Wanna Stop Flopping In College Football?

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
I'm 41 and judging by the lifespan of my male family members including my dad and grandpa, I've got about 15 years left. You guys hang around here long enough I'll be worm food.
Oh Geez, this thread turned dark! Doesn't that scare the hell out of you?

I just turned 50. I'll tell you the 10 years from 40 to 50 probably went the fastest of any decade in my life!
 

GesterHawk

Well-Known Member
Just make them sit the remainder of the drive and all of the next. Who wants to lose a starter or a high level back up for that amount of time.

At the end of the game -4 minutes and less - they just sit for the rest of the game.

This would only take 1 addition booth official to monitor.
 

AreWeThereYet

Well-Known Member
I wonder if something minimal would cut down on this. If a player injury causes a time stoppage the player must sit out for 3 plays or a change of possession, whichever comes first.
 

ssckelley

Well-Known Member
I wonder if something minimal would cut down on this. If a player injury causes a time stoppage the player must sit out for 3 plays or a change of possession, whichever comes first.

Yes, this is being made way too complicated for something only a handful of teams do. Just make them sit the remainder of the possession. The only other thing that might need to be added is if under 2 minutes it's a charged time out or a 10 second run off and/or a delay of game penalty.

They really don't need all these extra over the top rules as people here are suggesting. It can always be re-evaluated at a later date if it continues to be a problem.
 

Luftgekuehlt67

Well-Known Member
I'm 41 and judging by the lifespan of my male family members including my dad and grandpa, I've got about 15 years left. You guys hang around here long enough I'll be worm food.
I'm exactly the same age with the same kind of genetics. I have got probably 20 years left, I figure.

I plan to transition into semi-retirement (starting with part time employment) some time over thr next 5-7 years and I can tell you this: I put *nothing* off. If there is something I want to experience, I do it as immediately as is feasible.

"Someday" isn't a thing for everyone, especially when the genetic writing is on the wall. I've been very frank with my wife and kids about it, too.
 

Tigerhawk222

Well-Known Member
Gonna respectfully disagree with proposed changes 2, 4 and 5.

To me, college football's first concern should be the safety and well-being of student athletes, EVEN IF it allows an unscrupulous coach to promote the use of fake injuries. Why? Because real injuries happen in every game, there's absolutely no magic limit on the number or severity, and it's darned near impossible to determine what's fake and what's not. Player health matters above all else.

IMHO, it's fundamentally wrong to punish any team for sustaining "too many injuries," in part because it invites unintended consequences. For instance, the proposed rules would seem to incentivize injured players to try to stay in the game no matter what. Just hop up and keep playing because the team can't afford to have the severity of your bum knee get looked at. Not with a game on the line. Fans have bet big dollars on the outcome!!!

Under these rules, picture Petras ending up on the ground after a big hit on what looks like a game-winning drive late in the Big Ten championship game against Ohio State. He's executed a brilliant drive up to this point, momentum is on Iowa's side, and there's a whole minute + 1 second left to win the game. But wait! Iowa is forced to take an injury timeout--it's third because two injury timeouts were called earlier in what has been a brutally physical game.

Naturally, Ohio State chooses to remove a minute from the game, leaving one second on the clock. Game is essentially over (except we all know Padilla comes in for one play and Johnson makes a miraculous catch of a wobbly pass to win the game as time expires, but you get the idea). Was that punishment fair? Was it good for student athletes? Was it good for the game?

All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for.
 

GesterHawk

Well-Known Member
Gonna respectfully disagree with proposed changes 2, 4 and 5.

To me, college football's first concern should be the safety and well-being of student athletes, EVEN IF it allows an unscrupulous coach to promote the use of fake injuries. Why? Because real injuries happen in every game, there's absolutely no magic limit on the number or severity, and it's darned near impossible to determine what's fake and what's not. Player health matters above all else.

IMHO, it's fundamentally wrong to punish any team for sustaining "too many injuries," in part because it invites unintended consequences. For instance, the proposed rules would seem to incentivize injured players to try to stay in the game no matter what. Just hop up and keep playing because the team can't afford to have the severity of your bum knee get looked at. Not with a game on the line. Fans have bet big dollars on the outcome!!!

Under these rules, picture Petras ending up on the ground after a big hit on what looks like a game-winning drive late in the Big Ten championship game against Ohio State. He's executed a brilliant drive up to this point, momentum is on Iowa's side, and there's a whole minute + 1 second left to win the game. But wait! Iowa is forced to take an injury timeout--it's third because two injury timeouts were called earlier in what has been a brutally physical game.

