More rationalization. If you want to be rational, its been suggested you read the book "League of Denial" and you will never look at football the same way.
I agree with Mr. Easterbrook, for once.
Coach Harbaugh made a big mistake by punting with 10 seconds left. Everyone knows that forcing a team to punt raises the probability of a turnover. I would have done as Gregg suggested. Maximum protection, have the quarterback hold the ball as long as possible, and heave it down field. The analysis of that play here was the best I have read, with the most thorough understanding of the rules (obviously more trenchant than Coach Harbaugh).
If a heave to nobody finished the game, it would have initiated a rule change in the off-season. Nonetheless, I would have had the quarterback hold it as long as possible.
I still think going for it instead of punting only makes sense late in the game, or on the opponent's side of the field. The way the game is built for offense, the defense is almost always predicated on a long field and the other guys making a mistake.
Punting is one of the least understood and most beautiful aspects of football. That's why some teams go for rugby kicks now, or import Australian kickers. The deftness of the modern kicking foot in placing the ball within the 10 yard line is something you saw infrequently in decades past. As the loquacious Browns' Coach Sam Rutigliano said years ago, "There's a lot of hidden yardage on special teams."
Coach Harbaugh made a big mistake by punting with 10 seconds left. Everyone knows that forcing a team to punt raises the probability of a turnover. I would have done as Gregg suggested. Maximum protection, have the quarterback hold the ball as long as possible, and heave it down field. The analysis of that play here was the best I have read, with the most thorough understanding of the rules (obviously more trenchant than Coach Harbaugh).
If a heave to nobody finished the game, it would have initiated a rule change in the off-season. Nonetheless, I would have had the quarterback hold it as long as possible.
I still think going for it instead of punting only makes sense late in the game, or on the opponent's side of the field. The way the game is built for offense, the defense is almost always predicated on a long field and the other guys making a mistake.
Punting is one of the least understood and most beautiful aspects of football. That's why some teams go for rugby kicks now, or import Australian kickers. The deftness of the modern kicking foot in placing the ball within the 10 yard line is something you saw infrequently in decades past. As the loquacious Browns' Coach Sam Rutigliano said years ago, "There's a lot of hidden yardage on special teams."
1
I'm afraid I don't see the correlation between the helmet to helmet rule and increased scoring. Are you saying that the low crossing route is the most effect route for scoring, but the route hasn't been used much in the past because of the helmet to helmet contact that usually occurs on that pattern? There may be a point here, but I don't think it's been made.
Low crossing route is a highly effective route to move the ball forward, and move the chains. With the change of rules for helmet to helmet hits it is now easier to execute those short patterns, that in turn makes it easier to complete positive yardage plays and obtain first downs. Any act that makes it easier for a team to move forward is going to result in higher scoring. In the end we're talking about one more field goal per game per team.
Please let Gregg bring back the science and politics of this article NYT! The NFL is only a non-profit after all ;)
1
And the cheerbabes. Fat chance of that.
Interesting. No comment on the Bengals locker room incident. Reporters in locker rooms is so my grandfathers age. Creepy pervs. ALL reporters removed from locker rooms. Gender Neutral
Had a great time reading TMQ this week, keep up the good work Mr. Easterbrook!!
Tried commenting yesterday. It still hasn't shown up. Anyway, the gist of my comment was the call on the Michigan player was not a correct call. The player was blocked in to the quarterback by an OL. On the other hand, the refs missed a personal foul call on MSU when one of their players pulled out the helmet of Michigan QB!
Rex Ryan usually gets a pass from the media. His press conferences are fun. Everyone can participate in talking the walk without actually suiting up. Finally, a journalist who looks at the statistical evidence and calls out the scammer: all bluster and hype at the pressers on Wednesday with nothing to back it up at the game on Sunday.
"At least Seattle put up a fight."
If they only would do this for four quarters (or football games would end after three), they might be a playoff team. But, alas, they always quit in the fourth...
If they only would do this for four quarters (or football games would end after three), they might be a playoff team. But, alas, they always quit in the fourth...
Browns coaches made worst decision that Indy's
When the Browns scored their last TD, they were up by 4 before the extra point. Going to 5 means you can lead with a field goal if the other team scores a TD. They went for 2. Had a penalty against def. Went for 2 again. So when they got the ball back with 1:15 or so, they should of had the lead and taking a knee. Instead -- they lose in OT.
When the Browns scored their last TD, they were up by 4 before the extra point. Going to 5 means you can lead with a field goal if the other team scores a TD. They went for 2. Had a penalty against def. Went for 2 again. So when they got the ball back with 1:15 or so, they should of had the lead and taking a knee. Instead -- they lose in OT.
Not that simple. If Cleveland had indeed only kicked for one (and made it - 5% failure rate) giving them a 5 point lead, then Denver would have gone for two on their touchdown to try to get a three point lead. May have been moot anyway.
Denver defense also plays late game differently protecting a one/two point lead rather than three point lead.
Going for two was the correct play, especially once it got moved to the one yard line - Denver needs to get a touchdown so you want some pressure to make the kick, ie. a tie game - Cleveland is also assuming any touchdown is coming late...not anticipating a touchdown on the very next play.
Denver defense also plays late game differently protecting a one/two point lead rather than three point lead.
