This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Not sure what in my post you were replying to, but... by Porpoiseboy

it doesn't seem to be much support for what I asked you to back up.

You replied with NFL data. But you didn't supply any information that correlates college football to the NFL.

You state "The likelihood of injury is directly correlated with snap count over the course of a season." Yet your link states:

"We hypothesized above that injury risk increases over the course of a season. Figure 3, however, shows that the risk of a new injury is roughly flat across all weeks, particularly late in the season."

That might not be exactly what you stated, however, what you stated, again, begs the question. Can you support "The likelihood of injury is directly correlated with snap count over the course of a season."?

Last, you'd need to support playing Bowling Green would lead to fewer plays in the game. Can you support that as a claim as well? One of the premises of the "in today's game you have to play a weaker schedule" is that power teams would need to blowout weaker teams (obviously not Kelly's forte). So it seems your argument might be coming out of both sides of your mouth. We'd blow out weaker teams, so we'd have fewer plays. Yet, we'd have to blow out weaker teams in order for the committee not to ding us for our weak schedule. So is it not possible we might execute more plays in order to land a blowout against a weak team? If you have a long list of games where Kelly blew out weak opposition by halftime, and we played our scrubs all second half, please share that data as well.

Do our games against The University of Navy have the fewest plays per game for us, year-in, year-out? Do we always have the fewest injuries against Navy, year-in, year-out? Probably not a fair example, as we haven't had a coach in 20 years who understands how to play Navy.

Not really wanting to be argumentative, just don't agree with some of the premises in this thread and probably won't unless they get supported.