Link: Hmm... Discussions about eliminating kickoffs...

DC Tide

1st Team
Sep 13, 2007
407
0
0
I’m probably in a minority of one on this point, but I’m alright with removing kickoffs. Here’s my reasoning:


  • Concussions are an existential threat to the game. The problems of brain injury in football are not a liberal media conspiracy. They are a statistical and scientific fact. To protect our beloved sport (and to protect the players whom we claim to love) we must allow it to evolve. I would rather see people inside the sport implement incremental, sensible safety changes NOW than to have an outside body come in and make drastic changes later.
  • Kickoffs contribute to way more concussions than other plays. Take a look at this chart, taken from 10 years of data in the NFL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3438866/table/table4-1941738110383963/. It shows that concussions on kickoffs are 4 times more likely to occur than on passing plays from scrimmage. (It also shows that kickoffs are far more dangerous than punts.)
  • The saying that “special teams are one-third of the game” is just a maxim. It’s true that special teams account for roughly one-third of all points scored … but that’s mostly extra points and field goals. The expected value of field position due to kickoffs is pretty small. (See this Expected Points per 1st Down Field Position chart).
  • Kickoffs are generally boring. This point is (obviously) a matter of opinion. We all remember Kenyon Drake’s return and amazing plays like Stanford-Cal. But those are exceptions to the rule. In reality, only 0.7 percent of kickoffs result in a returned touchdown. And, in my opinion, a touchback is the most boring play result in football.
  • Kickoffs are an excuse for TV commercials. Not all TV networks do this, but I HATE when networks have a commercial set, show a kickoff (often just a touchback), then break away for yet more commercials. It really breaks the flow of the game.

All in all, I’d rather see kickoffs tinkered with rather than banned. Close the initial distance between teams, perhaps, or replace kickoffs with punts. But I’m also OK with outright banning kickoffs if they would make the game significantly safer for our players.
 

mdb-tpet

All-SEC
Sep 2, 2004
1,472
1,181
182
If they are looking to eliminate or reduce the injuries from kickoffs, then make rules to eliminate the injuries yet keep the kickoff. Such as:

1. Move the lines of scrimmage to the 50 yard line to reduce the amount of speed the players hit each other with (keep the kicker at the 35 yard line).
2. Better yet, require all players to be within 5 yards of the ball before kicking.
3. Keep all players absolutely still until the ball comes to a complete rest.
4. Make the players sit down upon being touched by another player.
5. Require all players to wear those giant soccer ball ball balloons.

Just a little thought and trial and error could dramatically reduce injuries and concussions! :0)
 

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,488
6,506
187
UA
I’m probably in a minority of one on this point, but I’m alright with removing kickoffs. Here’s my reasoning:


  • Concussions are an existential threat to the game. The problems of brain injury in football are not a liberal media conspiracy. They are a statistical and scientific fact. To protect our beloved sport (and to protect the players whom we claim to love) we must allow it to evolve. I would rather see people inside the sport implement incremental, sensible safety changes NOW than to have an outside body come in...


  • Eliminating the kickoff is not a "sensible safety change". And I'm really not sure what more drastic changes could be made than eliminating entire chunks of the sport.

    First it will be the kickoff because concussions are more likely. After the kickoff is gone it will move to "all punts are dead balls". Then "only tackle between the bottom of the armpits and the top of the waist". Then "no tackling a player looking the opposite direction". Etc etc.

    If concussions are such a concern just outlaw the sport and be done with it.

    No kickoffs is some back-yard nonsense.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

DC Tide

1st Team
Sep 13, 2007
407
0
0
I get that this is an emotional issue. We all like to watch the game as we’ve always watched it, and don’t want it to change. So please allow me rephrase my point as a decision matrix:

Do you recognize any of the following names: Kenny Stabler, Kevin Turner, Kerry Goode (not to mention the dozens of others here)?

  • If no: I’m sorry, but you’re not actually an Alabama football fan. Moo.
  • If yes:

Did you know that all 3 were diagnosed with either CTE or ALS?

  • If no: Perhaps you should read up more on Bama football news. (Moo?)
  • If yes:

Do you accept that there’s a relationship between head trauma and long-term conditions such as CTE and ALS?

  • If no: Fair enough. I don’t claim to understand the medical literature on this issue, myself. But there seems to be increasing evidence on not only the correlation but also the causality of concussions with regard to CTE and ALS.
  • If yes:

Does it trouble you that kickoffs are four times more likely to result in a concussion than any other type of play?

  • If no: Perhaps I might interest you in these tickets to the Colosseum? They just got in a fresh batch of Christians, and the lions haven’t been fed for days. :pDT_orctrinque:
  • If yes:

Do you think that, for the safety of the players and for the long-term health of the sport, we should maybe entertain ideas on how to tweak the rules regarding kickoffs?

