EDSBS PERSON OF THE YEAR: BRET BIELEMA
Above all else, the Devil cannot stand to be mocked.
–C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters.
Rule 3-2-5e, the rule shortening games, is a stinking abomination on the game of college football. Worse still, it wasn’t even proposed and approved in a manner consistent with logic, sense, rule, fairness, or the slightest shred of intelligence. It hasn’t even been defended coherently, either, since the people behind its inception a.) don’t seem to understand what they’ve done, or b.) understand fully, and don’t care to make a scene by airing the dirty truth of the game in public, which is that it makes this “amateur” game a more telegenic and manageable product for networks.
It’s reduced the amount of football every fan of the game sees by six percent or so. This may seem inconsequential when you’re talking about football, but we here at EDSBS are awfully touchy about the margins people live and die by. (If you saw our car, you’d understand why.) You’d miss six percent of your paycheck, right? Okay, well if your six hours on the couch each Saturday are a benefit of your working your ass off all week, you just had your benefits reduced by six percent. If you prefer another metaphor, you’re getting six percent less content for the time and energy you invest in sending your wife/husband on elaborate errands, getting up super early to mow the lawn, or faking your own death for ten hours in order to disappear to the bar for a tripleheader.
All of this leads us to nominate Bret Bielema for EDSBS Man of the Year. Rather than stump against the inane, craven rule–Bielema did what we’d do: mocked it. Watch the offsides kickoff to see the kind of giant, dinosaur sized smartassdom that must have roamed the earth in the Jurassic age of sarcasm. The coach who does not do this as an act of civil disobedience at the end of the half may begin the second half wearing a pink dress and a sun bonnet. (Mangino. You’re welcome.)
(The crew here may be our new favorite: Nessler, Danielson, and McGuire. Nessler booms the play by play, Danielson gives the analysis, and McGuire is free to be a crank, which is what he excels at.)
Bret Bielema, we salute you.
Loading ...
51
Crazy Chester says:
This rule would have allowed for Notre Dame to pull a similar stunt at the end of the 1993 BC game. It would have kept David Gordon off the field and the game-winning field goal that ended our national title hopes that year never would have happened.
Of course this would have kept Holtz at the helm for a few more years, and the entire soul-crushing era known as Davieham would not have happened.
I forget, what did you say was wrong with rule?
November 7th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
52
District Selectman says:
DC Trojan, give me a break. The Badgers are averaging just a point less per game than your Trojans, while giving up 5 points less. But why bother with facts when you can look up the answer in your gut?
November 7th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
53
Gary says:
The only reason that there was such a collision is that Penn State was really confused and not ready for this to happen. Now that people have seen this, I would think return units should be more ready for it, limiting catastrophic injury. Also, as mentioned above, teams probably aren’t going to be able to be so far offsides in the future if refs decide to slap them with the 15 yard penalty. Regardless, the point stands that the rule flat out sucks and was not well thought out at all. #16 is absolutely right in pointing to the OSU-Illinois game. At the very least, the rule should be rescinded for the last 2 minutes of each half.
November 7th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
54
Yant says:
Whether or not you like Bielema’s tactics, you must admit that it makes the NCAA look like a bunch of retards for passing this silly rule.
November 7th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
55
James says:
With that move, Bielema moves just below Spurrier in my list of smartass coaches that I love and hate in equal measure. And JoPa’s reaction was just classic.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
56
Don V says:
Count me unconvinced that the officials can do much about it in the future. Let’s talk about a more crucial hypothesis – end of a game, team up by 4, 10 seconds left. If the coach tells two of his players to be offside, but not blatently so, how can they pull out the unfair-clock-use clause? 7 seconds runs off the clock and they can kick it again and have less to worry about. A confident ref would maybe not start the clock next time until the ball was touched, but I doubt he’d put time back on the clock.
My initial impression was “I hope no one got hurt by it”, which it appears no one did, but I think it did very poignantly draw focus to a huge, game-changing problem.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
57
Aerobab says:
I have to say I’m bam-fuckin’-boozled over this one. I love the gonads that Bielema has to exploit such a dipshit rule. However, as I sift through the NCAA’s bible, there is nothing that prohibits running offisdes on a free-kick to run out the clock.
If “unsportsmanlike” is going to be called under the guise of Rule 9-2-3(c), then it would also be unsportsmanlike to 1) spike the ball to stop the clock, 2) take a knee to run the clock, and the infrequently used 3) intentionally running backwards to take a safety (if nursing a late 3+ pt lead). Spiking and kneeling give distinct clock advantages to the offense…not so much “safety-taking”, but the same principle applies.
