13.Feb.2014 NCAA Rule Changes

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Link here.

Hilarious, Nick Saban/Alabama complains, and then we get this. They’re claiming it’s to help defensive players with injury. The truth is more likely that defenses can’t figure out how to stop these offenses, so they’re crying to the NCAA about it. Even thought his rule would help OSU/Banker, I don’t like it. I’d rather teams be forced to adapt. There’s no evidence up-tempo hurts defensive players. Wouldn’t it hurt offensive players, too, and if true, their coaches wouldn’t use it?

Jump to Bottom
  • Beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    I’m fine with it. Most rules are made to help the offensive players and the defense is always left to adapt.

    • Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

      but of course its SEC driven and an attempt to slow down speedy small teams.

      I think it’s disingenuous that they’re saying it’s in the interest of player safety, but that’s the easiest way to get a rule changed these days.

      Now if only they’d change the 35 second shot clock to 30 in NCAA basketball. That bugs me

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)

    Like I said previously, it’s more important that the refs and the chains get moved at their own pace. Too many mistakes are made spotting balls in the last couple years because up-tempo coaches are screaming for the refs to move at their pace.

    Sorry coaches. That shouldn’t be an option. The refs aren’t there to enhance your game plan. They also shouldn’t move slowly to aid the opposition.

    And if the NCAA wants to allow for teams to sub, then simply make that a part of the game. I have no problem with it since all the rules changes in the last decade which favor the offenses have not been countered with anything for the defense. Offense-minded coaches don’t like it? Too bad! You’ve received plenty of rules changes to aid your side of the argument for a long time. Don’t cry about the only one that doesn’t go your way.

    What I don’t like about it is that it makes it a penalty. If they don’t want the ball snapped until a certain point, just have the ref stand over the ball until that time. It shouldn’t be on the offense to wait until the clock hits a certain second.

    • angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

      I don’t like the source of the rule. Basically teams can’t stop these offense so we need a rule to do it. That’s lame. I think the offensive rule changes were lame, too. It’s turned it into flag football…

    • beaverteeth says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I agree Jack

  • Beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

    If anything, I think this rule will hurt our defense, because during that 10 seconds I’m anticipating sideline confusion over which players should be on the field, and more illegal substitution/12 players on the field infractions. Offenses will be catching the Beavs off guard repeatedly.

  • oneoldbeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

    Ben Gardner weighs in via twitter: https://twitter.com/BennyG49

    His remark about slowing down offenses by preventing them from getting first downs sounds like something Dylan Wynn (or any other passionate defender) would say.

    More interesting is his thought that, “If a team can’t move the chains, they have to slow it down themselves to let their defense rest. It can be done, takes the right mindset” The kind of strategic thinking we very seldom, if ever, see executed by a Riley coached team.

    And, I agree with Beavblazer above, Banker could turn the extra time into a negative.

  • Dwill03 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

    It’s totally weak and comes off as just more pandering to the SEC. Adapt or die.

    I petition for a rule stating that no more then 4 players with a 4 of 5 star ranking can be on the field at a time for any given team. Those bigger, stronger players are putting our smaller 2 and 3 star players a risk of injury.

  • bendbeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    A ‘delay of game’ penalty if the ball’s snapped before 29 seconds is on the play clock? That’s pretty amusing. Maybe they should give it it’s own name. “too fast and confusing for some teams”

  • KC says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

    Up for discussion:

    It has crossed my mind that a combined weight limit for an offensive/defensive line might improve safety and health in college football. Frankly, it is not healthy for 20 yr old kids to be 300+ pounds– or even 285+ for that matter. (Example Fred Thompson)

    This might also improve competition among programs/conferences.

    …just throwin this out there….tell me what an idiot I am…

    • osbeavs says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

      Not a bad idea but I do not believe that Fred Thompson died because of anything related to his weight. I believe Thompson had a genetic heart condition (hypertrophic cardiomyopathy right?).

  • wannabeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    I’m with Beavblazer and Jack on this. In baseball you can’t quick pitch a guy, and in hockey, after an icing call that stops play, both teams are allowed time to change lines. If anything, it ought to be more like a 12 second “delay” though I agree re: the penalty; the umpire should just stand over the ball until the clock reads 27.

  • SalemBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I think it is a great idea. It will be interesting to see how dominant spread offenses will be vs a team that is substituting. Very hard to exchange a couple of 300lb defensive lineman in a few seconds. I think to expand on the number of 4 & 5 *stars in a game. Give each team a set number of stars to use in each game. That way if Alabama played Colorado, they would each have the same total number of stars in the game. ( Colorado might still be below the threshold ) Obviously the star number would have to be the average team starts in div 1. Since the Beavers recruit around 55 they would be at the peak. Naty in 2014

  • VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Angry, check your email please?

  • Beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Radio saying Coach Cav to stay at Oregkn State

  • mckalk says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

    I’m for any rule change that screws over the Ducks!

  • Beavergopher says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Baseball today! Go Beavs.

  • angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

    Totally off topic, but I have been warning people housing was not done correcting in 2011, and has been in a bubble for 2 years now. Today we get reintroduction of subprimes via wells fargo. T – 2 years to implosion. The Federal Reserve has allowed this. Plan accordingly, ABs.

    • Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Subprime has such a negative connotation. They’ve changed the names of these loans to “another chance mortgages” and “alternative mortgage programs”.

      Does that feel better? <—-(i don't know how to use sarcasm font)

      • angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        /sarc is typical internet syntax.

        And yes, it makes me feel so warm and fuzzy I just want to go out and buy two homes. /sarc
        On the positive side, they combined two childhood favorites, hot potato+musical chairs–pass around the overpriced home until the music stops.

        • bendbeaver says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Just trying to give those baby boomers who didn’t invest for retirement one last chance to score on real estate.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Take away the sarc/ and add you having money.

          That’s the gist of the bubble. Money finds loopholes.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        Subprimes have received the incorrect negative connotations because those responsible for their failures are the same ones who are responsible for all the banking bubbles that have occurred since deregulation in the early to mid-80s. Bad apples within the banking industry coupled with speculators to drive the market. Incorporated developers were responsible for more than 93% of the bad paper on subprimes. The original beneficiaries of the loans (people who just needed a break to gain financing) actually foreclose at a lesser rate than normal loans.

        And that’s accounting for foreclosure rates including people who were eligible for normal loans but targeted by banking criminals to take subprimes instead… and then got sucked into the two-year multiplier not present in the original loans given to real subprime lenders.

        It’s laissez faire’s gift to us. Unregulated capitalism is not capitalism.

        On that note, I think I said it here a couple years ago. But the housing bubble wasn’t allowed to fully correct due to the banking bailout. It still has about 15% more to drop. There’s nothing major about this for anyone who has properly accounted for this. But speculators will get nicked again. It’s what they do. If you currently own a home, you need to always reassess your home for tax purposes during these times. If you’ve been stuck on 2007 values or risen, you’re not taking care of your business. You go in with comparables and necessary updates in order to make them drop your assessment. If you have an outdated anything in your home, you take pictures and bring those as well.

        • angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

          Subprime meaning lending to someone with bad credit who has a high risk of default. You can’t spin that, on a mass scale such as housing, as a good thing. The banks are ultimately responsible (for example, WF can simply not give out these loans as they plan to do AGAIN), but they are/were encouraged by govt (bailouts) and fed policy (easy money that needs a return). Without guarantee of bailout and without easy money, WF could not engage in subprime lending.

          What do you mean incorporated developers were responsible? As in the home builders? I don’t know if that’s true. Never heard that. But yeah, we see similar things with auto sales now. Dealerships are giving their own financing to circumvent banks (i.e. subprime in autos right now). Again, the govt/fed policies allow this. Those dealerships would not be taking that risk if they had to lend their own money. But they’re likely using their dealerships as collateral to get extremely low rate loans, then passing them on….or some kind of mechanism like that. Maybe you can explain what you mean.

          We can agree housing has more to drop. The problem more than anything is fundamentals. Young people can’t find jobs that are good enough to purchase a house at these prices. So housing must fall. Hedgies and foreign buyers have propped it up for now, but only in specific/desirable markets.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

            Subprimes were originally meant to give homes to people with poor (more so to people with no) credit who could pay mortgages. It worked very well until Clinton passed his farewell bill that allowed insurance to speculate in banking. Idiot boy inflamed the issue by allowing more lenience and semi-privatizing government entities… then allowing them all to self-regulate… whatever that means.

