2009 College Football Thread

[Ghost of Dave Rosello]

According to the NCAA rulebook the kicking team can recover - and advance - a blocked kick or punt that is picked up behind the LOS. I assume this is still true in the NFL as well.

OK.  Then there is no logic to this being considered the same as an incomplete pass.

I now have a new direction for my bile now that Alfonso Soriano is in the right place to help the Cubs the most.

Actuallly, there is nothing I can find in the rulebook that indicates why they don't restart the clock once the ball is spotted in that situation. I just assumed they treated it like a forward pass.

They would have to stop the clock to unpile and determine who recovered the ball but in any other instance they would restart the clock unless there was a change of possession.

There would have to be a clock stoppage, since if the kicking team recovered, it would either be a first down, in which case the clock stops until the chains are moved, or change of posession on downs.

This is assuming the only non-fourth-down kicking situations occur when there's no time left on the clock for another play.

Except the first field goal in this case was on third down, not fourth down. UNI couldn't pick up a first down on the recovery unless an Iowa guy gained possession of it then fumbled it back to them. I looked at the play-by-play on line and it didn't indicate that UNI took a time-out.

[CubFaninHydePark]

According to the NCAA rulebook the kicking team can recover - and advance - a blocked kick or punt that is picked up behind the LOS. I assume this is still true in the NFL as well.

OK.  Then there is no logic to this being considered the same as an incomplete pass.

I now have a new direction for my bile now that Alfonso Soriano is in the right place to help the Cubs the most.

Actuallly, there is nothing I can find in the rulebook that indicates why they don't restart the clock once the ball is spotted in that situation. I just assumed they treated it like a forward pass.

They would have to stop the clock to unpile and determine who recovered the ball but in any other instance they would restart the clock unless there was a change of possession.

There would have to be a clock stoppage, since if the kicking team recovered, it would either be a first down, in which case the clock stops until the chains are moved, or change of posession on downs.

This is assuming the only non-fourth-down kicking situations occur when there's no time left on the clock for another play.

Except the first field goal in this case was on third down, not fourth down. UNI couldn't pick up a first down on the recovery unless an Iowa guy gained possession of it then fumbled it back to them. I looked at the play-by-play on line and it didn't indicate that UNI took a time-out.

It probably worked to UNI's disadvantage--there was the review, which required the clock stoppage... UNI could've been in position to snap and kick before the Iowa D was really set, if you think about it...probably a higher chance of not getting blocked.  Maybe a higher chance to miss, but given the outcome...

But the ref said the clock stopped by rule.  Maybe there's something with kicks, that the clock stops after the completion of every legal kicking play?

[BC]

But the ref said the clock stopped by rule.  Maybe there's something with kicks, that the clock stops after the completion of every legal kicking play?

Looking at the rules and considering what occured in this scenario, I have to think that a field goal attempt is considered a "legal kick down", which would mean the clock would be stopped until the next snap.

[SKO]

I just thought the NCAA had finally instituted my long hoped for rule, where teams are given as many chances as necessary to beat Iowa. Then they blocked the second kick and my hopes were dashed.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I just thought the NCAA had finally instituted my long hoped for rule, where teams are given as many chances as necessary to beat Iowa. Then they blocked the second kick and my hopes were dashed.

Usually you don't need that many chances to beat Iowa unless your program really sucks.

Like Illinois, for example.

[SKO]

I just thought the NCAA had finally instituted my long hoped for rule, where teams are given as many chances as necessary to beat Iowa. Then they blocked the second kick and my hopes were dashed.

Usually you don't need that many chances to beat Iowa unless your program really sucks recently.

Like Illinois, for example.

More Rose Bowl appearances, Rose Bowl wins, Big Ten Titles, BCS Bowls, and National Championships than Iowa'd.

[ChuckD]

I just thought the NCAA had finally instituted my long hoped for rule, where teams are given as many chances as necessary to beat Iowa. Then they blocked the second kick and my hopes were dashed.

Usually you don't need that many chances to beat Iowa unless your program really sucks recently.

Like Illinois, for example.

More Rose Bowl appearances, Rose Bowl wins, Big Ten Titles, BCS Bowls, and National Championships than Iowa'd.

So 100 years ago or so, the Illini were better? That's a feather in your cap.

[Quality Start Machine]

We're losing sight here of the fact that IAN has won Huey over to his side...