  • If no: You may be suffering from cognitive dissonance.
  • If yes: You agree with me and I have a friend!
  • :GUITAR_LEFT:
 

Alabama22

1st Team
Aug 3, 2010
834
0
35
Alabama
It would be absolutely ridiculous to eliminate the kickoff. The pinheads pushing for this are simply doing everything they can to put their mark on the game...and in doing so, are ruining the game. To me, there should be no further discussion about injuries on kickoffs. Injuries can occur anytime, anyplace.
 

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
42,131
29,287
287
Vinings, ga., usa
I get that this is an emotional issue. We all like to watch the game as we’ve always watched it, and don’t want it to change. So please allow me rephrase my point as a decision matrix:

Do you recognize any of the following names: Kenny Stabler, Kevin Turner, Kerry Goode (not to mention the dozens of others here)?

  • If no: I’m sorry, but you’re not actually an Alabama football fan. Moo.
  • If yes:

Did you know that all 3 were diagnosed with either CTE or ALS?

  • If no: Perhaps you should read up more on Bama football news. (Moo?)
  • If yes:

Do you accept that there’s a relationship between head trauma and long-term conditions such as CTE and ALS?

  • If no: Fair enough. I don’t claim to understand the medical literature on this issue, myself. But there seems to be increasing evidence on not only the correlation but also the causality of concussions with regard to CTE and ALS.
  • If yes:

Does it trouble you that kickoffs are four times more likely to result in a concussion than any other type of play?

  • If no: Perhaps I might interest you in these tickets to the Colosseum? They just got in a fresh batch of Christians, and the lions haven’t been fed for days. :pDT_orctrinque:
  • If yes:

Do you think that, for the safety of the players and for the long-term health of the sport, we should maybe entertain ideas on how to tweak the rules regarding kickoffs?

  • If no: You may be suffering from cognitive dissonance.
  • If yes: You agree with me and I have a friend!
  • :GUITAR_LEFT:
i am pretty sure stabler never played on kickoffs
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I think the 40-yard kickoff is the appropriate reaction in the name of player safety. It is interesting to see the numbers when this undoubtedly gets pushed to the whole NCAA. I think it may have the opposite effect because the onside kicks could be seen as a more viable option...especially for the ones where you try to pooch it 15-30 yards down field where the up-backs might be slow to react or out of position. Onside plays usually have a ton of aggressive contact. Furthermore, more teams may be willing to try high, lazy corner kicks to pin the returner.


Who knows, it might have the intended effect. Lets remember though that the clock rule changes in the mid-2000s were suppose to shorten the game to increase safety but it didn't take a coach long to get a wild hair and see that it actually encouraged higher tempo which increased the number of plays.
 

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
I think the 40-yard kickoff is the appropriate reaction in the name of player safety. It is interesting to see the numbers when this undoubtedly gets pushed to the whole NCAA. I think it may have the opposite effect because the onside kicks could be seen as a more viable option...especially for the ones where you try to pooch it 15-30 yards down field where the up-backs might be slow to react or out of position. Onside plays usually have a ton of aggressive contact. Furthermore, more teams may be willing to try high, lazy corner kicks to pin the returner.


Who knows, it might have the intended effect. Lets remember though that the clock rule changes in the mid-2000s were suppose to shorten the game to increase safety but it didn't take a coach long to get a wild hair and see that it actually encouraged higher tempo which increased the number of plays.
I like what you wrote here, but it raises the question whether there any evidence that putting the ball at the 40 really reduces the risk (other than making touchbacks more likely). It doesn't take more than 15 yards for these guys to get up to full speed, but it just puts them that much closer to hitting the receiver deep in his zone. Nobody would ever return a kickoff under these circumstances unless they were extremely desperate or else the kicking team pooched it, which would be very dangerous for the receiver. What we get are the extremes magnified... many pointless kickoffs punctuated by highly dangerous plays.
If they are going to really tinker with it, I like the idea of starting with a situation like a 4th and 10 (or even 15) from your own 40. Most teams will punt most of the time, but for the desperate come back, the team can go for it to keep possession. It also puts more pressure on the kicking team as punts can be fumbled, muffed, blocked, faked, etc. As was said above, punts are relatively safer and the strategic element and potential excitement would still be there.
 

Snuffy Smith

All-American
Sep 12, 2012
3,537
640
162
Huntsville, AL
The bring it out to the 20 kind of cuts both ways. It discourages the kicks just short of the goal line to try to tackle inside the 25 but it also increases the number of returns from the end zone. The only way to stop that is make a ball in the end zone an automatic touchback


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

JDCrimson

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2006
5,307
4,355
187
51
I think I would probably look at first placing the ball on kickoffs at the 36yd line and make the kickoff team (minus the kicker) toe the line of scrimmage at the 35yd. This would eliminate the running start the kickoff team gets and slow their speed downfield. I would probably also look at possibly instituting a rule on the kick return team that they must engage the kickoff team above the 20yd line. Also, change the rule that kickoffs must travel 20yds before they maybe recovered by the kickoff team pushing back the line of scrimmage for the kickoff team. Anything that would slow the speed of kickoff plays and improve spacing for return lanes.
 

skrayper77

All-American
Sep 4, 2003
3,511
228
182
I imagine Clemson fans would be for the elimination of kick offs, considering how big of a deal they played in the Championship Game.