If the NCAA is so concerned with cramming a football game into a 3.5-hr block, I’d like to see them just run a continuous clock (similar to europeen “football”; say, 45-min quarters) with no clock stopage for timeouts or reviews. It’ll NEVER happen, but it’s interesting to think about.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
58
DC Trojan says:
DC Trojan, give me a break. The Badgers are averaging just a point less per game than your Trojans, while giving up 5 points less. But why bother with facts when you can look up the answer in your gut?
Re-read the comment: I wrote “boring” not “unproductive.” I don’t care if Wisconsin is proportionally as ho-hum as USC over the course of this season, I don’t enjoy watching them play football. Hooray for freedom of choice!
Speaking of, shouldn’t you be out stuffing ballot boxes / turning away voters (delete as applicable according to local patterns of partisan corruption) or something like that?
November 7th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
59
District Selectman says:
De gustibus non est disputandum.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
60
DC Trojan says:
Couldn’t agree more, District Selectman.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
61
Jackwraith says:
Jee-zus. Can the Penn St. fans do any more crying about everything this season?! My fucking monitor is about to short out from the tidal wave of salt water pouring off this thread.
Was it a cheap move? Yes, it was. In that sense, did it demonstrate how asinine the new clock rules are? Why… yes, it did! Amazing. Someone bending the rules to show how they can be bent and how they should be changed (back.) This has never happened in any organized sport before. Ever. Or at least it hasn’t to Penn State before because we’ve certainly never heard this level of caterwauling and whining about the ’safety’ of their players on a damned kick return.
This is exactly like the aftermath of the Michigan game, when it seemed like every Nittany fan in existence couldn’t just suck it up and admit the Michigan defense ate them alive and instead had to to whine about a ‘helmet-to-helmet’ hit that wasn’t from Branch.
If Bielema had pulled that move against us, I would’ve been laughing my ass off, especially since there was only :23 left in the half and I don’t think anyone but the most mindlessly optimistic PSU fan felt they were going to do anything but sit on the ball and go into the locker room.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
62
Panhandler says:
Aerobab (at 57), I totally agree with you. I respect Pat (at 19)’s analysis of the legalities, but reducing penalties to any given ref’s ‘opinion’ of what is ‘obviously’ unfair, or when someone is ‘flagrantly’ offsides, is going very quickly down a nasty slippery slope. Biased celebration penalties will be NUTHIN’ compared to what happens when these SEC homer refs find out they can start calling penalties based not on definable facts/actions, but on their subjective opinions. “I didn’t like the way that boy (spiked the ball/went offsides/took a safety), so that’s Unfair Clock Management. The boys for my team do it much politely.”
November 7th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
63
Pat says:
If “unsportsmanlike” is going to be called under the guise of Rule 9-2-3(c), then it would also be unsportsmanlike to 1) spike the ball to stop the clock, 2) take a knee to run the clock, and the infrequently used 3) intentionally running backwards to take a safety (if nursing a late 3+ pt lead).
Which one of these is an unfair tactic?
None of them. They’re all perfectly legal plays. Spiking the ball is specifically allowed in the rules on forward passes. Taking a knee is just intentionally downing yourself during a play. Running backwards to take a safety is also a completely legal play.
Being blatantly offsides during a kickoff is not a legal play. I really, really don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand. “Unfair tactics” are basically “anything outside of legal play that places the other team at a disadvantage.” The only things that even remotely come close are extremely minor, and more importantly, don’t continue to give advantages when done multiple times.
Can the Penn St. fans do any more crying about everything this season?!
Have you ever heard me whine about anything Penn State related?
No.
So don’t lump my actions (which are done for my own reasons) in with other people’s actions.
I’d complain about this if I had seen it in an Illinois-Indiana game.
November 7th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
64
Orson Swindle says:
Pat, do you dislike it because it’s “unmanly,” or because it’s a coach knowingly doing something illegal to gain advantage? In that case, all knowingly illegal penalties committed frequently are included.
Example: holding and taking a penalty rather than surrendering a grievous sack or touchdown. The only way to punish this is to establish intent, which is impossible. The next violators will only do it with more subtlety; parsing penalties like this even further will result in a further legalization of the game, which will only please the lawyers. And that’s the last thing this site would ever endorse.
Iowa provided a very nice model of just how subtle offsides can be in the Outback Bowl last year, in case you would like a primer on proper technique.
November 7th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
65
Joshua says:
I don’t know what is more impressive, Bielema’s sack for doing this or the massive amount of pussies this thread brought out of the woodwork.
November 7th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
66
Chg says:
Paterno came off as more of a jackass in the clip than the Wisconsin coach. Is there an NCAA bylaw that that the prohibition on touching officials does not apply to zombies?
I wish someone would take a four point lead in the second half and do this for the rest of the game.
It is no more unsporting than a team that has been snapping the ball with 10 seconds on the playclock and passing throughout the game suddenly snapping with one second on the clock and running between the tackles to nurse a lead.