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4451405

""Not everybody is the perfect person in the world," Pryor said of Vick. "Everyone does -- kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me. I just feel that people need to give him a chance.""

He's right.  In fact, I killed three guys strippers before coming into work finishing my Cobb salad at lunch today.  No biggie.

Classy buffet'd

[Chuck to Chuck]

More Rose Bowl appearances

No.  5-5

Rose Bowl wins

Yes.  3-2

Big Ten Titles

Yes.  15-11

BCS Bowls

Yes.  2-1

National Championships than Iowa'd.

Yes, 5-4.

Iowa does have more Heisman trophy winners.

And you forgot NCAA infractions.  Illinois leads there as well.

[SKO]

I just thought the NCAA had finally instituted my long hoped for rule, where teams are given as many chances as necessary to beat Iowa. Then they blocked the second kick and my hopes were dashed.

Usually you don't need that many chances to beat Iowa unless your program really sucks recently.

Like Illinois, for example.

More Rose Bowl appearances, Rose Bowl wins, Big Ten Titles, BCS Bowls, and National Championships than Iowa'd.

So 100 years ago or so, the Illini were better? That's a feather in your cap.

Okay, in 2007-2008, Illinois went 14-11. Iowa went 15-10. Illinois went to a Rose Bowl, Iowa went to the Outback Bowl. Illinois is poorly coached, but if you want to play the "recently" more successful card, you'd better specify over the last four or five years or something. But then of course you actually Are going into the past, which slowly becomes irrelevant. Hell, you can even just base it on last year and say Iowa had a better record, but of course then I have the caveat of saying that Illinois beat Iowa. Or you could go with the fact that one team is 1-0 with a nail biting win over an AA school, and the other is 0-1 with a loss to a team that won 10 games last year in one of the toughest conferences in football. Because comparing those two would be Apples to Apples.

[SKO]

All of this is pointless as I think both teams suck, and they don't play each other this year, and Iowa will probably have a better record because their AD knows how to Not schedule non-conference games against the Big East favorite, a Big 12 team thats won ten or more games in each of the last two years, and a perennial bowl contender in Fresno State.

And Illinois has more College Hall of Famers. So stick that in your pipe and.....fuck it. Go Bears. This college football season holds no hope for me beyond my bandwagon fandom of Florida that started back in the Spurrier days. But even that doesn't bring me happiness, because it's filthy and wrong.

[ChuckD]

I just thought the NCAA had finally instituted my long hoped for rule, where teams are given as many chances as necessary to beat Iowa. Then they blocked the second kick and my hopes were dashed.

Usually you don't need that many chances to beat Iowa unless your program really sucks recently.

Like Illinois, for example.

More Rose Bowl appearances, Rose Bowl wins, Big Ten Titles, BCS Bowls, and National Championships than Iowa'd.

So 100 years ago or so, the Illini were better? That's a feather in your cap.

Okay, in 2007-2008, Illinois went 14-11. Iowa went 15-10. Illinois went to a Rose Bowl, Iowa went to the Outback Bowl. Illinois is poorly coached, but if you want to play the "recently" more successful card, you'd better specify over the last four or five years or something. But then of course you actually Are going into the past, which slowly becomes irrelevant. Hell, you can even just base it on last year and say Iowa had a better record, but of course then I have the caveat of saying that Illinois beat Iowa. Or you could go with the fact that one team is 1-0 with a nail biting win over an AA school, and the other is 0-1 with a loss to a team that won 10 games last year in one of the toughest conferences in football. Because comparing those two would be Apples to Apples.

Oh, I'm sorry, cocklord. You must've mistaken me for someone who cared.

(Besides, if you really wanted to play a trump card, you'd say that since half of the University of Iowa student body is comprised of Illinois rejects, the Illini should get partial credit for Iowa's recent success.)

Edit: Also, you're an ignorant slut. QED

[Chuck to Chuck]

(Besides, if you really wanted to play a trump card, you'd say that since half of the University of Iowa student body is comprised of Illinois rejects, the Illini should get partial credit for Iowa's recent success.)

An Illinois reject is just someone who didn't know Blago.

[Ghost of Dave Rosello]

(Besides, if you really wanted to play a trump card, you'd say that since half of the University of Iowa student body is comprised of Illinois rejects, the Illini should get partial credit for Iowa's recent success.)

Or, half the University of Iowa student body is comprised of Illinoisans who were smart enough to not want to spend four years in Champaign.