Getting rid of kickoffs
After yesterday's targeting on Edwards, Klatt once again brought up the prospect of removing kickoffs from the college game.
After resisting for a long time, I think I am finally there.
One likely proposal would be:
- Every team starts from the 25
- If the kicking team chooses to 'onside'--they get the ball 4th and 10 and their own 35 yard line.
What does everyone think? Should we say farewell to kickoffs in the college game once and for all?
November 18th, 2018 at 5:03 PM ^
Holy shit these ideas keep getting worse.
November 18th, 2018 at 4:37 PM ^
The problem on yesterday's kickoff was the Indiana player, not the play.
The NCAA probably should adopt some of the NFL kickoff rules to make things safer. Ex: eliminate wedge blocks before Ben Mason eliminates them himself.
November 18th, 2018 at 4:39 PM ^
The end is coming. Even before the injuries and concerns in the last few years, I remember the kick off being the most unexplainable parts of any game.
It's just such a random outlier and is so different from the rest of the sport
November 18th, 2018 at 4:44 PM ^
I don't agree with the onside thing. What would stop a team with a really good offense but a shitty defense like Oklahoma, or Ohio State from just doing that every time?
November 18th, 2018 at 5:14 PM ^
Since injuries dont really seem to happen during onside kicks, how about allowing onside kicks (not deep kicks), but if you fail then the receiving team gets to start at kicking team's 35 yard line?
That would prevent folks from doing it most of the game, except when trying a comeback.
November 18th, 2018 at 4:47 PM ^
I remember reading an interesting idea about replacing all kickoffs with punts, which apparently result in fewer injuries. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the basic gist was that a team would get an instant 4th and 15 frim their own 35ish after scoring. Instead of an onside kick, a team could try for a first down. Jon Bois (highly recommend watching Jon Bois) goes over it at some point in this video: https://youtu.be/t_SsIKgwvz4
November 18th, 2018 at 5:18 PM ^
The 4th and 15 from your 35 rule would radically alter the kinds of QBs and offenses teams would want.
It would give teams with accurate pocket passers way more success, and virtually eliminate the running QB type offenses.
So no more JT Barrett style QBs/offenses. More Haskins style QBs/offenses.
Patterson would do o.k. at it, but JH's offense would not be great with this rule.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:23 PM ^
I don't think it would change offenses much. 4th and 15 on your own 35 is a very low-percentage proposition, probably not much different from the odds of recovering an onside kick. If teams go for it, it would probably be as a fake punt rather than a regular offensive play.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:34 PM ^
Certain QBs/offenses (OSU this year with an accurate passer that passes a lot) would have a much higher probability of converting the after score 4th and 15 to retain possesion than they currently do of recovering the onsides kick to retain possession.
Other offenses (running QB based like OSU with JT Barrett last year) would have a much lower probability of converting the after score 4th and 15.
November 18th, 2018 at 6:17 PM ^
Teams currently recover onside kicks 10-20% of the time. I don’t think the odds of converting a 4th and 15 are better than that. If all it takes is an accurate QB, why don’t Air Raid teams go for it on 4th and long all the time?
The problem is that it’s a totally obvious situation for the defense, which will go to a dime and defend everything close to the sticks while conceding the short stuff.
November 18th, 2018 at 7:40 PM ^
Air raid (and other) teams do go for when down very late in the game. Going for it on 4th and 15 almost never makes sense in other situations.
D's would surely try to stop teams from converting. But receiving teams try to stop onsides kick recoveries by the kicking team too.
Just saying that the chance of converting the 4th and 15 to keep possession would be a higher probability for certain types of QBs/offenses than the probability of recovering the onsides.
November 18th, 2018 at 4:49 PM ^
I don't agree with this idea sorry. If anything needs to be addressed it's the possibility of allowing reviews of such plays and the ability to punish players and coaches for plays like that. The player didn't even try to make a play on the ball carrier, that's the egregious problem not the kickoff.
