http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/d...0-pound-te

Is it time for college football to consider a weight limit for college football players. As the size of linemen continue to balloon to obscene proportions, maybe its time to propose some measures to keep these freaks from growing to unnatural levels.

Based on Obesity charts, I believe 270 pounds would be a good limit for anybody under 6'6". Then for anybody over 6'6", allow an extra 10 pounds per extra inch.

(08-17-2015 03:17 AM)goofus Wrote:  http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/d...0-pound-te

Is it time for college football to consider a weight limit for college football players. As the size of linemen continue to balloon to obscene proportions, maybe its time to propose some measures to keep these freaks from growing to unnatural levels.

Based on Obesity charts, I believe 270 pounds would be a good limit for anybody under 6'6". Then for anybody over 6'6", allow an extra 10 pounds per extra inch.

It is called Sprint football. Schools that sponsers Sprint Foorball.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_football

Army
Navy
Franklin Pierce
Mansfield
Post
Cornell
Penn
Princeton
Chesnutt Hill College


http://gomounties.com/sports/2010/4/13/S...=sfootball

That's a good idea, maybe there should be a height limit in the NBA too. I hate seeing the best of the best compete for the ultimate prize.

While we're at it, participation trophies for everyone!

Not for James Harrison's kids

We grow'em BIG in TEXAS!

(08-17-2015 06:14 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  That's a good idea, maybe there should be a height limit in the NBA too. I hate seeing the best of the best compete for the ultimate prize.

While we're at it, participation trophies for everyone!

well, it did not take long for the expected smart ass remark. Thanks for the feedback.

there is a difference between somebody growing to their natural height and linemen putting on weight.

There is a reason that performance enhancing drugs have been outlawed in most sports. Athletes were doing things to their bodies that were considered not acceptable. There is a reason sports put limits on things.

(08-17-2015 07:31 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 06:14 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  That's a good idea, maybe there should be a height limit in the NBA too. I hate seeing the best of the best compete for the ultimate prize.

While we're at it, participation trophies for everyone!

well, it did not take long for the expected smart ass remark. Thanks for the feedback.

there is a difference between somebody growing to their natural height and linemen putting on weight.

There is a reason that performance enhancing drugs have been outlawed in most sports. Athletes were doing things to their bodies that were considered not acceptable. There is a reason sports put limits on things.

I like the idea of limited substitution to reduce size, like it used to be prior to the mid-60s when they changed the rules. By making them play nearly every down, you force them to be fit, not just big. So they will be in better overall physical shape, not merely strong. What the linemen do to themselves (and the people they fall on) is not healthy for their life after football.

It also severs a little of the link between college and pro football, making it a little less of a minor league.

And it can lead to some interesting matchups-QB/DB vs. DB/QB. WR/CB vs. CB/WR. It would reduce the number of cheap shots when they will have an opportunity on the other side.

You don't need to be as extreme as soccer, but you could limit it to 2 or 3 subs per play barring some time of multiple injury situation (and charge them a timeout to limit faking).

It would force a reduction in size and combined with fatigue would reduce the violence of collisions. It would also open the sport back up to normal sized people. Between the concussion issues and extreme sizes, there is the potential to significantly reduce participation over time, reducing the sport's popularity. This would counteract both of those issues.

(08-17-2015 08:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 07:31 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 06:14 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  That's a good idea, maybe there should be a height limit in the NBA too. I hate seeing the best of the best compete for the ultimate prize.

While we're at it, participation trophies for everyone!

well, it did not take long for the expected smart ass remark. Thanks for the feedback.

there is a difference between somebody growing to their natural height and linemen putting on weight.

There is a reason that performance enhancing drugs have been outlawed in most sports. Athletes were doing things to their bodies that were considered not acceptable. There is a reason sports put limits on things.

I like the idea of limited substitution to reduce size, like it used to be prior to the mid-60s when they changed the rules. By making them play nearly every down, you force them to be fit, not just big. So they will be in better overall physical shape, not merely strong. What the linemen do to themselves (and the people they fall on) is not healthy for their life after football.

