Saban draws comparisons to smoking heaters and the HUNH

[BamaTee1]

I admit to stirring the pot a bit but the argument is more plays, not more/less time on the field.

At least we have one guy who is objective enough to call the truth. Who gives a shit how long a player stands around? Boy, you thought you had something there for a moment!

 

[WhiteMamba]

Maybe because the question doesn't remotely matter on the topic itself, unless you are just wanting to hate on Nick Saban.

Haven't you figured this out Authority? They can only determine what "matter" and what doesn't regarding the topic.

Once again, if it is convenient and catering to these two Gumps, then they will respond.

Otherwise, they resort to the same ol song.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Just as I thought. More deflection and drama, but no answers to a serious question. Pretty much the typical response from you and a couple of other Bammers.

Why don't you regale us all with more deflections about 'Bama's NC's or cry some more about how everyone is picking on 'Bama?

Or better yet, you could threaten to leave and not post here anymore, only to change your mind again (after all, it is a woman's prerogative).

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Wasnt directed at you, but if you feel trampled on then I apologize for rustling your jimmies..not really, but still it wasnt directed at you in genereal, but another well known finger giver.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Going to try again:


'Bama fans:


If he is concerned about player safety, then why is he only supporting/endorsing a rule change that benefits the style that his team plays?


There are many other options that he could endorse that would also help with player safety without getting rid of a style of offense that many fans like.


For example:


1.) Shorten the game. Instead of four 15 minute quarters, why not 12 minute quarters? College basketball (far less dangerous) plays two 20 minute halves as opposed to four 12 minute quarters like the NBA.


2.) How about a weight limit? The size and weight of some of these players (especially on the O and D lines) presents far more risk of injury and health issues both in the present and the future than the hunh.

Who says he is only supporting this one possible change? Have you seen something that says he is not in favor of other rules that impact player safety? Are you just assuming because he is not trumpeting other possible rule changes that he is not in favor of them? See this is all speculation on your part to ask such a question to begin with.

Here is the crux of the matter as it stands and i have stated this numerous times. This rule was discussed last year by a committee of "coaches" and voted on with a non pass vote total. It was brought up again this year and Nick asked to speak before the committee, it never went to a vote this year but was shelved. My thoughts are that it was shelved to gather information and "look into it", which is all that Nick asked to have done when he spoke to them to begin with. What is funny is that Nick is not the only Coach trumpeting this thing, but because he is high profile, you all want to "blame" him for anything to do with it.

Now lets think on this a minute, he didnt speak to the committee last year, but the measure was up for a vote, and they didnt even speak to Saban(how dare them since according to the all knowing Spurrier, its his rule) Then this year it didnt go for a vote, but was shelved for what can only be thought of as study time. Whoi knows how long it will take to get a study done. If the NCAA works at its usual pace we wont see this rule voted on again until Nick is retired and buried

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

You keep missing the point. Your Hockey study was not something that Nick referenced.

The question at hand was about Nick's assumptions and reasoning and hypocrosy.

Not some generic non conclusive hockey study that was never brought up

The question at hand is have you read anything on this or are you just running off at the mouth like usual?

Nick has stated on numerous occasions that he doesnt know for sure that this style of non-stop play causes more injuries, yet you call him out as being a hypocrite. What he has doen is total the number of plays(on average) for both styles of play and show that HUHN players are playing in excess of three games more per season on their bodies in the HUHN style of ball, which to anyone with sense would say they have in excess of three games of plays more to possibly injure themselves. Not to mention the wear and tear on the body(which the NCAA is trying to limit on many levels) So to say he is assuming anything(after bringing in a doctors testimony on the subject plus his own research) is clearly reaching to suit your own argument and needs.

I could see that if someone came to you with a study that was about college football that definitively said more plays increases injuries in the game that you would then say it wasnt commissioned by Nick Saban so it doesnt count. Eventually this will be voted on, but no matter if it passes or doesnt, it will never be about Nick Saban because this possible rule change was in existence before he ever spoke to the committee. Want to blame someone, blame the NCAA and its rules committee.

 

[Camfantasy]

Who currs. This shit is dead in the water and isn't getting passed. Everyone without personal bias knows the personal angles being played in the attempt for this rule change. This entire thread is nothing but biased rationalization on both sides trying to follow their leaders and prove to the rest of us fucks why their coach/program knows more than everyone else. You biatches are acting like 5 year olds arguing over whose daddy would whoop the other's ass.

