NCAA trying to find more bad rules to have

[hifigator]

Among other considerations, the NCAA is looking into what is being termed the "Tebow Rule" down here. They are considering a rule which would require any eyeblack to be solid black -- no colors, words, logos or graffiti of any kind. Personally, I think this is yet another example of meddling for no good reason. Players have said "Hi Mom" or had their home area code displayed on their eyeblack for years. But now that Tebow displayed Bible verses under his eyes, the powers that be are now considering outlawing any such displays.

Ugh ...

We might have different opinions on that one.

This one, we will probably agree:

msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/ncaa-proposes-rules-changes-for-taunting-and-concussions

Ugh, that's just what we need -- officials with even more discretionary authority and power to impact the game

Thoughts?

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I agree with the concussions one.

I could care less about eye black, but i think it's pretty self centered to assume it's because of tebow's bible verse, but i don't pay attention to football so i don't know.

and trying to reduce/penalize taunting is stupid

[SirSaxa]

Feb 13, 2010 12:55:44 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Among other considerations, the NCAA is looking into what is being termed the "Tebow Rule" down here. They are considering a rule which would require any eyeblack to be solid black -- no colors, words, logos or graffiti of any kind. Personally, I think this is yet another example of meddling for no good reason. Players have said "Hi Mom" or had their home area code displayed on their eyeblack for years. But now that Tebow displayed Bible verses under his eyes, the powers that be are now considering outlawing any such displays.

Ugh ...

We might have different opinions on that one.

This one, we will probably agree:

msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/ncaa-proposes-rules-changes-for-taunting-and-concussions

Ugh, that's just what we need -- officials with even more discretionary authority and power to impact the game

Thoughts?

I don't know about the rest, but I did think the penalty mentioned in the second article was maybe just a tad extreme:

Last season's big controversy stemmed from Georgia receiver A.J. Green receiving a 15-year personal foul penalty after he caught a go-ahead touchdown pass late in a game against LSU.

[hoyarooter]

It's nice to see the NCAA concerning itself with such important topics. Doesn't everyone realize that eye black is the cause of all things that are wrong with college football?

[Buckets]

I would imagine the eye black thing NCAA is just trying to preemptively ban anyone from putting 031 on one cheek and 041 on the other.

[hifigator]

Supposedly, the story getting the most press is that the NCAA is wanting to avoid the boom of corporate logos adorning players' attire. I was half-way kidding when I called it the "Tebow Rule," but there is a good bit of talk that the timing of the concern for the issue is at least conspicuous. I honestly don't know what to think. I just wish they would stop looking for ways to screw with things. Let's face it. That will be tough to enforce in principle. They could easily enforce in in practice, but if someone really wanted to, he could have a tatoo resembling eyeblack. I don't see how the NCAA could enforce a no tatoo rule ... unless it was vulgar in some manner. Then if tatoos are "allowed" at least through acquiescence, then the next step would be a temporary tatoo. What's the difference between a temporary tatoo that might last 3 or 4 days, and eyeblack that last 3 or 4 hours? I just think the entire isssue is silly and a non-event.

By the way, rooter nailed it:

It's nice to see the NCAA concerning itself with such important topics. Doesn't everyone realize that eye black is the cause of all things that are wrong with college football?