packers21 wrote:EEDA wrote:packers21 wrote:EEDA wrote:Run4Fun2009 wrote:Flip wrote:Run4Fun2009 wrote:If you trust your defense, nothing wrong with it...Not sure I would want a good team to get the ball with only 60 yards to go...instead of 80+
"Trust your defense," is an outdated cliche. Zero evidence that you should trust your defense today (46 first half points). 20 yards of field position is basically nothing.
Shiloh didn't score after that punt...the actually exchanged punts. The coaches were both probably playing the 'field position' game...worked better for the Warbirds then the Skyhawks (Foertsch had big run after Shiloh's punt).
9-Man in ND is all about speed with all this extra space. I'd be interested to see some of the scores in ND if they did like MN and narrowed the field?!
The width of a MN 9-man football field is 40 yards. A regulation football field is 53 yards wide. If ND adopted the 40 yd width scoring would probably go down, but the game would be more realistic. IMO
Haha more realistic!!! More realistic like watching Shanley and St. Mary’s have to beat the 8 other teams in their class so they can play each other every year ?
Some 9-man football fans just don’t get it. Narrowing the field would improve the quality of the game. IMO.
Well thank goodness you’re here
I should have used the word interesting in place of realistic. There wasn’t any intention to offend anyone.