OT: D1

[Fightingscot82]

They need to look at how they apply the rule. I follow college hockey pretty closely and they had a massive problem with the way the "contact to the head" rule was written and applied. It's applied similar, but different in both the men's and women's games, but there were glaring issues with both.

Originally, the rule in college hockey was any contact to the head would result in a 5-minute major and an automatic ejection. They had scenarios, specifically in the men's games, where that rule was getting in the way of games. They changed the rule about 3 years ago after there were multiple ejections to key players in NCAA Tournament games due to clearly inadvertent contact with the head.

They rewrote the rule and adjusted how it is applied. Effectively, now what you see is this:

- 2 minute minor penalty for "head contact": Basically this is your inadvertent contact that a player clearly did not try to deliver

- 5 minute major penalty for an illegal check to the head: If there is a more aggressive check, but may not necessarily have been avoidable, they call this one. Or if there was a hit that was lined up as a center mass hit, but the head was struck while delivering a check to the body.

- 5 minute major and a game misconduct for an illegal check to the head: This is direct contact that was avoidable by the player who delivered the hit.

You see more of the tiered approach to the penalty application in the men's game than you do in the women's. Typically, you never see a 2-minute minor for head contact called in the women's game. Only the 5 minute major, or the player receives a 5 and a game, because women's college hockey is supposed to be a "no body checking" sport.

I think adopting some type of similar tiered approach to the targeting call in football is clearly desired by players, coaches, and fans alike.

I think targeting should be a league review issue similar to a fight because its intent to injure. Call unnecessary roughness in the game and similarly eject the player on the second penalty. If the league determines that the player used unnecessary roughness with intent to injure, then issue suspensions. I think its unreasonable to ask the officials to measure intent in every situation without reviewing film when available.

[IUP24]

I think the inconsistency of when it’s called has created the confusion. I think we’ve all seen lesser hits called targeting and others that looked worse not called. I was on the fence on this one and I think when there’s uncertainty you can’t call it. Some forms of helmet-to-helmet contact are inevitable and in this case it didn’t look like the kid attacked with the head. Still, I wouldn’t have been shocked if it went the other way.

They need to look at how they apply the rule. I follow college hockey pretty closely and they had a massive problem with the way the "contact to the head" rule was written and applied. It's applied similar, but different in both the men's and women's games, but there were glaring issues with both.

Originally, the rule in college hockey was any contact to the head would result in a 5-minute major and an automatic ejection. They had scenarios, specifically in the men's games, where that rule was getting in the way of games. They changed the rule about 3 years ago after there were multiple ejections to key players in NCAA Tournament games due to clearly inadvertent contact with the head.

They rewrote the rule and adjusted how it is applied. Effectively, now what you see is this:

- 2 minute minor penalty for "head contact": Basically this is your inadvertent contact that a player clearly did not try to deliver

- 5 minute major penalty for an illegal check to the head: If there is a more aggressive check, but may not necessarily have been avoidable, they call this one. Or if there was a hit that was lined up as a center mass hit, but the head was struck while delivering a check to the body.

- 5 minute major and a game misconduct for an illegal check to the head: This is direct contact that was avoidable by the player who delivered the hit.

You see more of the tiered approach to the penalty application in the men's game than you do in the women's. Typically, you never see a 2-minute minor for head contact called in the women's game. Only the 5 minute major, or the player receives a 5 and a game, because women's college hockey is supposed to be a "no body checking" sport.

I think adopting some type of similar tiered approach to the targeting call in football is clearly desired by players, coaches, and fans alike.

[IUP24]

The SEC had a down year. It happens.

Look at the PSAC in basketball this year. It may be, overall, historically awful. There's 1-2 good teams and a whole slew of average.

A lot changes from year to year. Next year may be totally different.

ASU best not get rail-roaded today.

ASU and Boise getting byes is a whole different discussion. What would Boise's record be playing a BIG or SEC schedule? My guess is their record would be much different.

I mostly agree with this. I rarely care at all what the bowl season records show even in the playoff years. It's funny how people grab onto narratives. There have been years where the B1G has had bowl seasons like the ACC has had this year. There's been years where the Big 12 has been the best conference in the bowl season. I just don't know why people care about it the way they do.

If you watch the games all season long, let that be your barometer. But few people "watch the games all season long," so they grab onto what they want to grab onto.

