OT: Greg Schiano proposes replacing kickoffs with 4th & 15

If this were in play last year, Michigan's offense never would have seen the field.

Tell Schiano the XFL folded a few years ago....

The only problem with this is that it negates the need for a good kick off kicker, as touch backs would basically not exist. Although, more emphasis on a good returner. Give and take I suppose. I personally am indifferent, but I suspect most will not want the tradition messed with.

It should be damn near a miracle to come back in a situation where you need an onside kick.... Especially because there is so much momentum with the team has just scored and the defense is likely to be very tired.

I think that's my biggest problem actually: this unduly penalizes a team for having a super tired defense.

I don't think CFB has a problem with games being boring.

I like the idea in that it takes some of the randomness of an onside kick and the way the ball bounces out of the equation.  Just like people dislike the refs having an impact on the game, I don't think a chance bounce should either(any more than is possible, there will always be lucky bounces and such in some way).  But as Bryemye points out above it does penalize a tired defense pretty heavily.  Could be an end/disincentive  to Lloydball/Tresselball though, which should make games more interesting.

Maybe 4th and 20 or 25 would make it a little better... 15 yards really isn't a huge roadblock. That's one good pass.

actual kicks are more fun to watch than punts.

tried, sort out some of the outcomes, anticipated or stochastic. Wasn't it RR who suggested colleges play a pre-season exhibition game?

My first response was that it seemed hokey (not that hokey), and--sorting through comments above--I think that having a tired and possibly demoralized defense face yet another down could lead to games quickly getting out of reach by the side on D, which would NOT make them less boring. But new wrinkles keep fans interested in the game, and sometimes improve it--the 3 in hoop might be your Exhibit A. 

I'm torn. I like the idea of increasing outcomes that rely on skill and strategy, but seriously: randomness (and sometimes dumb luck) is a part of the game. The shape of the ball contributes to it as much as anything; a bounce one way or other can decide the outcome.

And as much as I understand Schiano's point of view, there is a reason that football is called a "gladiator sport". Injuries are - and have always been - also a part of the game. There is a very real risk of serious injury on every play. Better equipment and rule changes can mitigate the risk, but it will always be there.

I also wonder, from a more mundane point of view, whether a punt from the 30 (and, let's be honest - it would be a punt from about the 23) would be effective. Every offensive series (except those few where the kicking team went for it - and got the 1st down) would start in great field position. It would fundamentally change the nature of the game.

Net-net: I vote "no".

This should play out pretty similar to onsides kicks in terms of recovery, your bigger change is in field position.

In my DB, there are 21,084 kickoffs from the 30, the average start for the ensueing possession is the 29. In 873 punts from the 30, the average start for the ensueing possession is the 33. Not a huge difference, but definitely some difference.

In terms of recovery, I don't have great info for college, but in the NFL a non-surprise onsides is about 20%. In 2,195 3rd and 15 (as a proxy for 4th and 15) situations, the conversion for college teams in competitve game is about 16%. This would probably be a bit understated since worse offenses are more likely to get into 3rd and 15 situations. 

This is an intriguing idea and it seems like 4th and 15 from the 30 (and maybe the 35) is about the right alternative to kicking off from the 30 in terms of recovery success and resulting field position. The only major difference is with a successful conversion the offense would be in better position than most onsides kick recoveries.

I feel like the chance element inherent in onside kicking adds excitement to the game, and also is part of the reason why onside kicks aren't used as often.  With this, if someone has a garbage defense, or I have a rockstar offense, I would just go for it every time.  There are offenses for which 15 yards in one down is no big deal (really, as someone said above, that's one good pass).  I think this would get used a lot more often than onside kicks currently are, and kind of take some excitement out of seeing it.

Stupid as hell... nothing more excited than to see a team go for an onside kick or nothing more excited than a kickoff return because anything can happen.

When one of your kids becomes paralyzed from a kickoff, you're damn right going to propose an alternative.

.....wow

How bout we also replace the coin toss with a scramble for the ball?

And get rid of PATs?

And change the NCAA logo to this?

I would prefer to keep the kickoffs aroundg, given that they are often returnable and result in some good memories (ND '09 anyone?), but in terms of player safety, the value of this change cannot be understated. Punters would become valuable recruiting targets, that's for sure.

Personally, I would like to see every safety option to keep the kickoffs around exhausted first, but I think this is an entriguing and clever alternative if things get to the point where the kickoff simply must go.

As far as issues of always going for it goes, keep in mind you're at your own 30. You pretty much have to pass the ball, so you're likely giving up 3 points for failure. 99% of coaches are going to punt when they aren't in the market for a comeback with little time left. Besides, if that turns out to be wrong, just make it 4th and 20.

The only question I'd have is what happens with penalties on that play. Are there automatic first-downs? Do you replay the down if the offense commits a penalty?

They took the jump ball out of basketball, the eliminated the four corners because Dean Smith was too good at it and they keep changing the clock rules in football to make the game go faster.  Kickoffs are fun and exciting to watch.  The punt is much more dangerous b/c the returner is looking at the ball and not the guy trying to take his head clean off.  Not unlike the catcher in baseball on a play at home from the outfield.

I'm totally against Schiano's idea.  Just like I think they should play a fifth quarter instead of the OT they have now, with one exception.  Both teams should get the ball in OT(unlike the NFL).  A coin flip should not decide a outcome of a game.

As a talking point, I think Schiano is on to something, simply because the kickoff will be one of the first things legislated away in the name of player safety and viable alternatives will need to exist.  Maybe he doesn't have it quite right, tweaks to to go or the spotter line, but it's a talking point with which to start.

As an actual thing, I likened it to the "Berenson Boundary" where Red had an idea, they tried it out, but it didn't end up going anywhere.

The NCAA moved kickoffs back a few years ago to reduce the number of touchbacks. Maybe they should reconsider that before radically changing the game.

experiment with using "flag football" type rules for kickoffs.  Everyone just ties on their flag belts .... and actually removing the helmets and shoulder pads would definitely reduce collisions too !    Could offer some very exciting "spin" moves on the returns !   (hopefully most of you played flag football in college .....)

Go Blue !

My only question is what happens when a personal foul is assessed on the kickoff? Is it 4th and 15 from the 45, or does the team get the ball back?

I'm glad Schiano is not our coach.

Just another reason that Greg Schiano is the most overrated coach in college sports.

Has anyone ever noticed that when we get into this time of year, we get this type of article. Oh September please hurry and get here. My heart aches for you.

This rule change alone would revive Tate Forcier's career.    The pooch punt option would be huge.  

If you bring your punter out there, the D drops a man back for a return, and you're playing 11 on 10.  If you line up under center, then there's nobody back there for a return.   Tate would be dynamite.

remind me again. why do kids want to play for this nut? do they even have rules in scrimmages at rutgers? maybe the QB has to run back 50 yards and then huck the ball up for someone to get on every down

I may not agree with Schiano's rule change but I can't fault the guy for putting it out there after seeing one of the kids he is responsible for get paralyzed from a kickoff collision.

I know it's easy for a lot of you out there to scoff and say don't F with my beloved game but when we're talking about changing the game vs. dealing with kids getting paralyzed things change. I bet a lot of you would feel differently if you personally knew someone like Legrand.

I don't ever want to see a bastardized version of the game of football and don't like Schiano's idea but I'm sure there's some rule change that could help improve the safety of the sport without drastically changing strategy like his suggestion would.