I see the Ivy League, as an experiment this fall, will now kick off from the 40 rather than the 35, presumably to reduce the number of kickoffs returned. So far this makes sense. I guess a good number of kicks will now go beyond the end zone so the receiving team won’t even have the option of returning.
What I don’t quite understand is why they’re also moving touchbacks from the 25 to the 20 . . . it seems like this works at cross purposes to the change from 35 to 40, by increasing rather than decreasing the incentive to return a kickoff? Am I missing something?
http://ivyleaguesports.com/sports/fball/2016-17/releases/The_Ivy_League_Continues_to_Lead_in_Student-Athlete_Safety-Adopts_Football_Experimental_Rule_for_2016
http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2016-07-20/college-football-ivy-league-move-kickoffs-40-yard-line
It increases the incentive to try and kick the ball through the end zone, thereby eliminating the return completely.
Thanks, now I see - makes sense when viewed just in terms of incentive for the kicking team rather than both teams. It will be interesting to see how it works out. IIRC the percentage of touchbacks roughly doubled when they moved to the 35/25 rule.
I would guess that this plus the new Ivy rules around hitting in practice will make a real difference in injuries this fall.
I think it did originally. And then kicking teams started trying to kick high and to the corners (outside the numbers and inside the ten), because the percentages told them they could stop a return before the twenty five yard line. My guess is the numbers flip in favor of the returning team when the line of gain needs to be the twenty in that scenario, which is the reason for the change.
As far as the tackling rules in the Ivy, I am really not sure how many D1 colleges were tackling during the season anyway. According to my son, he doesn’t expect the new rules to change anything in the way they practice during the season. The guys are just too big and too strong to do much more than “thud” (play to first contact) very often. I think the real issue is with the high school teams, and coaches who don’t know what they are doing. In that sense, I think the publicity around the change will help filter the message to where it can do the most good. Buddy Teevins at Dartmouth has been very good at getting the word out and publicizing the problems with too much contact in practice for years.
I saw a video a while back on Dartmouth and some form of robot they’ve been using for tackling practice. I’m not sure how big a part that plays in their approach but it was interesting to see. And I’m glad to see Buddy Teevens having success. It was painful to watch him at Stanford . . . great guy and highly respected but just could not get it done in terms of wins . . . the change of venue seems to have worked for him.
I really liked Teevins when he was recruiting my son. Great guy, and definitely in the right place.