Honestly? Without at least the CHANCE of an onside, then how would that work?
Once again, going back to the CFP - Clemson got the ball back with 1:07 left and no time outs.
Without kickoffs, the game is already over if you're down my more than 8. You can score on one play and then we automatically get the ball back - two snaps and game over.

While true it wouldn't change the outcome of EVERY game, it would change several games including some really incredible ones. It would also mean that there would be scenarios where teams would have no reason to even try to score. Down by more than 8 with no time-outs? Better hope there's over 2 minutes left on the clock when you score. Anything less and the game is already over.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
I think the idea of touchbacks for any kickoff that crosses the plane of the goal line in bounds. Also, I think the 25-yard starting position on touchbacks was a bad idea by the rules committee. It encouraged more "just short of the goal line" type kicks in an attempt to make a gain on the starting position for the defense.

My preferred rules given this discussion:

1. move the kick spot up to the 40 to make it easier for the average NCAA kicker to create touchbacks

2. Any kick that reaches the endzone is an automatic deadball touchback. This means bouncers, received kicks, etc. If it reaches the endzone, the play is whistled dead.

3. Move the starting field position on touchbacks back to the 20 yard line.

The value of onside kicks at the 40 yard line will be something to look out for but I think even the most aggressive coaches are sheepish at making the onside kick a part of the every play possibility. Increasing the likelihood and value of a touchback may regulate that possible exploitation.
 

Redwood Forrest

Hall of Fame
Sep 19, 2003
11,040
905
237
76
Boaz, AL USA
I think the idea of touchbacks for any kickoff that crosses the plane of the goal line in bounds. Also, I think the 25-yard starting position on touchbacks was a bad idea by the rules committee. It encouraged more "just short of the goal line" type kicks in an attempt to make a gain on the starting position for the defense.

My preferred rules given this discussion:

1. move the kick spot up to the 40 to make it easier for the average NCAA kicker to create touchbacks

2. Any kick that reaches the endzone is an automatic deadball touchback. This means bouncers, received kicks, etc. If it reaches the endzone, the play is whistled dead.

3. Move the starting field position on touchbacks back to the 20 yard line.

The value of onside kicks at the 40 yard line will be something to look out for but I think even the most aggressive coaches are sheepish at making the onside kick a part of the every play possibility. Increasing the likelihood and value of a touchback may regulate that possible exploitation.
That, or instead of the traditional kick off we could line up just like a regular punt from the 50 yard line and punt the ball. Could also do a fake punt in place of an onside kick. Both the fake punt and onside take at least ten yards.
 

rgw

Suspended
Sep 15, 2003
20,852
1,351
232
Tuscaloosa
The simple fact is the NFL benefits from the absolute best 32 kickers and punters in the world so there are a lot more touchbacks and fair catches. The college kick/punt quality just isn't that high and never will be so the opportunity for returns will always be higher than in the NFL. I think the NCAA owes to young men to consider ways to increase safety on kick/punt returns while not completely destroying the strategy around the change of possession scenario. When it comes to player safety, even the traditionalist mindset in me withers.

This is why I object to the rules which have outright encouraged tempo offense as an every down offense. I don't buy the argument "well the bluebloods want us to line up and get beat up by their big guys" whenever the anti-tempo sentiment is expressed. The spread does not have tempo as a pre-req and it has existed as a way for lesser talented teams to compete for over two decades now. Tempo is simply shifting the injury risk towards the defense who must play through exhaustion now. Free substitution was a great benefit to player safety and tempo is hurting that freedom on the most physically exhausting side of the ball.

We need to adopt new clock rules that makes possession more valuable thus discouraging the boom or bust nature of tempo offense. We need to look into way to limit returns because it is usually the most vicious player contact in a game each weekend. These are more important to me than closing the RPO loophole because the ineligible downfield neutral zone is more of a philosophical argument than a player safety agenda.
 

DC Tide

1st Team
Sep 13, 2007
407
0
0
That, or instead of the traditional kick off we could line up just like a regular punt from the 50 yard line and punt the ball. Could also do a fake punt in place of an onside kick. Both the fake punt and onside take at least ten yards.
Same. That'd be safer than kickoffs but would still be entertaining and would preserve the value of special teams.

Failing that, I'd prefer to just have teams start at the 20 after the opposing teams scores (i.e., eliminate kickoffs).

Least favorite proposal is to tinker with the rules such that touchbacks are virtually guaranteed. Boring.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.