Saban & Bielema behind the kill uptempo offense rule

[Codaxx]

No I'm not! There is no way that is accurate Codaxx! You're a big numbers guy. How can you accept the data of research done by a writer with an agenda? The article is trying to make fun of the safety comments and do what's being done in here. He uses 15 teams on each side using several questionable teams of what side they should even be on. Knowing what we know there is no way he has accurate injury reports. He might be close but no way he has it exact. He also might be miles off. I will not accept trash! You might? You really think he has accurate data or just want to say so because it backs your point? I have always thought you would be logical in this type research.

What questionable teams? Why is it trash? What have you found lacking in the methodology? Is your objection to the finding or to the trial?

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Nick Saban vs. Dan Mullen on spread offenses | Gator Bytes blog: University of Florida | The Palm Beach Post

Here is an article from 2009 with quotes on Saban saying the spread is difficult to defend and he thinks it hurts players chances of going pro. No word on safety.

Now he has "evolved" his opinion because his argument that it does an injustice to kids wanting to go to the NFL fell on depth ears.

Like I said. You're a bunch of suckers. Saban doesn't like the spread. He has been quoted multiple times on how difficult it is to defend and now his tune is he is worried about player safety. Give me a fucking break.

Did you read the article, Saban made some really good points about player evaluation at the pro level that made sense when looking at the spread style of offense.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

No I'm not! There is no way that is accurate Codaxx! You're a big numbers guy. How can you accept the data of research done by a writer with an agenda? The article is trying to make fun of the safety comments and do what's being done in here. He uses 15 teams on each side using several questionable teams of what side they should even be on. Knowing what we know there is no way he has accurate injury reports. He might be close but no way he has it exact. He also might be miles off. I will not accept trash! You might? You really think he has accurate data or just want to say so because it backs your point? I have always thought you would be logical in this type research.

So now we can only accept data where every possible control has been accounted for? You are spinning sir. You have no data on your side so you must attack the source/data of the counterpoint. Typical...

 

[Hook'Em0608]

Here is some data for the 2012 season. I will show the starts lost to injury rank and their rank by speed of their offense.

1. Colorado St-78
2. UMass-???
3. Arkansas-37
4. Ohio-39
5. Tulane-68
6. Maryland-113
7. Duke-45
8. E. Michigan-92
8. Wyoming-40
8. California-44
8. Georgia-61
12. Colorado-90

Phil Steele

Tempo in college football - Football Study Hall

Wow those fast teams sure are more dangerous!

Crickets...

 

[BamaTee1]

1.) You keep saying that there is no way that report is accurate, yet you have provided nothing other than your opinion to prove otherwise.

2.) Yet he advocates a rule change BEFORE there is any evidence to support such a change.

What data do you want? I'm dismissing their data and it's quite easy to shoot holes in! Post made to Codaxx just above regarding this:

No I'm not! There is no way that is accurate Codaxx! You're a big numbers guy. How can you accept the data of research done by a writer with an agenda? The article is trying to make fun of the safety comments and do what's being done in here. He uses 15 teams on each side using several questionable teams of what side they should even be on. Knowing what we know there is no way he has accurate injury reports. He might be close but no way he has it exact. He also might be miles off. I will not accept trash! You might? You really think he has accurate data or just want to say so because it backs your point? I have always thought you would be logical in this type research.

Here's another post of mine in response to Wild Turkey in asking if we truly back the rule only for safety. Just so you know it's not just about safety:

Not for me! I think there is a safety issue and that is a glaring issue with the committee these days but I also think defenses have been handicapped severely over recent years and when you add this HUNH to the equation it's like adding fuel to the fire. It just explodes!

For the record, Saban has said all the above but it seems only the safety issue has been plucked out and used to accuse him of a whiner! There are tons of fans of great defense and to just say the game is much better with tons of offense is narrow minded! Why don't we just take up arena football rules?

 

[trojanfan12]

In all honesty I have changed my opinion on certain topics when an alternate opinion was presented by a poster I respected in a non-combative way and with reasonable data to back that position.

That is one of my favorite things about these forums that posters are located in different areas and have access to different beat writers that I couldn't possibly hope to follow. Every team has an inside guy like Cecil Hurt for Bama and Phillip Marshall for Auburn and those type guys typically know what is really happening.

Any reasonable person is always open to the possibility that they could be mistaken and there is no shame in admitting your position has changed when it does. If we always agreed or didn't learn anything in the process of posting this would be one big bore feast.

