if Sonny was griping about a done deal, I'd agree, just shut your mouth. However, since the rule change is hardly a done deal, lobbying against the change isn't a bad idea. When the committee seemed mostly to listen to coaches who run a slow pace offense, especially a coach like Nick Saban who just got beaten by a fast paced offense in his last game, well, the more coaches who get out there with an opposing viewpoint, the better for trying to defeat the proposed rule. I don't have a strong opinion about the rule, but assuming that the rule is bad for the Sonny offense, then it makes absolute sense for him to spend a little (not a lot, but a little) time working against it.

If and when the proposed rule becomes an actual rule, then it is time for Sonny to shut up. If Sonny were spending a lot of time lobbying against the rule, it would bother me. But a single Tween about it, or even three or four, and a few discussions with other coaches about how to defeat the proposed rule, doesn't seem like a problem.

OaktownBear;842283600 said:

---

Even in hurry up, the main reason to snap the ball under 10 seconds is not to increase the pace but to snap it when the defense tries to sub. This won't slow things down at all. It just gives the certainty to the defense that they can run a sub in if they are quick.

---

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but isn't it the case that the D currently is given time to substitute if the O substitutes?

Yes. This rule would apply in situations when the O doesn't substitute.l

It's no surprise to me that this rule favors schools that can regularly recruit massive OLs (i.e. furd and -bama). Such schools can run old pro-style offenses with pronounced success. Schools that have trouble dominating the LOS have to use a different type of offensive scheme that puts less emphasis on the quality of the OL, although the OL will always be very important in any scheme. One way to do this is with speed and tempo. Personally I don't really like the fast tempo offense because I like drama contained in the build-ups between plays and I like to see slow developing plays for the same reason. But creating rules that specifically discourage such schemes is a blatant way to create favoritism for the pro style schemes. That's not good either.

Now all Saban has to do is figure out how to get his big slow OLs off the field during FG tries or simply create a rule that prohibits a player from returning a missed FG attempt.:headbang

It's obvious that te opinion of some will sway with the wind, whichever the way it blows. When we played Oregon in '09 ('10?) quick tempo was a gimmick and fatigued players were legitimately staying down. When we adopted uptempo, it suddenly became the smart thing to do as we got a chance to talk about the Northwestern diving team.

If we were still under JT, would anyone care that much about this potential rule change? In fact, wouldn't many here relish to see Oregon's play fall a bit rather than lauding the words of their coaches.

I agree the Sonny should seek out his best interests and so should the fans (as the ones seeking the rule change are also looking out for their best interests). However, one can't help but feel there's a bit of a double standard here.

Kudos to those who took a position and stood by it regardless of the flavor of the day.... some around here are nothing but partisanship.

freshfunk;842283743 said:

---

It's obvious that te opinion of some will sway with the wind, whichever the way it blows. When we played Oregon in '09 ('10?) quick tempo was a gimmick and fatigued players were legitimately staying down. When we adopted uptempo, it suddenly became the smart thing to do as we got a chance to talk about the Northwestern diving team.

If we were still under JT, would anyone care that much about this potential rule change? In fact, wouldn't many here relish to see Oregon's play fall a bit rather than lauding the words of their coaches.

I agree the Sonny should seek out his best interests and so should the fans (as the ones seeking the rule change are also looking out for their best interests). However, one can't help but feel there's a bit of a double standard here.

Kudos to those who took a position and stood by it regardless of the flavor of the day.... some around here are nothing but partisanship.

---

at the end of the day, as long as it means Cal wins more (w/o threat of sanctions), i'm all for it, whatever it is. hell, i wouldn't even care if Cal cheated or cut some corners--as i'm sure most all college programs do--at this point.

beeasyed;842283747 said:

---

at the end of the day, as long as it means Cal wins more (w/o threat of sanctions), i'm all for it, whatever it is. hell, i wouldn't even care if Cal cheated or cut some corners--as i'm sure most all college programs do--at this point.

---

You beat me to it Beeasyed. I am completely biased about doing whatever is in Cal's best interests. Most of us are.

NYCGOBEARS;842283750 said:

---

You beat me to it Beeasyed. I am completely biased about doing whatever is in Cal's best interests. Most of us are.

---

that applies to almost every situation, for me.

is To$h a dirtbag? yes, a well established one, even before he jumped ship (LOLship). but he was OUR dbag and he landed us guys. and that's why we were willing to look the other way.

same goes for us "faking cramps/injuries". who us? nope, never. what? we just magically stopped Oregon's defense.

Cal can do no wrong--as long as we win. truck & trample everything, steamroll everyone who gets in our way.