It also severs a little of the link between college and pro football, making it a little less of a minor league.

And it can lead to some interesting matchups-QB/DB vs. DB/QB. WR/CB vs. CB/WR. It would reduce the number of cheap shots when they will have an opportunity on the other side.

You don't need to be as extreme as soccer, but you could limit it to 2 or 3 subs per play barring some time of multiple injury situation (and charge them a timeout to limit faking).

It would force a reduction in size and combined with fatigue would reduce the violence of collisions. It would also open the sport back up to normal sized people. Between the concussion issues and extreme sizes, there is the potential to significantly reduce participation over time, reducing the sport's popularity. This would counteract both of those issues.

During my lifetime, players in both college and the NFL played both ways. Frank Gifford, who just passed away, was an all-pro on both offense and defense.

A useful side effect of such a rule would be to significantly reduce the number of scholarships needed. When the limited substitution rules were in effect in the NCAA, though, there were no meaningful scholarship limits. So schools like Alabama and Texas could warehouse dozens of players who wouldn't see the field for them, but more importantly wouldn't see it for one of their opponents either.

If you are a G5 school, limited substitution plus a reduction to 50 or so scholarships would really even the playing field for you.

(08-17-2015 08:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  I like the idea of limited substitution to reduce size, like it used to be prior to the mid-60s when they changed the rules. By making them play nearly every down, you force them to be fit, not just big. So they will be in better overall physical shape, not merely strong. What the linemen do to themselves (and the people they fall on) is not healthy for their life after football.

That would eliminate the 350 lb. linemen, for sure.

Maybe substitution should be something like this: No substitution between plays on the same drive unless a timeout is called. None of this swapping roided-up linemen for each other on every play because they're too winded to play more than 2 consecutive plays.

6' 8", 400+, and he runs a 5.32 forty, plus benches over 41 reps (225). Holy sh*t! That ladies and gentlemen, is a freak. And Briles thinks this will be common place in 20 years. That is a brand of football I am not familiar with.

(08-17-2015 10:03 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 08:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  I like the idea of limited substitution to reduce size, like it used to be prior to the mid-60s when they changed the rules. By making them play nearly every down, you force them to be fit, not just big. So they will be in better overall physical shape, not merely strong. What the linemen do to themselves (and the people they fall on) is not healthy for their life after football.

That would eliminate the 350 lb. linemen, for sure.

Maybe substitution should be something like this: No substitution between plays on the same drive unless a timeout is called. None of this swapping roided-up linemen for each other on every play because they're too winded to play more than 2 consecutive plays.

I think its ridiculous to see them hands on their hips after an 8 or 9 play drive. They are playing for 8 to 10 seconds at a time. College wrestlers go for 7 minutes with only 2 short breaks.

(08-17-2015 03:17 AM)goofus Wrote:  http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/d...0-pound-te

Is it time for college football to consider a weight limit for college football players. As the size of linemen continue to balloon to obscene proportions, maybe its time to propose some measures to keep these freaks from growing to unnatural levels.

Based on Obesity charts, I believe 270 pounds would be a good limit for anybody under 6'6". Then for anybody over 6'6", allow an extra 10 pounds per extra inch.

LOL

LOL


LOL

18 Days

I would simply change the rule to once a player comes out, he cannot re-enter until the start of the next quarter. There of course would have to be some provision for kicking situations, unless if you want to ban dedicated kickers and punters. Teams would need to balance offensive efficiency to keep from wearing out their starters, especially at RB and WR. Defense of course would still be incentivized to force a team into punting on fourth down.

(08-17-2015 12:14 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I would simply change the rule to once a player comes out, he cannot re-enter until the start of the next quarter. There of course would have to be some provision for kicking situations, unless if you want to ban dedicated kickers and punters. Teams would need to balance offensive efficiency to keep from wearing out their starters, especially at RB and WR. Defense of course would still be incentivized to force a team into punting on fourth down.

