Bullsfan Posted August 9, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 91 Content Count: 231 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2002 Share Posted August 9, 2006 http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2544174Pretty interesting article as far as rule changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullyPulpit Posted August 9, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 365 Content Count: 6,472 Reputation: 1,899 Days Won: 35 Joined: 02/02/2005 Share Posted August 9, 2006 "I think it will help the underdog teams," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier told USA Today. "If you're the underdog, obviously you would like fewer plays in the game."Idiot! It won't help an underdog who is trailing and trying to make a comeback. It has nothing to do with teams that are favored, it just eliminates some of the excitement from the game if there is a late comeback occurring.I actually think this might help USF. Defense is obviously our strength, and the less the other team's offense can run plays, the less chance they have of getting lucky and scoring on "The Green Wall of Tampa" (we need to name our defense, **** the fact that Gang Green has been taken!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted August 9, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 112 Content Count: 997 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/24/2002 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I understand what he is saying.In the short term you can get ahead of a superior team with a turnover or big play and hold on to win. If the game was played indefinately the stronger team would always catch up and win. Luck and emotion run out and talent and physicality win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullyPulpit Posted August 9, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 365 Content Count: 6,472 Reputation: 1,899 Days Won: 35 Joined: 02/02/2005 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I understand what he is saying.In the short term you can get ahead of a superior team with a turnover or big play and hold on to win. If the game was played indefinately the stronger team would always catch up and win. Luck and emotion run out and talent and physicality win. I agree with what you are saying to an extent. But if luck and emotion still have a team winning or in a game after playing 55+ minutes, it is impossible to say which team the decrease in time benefits. I could understand if they wanted to shorten the game to 4, 10 minutes quarters, but my point is that it is incalcuable to determine which team the reduction in time will benefit without looking at each game individually. Obviously a team that is favored to win and that just scored a go ahead touchdown with 15 seconds to play is getting an advantage on the underdog. His statement does not take into consideration the underdogs who would need a few more seconds to win a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted August 9, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 112 Content Count: 997 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/24/2002 Share Posted August 9, 2006 You are right it can cut both ways and there is no way to know up front which way it will go.The rule I wish they would change is the automatic clock stoppage after a first down during the last 2 minutes of each half. That is an unfair advantage to the offense. It can ruin a game. (ie: ND vs USC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smazza Posted August 9, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 9,898 Content Count: 66,091 Reputation: 2,434 Days Won: 172 Joined: 01/01/2001 Share Posted August 9, 2006 "I think it will help the underdog teams," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier told USA Today. "If you're the underdog, obviously you would like fewer plays in the game." HE IS CORRECT.THERE WILL BE 10-15 LESS PLAYS A GAME.OVER COURSE OF TIME WITH MORE PLAYS TALENT WILL OVERTAKE LESS TALENT.SOMEONE ON THIS BOARD CALLING SPURRIER AN IDIOTT IS FUNNY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted August 9, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 112 Content Count: 997 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/24/2002 Share Posted August 9, 2006 What are you trying to say Steve? ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullyPulpit Posted August 9, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 365 Content Count: 6,472 Reputation: 1,899 Days Won: 35 Joined: 02/02/2005 Share Posted August 9, 2006 "I think it will help the underdog teams," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier told USA Today. "If you're the underdog, obviously you would like fewer plays in the game." HE IS CORRECT.THERE WILL BE 10-15 LESS PLAYS A GAME.OVER COURSE OF TIME WITH MORE PLAYS TALENT WILL OVERTAKE LESS TALENT.SOMEONE ON THIS BOARD CALLING SPURRIER AN IDIOTT IS FUNNYYou are right, I should not cast judgement. I should leave that for the Washington Redskins fans.....I wonder what they think? ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulls96go Posted August 10, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 724 Content Count: 10,219 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/17/2002 Share Posted August 10, 2006 makes no difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigShoop Posted August 10, 2006 Group: Member Topic Count: 219 Content Count: 3,827 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/08/2003 Share Posted August 10, 2006 I just wanna know this: WHY are they doing this? What's the benefit? If they're tired of games running too late, here's a novel idea - START THEM EARLIER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now