Talk:One-platoon system

>Notable two-way athletes

>No Dieon Sanders
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.
74.127.125.169 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Slant towards college football

The lead of the article suggests this is relevant to both college and NFL football, with the last sentence saying "Each system was used at different times in American college football and in the National Football League." However, the History section only describes the history within college football. It would be nice if there was some description on when changes happened within the NFL.
Similarly, the Controversy section seems to mainly address arguments within college football. Is this a "controversial" issue within the NFL? If not, the scope of the section should be refined. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy

Moved to talk, if you are going to return it to the article please first convert it to prose.RJFJR (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC) {{Prose|date=June 2011}} The 1954 rule change and its subsequent reversal were not without controversy. Numerous coaches, pundits, and athletic department officials have argued on both sides of the debate.

Arguments in support of one-platoon football

• A significant reduction in financial expenditures through reducing the amount of scholarships, equipment, and staff. Kansas State president Jon Wefald estimated that one-platoon football would result in a 40% reduction in expenditure.
• It would "get back to the basics" by simplifying the playbooks and focusing on the fundamentals. Former Missouri head coach Dan Devine said, "Blocking doesn't teach you to tackle, so what two-platoon football does is make a man a lesser player ... We have these kids who have never blocked and the other half who have never tackled."
• It would result in better athletes, both by improving players under the system and eliminating "one-dimensional" specialists from the game. Former Washington State head coach Mike Price said that the "all-around athlete would become a star again. He would play all the time."
• A potential reduction in the risk of and severity of injuries by creating more equal match-ups between players.
• A potential reduction in the severity of injuries by reducing the speed of the game and thereby the force of collisions.
• A limitation on the role of coaches and increase the role of player decision-making. College athletics were originally formed as a diversion for student athletes and should therefore maintain a focus on the players themselves. Oklahoma head coach Bud Wilkinson said two platoons caused an increase in the size of the coaching staff, and a decrease in the importance of the head coach himself.
• It would potentially make smaller schools more competitive with the "big-time" college football programs by decreasing the roster size and thus deepening the pool of available prospects to each team.
• The use of specialized football players is not in keeping with the "true" nature of the game (cf. the argument against the designated hitter rule in baseball).
• Football scholarships are a privilege, not a right. Former Iowa State head coach Jim Walden said, "Nobody promised we'd have trees to cut down forever or that people would burn coal forever or that we'd have 95 scholarships forever."

Arguments in support of two-platoon football

• It allows a more diverse assortment of players. Individuals with different physical builds and body types can be competitive in specialized positions, whereas they would not be if required to play in both offensive and defensive capacities. In a 1954 issue of Sports Illustrated, then-Michigan State athletic director Clarence Munn stated that, "One-platoon rules have forced a return to the big man, the 220-pound lineman who can withstand the pounding of two-way football."
• An increase in the speed, and thereby the excitement, of the game.
• An increase in the complexity and intellectual aspect of the game.
• A potential reduction in the risk of injury, due to less-fatigued players, and because players would spend less time on the field.
• A decrease in the role of coaches by eliminating a "substitution battle of wits" and potential gaming of substitution rules.
• It allows more college athletes to acquire scholarships to attend universities for which they might otherwise not be able to compete.
• By switching to one-platoon, major college football programs could allegedly maintain a monopoly over potential recruits simply by recruiting more than they need, negating any benefits to smaller schools.
• Modern defenses such as the 4-3 defense and 3-4 defense did not exist at the time when one-platoon football was mandated. As a result, a return to one-platoon football would cause hardships because the offense is still mandated to have no more than five eligible receivers while the defenses would not be subject to such restrictions. This would result in the need for a trade-off: either build the team for offense and go back to older, less effective defenses such as the 5-2 defense, or build the team for a modern defense and put undersized linebackers on the offensive line. Either option compromises quality of play on either side of the ball.

References

NCAA return to the one-platoon system: Rules

In the subsection NCAA return to the one-platoon system, there is doubt expressed over what rules were really being applied, but the references given as authorities are not rules, only a couple of comments. (The supposed "NCAA" source is only a very short entry in a year-by-year bullet point survey of NCAA history, obviously not written by anyone on a rules committee.) But it seems pretty clear anyway, if we take the NCAA history comment to mean "Each individual player can only be sent onto the field one time per quarter – once a player leaves the field he cannot be sent back on, until the next quarter". If we take the same comment to mean "Teams can only make one substitution per quarter", everything pretty much stops making sense. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)