That's another way to do it. I was suggesting 2 to 3 players per play as being a little easier to police than determining who had left during that quarter. That way, you could have kicking specialists and perhaps someone like a QB that you wanted to protect without having to have a scorekeeper track every player who leaves the game.

(08-17-2015 10:03 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 08:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  I like the idea of limited substitution to reduce size, like it used to be prior to the mid-60s when they changed the rules. By making them play nearly every down, you force them to be fit, not just big. So they will be in better overall physical shape, not merely strong. What the linemen do to themselves (and the people they fall on) is not healthy for their life after football.

That would eliminate the 350 lb. linemen, for sure.

Maybe substitution should be something like this: No substitution between plays on the same drive unless a timeout is called. None of this swapping roided-up linemen for each other on every play because they're too winded to play more than 2 consecutive plays.

Add substitution for injured players as well and I think you're on to something. Although you probably implied injuries as well. Problem will be in the warm weather games you might have guys feigning cramps, but its something.

Meh. People in general are bigger now than they were in the past because of better nutrition and sanitation. As nutritional advances are made each successive generation is going to be bigger than the last.

Want to limit the HUGE players? Go back to limited substitution so that everybody has to play both ways (or when they come out they have to stay out). That puts a premium on stamina over size. OR, just wait for the HUNH to weed out the really big guys (but don't let Nick Saban push through a rule to slow down the pace!)

Smaller players = less serious injuries, too.

Well, if reducing injuries is the primary goal - and it should be - then how can we not talk about reducing the number of plays per game?

I mean it stands to reason that if Team A is running 63 plays per game and Team B is running 93 plays per game, the players on Team B are significantly more likely to suffer an injury than the players on Team A, right? And if you extrapolate that over the course of an entire season or career, those numbers become gravely concerning.

I am all for the measures to make the overweight kids more fit. However, these four-and-a-half hour marathons where some teams are running 90+ offensive plays per game are every bit as dangerous to the health of these young people as fewer plays against larger people.

Shouldn't we be discussing that issue too or do we have to wait for a kid's heart to explode during a game before we finally reluctantly face that quandary?

(08-17-2015 03:26 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Well, if reducing injuries is the primary goal - and it should be - then how can we not talk about reducing the number of plays per game?

I mean it stands to reason that if Team A is running 63 plays per game and Team B is running 93 plays per game, the players on Team B are significantly more likely to suffer an injury than the players on Team A, right? And if you extrapolate that over the course of an entire season or career, those numbers become gravely concerning.

I am all for the measures to make the overweight kids more fit. However, these four-and-a-half hour marathons where some teams are running 90+ offensive plays per game are every bit as dangerous to the health of these young people as fewer plays against larger people.

Shouldn't we be discussing that issue too or do we have to wait for a kid's heart to explode during a game before we finally reluctantly face that quandary?

No doubt, the BEST solution is to attack both ends of the issue: size of players AND number of total plays. My point was that slowing down the pace of the game will not make it safer, it'll only make the players get bigger.

(08-17-2015 03:26 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Well, if reducing injuries is the primary goal - and it should be - then how can we not talk about reducing the number of plays per game?

I mean it stands to reason that if Team A is running 63 plays per game and Team B is running 93 plays per game, the players on Team B are significantly more likely to suffer an injury than the players on Team A, right? And if you extrapolate that over the course of an entire season or career, those numbers become gravely concerning.

I am all for the measures to make the overweight kids more fit. However, these four-and-a-half hour marathons where some teams are running 90+ offensive plays per game are every bit as dangerous to the health of these young people as fewer plays against larger people.

Shouldn't we be discussing that issue too or do we have to wait for a kid's heart to explode during a game before we finally reluctantly face that quandary?

Football is not an endurance game. Its a sprint game. The "heart exploding" only happens if you have gigantic players who aren't fit, just big and strong and fast.