Saban draws comparisons to smoking heaters and the HUNH

[WizardHawk]

In this situation, it was every game played by FBS team in the 2012.

Many want to believe that more plays increases the chance of injury. However, the style of play is a greater factor.

HUND is less smash-mouth football and more speed and deception. This decrease the chance of injury.
Hard hitting smash-mouth football is more physical and increases the chances of injury. It just so happens that most of these teams take more time to run plays.
The data from 2012 indicated that more plays did not increase the chance of injury. From this can be taken that physical football with fewer plays has more chances for injury that fast HUND football.

Sometimes common sense isn't always right. Here's an example: Order can come out of chaos. Hence, Chaos Theory.

Um no. Sorry, but again that's just not how it works.

This really isn't rocket science. No, really it isn't.

If running ANY play gives you some amount of risk of injury, then adding more plays increases that risk. That is absolute truth. PERIOD.

What you are confusing is how to asses that risk. And you are also adding factors not related.

Sure, the style also has influence. Of course it does. But there is NO offense you run that reduces your risk of injury to zero. Therefore running anything and doing more of it adds injury potential. However I don't believe it adds much as the risk of injury per play isn't that great to begin with and we are talking about adding 10-15 plays per game more at best. It is still there and it requires a total lapse of reason to say otherwise.

The only room for discussion is how many more injuries per year are we potentially talking about and does that increased risk mean something should be done about it. My take is the risk is minimal and no, nothing should be done about it. You have have a different take. However you can't have a different take on having some added risk.

 

[charlie42s]

... If running ANY play gives you some amount of risk of injury, then adding more plays increases that risk. That is absolute truth. PERIOD.

Your initial assumption is simplistic. Running different plays changes the risk of injury. A run play into the tackles has a higher risk of injury than an unexpected sweep without opposition.

What you are confusing is how to asses that risk. And you are also adding factors not related.

I disagree and you haven't even bother to explain your assessment.

Sure, the style also has influence. Of course it does. But there is NO offense you run that reduces your risk of injury to zero.

So, style has influence, but not enough to affect injury rate? Bullshit.

AFA risk of injury to zero, I never mentioned a zero risk of injury, that was you. I'll assume it was an attempt to confuse the discussion or you are confused. Either way it didn't work.

 

[charlie42s]

AFA your Rocket Science comment. Rocket Science is actually simpler than football. Football involves 22 individuals who sometimes act randomly, while physics is repeatable. That's why Rocketry is a science and football isn't.

 

[WizardHawk]

Your initial assumption is simplistic. Running different plays changes the risk of injury. A run play into the tackles has a higher risk of injury than an unexpected sweep without opposition.

And both are above zero risk right? That's the point.

I disagree and you haven't even bother to explain your assessment.

Sure I have. I have made it fairly clear too. Not my fault if it isn't understood. Ask better questions.

So, style has influence, but not enough to affect injury rate? Bullshit.

Where did I say that? I said style is separate. That's not saying it has no influence. You do realize the HUNH isn't a style of play, it's a style of how to run between plays and how to get plays on the field. You can run passes, runs, sweeps, and every other play in the book out of it. Your style opinions are moot because of it.

AFA risk of injury to zero, I never mentioned a zero risk of injury, that was you. I'll assume it was an attempt to confuse the discussion or you are confused. Either way it didn't work.

How is it that anyone can fail to get something this simple? If every play assumes some risk then how on earth is it possible to not add more risk by adding more plays? You have no answer for that at all. It is you that is trying to distract.

You just can't win this argument. It isn't possible because it requires one to abandon reason. If you can run a rushing play off tackle and a sweep both out of the huddle or with a hurry up no huddle then adding them in is moot. The question is does adding more plays per game add more risk of injury and the answer is clearly 100% yes and without any room for debate AT ALL. It is just that easy.

Again, that risk isn't big given how many plays are ran each year and how many injuries there are per play. Those in support of keeping the HUNH are simply picking the wrong battle when fighting the bama supporters who are blindly supporting the ridiculous rule change requests of their HC.

 

[4down20]

You said several times in the first month you were here things to the effect of:
This is why I don't talk on forums. I don't know why I'm here. If this is how things are here I won't be here long.

No biggie to me. You survived it and found some decent friends while here. I'm sure you admit things were much better during the season than either last dead season or the start to this dead season right? If the trolls, whether they be mods or not, are making things that bad that you just don't like it then maybe just pop in less until next season and check back in. All good to me either way. I probably tried to run you off last year, but you survived it and I think I've given you respect since then.

