• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Ways football has changed.....

KleinTxHusker

All Legend
15 Year Member
Mass x Velocity SQUARED.

Regardless, people don't watch gladiator sport to see how gently the players treat each other.

Hits are why I fell in love with football. The violence is why most people watch. The violence is why they are compensated the way they are. If they were worried about their future, they probably shouldn't be playing football.
Quick answer is you’ve confused energy with momentum. (And kinetic energy is 0.5 x mass x velocity squared)

Mass times velocity is momentum. And change in momentum equals Force imposed on body. And and in a collision it dictates which body has the greatest change in velocity. The bigger discrepancies in size these days along with greater velocities means the smaller guys take More of the force than in past.

It’s like two vehicles collide head on, both going 60 mph and one is 2000 lb and the other 4000 lb. change in momentum of each body is equal to force and the small one is toast.

From that you can calculate the change in kinetic energy in each; it will probably be the little guy there too, especially if he was moving fast.

Simple answer (as it’s 6 am and I don’t want to spend more time thinking) is both equations apply. Forces will be equal and energy of system unchanged.
 
Last edited:

Uncle Buck

All American
15 Year Member
Quick answer is you’ve confused energy with momentum. (And kinetic energy is 0.5 x mass x velocity squared)

Mass times velocity is momentum. And change in momentum equals Force imposed on body. And and in a collision it dictates which body has the greatest change in velocity. The bigger discrepancies in size these days along with greater velocities means the smaller guys take More of the force than in past.

It’s like two vehicles collide head on, both going 60 mph and one is 2000 lb and the other 4000 lb. change in momentum of each body is equal to force and the small one is toast.

From that you can calculate the change in kinetic energy in each; it will probably be the little guy there too, especially if he was moving fast.

Simple answer (as it’s 6 am and I don’t want to spend more time thinking) is both equations apply. Forces will be equal and energy of system unchanged.
I don’t understand, but it makes sense!
 

NUinID

Scout Team
2 Year Member
The game does have less violent hits than it did 20 years ago. There is no getting around that, the style of play has changed though and I think that is what most of us don’t like.

We don’t like the spread style of offense that most are running at least some of the time. Even Wisconsin employs it some.

The hole concept of the spread is to create miss matches in space.

It also slows down super aggressive defense. Which is what Nebraska’s 4-3 of the 90’s was.
 

joncarl

Nobody important
15 Year Member
If your offense is the wing T and you have 22 players all lined up within 5 yards of the ball it can only be so violent, spread out your offense and it oppens you up to more violent collisions. Not sure how you avoid violence and big hits now days.
 

Brodeboy87

Recruit
I would say the impact of TV.....30 years ago you only had about a dozen teams featured "consistently" on TV, i.e. (Oklahoma, Texas, NU, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Ohio St. , Mich, Penn St. Miami, Georgia Tech, Then throw in an SEC team or two and there you have it) So it was easier to recruit to those schools if you could pitch the idea of Nationally televised games...now every conference has some sort of TV deal and that I think has spread talent across the country...
Also a theory of mine as to why NU was dominant for 3+ decades was due to S&C program.....then everyone caught up to our innovations.....Now the one dominant team that comes to everyone's mind usually is Alabama football....so what are they doing that is innovative? (staying away from negative SEC comments here) Saban brought a pro-mentality when it comes to his staff (offensive/defensive analysts) The rest of the country is playing catch up (Clemson is there, due to Dabo being a Saban protege')
We tried that staffing style while Riley was here and he could never put his thumbprint on the program due to there being too many irons in the fire....with that said, that ultimately falls on Riley for being a YES man....but I digress....anyways the game is very different from the late 80's early 90's...is it for the better?
 

gazelle

Recruit
I would say the impact of TV.....30 years ago you only had about a dozen teams featured "consistently" on TV, i.e. (Oklahoma, Texas, NU, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Ohio St. , Mich, Penn St. Miami, Georgia Tech, Then throw in an SEC team or two and there you have it) So it was easier to recruit to those schools if you could pitch the idea of Nationally televised games...now every conference has some sort of TV deal and that I think has spread talent across the country...
Also a theory of mine as to why NU was dominant for 3+ decades was due to S&C program.....then everyone caught up to our innovations.....Now the one dominant team that comes to everyone's mind usually is Alabama football....so what are they doing that is innovative? (staying away from negative SEC comments here) Saban brought a pro-mentality when it comes to his staff (offensive/defensive analysts) The rest of the country is playing catch up (Clemson is there, due to Dabo being a Saban protege')
We tried that staffing style while Riley was here and he could never put his thumbprint on the program due to there being too many irons in the fire....with that said, that ultimately falls on Riley for being a YES man....but I digress....anyways the game is very different from the late 80's early 90's...is it for the better?
Saban has about a half dozen "analysts" on his staff that focus almost solely on recruiting. Recruiting is the life blood of any college program. Also, they don't offer four-year scholarships, it is year-to-year. That way they can get rid of any non-performers and replace them with 4 or 5 star recruits each recruiting cycle. They recruit close to the maximum number of scholarships (25) each year yet still stay within the 85 scholarship limit. Most schools can only recruit about 20 new kids a year and still stay within the 85 scholarship limit. That means that over any five year period Alabama will recruit 125 new players, while most other schools will recruit about a 100 or so. That is like having an entire extra year's worth of new recruits...and did I mention that almost all of those recruits are 4 or 5 star players?
 

