Random College Football Discussion Thread

[SmoothPancakes]

A great and classy decision by Jumbo Fisher and Florida State.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...fth-concussion

FSU honors offer to Richy Klepal
Updated: September 20, 2012, 11:55 PM ET
By Corey Dowlar | NoleNation

In a moment, Richy Klepal's football career was finished.

During what proved to be his final high school game against local rival Tampa Jesuit High School earlier this month, Klepal, a four-star Florida State commitment out of Tampa (Fla.) Plant, suffered the fifth concussion of his career. At that point, it was time to see if it was sheer bad luck or if there was something more.

And while his football days are now behind him, the news he got was for the better.

"I got my fifth concussion about two, two and a half weeks ago, and when I got it, I got an MRI and it showed that I have a hemorrhage in my brain," said Klepal, an offensive lineman and the No. 221-ranked player in the ESPN 300.

"It is something that if it ever -- if I ever get a major impact again in any way, I could immediately die. Any kind of concussion or head trauma or anything, that could be it."

Klepal's playing days were finished.

"There wasn't really a choice or a decision," he said. "My doctor was telling me, unless I want to take a risk of dying, it would be in my best interest (to quit). I love football more than anything, but my mental health is a little more important.

"It was definitely a wake-up call. To be honest, I was blessed that I went to get the MRI. The MRI was an optional thing. I just thought that since I had five (concussions), it would be a good time to get it. If I hadn't gotten it, it could have been a month, and I could have passed my impact test and been back out there. God forbid, if something could have happened, I could have been out there laying on the field dead."

Fortunately, Klepal is in good health and has a spot reserved for higher education.

Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher called Plant coach Robert Weiner to let him know that Klepal still has a scholarship.

Obviously, that brought about huge relief and a sense of happiness in an otherwise disheartening situation for Klepal.

"I just got a call from coach Weiner from coach Fisher that they are going to honor my scholarship, which is a huge weight off my shoulders," Klepal said. "That makes me happy."

Klepal says he will meet with Seminoles coaches on Monday to discuss the logistics of the situation in Tallahassee with his family.

"I am just more than grateful," he said.

"But the biggest thing was not being able to go out there and fight with my brothers that have been with me for the last three years. For my last game being the Jesuit game, the fact that I am not going to be able to go out there and win another state championship and be a part of the senior season, was definitely the hardest part. The scholarship, of course, came second."

[gschwendt]

[JBHuskers]

C'mon Tommy, if it was ASU players you'd be

[SmoothPancakes]

So I'm watching Fresno State-Tulsa replay on CBS Sports right now since I didn't get to watch it last night. Tulsa just scored a touchdown and there was a facemask penalty at the very end on the 1 yard line in a last ditch attempt to stop the runner from getting across the goal line, and it was assessed on the kickoff.

Here's something I may have thought about before, but never really thought seriously about it until just now. Tulsa just kicked off from the 50 yard line, it was an automatic out of the end zone for a touchback kick, giving Fresno State the ball at the 25 yard line. What do you guys think, assessing penalties on the kickoff, are they REALLY punishing a team? Like what just happened in this game, Tulsa just booted it straight out of the end zone. The only way kicking off from the 50 would punish a team would be to squib kick it and trap them deep in their territory. So instead of the penalty mattering at all, Fresno State started their offense on the 25 yard line, business like usual.

They need to change the assessment of penalties. Instead of assessing them on the kickoff, basically making it an automatic touchback and not mattering at all in the end, they should assess it after the kickoff. Say it still ends up being a touchback, Fresno State would normally take over on the 25 yard line, but then you assess the 15 yard facemask penalty, they instead start on their 10 yard line. Make these penalties actually matter, instead of assessing them on the kickoff and then not matter a single damn bit because the ball just gets booted out for a touchback.

What do you guys think? Would it be better to assess the penalties after the kickoff instead of on the kickoff, to actually penalize the team that committed the penalty instead of making it essentially nothing more than a shell of a penalty?

[IBI]

So I'm watching Fresno State-Tulsa replay on CBS Sports right now since I didn't get to watch it last night. Tulsa just scored a touchdown and there was a facemask penalty at the very end on the 1 yard line in a last ditch attempt to stop the runner from getting across the goal line, and it was assessed on the kickoff.