Well I do not have much patience or care for dumb crap, no doubt about that.

I think I'm just going to give it back to people, I have a feeling when things are on the other foot they won't find it so funny.

 

[4down20]

LOL, good to see Bammers still jacking off to their 1st win over their Daddy

Good to see you got your mouth open to catch it.

 

[charlie42s]

The question is does adding more plays per game add more risk of injury and the answer is clearly 100% yes and without any room for debate AT ALL. It is just that easy.

No, it isn't. I like how you ignore the 2012 statistics and decide your opinion is outweighs that.

Yep, you are now ignored.

 

[4down20]

No, it isn't. I like how you ignore the 2012 statistics and decide your opinion is outweighs that.

Yep, you are now ignored.

Those 2012 stats were flawed as has been pointed out. They only counted missed starts in the next game, not all injuries because injuries aren't readily reported in college football. They didn't focus on if a team was playing a HUNH or not, it just counted all injuries for a team on both sides of the ball. Didn't take into account the opponents being played, or do anything that could even remotely be a sign of significant data.

He's just saying common sense. As a doctor with 30 years experience with football also said in the article originally posted. But I guess you put that doctor on ignore because he didn't think your 2012 data had any merit.

From that article:

Dr. Julian Bailes has been around the game for more than 30 years. He's the chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery and co-director of the NorthShore Neurological Institute in Evanston, Ill.

"I think it's not accurate when people say we have to study this because we don't have any evidence or know anything about it," Bailes said. "I don't think that's true. I think we have some facts and do know something about it. Now, we probably should study it more. But to say we don't know anything about this is disingenuous and inaccurate."

In particular, Bailes points out that studies have shown that players are seven times more at risk to be injured in games than in practice.

"If you play more snaps, you're going to have more exposure. I think that's a fact," said Bailes, who's been a consultant for the NFL Players Association and an advisor to the NCAA. "It bears very serious consideration on whether the game should be slowed down or have fewer plays if you believe exposure equals injury risk or player safety.

"We know if you play another 20 to 25 snaps a game, you're going to have more exposure to all injuries, and you're going to have more potential for concussions, and you're going to have more blows to the head, whether they call them concussions or not."

 

[4down20]

Janet Jackson - Nasty (Official Music Video) - YouTube

That's right Ms. Jackson.

 

[potzer25]

Um no. Sorry, but again that's just not how it works.

This really isn't rocket science. No, really it isn't.

If running ANY play gives you some amount of risk of injury, then adding more plays increases that risk. That is absolute truth. PERIOD.

What you are confusing is how to asses that risk. And you are also adding factors not related.

Sure, the style also has influence. Of course it does. But there is NO offense you run that reduces your risk of injury to zero. Therefore running anything and doing more of it adds injury potential. However I don't believe it adds much as the risk of injury per play isn't that great to begin with and we are talking about adding 10-15 plays per game more at best. It is still there and it requires a total lapse of reason to say otherwise.

The only room for discussion is how many more injuries per year are we potentially talking about and does that increased risk mean something should be done about it. My take is the risk is minimal and no, nothing should be done about it. You have have a different take. However you can't have a different take on having some added risk.

well...since the stupid rule would have only prevented a couple extra plays per game, since HUNH teams seldom snap before the 29 second mark, the rule proposal was stupid. qed.

 

[WizardHawk]

No, it isn't. I like how you ignore the 2012 statistics and decide your opinion is outweighs that.

Yep, you are now ignored.

I ignored what stats? I have no need to look at something that is flawed. You cannot look at two teams and draw conclusions about how much more risk there is in their style. It isn't even near close enough to enough data to crunch. Injuries are sort of random in nature. You deal in probabilities and that's where some of you are getting lost. I know how hard probabilities is for those not familiar with it.

How many teams in FBS run the HUNH full time? I don't know the answer, but I'd guess it's not that many yet. You don't have enough to have any real data.

But outside of that, look at even your own team, or any other team for that matter and compare injuries this year to last, and the year before. Presuming they played the same style did they have the EXACT same number of injuries in the last 3 years? No, of course not.

So how on earth is any rough look at one season comparing different teams and only looking at games missed as a premise for looking at injury with such a small sample size supposed to give us anything? It can't. If you really want me to go get my charts and tell you how many games you would need to begin to get a large enough sample size to minimize standard deviation I will, but I can already guess it would be many years.