NUinID

Scout Team
2 Year Member
I would say the impact of TV.....30 years ago you only had about a dozen teams featured "consistently" on TV, i.e. (Oklahoma, Texas, NU, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Ohio St. , Mich, Penn St. Miami, Georgia Tech, Then throw in an SEC team or two and there you have it) So it was easier to recruit to those schools if you could pitch the idea of Nationally televised games...now every conference has some sort of TV deal and that I think has spread talent across the country...
Also a theory of mine as to why NU was dominant for 3+ decades was due to S&C program.....then everyone caught up to our innovations.....Now the one dominant team that comes to everyone's mind usually is Alabama football....so what are they doing that is innovative? (staying away from negative SEC comments here) Saban brought a pro-mentality when it comes to his staff (offensive/defensive analysts) The rest of the country is playing catch up (Clemson is there, due to Dabo being a Saban protege')
We tried that staffing style while Riley was here and he could never put his thumbprint on the program due to there being too many irons in the fire....with that said, that ultimately falls on Riley for being a YES man....but I digress....anyways the game is very different from the late 80's early 90's...is it for the better?
This imo has effected Nebraska a ton. One of their huge recruiting tools was the fact that they were on tv 2-3 times a year. Players would come to be on tv. Now everyone is on tv. I think it has hurt recruiting a lot. I think it has hindered are getting back to some relevance. Not the only thing hindering it. But it doesn’t help.

Almost all the advantages that Nebraska used to have are gone. The only real advantages Nebraska has right now are a rabid fan base and lots of money.
 

HouNU

Recruit
That would be interesting. When you score a TD you have to spike it over the goalpost for it to count.

That would keep the scores down.
George Carlin had some nice ideas for a basketball going off the opponent's head and into the basket being worth extra points. Maybe that's an idea to make it more exciting?
I've got all sorts of deranged ideas on how to do that. Any pass competition off of a ref's head/body is a 1st down.
Any FG attempt that hits the opponent's facemask is worth 4. You could try a FG from anywhere if your kicker is accurate. Guys coming off the edge for a block may become a target. Blockers would be getting low, some guys would turn around...kickers would maybe have less pressure, but need more quick thinking. The game might be longer with more replays and slow motion, though.
 
Last edited:

Prairie Sage

Red Shirt
5 Year Member
George Carlin had some nice ideas for a basketball going off the opponent's head and into the basket being worth extra points. Maybe that's an idea to make it more exciting?
I've got all sorts of deranged ideas on how to do that. Any pass competition off of a ref's head/body is a 1st down.
Any FG attempt that hits the opponent's facemask is worth 4. You could try a FG from anywhere if your kicker is accurate. Guys coming off the edge for a block may become a target. Blockers would be getting low, some guys would turn around...kickers would maybe have less pressure, but need more quick thinking. The game might be longer with more replays and slow motion, though.
I've always thought the way to fix the kick-off danger problem would be to move it up to the 45 yard line and give the kicking team 1 point if the kicker could kick it through the goalposts. And then give the receiving team the ball at the 10 yard line.

As to the original topic, another change at the college and pro level is the amount of practice time that is allowed. Coaches don't get the time to drill their players as they did in the past. Also, practices don't seem to be as brutal as they were back in the day. If you've read the Husker stories, there's no way they can take the offensive and defensive lines down to a room in Mushroom Gardens and have them bash heads and bleed like they used to.
 

wcbsas

All Big 10
15 Year Member
Saban has about a half dozen "analysts" on his staff that focus almost solely on recruiting. Recruiting is the life blood of any college program. Also, they don't offer four-year scholarships, it is year-to-year. That way they can get rid of any non-performers and replace them with 4 or 5 star recruits each recruiting cycle. They recruit close to the maximum number of scholarships (25) each year yet still stay within the 85 scholarship limit. Most schools can only recruit about 20 new kids a year and still stay within the 85 scholarship limit. That means that over any five year period Alabama will recruit 125 new players, while most other schools will recruit about a 100 or so. That is like having an entire extra year's worth of new recruits...and did I mention that almost all of those recruits are 4 or 5 star players?
He also has a large exodus of athletes who declare early ... so yes he can recruit 25/year because 5+ are leaving early. So instead of a 5 year average cycle for most collegiate athletes I bet his squads average closer to 4 years ... which means you can recruit 21.25 athletes per year ... without even running off any non-performers.
 

wcbsas

All Big 10
15 Year Member
The fact that things are done to protect the players such as lowering the aiming point to avoid head to head have not made the game any less violent. There are still huge hits. Do some refs carry it too far (e.g. Kenny Bells hit) yes. In some ways it is more violent as a result of the size and speed of the players. If you look at games in the 60s and 70s. The average qb was only about 20-30 pounds lighter than the average DL. was less than 100 pounds heavier than the average QB. In the 70s QBs on average were the same height they are now. (6'5") and about 20 ls heavier. So not a huge difference. Whereas DT are the same height but 50 lbs heavier then they were in the 70s. OL has had an even bigger difference. They have gone from 245 in 77 to 320 in the early 2000s. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index7255.html?p=493 Both D and OL have continued to get bigger in that time. In that same time 40 yard dash times have decreased. that means bigger guys ae hitting people faster. If you look at how to determine linear force and impact. It is Mass X velocity. So bigger guys hitting at a higher velocity equals a much harder impact. So changing the aiming point only makes sense. IF you care at all about the health of the players. You see hits now that are actually at least as violent if not more so than the 70s. It is just at a different aiming point.
Outland and Lombardi Trophy winner nose guard Rich Glover would likely make today's game as linebacker ... maybe ... safeties in today's game are bigger than Glover is/was ... 6'1" 234lbs
 
Top