Open-mindedness and rationale on a sports message board?!?

Someone needs to perma-ban this troll immediately!! There is no room for his kind here!!

 

[Hook'Em0608]

I think there are some on this thread who need one of these...

 

[BamaTee1]

1.) You keep saying that there is no way that report is accurate, yet you have provided nothing other than your opinion to prove otherwise.

2.) Yet he advocates a rule change BEFORE there is any evidence to support such a change.

Where did he advocate a rule change? He said they might want to look into it. You get advocate a rule change from that?

 

[potzer25]

Did you read the article, Saban made some really good points about player evaluation at the pro level that made sense when looking at the spread style of offense.

So what. The NFL is moving in the same direction but slower. The NFL is more conservative. Does that mean CFB should change the rules to slow down the progress of innovative football because some coaches can't or don't want to adapt?

This has nothing to do with player safety. That is just the latest excuse being used by those that don't like the direction offenses are headed.

 

[charlie42s]

All data is from 2012, team plays/game, starts lost to injuries
Top 5 teams with most plays
Marshall 92.8 11
La Tech 88.6 2
Clemson 85.3 13
Nevada 84.6 14
Baylor 84.0 15

Slowest 5 teams
Auburn 60.5 22
C Michigan 64.4 11
Rutgers 64.4 17
Michigan 64.5 23
Temple 65.1 9

5 Most injured, lost starts, plays
Colorado State 53 65.8(116)
U Mass 45 73.8(56)
Arkansas 44 70.5(79)
Ohio 41 79.7(18)
Tulane 39 70.7(78)

Least Injured
La Tech 2 88.5(2)
Miss State 4 66.8(111)
Arizona State 5 81.5(14)
Northwestern 5 75.8(39)
UTSA 5 67.4(107)
Kansas 5 73.7(57)

Here's more data for BamaTee to ignore and dismiss.

 

[trojanfan12]

What data do you want? I'm dismissing their data and it's quite easy to shoot holes in! Post made to Codaxx just above regarding this:

No I'm not! There is no way that is accurate Codaxx! You're a big numbers guy. How can you accept the data of research done by a writer with an agenda? The article is trying to make fun of the safety comments and do what's being done in here. He uses 15 teams on each side using several questionable teams of what side they should even be on. Knowing what we know there is no way he has accurate injury reports. He might be close but no way he has it exact. He also might be miles off. I will not accept trash! You might? You really think he has accurate data or just want to say so because it backs your point? I have always thought you would be logical in this type research.

Here's another post of mine in response to Wild Turkey in asking if we truly back the rule only for safety. Just so you know it's not just about safety:

Not for me! I think there is a safety issue and that is a glaring issue with the committee these days but I also think defenses have been handicapped severely over recent years and when you add this HUNH to the equation it's like adding fuel to the fire. It just explodes!

For the record, Saban has said all the above but it seems only the safety issue has been plucked out and used to accuse him of a whiner! There are tons of fans of great defense and to just say the game is much better with tons of offense is narrow minded! Why don't we just take up arena football rules?

How about data from an actual study that supports your opinion? Many on here have posted that they disagree with the rule change and with the premise of it being about player safety. A report was then posted that backed up that opinion. Whether you like the results or not and whether you think the author has an "agenda" or not, does not change the fact that a report was produced.

You and others are of the opinion that the result is inaccurate, yet you have produced nothing to disprove the report or to back your own opinion. If player safety is truly an issue as you believe it to be, then a simple google search should be all that is required to back your opinion with actual data.

 

[BamaTee1]

Here is some data for the 2012 season. I will show the starts lost to injury rank and their rank by speed of their offense.

1. Colorado St-78
2. UMass-???
3. Arkansas-37
4. Ohio-39
5. Tulane-68
6. Maryland-113
7. Duke-45
8. E. Michigan-92
8. Wyoming-40
8. California-44
8. Georgia-61
12. Colorado-90

Phil Steele

Tempo in college football - Football Study Hall

Wow those fast teams sure are more dangerous!

So now we know what teams had injuries in one link and what team plays fast in another! How does that have anything to do with this report or issue? We have no clue where or when those injuries occurred?

Do I get a thumbs up now Charlie42s?

 

[charlie42s]

So now we know what teams had injuries in one link and what team plays fast in another! How does that have anything to do with this report or issue? We have no clue where or when those injuries occurred?