All you need to do is answer two questions:
Does every type of football play have some type of risk of injury.
Would adding more of them increase that risk.

If you answer anything other than yes to either you are beyond help.

well...since the stupid rule would have only prevented a couple extra plays per game, since HUNH teams seldom snap before the 29 second mark, the rule proposal was stupid. qed.

I'm not in favor of that rule, nor doing anything else to stop those teams running it. My team ran it last year and might run it again this year under our new HC as his last team ran it as well.

Don't misunderstand my keeping facts real for also taking those facts to mean something should be done about it. I'd actually rather see big hits over the middle be a part of the game again. I'd like to see QB's get knocked down again. I'm not for this pussification of the game.

 

[4down20]

well...since the stupid rule would have only prevented a couple extra plays per game, since HUNH teams seldom snap before the 29 second mark, the rule proposal was stupid. qed.

I agree it wouldn't have made much difference in the speed of the game. But as far as safety the benefit of the rule was allowing the defensive players to get out of the game when needed. More substitutions = less plays for individual players.

 

[WizardHawk]

I agree it wouldn't have made much difference in the speed of the game. But as far as safety the benefit of the rule was allowing the defensive players to get out of the game when needed. More substitutions = less plays for individual players.

It is still pussifying the game. Injuries happen. Don't want injuries to your defense? Get them in better condition and work on faster substitutions. Teams that run the HUNH don't have issues with their defenses getting on and off the field.

Regulating speed as a substitution for adapting to the changing times is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in this sport.

Does it add a chance at more injuries? Of course it does, but this is FUCKING FOOTBALL.

God I wish some of you would get the tampons out of your manginas. Maybe soccer is a better sport for those who are worried about safety.

Honestly I'm glad charlie is now ignoring me as well as ignoring common sense. Anyone who believes a flawed small sample set loose look at games is more valid than the basic common sense concept that if every play assumes some risk that adding more plays adds more risks has no hope of getting anywhere in life anyway.

 

[BamaTee1]

It is still pussifying the game. Injuries happen. Don't want injuries to your defense? Get them in better condition and work on faster substitutions. Teams that run the HUNH don't have issues with their defenses getting on and off the field.

Regulating speed as a substitution for adapting to the changing times is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in this sport.

Does it add a chance at more injuries? Of course it does, but this is FUCKING FOOTBALL.

God I wish some of you would get the tampons out of your manginas. Maybe soccer is a better sport for those who are worried about safety.

Honestly I'm glad charlie is now ignoring me as well as ignoring common sense. Anyone who believes a flawed small sample set loose look at games is more valid than the basic common sense concept that if every play assumes some risk that adding more plays adds more risks has no hope of getting anywhere in life anyway.

How about targeting that makes the defenders think twice in separating the ball from the receiver with a great hit. You saw penalty flags fly just because a hit looked violent no matter how clean. It was still a 15 yard penalty whether it was deemed clean afterwards. Were you bitching then? (we all know what you will say but we wonder the truth). I started seeing DB's pull up big time from hits because of this penalty that led to receptions. Talk about changing the structure of the game and how it's played!

How about pussifying the game with basically two hand touch on QB and he can throw the ball away from almost anywhere and not get grounding. And I dare a defensive player to even push the QB a little right after he throws it away. A play that should have been a sack or grounding turns into a 15 yard penalty against the defense. Were you bitching about the pussfying of the game then too? (again we know what you will say but we wonder the truth).

In my playing days it was constantly preached how being fatigue would lead to more injuries. I'm sure in your world that's just a pussy.

There have been tons of rule changes that did not have to do with safety or was not researched extensively. I saw where some coaches say you had to show there were safety issues to make a rule change. OL being able to use hands in blocking and hold jerseys inside was safety? DB's not being able to bump receivers after 5 yards was safety? Never calling OL for being set for one full second is safety? Or down field for that matter?

The biggest point that Saban makes is the damn officials are out of position the majority of the time when ball is snapped from doing everything to spot ball faster! Very very legitimate point! If people read what Saban said and didn't just come in here and pile on they would see he has several issues to look at with the HUNH. NOT JUST SAFETY! That's been y'alls choice! Looks like you've enjoyed it a little too much as well!

I agree with you comments on number of plays and more plays going to mean more injuries doesn't take a rocket scientist! Ad their would be less plays and my next post will tell why.

