Why we should return to one-platoon football on all levels of football

[Walter White]

What other sport does the clock run even when the ball isn't in play? What other sport can you run out of bounds and maintain possession of the ball? What other outdoor sport will they not postpone in heavy snow and freezing temperatures? Football is unique for a lot of reasons.

Every sport is unique, but having a totally different personnel for offense and defense with, essentially, a mass substitution, is the most striking of the differences. That's just my opinion.

 

[Walter White]

I've had this discussion with Euro Soccer fans who enjoy the fluidity of their stupid sport.

Football is most analogous to warfare. There are highly specialized skill sets that must be coordinated to exectute a broader, but opposed vision. Coaches are generals. While I concur that it somewhat unique in the world of sports, I don't find it strange, and rather enjoy that element of the game. 'Cause seriously, who doesn't love warfare?

Not that anyone cares, but I'm starting to prefer watching soccer for this very reason, fluidity. If you watch a lot of soccer and then come back to football, football seems herky jerky to me...start, stop, start, stop, time out, slow, slow, slow.

I understand that football is "war-like" with an emphasis on strategy/tactics. However, I think the flow could realistically be improved by fewer opportunities to substitute, shorter play clock, no time outs, and no kickoffs (just start on your own 30). This is probably why I like watching Oregon so much. Run the play, then immediately start another one. Love that. It's not right or wrong, just personal preference.

I love watching the replay of games on the NFL network. With the editing, you can watch a whole game in 30 minutes. Why not play the actual game a little more like that?

 

[Quattro]

:rofl:

 

[dply]

I feel like american football actually has less downtime than soccer. Soccer hardly ever stops but when they are playing they do like to kick it back and forth between teammates often. American football is also nice if you need to pee or to refill your pee.

 

[skibum]

I generally maintain that football is the best group spectator sport going. You watch a play. Then you discuss/argue what happened, what should have happened, what the refs missed, who was open down field - that conversation shortly segues to discussion/argument about what the teams should do the next down. Right about the time that whole discussion gets stale and boring, another play happens! You get a quick resolution to your prognostications.

And then, at generally suitable intervals you get long enough breaks in the action to return and/or rent more beer.

I've tried watching soccer in social settings where it should be a lot of fun (think bar/pubs/parties in Argentina or Germany, while the national team is playing) - and it was fun, but something was missing. You couldn't really discuss anything that had just happened, because the action was moving on, or there was the possibility of missing something if you weren't focused on the present. When there was a finally a break where you could talk about whatever the great play was, there wasn't any point to the discussion because it was likely largely irrelevant by then. And if you need to refill your beer or return it, it's pretty much guaranteed that you're going to miss something. The one thing I will say was nice about it is that the entire game is over in less than 2 hours, instead of the 3 to 3.5 hours of football.

 

[Nor Cal Buff]

Yes, fatigue is a concern with regard to injuries but the point is that if players had to play both ways, they would have to focus more on stamina in their workouts leading to smaller players. Rugby players manage to play 80 minutes with less breaks than football so I'm sure football players, with access to the best S&C people in the world, could manage.

As far as removing pads and helmets go, I believe the solution is to move more towards large soft shell padding and helmets instead of removing them completely. Part of the reason for fewer serious injuries in rugby is because of the nature of the game. Everything is in front of you and you rarely get blindsided so you can at least brace for impact a little bit unlike going over the middle and getting rocked by a safety out of nowhere. Also, regarding paralyzations in rugby, I think almost half of those come from collapsed scrums so those aren't really comparable to football because that doesn't have a football equivalent like tackling obviously does.

 

[Nor Cal Buff]

I don't mean to get political here, but this is a microcosm of what I think is wrong with society. We think that enough regulation solves whatever problem we're trying to combat, whether that be head injuries in football in sports, or any other issue. The reality of this situation is this: It comes down to assumption of risk. If you become a baseball pitcher, you might tear a rotator cuff. If you touch a hot plate, you might burn yourself. If you do a job that involves spending a fair amount of time on a computer, you may get carpal tunnel. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. May Junior Seau rest in peace---but the lawsuit his family filed against the NFL is disgusting to me. Its on the same level as the woman who sued McDonalds after spilling a cup of coffee in her lap. Understand what you're getting into, and be prepared to take responsibility for your actions.