 

[trojanfan12]

Where did he advocate a rule change? He said they might want to look into it. You get advocate a rule change from that?

When you ask a rules committee for the opportunity to speak to them about a rule change that is being considered and you support that rule change, you are pretty much advocating for the rule change.

Bielema, Saban supported slow-down rule proposal - NBC Sports | NBC Sports

 

[charlie42s]

I'm done.

 

[Hook'Em0608]

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/72974/injury-impact-sec

The three most injured teams in the SEC last year were Florida, Georgia, and Arkansas. All grind it out slow paced teams.

 

[BamaTee1]

How about data from an actual study that supports your opinion? Many on here have posted that they disagree with the rule change and with the premise of it being about player safety. A report was then posted that backed up that opinion. Whether you like the results or not and whether you think the author has an "agenda" or not, does not change the fact that a report was produced.

You and others are of the opinion that the result is inaccurate, yet you have produced nothing to disprove the report or to back your own opinion. If player safety is truly an issue as you believe it to be, then a simple google search should be all that is required to back your opinion with actual data.

Whoa kimosabe! I never said that HUNH produces more injuries. I don't know! Seems like it would? This is about liking the rule or not and defending my coach! I'm saying it's worth looking into and I like the rule because all the rule changes recently combined with this HUNH have put the defenses at a drastic disadvantage and I like great defense! My comment about common sense seems to tell us that more plays should equal more injuries is just to dismiss that report (along with other things I said) and to validate this rule is certainly worth looking into which is all that is happening as we type. However, most the pro HUNH posters have slammed Saban and anyone who thinks it's worth looking into and not discussed the topic. I've continued to ask who is being more rational?

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

So what. The NFL is moving in the same direction but slower. The NFL is more conservative. Does that mean CFB should change the rules to slow down the progress of innovative football because some coaches can't or don't want to adapt?

This has nothing to do with player safety. That is just the latest excuse being used by those that don't like the direction offenses are headed.

The poster made a claim that Saban used this as an excuse back in 2009, but the article suggests he made comments about the translation of the style to the pro game. 5 years ago very few teams were even considering the spread style being considered now. His comments were relevant and in no way contrary to what he feels is the reason to why he feels its a concern now. And the first round QB's that Mullen placed in the NFL(his point of contention for why it translated well) are both busts.

And your comments on Saban(or coaches) not wanting to adapt shows a lack of insight into the game. Saban(and other coaches) have adapted at each stage to get where they are today as Head Coaches. He has done fairly well against that style of play, not as well as against the tried and true old style of play, but still better than many coaches at that level. Funny how that high flying offense at Auburn needed a special teams play to Beat Saban, and a similar style defense at FSU beat you guys. He will adapt, much the same as he has his entire career and Malzahn will eventually head on down the road to the NFL(since its becoming the next big thing there)

 

[BamaTee1]

Injury impact: Southeastern Conference - ESPN

The three most injured teams in the SEC last year were Florida, Georgia, and Arkansas. All grind it out slow paced teams.

Maybe most those injuries occurred against HUNH teams? Maybe they got hurt in practice? Maybe very few got hurt against other slow teams? How does soley listing the number of injuries a team has and what style they play have to do with; if going against HUNH teams might cause more injuries? I don't get it?

 

[trojanfan12]

Whoa kimosabe! I never said that HUNH produces more injuries. I don't know! Seems like it would? This is about liking the rule or not and defending my coach! I'm saying it's worth looking into and I like the rule because all the rule changes recently combined with this HUNH have put the defenses at a drastic disadvantage and I like great defense! My comment about common sense seems to tell us that more plays should equal more injuries is just to dismiss that report (along with other things I said) and to validate this rule is certainly worth looking into which is all that is happening as we type. However, most the pro HUNH posters have slammed Saban and anyone who thinks it's worth looking into and not discussed the topic. I've continued to ask who is being more rational?

I'm also in favor of looking into it. What I'm NOT in favor of, is making a new rule based on player safety when there isn't enough evidence to support the new rule.

As for the disadvantages to the defense. There are many other rules that can (and should) be changed to lessen the defenses disadvantage without messing with the hunh.

Also, if a defense is organized and paying attention, the hunh isn't all that difficult to figure out. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, defensive personnel changes are situational. Have the players you need ready to go and make your substitutions quickly. Being in the PAC, USC faces about 4-5 teams per season that run some version of the hunh and I don't recall any penalties due to trying to substitute to get the right players on the field.