            People who are and were eligible for subprime loans according to the original parameters of the contracts default at a rate of about 1.8%. This is better than the normal rate of about 3.1% for all normal loans. When everything was deregulated, market speculators were allowed to handle multiple subprime loans in order to build unnecessary inventory. These loans were made in construction loans as well as primary purchases. And they accounted for the 13% failure on said loans. Subtract 1.8% from 13% and you have the amount of loans tat made for bad paper. Now look at the deregulation of insurance on these loans, and you have your bubble.

            This is not now nor has it ever been an issue of poor people buying houses. This has always been an issue of rich people buying houses at such a rate that inflation was ridiculous… in order for them to make a profit.

            Think of houses as baseball cards. When one becomes hot, only the rich can afford to buy up all the inventory then sell it back to the public. Who is responsible once that bubble bursts? And I’m not talking like anyone is really “responsible.” I’m talking like anyone who knows hype and marketing make a bubble what it is, and people who can afford to take the risk to speculate on these bubbles stand to gain the most.

            It’s makes such simple sense that I don’t know what the fuck is wrong with this country that we think otherwise.

          • whatever says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            No need to spin anything.

            “Lenders say they are much stricter about the loans than before the crisis, when lending standards were so lax that many borrowers did not have to provide any proof of income. Borrowers must often make high down payments and provide detailed information about income, work histories and bill payments.”

            So it’s a traditional loan, down payment required, proof of income required…but you don’t need a 750 credit score to qualify.

            These are hardly high risk loans.

            • Jack says:
              VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
              Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

              That added nothing.

              Now think about it. People with money who wanted to make more money took advantage of these loans and bought the hell out of them because there was zero risk involved. It was a neat deal. You buy ten houses or take out ten loans for construction for zero down. You stand to make more than the schmoe who has no credit and a job and still manages to pay his or her way according to the same contract put forth. You go under and claim bankruptcy. S/he maintains. payments.

              Who pays for you going under? And why would schmoe get blamed?

            • Jack says:
              VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
              Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

              Wy would you even pretend to think there’s spin involved?

              This is what is wrong with this country. Do something for yourself and for good before you go and blame the wrong people for the wrong things. I’ve been screaming about inequality for as long as I’ve been here and long before. This is just one of those instances where it occurs. And it’s very well documented over time. Making money because of loopholes and tricks is how people most commonly made money in the last three decades. And there have been no recent real laws to curb that reality. You and I are getting sucked dry by people who want to make money for nothing.

            • angry says:
              VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
              Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

              Jack, confused by your stance. You are against inequality, but always defend the FED as doing their job. Well, low rates benefit those with assets/money as you pointed out.

              Anyway, just logic should tell us all that people who have bad credit should not be given loans. Instead they can improve their credit over time. If they can’t do this, they shouldn’t get loans. That isn’t inequality; it’s just common sense and actually what is best for society. By giving risky citizens loans, we all pay (literally) when the loan doesn’t pan out. Society doesn’t owe potential debtors’ any favors, such as lower credit rating or bailouts. We also don’t owe the wealthy any favors, such as inflating their asset prices via policy or allowing them 10 houses, on 9 of which the mortgage will be inflated away via fixed rates. As always, this current policy favors both of these classes at the expense of the ever-shrinking middle class. The masses (which is still the middle class) will always fund both sides (rich via inflation/poor via entitlements, subprime, etc) until they can’t foot the bill. There’s good reason the middle class is tiny and shrinks after each crisis (which nobody seems to ever see coming).

              It’s not in societies interest to give out these loans. Especially since we JUST saw what happened. And “whatever”, you might say the credit score is slightly lower now, but once an institution lowers them at all, there is mission creep. Other institutions have to beat the rate, etc. Again, we just saw this.