All that said, I do have one thing to say with football. Compare the way they handle concussions with the way the hockey does. Sidney Crosby suffered one a couple years back. Correct me if I'm wrong if you pay more attention to hockey than I do, but he was out most if not all of the year that happened. When you listen to somebody like Klatt (might be a bad example) talk about it, he suffered a couple of concussions while at CU and then returned from them in the same game. The one regulation that might be useful here is this: Force people who have suffered concussions to sit a certain amount of time. I don't think much else helps here.

The football you watch today would not exist without the intervention of Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[BuffWarHog]

Only offensive skill players can wear helmets.

Seriously, that's a friggin awesome idea (to prevent head injuries). No helmetless LB/DB would be in his right mind spear a WR/RB.

 

[BuffWarHog]

Fatigue is good = dumb.

- The recorded number of injuries increases towards the end of matches, suggesting fatigue has an influence on injury risk.
- Fatigue changes motor control strategies, meaning your muscle’s response to outside conditions (landing after a jump) may be different. This decrease in dynamic stability and protective muscle tone can be one of the causes for increased injury risk.
- Fatigue has a negative effect on athletes’ focus. With decreased awareness of your surrounding, your injury risk increases.
- It is especially the risk to lower limb injuries (knees, ankles) that increases.
Fatigue also negatively affects technique. As techniques become more sloppy, guess what, injury rate goes up

Sources:
Smith AM et al. Predictors of Injury in Ice Hockey Players. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1997;25:500-507.
Chappell JD et al. Effect of Fatigue on Knee Kinetics and Kinematics in Stop-Jump Tasks. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2005;33:1022-1029.
Gabbett TJ. Incidence of Injury in Junior and Senior Rugby League Players. Journal of Sports Medicine 2004;34:849-859.
Reilly T et al. Muscle Fatigue during Football Match-Play. Journal of Sports Medicine 2008;38:357-367.
http://www.c-a-s-h.org/2011/05/fatigue-and-injury-risk-why-not-spar-early-on-during-training/

 

[Walter White]

I feel like american football actually has less downtime than soccer. Soccer hardly ever stops but when they are playing they do like to kick it back and forth between teammates often. American football is also nice if you need to pee or to refill your pee.

IMO, it depends a lot on which league you are watching. English Premier is pretty aggressive and relentless.

 

[Walter White]

I generally maintain that football is the best group spectator sport going. You watch a play. Then you discuss/argue what happened, what should have happened, what the refs missed, who was open down field - that conversation shortly segues to discussion/argument about what the teams should do the next down. Right about the time that whole discussion gets stale and boring, another play happens! You get a quick resolution to your prognostications.

And then, at generally suitable intervals you get long enough breaks in the action to return and/or rent more beer.

I've tried watching soccer in social settings where it should be a lot of fun (think bar/pubs/parties in Argentina or Germany, while the national team is playing) - and it was fun, but something was missing. You couldn't really discuss anything that had just happened, because the action was moving on, or there was the possibility of missing something if you weren't focused on the present. When there was a finally a break where you could talk about whatever the great play was, there wasn't any point to the discussion because it was likely largely irrelevant by then. And if you need to refill your beer or return it, it's pretty much guaranteed that you're going to miss something. The one thing I will say was nice about it is that the entire game is over in less than 2 hours, instead of the 3 to 3.5 hours of football.

That's a good point. I've never considered the group watching/discussion perspective. I participate in sports with others, but don't watch much with others.

You hit the nail on the head about soccer being over in 2 hours. I love that.

 

[Walter White]

Seriously, that's a friggin awesome idea (to prevent head injuries). No helmetless LB/DB would be in his right mind spear a WR/RB.

Of course, the RB/WR will be using his helmet to destroy helmetless defenders.

 

[Uncle Ken]

That's a good point. I've never considered the group watching/discussion perspective. I participate in sports with others, but don't watch much with others.

You hit the nail on the head about soccer being over in 2 hours. I love that.

I, for one, am shocked.

 

[skibum]

Couldn't decide if this deserved its own thread, but it seems somewhat relevant to this one:

From the Wall Street Journal:
The average football game has 11 Minutes of Action

The most surprising finding of The Journal's study—that the average game has just 10 minutes and 43 seconds of actual playing time—has been corroborated by other researchers. In November 1912, Indiana University's C.P. Hutchins, the school's director of physical training, observed a game, stopwatch in hand, between two independent teams. He counted 13 minutes, 16 seconds of play. During last week's Wild Card games, Mr. Crippen, the football researcher, dissected the broadcasts and found about 13 minutes, 30 seconds of action.

