How the NCAA can fix its targeting problem by looking to the NBA as a model

The hit itself may meet the loose parameters of targeting, as the two players' helmets did collide. Was there malicious intent? Absolutely not. You have two players going full speed in a contact sport, and their helmets collided. Was it ejection worthy? Not even close. But how can the NCAA adjust its method of dealing with targeting?

I propose looking at the NBA. In an attempt to clean up some of the hard fouls that they were dealing with, the NBA leadership began addressing them as flagrant one or flagrant two. Flagrant one involves unnecessary contact, like the Barham hit. It was helmet-to-helmet, but it would not fit flagrant two. Two is superfluous contact with a malicious intent. A flagrant one would result in a 15-yard penalty, resulting in an automatic first down, and would count as one of a player's personal fouls that contribute to a later ejection if they accumulate another one. A flagrant two targeting would result in the same penalties, followed by ejection, and potentially missing the next game.

Football is a contact sport played by young men who fly around at incredible speeds and are essentially auditioning for the NFL with every collegiate game they play in. Hard-hitting and big-play making draws the attention of scouts. The NCAA needs to understand the nature of the game and make a rule change that addresses the intent of a hit, not just lumping them all together with a blanket punishment.