Schiano pulled his victory formation bullshit

[SarasotaPaul]

He's done it once. Be prepared for it.

So because he is an idiot once he shouldn't be called for being an idiot again? You can prepare for it and still be PO'd by it and rightly so.

 

[Melancer46]

If it's not such a "big deal" then why does virtually every one in both the collegiate and professional ranks call it bush league?

Oh Lord

Cheers,
Neil

Because they, like the majority of Americans, overreact to things that they don't see very often.

 

[Melancer46]

Oh, teams are planning for it, make no mistake about it. Ask the Cowboys. Doesn't mean it still isn't bush league. You play for just about 59 minutes, used up your time outs (some of them mismanaged time outs), you're a TD or more behind, but for those last 60-75 seconds you are now going to show how hard you play when time, score, and no time outs left demonstrate the opposite?

It's dumb. If it were a great move, why aren't the majority of teams doing it?

Someone is going to get hurt sooner or later.

Cheers,
Neil

Wait, they play hard for 59 minutes and are down by a couple points, and you're upset about them playing hard for the last couple snaps? Give me a break.

And I don't think anyone says it's a "great" move. They just try for an extra minute more than other teams tend to and hope they get a lucky break.

 

[BlackKnight76]

I disagree with him on this too, but he's definitely not a Rutgers fan, I can assure you that.

 

[omniorange]

Wait, they play hard for 59 minutes and are down by a couple points, and you're upset about them playing hard for the last couple snaps? Give me a break.

And I don't think anyone says it's a "great" move. They just try for an extra minute more than other teams tend to and hope they get a lucky break.

Actually, if they played "hard" the prior 59 minutes, they probably wouldn't have been down by a TD or more in the last minute. Not to mention the several mismanagement of timeouts during some of these games by Schiano. And it's not like they were within a FG, so your statement about a couple of points shows you don't know when they've used it and when they haven't. In each instance they've used it so far, they have been down by a TD or more.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[texascpa]

Flood did the same thing against Louisville, if I remember correctly.

Personally, I don't have an issue with it.

 

[OrangeMojo]

Again. Bush league.

well, at least he's consistent in his douchebaggery

what a douchebag

 

[IthacaBarrel]

I think people here sometime confuse pro sports with modified football, it's complete bush league, you don't do like this at the pro level. Nobody wants to win games more than these guys but at the end of the day you don't do like this at that level. When Coughlin says its bush league, its bush league.

There is professional conduct involved and these guys understand the risk but they are also providing for their families and the fact that a career could end on a play such as this is nonsense, you play to win but when it comes to the victory formation the game is over, there is an honor code there.

If another player wants to end careers of other players it could be done on a weekly basis. You don't do it. It's the equivalent of an NBA player pushing a guy going up for a fast break dunk right in the back when he is up in the air, contest the shot, sure go up with him and foul him hard sure but cheap shot when someone is defenseless is deplorable

 

[Rocco]

Big deal. The game isn't over. If they don't want to defend it, don't go into the victory formation.

Run a play to risk turning the ball over? The odds of TB getting the ball during a Victory formation are extremely slim to zero. The risk of injuring a player by going low on the OLinemen are high. It is a bush league move.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Once a scumbag, always a scumbag.

 

[jvbj01]

The game wasn't over. If it wasn't Schiano, it would be minimally talked about on this board. just because the offense decides the game is over, it doesn't mean the defense has to.
I'm curious if this silly Rutgers/Schiano hatred will still be cooking in a few years. I can understand disliking a team, but some are beyond silly with it.

 

[dasher]

The game wasn't over. If it wasn't Schiano, it would be minimally talked about on this board. just because the offense decides the game is over, it doesn't mean the defense has to.
I'm curious if this silly Rutgers/Schiano hatred will still be cooking in a few years. I can understand disliking a team, but some are beyond silly with it.

you have that wrong. It is talked about because only Schiano does bush league stuff like this.

 

[jvbj01]

you have that wrong. It is talked about because only Schiano does bush league stuff like this.

Why does the defense have to stop playing before the clock expires? Would the offense stop playing of the defense stopped playing? Somebody stated that an offense does it so they don't have to risk a turnover by running another play. If this is the case, as we know it is, why shouldn't the defense force the offense to run that play? I'm not a Schiano fan, but by now the opposing coaches should be prepared for this.

 

[Melancer46]

Actually, if they played "hard" the prior 59 minutes, they probably wouldn't have been down by a TD or more in the last minute. Not to mention the several mismanagement of timeouts during some of these games by Schiano. And it's not like they were within a FG, so your statement about a couple of points shows you don't know when they've used it and when they haven't. In each instance they've used it so far, they have been down by a TD or more.

Cheers,
Neil

1. I've watched every one of their games. They could have won each of those games if they had gotten a lucky turnover and scored. I believe they were down by 8 or less points every time they've done it.
2. Yes, any time a team loses a football game, they couldn't have possibly played hard.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Actually, if they played "hard" the prior 59 minutes, they probably wouldn't have been down by a TD or more in the last minute. Not to mention the several mismanagement of timeouts during some of these games by Schiano. And it's not like they were within a FG, so your statement about a couple of points shows you don't know when they've used it and when they haven't. In each instance they've used it so far, they have been down by a TD or more.