I wonder if this is part of what makes Oregon so much more fun to watch - they run more plays, so there is literally more action.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Couldn't decide if this deserved its own thread, but it seems somewhat relevant to this one:

From the Wall Street Journal:
The average football game has 11 Minutes of Action



I wonder if this is part of what makes Oregon so much more fun to watch - they run more plays, so there is literally more action.

And if I were tallying the highlights of soccer on my stopwatch, I would accumulate less then four seconds of interesting play in an entire match.

Fans bring their own meaning to the game, and for those that appreciate certain details--certain nuance--that reduced playing time (or highlight time in the case of soccer) doesn't take away from the broader experience.

In the case of football, nearly every play has some exciting element. So I'd argue those 11-to-13 minutes of actual play are pretty awesome. As someone else posted above, the in between time presents the perfect opportunity to discuss what just happened, and also project what the teams should do next. Some great combination of violent chess and warfare? Yes please.

And in fairness to soccer fans, I'm certain they see things during that down time when players are refusing to catch the ball and just batting it around with their feet and heads that my untrained eyed doesn't catch. It also gives them the opportunity to discuss tips on frosting their hair and waxing their eyebrows.

 

[Walter White]

And if I were tallying the highlights of soccer on my stopwatch, I would accumulate less then four seconds of interesting play in an entire match.

Fans bring their own meaning to the game, and for those that appreciate certain details--certain nuance--that reduced playing time (or highlight time in the case of soccer) doesn't take away from the broader experience.

In the case of football, nearly every play has some exciting element. So I'd argue those 11-to-13 minutes of actual play are pretty awesome. As someone else posted above, the in between time presents the perfect opportunity to discuss what just happened, and also project what the teams should do next. Some great combination of violent chess and warfare? Yes please.

And in fairness to soccer fans, I'm certain they see things during that down time when players are refusing to catch the ball and just batting it around with their feet and heads that my untrained eyed doesn't catch. It also gives them the opportunity to discuss tips on frosting their hair and waxing their eyebrows.

Of the 11 minutes of action, you can assume a good chunk of that is devoted to runs between the tackles for two yards a pop. I doubt you are leaping out of your chair in excitement.

That said, it's obviously a matter of personal preference. Apples and oranges. As you said, there is a lot going on in a soccer game that you won't appreciate if you don't watch much or haven't played much. Same goes for baseball, tennis, or any sport.

My big thing is the flow--the flow and the length of the game. Soccer is for certain not edge-of-your-seats level excitement for 90 straight minutes. No question about that. However, it's always flowing. Football is the opposite, although some teams flow much better than others. Again, just a personal preference.

If i were to change soccer, I'd make the goals 15% to 20% larger to encourage more long range shooting.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Of the 11 minutes of action, you can assume a good chunk of that is devoted to runs between the tackles for two yards a pop. I doubt you are leaping out of your chair in excitement.

That said, it's obviously a matter of personal preference. Apples and oranges. As you said, there is a lot going on in a soccer game that you won't appreciate if you don't watch much or haven't played much. Same goes for baseball, tennis, or any sport.

My big thing is the flow--the flow and the length of the game. Soccer is for certain not edge-of-your-seats level excitement for 90 straight minutes. No question about that. However, it's always flowing. Football is the opposite, although some teams flow much better than others. Again, just a personal preference.

If i were to change soccer, I'd make the goals 15% to 20% larger to encourage more long range shooting.

Did you just want to reiterate my point that it was a matter of personal taste? For the record, I enjoy those short gain run plays. I would guess similarly that soccer fans see something intersting about kicking the ball back and forth. See the part where I said "fans bring their own meaning to the game" in my above post.

 

[skibum]

And if I were tallying the highlights of soccer on my stopwatch, I would accumulate less then four seconds of interesting play in an entire match.

Fans bring their own meaning to the game, and for those that appreciate certain details--certain nuance--that reduced playing time (or highlight time in the case of soccer) doesn't take away from the broader experience.

In the case of football, nearly every play has some exciting element. So I'd argue those 11-to-13 minutes of actual play are pretty awesome. As someone else posted above, the in between time presents the perfect opportunity to discuss what just happened, and also project what the teams should do next. Some great combination of violent chess and warfare? Yes please.

And in fairness to soccer fans, I'm certain they see things during that down time when players are refusing to catch the ball and just batting it around with their feet and heads that my untrained eyed doesn't catch. It also gives them the opportunity to discuss tips on frosting their hair and waxing their eyebrows.

That was me. I posted both of these.