 

[BamaTee1]

well...since the stupid rule would have only prevented a couple extra plays per game, since HUNH teams seldom snap before the 29 second mark, the rule proposal was stupid. qed.

You're so wrong. HUNH run it to keep the defense from being able to substitute and anyone can say what they want but when a HUNH team decides to keeps subs from happening they can and will. The 10 second runoff will prevent that motive so you will not see teams do it as much. They still might run fast but nothing like now. Over the course of a game plays would drop drastically! You can deny this all you want but when a motive is taken away there is no reason to do it. A HUNH depends on tempo and that would impact that as well. Number of plays would drop significantly and thus injuries!

I should have said would have since it is tabled for now!

 

[TexasExes98]

Good to see you got your mouth open to catch it.

He so nasty!

 

[mrwallace2ku]

One things for sure...


Bama "Spring ball" is right around the corner and with new hire L Kiffin, it is going to be interesting to see the 1st 25 play script of the Tide's O.


amirite?

 

[WizardHawk]

The idea of setting a rule to allow defenses to sub to reduce injuries is as stupid as saying adding more plays doesn't add more injury chances. It might reduce an injury or two per year from all of D1 at most. It's an excuse to not learn how to defend it properly and nothing more.

On a related note, to figure out how much more risk there is to adding more plays you have to first figure out how many serious injuries there are per year at the major college level. The Take the total number of plays over that season. That only tells you the average risk per play for any one player to get injured. Add 10 to 15 more per game and multiply by the rate you figured out above.

I saying it isn't that much risk. How many overall serious injuries are there per year on any given team? 3? Maybe 4 or 5 on a bad year? Let's say the average is 6 just to have a 50% chance per game of having a significant injury. Adding 10% more plays would add at most one extra injury every two years. And that's assuming a rate that is probably far greater than reality. If the average is more like 3 a year it is an extra injury once every 4 seasons.

To say it adds no risk is nothing short of pure stupidity. It just doesn't add that much.

 

[4down20]

It is still pussifying the game. Injuries happen. Don't want injuries to your defense? Get them in better condition and work on faster substitutions. Teams that run the HUNH don't have issues with their defenses getting on and off the field.

Regulating speed as a substitution for adapting to the changing times is possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in this sport.

Does it add a chance at more injuries? Of course it does, but this is FUCKING FOOTBALL.

God I wish some of you would get the tampons out of your manginas. Maybe soccer is a better sport for those who are worried about safety.

Honestly I'm glad charlie is now ignoring me as well as ignoring common sense. Anyone who believes a flawed small sample set loose look at games is more valid than the basic common sense concept that if every play assumes some risk that adding more plays adds more risks has no hope of getting anywhere in life anyway.

My reasons aren't player safety, I'm just pointing out that people who say there isn't any link there are wrong.

I think it's horrible football. You say such a rule is pussification, but I think trying to get to the line in order to catch the other team out of position and not allow them to substitute is pussification. It's about like trying to sucker punch someone.

This wasn't an issue on the 25 second clock, it's only been an issue since the 40 second clock since officials try to set the ball as soon as possible.

 

[4down20]

The idea of setting a rule to allow defenses to sub to reduce injuries is as stupid as saying adding more plays doesn't add more injury chances. It might reduce an injury or two per year from all of D1 at most. It's an excuse to not learn how to defend it properly and nothing more.

On a related note, to figure out how much more risk there is to adding more plays you have to first figure out how many serious injuries there are per year at the major college level. The Take the total number of plays over that season. That only tells you the average risk per play for any one player to get injured. Add 10 to 15 more per game and multiply by the rate you figured out above.

Not exactly. It's not just a flat increase in % of chances as you are saying here. There is an exponential increase as player fatigue increases. The more fatigued a player gets, the higher the risk. This has been proven in the past because they are more likely to use poor techniques and such when they are tired.

That's what this study in hockey found out.

In-game fatigue influences concussions in nat... [Res Sports Med. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

It also says that the arguments people are making about an increase in games was not a significant factor - although I would have to agree with your assessment that more exposure = more risk, just not a higher risk. What this study is mostly talking about is fatigue later in individual games, which is obviously reset when a new game is played.

"A player's total ice time for the season was not a significant predictor, however, and there was no significant difference found in the number of games played in the season between those who suffered a concussion and those who did not. These data suggest that in-game fatigue is an important factor when considering concussions."