Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Scoring in CFB?
godawgst
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,618 
The weekly scores in college football have become arena like, led by the Big XII.
What can be done to change this? I do know tv is not going to let these games keep getting longer and longer. Most are now taking 3.5-4 hours to play.
I get people want to see scoring, but more and more of these games look like 7 on 7 drills tackling optional, which is going to result in people changing the channel.
Are they going to change the rules where an incomplete pass stops the clock until the ball is placed at the los then starts running?
Your not putting the spread offense genie back in the bottle, but games like Oklahoma State vs. Texas Tech are gawd awful and terrible for the game.
Comments
-
The Oklahoma game 66-59 was an abomination. Both teams should be forced to forfeit.
-
Here's the problem. Coaches are hired specifically to play arena league football. See dykes at cal kingsbury at Texas Tech leach at wsu, etc.
Many schools simply think 55-52 is their best chance to win on a weekly basis. Fuck that -
But that style of play will only take you so far. At some point when you play a real defense you are screwed.dhdawg said:Here's the problem. Coaches are hired specifically to play arena league football. See dykes at cal kingsbury at Texas Tech leach at wsu, etc.
Many schools simply think 55-52 is their best chance to win on a weekly basis. Fuck that
It's like your admitting there's a ceiling to what/where your program can go. I.E Dykes is saying to his kids and fans "We can never win the Pac-12 North at Cal, so our goal is to win 7-8 games a year, maybe 9 and be entertaining as hell doing it" If I am a kid why would I want to play there, or as a fan why would I want to support both economically or emotionally a school that is admitting it can never win the conference championship or play in a Rose Bowl? -
Colorado 10, Stanford 5.
Fuck off. -
I like that the Pac has such contrasting styles in it. A few defensive teams, a few offensive teams, lots of dreck teams. Fun times!
I think the Big 12 is basically the only conference that doesn't have anyone who plays defense (hi @Tequilla)! Otherwise there are teams here and there. I don't really see it as a big issue, unless you like the Big 12, in which case lol. -
Wow. One game.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Colorado 10, Stanford 5.
Fuck off. -
tOSU PSU was a good defensive battle.CuntWaffle said:
Wow. One game.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Colorado 10, Stanford 5.
Fuck off.
The difference was unlike in Stanford Colorado the offenses weren't total dreck -
As a fan of Cal football, I won't support it precisely because the style of play means we'll wiin some and loose some but never play for anything of consequence. Last year our AD said something along the lines of We have big donors who are OK if we go 3-9 and our APR is 975. If that's the case, they've got the perfect coach and those big donors will soon be watching Cal games in a mostly empty stadium.godawgst said:
But that style of play will only take you so far. At some point when you play a real defense you are screwed.dhdawg said:Here's the problem. Coaches are hired specifically to play arena league football. See dykes at cal kingsbury at Texas Tech leach at wsu, etc.
Many schools simply think 55-52 is their best chance to win on a weekly basis. Fuck that
It's like your admitting there's a ceiling to what/where your program can go. I.E Dykes is saying to his kids and fans "We can never win the Pac-12 North at Cal, so our goal is to win 7-8 games a year, maybe 9 and be entertaining as hell doing it" If I am a kid why would I want to play there, or as a fan why would I want to support both economically or emotionally a school that is admitting it can never win the conference championship or play in a Rose Bowl?
I don't have any hard evidence to back it up, but I think that it tends to attract good offensive recruits who want to showcase themselves for NFL scouts, and also repel good defensive recruits who want to go where they take defense seriously. There's discussion on BI about how this last recruiting cycle Dykes took in a gaggle of WR recruits but only two LBs or DLs. Is it a result of their recruiting focus being on offense, or did they want defense guys but couldn't get them because nobody wanted to come to defenseless Cal? The flip side of that is that you might get immediate PT by going to a team with shit defense, but then you might just end up being labeled as a guy with a lot of PT in his career on a shit defense. -
I like it. I especially like it when my team is one of the few that decides defense is important.
-
Just watch Big 10 and SEC football instead.
Problem solved.
