Fishclamps wrote:To people who are confused by what I meant when I said lines were drawn...
I mean that in our normal discourse one of us might be able to sway another with thought provoking discussion, stats to back up our assertions, or insight into what is actually going on.
In the case of Rich Rod, NO ONE is changing ANYONE'S mind here about how they feel about him.
It's obvious some here have a very clear distaste for our current coach and there's people that don't. I really don't care that people dislike him, that's your prerogative, but it's getting really fucking old wading through every thread to find any real football knowledge and true discussion in these threads anymore before they devolve into someone flinging shit on RR or people getting into petty arguments.
I think we know where everyone stands on the RR thing, and it should be given a rest till next season.
I don't disagree that no one is changing anyone's opinion but to call me out after I actually posted my predictions of each game for 2016 seems crazy. I actually posted to discuss the 2016 team and didn't mention rich Rod. For the record I think he is a great offensive coach who is loyal to a bad defensive scheme. I think he is an average recruiter and I don't think he is loyal and will eventually leave for a better job.
However, can other's please post their 2016 predictions game by game as I typically like hearing people discuss who we play etc.
I do apologize for derailing the thread somewhat.
For what it's worth 3goggles did point out San Diego has a 335 defense that isn't terrible for the sake of discussion.
Fishclamps wrote:To people who are confused by what I meant when I said lines were drawn...
I mean that in our normal discourse one of us might be able to sway another with thought provoking discussion, stats to back up our assertions, or insight into what is actually going on.
In the case of Rich Rod, NO ONE is changing ANYONE'S mind here about how they feel about him.
It's obvious some here have a very clear distaste for our current coach and there's people that don't. I really don't care that people dislike him, that's your prerogative, but it's getting really fucking old wading through every thread to find any real football knowledge and true discussion in these threads anymore before they devolve into someone flinging shit on RR or people getting into petty arguments.
I think we know where everyone stands on the RR thing, and it should be given a rest till next season.
I don't disagree that no one is changing anyone's opinion but to call me out after I actually posted my predictions of each game for 2016 seems crazy. I actually posted to discuss the 2016 team and didn't mention rich Rod. For the record I think he is a great offensive coach who is loyal to a bad defensive scheme. I think he is an average recruiter and I don't think he is loyal and will eventually leave for a better job.
However, can other's please post their 2016 predictions game by game as I typically like hearing people discuss who we play etc.
I do apologize for derailing the thread somewhat.
For what it's worth 3goggles did point out San Diego has a 335 defense that isn't terrible for the sake of discussion.
You did not derail the discussion... People are just heated on both sides because they care.
As for 3goggles, he did say that - but you left out another important part:
3goggles wrote:I'm tired of people blasting the scheme it's recruiting, lack of development and not being aggressive enough.
If that was intended as a pick-me-up, I hope he is not a suicide prevention hotline operator.
I definitely have more hope right now about next season then I did a week ago, even yesterday. Lets see who we hire but if we spend the money to hire a great d-coordinator who can recruit, I have hope we can turn around our terrible defense. I just had zero desire to watch another year of Casteel running our defense, that would not have ended up well.
2004 First Team All American Football Poster as voted on by GOAZCATS
Newportcat wrote:I definitely have more hope right now about next season then I did a week ago, even yesterday. Lets see who we hire but if we spend the money to hire a great d-coordinator who can recruit, I have hope we can turn around our terrible defense. I just had zero desire to watch another year of Casteel running our defense, that would not have ended up well.
Who ever RR does hired to become Arizona DC, It going to take time for that DC to coach up and developed our current Defense roster and install a new scheme.
Newportcat wrote:I definitely have more hope right now about next season then I did a week ago, even yesterday. Lets see who we hire but if we spend the money to hire a great d-coordinator who can recruit, I have hope we can turn around our terrible defense. I just had zero desire to watch another year of Casteel running our defense, that would not have ended up well.