Naturally, Ohio State chooses to remove a minute from the game, leaving one second on the clock. Game is essentially over (except we all know Padilla comes in for one play and Johnson makes a miraculous catch of a wobbly pass to win the game as time expires, but you get the idea). Was that punishment fair? Was it good for student athletes? Was it good for the game?

All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for.
My stance is that if you are injured bad enough to not be able to make it off under your own power, you need time to be thoroughly evaluated. 1.5 series is probably enough time for that (remainder of the series and all the next.)

At the 4:00 mark at half and the end of the game, you should probably sit out the rest of the clock.

If you send your player in too early, Head Coach is done for the game - unless it is within 4:00 minutes of the end of the game then the HC sits the next game.
 

BrianFerentzForPresident

Well-Known Member
For the record, I know full well the NCAA would never do anything like this, and likely will never change the current rule.

But my rules would eliminate any advantage to flopping by burning either timeouts or clock time, which is the only motivation.
Kirk for commish when he hangs up the hat? A 70 year old gives no shits Kirk would be fun to have in charge.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
Under these rules, picture Petras ending up on the ground after a big hit on what looks like a game-winning drive late in the Big Ten championship game against Ohio State. He's executed a brilliant drive up to this point, momentum is on Iowa's side, and there's a whole minute + 1 second left to win the game. But wait! Iowa is forced to take an injury timeout--it's third because two injury timeouts were called earlier in what has been a brutally physical game.

Naturally, Ohio State chooses to remove a minute from the game, leaving one second on the clock. Game is essentially over (except we all know Padilla comes in for one play and Johnson makes a miraculous catch of a wobbly pass to win the game as time expires, but you get the idea). Was that punishment fair? Was it good for student athletes? Was it good for the game?

All I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for.
Equally likely under your setup:

0:14 left on the clock no timeouts, 2nd and 8, Petras sees a mismatch on 1st down that he knows is going to happen again so he audibles a hurry up play to that side. Ryan Day sees it too but has no timeouts so he yells, "EAGLE, EAGLE" and their DT falls on the ground. Now they have 90 seconds to huddle up, put their backup DT in who's also a five-star, and they blow the play up by fixing the mismatch.

Was that fair? Was it good for student athletes? Was it good for the game?

None of what I said was bullshit and it's prevalent in all levels of football. Kirk Ferentz even said in the presser that two people on his staff played for head coaches who had code words for it and Kirk even said what they were.

What I mentioned above was EXACTLY what Penn State did to us. They saw Goodson find a hole and they needed time to regroup while still saving legitimate timeouts for the end of the game.

You may think that the penalty is too severe, but at least in that case both teams would know what that penalty is going into the game and they'd be on equal ground. And...there would be no diving.
 

Fryowa

Administrator
I'm exactly the same age with the same kind of genetics. I have got probably 20 years left, I figure.

I plan to transition into semi-retirement (starting with part time employment) some time over thr next 5-7 years and I can tell you this: I put *nothing* off. If there is something I want to experience, I do it as immediately as is feasible.

"Someday" isn't a thing for everyone, especially when the genetic writing is on the wall. I've been very frank with my wife and kids about it, too.
I'm not even close to being in a financial place to retire in 5-7 years which is what it is.

So even though it's probably not the smartest thing to do with my money we drive 5 and a half hours to all the home games now and I got season wrestling tickets too. Memories you can't buy even if you're a millionaire. I work in finance and even I laugh at the financial planner dickheads who try to show me withdrawal schedules for my retirement and try to convince me that I'll still need money when I'm 80 or 85. Even if I make it to 75 I won't be in any shape to need 200K left or whatever. What people don't understand for their retirements is that it isn't the quantity of the money you have, it's the utility of it.

$1,000 spent when I'm still able-bodied is worth $100,000 of money when I can't drive at night or back up a fishing boat trailer, or go hiking, or take my grand kids to a Hawkeye game, lol. I've worked like a motherfucker for my money, and even though $2,000 when I'm 55 can be $20,000 when I'm 80, I'd rather blow two grand on christmas presents for grandkids than give twenty to a nursing home or to my kid when I croak :)
 

Luftgekuehlt67

Well-Known Member
I'm not even close to being in a financial place to retire in 5-7 years which is what it is.

