Do You Like These Video Game Scores?
Just curious if I just made the leap to "Get off my lawn guy"? It's been trending for years but after watching Mich from 08-10, Lions on Sunday and all these bowl games this week I think I've had enough of the 62-58 games. I don't want a LSU 9-6 ugly fest, but I barely recognize the game I grew up with. I have a couple thoughts and would like to hear your thoughts. Maybe everyone likes the 100pts a game football and I'm an outlier. Anyway I'd like to see the pulse of the board on this.
NFL- I think they need to change the rules to allow the defenses to play the pass better. I would like to see them go back to the college rules of contact until the ball is thrown and change the pass interefernce. At this point I see no reason to run the ball if you have a top 5-10 QB in the NFL.
College- Not sure what they could do rules wise. Even if you like the scoring I'd like to hear your thoughts on what could be done to reel in the scoring. I don't really have one without changing the fabric of the game.
Since I don't see rules changing I think coaches really need to adjust their thinking. Brian and all the other contributors on the board have already done a great job with the math work, but in terms of game theory I think coaches may finally start adapting.
-MOAR Onside Kicks- Why did Wisc and Ore keep kicking the ball to each other? Both teams should have broken out onside kicks once they saw the only way to stop the other team was a turnover or a penalty.
-Evolution of Clock Management- It's time to give up hope that you will stop another teams 2 minute drill. Teams need to be more aware of the time on the clock when they are going to score. I think teams need to start burning clock so they make sure they score with only a few seconds left.
Side Rant- Stanford followed Georgia by tanking the game by playing for a 40yd fg. Pros I can see but I refuse to believe it's better to entrust the game to a rs fr kicker who has already missed vs Andrew Luck. Stanford wasted a minute of the clock setting up a kid and not trusting A. Luck. College kids with all that pressure. The snapper, the holder, the kicker plus the defense going all out. Me no like. I'll take my chances with Luck to get me closer.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^
Over the years (and by that I mean the last 3 decades) rules have been continually tweaked to favor the offense. It was only a matter of time until coaches developed systems to defeat defenses regularly.
There are plenty of high scoring games but there are still lots of slugfests, like the aforementioned LSU game. I don't think it's a problem yet, really. If 41-59 games become the norm, then yeah, let's do something.
If you wanted to change things, how about allowing DB's to jam at the line more aggressively. Would certainly slow up the passing game.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:29 AM ^
Offense has long been upheld as more glamorous. Everyone wants to be the next Joe Montana while fewer people want to be the next Ed Reed. On my high school team the coach had everyone try out for offense and the runners up all got jobs on the defense. Want to be a WR but have catching issues? DB for you. Want to be an offensive tackle but you're not that great? You're a DT now. Back in high school I wanted to be a DB (since I liked the challenge of reading offenses) and the coach looked at me as if I was crazy when I asked to try out for safety.
A lot of high school programs focus on offense first it seems and people like Chip Kelly have mastered grabbing up prolific offensive players and structuring their team to win shootouts. There's nothing wrong with that approach and Oregon putting up 70 doesn't really bother me. Kelly made a decision in building his team, everyone knows what he is going to do, and if you can't stop him that's your problem.
It is when teams attempt to play defense (PSU or Wisconsin) and fail miserably at it that drives me nuts. Clear coaching errors, like how Wisconsin DBs have apparently never been taught to rake at the ball, get a hand up, or do anything to prevent the WR from catching it. It's not even that the offense is exploiting the rules, it's that your whole defense is half ass.
Oregon, Houston, and some other schools that basically said "Screw defense, we're putting 70 on the board" don't bother me. Schools that appear to have installed 60% of their defense and then lost the playbook make me want to stab someone though. It seems like more of the latter appear every year.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:14 AM ^
Despite the outcome, I thought the MSU-Georgia game was the best. Not too stiffling of a defensive game, but not an offensive shootout either
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:16 AM ^
If every game was in the 62-58 area, I would be bored myself. It would be too much like Arena Football. Really, though, there have only been two bowls where the winner scored 50 or more points: Baylor over Washington 67-56 and BSU over ASU, 56-24. Out of 58 teams so far, nine teams scored 40 or more.
That is only 15.5 percent of the participants so far scoring 40 or more. College football has evolved over the years. So has everything else. So be it.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:20 AM ^
I don't ever want to see a team put up that kind of score on a Michigan team, but I would also love to be able to do it to an opponent. So I guess I don't mind the offense so much. I will say that I just want the games I don't care about to be entertaining. And I found the Baylor-Wash game more entertaining than the LSU-Bama one. But I like a balance. The MSU-UGA was a bit derpy near the end, but was probably the most entertaining game yet.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:21 AM ^
Michigan to score as many points as possible while allowing the least amount possible.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:22 AM ^
I think this year was somewhat of a fluke situation for this bigger bowls...you pitted some of the best offenses together against each other. Stanford/Okie St...Wisconsin/Oregon...even the Orange Bowl should be higher scoring. Meanwhile Michigan St, a good defense had to play Georgia, a good defense. Michigan plays Va Tech, KSU and Arkansas and of course LSU and Alabama.
It's like they put offense vs. offense and defense vs. defense in a lot of these bowls.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:26 AM ^
Coaches forget the added pressure that kind of strategy puts on an athlete. Not only do they have pressure to win game, but they also have to prove their coaches strategy to be effective.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:31 AM ^
I don't really care if rules are changed to curb scoring but I would like to see reply rules changed in college and the NFL.