              • Jack says:
                VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
                Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

                You’re not even listening to the facts. People WITH GOOD CREDIT BUT WHO WANT TO PUT NO MONEY DOWN FOUND LOOPHOLES TO STEAL FROM ALL OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                Why is that hard to understand? Is it because those people had money to begin with? Is it because them having money granted them some status of greatness from you and others heretofore unknown?

                I call bullshit where bullshit needs to be called. The poor people who got subprimes are still paying their loans because they’re hard working people who earned their way. The bubble was caused by rich fucks who thought they could get more rich. The next bubble and all others will be the same. Human nature does not change.

                • angry says:
                  VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
                  Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

                  The poor people who got subprimes are still paying their loans because they’re hard working people who earned their way.

                  No, that isn’t completely true. The foreclosure process takes ~3 years, and in many cases it took longer. Many of the debtors lived in the homes rent free for 3+ years. Some continued to pay to avoid destroying their credit. I don’t know the stats on how many squatted vs how many kept paying.

                  The bubble was caused by rich fucks who thought they could get more rich.

                  Of course, Wall St peddling the loans in tranches with inaccurate risk ratings on them. Anyone following this story knows that. The real question is why were they able to do that? And the answer is (a) it wasn’t their money (b) easy money via the FED (c) corruption/influence (d) govt encouraging the loans, etc. I know you disagree with all this. You’d need to explain how Wall St could pull off the subprime fiasco without the govt and fed backing it, though. IMO they would not behave that way using their own money if there were no chance of bailout.

                  People WITH GOOD CREDIT BUT WHO WANT TO PUT NO MONEY DOWN FOUND LOOPHOLES TO STEAL FROM ALL OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  Wouldn’t you do that if you could? Poor people with bad credit also took advantage of the rates. Why are you saying it was just the rich? And the middle class paid for all those loans, rich and poor. The rich benefited most, poor second most, and middle class (especially savers) got hammered.

                  The monetary policy allowed it. The government encouraged the loans. The people followed the cues.

                  • Jack says:
                    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
                    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

                    “No, that isn’t true.”

                    Yes, that is so true that redbloods bleed blue.

                    The people who benefitted from subprime loans continue to be a better class of debtors than the general public. And it’s not even close.

                    The people who thought they could make a quick buck off flipping houses or building them are the majority of faulty paper. And by majority I mean more than 95%.

                    I don’t even know what angle you’re taking here. If it’s not that speculators wasted a bunch of money and got bailed out, then you’re in another world apart from reality. Then again, that can be said of any bubble.

                  • Jack says:
                    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
                    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

                    Re taking out fraudulent loans:
                    “Wouldn’t you do that if you could?”

                    No, I would not do that if I could. The fact is that I could have done that if I wanted to, but I’m not a criminal. Criminals are like water. They find the path of least resistance and seep everything good out of anything. You seem to think bankers sanitize this process?

                  • angry says:
                    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
                    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

                    This is a typical internet conversation that isn’t going to go anywhere. I’ll just leave it with this: I contend that the policy (suppressed rates) is causing all the chaotic behavior, and the govt supports it under the guise of “helping the poor”. Jack, I am basically poor at this point due to medical bills, and not red or blue. No interest in any political party just causes of things and planning accordingly.

                  • angry says:
                    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
                    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

                    No, I would not do that if I could. The fact is that I could have done that if I wanted to, but I’m not a criminal. Criminals are like water. They find the path of least resistance and seep everything good out of anything. You seem to think bankers sanitize this process?

                    The fed and govt enable them.

                  • Jack says:
                    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
                    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

                    “The fed and govt enable them.”

                    I don’t disagree. It’s called deregulation.

                  • Jack says:
                    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
                    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

                    Here’s an article with some decent basic numbers outlining what I’m talking about. Suburban sprawl numbers are responsible for huge percentages of just raw numbers of foreclosures. And most of them are developer owned properties that go unsold.
                    http://www.p4sc.org/articles/all/suburban-ghost-towns

                    Another thing to note is that the urban foreclosure numbers, which they barely touch on here, are inflated due to banking practices which are borderline illegal and illegal. If you look at these places, banks took people who had good credit and pushed them into subprime loans instead. They did this because the higher volume of these loans made bundling easier to do. And that’s where the banks made their money, in bundled mortgage resales. That’s what they mean when they talk about predatory lending. They take people with good credit and give them bad loans compared to what they were eligible for. People wit bad or no credit who qualified for these loans were always protected because the government structured loans accounted for their financial vulnerability into perpetuity. So there were no escalators or high fees or extreme penalties for late payments brought about by the first two… which were brought about by robo-signing.