November 18th, 2018 at 4:52 PM ^
I like Klatt, but I cannot disagree with him more. Whether or not you think kickoffs are "bad", this particular play had nothing to do with a kickoff, it had everything to do with a guy launching with the crown of his head into someone's chin. Could've happened on any play, kickoff or otherwise. Dirty play, penalty assessed, player ejected. Move along.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:14 PM ^
The crown of the helmet is the very top point. The player did NOT lead with the crown. If he did he probably would have hurt his own neck. Nor did he launch as his feet never left the ground. Learn what those terms mean and re-watch the play. The center point of contact was the shoulder, not the chin. Which by rule I would consider the "neck area"
But I agree this could have been on any play. KO should not be banned. They are close enough to extinct already.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:41 PM ^
Crown of helmet is not the 'top' of the helmet, its more like the entire area contained in the circumference of a crown on the head. Otherwise they'd just say 'top' of head and there would almost never have been a targeting call in the years since the rule came into being.
That hit was a textbook violation and vicious.
November 19th, 2018 at 11:23 PM ^
The definition of the crown of the helmet is literally the top of the helmet. Look it up. Did you just make up everything you came up with or actually find that somewhere?
November 19th, 2018 at 11:28 PM ^
His face is up and implanted into the shoulder area of Edwards. If his head was 6 inches lower towards the abdomen of Edwards this would of been a clean hit even by today's rules.
November 18th, 2018 at 4:57 PM ^
How about we just simulate the games with video games?
People get injured. It’s a fact that everyone just needs to accept OR decide not to play. The risks and rewards of playing are well known.
If I could have had my tuition paid for, I would have taken the Edwards hit and concussion and been happy.
Making the game safer is fine. Changing the game beyond recognition is not.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:48 PM ^
Pretty sure someone said that exact phrase in 1910. Game seemed to have done ok since then.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:00 PM ^
I watch plenty of football. I just do not notice that there is some huge upswing of injuries on kickoffs. It might seem less to me actually. See injuries all the time but being carted off from a kickoff to me seems extremely rare.
Klatt was talking about percentages and how different they were compared to the rest of the game. Well......what are they? Cite something. Throw out some stats.
November 18th, 2018 at 6:29 PM ^
It’s statistically the most dangerous play in the game, by a significant margin. There have been studies about this. That’s why the NCAA has introduced the fair catch - it wants to reduce the number of kickoffs in the game.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:11 PM ^
Keep kickoffs, eliminate targeters. That IU punk should miss the whole game next week and spend a night in jail for assault with intent to injure. That was not a football play.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:11 PM ^
Make it a free kick from the 40 rather than a kick from the tee. Would shorten the time the ball is in the air, thus reducing collision velocity.
You do not see the high rate of bad injuries on punts that you see on kickoff. Making it a free kick from the 40 would reduce the injury rate to that of normal punts.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:19 PM ^
Or just make it a punt from the 40. You score a TD and then you get 4th and 10 (or 15) from there. Teams can do what they want on that play but if they kick it, the ball must be drop-kicked.
November 18th, 2018 at 6:24 PM ^
Bizarrely, this was Greg Schiano's suggestion after one of his players was paralyzed on a kickoff. Only good idea the man has ever had.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:11 PM ^
Protect the players, enforce the rules but don't change the game.
Playing football is voluntary. It is a physical sport and you will never get away from players getting injured.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:13 PM ^
How about this? A team is allowed one kickoff (either returning or kicking) per game, to be used whenever it deems appropriate. In most cases it would be saved to the fourth quarter and if the game isn't close, won't be used at all.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:19 PM ^
Wouldn't that make it obvious that the onsides kick is coming?
November 18th, 2018 at 5:24 PM ^
Most onside kicks come in obvious situations. It would just eliminate the rare surprise one.
November 18th, 2018 at 7:42 PM ^
Of course. But onsides kicks in non-obvious situations (which does happen) would be eliminated.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:16 PM ^
There's only one way to eliminate targeting.
Remove the facemasks.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:22 PM ^
What happened to the hat?
If guys were wearing plastic helmets with no facemasks, would we just see a lot of broken jaws on tackles lead by the crown of the helmet?
November 18th, 2018 at 5:27 PM ^
November 18th, 2018 at 5:52 PM ^
People make that argument. But I wonder if it makes sense.
If no one wears a facemask, isn't the guy getting tackled with his exposed face that is at risk?
Where is the risk to the tacker than lowers his hard and leads with the crown of his hard plastic helmet?