College has it right except the standard should be changed from "indisputable evidence to overturn the play on the field" to "a preponderance of evidence for the correct play".
For instance, during the Lions game on Sunday there were two plays which were ruled fumbles on the field but there wasn't indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field. However, when reviewing the video there wasn't evidence that there was a fumble at all; the preponderance of evidence indicated there was no fumble.
Referees would be pissed off at this system because it takes them out of the equation but everyone else should be happy because the call would be made properly. It drives me nuts that we have a replay system that still gets the call wrong from time-to-time.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^
With regard to replay, I've never agreed with an approach that assumes on-field officials are virtually infallible. The replay official should be able to decide the ultimate outcome of the play without being boxed in by the original call on the field. IMO, the current system places too much emphasis on protecting the on-field officials and not enough on just getting the call right.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
The rule wasn't created because calls on the field are infallible. It was create to be black and white. I think the NCAA wanted to make sure that there was not one more variable to worry about as far as making calls. I agree with your point, but then what happens the first time a call is overturned and hurts Michigan, even though it is not indisputable. You will call BS either way...
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
As a fan of a Michigan I always want the call to go Michigan's way but as a fan of football in general I want the call to be right. In other words, I don't want a game to be decided by officiating.
It's possible to have a call go against your team but still agree it was the right call; which is what I would have to do if a call went against Michigan under my system.
The rules as they are set up now (especially in the NFL) aren't set up to completely get the call right. They are set up to attempt to get the call right but protect the official in the process. I don't see a benefit of protecting game officials.
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:18 PM ^
I would take this further. As a Michigan fan, I want the call to be right. I have no interest in seeing my team benefit from an incorrect call. I would have as much interest in that as enjoying winning by forfeit. It always sours a win for me when I feel like the calls "went our way."
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:16 PM ^
The problem is that you are not talking about a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, but a "preponderance of the video evidence" standard. There is other evidence -- the view from the positions of the officials on the field -- that your proposal completely dismisses.
For most plays, there are only two or three camera angles that provide any relevant evidence. The officials typically have two to three additional angles from which to view the action. The current standard is designed to give weight to what the officials saw in addition to giving weight to what the video cameras show. Their call is evidence of what actually happened. If the video is inconclusive, the perspective of the officials on the field pushes the preponderance of all the evidence in favor of upholding the call.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^
1. Don't particularly care about pro football.
2. Agree about Stanford/Luck
3. Yes to onside kicks (anytime)
4. 2 min drills are heavily practiced/scripted events & teams have become very good at executing them; combine that with an inherent faster pace and an often tired defense and you get a recipe for late game scoring.
5. I have no problem with high scoring college football, it's just the way some teams are designed, you concentrate on O and you might end up with a porous D. The goal is to end the game with more points than the other guy, and winning 60-50 is just as good (actually 3 pts/game better) as winning 10-3. I appreciate the faster paces of some spread teams, and wide open score fests are very entertaining. Some people (not accusing the OP) seem to act like their nut-sack is directly connected to their teams defensive performance; and while I'd personally prefer a little more balance, a win is a win.
also, have overtime rules contributed significantly to the final high scores in recent years?
I'd be interested in seeing the national average score of most games pre and post overtime for this (or any other recent) season. The game I grew up with had ties.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:45 AM ^
I am 95% certain this board was 150% better when you weren't posting awful topic after awful topic. Just goes to show that points != trustworthy.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
What is your problem with this topic?
Show me an example of a post you do like in the last week.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^
Pass interference needs to be blatant - not ticky-tack hand on the back BS. If a guy is "close" to timing it perfect, let it go. It seems like you can't be near a receiver now until after the catch has been made. Football is physical - make the receivers earn it!
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:55 AM ^
Sparty Nooooooo
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
Can't. Stop. Watching.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:31 AM ^
On your last point re: Luck, I totally agree. You have the #1 pick in the NFL draft at QB and you run the ball the first two plays of your possession in OT, setting up 3rd and long. That is dumb dumb dumb.
January 3rd, 2012 at 11:51 AM ^
He sure liked to run up the score... while shutting down the opposition. That's the Michigan Difference.
In loosely related news, I loved Molk's respnse to the Media's question;
"Will a win in the Sugar Bowl indicate that Michigan is back?" -ESPN
"Michigan never left..." -Molk
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^
Pro football has legislated defense out of the game. The five yard bump rule, pass interference if a defender looks funny at a receiver, but no pass interference if a receiver blatantly shoves a DB, the fact that offensive holding is almost legal now, and the fact that a defender can't hit a quarterback or receiver anymore without a 15 yard penalty have led to pro football be a Madden experience.
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:26 PM ^
Get rid of the automatic first down with pass interference and defensive holding. Just make them both a spot foul and replay of down with maybe an additional 5 yard penalty for holding. This bullshit of an automatic first down on a short slant on 3rd and forever really pisses me off. Give them the 5-10 yards and replay the down. That wouldn't make it so amazingly hard to cover someone because you won't be giving up a first down the second you touch them.
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:25 PM ^
I think watching a high scoring game is entertaining, but I only want Michigan to be the ones putting up video game numbers.