So even though it's probably not the smartest thing to do with my money we drive 5 and a half hours to all the home games now and I got season wrestling tickets too. Memories you can't buy even if you're a millionaire. I work in finance and even I laugh at the financial planner dickheads who try to show me withdrawal schedules for my retirement and try to convince me that I'll still need money when I'm 80 or 85. Even if I make it to 75 I won't be in any shape to need 200K left or whatever. What people don't understand for their retirements is that it isn't the quantity of the money you have, it's the utility of it.

$1,000 spent when I'm still able-bodied is worth $100,000 of money when I can't drive at night or back up a fishing boat trailer, or go hiking, or take my grand kids to a Hawkeye game, lol. I've worked like a motherfucker for my money, and even though $2,000 when I'm 55 can be $20,000 when I'm 80, I'd rather blow two grand on christmas presents for grandkids than give twenty to a nursing home or to my kid when I croak :)
Absolutely, my philosophy exactly.

To be fair, when I say "semi-retirement" I mean going down to like 32 hrs/wk for the first phase, so don't get too jealous! It's a bit of wordsmithing on my part.

I just try to squeeze out whatever free time I can, cuz I know I likely only have a couple decades to go (and am painfully aware of how quick time flies).

It's kind of liberating, really. I don't have anything against old folks, but I don't think being old is for me anyways, so I guess it's all for the best from that standpoint!
 

dahlhawk

Well-Known Member
The end result is to not have players stay in games when they are injured, as well as stopping fake injuries that provide a unfair advantage to a team. I like the ideal of burning time outs. Giving the team the choice to sit an injured player or put him right back in and burn time off the clock or lose a time out is the way to go. If the player is really hurt and stays out a series they probable are injured. A coach won't try these tactics if they defeat what he's trying to do. Just need to simplify it.
 

MelroseHawkins

Well-Known Member
Yea, I often think, why work your ass off for all these years only to save up $$ for a damn nursing home. Many people are just making $$ for nursing homes. I really hope to retire or drop down to part-time in 9 1/2 yrs. The game changer is getting the damn house paid for.
 

Knight78

Well-Known Member
But we all know that injury TOs are most devastating or beneficial during the last part of the game. You cannot allow teams to take free timeouts during that time, otherwise what's the point of having a set number of TOs in the first place?

The punishment needs to be more severe with short time remaining. Those rules would completely eliminate flopping from the sport in the last 4 minutes. Would it hurt a team with a legit injury? Yep. That's football.

How about an NFL-ish two minute warning. In the NFL, those are not just for TV commercials. The NFL ran into the fake injury years ago and came up with this rule. If there is an injury during the final two minutes of the game or half, the team of the injured player is forced to take one of their time outs. If the team is out of time outs, there is a 10 second runoff. This would stop all the fake injuries at the end of quarters.

For all injury time outs, the injured player should be required to sit out until a change of possession regardless of time on the clock.
 

Ree4

Well-Known Member
Equally likely under your setup:

0:14 left on the clock no timeouts, 2nd and 8, Petras sees a mismatch on 1st down that he knows is going to happen again so he audibles a hurry up play to that side. Ryan Day sees it too but has no timeouts so he yells, "EAGLE, EAGLE" and their DT falls on the ground. Now they have 90 seconds to huddle up, put their backup DT in who's also a five-star, and they blow the play up by fixing the mismatch.

Was that fair? Was it good for student athletes? Was it good for the game?

None of what I said was bullshit and it's prevalent in all levels of football. Kirk Ferentz even said in the presser that two people on his staff played for head coaches who had code words for it and Kirk even said what they were.

What I mentioned above was EXACTLY what Penn State did to us. They saw Goodson find a hole and they needed time to regroup while still saving legitimate timeouts for the end of the game.

You may think that the penalty is too severe, but at least in that case both teams would know what that penalty is going into the game and they'd be on equal ground. And...there would be no diving.
Yep, heard it on good authority that it was Barnes talking about his time under Franklin at Vandy.
 

Northside Hawk

Well-Known Member
I'm 41 and judging by the lifespan of my male family members including my dad and grandpa, I've got about 15 years left. You guys hang around here long enough I'll be worm food.
Don't scare me LOL. I just turned 56. And I lost my paternal grandfather at 58.

My dad is still hanging on at 77 albeit in poor health however.
 
Top