November 7th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
67
italiangator says:
How is spiking the ball legal anyways? I’ve always wondered why there isn’t an intentional grounding penalty for that one, esp. since that’s pretty much the definition of intentional grounding (i.e., intentionally throwing the ball into the ground to avoid an adverse situation, in which there is no possibility of the pass being completed). So, in conclusion, FREE SCOOP!
November 7th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
68
j.j. says:
I don’t really care about the new clock rules. Maybe it’s because I root for Iowa State and Notre Dame.
ISU: I want to see as little of their football as possible…it’s painful to watch.
ND: Their games are long enough as it is, and their coaches are smart enough to get the most of the time that’s available.
That said, I was watching when this happened, and I laughed my ass off. My hat goes off to you, Coach Bielema.
November 7th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
69
J-Skool says:
Along the lines of #57 and #61 and Pat, spiking the ball behind the center (and behind the LOS, without intent to reach an eligible receiver), in order to gain clock advantage, *should* be an intentional grounding penalty *and* an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
Alternatively, an intentional running beyond the LOS before the ball is in play on a kickoff, in order to gain an unfair clock advantage, *is* an offsides penalty but is *not* an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
Now, which rule is more unfair?
The only way this offsides revolution garners the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty is if the same powers-that-be who came up with rule 3-2-5e create an ammendment to the rules: “No coach or representative of any team shall devise strategy under these written rules or otherwise mock God in order to gain ANY advantage whatsoever.”
Pat, you’re simply a whining PSU fan whose assertions to the contrary don’t compute with your hyperlink.
November 7th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
70
J-Skool says:
Props to #67, as well.
November 7th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
71
Orson Swindle says:
Pat is an ND fan.
November 7th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
72
J-Skool says:
Orson, You may have this one Pat confused with an ND Pat.
Or maybe Pat’s intentionally misleading the site with his “bleedblueandwhite” affiliation.
November 7th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
73
Orson Swindle says:
Dammit, we’re arguing for the wrong fucking Pat.
November 7th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
74
hazer says:
After reading through all 71 comments I have to say that Pat makes the most sense by far. How this incident is getting compared to intentional grounding is unbelievable.
Whats to prevent the Wisconsin guys from being 30 yards offsides instead of just 10? And I like how they act all tough after they make the tackle; the whole damn kick off team was in a full sprint 15 yards from the return man when he caught the ball. Yeah, that’s not dangerous. What’s next, get a second half lead and then just repeat this debacle for 3 hours?
November 7th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
75
Orson Swindle says:
They could–that’s the point. Until the rule makes sense, that is.
November 7th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
76
Pat says:
Sorry, did someone call my name?
November 7th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
77
italiangator says:
Also, let’s be fair in all this- I want to be clear that I’m not saying Pat’s not making sense, but what I’m saying is that it’s the rule that doesn’t make sense and thus allows this sort of situation to occur. What makes this example so awesome is the fact that Bielema didn’t just tell his guys to go offsides a little bit- they were instructed to do it in such a way that conversations like this would be had and this would be used as a reason that the rule needs to change. He knows it could be reversed next time, and so it needs to be changed.
Also, J-Skool, good to know you think Scoop should be free as well.
November 7th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
78
Brandon Lang says:
I can’t quote chapter and verse, but spiking the football is specifically allowed in the rules. There was a time in the not so distant past where it was not–quarterbacks would take one step back and throw it out of bounds over a receivers head who made a half-hearted effort to jump and catch the ball. (Some of us old QBs were taught to aim for the down marker.) It was a big deal when the rule allowing the spike was introduced.
As a Citadel graduate, I must defend my fellow alum Paul Maguire. You have to admit, he’s a ton better without Joe T. And if you think MNF sucks, then it’s not too difficult to figure out why.
Plus, I think the analyst is Griese, not Danielson. Both are very good.
As for the coaching tactics, I applaud the effort to exploit the insane rule change. I do not consider it to be unsportsmanlike at all. The clowns who created the rule should have seen this coming.
November 7th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
79
Joshua says:
Gary Danielson was over on CBS, providing colour analysis on what’s harder to do, tackle Jamarcus Russell to the ground or to keep Phil Fulmer from a fresh warm donut when he is able to get inside and use that swim move of his.
Gary Danielson came over to CBS from ABC after Todd Blackledge left CBS for the 7:45est ESPN night game. No one knows was Ron Franklin did to get banished from that ESPN slot, but it is rumored that the old man’s voice and abilities were irresistible to network executives’ wives and daughters. I also heard that he had some not so kind opinions of The Playmakers and Herbstreit, involving words like “more retarded than autism ward at St. Jude’s” and “more fucked than the glory hole at the Male Box in San Francisco”
November 7th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
80
Aerobab says:
I hereby declare that the NCAA rules committee is found guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct by virtue of implementing 3-2-5(e).
