Flagrant grab or at least the deal where it's initially incidental but the player rolls with it and rips the helmet off or tries to.
CFB rule changes
- Thread starter hoosman
- Start date
Flagrant grab or at least the deal where it's initially incidental but the player rolls with it and rips the helmet off or tries to.
Frankly I don't think I'd be taking away many net scholarships. Fortunately Iowa State is operating without state subsidy so it doesn't apply as much but for other schools where the general fund supports athletics the money that was going to athletics can now be used for multiple in-state students instead of 1 out of state athlete who will be gone as soon as their eligibility is used up. ISU can do better educating Iowans on the couple million in student fees going to athletics than athletics can.
Agree unless it is obviously intentional, then eject for that game with no carry over. I don’t get when a player has his helmet taken off by an opposing player, he has to sit out a play. Very dumb rule that was put in to stop players show boating and taunting. Keep the rule for those obvious idiots but don’t penalize players for non intentional loss of a helmet. It’s even dumber when a tackler or defensive lineman obviously ripped the helmet off and gets no penalty.
Re: targeting -- you can't legislate intent. That's why the rule is written like it is. If you try to add "but did he mean to do that?" on top of it, it becomes a subjective penalty instead of an objective penalty.
And if you hate the inconsistency that has targeting has now, trying to figure out a player's intent will make it so much worse.
And if you hate the inconsistency that has targeting has now, trying to figure out a player's intent will make it so much worse.
During the review, player meets with forensic psychologist to do a brief interview to understand motive and intent...easy, lol
But you are correct, can you imagine....and of course "Isheem Young clearly meant to hurt the opposing receiver....we have a hunch" lol
Agree. That’s why I prefer minimizing the ejection to a quarter so it has less impact on the team.
There are two completely different discussions. Getting more people to be able to go to college is good. For the health of the sport of football decreasing scholarships is likely good. If you are looking to improve parity and the quality of the sport you should be at minimum open to decreasing scholarships. What that would do is not let certain schools just stockpile talented players.
If you want to argue about what is better for society as a whole then that is a completely different discussion.
I think cutting scholarships would be beneficial for the parity of college football but it's hard to deny it would be removing some kid's ability to get an education. Not sure how you would fix it. Could allow players to get paid and have some of them pay for college I suppose. But I still think that screws over the borderline players
Saw a targeting call on Northwestern yesterday where the Auburn QB ran, sort of fell to the turf and the Northwestern DB sort of hit him, a play that's only happened like a zillion times in the history of football.
They reviewed and said no targeting and even took back the 15 yard PF call.
First thought?
There's one we'll never ever get.
They reviewed and said no targeting and even took back the 15 yard PF call.
First thought?
There's one we'll never ever get.
They can have a 53 man roster, but they cannot dress that many for any game. That is why they have inactive players each week, on the roster but not dressed. Those on the practice squad are not counted as part of that number.
A college football team as 85 scholarship players plus another 10 to 20 non scholarship players, and everyone one can play 4 games and still redshirt for the season.
Third quarterback rule - Wikipedia
NFL 2020 season: a complete guide to the league’s new roster rules - Arrowhead Pride
Last edited:
This definitely happens, but reducing available scholarships isn’t going to change it. And, while there are some careers (engineering, medicine) where the education is critical, there are others where... not so much. I can’t think of one thing I learned at ISU that I use professionally. But that piece of paper opens a lot of doors.
I think you can do pretty well. Essentially, if the helmet contact is created because the offensive player is going to the ground and the target moved, that's usually incidental. If the offensive player is upright and the contact by the defensive player was going to be high anyway, well that was probably intentional.
Yes there will be controversial calls. But I'd prefer to have guys not removed because the offensive player goes low even if that means there will be guys that stay int he game that probably shouldn't.
Changes I would make:
- If a QB runs the ball they should be treated same as RB regarding targeting. Saw a number of instances in bowl games where QB's slid late and defender penalized for targeting.
- Pass Interference should be a spot foul just like NFL. College DB's are rewarded for grabbing WR's.
- NFL rule on punt touchbacks. As long as coverage guy doesn't touch end-zone turf, they can bat ball back into field of play.
- I enjoyed this bowl season because there were fewer games. IMO there should only be around 12 bowl games for P5 teams. IMO schools shouldn't have to guarantee they will purchase x tickets out of an allotment.
- Related to bowls, I would move away from late December/early January games. Play most games 1-2 weeks after conference championship games.
