NCAA Rules Committee to recommend moving kickoffs to 35
I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see that the NCAA Rules Committee is recommending that kickoffs be moved to the 35 yard-line and that kick-coverage defenders be limited to a 5-yard running start. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7560237/ncaa-proposes-moving-kickoffs-30-35
I really don't see the logic in this. If you think kickoffs are too dangerous, then just have the offense start from the 20. Kicking off from the 35 just cuts down on the number of kick returns--it doesn't make the returns that actually occur any safer.
February 12th, 2012 at 9:44 AM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 9:51 AM ^
Yes, ok we established that, and was moved back because of too many touchbacks? Yes.... So now they are putting it back to the 35 to get more touchbacks but moving the coverage teams start point limit to 5yds from ten.
Imo it's a great rule change , not that anyone cares but the biggest thing was getting rid of the 10yd head start........ And if called correctly they cannot start running until the kicker has passed them and cannot cross the 35 till after the ball is kicked.
It's up to officials to throw the flag really when coverage guys would get those huge running starts....ie get running momentum going and then turn upfield for the 10yd and pass the 30 or 35 back in the day and dang near be at the 50 within a second of kickoff....heck I remember guys being at the 20 when the kick returner caught the ball....Nebraska, Fsu and Miami were the worst offenders and never got flagged for it......
February 12th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
This is just a nasty way of taking away hundreds of well-paying American Jobs. Some politician should look into it.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
They won't ever get rid of kickoffs. Just like the NFL they don't want to remove the chance of an onside kick, especially a surprise one. They may move the starting point but they will never be completed removed.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
I think there would still be a decent number of returns in college with this rule since college kickers obviously aren't all going to be able to get it in the endzone from the 35.
Still though, I agree with the thoughts above. You add this rule basically to force most, if not all, kickoffs to be touchbacks so why have them at all? Just start the ball ta the 20 if that's what you really want
February 12th, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^
Getting rid of kickoffs is just silly. It's a huge part of the game and has been with the game forever. Making a minor tweak like moving the kickoff is a good way to decrease the amount of hitting while preserving this part of the game.
As for the players that get brain injuries, it sucks but that's a part of playing football. I imagine that many players are aware of the risks at this point, and to be honest I think if you sat down with every football player on Michigan's roster and told them the risks of brain injury, I doubt you would convince any of them to give up the sport. The possibility of getting hurt exists in a contact sport. It's tragic when it happens, but it's not going to stop these guys from wanting to do it.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^
One rule change recommendation that the story missed--move touchbacks out to the 25. I don't see this as the NCAA Football Rules Committee trying to eliminate kickoff returns, but a way to encourage more strategic play by the kicking team, rather than just "booming" the kick and chasing it down.
It's interesting but unfortunately typical that ESPN left this incredibly important detail out of their reporting of this.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2…
Moving the touchback out will encourage teams to not kick it into the end zone. I actually think that they should penalize kicks into the end zone the same way they penalize kicks out of bounds.
February 12th, 2012 at 10:52 AM ^
February 12th, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^
Oh, please. Yes there is physical danger. That's why NFL players get those fat checks. That's why college players get a free ride to a great school. Soldiers go overseas and put their lives on the line for far less compensation, but everyone seems totally cool with that. These guys know the danger inherent in the sport they play. If you don't want to face it, don't play. It's a friggin' game. No one is forcing you to play it.
February 12th, 2012 at 11:31 AM ^
Exactly, this is America and if you want to risk your body to make big bucks, I say go for it. Obviously, I'm not saying the game can't be made safer, but I also don't want to see college football turn into Roger Goodell's NFlagFL (ok ok childish) where you have THREE 5,000 YARD PASSERS IN ONE YEAR! How many 5,000 yard passers were there before this season? 2. TWO. http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/5-000-yard-passers-in-nfl-history-1.3398980#5
Now try telling someone these rule changes aren't having a significant impact on the game, look at the Patriots offense forgodsakes, these quick slants to midget receivers would have never worked as well back in the day when there was enforcement for coming across the middle, now... if James Harrison looks at someone the wrong way it's a fine (yes I agree some of his hits are questionable, but c'mon... is he really three times as bad as anyone in the league (judging by the amount of fines, Goodell says yes... or maybe that's just because Harrison isn't scared of some suit who never even played college ball (and he went to a D. III school outside of Pittsburgh known for quality, small-time football).
