The Whole Five Yards

Each year following the NFL season the NFL Competition Committee gathers to propose new rule changes to be made for the upcoming season. The game of football is ever changing and requires some tweaking of the rules to adjust to the increased athleticism of the game and protect the safety of its players, but this new rule proposal is ridiculous: For next year, the NFL Competition Committee Co-Chairs Jeff Fisher of the Tennessee Titans and Rich McKay of the Atlanta Falcons and the rest of the committee are suggesting that kickers should kick the ball off at the 35-yard line rather than the current spot at the 30-yard line.

This proposed rule is meant to protect the players as kickoffs are regarded as one of the most dangerous plays in the game today. With players these days running sub 4.4 second 40-yard dash times and taking off full speed at the ball carrier, injuries are going to happen, right? While the play is often a dangerous one, the Competition Committee’s solution of moving the kicker forward 5 yards is not good for football.

While most kickoffs seem routine where the ball carrier rarely gets past his own 30-yard line, some provide replays that are shown on television highlight shows for days later. In football, few things are as exciting as seeing someone evade 11 defenders and run 100 yards into the end zone. Completing the run is no easy feat and never fails to rile up a crowd.

With the majority of kickers these days having no problem booting the ball 65 yards downfield, we may see the number of returnable balls decrease. Not only would this rob fans of a spectacular play, but it would reduce the effectiveness of special team players. Suddenly, the value of kickers who can kick very far, but are not that accurate drops as kickers will all have improved chances of kicking the ball into the end zone for a touch back. Additionally, second and third-string players who make money as return specialists will be in lower demand and teams who have enjoyed an edge over their opponents in the special teams aspect may see their advantage balance out.

Last year, in order to minimize collisions, the NFL ruled that blockers were no longer allowed to form a wedge for the return man with more than two players. While this did not have a huge impact on the return average, one can argue that it did cause there to be less head on collisions between defenders and blockers, even if making the return man more vulnerable in the process.

Additionally, in another attempt to minimize harm to the game’s players, the NFL’s Competition Committee has proposed that coverage units get no more than a 5-yard running start before crossing the point of kickoff. Currently there are no rules limiting how much ground coverage units can cover before the ball is kicked off and the Competition Committee is worried that extended time to catch momentum may be dangerous for return teams often running backward before coming to a complete stop to block another player.

While I do believe that this rule along with the elimination of the three-man wedge has the potential to make the game safer, moving the point of kickoff forward five yards does little to prevent harmful collisions other than reducing the chance that a return man will even choose to attempt the play. If the NFL Competition Committee was really concerned about kickoffs, they would eliminate them completely, not just reduce the amount of returnable balls and make a mockery of football.

While it is true that football needs to adapt to the transformation of its athletes, this is going a bit far. What’s next? Two hand touch football?

Whos to blame?

You have it all. One minute you’re a star high school athlete and highly touted college prospect. You finish your senior season and with such raw talent you get to choose from only the best of universities. Being a competitor with dreams of winning a national title, you pick a school with a winning tradition and legitimate potential to win it all in the near future. With hard work and dedication, you can see things falling into place until suddenly your team is banned from appearing in a bowl game. For two years.

Scenarios such as this happen all too often, but why should they affect the athletes and put all of their hard work to waste? It is a shame that athletes have to go through this and some day the rules should change that will instead penalize the athletic directors and the specific athletes actually breaking the rules. This will surely bring more justice to the situation than punishing the remaining hardworking, honest student-athletes.

It is the athletic director’s job to run the various sports programs at his school and make sure that the programs are adhering to the rules set forth by the NCAA. The infractions made that end up getting schools in trouble with the NCAA directly reflect on the athletic director. How could an athletic director let these kinds of things happen? All operations in the athletic department must be overseen by him and he must take responsibility for any mistakes made. Even if a rule was broken by an athlete without the athletic director’s knowledge, it is still his fault for not educating the athlete enough about doing things that will put the team in jeopardy.

In June 2010 after a 4-year investigation it was announced that the NCAA would be imposing sanctions on the USC football team for "lack of institutional control" which would result in the forfeiting of all wins which included Reggie Bush as an ineligible player, losing their 2005 national championship, losing 30 scholarships over three years, and a 2-year ban on postseason play.

The forfeiture of wins makes sense. Bush was receiving gifts and thus was no longer eligible making him an unfair advantage for the Trojans against other teams. The erasing of the national championship also makes sense. Even the loss of scholarships somewhat makes sense (though 30 is a very harsh number). The program abused their powers and broke key rules that should be followed by every school. But the 2-year ban on postseason play? How does that make sense?

How is it that Bush, a pro football player who broke the rules that erased everything his teammates worked so hard for and Mike Garrett, the athletic director who oversaw the program at that time, are untouched by the NCAA while the young players at USC are forced to sit out of the postseason for two years after the majority of them did nothing wrong.

Although Garrett was later fired and Bush’s image was removed from USC’s campus, what does it matter? Garrett was fired by the school, not punished by the NCAA and Bush is still making millions in the NFL. Something tells me that these two are not exactly hurting for money. The people who are hurting, however, are the young athletes who were lured into a school that can no longer enjoy playing in a bowl game. A college football career can go by fast and with many players leaving early for the NFL these days, 2 years can be a heartbreaker. There are many problems with the NCAA and BCS these days, let’s start looking out for our honest student athletes and fix this one for them.