Penalty: Repeal 3-2-5(e) at the conclusion of the 2006 season and force a boot up the ass of every committee member that voted in favor of the rule. Not to mention 15-yds and rekick of the ball.
November 8th, 2006 at 8:30 am
81
Pat says:
spiking the ball behind the center (and behind the LOS, without intent to reach an eligible receiver), in order to gain clock advantage, *should* be an intentional grounding penalty *and* an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
As I said above, spiking the ball is in the freaking rulebooks as not intentional grounding, and not illegal.
or because it’s a coach knowingly doing something illegal to gain advantage? In that case, all knowingly illegal penalties committed frequently are included.
It’s because it’s a coach knowingly doing something illegal because there is no punishment, whatsoever. The yardage penalty is immaterial because they’ll continue to be offsides until there’s no time left, at which point they’ll squib it.
The only thing that even comes remotely close is taking a delay of game to move into better punting position. And that’s such a ridiculously minor thing compared to running a completely illegal play to eliminate almost half a minute from the clock.
What makes it “unfair” is that Wisconsin’s committing an illegal action for which there is no compensation to Penn State. It’s a perfect example of something that should fall under Rule 3-4. It should’ve been called.
Holding to prevent a sack, pass interference to prevent a touchdown: those are perfectly fair actions because the team committing the penalty ends up in a worse situation than they were before the play started. This isn’t the case here.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
82
Erik says:
Notice the only people really bitching about this are crying blue and white tears.
Yeah, it sucked. Yeah, it’s unfortunate for you. But the rest of the world loves it!
You would too, if you weren’t on the receiving end.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
83
Aerobab says:
“Holding to prevent a sack, pass interference to prevent a touchdown: those are perfectly fair actions because the team committing the penalty ends up in a worse situation than they were before the play started. This isn’t the case here. “
Did I miss something? It looks pretty clear to me that Wisc. was penalized the standard 5-yards (when not offset by PSU’s holding). Your point doesn’t hold water, Pat.
November 9th, 2006 at 8:08 am
84
Pat says:
Did I miss something? It looks pretty clear to me that Wisc. was penalized the standard 5-yards (when not offset by PSU’s holding).
Quoth I:
The yardage penalty is immaterial, because they’ll continue to be offsides
Hence the reason it falls under Rule 3-4 – they’re attempting to consume clock by committing a penalty. The way they’re committing the penalty actually allows them to commit it over, and over.
Officials are supposed to deal with it when a team attempts to consume clock like that. It’s the same thing as if a team would constantly commit penalties in order to stop the clock.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:47 am
85
huh? says:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but couldn’t the return man have signaled fair catch and avoid taking the hit? How is it any more dangerous that playing for a blocked punt and not blocking the gunners? The punt return man has the option to either attempt to make a play or signal fair catch to avoid having his head taken off.
Great move by the Wisconsin coach. And agreed with the Penn State crying…after just about every game there has been tears about something. Weis was classless for running the fake punt, Michigan classless for hitting their quarterback hard, Wisconsin classless for taking advantage of a dumb rule and also hitting their coach out of bounds (Iike that was intention). Not to mention the near constant complaining about calls not going in their favor and how the Big 10 is out to get them.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
86
otis.otiskimzey - Otis’ Blog about his daily life » NCAA’s new rules are killing me slowly says:
[...] Every Day Should Be Saturday has a great rundown of the events. [Link] [...]
November 20th, 2006 at 1:26 am
87
Eleven Warriors » Blog Archive » Preview: #1 OSU v. #24 Wisconsin says:
[...] that was the pre-season fave to win the conference. Their head coach is all of 37 years old, is a master of the rulebook and is the only active Big Ten coach with a better winning percentage than the [...]
November 1st, 2007 at 11:01 am
88
Her Loyal Sons » The HLS Totally Non-Homer Top 25 - Preseason Edition 2008 : #15 - #6 says:
[...] #12 Wisconsin: Highest Position in a voters ballot: 6. Average rank among all ballots: 15.33. The Badgers have to like the way things are looking in the Big 10. Michigan is set up for a down/rebuilding year during a season when Wisconsin must match up against the Skunkbears and Ohio State in consecutive weeks. What probably looked like a brutal 3 weeks of games against Michigan, OSU, and PSU now seems like a time of real possibility to take command in the Big Televen, particularly since the badgers have nearly their entire team back from a 9 win, 2007 season. And while we get this gut feeling that HC Bret Bielema is probably areal S.O.B., we know for a fact that he’s a clever S.O.B. [...]
July 25th, 2008 at 5:30 pm