Who ever RR does hired to become Arizona DC, It going to take time for that DC to coach up and developed our current Defense roster and install a new scheme.
Even then I'd be willing to bet that our defense is noticeably better next year.
i was going to put the ua/asu records here...but i forgot what they were.
Very true but at least we will go into next season excited to see if that defense works. I also think we will pay the money to hire a great DC as we were paying Casteel well. We also cant be any worse then we were this year
2004 First Team All American Football Poster as voted on by GOAZCATS
Newportcat wrote:I definitely have more hope right now about next season then I did a week ago, even yesterday. Lets see who we hire but if we spend the money to hire a great d-coordinator who can recruit, I have hope we can turn around our terrible defense. I just had zero desire to watch another year of Casteel running our defense, that would not have ended up well.
Who ever RR does hired to become Arizona DC, It going to take time for that DC to coach up and developed our current Defense roster and install a new scheme.
Even then I'd be willing to bet that our defense is noticeably better next year.
Newportcat wrote:I definitely have more hope right now about next season then I did a week ago, even yesterday. Lets see who we hire but if we spend the money to hire a great d-coordinator who can recruit, I have hope we can turn around our terrible defense. I just had zero desire to watch another year of Casteel running our defense, that would not have ended up well.
Who ever RR does hired to become Arizona DC, It going to take time for that DC to coach up and developed our current Defense roster and install a new scheme.
Even then I'd be willing to bet that our defense is noticeably better next year.
That depend on who he hired fired first. Not hyping up our defense unless they magically improve in a new direction.
Newportcat wrote:I definitely have more hope right now about next season then I did a week ago, even yesterday. Lets see who we hire but if we spend the money to hire a great d-coordinator who can recruit, I have hope we can turn around our terrible defense. I just had zero desire to watch another year of Casteel running our defense, that would not have ended up well.
Who ever RR does hired to become Arizona DC, It going to take time for that DC to coach up and developed our current Defense roster and install a new scheme.
Even then I'd be willing to bet that our defense is noticeably better next year.
What would you consider noticeably better?
For me markedly better includes 3rd and long not being automatic, plus 10 more - those brutal big plays. Boise State, Cal right out of the gate. Have to tighten those gashes up. More QB pressure, a common complaint. Seemed a little better last year, but whatever. So it'll be interesting to finally have a four man front that we've all clamored for. Hopefully the new scheme doesn't come with the same confusion that Casteel's caused at first - don't know if they ever really got the hang of it. Obviously not. I think those would be pretty objective markers. Unfortunately nobody sounds too excited in the DL thread . . .
Arizona is still in the process of finalizing its 105-man roster for the start of training camp. But the Star got a look at the latest version. Which means we’ve got uniform numbers for all the newcomers.
Here they are, sans the seven freshmen who enrolled in January:
LB Michael Barton: 11
WR Zach Benjamin: 87
CB Lorenzo Burns: 2
OT Bryson Cain: 54
LB Jalen Cochran: 81
LB Jacob Colacion: 34
WR Devaughn Cooper: 7
S Tristan Cooper: 31
OL Michael Eletise: 75
DT Justin Holt: 50
LB Francisco Nelson: 39
WR Shawn Poindexter: 19
S Gavin Robertson: 5
RB J.J. Taylor: 25
S Chacho Ulloa: 20
S Jarrius Wallace: 3
More on the numbers front: Safety Demetrius Flannigan-Fowles will wear No. 6 this season, while receiver Nate Phillips will wear No. 11.
New NCAA guidelines are recommending that Division I college football programs reduce the number of live-contact practices they conduct during the upcoming season.
The Division I Football Oversight Committee on Wednesday endorsed a proposed guideline to reduce the recommended number of live-contact practices that teams conduct each week from two to one. The practice guidelines take effect six days before each team’s 2016 regular-season opening game and run through the final regular-season game or conference championship game.