In fact, if the tackler has no face mask, won't he be even more likely to lower his head, thus leading with the crown of the helmet, rather than lead with his head up and his own unprotected face exposed? He'll want to protect his own face, right?
November 18th, 2018 at 6:57 PM ^
Remove the helmets entirely. Then see who leads with their heads.
November 18th, 2018 at 7:26 PM ^
This is the real truth. The helmet has become a weapon rather than a device used to protect the head. I wonder what a game would look like with no helmet and no pads. Probably a lot like rugby...
November 18th, 2018 at 8:10 PM ^
In the era before helmets the injury rate was very high. There was serious talk of banning the game. 18 fatalities in 1905 high school and college football.
Also, in the early era the game was played with running plays only (later infrequent short passes), very close the the LOS, and they did not collide at the high velocities we see today. It was closer to a string of rugby scrum set plays than to the kind of running and passing plays that we see today.
I doubt that removing the helmets would reduce head injuries, at least not unless the game goes back the something more closely resembling a rugby scrum than today's passing and high velocity run attacks. Even then, head injuries would probably go up, not down.
Link to footage of 1903 Harvard-Yale game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uERnf4jHe7s
At 1:25 of this link there is footage of the 1903 Chicago v. Michigan game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcfoKTjHhIA
Later the forward pass became common and guys were playing with flimsy leather helmets and no face masks (like in the 40's Tom Harmon era). So the velocities were closer to what we see today (though the players were not nearly as big or fast, so...). But do we have accurate records of head injuries from that time? Any accurate records of CTE rates from players from that era? Of course not. So how do we know that it was safer for head injuries?
November 18th, 2018 at 5:23 PM ^
Absolutely not
yes what happened to Edwards was awful. But removing kickoffs would be too much. All these new rules is really affecting the integrity of the game. It’s bad enough that you don’t have to really return the ball when it isn’t kicked into the end zone
November 18th, 2018 at 5:26 PM ^
Why not just flip a coin to see who wins.
Ah, first to fifty correct coin picks wins.
Still can have commercials.
November 18th, 2018 at 5:38 PM ^
We have been kicking off for 139 years and now it needs to be changed, we should get rid of umpires in baseball and have electronic strike zones, we should increase the goalie crease in hockey to protect the goalie, we should net the rink and ballparks for the fat asses that are to busy eating their nachos to pay attention to the game, people should wear helmets to ride bikes what the hell candy asses. How about we just raise people not to be shitheads and get their sticks up around a cellow players head or lead with your fucking helmet with the intent to hurt another human
November 18th, 2018 at 5:50 PM ^
If you want to takeaway long kickoffs fine, but onside kicks have to stay. 4th and 10 is way too easy to get compared to an onside.
November 18th, 2018 at 6:25 PM ^
Agreed, you are giving them the ball with a better chance at converting a 4- 10 then recovering a onside kick
November 18th, 2018 at 5:58 PM ^
No . When does it end with changing rules?! Getting rid of the kick off essentially ends an aspect of special teams .If rules keep getting changed, pretty soon we'll be watching two hand touch or flag football
November 18th, 2018 at 6:02 PM ^
If we eliminate kickoffs does that mean we will have eliminated commercial kickoff commercial? If so, I am open to considering it.
what happened yesterday was gruesome so I think these discussions are warranted even if the rules aren't changed.
November 18th, 2018 at 6:22 PM ^
Jon Bois (SB Nation) makes a convincing argument against kickoffs in one of his Chart Party videos: https://youtu.be/t_SsIKgwvz4
Can't figure out how to embed...
tl;dw: He points out how often nothing happens in NFL kickoffs. His thought is to offer 4th and 15 on your own 30 after you score. 9/10 times you'll punt, but punts are much more likely to result in something interesting happening compared to kickoffs. Plus, 4th and 15 is a more exciting play than the onside kick.
November 18th, 2018 at 6:23 PM ^
November 18th, 2018 at 6:26 PM ^
How about blindside/illegal/dirty/etc. hit on a kickoff or punt and your team plays with 10 men the rest of the game? /s kind of
November 18th, 2018 at 7:11 PM ^
If we went back to wearing what Chappuis and Harmon wore, the frequency of leading with the head would decline dramatically almost overnight.