I didn't intend the "11 minutes of action" to be an argument for or against soccer or american football. I just found it interesting, and thought it was interesting data point to bring into this discussion. It's interesting that you took the data point as an argument that soccer>football.

Leaping out of the soccer vs football discussion, I'd like to re-ask the question: is this 11 minute thing the reason why people find the fast pace of Oregon's (and other's) offense exciting? I don't know for sure (you'd have to do the stopwatch thing while watching a few of their games), but using number of plays run as a proxy for total actual playing time, it would appear that there is actually more action in those games than in others. (The median team averaged 72.5 plays per game on offense in 2012, Oregon averaged 82.8*.) I don't know, but I wonder if this plays a part of why people seem to enjoy watching those offenses more than the traditional ones.

*The stats come from here:
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/plays-per-game
A few things jump out on that page:
1. Marshall is putting the fast pace offense on a whole other level: they averaged 92.8 plays per game - 12% more than Oregon.
2. Sonny Dykes' La Tech team also "outpaced" Oregon, with 88.6 plays per game.
3. The Pac-12 had 4 teams in the top 14 (Zona, ASU, UCLA & Oregon) - given #2, I'd expect Cal to join that list next year.

 

[Walter White]

Did you just want to reiterate my point that it was a matter of personal taste? For the record, I enjoy those short gain run plays. I would guess similarly that soccer fans see something intersting about kicking the ball back and forth. See the part where I said "fans bring their own meaning to the game" in my above post.

You specifically said that there is "reduced highlight time" in soccer in an absolute sense. I don't think you can say that. You're trying to have it both ways. You're essentially saying that soccer is less exciting, but it's a personal preference; some people prefer less excitement. That's not the same thing as saying that different people can see similar levels of excitement in an incomplete five yard pass, or a two yard run, as a routine pass in soccer.

 

[Walter White]

That was me. I posted both of these.

I didn't intend the "11 minutes of action" to be an argument for or against soccer or american football. I just found it interesting, and thought it was interesting data point to bring into this discussion. It's interesting that you took the data point as an argument that soccer>football.

Leaping out of the soccer vs football discussion, I'd like to re-ask the question: is this 11 minute thing the reason why people find the fast pace of Oregon's (and other's) offense exciting? I don't know for sure (you'd have to do the stopwatch thing while watching a few of their games), but using number of plays run as a proxy for total actual playing time, it would appear that there is actually more action in those games than in others. (The median team averaged 72.5 plays per game on offense in 2012, Oregon averaged 82.8*.) I don't know, but I wonder if this plays a part of why people seem to enjoy watching those offenses more than the traditional ones.

*The stats come from here:
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/plays-per-game
A few things jump out on that page:
1. Marshall is putting the fast pace offense on a whole other level: they averaged 92.8 plays per game - 12% more than Oregon.
2. Sonny Dykes' La Tech team also "outpaced" Oregon, with 88.6 plays per game.
3. The Pac-12 had 4 teams in the top 14 (Zona, ASU, UCLA & Oregon) - given #2, I'd expect Cal to join that list next year.

Great post. Here is a good test. If you had the choice to watch a game that was delayed by a few hours, would you watch the full thing, the full 3.5 hours, complete with time outs, huddles, changing plays, etc.; or would you watch the compressed verion (like the replays they show on the NFL Network, a whole game in 30 minutes). I'd take the compressed version all day long.

 

[Uncle Ken]

You specifically said that there is "reduced highlight time" in soccer in an absolute sense. I don't think you can say that. You're trying to have it both ways. You're essentially saying that soccer is less exciting, but it's a personal preference; some people prefer less excitement. That's not the same thing as saying that different people can see similar levels of excitement in an incomplete five yard pass, or a two yard run, as a routine pass in soccer.

I said that the reduced amount of playing time or highlight time doesn't take away from the broader experience for fans, regardless of the sport.

I don't know what else to tell you--it was in my post. I fully acknowledged that it was a matter of personal preference.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Great post. Here is a good test. If you had the choice to watch a game that was delayed by a few hours, would you watch the full thing, the full 3.5 hours, complete with time outs, huddles, changing plays, etc.; or would you watch the compressed verion (like the replays they show on the NFL Network, a whole game in 30 minutes). I'd take the compressed version all day long.

No way. Give me the whole game. All 3+ hours of it.

And **** soccer.