What Goodell has done to the NFL is inexcusable and goes beyond safety, it's about his idea of NBA-style entertainment, where every possession should end in a score. Before this season I was a much bigger Steelers fan, now... I could barely care less and have completely refocused my attention to college football.
-Chet
February 12th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^
Stopped reading seriously at "this is America" (which BTW was misspelled - it's clearly MURRICA).
February 12th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
it's also funny how you get these old-school analysts who say you have to run the ball to win in the NFL and/or play defense. well, Eli and Brady combined for 10,000 yards passing and who the hell is the patriots running back?
also, the patriots defense sucked this year. the giants defense kinda sucked too until this past month.
this kind of proves your point that the NFL is evolving into a passing game, to its detrement. this is why they have to protect the QB more and more. a team can only afford to pay one good QB, and if he gets hurt, well, you are done. ask the bears.
it's kind of sad. here we have a sport with teams with dozens of players on each. yet, their success is largely dependent on one guy.
the dolphins of old went undefeated with a backup QB playing almost all of the games, except the super bowl. Why? because it was more of a team sport back then, not just a QB sport.
ok. enough ranting...
February 12th, 2012 at 2:07 PM ^
There were also fewer teams back then, no free agency, and many backup QBs were quality players.
February 12th, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^
i could also argue that the US population has increased 50% since 1972, yet the # of NFL teams has gone up from just 26 to 32; just 23%. so it seams the talent level should be higher on a per team basis then in 1972.
also, there were a lot of bad QBs back then; incl starters. and earl morrall was a 38 year-old back up. given the rules, it was more difficult to pass back then and much more of a total team game.
February 12th, 2012 at 12:29 PM ^
but wasn't the patriots offensive success largely due to its big receivers this year - the two TEs?
February 12th, 2012 at 11:45 AM ^
How could you stop? Starting a debate with "This is 'murrica" means that you automatically win the argument because the other guy is obviously a Western-European-Communist-Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkey, who probably enjoys watching the French national soccer teams... *shudders*.
-Chet
February 12th, 2012 at 11:51 AM ^
This rule is just a facade. Yes, you'll slightly decrease the chances that someone will get a catostrophic head trauma on a given play (Sam McGuffie). But the repeated beatings your head takes, which I gather are what causes CTE and other stories we hear about later on, still take place. When they run the stories of players who commited suicide or have other issues later on I haven't heard of one case where the player got lit up and carted off the field. This isn't the real issue.
February 12th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
but isn't that why there are 100+ guys on the team? this is why walk-ons and back-ups play on the kick teams. it's kind of like "braveheart" when the english king sends the irish into battle first.
/s
February 12th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^
Possibly idiotic, but in my opinion it isn't anymore of an actual change in the game as the shortened kickoffs (granted college kickers don't kick AS FAR as NFL kickers, which would mean that there will be more returns than whatever miniscule percent of kickoffs were actually returned in the pros). This would still allow for onside kicks and possible returns for touchdowns, though the blocking impacts would still be the same.
Feel free to say this is a dumb idea... but then ask yourself if you could imagine the NFL instituting such a rule, I can and I'm sure the NCAA would subsequently follow the NFL's lead.
-Chet
February 12th, 2012 at 1:36 PM ^
be automatic icing, oh shit wrong sport
February 12th, 2012 at 4:58 PM ^
It's sort of silly, because that was the rule less than 5 years ago and there where still tons of returns. Not many schools have kickers that can automaticaly get a touchback. It might mean one or two fewer returns a game and for schools with good kickers it will be a boon. But not much will really change. It's not going to be like the NFL.
February 12th, 2012 at 5:34 PM ^