OT: Greg Schiano proposes replacing kickoffs with 4th & 15
Dr. Saturday had a post this morning, here
In it, he discusses briefly the argument about having an alternative to kickoffs proposed by Greg Schiano in which a team lines up on the 30 yard line and is given a punting situation of 4th and 15. The team can either punt or go for it. It's a high risk-high reward system if you go for it, but appears to be better suite to skill versus plain dumb luck as seen with onside kicks. The original article with Schiano's comments is here
So since it may be a boring news day (unless the WVU thing blows up), what say you MGoNation. Pros? Cons?
As much as I am usually in favor of tradition, this actually sounds like a plausible and more interesting game that I wouldn't mind seeing added. Just think how Zoltan would indeed be that much more valuable and space-emperor worthy.
edit: Forgot to mention that this whole thing is being proposed based on limiting injuries. In the article it says something around 20% of injuries in kickoffs result in concussions.
If this were in play last year, Michigan's offense never would have seen the field.
I would argue there are some games in which our defense wouldn't have seen the field.
As good as our offense was in the first half of last season, no run-first offense is optimally designed to pick up 4th-and-15s
Tell Schiano the XFL folded a few years ago....
comment amusing.
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.
Less likelihood of serious injury to players.
Schiano saw the Eric LeGrand injury and subsequent events unfold first hand on a kickoff and I'm sure it deeply afftected him and his team. So he probably would like to prevent any other player, family, team, school etc from having to experience it.
That was one of the most disturbing things I've seen in sports. Particularly the way his legs came off the ground. To me that's much worse (obviously, but also from a visual perspective) than when, for example, a guy's leg snaps in half. The most gruesome of such types of injuries one can contemplate are peanuts compared to the LeGrand injury.
Any other arguments concerning tradition, or excitement of the game, or whatever else bow to this argument IMHE.
Kids' lives aren't worth the entertainment value, or authenticity of the game, etc...
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 fear the day that this instant gratifiaction-X Generation actually gets into power as it seems that tradition, respect and values are eroding away exponentially faster.
Sure, I'll get off your lawn. It's old and dying anyway.
The current lot is obviously doing a hell of a job!
As a member of one of the younger generations (I'm 31), let's just say I'm thrilled that my generation will have the future responsibility of saving this country from the bankruptcy your esteemed, responsible generation is leading us towards.
These are the words you're using to describe the pre-Xer generation, the Baby Boomers? Seriously? Now, if you're secretly one of the Greatest Generation that actually learned how to use a computer, I'll give that to you. My only consolation is that it seems the Boomer's kids seem to have their heads on straight far more than they should, and somehow didn't take after their "I want to be your friend not your parent" parents.
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.
and never the offense?
I was thinking this same thing earlier today. Maybe this is my lack of football roots showing through, but shouldn't a no-huddle offense (or this punt idea) be just as damaging for the offense as the defense?
I understand that if you have a defense used to the huddle and then play a RR or Kelly (C or B) team how that could be an advantage, but normally shouldn't the offense and defense be equally tired?
When you're on defense, you're reacting and you have to play 100% all the time, otherwise the other team can score because of you. When you're on offense, you often know the ball isn't going to you and you can take plays off. (this applies to WRs and RBs) Also... blocking takes less energy than going through a block.
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.
From the team's own 25, rather than the 30. Either way, the down-and-distance plus field position should give coaches (even Chip Kelly) pause before they automatically decide to go for it.
actual kicks are more fun to watch than punts.
They ARE more fun to watch.
Rule changes like these basterdize the game I know and love so much. They make the game feel contrived and artificial.
And it IS artificial. It's a game with arbitrary rules.
I love traditional football as much as anyone, but no one sent Moses down from Mt. Sinai with the rules chiseled in stone tablets. Every now and then, rules have changed to improve safety: the seven men on the line requirement, facemask rules, spearing rules, helmet-to-helmet rules, the "no killing the long snapper" rules... and the game still seems sufficiently organic and brutal.
I'm not really in favor of making this sort of change, but it's not that crazy of an idea. It's basically taking rugby rules and modifying them for football.
If that's your stance, then almost everything is artificial and arbitrary.
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.
One thing that might affect the starting position is the fact that there will be more emphasis on getting a punter with a strong leg than a kicker with a strong leg. It might be enough to push the average starting position back a few yards after several years.
I kind of like Schiano's idea, but I don't think 15 yards is enough. A couple of issues:
1. I'm not convinced that your 3rd down conversion rate is the relevant number. A lot of teams don't really try to convert on 3rd-and-15; they just take a few yards and avoid a stupid turnover. Plus, they play 3rd-and-15 knowing that they have a 4th down if they need it. Beyond that, there's your point that bad offenses tend to be the ones that get in that situation -- and excellent defenses, too -- so that number strikes me as far below the conversion rate that we'd get from Schiano's plan.
2. Basically, every team is equally good at recovering onside kicks, since they're so random. This means that the 20% figure should be pretty steady across teams. However, big-play offensive ability -- and opponents' tendency to give up big plays -- varies considerably from team to team. This means that there will be some teams (the Oregons of the world), in some matchups, when it's sensible for them to try this conversion even if it's not a late game situation. I don't think we'd want that.
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.
Nothing worse then having a hard fought game come down to 5 ft nothin, 100 and nothin soccer player.
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.
But the punt returner also has the option of a fair catch, so if he does get his head taken off the moment he catches the ball, he's at least partially responsible for it.
A fair catch doesn't save a guy from Troy Palomalu (spelling). Go to YouTube to see to the dirtiest play ever. It was when he played at SC.
Didn't Donovan Warren suffer an injury on a punt return and there was talk that had some influence on his decision to go pro?
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.
actually, I am too
/saw what you all did to RichRod :)
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.