The guidelines allow players who do not compete in a game in a particular week to participate in an additional live-contact practice to work on skill development and master proper techniques.
The committee made the recommendation during a teleconference Wednesday as a clarification to the inter-association consensus guidelines for in-season football practice contact that the NCAA’s Sport Science Institute helped develop in 2014.
The committee made the recommendation in an effort to improve player safety, believing it could decrease athlete exposure to concussion, including repeat concussion and overall head impact exposure. Data indicate that football players are more frequently diagnosed with sport-related concussion on days with an increase in frequency and higher magnitude of head impact.
Live-contact practices are defined as any practice that involves live tackling to the ground and/or full-speed blocking. A live-contact practice may occur in full pad or half pad (also known as “shell,” in which the player wears shoulder pads and shorts, with or without thigh pads). Live contact does not include “thud” sessions or drills that involve “wrapping up,” because in those scenarios players are not taken to the ground and contact is not aggressive in nature.
To assist schools with applying the definition, the committee also endorsed clarifying that a live-contact practice is any practice that involves players being taken to the ground.
The Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports is expected to recommend the same in-season, live-contact practice guidelines for Division II and Division III football programs.
Wasn't Justin Holt's papa #50 also? I think we are gonna like this kid. #81 for a LB is different as well
Waiting at the Rose Bowl patiently for the cats to arrive
"I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more wildcat sports"
2019 BDW Survivor Pool Champion
I am definitely in favor of the reducing CTE and other injuries at every football level, just seemed odd the PAC did it without other conferences matching it. We all remember what happened when Dick Tomey reduced contact drills before playing PSU in the Pigskin Classic.
Blocking Below the Waist
Offensive players who are outside the tackle box at the snap, and those who leave the tackle box after the snap, may only block an opponent below the waist if the force of the initial contact is directly at the opponent's front. However, they may not block an opponent below the waist in a direction toward the original position of the ball unless the ball carrier has clearly crossed the line of scrimmage.
Input From a Medical Observer
In 2015, the committee approved an experimental rule that allows the Instant Replay official to interrupt a game at the request of a medical observer. This was to take care of the situation where the medical observer saw that a player had been injured on the field, but neither the officials nor the sideline personnel noticed this and therefore had not stopped the game. The committee received indications from a number of institutions that showed that this was a very successful experiment in 2015. So, for 2016 the committee has approved this as a permanent rule change.
Low Hits on the Passer
This rule that protects the passer is clarified that the tackler may not legally make forcible contact against the passer at the knee or below, even if he is making a wrap-up tackle.
Outcome of a Suspended Game
It is not uncommon for a game to be suspended because of weather or other unusual conditions. In the case of a weather delay, typically the game can be resumed after a delay when the weather clears. For those rare occasions where the game cannot be resumed, the rules provide four options: (1) resume at a later date; (2) end the game with a determined final score; (3) forfeit; or (4) declare no contest.
If the teams are in the same conference, conference policy dictates the outcome. However, if the teams are in different conferences, the current rule requires that the athletics directors of the teams agree on an outcome. Until this year the rules were silent on what happens if the two ADs can't agree. The 2016 change says that in this event, the policy of the home team's conference is used to determine the outcome.
Scrimmage Kick Formation
Punts and field goal attempts are classified as scrimmage kicks, because they are made as part of a play from scrimmage. The rules for scrimmage plays require the offense to have at least five linemen wearing jerseys numbered between 50 and 79. However, if a team is in a scrimmage kick formation, they may replace some of those players by linemen wearing numbers outside the 50-79 range; these typically are "speed players," backs who are faster than the larger linemen and can get downfield faster to cover the kick.
Because some teams were beginning to "game" the rules by running or passing the ball from this formation, the rules committee felt that it needed to tighten the requirements. Under the new rules, a scrimmage kick formation must have a player at least 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage (the likely punter) OR a potential kicker and potential holder at least seven yards deep. Another important part of the rule is that "it must be obvious that a kick will be attempted."