Cheers,
Neil

:bang:

 

[VaSaltine]

Continuing these Schiano/Rutgers threads only makes them better than us. It needs to stop, just sayin.

 

[omniorange]

1. I've watched every one of their games. They could have won each of those games if they had gotten a lucky turnover and scored. I believe they were down by 8 or less points every time they've done it.
2. Yes, any time a team loses a football game, they couldn't have possibly played hard.

They were down 7, 6, and 8 and the closest the ball was to their goal line was with the Giants at their own 30 with 5 seconds left after the Giants had intercepted last desperation pass. The other two times the opponents had the ball in Bucs territory. So the likelihood of getting the turnover, which hasn't happened and scoring 6 is virtually nil in these circumstances.

Schiano said he used this tactic at least 4 times in college and 3 times in the pros and it has never resulted yet in his team getting the ball back, although against UNC they did get the fumble but the Heels recovered. UNC was at the Rutgers 12 yard line and chose to take the knee instead of going for the score. He claims they were successful in causing a fumble against WVU and Pitt in 2009. In the WVU game, they were offsides twice with the play and no fumble caused. And the Pitt play-by-play doesn't give any indication of either a penalty or a fumble happening when they took a knee twice at the end of that game.

Also, there is a mixed message in his application of the "play hard" to the end. When the Bucs are leading, he doesn't have a problem with his offense taking a knee. If he were true to this principle, shouldn't he have his offense play hard to the end?

Anyway, this isn't a man-to-man versus zone type argument that has its proponents on both sides of the argument.

If you are the ONLY one doing this, that should tell posters something right there.

Oh Lord

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Upstate]

Kyle Flood's team did it, too, against Ville this past week.

 

[Melancer46]

They were down 7, 6, and 8 and the closest the ball was to their goal line was with the Giants at their own 30 with 5 seconds left after the Giants had intercepted last desperation pass. The other two times the opponents had the ball in Bucs territory. So the likelihood of getting the turnover, which hasn't happened and scoring 6 is virtually nil in these circumstances.

Schiano said he used this tactic at least 4 times in college and 3 times in the pros and it has never resulted yet in his team getting the ball back, although against UNC they did get the fumble but the Heels recovered. UNC was at the Rutgers 12 yard line and chose to take the knee instead of going for the score. He claims they were successful in causing a fumble against WVU and Pitt in 2009. In the WVU game, they were offsides twice with the play and no fumble caused. And the Pitt play-by-play doesn't give any indication of either a penalty or a fumble happening when they took a knee twice at the end of that game.

Also, there is a mixed message in his application of the "play hard" to the end. When the Bucs are leading, he doesn't have a problem with his offense taking a knee. If he were true to this principle, shouldn't he have his offense play hard to the end?

Anyway, this isn't a man-to-man versus zone type argument that has its proponents on both sides of the argument.

If you are the ONLY one doing this, that should tell posters something right there.

Oh Lord

Cheers,
Neil

He plays to win the game. If Tampa is winning, he tries to end the game so that they win. If Tampa is losing, he hopes for the other team to screw up and capitalize so he can win.

Kneeling the ball down isn't "not playing hard". It's the offenses way of trying to win the game. They run the clock out and limit the chances of a turnover.

 

[Cadillac]

Fake macho crap without any dignity. Schiano's MO.

 

[omniorange]

He plays to win the game. If Tampa is winning, he tries to end the game so that they win. If Tampa is losing, he hopes for the other team to screw up and capitalize so he can win.

Kneeling the ball down isn't "not playing hard". It's the offenses way of trying to win the game. They run the clock out and limit the chances of a turnover.

No it's not. It's the offense's way of saying, we aren't going to make you look bad because it's obvious you have already lost the game.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Melancer46]

No it's not. It's the offense's way of saying, we aren't going to make you look bad because it's obvious you have already lost the game.

Cheers,
Neil

Well that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. In blowouts, yeah, it's a way of being "respectful" and just running the clock out. But in close games (like the ones you're talking about with Tampa), it's the offense's way of insuring victory. The reward of kneeling down (guaranteeing a win as long as they successfully kneel the ball down) outweighs the risk/reward of not kneeling (possibly winning more emphatically, but also risking a turnover and losing the game).

 

[PoppyHart]

I don't see any problem with it. And there was ample warning.

We expect refs to officiate the entire game (see SJU-SHU in BE Tourney), but don't expect players to play the entire game?

 

[SarasotaPaul]

He plays to win the game. If Tampa is winning, he tries to end the game so that they win. If Tampa is losing, he hopes for the other team to screw up and capitalize so he can win.

Kneeling the ball down isn't "not playing hard". It's the offenses way of trying to win the game. They run the clock out and limit the chances of a turnover.

Kneeling is the way to not rub it in, to not run meaningless plays that could get someone hurt and to show a modicum of respect for the game and the opponent. The team kneeling has already won the game. The next time Scumbag Greg and his supporters wins a game they are losing with this jerkwad move will be the first. Not one team has lost the ball and the game using the kneel down. There is no logical way to support these bush league tactics.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

I don't see any problem with it. And there was ample warning.

We expect refs to officiate the entire game (see SJU-SHU in BE Tourney), but don't expect players to play the entire game?

Ample warning for cheap shots is still bush league. Thats how the term bush league got invented. Its something pros shouldn't be doing, plain and simple.

This macho BS of playing hard to the end doesn't even come close to cutting it here.