The shit is dead and isn't going to pass this year, next year, or the one after that. So nexxxxxxxt.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Who currs. This shit is dead in the water and isn't getting passed. Everyone without personal bias knows the personal angles being played in the attempt for this rule change. This entire thread is nothing but biased rationalization on both sides trying to follow their leaders and prove to the rest of us fucks why their coach/program knows more than everyone else. You biatches are acting like 5 year olds arguing over whose daddy would whoop the other's ass.

The shit is dead and isn't going to pass this year, next year, or the one after that. So nexxxxxxxt.

We do seem to have a small group on here whether its Duck fans, tOSU fans, Texas fans and yes Bama fans too that have taken it to extreme lengths. While I wont join in the revelry and name calling, i will say that if it wasnt constantly lorded over the Bama fans, they would not have reason to respond back. One thread even had a fruitless bump trying to get it started again to no avail. This shows its all about an agenda in peoples minds and not about the actual issues themselves.

Forgot to name the VT and USC fans too, didnt want to leave them out and rustle their jimmies for not being recognized.

 

[pennstatenut]

The question at hand is have you read anything on this or are you just running off at the mouth like usual?

Nick has stated on numerous occasions that he doesnt know for sure that this style of non-stop play causes more injuries, yet you call him out as being a hypocrite. What he has doen is total the number of plays(on average) for both styles of play and show that HUHN players are playing in excess of three games more per season on their bodies in the HUHN style of ball, which to anyone with sense would say they have in excess of three games of plays more to possibly injure themselves. Not to mention the wear and tear on the body(which the NCAA is trying to limit on many levels) So to say he is assuming anything(after bringing in a doctors testimony on the subject plus his own research) is clearly reaching to suit your own argument and needs.

I could see that if someone came to you with a study that was about college football that definitively said more plays increases injuries in the game that you would then say it wasnt commissioned by Nick Saban so it doesnt count. Eventually this will be voted on, but no matter if it passes or doesnt, it will never be about Nick Saban because this possible rule change was in existence before he ever spoke to the committee. Want to blame someone, blame the NCAA and its rules committee.

Then why in the world would he be in favor of CCG's and a National Playoff?

 

[trojanfan12]

Who says he is only supporting this one possible change? Have you seen something that says he is not in favor of other rules that impact player safety? Are you just assuming because he is not trumpeting other possible rule changes that he is not in favor of them? See this is all speculation on your part to ask such a question to begin with.

Except that he has spoken out on one and only one possible rule change and it was that particular change that he stands to benefit from. It is also the only rule change that he asked to speak to the rules committee about. I have not seen or heard where he has even so much as hinted at any other changes.

While it is certainly possible that he would favor other rule changes, I have not seen or heard him speak about any others. Why is he only speaking out on the one that tends to benefit him and his preferred style?


Here is the crux of the matter as it stands and i have stated this numerous times. This rule was discussed last year by a committee of "coaches" and voted on with a non pass vote total. It was brought up again this year and Nick asked to speak before the committee, it never went to a vote this year but was shelved. My thoughts are that it was shelved to gather information and "look into it", which is all that Nick asked to have done when he spoke to them to begin with. What is funny is that Nick is not the only Coach trumpeting this thing, but because he is high profile, you all want to "blame" him for anything to do with it.

If memory serves, the committee he spoke to did vote on it and it was to be passed on to the next committee was was typically seen as a "rubber stamp" committee. It was shelved by that 2nd committee because the backlash was immediate and loud. Also, Saban has not just asked that it be "looked into" he has also asked if that's the direction we want football to go and has questioned from a strategic point of view as well.

I'm not "blaming" him for anything. I think he said something stupid and self-serving and has continued to dig a deeper hole for himself and that rather than just accept it and move on, certain 'Bama fans are on here spinning like tops and twisting themselves into pretzels trying to defend him. He's spoken out against the hunh since at least 2012.


Now lets think on this a minute, he didnt speak to the committee last year, but the measure was up for a vote, and they didnt even speak to Saban(how dare them since according to the all knowing Spurrier, its his rule) Then this year it didnt go for a vote, but was shelved for what can only be thought of as study time. Whoi knows how long it will take to get a study done. If the NCAA works at its usual pace we wont see this rule voted on again until Nick is retired and buried

Spurrier called it the Saban rule because Saban is the most outspoken and highest profile proponent of the rule and he has been speaking out against the hunh since 2012.