Sliding Ball Carrier: Defenseless Player
There are several situations where a player is considered "defenseless" for purposes of the targeting rule. Examples include a pass receiver who is concentrating on catching the ball and a kick-return man awaiting a punt. This year the committee added the ball carrier who has "obviously given himself up and is sliding feet-first."
Starting the Clock Near the End of a Half
The rules give the referee broad authority in stopping and starting the game clock or the play clock if he feels that a team is manipulating the clock to gain an advantage. Near the end of a half, the clock rules become increasingly important.
Under most circumstances, if the game clock is stopped because of a penalty, it starts when the referee gives the "ready-for-play" signal after completing the penalty. This year, the committee passed a rule that takes effect inside two minutes in the half. This new rule requires that the clock be started on the snap if the team ahead in the score commits a foul. Under the current rule, the clock would be started on the ready-for-play signal, allowing the fouling team the chance to gain a time advantage by running perhaps 20 or more seconds off the game clock. The new rule prevents this.
Targeting: An Expanded Role for Instant Replay
By rule, every targeting foul is reviewed by the instant replay official. Up to this point, the replay official's role has been to verify whether the forcible contact was with the crown of the helmet or was struck at the head or neck area of a defenseless player. Now as part of the review, the replay official is directed to examine all elements of the ruling made by the official on the field, not only the location of the forcible contact. In addition, the replay official is empowered to "create" a foul if he sees an obvious and egregious targeting action that the officials on the field miss. Because the action is so dangerous and the ejection penalty so severe, the committee has made these changes to increase the probability that targeting fouls are correctly ruled and administered.
Tripping the Ball Carrier
For a number of years it has been illegal for a player to stick out his foot or leg to trip an opponent, but it was legal to do this to the ball carrier. Because of leg injuries to runners over the past couple years, the committee now has made it illegal to trip any opponent, including the ball carrier.
TV Access Inside the Limit Lines
Television partners may briefly bring hand-held cameras inside the limit lines during certain dead-ball periods.
Unsportsmanlike Conduct by a Coach
For many years, NCAA football has had a rule wherein a player who commits two fouls for unsportsmanlike conduct is disqualified for the remainder of the game after the second foul. Interestingly enough, no such rule exists in college football for behavior by coaches. Football is the only NCAA sport that does not have such a rule. For example, in basketball when a coach receives two technical fouls, the second foul disqualifies him for the rest of the game.
The rules committee believes that as teachers and adult leaders of young athletes playing football, coaches should be held to a high standard of behavior appropriate to such a responsible position. Thus, starting in 2016, the rule will be that a coach who commits two fouls for unsportsmanlike conduct will be disqualified from the game. He must leave the playing field before the ball is next put into play, and he must remain out of view of the playing field for the remainder of the game.
Had the new rule been in place last year, then-Auburn defensive coordinator Will Muschamp would have been tossed from the Alabama game as seen in this video:
Use of Technology for Coaching
The rules committee was recommending that coaches be allowed to use video and computers in the press box and the locker rooms, but after receiving expressions of concern from a number of conferences about implementing this change, the committee has voted to delay this new rule until 2017. This will give institutions more time to prepare for this major change in the use of technology. So there will be no change in the technology-for-coaching rule for 2016.
Experimental Rule: Collaboration in Instant Replay
In addition to these changes in the rules, the committee has approved an experimental rule for the 2016 season. This experiment will allow what is being referred to as a "collaborative approach" to the use of instant replay. This means that the replay official will be in communication with observers who are watching the game on television at a site other than the instant replay booth. The replay official will be in consultation with the remote observers while reviewing a play. The purpose is to allow for a second observer in addition to this replay official to assist in making the decisions about a review. As a part of the experimental rule process, conferences that use this approach will report back to the rules committee at next year's meetings with the results of this experiment.