Going for two was the correct play, especially once it got moved to the one yard line - Denver needs to get a touchdown so you want some pressure to make the kick, ie. a tie game - Cleveland is also assuming any touchdown is coming late...not anticipating a touchdown on the very next play.
The calculations for the SHIELD helicarrier have already been done, Gregg. Here are some links about it:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/17/puny-helicarri...
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/could-s-h-i-e-l-d-helicarrier-fly/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/10/17/puny-helicarri...
http://www.wired.com/2012/07/could-s-h-i-e-l-d-helicarrier-fly/
1
I knew you'd have a field day with Harbaugh's decision to punt at that point in the game. What a bone-headed move. Michigan should never have hiked the ball to the punter. Line up in a heavy goal line package with QB under center like you're going for it on a dive play. Try to get the D to jump offside with a hard count and if not, then have the QB fake the dive handoff and sprint around the weak side of the line. Run for the first down if its there or hit a TE who leaks out (only if wide open) or throw the ball away if necessary. Doh!
3
The NFL insisting they were correct in their judgement?
When has that ever happened before?
When has that ever happened before?
Most colleges pay students who work as on campus employees and TAs. Student athletes should be paid wages that match other student employee pay rates. As for the graduation rates, college athletics takes a huge time commitment. Schools should be required to provide one additional scholarship year of education for every year of scholarship athlete service rendered. If a player graduates on schedule, they can use the extra years to pursue graduate studies. If they haven't graduated, they still can on scholarship without the time obligations which come with playing on a college team.
1
Those "student athletes" must be prepared to have their heads banged on the field repeatedly--in the name of higher education, of course.
We should have a statistic measuring how many player in a given week contracted CTE.
1
This is not the first time San Diego has qualified for The 500 Club. Chargers at Seahawks, September 26, 2010. 518 total yards offense, lost 27-20 to the Seahawks
This column is pure fun. Well done.
1
Last time I checked, FBS football players on scholarship GET A FREE EDUCATION. Thus, they ARE paid—whether they value the currency or not, sadly. Please stop pretending these student athletes aren't rewarded handsomely for their efforts on the field of play. Millions of American students have massive student-loan debt because they have to pay for college themselves.
2
This is one of the reasons TMQ continually harps on graduation rates. If the players are not paid, and If the players get no degree, the players have made money for the university while wasting several years for no economic advantage.
5
I have a better formula Sol. Let's pick any group of 80 students, give them free education and put them together in any endeavor of their choosing and see if they can possibly match the amount of revenue a football team brings to the university. If they don't their scholarship won't be renewed next year.
Let's see how many universities will be nice enough to GIVE A FREE EDUCATION to those students.
Let's see how many universities will be nice enough to GIVE A FREE EDUCATION to those students.
If you do a full, honest, accounting, most football programs lose money. They spend even more than they earn. So at most schools, the challengers would beat the football team by doing nothing.
Last undefeated pairing other than the (remote possibility at the) Super Bowl? What about if the Bengals and Patriots both win @DEN (not unlikely) and then meet in the AFCCG (also not unlikely)? Two 17-0 teams meeting for a spot in the Super Bowl would certainly send heads spinning at the sheer improbability of it all, but it'd be fun.
1
"Ane yet many big football programs exploit African-American football players for profit without helping them enough to get the bachelor’s degree that is most people’s ticket into the middle class, or even distract them from education by demanding all their time and effort go into football."
Well if it makes you feel any better, Gregg, the schools aren't really profiting. Football loses money.
Well if it makes you feel any better, Gregg, the schools aren't really profiting. Football loses money.
If the universities (and their trustees who sit in the sky boxes eating catered food and their sports administrators on big salaries) weren't profiting in some way, they wouldn't do it.
5
You'd be surprised. Schools go hundreds of thousands of dollars into the red for bowl games because of the prestige involved and worry about the budgets after the fact.
Only if they believe prestige will result in dollars. Schools have football programs because they believe they will be profitable...directly or not. The profit may come years later in the way of some kind of alumni contribution, but it comes. if it didn't, or doesn't, the program will end.
Its really funny and ironic. First CFB game I watched in its entirety in years (I feel the same way about FB/Education you do) and thought to myself "All these 4th down plays? When does the Esterbrook Good Karma kick in? Lo and behold. When it counted".
Mr Easterbrook,
Washington & Jefferson College in Washington, PA is also the alma mater of one Roger Goodell.
Washington & Jefferson College in Washington, PA is also the alma mater of one Roger Goodell.
Get Rex Ryan out of Buffalo. Half the team injured, defense nonexistent, and everyone from second year WRs to veteran franchise defenders taking their concerns to the media. All signs of poor leadership. The fans, and the players, deserve much better.
I like the dancing tree
Ironically, football would be a lot safer if they didn't wear helmets and pads.
1
If it's a comparison between American football and rugby you're making, you may be incorrect.
Rugby hasn't been studied nearly as much as football, but the preliminary information doesn't look good.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/33686163
Rugby hasn't been studied nearly as much as football, but the preliminary information doesn't look good.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rugby-union/33686163
I played football in high school and rugby in college and for a good few years after as well. There are less head to head collisions in rugby, but I had just as many concussions since once you collide, there is no protection in rugby. The answer to me is a big ridiculous looking helmet with padding on the outside. That way the helmet can't be used as as weapon. Putting the hard shell on the outside allows the player wearing the helmet to be protected while being able to inflict a hard impact on an opposing player, same as the shoulder pads.