Here's something I may have thought about before, but never really thought seriously about it until just now. Tulsa just kicked off from the 50 yard line, it was an automatic out of the end zone for a touchback kick, giving Fresno State the ball at the 25 yard line. What do you guys think, assessing penalties on the kickoff, are they REALLY punishing a team? Like what just happened in this game, Tulsa just booted it straight out of the end zone. The only way kicking off from the 50 would punish a team would be to squib kick it and trap them deep in their territory. So instead of the penalty mattering at all, Fresno State started their offense on the 25 yard line, business like usual.

They need to change the assessment of penalties. Instead of assessing them on the kickoff, basically making it an automatic touchback and not mattering at all in the end, they should assess it after the kickoff. Say it still ends up being a touchback, Fresno State would normally take over on the 25 yard line, but then you assess the 15 yard facemask penalty, they instead start on their 10 yard line. Make these penalties actually matter, instead of assessing them on the kickoff and then not matter a single damn bit because the ball just gets booted out for a touchback.

What do you guys think? Would it be better to assess the penalties after the kickoff instead of on the kickoff, to actually penalize the team that committed the penalty instead of making it essentially nothing more than a shell of a penalty?

I don't know anything about Tulsa, so you'll have to educate me a little bit. Is Tulsa's kicker any good? Was he blasting touchbacks from the 35 or was Fresno St. able to return them? If wasn't getting touchbacks from the 35 then kicking from the 50 is an advantage.

I like that they assess on the kickoff. IIRC, it used to be on the extra point. Half the distance from the 2.5 was only useful if you had to go for the 2-point conversion. At least now there's some strategy to it. If the Tulsa kicker is any good, the coach could have had him kick it as high as he could to try and force a return that puts Fresno inside the 25. There's also less risk in trying a surprise onside kick, because even if you don't recover, the receiving team is still on their own end of the field.

[SmoothPancakes]

I don't know anything about Tulsa, so you'll have to educate me a little bit. Is Tulsa's kicker any good? Was he blasting touchbacks from the 35 or was Fresno St. able to return them? If wasn't getting touchbacks from the 35 then kicking from the 50 is an advantage.

I like that they assess on the kickoff. IIRC, it used to be on the extra point. Half the distance from the 2.5 was only useful if you had to go for the 2-point conversion. At least now there's some strategy to it. If the Tulsa kicker is any good, the coach could have had him kick it as high as he could to try and force a return that puts Fresno inside the 25. There's also less risk in trying a surprise onside kick, because even if you don't recover, the receiving team is still on their own end of the field.

I don't know much about Tulsa's kicker, but just looking at yesterday's game, these were the results of 6 kickoffs:

Touchback (after the penalty)
Touchback
Touchback
62 yards (returned 17 yards to the 20)
65 yards (returned 25 yards to the 25)
62 yards (returned 24 yards to the 27)

So he has a leg on him and it appears usually gets it pretty deep. But, other than the onside kick not being as risky, I don't know, I just see no advantage to having it assessed on the kickoff. All it does is pretty much make it automatic that the other team will get the ball at the 25 yard line to start their drive.

I just think it should be assessed on the team at the start of their offensive drive. Make it truly a penalty and make it hurt. Otherwise, what's to stop every team from committing a facemask or something on a play that is going end up a sure touchdown in a last ditch effort to stop the player from scoring? Oh no, you'll end up with a touchback and get to start free on your 25 yard line. Some penalty that is.

And that's all that play was. The Tulsa runner was inside the 5 yard line and there was no doubt whatsoever that he was going to score. It was a guaranteed touchdown, so the Fresno State defender grabbed his facemask and ripped his arm in a desperation, last ditch attempt to somehow keep the Tulsa player from crossing the goal line. And what came of that penalty? Nothing. A touchback and Fresno State starting their drive on the 25 yard line, business like usual. The refs may as well have never thrown the flag as it had absolutely no negative effect on Fresno State like it should have.

[JeffHCross]

I like that they assess on the kickoff. IIRC, it used to be on the extra point.

I believe the coach is given the option of taking it on the kick or the XP.


To Smooth's original question, I'm not sure what the answer is. I agree that kicking from the 50 was utterly pointless. However, a facemask penalty on the 1-yd line has a minuscule impact anyway, so I'd say it's about even, either way.

What I personally don't like about penalty assessments is that an offensive holding call on the 5 is 2.5 yards, while a 10-yard penalty on the defense counts the whole 10 yards. I realize this balances out on the other end, but it just seems off when it happens.

[AustinWolv]

stanford has only won 4 in a row against USC.

And you think Stanford recruits anywhere to the level of U$C, O$U, or even Michigan?
LOL.
That was the point.

in this case, toughness trumps talent.