 

[The Ogre]

Fair point WW, but that leaves out the emotional component of watching a game live. There's a lot to be said for riding the highs and lows during that 3 1/2 hours, and the fretting, analyzing, debating, and hoping that goes along with it in football. Even when I'm at Ri Ra or some local pub that attracts lots of soccer fans, I can't manage much interest, but that's obviously based on personal preferences - hard to be objective, but I think football is just more dynamic.

Soccer is far more ebb than flow to my eyes. The back and forth without edge-of-your-seat excitement doesn't hold my attention; I only played a bit of soccer though, and of the sports I played in competatively, football was easily the most enjoyable - though it probably wasn't my best.

The global aspect of soccer is the most interesting thing about the sport, for me, and that is largely attributable to the fact that it's generally egalitarian in opportunity: a villager from remote Africa, a poor urban kid from Brazil, and a suburban American kid with helecopter parents all have a chance to acquire decent enough skills to let them excell. Not so much with football. It's a classic case of apples and rice.

 

[Quattro]

No way. Give me the whole game. All 3+ hours of it.

And **** soccer.

:yeahthat:

 

[skibum]

Fair point WW, but that leaves out the emotional component of watching a game live. There's a lot to be said for riding the highs and lows during that 3 1/2 hours, and the fretting, analyzing, debating, and hoping that goes along with it in football. Even when I'm at Ri Ra or some local pub that attracts lots of soccer fans, I can't manage much interest, but that's obviously based on personal preferences - hard to be objective, but I think football is just more dynamic.

Soccer is far more ebb than flow to my eyes. The back and forth without edge-of-your-seat excitement doesn't hold my attention; I only played a bit of soccer though, and of the sports I played in competatively, football was easily the most enjoyable - though it probably wasn't my best.

The global aspect of soccer is the most interesting thing about the sport, for me, and that is largely attributable to the fact that it's generally egalitarian in opportunity: a villager from remote Africa, a poor urban kid from Brazil, and a suburban American kid with helecopter parents all have a chance to acquire decent enough skills to let them excell. Not so much with football. It's a classic case of apples and rice.

:yeahthat: especially the bolded part. It's probably not a coincidence; that sentence also summarizes my other sports love affair: the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

 

[tante]

And if I were tallying the highlights of soccer on my stopwatch, I would accumulate less then four seconds of interesting play in an entire match.

Fans bring their own meaning to the game, and for those that appreciate certain details--certain nuance--that reduced playing time (or highlight time in the case of soccer) doesn't take away from the broader experience.

In the case of football, nearly every play has some exciting element. So I'd argue those 11-to-13 minutes of actual play are pretty awesome. As someone else posted above, the in between time presents the perfect opportunity to discuss what just happened, and also project what the teams should do next. Some great combination of violent chess and warfare? Yes please.

And in fairness to soccer fans, I'm certain they see things during that down time when players are refusing to catch the ball and just batting it around with their feet and heads that my untrained eyed doesn't catch. It also gives them the opportunity to discuss tips on frosting their hair and waxing their eyebrows.

wow I could have sworn this was a tini post.

 

[The Ogre]

wow I could have sworn this was a tini post.

Disagree. Far too lucid.

 

[tante]

wow I could have sworn this was a tini post.

ha Orr neg-repped me for this one. Didn't know he was so sensitive.

 

[Uncle Ken]

wow I could have sworn this was a tini post.

I've spent years of my life living in soccer-loving countries in both Europe and South America. I was once neutral on the matter. Everybody has a sport they love and mostly understand...everybody is happy. However, the soccer fans (without exception) in Italy, The Netherlands and Brazil don't just root for soccer. Instead, they have a broader agenda to prove that the sport I love sucks.

Somewhere along the way I developed my own retalitory agenda. I went from being neutral regarding the sport, to simply hating it. It doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that the athletes that play it are exceptional, and the skill set accompanying it is remarkable. I just got fed up with the fans.

Besides, it's been empirically proven that soccer attracts a more effeminate fan.

 

[tante]

I've spent years of my life living in soccer-loving countries in both Europe and South America. I was once neutral on the matter. Everybody has a sport they love and mostly understand...everybody is happy. However, the soccer fans (without exception) in Italy, The Netherlands and Brazil don't just root for soccer. Instead, they have a broader agenda to prove that the sport I love sucks.

Somewhere along the way I developed my own retalitory agenda. I went from being neutral regarding the sport, to simply hating it. It doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that the athletes that play it are exceptional, and the skill set accompanying it is remarkable. I just got fed up with the fans.

Besides, it's been empirically proven that soccer attracts a more effeminate fan.

whatever, newtini