He may have a winning record vs. the hunh, but it is also the style of offense that has given his team the most trouble and appears to be the biggest threat to 'Bama's recent dominance. Is it merely coincidence that he's speaking out about it?

Also, all things considered, it seems as if the vote may very well have passed had he never said anything because it was him asking to speak to the committee that drew all of this attention. So, in short, he may very well be the reason that this rule he wants passed, wasn't passed.

 

[4down20]

Hockey forum is over thar...

Deflection.

Fatigue-induced ACL injury risk stems from a degradation in central control. - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central

RESULTS: Fatigue produced significant (P < 0.01) decreases in IC knee flexion angle and PS knee flexion moment and increases in PS hip internal rotation and knee abduction angles and moments, with differences maintained from 50% fatigue through to maximum. Fatigue-induced increases in PS hip internal rotation angles and PS knee abduction angles and loads were also significantly (P < 0.01) greater during unanticipated landings. Apart from PS hip moments, significant limb differences in fatigued landing biomechanics were not observed.

The association football medical research programme: an audit of injuries in professional football -- Hawkins et al. 35 (1): 43 -- British Journal of Sports Medicine

Results—A total of 6030 injuries were reported over the two seasons with an average of 1.3 injuries per player per season. The mean (SD) number of days absent for each injury was 24.2 (40.2), with 78% of the injuries leading to a minimum of one competitive match being missed. The injury incidence varied throughout the season, with training injuries peaking during July (p<0.05) and match injuries peaking during August (p<0.05). Competition injuries represented 63% of those reported, significantly (p<0.01) more of these injuries occurring towards the end of both halves. Strains (37%) and sprains (19%) were the major injury types, the lower extremity being the site of 87% of the injuries reported. Most injury mechanisms were classified as being non-contact (58%). Re-injuries accounted for 7% of all injuries, 66% of these being classified as either a strain or a sprain. The severity of re-injuries was greater than the initial injury (p<0.01).

etc etc etc.

 

[4down20]

Spurrier called it the Saban rule because Saban is the most outspoken and highest profile proponent of the rule and he has been speaking out against the hunh since 2012.

He may have a winning record vs. the hunh, but it is also the style of offense that has given his team the most trouble and appears to be the biggest threat to 'Bama's recent dominance. Is it merely coincidence that he's speaking out about it?

Also, all things considered, it seems as if the vote may very well have passed had he never said anything because it was him asking to speak to the committee that drew all of this attention. So, in short, he may very well be the reason that this rule he wants passed, wasn't passed.

Spurrier also said Alabama could beat an NFL team a few years ago.

He's all about shock value. Which is entertaining and all, I personally like him for it. But it's not like he's known for being the most serious and credible person ever.

As for giving Alabama the most trouble. Alabama has lost 4 games in the past 3 years. Teams that finished #2, #2, #5, #6. I think maybe there is another pattern forming.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Then why in the world would he be in favor of CCG's and a National Playoff?

The game is going to evolve into that anyway and the NCAA is behind it, thats why. Does that mean we have to kill the players on the field for 12 games with almost 90 plays per game, only to make them play 2 or three more games with that many plays per game too. The NCAA is lessening on field contact in every way they can trying to get a playoff system in place, this would be another possible step in the process if it yields results they find tangible.

 

[cane_man]

Who says he is only supporting this one possible change? Have you seen something that says he is not in favor of other rules that impact player safety? Are you just assuming because he is not trumpeting other possible rule changes that he is not in favor of them? See this is all speculation on your part to ask such a question to begin with.

Here is the crux of the matter as it stands and i have stated this numerous times. This rule was discussed last year by a committee of "coaches" and voted on with a non pass vote total. It was brought up again this year and Nick asked to speak before the committee, it never went to a vote this year but was shelved. My thoughts are that it was shelved to gather information and "look into it", which is all that Nick asked to have done when he spoke to them to begin with. What is funny is that Nick is not the only Coach trumpeting this thing, but because he is high profile, you all want to "blame" him for anything to do with it.

Now lets think on this a minute, he didnt speak to the committee last year, but the measure was up for a vote, and they didnt even speak to Saban(how dare them since according to the all knowing Spurrier, its his rule) Then this year it didnt go for a vote, but was shelved for what can only be thought of as study time. Whoi knows how long it will take to get a study done. If the NCAA works at its usual pace we wont see this rule voted on again until Nick is retired and buried

Did a gumper just finally admit saban asked to speak to the committee?

Brb, I gotta go change my drawers.