That is a culture problem then. USC should change that.

[IBI]

And you think Stanford recruits anywhere to the level of U$C, O$U, or even Michigan?
LOL.
That was the point.

That is a culture problem then. USC should change that.

For the sake of keeping with the money theme it's, U$C, O$U, and Mi¢higan...cheap bastards.

[AustinWolv]

Hey, just sayin'......and NCAA agrees.....the dollars were flowin' out in Cali and Columbus.

Too bad the NCAA lets their moneymakers get away with it with slaps on the wrist, so cheating indeed pays off.

[gschwendt]

[SCClassof93]

[AustinWolv]

John L....... he was a great source of laughs back at SpartyLand too.

[bdoughty]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...es-sources-say

only six cities will be considered, sources told ESPN on Monday.

The four current BCS bowls -- the Fiesta in Glendale, Ariz., Orange in Miami, Sugar in New Orleans and Rose in Pasadena, Calif. -- along with the Cotton (Arlington, Texas) and Chick-fil-A (Atlanta) bowls will be the only sites that will have the opportunity to host the 2015 title game.

Give it to the Rose Bowl, say no to Jerry.

[morsdraconis]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...es-sources-say

only six cities will be considered, sources told ESPN on Monday.

The four current BCS bowls -- the Fiesta in Glendale, Ariz., Orange in Miami, Sugar in New Orleans and Rose in Pasadena, Calif. -- along with the Cotton (Arlington, Texas) and Chick-fil-A (Atlanta) bowls will be the only sites that will have the opportunity to host the 2015 title game.

Give it to the Rose Bowl, say no to Jerry.

Shit, you're crazy if you don't think Jerry's monnah is gonna buy him the BCS Championship spot.

[SmoothPancakes]

[baseballplyrmvp]

Hey, just sayin'......and NCAA agrees.....the dollars were flowin' out in Cali and Columbus.

Too bad the NCAA lets their moneymakers get away with it with slaps on the wrist, so cheating indeed pays off.

you honestly think the sanctions that USC had were a slap on the wrist? regardless of the fact that they've barely had an effect, we only had 1 player and his step dad, acting on their own free will over 100 miles from campus, end up costing us 30 scholarships. it wasnt a pay for play thing like what you want to believe, it was a pay to leave school to sign with us in the draft. when the sanctions came out, everyone was saying that these were the worst since the smu death penalty. now they rank as second worst since the death penalty.

compare this to osu who had 5 players, in which the head coach knew they were knowingly selling game stuff for money, who were played and known to be inelligible. and they get away with hardly any kind of penalty.

[baseballplyrmvp]

And you think Stanford recruits anywhere to the level of U$C, O$U, or even Michigan?
LOL.
That was the point.

That is a culture problem then. USC should change that.

stanford recruits better than what you think. stanford's recruited very strategically these past couple of years. they've been similar to wisconsin in o-line recruiting, going after huge monsters, and then slowly going after the higher talented players.

personally, had we had our starting center in that game, it goes 2 touchdowns differently. our 3rd string center, who didnt know the line protections, was not ready for his first game as a starter.

[AustinWolv]

you honestly think the sanctions that USC had were a slap on the wrist?

Compared to O$U's, no, and I definitely agree with you on that.
Compared to what U$C should have gotten, yes, the scholarship reductions should have been longer to teach the program a lesson, but the bowl ban should have been 1 year shorter most likely. Because you reaaaaaaalllllly believe it was just 1 player and his dad? Please.
I posted this before here in another thread, but there is a current NFL player that said he got offered a nice cash package to go play at U$C when he was being recruited.......left a weird taste in his mouth, and he didn't end up going to USC.

stanford recruits better than what you think.

I'm pretty familiar with recruiting. They don't recruit on the O$U, U$C, SE$ level........
In fact, team recruiting rankings:
#64 in 2013 class
#5 in 2012 class
#22 in 2011
#26 in 2010
#20 in 2009
#50 in 2008
#51 in 2007
#54 in 2006.

USC during that time?
#1 in 2013
#8 in 2012
#4 in 2011
#1 in 2010
#4 in 2009
#8 in 2008
#2 in 2007
#1 in 2006

USC has had far more talent for far longer. Stanford only recently spiked up due to getting some success. They don't have the skill guys nor the depth that U$C *should* have.

[SmoothPancakes]

So since when does tying for first place in your division (but not even playing in the conference championship game that year) count as a conference championship?

http://deadspin.com/5946624/?utm_cam...ium=socialflow