                    When housing prices began to drop, the banks left holding these bundles started losing money, so they robo-signed a lot of these bad loans to people with good credit. The people who did this should be in prison. But the stigma attached to subprimes, that same stigma I’m arguing against here, crept into the minds of judges who signed off on these robo-signings. Why would any judge take the word of anyone with a subprime loan? Banks are in the right always… correct? In almost 100% of these illegal robo-signings, the debtor wasn’t even aware there was any action on their mortgages until they were informed after the judge ruled on them. It stands to reason that people with good credit but without the wherewithal to know tha banks are grifting them with bad loans would also not have the wherewithal to fight these illegal robo-signings. And even if they did, how are they going to fight anything when they have to move due to evictions based on lies? How is someone who now has bad credit and no home supposed to spend money on a lawyer when the clear priority is finding somewhere to live?

                    So urban foreclosures were hit in this way, inflating their numbers. But again, most of those were bad loans made to people with good credit in bad faith then illegally foreclosed. But they were still only one-fifteenth (in gross units… more so in monetary value) that of developer/speculator owned houses.

                    I guess the reason nobody talks about this is because there just isn’t a face to attach to every single house abandoned by these corporations. And they protect themselves financially when they walk away from this paper because they have the money and wherewithal to hire good lawyers to get them out of their messes. And the irony is that they made their money by doing precisely what they did up until the market dumped.

                    If you’re looking for bad guys, they’re easy to find if you just follow the data.

                  • Jack says:
                    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
                    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

                    “And even if they did, how are they going to fight anything when they have to move due to evictions based on lies? How is someone who now has bad credit and no home supposed to spend money on a lawyer when the clear priority is finding somewhere to live?”

                    Btw… these are the people you bring up with the “~3 years to foreclose” issue. I would do the same if I was grifted like they were. Almost all of them are so in the right that the government actually put holds on evictions based on the lies foisted by robo-signings. There has to be some pretty solid evidence for anyone, the government included, to stop a judge’s order.

  • angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Funny, there was just back to back Wells Fargo and Ford/car ads on the Beaver game. Subprime bubble, baby!

    In CA, 70% of TV ads have been for healthcare/hospitals or drugs, btw, since the AHCA passed. Yeah…I actually sat there and did the math, sad to say. My parent’s cheapest premium is $1600. Affordable!

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      $1600 a day is pretty steep. They might as well just not get insurance and pay the penalty for the gubmint mandate.

      • angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        My dad got hurt via an error during surgery he had (the doc messed up his leg and he can’t walk now)
        His job fired him after that and he lost insurance. My mom was on his insurance. I think they’d have to buy something on an exchange to get coverage. At their age and situation zero coverage isn’t an option.

        • beaverkman says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          Has your dad filed for disability through Social Security? If he can’t work and has lost wages he might be eligible for SSD. He would then be Medicare eligible. There is a 24 month waiting period for Medicare, but the judgement can be retroactive to the sustained injury. It would cover only him, but then it would allow her to enroll through the exchange on a single plan that would obviously less expensive. Are they on COBRA or any other plans?

          • angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I believe he did do that, but I’m not sure if he was accepted yet. They are also suing the hospital since the error was so blatant. The doctor delayed his surgery until morning when the condition he came in with called for immediate surgery. That delay, according to every other surgeon he spoke with, cost him his ability to walk properly. It sucks all around.

  • steveEbeaver says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    A note on bubbles and how we’re hard wired to participate. I think we can agree on this: Recent history is not showing us that this is something we should hope for. But there is a real question of, How do we create a new generation of bankers that are going to think of themselves as the caretakers of society, rather than the rapists?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-15/dan-ariely-why-humans-are-hard-wired-create-asset-bubbles

    • angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I’ve read Airley’s books. He’s a bit of a spaz, but the material is interesting.

Write a Comment

  • Categories

  • Archives