I'm of the camp that the separation between all of the Power 4 conferences, top to bottom, is far less than most pundits care to admit. I've exhausted that opinion here months back.

[IUPNation]

The press box at the erector set is no more.

[Ship69]

Can James Tenandtwo shed his reputation against heavy weight programs?

We will find out next week.

Well, I guess ND got past their albatross. That was the first major bowl they've won in forever. And some of the pundits are acting like it's a miracle that a national program that is rolling in money could win such a game. Next week's game will come down to defense. Both of those teams are flawed in the passing game, so shutting down the run becomes imperative.

[IUPNation]

Can James Tenandtwo shed his reputation against heavy weight programs?

We will find out next week.

[EyeoftheHawk]

OMG thank you! I said the same thing yesterday, that was a PERFECT form tackle. Eyes were on the target and head was up. Only way you are avoiding head contact on that is by simply not hitting him at all or diving at his knees.

I think the inconsistency of when it’s called has created the confusion. I think we’ve all seen lesser hits called targeting and others that looked worse not called. I was on the fence on this one and I think when there’s uncertainty you can’t call it. Some forms of helmet-to-helmet contact are inevitable and in this case it didn’t look like the kid attacked with the head. Still, I wouldn’t have been shocked if it went the other way.

[Ram040506]

I disagree on the targeting penalty. The defender clearly went in with his head up (not the crown of the helmet) and didn't launch himself into the opposing player. I watched way too much of my kid's football practices and this was exactly what was being taught. Face to face, wrap the arms, etc.

OMG thank you! I said the same thing yesterday, that was a PERFECT form tackle. Eyes were on the target and head was up. Only way you are avoiding head contact on that is by simply not hitting him at all or diving at his knees.

[Fightingscot82]

The refs bailed Texas out by not calling targeting on that play which clearly looked like targeting. I guarantee you Arizona State gets that call if they were playing Texas State or North Texas, but against big, bad Texas University of Austin? Nah, they get a pass...

I disagree on the targeting penalty. The defender clearly went in with his head up (not the crown of the helmet) and didn't launch himself into the opposing player. I watched way too much of my kid's football practices and this was exactly what was being taught. Face to face, wrap the arms, etc.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I think there are a number of people around Texas football who want the Arch Manning era to begin sooner rather than later.

Correct. Arch could have easily started this year. He's not going to be a spot player again.

[ctrabs74]

I think there are a number of people around Texas football who want the Arch Manning era to begin sooner rather than later.

Hadn't even thought of that, but you're probably right.

[Chuck Norris]

And you know darned well that Texas will break the bank to match any offer because, well, they're Texas.

That said, it's pretty scummy that a school would entice a player to transfer while that player's team is still in the playoffs.

I think there are a number of people around Texas football who want the Arch Manning era to begin sooner rather than later.

[ctrabs74]

I think we may have seen the downside of having to play the extra game. Obviously Texas made a bunch of mistakes and let momentum slip away, but I think some of that can be attributed to being tired. They looked like a tired team in the fourth quarter. It’s unfathomable to me that Arizona State was a play away from winning a game that Texas had well in hand late in the second half. I think the ASU head coach is a good one and I’m guessing we haven’t heard the last of him.

The refs bailed Texas out by not calling targeting on that play which clearly looked like targeting. I guarantee you Arizona State gets that call if they were playing Texas State or North Texas, but against big, bad Texas University of Austin? Nah, they get a pass...

[ctrabs74]

Quinn Ewers about to get some serious $$$

ESPN reporting he has a $6m offer to enter the Portal.

And you know darned well that Texas will break the bank to match any offer because, well, they're Texas.

That said, it's pretty scummy that a school would entice a player to transfer while that player's team is still in the playoffs.

[Chuck Norris]

I think the quarterfinal results, the Rose Bowl in particular, have validated my belief that in this round the bye is actually a pretty significant detriment to those who have it. Three and a half weeks is simply too long to be off and then have to face a team that got a game under its belt nine or ten days ago. Granted Penn State and Texas were the better teams in their games, but Boise and ASU being rusty had to also be a factor in both teams almost immediately facing double digit deficits.

Now the last two rounds may very well devolve into a battle of attrition where the team with the most healthy bodies wins and that’s where things can flip, and if Georgia can find a way tonight, they could have a significant advantage the rest of the way. But as long as the tournament is formatted this way, I think results like the last 2 days will be the norm.