 

[4down20]

Then why in the world would he be in favor of CCG's and a National Playoff?

Are you seriously unable to understand anything that isn't some extreme? Is it not possible for you to think that maybe there is more than 1 single factor involved here? As I said earlier, it's ALL, not even just Nick Saban, about increasing player safety WHILE maintaining and improving the game itself.

Which is why nobody is wanting to put players in bubbles. Why nobody is wanting to reduce the game down to 12 or 5 minute quarters, or just stop playing football completely.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Spurrier called it the Saban rule because Saban is the most outspoken and highest profile proponent of the rule and he has been speaking out against the hunh since 2012.

He may have a winning record vs. the hunh, but it is also the style of offense that has given his team the most trouble and appears to be the biggest threat to 'Bama's recent dominance. Is it merely coincidence that he's speaking out about it?

Also, all things considered, it seems as if the vote may very well have passed had he never said anything because it was him asking to speak to the committee that drew all of this attention. So, in short, he may very well be the reason that this rule he wants passed, wasn't passed.

I dont think its merely coincidence, but I dont think its something he cannot deal with in game with a few tweaks of his game style and planning either. Many of you anti-Saban posters have as much as said he is scared to play it and cannot adjust to it, this is bullshit at its finest level. He didnt get to be who and what he is by not being able to adjust to the game and anyone who says he cant doesnt know him or his abilities to coach very well.

As for the rule not passing, I still think it was shelved to get more information and several committee members as much as said that after Saban spoke to them. They want to further scrutinize this and gather as much information as possible before creating a mess they have to repeal or vote to remove.

 

[trojanfan12]

We do seem to have a small group on here whether its Duck fans, tOSU fans, Texas fans and yes Bama fans too that have taken it to extreme lengths. While I wont join in the revelry and name calling, i will say that if it wasnt constantly lorded over the Bama fans, they would not have reason to respond back. One thread even had a fruitless bump trying to get it started again to no avail. This shows its all about an agenda in peoples minds and not about the actual issues themselves.

Forgot to name the VT and USC fans too, didnt want to leave them out and rustle their jimmies for not being recognized.

Considering that USC has traditionally played basically the exact same style as 'Bama and has never run the hunh (although Sark says we will be running it some this season), I'm not sure what my "agenda" would be other than not wanting to restrict other teams from running the style of offense that works best for them.

To use Oregon and USC as examples: Oregon played USC trying to use basically the same style of play as USC for decades and got their heads kicked in for decades.

Belotti came in, looked at his athletes strengths and weaknesses, went to more of a spread attack and began having some success. Then Chip Kelly comes along, throws a turbo-charger on it and the Ducks are having the greatest run of success in their history. I don't see a problem with that (other than them being a lot harder to beat now).

Sorry, but I want USC to take the Ducks down by beating them on the football field, not in a rules committee.

 

[Bandwagonbo2]

Did a gumper just finally admit saban asked to speak to the committee?

Brb, I gotta go change my drawers.

This was reported on from the beginning, dont remember a single poster saying he didnt ask to speak to them. What difference does it make if he asked or not, the fact he is a coach and has a vested interest is enough to warrant a chance to speak to them...is it not?

 

[4down20]

Considering that USC has traditionally played basically the exact same style as 'Bama and has never run the hunh (although Sark says we will be running it some this season), I'm not sure what my "agenda" would be other than not wanting to restrict other teams from running the style of offense that works best for them.

To use Oregon and USC as examples: Oregon played USC trying to use basically the same style of play as USC for decades and got their heads kicked in for decades.

Belotti came in, looked at his athletes strengths and weaknesses, went to more of a spread attack and began having some success. Then Chip Kelly comes along, throws a turbo-charger on it and the Ducks are having the greatest run of success in their history. I don't see a problem with that (other than them being a lot harder to beat now).

Sorry, but I want USC to take the Ducks down by beating them on the football field, not in a rules committee.

It's not a style of football anymore than sucker punches are a style of boxing.

Contrary to what people claim, it hasn't been that difficult to adapt too.

Ducks big run is about over. Never seen a team with so much quit in them.

 

[pennstatenut]

Spurrier also said Alabama could beat an NFL team a few years ago.

He's all about shock value. Which is entertaining and all, I personally like him for it. But it's not like he's known for being the most serious and credible person ever.

As for giving Alabama the most trouble. Alabama has lost 4 games in the past 3 years. Teams that finished #2, #2, #5, #6. I think maybe there is another pattern forming.

That HUNH offenses are good?